AHC/WI: French bankruptcy does not coincide with the bread riots of 1789

For whatever reason have either of the following happen, and explain the consequences:

1) The bankruptcy of the French state occurs before the famine years of 1787-89, and thus the third estate's calls for reform have less backing from the working class.
2) The French state manages to totter on a little long, and you get working class bread riots occur before any calling of the Estates-General. Would they get much political voice. Would this put off the King from calling the Estates-General for the next few years? If no, would the nobility and clergy be more willing to accept reform? If yes, is there another way out of France's fiscal hell?
 
Bread shortage was a perennial trigger mechanism for European revolutions, right up to the Russian one. But that was partially because there were a lot of bread shortages. The odds of our overlapping occurrence weren't that bad.

More broadly though, I haven't read deeply or recently enough into the proto-Revolution to speculate in detail.
 

Thande

Donor
I put this in LTTW but didn't really explore it in as much detail as I had planned...the upshot being that the constitutional monarchy seems more stable than OTL (at first) and that the Revolution, though still fuelled by working class anger, is dominated by middle class intellectuals earlier on.
 
Does anyone know when the other bread riots were before and after 1788? It would be interesting to know how much of a coincedence this stuff was. It would be quite interesting to see a failed revolution after the middle class agitators were rounded up and executed because of no working class support.
 
Well, the Spanish wikipedia has an article on this "subsistence mutinies" with some examples, but apparently there is not an English version:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motín_de_subsistencias

Thanks. This is useful. It doesn't look like it's comprehensive however, judging by the comments of others.

On the overall point, how much influence do you think the bread riots had in the revolution? Was the working class just so downtrodden that even if it had been a good year they would have joined?
 
For whatever reason have either of the following happen, and explain the consequences:

1) The bankruptcy of the French state occurs before the famine years of 1787-89, and thus the third estate's calls for reform have less backing from the working class.

The problem is that the bread riot were common in those time, as it was the end of the little ice age. Famine was common in France during almost all of Louis XVI rule and it continued during the Revolution and the Empire (it was one of the reason of the Terror (the economical one : "loi du Maximum Général" for example)

2) The French state manages to totter on a little long, and you get working class bread riots occur before any calling of the Estates-General. Would they get much political voice. Would this put off the King from calling the Estates-General for the next few years? If no, would the nobility and clergy be more willing to accept reform? If yes, is there another way out of France's fiscal hell?

As the little ice age ended in 1850, the French state finances must be very strong to avoid bankruptcy until the end of the bad harvests. And a fiscal reform was almost impossible as the Estates-General was locked by the one Estate, one voice rulen meaning the Nobility and the clergy could lock the process. Unless the French make great gain in the XVIIIth century wars, the revolution is almost certain at one point or another.
 
For whatever reason have either of the following happen, and explain the consequences:

1) The bankruptcy of the French state occurs before the famine years of 1787-89, and thus the third estate's calls for reform have less backing from the working class.
2) The French state manages to totter on a little long, and you get working class bread riots occur before any calling of the Estates-General. Would they get much political voice. Would this put off the King from calling the Estates-General for the next few years? If no, would the nobility and clergy be more willing to accept reform? If yes, is there another way out of France's fiscal hell?
1) The working class had nearly no impact on the early French Revolution (1788-1789). So I don't think this would have an impact
2) Would they get much political voice ? I don't think so. Bread riots were quite usual at that time. They did have an impact because they where coupled with other events. The King didn't want any Estates-General, he only accepted under the pressure. The working class meant nothing for him and noble people (only for the low-clergy, because they were very close to low people).

Each event of the French revolution isn't enough to trigger the fall of the monarchy. But you can't separate them, because they are linked. The famine is more or less linked to the bankruptcy. It was overall a problem of tax, because poor people were too poor to pay high taxes. And it was nearly impossible to raise taxes on rich people, because of their links to the King. So taxes had to be high on medium and poor people. That's why, each time bread was expensive, events like "bread riots" occured. You see ?

Your last question is interesting. Is there another way out of France's fiscal hell ? At that time, nobody thought that it was possible (read travels of Arthur Young in 1787-1790). A big reform wasn't avoidable, but it would have been different if the king and especially the queen and her entourage weren't so intractable on their privileges, according to most observers at that time.

After 1779 (the end of Necker - 1st mandate) it is nearly too late to continue on the same way without a big reform, in my opinion (Before that, only medium reforms would have been enough). With that and the affair of the diamond necklace (the discredit on the royal family) the absolute monarchy is nearly dead at medium term.


EDIT : I see that Imladrik and I have said nearly the same thing...but he 8 minutes sooner then me !
 
1) The working class had nearly no impact on the early French Revolution (1788-1789). So I don't think this would have an impact

Is this really true? Even if they did not exert direct control, the fear of the masses surely made a difference. I don't think Necker would have promised the Third Estate double representation if the working class had been less angry..
 
Top