AHC: Delay the rise of "modern ideologies" in Europe as long as possible after 1815

I decided to make this topic based on vague memories of my college "Western Civilization" classes' discussions of the Congress of Vienna and Prince Metternich's Holy Alliance. It became clear this system was falling apart during the protests of 1848, and Metternich was forced to flee to Britain. How long could this type of pro-monarchist conservatism have lasted, and what methods would have made this possible?


By "modern ideologies", I mean the following, though feel free to include others if you're feeling bold: Liberal Democracy, Republicanism, Socialism (whether social democrat, utopian, or communism), and Fascism. The ideas can exist, so long as they remain relatively insignificant in politics, especially in continental Europe.

If you think 1815 is too late, feel free to suggest another POD (but it's more fun post-Napoleon to me :))
 
I decided to make this topic based on vague memories of my college "Western Civilization" classes' discussions of the Congress of Vienna and Prince Metternich's Holy Alliance. It became clear this system was falling apart during the protests of 1848, and Metternich was forced to flee to Britain. How long could this type of pro-monarchist conservatism have lasted, and what methods would have made this possible?


By "modern ideologies", I mean the following, though feel free to include others if you're feeling bold: Liberal Democracy, Republicanism, Socialism (whether social democrat, utopian, or communism), and Fascism. The ideas can exist, so long as they remain relatively insignificant in politics, especially in continental Europe.

If you think 1815 is too late, feel free to suggest another POD (but it's more fun post-Napoleon to me :))
Post-Napoleon is almost certainly too late for many of these. The French Republic was a huge thing, and the US across the Atlantic has demonstrated that Republicanism in some form is quite viable. So Republicanism and Liberal Democracy will still be running around in increasingly prominent intellectual circles. Liberal opposition to the Bourbons, in particular, is likely to bring associations with Republicanism (and the French Revolution). And of course, whether or not Republicans have any power, they will still remain significant if only due to reactionaries invoking the specter of Robespierre.

Avoiding Fascism, on the other hand, is easier to avoid (depending on how stringently you define fascism). Socialism is somewhere in between, but Marxism (as opposed to e.g. Christian socialism) can certainly be delayed.
 
Honestly from my reading of 1848 the rise of liberalism was unmistakable by 1830. Which makes the window a bit too short.
 
I would think that if you wanted to keep unlimited power in the hands of the King, the Church, and landed aristocracy, you would have to slow down the Industrial Revolution. The rise of liberalism and socialism was greatly strengthened by several factors which all depended on industrialization.

First, people who lacked noble birth could make a fortune through factory ownership. This is not necessarily a positive change, since these new wealthy types were just as oppressive as the old aristocrats. Still, it's meaningful. Second, the development of more efficient farming techniques, combined with the demand for labor in urban factories, led millions of rural workers to migrate to the cities. By living closer together, they were much more capable of forming unions and holding meetings than they were on the farm. These unions were the foundation of liberalism and socialism. As a final point, the industrial revolution saw new advances in scientific theory, which further chipped away at the power of the Church and the Monarchy by undermining Divine Right with more scientific, rational concepts like Darwin's theory of Evolution and Mendel's genetics.

So, to conclude, given the beginnings of industrialization in Europe during the 1700s and continuing throughout the 1800s, the modern ideologies of liberalism, socialism, nationalism, and other variations seem highly likely to develop. But the arrival of these new ideas does not necessarily mean the end of the old order. The religious, conservative monarchists can hold on to power by allying themselves with some of the newer factions - for example, a monarch might embrace liberalism by granting or expanding voting rights. He might appease the socialists by decreeing a minimum wage or by heavily taxing the wealthy to provide relief for the unemployed. Or, unfortunately, a monarch could endorse fascism by helping establish a cult of the nation - perhaps around himself.

This is a great discussion topic, so I'm glad you brought it up. Please feel free to correct any errors or inaccuracies in my argument. I am here to learn.
 
1815 would be too late, IMHO, although with a POD a few decades earlier you could:

- Either butterfly away the American Revolution, or have the USA remain a monarchy after gaining independence. That way there would be no successful example of liberal republican government to look to.

- Have the French Republic fall into instability and in-fighting, and essentially collapse internally whilst Austrian and Prussian armies march in through the ruins and restore the House of Bourbon. This would probably discredit revolutionary ideals, at least for a period of time.

Even then, though, I suspect that by the later 18th century the eventual rise of liberalism and republicanism, at least, were probably fairly inevitable. To really stamp them out, you'd probably have to go back to the Enlightenment, and either butterfly it away or change it considerably (political theory more influenced by Hobbes, maybe?).
 
