DBWI : the failure of the Royal Tithe

In 1694 Vauban proposed to the french king "The Capitation Project" a revolutionary project proposing to remove almost all the taxes, to be replaced by a 10% tax concergning all the french French subject (with few examptions) this project nearly failed, some wanted to add this tax to other pre-existing taxes or let wealthy people buy exemptions for this tax, but finally the king trusted Vauban and applied his project almost unchanged. Vauban would latter offers a segmentation in this tax classes according to income, subject to a progressive tax of 5% to 10%.


In your opinion what would have happened if this project would have been unsuccessful followed by example by adding this taxe to others and letting people buy exemptions to this taxes ?
 
Such a move would be a double edged sword. On one hand, removing the Royal Tithe certainly slows the monetization of the French economy since unlike the old Feudal tithes these had to be paid in cash rather than kind. Without being held legally accountable for their tenants/serfs having the capability (in principal) to fulfill their obligations to the King, the country nobility won't have the same motivation to open up the estate economy or conduct the enclosure needed to raise saleable commodities. This retards the development of France in the whole, especially in the Mediterranean: Montpellier's famed silk looms likely never emerge even with their preferable position in Ottoman Izmir and Antioch Cloth and raw silk, nor would wine production be effectively usurped on an industrial scale by Bordeaux and so probably remains inefficiently scattered among the monasteries/church estates. Commercial laws would also remain underdeveloped and mainly based on the purchase of monopolies, which would mainly be to the benefit of the Dutch who'd see their "Golden Years" extended a few more precious decades until some other nation with sufficent population and national bounty to allow for real proto-industrialization adopts the required ideas. Combine that with the reduction of commerce and spread of innovation along the Med. lateral, and butterflies could even conceivably delay the development of the Ottoman naval arsenal and supply systems and general increase in commerce/naval affairs to the point the VOC could find the room to recover its footing and get strong enough to hold off a (much weaker) version of the War of Silk and Spices that liberated the client "Spice Rack Sultanates" under Caliphate dominance. Imagine the impact of adding another "Colonial Core"-style imperial system in south-east Asia consisting of the East Indies, Indochina, the Philippines, New Zeeland (I presume they'd use that name for Gökkuşağınıntoprağı?), and perhaps even Canton to match their counterparts in Canada, Peru, and the Raj?

On the other hand, the added expenses of running the bureaucracy and the infringement on the prerogatives of the church and petty nobility, as well as the lose of vital state tools for buying/securing loyalty through government hands on the levers of finance really hurt the domestic stability of the nation, and the inability to quickly raise large lump sums through sales of exceptions and privileges really was the catalyst for more than one of the bankrupacies she'd be forced to declare in the mid-18th century (to say nothing of the 1st and 2nd "Revolts of the Estates". That wasen't good for the nation's territorial position on the continent and ability to support a blue-water navy. A world where France has more centralized and flexible finances is a world where her otherwise minor role in international calculations and dipomacy would be much louder, to the point she can meaningfully project power and react to international crises and oppritunities/affairs. Perhaps we'd see an actual French colonial Empire beyond Sant Dominique and Canada, taking part in the moves on Muhgalstan, Nippon, and China outside being able to piggy back the Company il de Orient's factory-forts on their Ottoman allies and a meaningful contestation of the Hapsburg hegemony in Italy.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree in the eighteenth century France suffered too many problems to intervene effectively in Europe that allowed the Habsburgs to triumph in central Europa leaving the French to exert their influence only on their eastern neighboring territories (and latter conquest these territories), with a bigger french interference the world would be tottally different, the Hasburbg supremacy war would never happened, opposing the Habsburg against the Russian, Prussian, English, Polish.


The United Kingdom would be stronger, yes they profited of the troubles suffered by France but after that France began to regain their prosperity, the country spend a good deal of their time to weakening them. They suipported the independance of the americans colonies, the Irish, the Scottish, .... and supported their enemies many time

The Ottomans empire will be also totally different, during this period the french market power steadily increased especially in the meditterenean theater and in the Ottoman empire (that imported a lot of raw ressource) also the Habsburg supremacy gave them a certain tranquility, allowing them to reform it was also the trade with France which led them to attempt to control the spice route so yes the VOC would surely still controled these island in this alternate scenario.

Perhaps we'd see an actual French colonial Empire beyond Sant Dominique and Canada, taking part in the moves on Muhgalstan, Nippon, and China outside being able to piggy back the Company il de Orient's factory-forts on their Ottoman allies and a meaningful contestation of the Hapsburg hegemony in Italy.

Personally i disagree the opposite would have maybe happened, The french empire was (and is still) not too big only composed of Saint Domique, Canada, few trading Post and some little overseas province but during the period of Louis XIV, France was surrounded by ennemies even if Spain become their allies latter. They were still ennemies with the Netherland, English, Habsburg, because this lack of intervention their were able to focus more effectively on their empire. Going in war against the United Bingdom was really difficult but if they would have to fight against the Netherland and Austria in the same time during the majority of these war even with better finance they would surely have lost a good part of their empire. Hower i could see the french to extand a lot in Europa instead of few annexion.


Also a stronger french intervention in all the European conflicts would have had consequences on the French economic growth ( many cities became important thanks to the new taxe especially for the cities specialized in silk production by example Lyon would never became an important banking and traiding center without his actual devellopement in this period) and on their demographics development.

Their absences in the Muhgalstan, Nippon, and China theater was offset by the presence of their Ottoman ally allowing them to intervene indirectly by taking the side of the natives to establish friendly relations with them also both countries supported them agains the other colonial countries. In term of economy la Route de l'Orient (the Orient Road) also called the new Silk Road would not exist in this TL, and the Mediterranean trade would be really less developped, totally changing the face of these regions.
 
