In a world where the USA lost the ARW prior to French involvement does the French Revolution still happen? I initially thought no because I was under the impression France was nearly bankrupt after the ARW. However, then I did some research and it seems as though France's bankruptcy traces its origins back to the Seven Years War, meaning that without the ARW France would be in a bad position regardless.
If the Americans lost the ARW does the French Revolution still happen?
- Thread starter ETGalaxy
- Start date
No. French budget and fiscal crisis, which was not a bankruptcy (the french government went bankrupt in 1796), has its roots in the war that opposed France and Britain between 1778 and 1783. Not in the 7YW.
So no french involvement in this war that was far from being but the ARW but also was a war in the Carribean and in the Indian Ocean and Asia means no fiscal crisis in 1787/1789, then no summoning of the Estates General and then no French Revolution.
So no french involvement in this war that was far from being but the ARW but also was a war in the Carribean and in the Indian Ocean and Asia means no fiscal crisis in 1787/1789, then no summoning of the Estates General and then no French Revolution.
The cost of the ARW for France is a bit overstated; Scott's Yorktown to Valmy points to mismanagement of French debt after the 7YW rather than the ARW.
The French and British will have another war sooner or later, likely over either the Falklands Crisis of 1770, the Bavarian Succession in 1778 or the Dutch Patriots in the 1780s. Their finances and financial apparatus weren't up to the job of a modern fiscal-military state, so a crisis is coming regardless.
I think the bigger question is what road it would take. The American Revolution opened the working people's eyes on what could be achieved against the great and powerful. Lower expectations may mean things like demands for double representation of the third estate or the forming of the national assembly may not happen.
Yes, the situation in France was already disastrous before their involvement in the ARW after decades of excessive spending by Louis XIV and Louis XV (Louis XIV left France in 60 million livres of debt on his death) and repeated 'failures' of France in almost every war since the War of Spanish Succession. Louis XVI's inability to reform French society, thanks to his indecisive nature and lack of political judgement compounded the issues and the ARW, which was financed largely through Necker taking out loans, only made it worse. Despite this, however, the ongoing economic failures and Louis XVI's effort at reform had already doomed the Ancien Regime as, not only was Louis unable to pass his reforms, his efforts to do so undermined his support from the nobles, whose rights and privileges he was attempting to erode when he was supposed to uphold them, and his inability to carry out the reforms undermined his support from the rest of society. The result was that a revolution or rebellion of some sort was inevitable, when and how was open. It is also worth noting that said rebellion/revolution would likely have not been republican (since the success of the USA was the first time any large state had been run as a republic) but rather have been focussed on reforming the monarchy.
Neither of them had the will or strength to change the monarchy, Louis's failed efforts proved that. Any changes would be instituted by someone else, possibly even even by violence.
The failure of the Banque générale (during the regency of Louis XV) was the killer. That was the best chance to get French finances in order and it collapsed because of the Mississippi bubble.
Regarding the last point, we may want to note that even in OTL, the Revolution was not initially republican in nature, but events pushed it in that direction. As late as 1791, Louis XVI was given a constitutional role.
Agreed on both points, and indeed I would suggest that a constitutional monarchy along the lines of said 1791 Constitution would be the result of a revolution without the ARW.
That is an interesting point actually, I think this would create a radical group who wanted to get rid of the monarchy, but the perception that many intellectuals had of republics being impossible on a large scale would prevent a widespread republican moving growing. Such an action by Louis might cause a further reduction of his power by a National Assembly/Estates General though.
Probably. The structural financial issues in France during the 1780s were not solely or even mostly caused by funding the American cause, and really, like in most revolutions with a social or class component, the tipping point was the bread shortages in 1788-1789. Food insecurity, far more than public debt, pushed people over the edge.
The most radical factions of the French Revolution were thoroughly middle class, but for the kind of public disturbances needed to diminish law and order, you needed lower class anger to boil over into rioting, and the best way to accomplish that was for food insecurity to take hold.
The most radical factions of the French Revolution were thoroughly middle class, but for the kind of public disturbances needed to diminish law and order, you needed lower class anger to boil over into rioting, and the best way to accomplish that was for food insecurity to take hold.
As a minor point, it also depends on the exact POD.
Revolution is more likely if France strains their finances further with an intervention and Britain wins, at least compared to Britain winning with a neutral France.
Revolution is more likely if France strains their finances further with an intervention and Britain wins, at least compared to Britain winning with a neutral France.
By the late eighteenth century, the demands of the Bourbon kings were just too much for the Ancien Regime's existing social/economic/political structures; if you're trying to avoid a restructure of the French state by avoiding a British-French war, well, better luck next time.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Just noting, it is possible that massive French aid in the ARW could be prevented with a 1778 PoD, which makes two of those three examples moot; I'm not saying such a conflict won't happen, but most like it will be later rather than sooner, putting off the French Revolution even further.
Actually, this reminds me of a very old recurring idea on this board, where the next Great War in Europe following a failed ARW centers not around France, but around the Polish question and the ambitions of Prussia and Russia.
I have to disagree again with this statement. The french public debt's burden in 1789 was not heavier than in 1763 and was lighther than in 1714.
There was no inevitability of the French Revolution because of the level of the public debt, although the french fiscal system was utterly archaic and unfit to the financial need of the government.
And the French Revolution did not solve the public debt. France was finally forced to go through the bankruptcy that the revolutionaries claimed they wanted to avoid by making the revolution, not without having organized massive privatizations of public assets in a way quite similar to yeltsinian privatizations.
The truest cause of the french revolution was the vacuum of royal authority that had developed because of Louis XVI's personality.
Could the French monarchy survive just by going bankrupt? Sure people starve and nobles lose money so everyone is unhappy, but if you can start from scratch with finances then there's no need to call up the Estates. Without that mechanism for resisting the King, the only way you can get a revolution is a spontaneous one from the streets, but with no American Revolution, there's no precedent for that.
Well, there is the precedence of the English Civil War and the (brief) rule of Parliament that followed. I have no idea if that can serve as an inspiration to some French revolutionaries. Obviously they will believe that they will do better than the Rosbif, no Cromwell will come and grab power.
Bankruptcy does not starve people. It just reduces the value of the debts held by those who have spared money and bought bonds.
It is refusing bankruptcy that makes people starve.
There had been many bankruptcies in Europe and none caused a popular revolution.
The french monarchy could of course survive another bankruptcy if its king had the guts to have his authority respected by the rich debt holders.
What the king needed was the support of the peasant masses. Which the revolutionaries perfectly understood when the french peasants began rebelling in the summer of 1789.