That’s because the Revolutionaries had control of Paris and its’ entire civil service and established an alternative source of legitimacy in the form of a parliamentary body.
It is more or less obvious that the Estates General (called by the King) had been assembled in Paris. Where else? And Louis called the Estates General because country was in a crisis and he saw not other way out of the situation.
If the king still had Paris,there likely won’t be a rally point of sort and nobody would have had legitimacy to command them.
You completely missed me. Who would not have what to command whom? And what do you mean by "If the king still had Paris"? How could he
"had" it if the hungry mob consisted of the Parisians?
You will most likely have a lot of mutinous armies, and some that outright marches on Paris, but a smart king could potentially negotiate with the armies from there.
I'm afraid that you are confusing France of the late XVIII century with one of the banana republic of Mexico at the time of the Revolution.
He’s still in a position of strength given he had control of twenty thousand soldiers.It’s much better than surrendering and then negotiating with the mob.
He did not have control over 20,000 soldiers and he did not negotiate with the mob, just went on a balcony and bowed to them.
After dissolving his foreign regiments and then surrendering power to his people
Let me ask a completely rhetorical question (answer seems to be obvious): do you know anything whatsoever about the French Revolution besides the fact that it happened?
Who said that the foreign regiments had been disbanded? In 1791 merged with the indigenous French regiments to new, numbered, regiments of the line.
In OTL he never surrendered power to his subjects, it was taken from him step by step mostly because he was openly resisting the process instead of relaxing and trying to enjoy it. An army did not move a finger to help him.
—he had no guarantee over the security of his family or himself.
Of course, he did not. How could he if he was clearly seen as an enemy to the changes?
The smartest thing from then on would be as you have said to do nothing and play benevolent ‘father of the nation’. But he’s just not the type to rule as a powerless king.
That's why I consider him to be an idiot (which does not mean that he was a bad or evil person). A smart king would either manage to keep things under control from the beginning of a process by flexible policy and timely concessions or, even better, would not bring country to the stage at which revolution became unavoidable.
It was also increasingly dangerous for him and his family even when he complied to the mob—given they realized that there’s no repercussions to breaking the law. It’s also highly unlikely that power,once lost,could be easily regained.
How exactly does he take back power without a shot being fired?
The mob was the least of his real problems. There was a functioning assembly of the national representatives which was intended to push through the fundamental reforms to which he kept resisting. And these representatives had all the legitimacy they needed in the eyes of the nation.
As for your last question, I said "some" of the power. Initial arrangement provided him with a considerable power but the more he resisted the more of it he was losing. So, by not trying to exercise some of his legitimate prerogatives, like veto power, he is not losing all of them. Then, it is as I explained: he is a titular head of a country which is being run by a government approved by National Assembly. Chances for such a government to solve all serious problems France was facing are minimal but now all these problems are blamed on the government, not the king. With the show of compassion to the people's sufferings he may regain some of the lost popularity and political support. Then, he is in a position to became politically meaningful again by exercising some of his constitutional powers.