French Revolution without street violence

What if the 1789 French Revolution only had the events of the serment du Jeu de paume anda or Tennis Court Oath . Would there had been a peaceful transmission to a more liberal monarchial state ? Would the monarchy and the French state benefit from clerus and nobility paying taxes ? Would France be better off in financial terms ? Further, what if the huger crisis in Paris didn´t go bad and there isn´t a storm on the Bastille and later the Tuileries ? Would the other monarchies in Europe tolerate that kind of Revolution ?
 
If the people of Paris doesn't support the Tiers état, Louis XVI simply dissolves the assembly and is overthrown a bit later, this time by are revolution WITH popular support.

Or are you convinced that the street violence had no sense?
 
The street violence was impossible to stop. Even when Lafayette was given the job of cracking down and he was able to disburse most riots with simply his words riots continued to break out, just where he wasn't at the time.

Also the food crisis is near impossible to prevent because the already situation created by the state was completely exacerbated by horrid weather causing lots of crop failures.

However you can easily, easily have a peaceful, albeit with a little bloodshed, transition to a stable constitutional monarchy. The best way in my opinion is to have Lafayette act like Washington. In OTL he refused to do that, because to him it looked a bit dictatorial and he instead believed that the Constitutionalist faction could sort it all out themselves, they couldn't. Had Lafayette been convinced by others that it wasn't dictatorial, that's exactly Washington did, best for France, etc. Then he could accepted and steered France in the right direction. Do remember this is the man who wrote the DoRoMaC and was heavily influenced by the American revolution's leaders (yet strangely enough DoRoMaC was a billion times better than the BoR).
 
I'm a bit confused, although it might just be because its late here and I'm sleepy, but:

This question is a little like asking could you have an American Revolution that was only the Boston Tea Party.

All of the events were interlinked and its very hard to pick them apart.

Louis was never, really, in favour of the revolution and was always going to act against it. OTL dismissing Necker was what brought the crowds out onto the streets and saw the storming of the Bastille. Louis was deeply opposed to clerical taxation and some of the other elements of the early revolutionary program.

If you are asking could you have a more moderate revolution that kept the King and maybe maintained reasonable relations with the rest of Europe then the answer is maybe. It was not until early 1792 that the majority of Deputies had reconciled themselves to the removal of the King from power.

I tend to doubt that Louis could have held it together. Mirabeau tried his best to keep the King onside, as did Lafayette in his way, but Louis dug his heels in and refused to compromise on key issues he saw as pertaining to his divine right to rule. He was never a willing participant in the revolutionary project and was, I think, always likely to try and act against it in some fashion.
 
What needs to happen is that the soldiers are not afraid to go against the mob. The French Revolution was a slippery slope of the mob getting away with more and more shit, culminating in the rise of Robespierre. What needs to happen is that someone early on annihilates the mob in some manner; make them understand that it is not acceptable to try to get their way through violence. Lafayette seems like the most likely candidate for this.
 
What needs to happen is that the soldiers are not afraid to go against the mob. The French Revolution was a slippery slope of the mob getting away with more and more shit, culminating in the rise of Robespierre. What needs to happen is that someone early on annihilates the mob in some manner; make them understand that it is not acceptable to try to get their way through violence. Lafayette seems like the most likely candidate for this.

The crowd isn't the only thing that propels Robespierre to the fore - indeed early on the Paris Sections are very unsure about him and the Jacobins generally. Robespierre isn't a Hitler analogue who starts out leading a group of street brawlers - he's a lot more complex as a character.

Besides, we're in danger here of treating the crowd (I find mob a bit pejorative) as one uniform thing - it wasn't. Any crowd in the French Revolution involved different people than the others by nature of where, when, and why it came together. Crowds had different, and often contradictory, aims - hence why they were so unpredictable for the politicians of the day.

Armies in the period are also complex - who exactly do you see doing the suppressing of the crowd? The Royal Guards aren't going to do Lafayette's bidding. The old regime army is a mess with officers defecting in their hundreds from 1790 onwards. And the National Guard is section-based meaning that their loyalty is affected by where they come from in Paris and what they are asked to do. They often struggled with enforcing control over their home areas OTL.

