DBWI: What if the Bastille Uprising had succeeded?

Morty Vicar

Banned
Eh; not much would have happened. The 'uprising' was composed of poorly unarmed and undisciplined rioters who were sorely unprepared for an actual fight. The rioters take the Bastille, declare victory, and then the French army marches in and crushes them.

There's a reason the Bastille Riots just ended in bloodshed IOTL, after all!

Totally agreed! This is a ridiculous premise and should be moved to ASB.

OoC: Roleplaying as a historical purist who tends to think that most deviations from OTL are ASB.

OOC: Same. I love to take these DB threads as opportunities to satirise the perpetual naysayers! :p
 
If you consider that the Austro-French relations before the 1848(47) revolution were cordial and turned sour afterwards, you might project that 50 years forward (especially as the then French Queen Marie Antoniette was Habsburg). The Austro French alliance made it impossible for another continental power to become dominant. No Austro French alliance would probably mean no Habsburg Kingdom of Italy (remember its first king Francisco Carlo was Franz II second son) That would have prevented Marie Louise to become the first Empress of Austria after her brother Ferdinand abstained from succession and Franz Karl was ineligible as King of Italy.

Imagine an Europe without its both "grandmothers" Victoria and Maria Louis.

Those women forged an alliance that lasts until this day. Well Austria is no longer an monolithic empire but now a loose federation of independent states, but the different Habsburg still rule from the Polish Baltics to Sicily and from the Rhine to the Don.

Austria bled dry from revolutionary wars would probably decline during the 19th century.

But 60 years with France and now 160+ years with Britain it ensures peace (with some exceptions, but then it was the agression of other nations)

I hope the growing provocations by the French-Russian-Prussian Entente (FRPE) will not result in an end to that peace. They should know that they can't win against the Anglo-Austrian Wliance (AAA)

I am wondering if the Americans will come to reason and end the constant infighting between their states - they could be a great power too.

Umm.....I'm not exactly sure how to say this, but there are quite a few, erm....inaccuracies in this post.

1.)Firstly, Austria hasn't been a monarchist state since 1929. The Austrian Civil War and the depression of 1920(and the ineptitude of it's last Emperor) took care of that. Also, Prussia is part of Germany now(well, except East Prussia, which is now Polish, but I digress).....and the Germans aren't exactly on the best of terms with Russia right now(there have actually been a growing number of xenophobic attacks on persons of Russian descent in the country, especially in the north of the country). And yes, it may be true that the U.K. and Austria have a good diplomatic relationship.....but Austria isn't much of a military power these days.

2.)Also, Sicily is part of Italy.....which hasn't had even a limited monarchy on the national scale since the early 1940s(or the late '40s if you lived in certain areas). And Poland is a republic, too.....has been since it's independence from Russia 1879(yes, it may be true that Galicia was itself ruled by a Hapsburg before it's annexation into Poland in 1927, and said king was allowed to keep his title until his death in 1952, but it doesn't count for much). And furthermore, the Kingdom that did exist in the Crimea hasn't, since 1875, when the Russians re-took it.

3.)And yes, America *is* a great power and has been for over a century now. It may be true that we no longer play the role of "world cop" and that our military's size has really been toned down since the end of the '80s, it doesn't mean that we've lost our status.

4.)And finally, you do realize that Victoria was the British queen, yes? Perhaps you must have confused Vicky I with Anne Marie of Bavaria.

I think a "revolutionary france" in the late 1700's would have collapsed into anarchy and violence almost immediately. Separatist movements would probably have taken hold in Brittany (at least) and it's entirely possible France as we know it today would not exist. Revolutions only succeed in creating a functional liberal regime when the people already have achieved a fair amount of political power and are familiar with how a parliamentary regime functions. France under Louis XVI was a pure autocracy. One only needs to look at Russia and Sweden to see what can happen when an absolute monarchy is overthrown by a rabble.

