European revolutions of the 1700s-1800s w/no successful American Revolution?

fashbasher

Banned
Would the French Revolution and those after it have evolved differently if the Americans had failed? I can think of a few ways they could be defeated (either militarily by British troops alone, militarily by a European coalition, or diplomatically by giving them some seats in parliament or an Act of Union comparable to that of Scotland ?
 
The state of the French economy was incredibly awful even before the American Revolution, and the national institutions of France were extremely regressive and they blocked any and all reform to save France. The parlements, for instance, blocked the French financial ministers' attempts to reform France. That would still be true IOTL. France would fall into revolution at around 1800, but revolution was going to happen unless something drastic, like the death of the king and his replacement by a liberal regent (not likely at all) occurs.
 

fashbasher

Banned
The state of the French economy was incredibly awful even before the American Revolution, and the national institutions of France were extremely regressive and they blocked any and all reform to save France. The parlements, for instance, blocked the French financial ministers' attempts to reform France. That would still be true IOTL. France would fall into revolution at around 1800, but revolution was going to happen unless something drastic, like the death of the king and his replacement by a liberal regent (not likely at all) occurs.

Would the resulting revolution look different? I imagine it could proceed more like the Glorious Revolution in the UK where the basic parliamentary system survives and is reformed without the precedent of the "burn it all down and rebuild from scratch" American Revolution.
 
Would the resulting revolution look different? I imagine it could proceed more like the Glorious Revolution in the UK where the basic parliamentary system survives and is reformed without the precedent of the "burn it all down and rebuild from scratch" American Revolution.

The American Revolution was scarcely a "burn it all down and rebuild from scratch" revolution. The majority of pre-revolutionary responsible governments were retained, and many people who were in colonial government remained in government.

And in the French Revolution, reforming France to have a basic parliamentary system (it had no parliament pre-revolution) was the initial stage of the revolution, and the initial goal. However, then Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette decided to conspire with leaders of countries France was at war with in an attempt to flee France, but were caught and put on trial. Without a king or queen, of course, France is now a republic. I don't think this POD would change all of Europe declaring war with France, nor would it change the flight of the King and Queen.

Though, the revolution could look quite different. You could see Hebertists take charge (now that would be horrific), or you could see Montagnards fail to rule France. Something totally different like a Nazi France Revolution is not plausible at all, however.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
There was some eventually "rebuild it from scratch" rhetoric during the American Revolution.

And there was actually more personnel turnover in local officialdom, and more emigres per capita in the American Revolution than in the French or Russian.

See this essay, those data points are buried within:http://www.unz.org/Pub/ModernAge-1976q3-00298

The essay also undermines the traditional 1/3 loyalist, 1/3 patriot, 1/3 neutral concept misattributed to John Adams. (his comments on what fractions of Americans supported what were not in relation to absolute loyalty or disloyalty to Britain, rather they were about what course of action to take with regard to the tactical move of declaring independence. In other words, many initially opposed to the DoI or unsupportive of it still were not happy with British policy and still would rather take up arms against invading British troops than to take up arms with them)
 

Skallagrim

Banned
As @Indicus pointed out, the French economy was in very bad shape. Without drastic fiscal reform, matters were heading for a cliff. The mid 1780s was a horrible crop failure due to a massive volcanic erpution on Iceland, which in OTL was a direct contribution to the problems in France coming to a head. The mercantillist economic policies limited France in its ability to respond adequately to the resulting food shortages, whereas countries that were moving towards free trade, like Britain, had a much easier time of it. at the same time, the total French bankruptcy made the money needed to somehow import more food unavailable. The extent of the existing national debt made borrowing money untenable as well.

The costs of the French intervention in the ARW were a drop in the ocean (of debt), but - to mix my metophors - also the straw that broke the camel's back in OTL. That back is getting broken, by the way, no good way to really avoid that-- but without the ARW costs, France might just scrape by and get just enough credit to avoid total collapse when food shortages become dire in the late 1780s. This just means that the costs of fixing that problem become the final straw instead, so - just as @Indicus said - there's going to be a big crash by 1800. (At the outside. I'd argue it's likely to come earlier. Whatever problem appears and costs money, France won't be able to handle. Things are going to crash.)

As has been pointed out: reform won't happen except at gunpoint. So France actually needs that next crisis to be able to enact reforms.

The good news is that in OTL, a lot of bad things conspired to make the French Revolution the terrible, horrible no-good frenzy it became. There were politicians who committed fraud and arrogantly lied about it. There were other (and in several occasions the same) politicians who totally misread the political atmosphere and tried to bully the Estates-General around to get their way, when 'groveling and accepting responsibility for mistakes made' was the behaviour that would have been more fitting. Finally, there was the disastrous attempt by the royal family to escape, which sealed the monarchy's fate for good.