Last edited:
Very insightful. I'll give a more detailed response later on; a bit busy IRL at the moment, but I do want to pose a quick question that aren't directly related

How do you think this affects France's relationship with the Church? Certainly, removing the near monopoly Vienna would end up holding over the Curria in her position as... err,let's say "Defender of the Faithful, Most August Holy Emperor of the Romans" to avoid drawing too much controversy on the matter and this sprialling off into a potential theological debate, removes some of the natural friction, but it also butterflies away the bishops' issues with the taxing of Church property and infringing on their old areas of privileged production for their dioceses that ultimately lead to them aligning themselves with the landed nobility and peasentry against the King and his backers in the rising mercantile class and urban-artisan professionals during the various battles (legal, bodily, intellectual, or otherwise) that so divided French society through the 18th century. France in this scenario is almost certainly more uniformly Catholic than IOTL, especially among the working class, and limit the stiffling conservative and politically interventionist influences the court at Vienna put upon it. The knock-on effects of more liberal influence via the Church; especially if she retains her material importance and presence in South American and Italian/South German society that she enjoyed in our timeline, would be interesting to see. It could actually make conversion a more appealing option among the native peoples of Spain's later overseas acquisitions and give the missionary attempts in the Far East and Africa some successes.

I know, I know; it sounds a bit crazy considering how politically charged the label "Catholic" carries, but like I said; this is a timeline where they're less literalist and bent out of shape by centuries of warping their doctrine in circles to satisfy the goals of their patrons and somehow fit, however crudely, their worldview against advances in scientific thought.
 
France in this scenario is almost certainly more uniformly Catholic than IOTL, especially among the working class, and limit the stiffling conservative and politically interventionist influences the court at Vienna put upon it

Yeah totally, the perilous situation of the french kings after the death of Louis XIV pushed them to tolerate the religious minorities that were badly treated before (don't forget the dragonnade). the Edict of Reims that gave to the non-Catholics in France a legal and civil status, including the right to contract a civil marriage without having to convert to the Catholic religion, the freedom of worship, ... will never happened the same for the creation of a Grand Sanhedrin for the Jew. In this alternate scenario the french would still play a big role in the catholic affair and continue to mistreated their minorites so we will never see the immigration wave of some european religious minorities that wanted to avoid the persecution of their countries.


The knock-on effects of more liberal influence via the Church; especially if she retains her material importance and presence in South American and Italian/South German society that she enjoyed in our timeline, would be interesting to see. It could actually make conversion a more appealing option among the native peoples of Spain's later overseas acquisitions and give the missionary attempts in the Far East and Africa some successes.

i don't think that the Church could have kept their material importance and presence in South American and Italian/South German society without the period of trouble, because this revoluttionnary taxes put in place by the king create a counter-revolutionary shock in Europe and started a new pact of reform lead by the church
allowing them to maintain themselves until today.



I know, I know; it sounds a bit crazy considering how politically charged the label "Catholic" carries, but like I said; this is a timeline where they're less literalist and bent out of shape by centuries of warping their doctrine in circles to satisfy the goals of their patrons and somehow fit, however crudely, their worldview against advances in scientific thought.

It would be easy because the eighteen century was a turning point of the catholicism, in this period some religious authority in France by legalism choose the king side but the majority chose the Frondist side, in the same time a lot of catholic power in reaction started to banish the Catholic reformist in their country, conflict some of them choosed to flee in France and some of the most conversative element in France fleed in the other country to escape the king, because he exiled them, or to find fortune elsewhere, ... also during this period the religious authorities see the french conflit and see little by little the Ultramontanism fall while their victory seemed inevitable in begining it was a deep shock for them.

During this period the Ultramontanism searched a leader to help them and the Habsburg gladly accetpted, this alliance was really reactionnaries by nature and this support allowed them to take the lead in the religious affair and strangle the Jansenism and the Gallicanism (that belief that popular civil authority—often represented by the monarchs authority or the State's authority—over the Catholic Church) these reforms allowed them to safeguard and preserve the power of the papacy as well as to fight effectively against corruption but unfortuntaly in the same time more and more reformist started to flee in France to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the reactionaries preventing the emergence of a countercurrent in other countries so the Ultramontanism became more and more reactionnary and started to fight against the progress because they were affraid that the same thing will happen in their country a lot of scientific progress werre heretical for them because they were affraid that these developpement will lead to their downfall. Without these conflit Catholicism would surely keep an ambiguous look at the technology but their authroity would surely fade away with the time their influence will be really less strong in their stronghold but they would still kept an influence in the other Jansenist catholic country like France, Spain mainland, Poland or (Res publica regni Polonici, Republic of the Three nation, or whatever people call this country ... ), ... so in this alternate scenario we coulsd see the Papacy play a role of soft influence instead of their actual role.

Also the conflit between the Jansenism/Gallicanism would play latter a vital role in Spain and explain their weak success in the conversion of the natives in their african and eastern possession.


but it also butterflies away the bishops' issues with the taxing of Church property and infringing on their old areas of privileged production for their dioceses that ultimately lead to them aligning themselves with the landed nobility and peasentry against the King and his backers in the rising mercantile class and urban-artisan professionals during the various battles (legal, bodily, intellectual, or otherwise) that so divided French society through the 18th century.

the famous French waltz of power, a passionate century so many theoligical, political, social, judicial, economic, ... debate so much existential question put on the table
the principle of Liberty, equality, fraternity the first and more important principle of the France would never existed.
 
Last edited:
Top