to say that louis xvi was a weak king and a poor ruler would be a giant understatement, considering how quite literally everything collapsed under his watch. But, ultimately, France was one of the most powerful states in Europe and arguably the world, especially under the right leadership (case in point, Louis XIV and Napoleon). So, with that in mind, with a POD after 1774, your goal is to make King Louis XVI one of the most effective rulers (or at least seen that way) and stave off the rise of the revolutionaries. Perhaps he keeps his support for the Americans more subtle than joining their war (selling them weapons perhaps?) and focusing on a new colonial empire? If so, where should he focus on? Where can he?
AHC: Louis XVI As One Of France's Greatest Kings
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
Let him have a little more confidence in himself. An earlier consummation of the marriage/birth of an heir would take away two of the barbs.
Antonia Fraser wrote: Louis XVI was good man, which is not necessarily the same as a good king.
Still, he HAD the right ideas, just lacked the confidence to stand by them. He was the only member of the French royal family who spoke English, who spoke to David Hume when he visited (the rest of the royal family snubbed Hume), and who had read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He was browbeaten into sponsoring the ARW (he DIDN'T WANT to get involved) by war-hawk ministers (due to aforementioned lack of self-esteem and being reminded he was a failure at every turn).
Antonia Fraser wrote: Louis XVI was good man, which is not necessarily the same as a good king.
Still, he HAD the right ideas, just lacked the confidence to stand by them. He was the only member of the French royal family who spoke English, who spoke to David Hume when he visited (the rest of the royal family snubbed Hume), and who had read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He was browbeaten into sponsoring the ARW (he DIDN'T WANT to get involved) by war-hawk ministers (due to aforementioned lack of self-esteem and being reminded he was a failure at every turn).
This AHC is tricky because IMHO what would have been best for France during the reign of Louis 16 was not the stuff of "greatness", at least not when we consider traditional/popular historiography. France didn't need more Louis 14/Napoleon-esque wars of conquest/gloire (which it wouldn't have won anyway); what it needed for its long-term prosperity was peace, internal reform, economic development, and international markets.
Even then, 16's freedom of action would have been constrained by phenomena beyond his control. Financially, Versailles' freedom was limited by debts and a high rate of interest on loans. Politically, even assuming 16 doesn't reinstate the parlements, he would still have had to walk a delicate path between triggering 1 + 2 Estate or 3rd Estate opposition. Bureaucratically, the sweeping reforms of the Republic/Consulate/Empire, and the Enlightenment-era talent that implemented them, would have found their work much more difficult in aristocratic Versailles. Diplomatically, 16 had very little chance of gaining political capital/gloire through war without triggering a larger European conflict, thanks to the alliance systems on France's borders. On an ideological level, absolutist Versailles was not exactly the most fertile ground for conceiving/implementing internal reforms, and neither was Louis XVI on a personal level.
A Louis XVI that worked in France's best interests would probably have a historical assessment like: "he effectively managed France's transition from absolutism to constitutionalism", which while extremely important doesn't exactly scream "greatness". But to achieve that, I can think of several things he should do:
- Foreign Policy: actually quite OK OTL - general peace, rapprochement with Britain (Eden Treaty) except in cases where victory was pretty much guaranteed (American Revolution). Not much change here, although a longer-surviving 16 would probably have had to manage revolutionary movements in other countries (Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands esp) and eventually, the likely dissolution of the Spanish colonial Empire. Perhaps France could have been an early proponent of the Congress System.
- Political Policy: to actually carry out internal reform 16 needs political freedom of action and that absolutely means NOT reversing Maupeou's 1771-4 effort to destroy the parlement of Paris. However, given that raising revenue will be a foreseeable problem in the future and the French Army OTL failed to suppress rebellion/disobedience, it's probably best for 16 to get ahead of the problem and start a controlled transition towards national political representation. Maybe the sort of gradualism that Napoleon III did.
- Economic Policy: abolish internal + feudal tolls, rationalize taxes, invest in infrastructure, promote international trade via diplomacy or military.
Looking back, this list sort of resembles what Napoleon III did, hopefully minus the costly foreign adventures.