If a crisis happens later, the same exact people won't be in charge when the crisis happens. Politician turnover in the financial department was pretty dramatic in those turbulent days. In OTL Calonne messed everything up when he was in charge, but later saw the error of his ways. Neckers didn't listen to disgraced has-been Calonne when he warned about not repeating his mistakes, and literally faked the government budget to make himself look good and hide the true size of the debt. Necker was also one of those who totally messed up by trying the heavy-handed approach with the Estates-General.

On the other hand, Necker was a master at securing new loans for France even when the economy was going down the drain. I hesitate to call him a 'financial wizard', as he was actually more of a charlatan: a stage magician if you will. But a talented one! So when the food crisis occurs in this no-ARW TL, let's assume necker is put in charge as per OTL. Great. In this ATL, his main goal is... to secure loans, and fast. With France just that little less deep in debt to begin with, I have no doubt Necker can do this. That means: crisis put off for the moment, but inevitable for later. Meanwhile, Calonne remains highly critical of the 'borrow, borrow, borrow' policy. Initially, Necker is praised, but when the next crisis inevitably comes, he goes down burning.

Who better to fix things than... Calonne? The grand advocate of reform, of late. At this point, the Estates-General get assembled. I assume Calonne can handle them better than Necker did in OTL, although by this point, preserving absolute monarchy is pretty much out of the question. Less direct confrontation, more of a long-negotiated compromise ending in a reduction of royal power and a reformed fiscal system. The radicals never even get a chance, and we're all spared a whole lot of terror.

Of course, it may also just escalate, but under other circumstances. No way to tell for sure. But I think that the OTL French revolution was a big case of "boy, that escalated quickly!" -- and it didn't have to happen that way at all. The scenario above has considerably better chances of avoiding radicalisation and republicanism. (It may matter, if only a little bit, whether there was never an ARW at all, or whether Britain fought and won. The former scenario bodes well for avoiding republicanism and radiclism, since in such a scenario, there is no American republicanism to form a real-world example. On the contrary: the 'American crisis' will then have been solved by negotiation, which provides a positive example for such a negotiated resolution to the French crisis as well...)
 
If a crisis happens later, the same exact people won't be in charge when the crisis happens. Politician turnover in the financial department was pretty dramatic in those turbulent days. In OTL Calonne messed everything up when he was in charge, but later saw the error of his ways. Neckers didn't listen to disgraced has-been Calonne when he warned about not repeating his mistakes, and literally faked the government budget to make himself look good and hide the true size of the debt. Necker was also one of those who totally messed up by trying the heavy-handed approach with the Estates-General.

On the other hand, Necker was a master at securing new loans for France even when the economy was going down the drain. I hesitate to call him a 'financial wizard', as he was actually more of a charlatan: a stage magician if you will. But a talented one! So when the food crisis occurs in this no-ARW TL, let's assume necker is put in charge as per OTL. Great. In this ATL, his main goal is... to secure loans, and fast. With France just that little less deep in debt to begin with, I have no doubt Necker can do this. That means: crisis put off for the moment, but inevitable for later. Meanwhile, Calonne remains highly critical of the 'borrow, borrow, borrow' policy. Initially, Necker is praised, but when the next crisis inevitably comes, he goes down burning.

Who better to fix things than... Calonne? The grand advocate of reform, of late. At this point, the Estates-General get assembled. I assume Calonne can handle them better than Necker did in OTL, although by this point, preserving absolute monarchy is pretty much out of the question. Less direct confrontation, more of a long-negotiated compromise ending in a reduction of royal power and a reformed fiscal system. The radicals never even get a chance, and we're all spared a whole lot of terror.

Of course, it may also just escalate, but under other circumstances. No way to tell for sure. But I think that the OTL French revolution was a big case of "boy, that escalated quickly!" -- and it didn't have to happen that way at all. The scenario above has considerably better chances of avoiding radicalisation and republicanism. (It may matter, if only a little bit, whether there was never an ARW at all, or whether Britain fought and won. The former scenario bodes well for avoiding republicanism and radiclism, since in such a scenario, there is no American republicanism to form a real-world example. On the contrary: the 'American crisis' will then have been solved by negotiation, which provides a positive example for such a negotiated resolution to the French crisis as well...)

I know you have a particular dislike of Necker, but accusing him of going "heavy-handed" with the Estates Generals does not seem right. He was fired by Louis XVI precisely because he seemed too sympathetic towards the Tiers demands. The all "false ledger" issue also needs clarification : Necker was accused by Calonne of faking the budget (Calonne's own budget was also inexact BTW), not after he took over from Calonne (1788), but after Calonne took his place (1781). This had nothing to do with the warnings Calonne could have given him after the transition - and frankly, given the hate between the two men, I would be quite surprised to see Calonne advising something to Necker.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I know you have a particular dislike of Necker, but accusing him of going "heavy-handed" with the Estates Generals does not seem right. He was fired by Louis XVI precisely because he seemed too sympathetic towards the Tiers demands. The all "false ledger" issue also needs clarification : Necker was accused by Calonne of faking the budget (Calonne's own budget was also inexact BTW), not after he took over from Calonne (1788), but after Calonne took his place (1781). This had nothing to do with the warnings Calonne could have given him after the transition - and frankly, given the hate between the two men, I would be quite surprised to see Calonne advising something to Necker.