I think you are right, if anyone could lead the "army" (which would have to be the National Guard really) it was Lafayette. They were partly his brainchild after all. But remember that he did actually try and do this, at the Champs de Mars in 1791, and his men ending up killing some 20-50 protesters. It finished Lafayette as a champion of the Revolutionary cause - whether its justified in hindsight or not firing into crowds in revolutions tends not to go well historically. Not if you want to lead said Revolution as a moderate.
 
Oh, of course Hitler was worse than Robespierre. You can't deny, however, that Robespierre was the one who benefitted the most from mob violence; it was after all the Sans Culottes that pushed the Girondins out of power. And yes, you are right that I am pejorative towards the mob, because they ruined what could have been a decent Constitutional monarchy. The Sans Culottes were barbarous brutes; there is no excuse for what they did. I firmly believe at if they had been shown a strong hand, they would have run away; they preferred cutting off a defenseless woman's breasts to actually fighting. The Sans Culottes did have one common aim, IMO, and that was making sure mob rule trumped rule of law, at least after the September Massacres it was. Of course, the problem, as you mentioned, was that Lafayette did not have that strong hand. The problem is getting the soldiers of France to see the Sans Culottes for what they were, and I have no idea about how to do that.
 
Oh, of course Hitler was worse than Robespierre. You can't deny, however, that Robespierre was the one who benefitted the most from mob violence; it was after all the Sans Culottes that pushed the Girondins out of power. And yes, you are right that I am pejorative towards the mob, because they ruined what could have been a decent Constitutional monarchy. The Sans Culottes were barbarous brutes; there is no excuse for what they did. I firmly believe at if they had been shown a strong hand, they would have run away; they preferred cutting off a defenseless woman's breasts to actually fighting. The Sans Culottes did have one common aim, IMO, and that was making sure mob rule trumped rule of law, at least after the September Massacres it was. Of course, the problem, as you mentioned, was that Lafayette did not have that strong hand. The problem is getting the soldiers of France to see the Sans Culottes for what they were, and I have no idea about how to do that.

I agree on Robespierre benefiting, although the Girondins spend a lot of time courting the Paris Sections first and just happen to be unsuccessful.

But Sans Culottes =/= crowd. Not necessarily.

Very few of those who stormed the Bastille were Sans Culottes, for example as the term was more generally applied from 1791 on. Its also a little unfair to say that the Sans Culottes didn't fight - they fought for the Revolution at the Tuilleries Palace and many of them signed up to fight in the Revolutionary Armies that saved the Republic at Valmy and the other battles of the early war. I'm not denying that they could be brutal, but they weren't all the same and they weren't all evil.

There may be "no excuse", as you say, in hindsight, but revolutionary violence is often spur of the moment and driven by fear of danger. For many Sans Culottes it was a "kill or be killed" frenzy that, whilst looking poorly-founded to us now, was nevertheless important to them.

The biggest problem with a Constitutional Monarchy in France post-1789 is not Lafayette though but Louis XVI. He wasn't ever really willing to play ball as the Flight to Varennes ultimately showed. He claimed, in his defense, that he had simply been pushed too far by radicals, but the papers he specifically left behind denouncing the entire revolution from 1789 on told a different story. I don't disagree that it would have been a decent constitutional monarchy, as you say, but the problem is for that you need a decent constitutional monarch. And Louis XVI could never be that imho.
 
Don't you know that revolutions without street fights are so common as women becoming pope? Really, violence is a must in every revolution.

That's the point. The 14th if July 1989 was just a day of violent riot for a mob who wanted to take gunpowder after it had already taken gens and cannons. The whole history of the french Revolution was a series of coups backed by street violence, which finally drove to building a new kind of political legitimacy.
 
That's the point. The 14th if July 1989 was just a day of violent riot for a mob who wanted to take gunpowder after it had already taken gens and cannons.

And the reasons for this is that the Parisians were afraid, rightly or wrongly, that the King would send in the 'Foreign Regiments' to slaughter them and wanted to have means of defence.

The reason for that is that the King was always changing his mind between one position and another (edit: and slaughtering the parisians was indeed one of the position advocated by some of his most extreme court advisors) and was bringing said 'Foreign Regiments' (well, he didn't see them as foreign, just loyal regiments from the provinces, but the french looked at the origin of most of the men rather than the official regimental denomination) around Paris 'to protect himself'. So if he went full Charles IX, he had the mean to do so and this was seen as a possibility. Even if Louis changed his mind after a couple days, it would not change anything for the deads.