Even then, 16's freedom of action would have been constrained by phenomena beyond his control. Financially, Versailles' freedom was limited by debts and a high rate of interest on loans. Politically, even assuming 16 doesn't reinstate the parlements, he would still have had to walk a delicate path between triggering 1 + 2 Estate or 3rd Estate opposition. Bureaucratically, the sweeping reforms of the Republic/Consulate/Empire, and the Enlightenment-era talent that implemented them, would have found their work much more difficult in aristocratic Versailles. Diplomatically, 16 had very little chance of gaining political capital/gloire through war without triggering a larger European conflict, thanks to the alliance systems on France's borders. On an ideological level, absolutist Versailles was not exactly the most fertile ground for conceiving/implementing internal reforms, and neither was Louis XVI on a personal level.
A Louis XVI that worked in France's best interests would probably have a historical assessment like: "he effectively managed France's transition from absolutism to constitutionalism", which while extremely important doesn't exactly scream "greatness". But to achieve that, I can think of several things he should do:
- Foreign Policy: actually quite OK OTL - general peace, rapprochement with Britain (Eden Treaty) except in cases where victory was pretty much guaranteed (American Revolution). Not much change here, although a longer-surviving 16 would probably have had to manage revolutionary movements in other countries (Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands esp) and eventually, the likely dissolution of the Spanish colonial Empire. Perhaps France could have been an early proponent of the Congress System.
- Political Policy: to actually carry out internal reform 16 needs political freedom of action and that absolutely means NOT reversing Maupeou's 1771-4 effort to destroy the parlement of Paris. However, given that raising revenue will be a foreseeable problem in the future and the French Army OTL failed to suppress rebellion/disobedience, it's probably best for 16 to get ahead of the problem and start a controlled transition towards national political representation. Maybe the sort of gradualism that Napoleon III did.
- Economic Policy: abolish internal + feudal tolls, rationalize taxes, invest in infrastructure, promote international trade via diplomacy or military.
Looking back, this list sort of resembles what Napoleon III did, hopefully minus the costly foreign adventures.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Quite nicely said.
This alt greatness would seem non-descript at the time.
By pretty much every source, France was sorely lacking in the economic sphere, which mingles with the political sphere. A great king would remedy that situation, setting France up to compete with Britain globally.
ARW should have been handled much differently. France spent way too much resources helping the patriots gain independence, instead of letting the patriots tie up Britain while France sought to make gains globally. Independence for the states should have been low on the list of priorities in the war. Or, better yet, keep the assistance at the covert level. Win or lose, this causes a lot of problems for Britain at a low cost.
So I sorta figured that he wouldn't be able to go on European adventurism, but could he reasonably support expansion overseas into parts of SEA or India (as far from Britain as possible)? What sort of reforms would he have to make to stabilize the government? I have to imagine abolition of certain noble rights and centralization would be on the table but what does that look like?
Have the decision of the National Constituent Assembly to bar themselves from standing for the National Legislative Assembly not go through. With the men who designed France's new constitution largely still in place they'll be able to defend it from the far more radical men who decided to burn the system down because they hadn't gotten their way initially. New tax measures are put into place, salvaging the national budget, and the increased stability within France leads to less tensions abroad, averting war with Austria and Prussia.
France becomes a liberal bulwark in Europe, and an example of how reform can strengthen and enhance a country's power and stability rather than...well the opposite of that. Louis is remembered as a great reformer who made the hard choices about limiting his own royal power for the greater good of the realm of the citizen.
Yes I know that would be a very simplified interpretation, but IMO it wouldn't change the interpretation.
France becomes a liberal bulwark in Europe, and an example of how reform can strengthen and enhance a country's power and stability rather than...well the opposite of that. Louis is remembered as a great reformer who made the hard choices about limiting his own royal power for the greater good of the realm of the citizen.
Yes I know that would be a very simplified interpretation, but IMO it wouldn't change the interpretation.
Under different circumstances, Louis XVI could have been a decent king. He was a fair-minded person, not inclined to tyrannical action, and willing to accept some reform. He had some accomplishments, such as the successful war in America and the edict of toleration for Protestants.
The problem was that he inherited a situation that just could not persist : an absolutist state in the age of the Enlightenment, with the reputation of the monarchy already shaky, and massive governmental debt with no easy way to raise revenue as the nobility was fiercely opposed to changing their status. He was not the man to resolve this situation, but many of his predecessors would not have, either.
It is less that he was "bad" as that he got the job at a terrible time, like becoming CEO of a corporation about to head into bankruptcy.
