A French Cromwell?

Just out of general curiosity- does anybody know of any figures of 17th century France that could have risen as a republican dictator like England's Oliver Cromwell? Was there any support for republicanism in France during this time so as to allow such a figure to arise?
 
I doubt it would happen honestly : the french monarchy was much more rooted than its english counter-part and you'll have at best still a symbolical royal presence.

I can see two candidates : having nobles loosely united in their hatred against Richelieu or Mazarin (due to pro-protestant and anti-Spanish international policy, and their centralizing policies for France) sucessful could happen if you disregard the unlikeness of such event.

You'll have three possible candidates for being Lieutenant-Général du Royaume (sort of head of state, acting on the behalf of the king), the two brothers of Louis XIII : Gaston d'Orléans and César de Vendôme (illegitimate son of Henri IV) and the son of the latter, François de Vendôme.

For Gaston, the best would be a successful Cinq-Mars conjuration : Louis XIV being born he could rech such position without being able to be crowned.

For Vendôme, the best is probably a successful Cabale des Importants.

I doubt you'll have anything really republican tough (Arguably, we can wonder if Cromwell was such in first place), more of a great nobility oligarchy.
 
I doubt it would happen honestly : the french monarchy was much more rooted than its english counter-part and you'll have at best still a symbolical royal presence.

I can see two candidates : having nobles loosely united in their hatred against Richelieu or Mazarin (due to pro-protestant and anti-Spanish international policy, and their centralizing policies for France) sucessful could happen if you disregard the unlikeness of such event.

You'll have three possible candidates for being Lieutenant-Général du Royaume (sort of head of state, acting on the behalf of the king), the two brothers of Louis XIII : Gaston d'Orléans and César de Vendôme (illegitimate son of Henri IV) and the son of the latter, François de Vendôme.

For Gaston, the best would be a successful Cinq-Mars conjuration : Louis XIV being born he could rech such position without being able to be crowned.

For Vendôme, the best is probably a successful Cabale des Importants.

I doubt you'll have anything really republican tough (Arguably, we can wonder if Cromwell was such in first place), more of a great nobility oligarchy.

Ah, thank you for enlightening me. I've always thought a continental counterpart to Cromwell would make a great story or timeline, but perhaps France is not the best place to look. If there was a Protestant victory in the French Wars of Religion, could we have seen a Cromwell-like figure emerge in 17th century France?

Also, I believe Cromwell was quite a committed republican (for the time at least). His ideals were certainly very democratic (his ideas on land reform were somewhat proto-socialist) but his actions were half-revolutionary and half-dictatorial...
 
how about a hugenot elite that rules france? but that would have to be 16th century

Huguenot France in the 16th century and then the French Cromwell in the 17th is what I was suggesting. The POD could be 50-100 years beforehand to be honest, it doesn't matter too much.
 
Ah, thank you for enlightening me. I've always thought a continental counterpart to Cromwell would make a great story or timeline, but perhaps France is not the best place to look.
Not without great changes, indeed. I would think, by the way, that trying to create counterparts is in itself hopeless, as each country or even region does have a different context (Strathoulder in Netherlands, by exemple). For Modern (aka up to 1789) France, royal figure is really important and even the most bold rebel action (as the proclamation of a Province de L'Union, more or less autonomous, in Languedoc) is always basing its legitimacy on the respect of royalty.
The appearance of republcanism in France as a popular and widely supported ideology is a complete change of social and political identity due to a precise situation.

If there was a Protestant victory in the French Wars of Religion, could we have seen a Cromwell-like figure emerge in 17th century France?

The main issue is the relative weakness of Protestant faction. See, the Wars of Religion were, of course religious, but also a political civil war.
You can roughly identify three sides : Catholics/Ligue, Protestants and Moyenneurs/Politiques.
Basically, the Protestants are lead by nobles whom the presence on power of pro-spanish and vehemently anti-protestant nobles threaten both in their faith and their power and began to plot against them.
Catholics, really supported by urban population (Paris is a Ligue stronghold) resist this and try to enforce their policies as well religious than politics.
The king and the immediate court, try to keep their power and kingdom in one piece.

While the fight is mostly driven for population by religious and eschatological motives, and while it's not only a court's infighting, and while many of the great houses are divided among different factions (Bourbons are a good exemple of this), on all of this you have a civil war about who'll have influence and power on royal court (and eventually, in the latter wars, who'll be king/queen).

And whereas Catholics/Ligue were clearly in greater numbers and with a real popular support, Politiques and Protestants were more weak and, basically, it cost their unity against the formers to win.
There's plenty of reason to have them separated, but Catholics/Ligue are likely to win then.

And even if it's not the case...

OTL, while Henri de Bourbon was both the head of Politiques and Protestants, he nevertheless HAD to convert to Catholicism in order to end the wars.
Without talking about Protestants turning suddenly republicans, their victory seems impossible if you means by victory the takeover of the state.

Also, I believe Cromwell was quite a committed republican (for the time at least).
For the time, "Republic" or "Commonwealth" (whom it's more or less the translation) means organised non-tyrannic state. Nothing more.
In this regard, he wasn't republican, his rule being basically autocratic.

And even in a modern sense, aka "without monarch" : hereditary succession (if it wasn't for the anti-monarchism of the army, the proposition he received of being crowned could have passed), dissolution of Parliament,...

For me, he's clearly more of a pragmatist than anything a clear ideology (and certainly nothing close to republicanism as we conceive it today, neither how people concieved it then). Some sort of an English Augustus or Napoleonic figure (while both of them kept many republican features, at least the symbolism, while Cromwell didn't cared about it)

His ideals were certainly very democratic (his ideas on land reform were somewhat proto-socialist) but his actions were half-revolutionary and half-dictatorial...
The land reform is less Cromwell's than due to the NMA political power's rise, whom which Cromwell bases its own, that grew more radical during the Civil War. Whatever he thought, he was forced to follow such radicalism to please it, when he was unable to pay it (yearly deficit of £700.000).
For democracy, how he ruled effectively shows that he didn't cared even about a limited one. He may have thought otherwise, but facts matters.
 
Top