I would think that if you wanted to keep unlimited power in the hands of the King, the Church, and landed aristocracy, you would have to slow down the Industrial Revolution. The rise of liberalism and socialism was greatly strengthened by several factors which all depended on industrialization.

First, people who lacked noble birth could make a fortune through factory ownership. This is not necessarily a positive change, since these new wealthy types were just as oppressive as the old aristocrats. Still, it's meaningful. Second, the development of more efficient farming techniques, combined with the demand for labor in urban factories, led millions of rural workers to migrate to the cities. By living closer together, they were much more capable of forming unions and holding meetings than they were on the farm. These unions were the foundation of liberalism and socialism. As a final point, the industrial revolution saw new advances in scientific theory, which further chipped away at the power of the Church and the Monarchy by undermining Divine Right with more scientific, rational concepts like Darwin's theory of Evolution and Mendel's genetics.

So, to conclude, given the beginnings of industrialization in Europe during the 1700s and continuing throughout the 1800s, the modern ideologies of liberalism, socialism, nationalism, and other variations seem highly likely to develop. But the arrival of these new ideas does not necessarily mean the end of the old order. The religious, conservative monarchists can hold on to power by allying themselves with some of the newer factions - for example, a monarch might embrace liberalism by granting or expanding voting rights. He might appease the socialists by decreeing a minimum wage or by heavily taxing the wealthy to provide relief for the unemployed. Or, unfortunately, a monarch could endorse fascism by helping establish a cult of the nation - perhaps around himself.

This is a great discussion topic, so I'm glad you brought it up. Please feel free to correct any errors or inaccuracies in my argument. I am here to learn.

TBH I think that the advances in science are over-rated as a factor -- among other things, Divine Right was, if not dead, at least on the way out by the time Darwin and Mendel came along, and anyway, the idea that science is opposed to Church doctrines in the first place is more a creation of 18th- and 19th-century propaganda than anything else.

Another reason would be the rise in secular thought as a response to the European Wars of Religion, which sought to limit sectarian violence by disentangling Church and State. Maybe limiting the ruinousness of the Wars of Religion would reduce this impulse as well. Or alternatively, have thinkers go in the opposite direction -- "Screw this violent world, I'm going to a monastery to pray instead." (Hmm, sounds like this could be a good idea for a TL...)
 
TBH I think that the advances in science are over-rated as a factor -- among other things, Divine Right was, if not dead, at least on the way out by the time Darwin and Mendel came along, and anyway, the idea that science is opposed to Church doctrines in the first place is more a creation of 18th- and 19th-century propaganda than anything else.

Another reason would be the rise in secular thought as a response to the European Wars of Religion, which sought to limit sectarian violence by disentangling Church and State. Maybe limiting the ruinousness of the Wars of Religion would reduce this impulse as well. Or alternatively, have thinkers go in the opposite direction -- "Screw this violent world, I'm going to a monastery to pray instead." (Hmm, sounds like this could be a good idea for a TL...)

Yes, the science-religion divide is overstated sometimes. Mendel was a friar, and Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic priest who is credited with an early idea of the Big Bang, and made other astronomical discoveries that were falsely attributed to Hubble.
 
Of the ideologies listed only* Fascism did'nt exist before the PoD.



*Socialism as a coherent ideology did'nt exist until the 1840's, but Socialistic ideologies that were more or less the same, but unconnected, did exist prior.
 
Of the ideologies listed only* Fascism did'nt exist before the PoD.



*Socialism as a coherent ideology did'nt exist until the 1840's, but Socialistic ideologies that were more or less the same, but unconnected, did exist prior.

The topic was about weakening these ideologies, not the total nonexistence of them.

So the general consensus is that as soon as they chopped Louis XVI's head off, it's too late?

What would be the consequences of a failed French Revolution be for these ideologies?
 
It's not the French or the American Revolution per se, but the social changes that led to them that undermined the ancien regime. Both July 13th 1789 and July 3rd 1776 would have been far too late to stop the by then inevitable course of events. It was the 18th century enlightenment and its' ideas that were the undoing of the old system. And in many cases the monarchs were actively aiding this process in their attempt to monopolise power by weakening the church. A good example how the principle of devine right of sovereigns dwindled away was the disappearance of the belief in Royal touch, the idea that being touched of a person endowed with devine rights could really heal a disease and the subsequent end of this practice in the 18th century.
 
Top