The successful French Revolution of 1847 was really less of a revolution than an assertion of parliamentary power against a dying monarchy. As we all know, this revolution actually helped preserve the power of the French elites and led to the rise of France as an efficient corporatist state, one that eventually came to dominate western Europe from Portugal to the Rhine without triggering war with either Britain or the Middle European Federation.

Maybe so, but I should correct you on one thing: France was *never* a corporatist state. At any time in it's history. Yes, it may be true that major industry (and finance) did become somewhat influential in many ways, during the 25 years preceding the start of WWI(1909), but it was hardly an out-and-out corporatist state. Now, Germany in the '20s? That was a corporatist state. So, too, was the Tsardom of Bulgaria during much of the Interwar period. Or Brazil in the '50s, and China from 1967 until the end of the '80s.

OoC: Yeah, TBH, I did want to keep things a little more realistic.
 
Perhaps so, but it might not prevent Peru, Bolivia, or Chile from breaking off, though, as by 1820, there was *strong* Republican sentiment there, especially in what was to be Bolivia, after Bolivar's exile to that region from Venezuela. Of course, Mexico staying in the Spanish Empire a little longer could perhaps affect that, but Peru, at least, was probably going to go at some point regardless. Uruguay as well. (Whereas Argentina remained Spanish until 1847 and even then, pro-monarchist sentiment remained strong until the end of the 1870s.)
Well, the issue with Argentina is heavily reliant on butterflies - the Battle of Caseros and the subsequent sack of Buenos Aires by royalist forces crippled the more radical elements of Argentine leadership and left the former capitol of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate a pile of rubble. If butterflies prevent a royalist victory, the republican front led by Moreno might have succeed. Of course, the liberals would need to raise a navy to prevent the disembark of loyalist troops from Europe and I can't see how they are going to defeat the best of the Spanish Navy.
 
Imagine if this revolutionary France invaded conservative monarchies such as Portugal and in the craziest of the ideas the Portuguese King decides to flee to some colony....maybe we could have a single country instead of the seven Portuguese-speaking countries that dotts Eastern South America nowayadays.

Now, that would be ABS...a unique and integrated Portuguese-speaking country in South America instead of the balkanization that happen with the old Portuguese colony called "Brasil" during the 19th Century that ended with more than 1.000.000 deaths in several wars and revolutions!
 
Imagine if this revolutionary France invaded conservative monarchies such as Portugal and in the craziest of the ideas the Portuguese King decides to flee to some colony....maybe we could have a single country instead of the seven Portuguese-speaking countries that dotts Eastern South America nowayadays.

Now, that would be ABS...a unique and integrated Portuguese-speaking country in South America instead of the balkanization that happen with the old Portuguese colony called "Brasil" during the 19th Century that ended with more than 1.000.000 deaths in several wars and revolutions!

Umm....Brazil *is* a single country. Yes, it may be true that the Brazilian Civil War caused a lot of deaths(about 250,000 direct), and that did in fact, result in it's (temporary) balkanization, but it's been a unified country again (a functioning Republic this time, thank goodness) since 1905. Of course, I do realize there are still some nationalist movements here and there who each want their independence, but despite the long-running rivalries between the various states, Brazil has still managed to hold together.
 
Umm....Brazil *is* a single country. Yes, it may be true that the Brazilian Civil War caused a lot of deaths(about 250,000 direct), and that did in fact, result in it's (temporary) balkanization, but it's been a unified country again (a functioning Republic this time, thank goodness) since 1905. Of course, I do realize there are still some nationalist movements here and there who each want their independence, but despite the long-running rivalries between the various states, Brazil has still managed to hold together.

OCC: Without the French Revolution no Napoleonic invasion of Spain and Portugal and no transfer of the Portuguese Crown to Rio de Janeiro.

Without a king there, the Brazilian independence process would follow the same standard of the Spanish colonies: local criollos against the Portuguese crown, resulting in several small and unstable republics....let's remember that in 1820 there wasn't a deep feeling of "Being Brazilian" in faraway provinces like Grao Para and Rio Grande do Sul....
 
Top