The problem was that he inherited a situation that just could not persist : an absolutist state in the age of the Enlightenment, with the reputation of the monarchy already shaky, and massive governmental debt with no easy way to raise revenue as the nobility was fiercely opposed to changing their status. He was not the man to resolve this situation, but many of his predecessors would not have, either.
It is less that he was "bad" as that he got the job at a terrible time, like becoming CEO of a corporation about to head into bankruptcy.
The simplest POD to improve the reign of Louis XVI would be to keep Maupeou on.
Given his personality, Louis XVI needs a powerful, reforming minister. But that will only get him up to the level of Louis XIII. The man's personality was just not at the "great king" level, plus France because of its finances and social tensions, is not in a position for any great conquests.
The ideal situation would be just to summon the Estates General in the first year of his reign and push through a new internal settlement, before confidence in the regime had weakened (eg before the Diamond Necklace affair, failure of various reform ministries, the food shortages, the Bastille).
You may need to remove the OTL Louis XVI from the picture and give France a completely different person as King, who also would take the name Louis. As it happens, the brother of Louis XVI became Louis XVIII and turned out to be a good though not a great king, but maybe with the right circumstances and ministers, a Louis XVIII coming to the throne in the1770s as Louis XVI could have turned out to be great.
wcv215's post is interesting, but I think a POD after 1789 is too late, since there is still the wasted earlier decades of the reign to explain away.
Given his personality, Louis XVI needs a powerful, reforming minister. But that will only get him up to the level of Louis XIII. The man's personality was just not at the "great king" level, plus France because of its finances and social tensions, is not in a position for any great conquests.
The ideal situation would be just to summon the Estates General in the first year of his reign and push through a new internal settlement, before confidence in the regime had weakened (eg before the Diamond Necklace affair, failure of various reform ministries, the food shortages, the Bastille).
You may need to remove the OTL Louis XVI from the picture and give France a completely different person as King, who also would take the name Louis. As it happens, the brother of Louis XVI became Louis XVIII and turned out to be a good though not a great king, but maybe with the right circumstances and ministers, a Louis XVIII coming to the throne in the1770s as Louis XVI could have turned out to be great.
wcv215's post is interesting, but I think a POD after 1789 is too late, since there is still the wasted earlier decades of the reign to explain away.
See my view is that fundamentally you need the early stages of the French Revolution to happen. If Louis is "the man who gave up absolute power" (even if its not true), his reputation as a great king is set. Failures of early in his regime won't matter after that.
Yeah, 16 could - and the post-Revolutionary generation of statesmen (Talleyrand, Chateaubriand, Guizot) would have encouraged it, seeing it as an opportunity to establish a French presence within international markets. Latin America would probably have been their first target, considering the perennial French belief that they could control events in the region thru their "influence" over Spain.
Ultimately, the French state needs more tax (mentioned above) to stabilize itself. But 16 can't raise taxes without political concessions - the riots of June 88 (inc. the "Day of the Tiles") and of course 89 showed that the French state didn't have enough military force to compel ordinary people to obey "illegitimate" decrees. IMO the best way to legitimize those tax increases was to grant representation to the bourgeoisie and use them to hack away at the privileges of the nobility/clergy. Doing this at a national level risks spawning another National Assembly that deprives 16 of his power, so doing this at the provincial level or lower is probably the better option. Paris remains a particular worry even under this scenario.
It seems that France was seriously lacking in the trade area. According to Segur (the French Ambassador at the court of CII) most of the French goods consumed in Russia had been carried by the British ships because the French merchants were not interested in creation of the merchant fleet and the credit institutions needed for the foreign trade. On the official level, Segur managed to convince CII to accept a trade agreement with France that was rofitabke for France but not to Russia (unlike the case with the Brits, Russia had a negative trade balance with France consuming the French luxury items but not having too many export items in which France would be interested). The treaty died somewhere within the French bureaucratic apparatus being delayed all the way to the Revolution. With these attitudes it would be very difficult for any monarch to stimulate economy by promoting the trade: how could you do that with the lack of interest from those who have to be directly involved and interested?