I dislike Necker's decisions and actions. This is not to say that Calonne was somehow a nice guy I want to defend. In fact, of the two, Calonne actually comes across as more of a jerk in his attitude. Nevertheless, my criticisms of Necker's policies and actions are well-founded.

Necker was certainly heavy-handed with the Estates. What must be understood is that he was a total glory-hound (much like Calonne e.a,; this was a common problem). So he saw the doubling of the third Estate as an easy, meaningless way to gain popularity. thus he pushed it. But vote weight didn't double, so it was a hollow gesture. he expected an easy win through a populist trick, and created huge friction. Over this issue, the king first came to believe that Necker was too much on the side of the masses. Later, when the whole issue led to huge problems, Necker got blamed. Not even without reason (although that particular mess-up was hardly his fault alone).

Then there's his infamous address to the Estates-General. The word here would be "brow-beating". He talked for hours on end, mostly in a long rant defending and glorifying his own accomplishments, repeating the (false!) fiscal claims he had propated earlier. The Estates had expected humility, an adnmission of past mistakes, and prposals for reform. They got the opposite. Necker literally claimed things weren't as bad as his critics claimed, and by all accounts appeared to consider the Estates as a mere vehicle for ratification of his own policy plans.

Then there's the "false ledger". This was not some spurious accusation or something. Necker's Compte rendu au roi was simply full of fraud, and that's not something that just calonne claimed. Calonne found out after he took over and complained about it, but there was pretty heavy criticism of Necker from various directions. That his report was a fabrication meant to make the situation look far rosier than it was is beyond any doubt. In response to cricisms, Necker then made public his 'financial summary', which contained the same lies. Mind you, this was very succesful as propaganda, because when Calonne tried to implement reform in '87, Necker's summary was still referenced by those opposed to the reforms. In that way, Necker's lies directly contributed to blocking much-needed reforms.

As for 'advice' that Calonne gave: I did not mean that Calonne was an advisor to Necker in any way, but rather that Calonne had general economic advice for the government at large, which he published openly from the sidelines whenever he wasn't actively influential in any official capacity. When Necker was borowing money during his initial tenure, Calonne was critical: he suggested tax reform instead of endless borrowing-- which was somewhat hypocritical since he had supported borrowing earlier, but at least he learned from his mistakes (which Necker never did). Necker blithely ignored all such criticisms, kept borrowing, and cooked the books. (Again, that's not an accusation by enemies: that's an undisputable fact.) Later on, Calonne was brought back in, complained about Necker cooking the books, didn't do a great job himself, and was unpopular (in part because Necker had very effectively made himself look better in comparison... through publishing fraudulent claims). Calonne didn't want to repeat the mistake of borrowing too much, which could hardly be done anyway since he wasn't going to get loans on good terms. So he called for the Assembly of Notables and suggested much-needed reforms. And failed. But damn it, at least he tried. He had made terrible errors earlier, but he'd learned, and he proposed a plan that would - if implemented - have saved the French economy. But it was rejected. And what did the opponents of reform cite to justify their opposition: Necker's false ledgers!

Given these facts, can it be a great surprise that I disapprove of Necker's actions, and lay some of the blame for the resulting troubles at his feet? Calonne was hardly perfect, and lots of others also made their own mistakes... but historically, Calonne has gotten too much of the blame, and Necker far too little. The old argument has often been that Calonne's failure to enact reform (and the king's support of Calonne) disgraced the monarchy, revealed its weakness, and thus set the stage for everything that came after. This ignored that whether it was 'revealed' or not, the underlying weakness was there no matter what. It also ignores that Necker's lies are a main reason (perhaps the main reason) why Calonne's reform plans were rejected.

Given these facts, can it be a great surprise that I disapprove of Necker's actions, and lay part of the blame for the resulting troubles at his feet?

Anyway, a debate about this can be held ad infinitum, I suppose. My point is not that anyone else was blameless, but rather that Necker's mistakes had a particularly major influence on the way things worked out in OTL. And thus, that the mere fact of not having him (and others) in the place he was in at the time he was in those positions in OTL would by itself have a major effect on the way things turn out. No ARW, therefore, will have major ramifications for France no matter what.
 
The French one was going to happen anyways once France ran out of money. And the fed up Third Estate was going to try to sieze control anyways. Yes in TTL there is no example of a succesful Repbulic besides the Dutch (whose Stratlander-less period was one of less than stellar economy) but revolutionary passion considered "ideals" first and "evidence" later... or not at all. If you go by Turtledove style butterflies (which means minimum) that means at the minimum we still have Napoleon coming to power, but I'm inclined to think the butterflies would be more random and less "OTL-like" compared to his books (remember, he's writing books, he needs to keep people entertained)
 
Top