Cause and effect of American and French revolutions?

How much was 19th century world founded on American Revolution, and how much on French Revolution?
They were connected, both by ideological inspiration and by political link.
France incurred huge costs of American Revolutionary War, which she could not get either England or America to repay, nor could afford to repay herself. This caused French Revolution, in which the French King and nobles paid with their heads for the freedom of Americans. The English King and nobles got to keep their heads.
So, what could be the worldwide effects of the following PoDs:
1) (The easiest and most plausible one). The French leadership sees reason in 1777 and realizes they cannot win - there is no plausible way they can get Britain to repay French war costs, because the British either accept a limited defeat as per OTL which still leaves French to pay their own war costs, or fight attrition war until the British are exhausted, and then the British cannot pay, so any victory is still a defeat. So they decline to support USA, USA fights a valiant struggle for a few more years but is defeated by attrition and Revolution suppressed. With France at peace and just the manageable French and Indian War debts, and also no inspiration from successful/surviving USA, French Revolution does not happen. What next?
2) France does enter ARW - but Britain still wins. France has war debts as per OTL, but there is no inspiration of successful/surviving USA. Does French Revolution still happen?
 
I think the way you put things is partial and too american-centric.

What the US sees as its American revolution war where it was backed by European powers (France, Spain and the United Provinces/Netherlands) against Britain was, from a global point of view, a global war where these imperial powers confronted on several theaters of operations. North America was but one of these theaters.

And if Britain was finally defeated on this North American theater, it was rather victorious on other theaters, especially in India.
This needs being stressed because India was far more important to Britain than North America was.

There is almost no doubt Britain would have been defeated in one theater because it had angered too many european powers and caused such a coalition.
But Britain checked its risks so that it would not be defeated on the most vital theaters. Which was a strategic masterpiece in the long run while, as you mention, the french victory in the ARW was a pyrrhic one.

This being said, it is not the debt in itself that caused the french revolutionary turmoil. As an estimated percentage of GDP, the french public debt was not higher after the ARW than it was after the war of Spanish succession.

It is conflict and inability of the french elites to compromise on a solution to modernize the institutions and the legal system of the country that were the main cause for this revolution. Plus a bad harvest.

The foundations of the french monarchy had been rotting for decades and it was not able to handle a new phenomenon to which it was not adaptated : the emergence of public opinion, or rather the making of public opinion by the urban elites.
 
I think the way you put things is partial and too american-centric.

What the US sees as its American revolution war where it was backed by European powers (France, Spain and the United Provinces/Netherlands) against Britain was, from a global point of view, a global war where these imperial powers confronted on several theaters of operations. North America was but one of these theaters.

And if Britain was finally defeated on this North American theater, it was rather victorious on other theaters, especially in India.
This needs being stressed because India was far more important to Britain than North America was.

There is almost no doubt Britain would have been defeated in one theater because it had angered too many european powers and caused such a coalition.
But Britain checked its risks so that it would not be defeated on the most vital theaters. Which was a strategic masterpiece in the long run while, as you mention, the french victory in the ARW was a pyrrhic one.
Of the coalition members, United Provinces also suffered a revolution. Spain did not.
So assume that a small number of people at the head of French government figure out in 1777 just how rotten their foundations are, and that as angry as they are with Britain, they cannot afford a pyrrhic victory. They therefore decline the opportunity to get back at Britain, and keep the peace. Without France, will Spain or United Provinces dare act?
This being said, it is not the debt in itself that caused the french revolutionary turmoil. As an estimated percentage of GDP, the french public debt was not higher after the ARW than it was after the war of Spanish succession.

It is conflict and inability of the french elites to compromise on a solution to modernize the institutions and the legal system of the country that were the main cause for this revolution. Plus a bad harvest.

The foundations of the french monarchy had been rotting for decades and it was not able to handle a new phenomenon to which it was not adaptated : the emergence of public opinion, or rather the making of public opinion by the urban elites.

Yes. The rot had been going on for decades.
Assume that French government in 1777 realizes how bad the rot is, and does not get in the war they cannot win. They therefore do not have the unaffordable debt. The bad harvest comes in 1788 as per OTL, but without the extra debt, rotten as they are, the foundations are not stressed to breaking point. No French Revolution in 1789, but foundations still rotten. What next?
 
Top