As far as the revolting colonies were involved Louis could adopt the same policy as CII declaring that he is not interested in getting involved into the conflict between King George and his subjects (providing the Brits are giving something for such an attitude) and to keep supply of the weapons, etc. as the purely private initiatives with no state sponsorship (government is willing to sell the muskets providing they are paid for). The same goes for the loan: nobody prevents the representatives of the colonies from making loans in the private institutions. I wonder how many of the French “enthusiasts” would be ready to support the cause out of their pocket. 😜
But how about improving a social position of the 3rd Estate? All these journalists and lawyers had been important on the stages which led to the Revolution so why not to try to tame them with a friendly attitude and status privileges which would cost nothing to the Crown. After all, of their demagoguery turns from the government to the 1st and 2nd Estates, it is a win-win situation for Louis: he becomes and arbiter to which both sides are going to appeal in the case of a serious conflict (in which case his main task would be to make few soothing noises while doing nothing). Actually, both clergy and nobility had been not unified in their interests which had been quite different for the top and bottom levels so Louis’ support base may widen securing his fat posteriors on the throne.
Well, in the purely egotistical terms (from the French perspective) the war in America made domestic situation worse by increasing size of a debt while not addressing any of the existing problems.
Absolutism was still OK in Europe: Russia, Prussia, Spain and Hapsburg Empire had been absolutist states to one degree or another. IMO, the problem with the French absolutism at that time was its weakness, not strength. It did not control the Church to a degree allowing a meaningful secularization or taxation (AFAIK, Joseph II conducted at least some secularization and CII went much further) and had to rely upon the “voluntary gifts”. The royal control over aristocracy also was falling.
"A better Louis XVI"
en.wikipedia.org
Don't thank me. 😉
Louis, Duke of Burgundy (1751–1761) - Wikipedia
Considering that Russia, Prussia and Austria were ALL absolutist states at the time under "Enlightened despots" (and Sweden overthrew a parliamentary monarchy to restore absolutism IN Louis XVI's lifetime, I'm not sure what the point is here.
The French economy was actually on the way to recovery when the ARW happened. The dire financial straits plus the French famines of the 1780s is what tipped the situation over the edge
This is exactly correct. Louis XVI's path to be seen as a great hero of French history is not through launching a string of conquests or maintaining his absolute power. It's through being France's George Washington, the man who could've had great power but didn't take it and put his country on the path to democracy.
To be seen as great, Louis needs to make a lot of structural reforms to the way France runs. Weakening the church's power in French society, enacting some sort of land reform, fixing the disastrous tax and tariff policy, doing away with feudal privilege, abolishing slavery, creating a constitution, reforming the military, and a million other things. It's not reasonable to expect him to do every one of those things, but even if he does a lot of them he'll be seen today as putting France on the path toward constitutional monarchy.
Also, I don't think the loans are as much a concern as some people are making them out to be. Running on a high amount of debt was not uncommon for states at the time, it only became a problem when creditors saw how bad the finances really were and figured that France was on the fast track to bankruptcy. Even when the Estates General was called, the creditors were appeased and willing to give better rates because they thought priority #1 was going to be some sort of economic reform that would set the budget right.
The economy was OK at some points in his reign but the problem of government debt went back for generations.
France was the center of Enlightenment thought, at a time when the prestige of the monarchy was declining. The peace of 1748 was unpopular, the alliance with Austria was unpopular, and the Seven. Years' War was a debacle. The writings of Voltaire, Rousseau et al had found large audiences among the bourgeoisie, and they also observed what was happening in America.
The nobility didn't care about that but they also were not going to be blindly obedient to the king, certainly not on the issue of taxation. The parlements didn't want to concede anything. The groups that the king needed to work with to reform his government were, for opposing reasons, not inclined to follow his lead. Louis XIV himself would have been less successful in this era.
Louis XVI did still have the peasantry mostly on his side but then there were the bad harvests and resulting rise in food prices.
Last edited:
So, it's interesting to see what was happening in the French overseas interest at the time! Specifically, the Vietnamese dynasty had been dethroned. The claimant, future Gia Long, got the help of a French missionary, Pigneau de Behaine, who presented his case to the king. It didn't go through, partially because of the revolution and Behaine had to raise a private army.
You also see the resistance of Mysore against the BEIC in South India. A supportive French state could have weighed there, regaining some of the grounds lost in the 7YW.
So, a continuing monarchy could see a strongly allied Viet state and better possessions in India proper, threatening the Brits and everyone's access to the China markets
I've put out two separate timelines on a French-colonized Australia, so that could be a thing.