So, it came down to the Parisians not trusting the King.
 
And the reasons for this is that the Parisians were afraid, rightly or wrongly, that the King would send in the 'Foreign Regiments' to slaughter them and wanted to have means of defence.

The reason for that is that the King was always changing his mind between one position and another (edit: and slaughtering the parisians was indeed one of the position advocated by some of his most extreme court advisors) and was bringing said 'Foreign Regiments' (well, he didn't see them as foreign, just loyal regiments from the provinces, but the french looked at the origin of most of the men rather than the official regimental denomination) around Paris 'to protect himself'. So if he went full Charles IX, he had the mean to do so and this was seen as a possibility. Even if Louis changed his mind after a couple days, it would not change anything for the deads.

So, it came down to the Parisians not trusting the King.

Good points!

Also, for me that raises an interesting question:

What if Louis had been more decisive - and against the Revolution. What if he had gone "Full Charles IX" and sent in the Royal Regiments to suppress Paris and the National Convention? Say in 1791 instead of fleeing to Varennes?

It would have really hung in the balance, as the National Guard were hardly veterans and very divided in the 1790-1792 period whereas the Royal troops were at least well equipped and dedicated (not sure how effective they were in combat mind you).

I tend to think that the Revolutionaries would have triumphed, but it would have seen the revolution take on a Republican and more radical appearance earlier on and in a more unified way. It might even prevent the splits developing between Girondin and Montagnard.

Hmmm. Would make an interesting timeline!
 
Good points!

Also, for me that raises an interesting question:

What if Louis had been more decisive - and against the Revolution. What if he had gone "Full Charles IX" and sent in the Royal Regiments to suppress Paris and the National Convention? Say in 1791 instead of fleeing to Varennes?

It would have really hung in the balance, as the National Guard were hardly veterans and very divided in the 1790-1792 period whereas the Royal troops were at least well equipped and dedicated (not sure how effective they were in combat mind you).
You mean what if Louis gets a loyal general to give 'A whiff of grapeshot' to the parisian mob. I think we all know what would happen in this case..... (depending on who the general is, and what is rewards are, of course...)
 
And the reasons for this is that the Parisians were afraid, rightly or wrongly, that the King would send in the 'Foreign Regiments' to slaughter them and wanted to have means of defence.

The reason for that is that the King was always changing his mind between one position and another (edit: and slaughtering the parisians was indeed one of the position advocated by some of his most extreme court advisors) and was bringing said 'Foreign Regiments' (well, he didn't see them as foreign, just loyal regiments from the provinces, but the french looked at the origin of most of the men rather than the official regimental denomination) around Paris 'to protect himself'. So if he went full Charles IX, he had the mean to do so and this was seen as a possibility. Even if Louis changed his mind after a couple days, it would not change anything for the deads.

So, it came down to the Parisians not trusting the King.

True. But these who actually slaughtered other de were in fact the parisian revolutionary mob (who were by far not the whole parisian population), not the military. And they went up to Versailles with their newly acquired drapons.
 
You mean what if Louis gets a loyal general to give 'A whiff of grapeshot' to the parisian mob. I think we all know what would happen in this case..... (depending on who the general is, and what is rewards are, of course...)

I'm not sure it would go down like that though. Napoleon was exceptionally good at artillery command (which is what that was) and was fighting against an unorganised and relatively spontaneous uprising with committed troops.

In contrast Louis XVI would be picking someone with probably a little less talent, relying on the Royal Guards as the only undoubtedly loyal troops, and suppressing a developed alternate government. The insurgents would be much more organised, and their support much more broad.

What you are likely to see is a running series of street battles lasting maybe 24-48 hours across Paris, which Louis might win but will lack loyal reinforcements directly.
 

guinazacity

Banned
You mean what if Louis gets a loyal general to give 'A whiff of grapeshot' to the parisian mob. I think we all know what would happen in this case..... (depending on who the general is, and what is rewards are, of course...)

Well, the paris regiment did revolt when ordered to do that.

Also, why someome would want a revolution without street violence? It's like sex without an orgasm.
 
Top