If the Americans lost the ARW does the French Revolution still happen?

There was a much closer example to the French republicans of revolution and the absence of Kings - the Netherlands. Stadthoulder was never quite the same as King and the Patriots had been engaged in military conflict with the Stadthoulder as late as 1787. They lost but they hadn't gone away (and were residing in France mostly).

The notion of absolute Kingship wasn't as ingrained in French psyche as it was in Louis XIV's time.

Except the genuinely republican stadtholdlerateless period was seen to have been a failure that saw the Dutch collapse as a great power. You are right that absolute monarchy wasn't engrained (not least because the British had done so well with a limited monarch, even more so ITTL), but a true republic was seen as something that doesn't really work outside city states.

If France gets so far as revolution (which I am sceptical about, but is possible), they are much more likely to try constitutional monarchy with Louis XVI, and if that doesn't work, try another King, like the Brits did.
 
I am not sure French élites considered the USA at the time as a large-scale country. It was the other side of the world, a colonial experiment, a potential great state, but not an actual one yet. But I understand your point. As for the idea of kingless society, it is striking to see it went so well. No province rose in furor at the news of the dethroning of Louis XVI or his execution. Even in the Vendée, the insurrection had all the traits of an anti-power rising, as it was usual in Ancien Régime France, with a zest of religious insecurity, before the aristocratic leadership gave it a political project. Was the american example so widely known or was the people's attachment to the monarchy over-evaluated ?
The idea at the time was not that "only non-important nations can be republics," but "only small nations can be republics." It was widely believed that a small, compact state like Corsica, the Netherlands, or Switzerland could be republics, while sprawling empires like France and British North America couldn't be. It was America's foundation that shattered this (very silly) intellectual theory.

(The logic behind it, by the way, was that when Rome became and empire it lost its Republic, as well as something about about chaos reigning in areas far from the capital if people were allowed to vote.)
 
The idea at the time was not that "only non-important nations can be republicans," but "only small nations can be republics." It was widely believed that a small, compact state like Corsica, the Netherlands, or Switzerland could be republics, while sprawling empires like France and British North America couldn't be. It was America's foundation that shattered this (very silly) intellectual theory.

(The logic behind it, by the way, was that when Rome became and empire it lost its Republic, as well as something about about chaos reigning in areas far from the capital if people were allowed to vote.)
Exactly, many people felt that a monarchy was the only way to keep a large country together.
 
Maybe people would think "yes, a republic is a nice idea, but it can't win in the real world. Let's try to reform the monarchy/wait for a better, more enlightened king". The republican idea might be dead for some decades... until mid-19th century, when it resurfaces, but bundled with Communism/Socialism/whatever it's called.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the French still have a revolution and still cannot stand their King, but cannot conceive of their great state becoming a "Republic" perhaps they could follow English precedent and call it a Commonwealth, or selected a "Lord Protector" to be dictator.
 
Maybe people would think "yes, a republic is a nice idea, but it can't win in the real world. Let's try to reform the monarchy/wait for a better, more enlightened king". The republican idea might be dead for some decades... until mid-19th century, when it resurfaces, but bundled with Communism/Socialism/whatever it's called.
Although that raises the question if communism (or another radical left ideology) even exists. In a world where France reforms the monarchy perhaps revolutionaries would try to redesign the old systems rather than create new ones altogether.
 
If the French still have a revolution and still cannot stand their King, but cannot conceive of their great state becoming a "Republic" perhaps they could follow English precedent and call it a Commonwealth, or selected a "Lord Protector" to be dictator.
Well they did it in 1848 with "Prince-President" Napoleon III. Followed by a true republic in 1871.

But that says more about the government structures being inadequate to support a true democracy than any philosophical aversion to democracy.
 
Well they did it in 1848 with "Prince-President" Napoleon III. Followed by a true republic in 1871.

But that says more about the government structures being inadequate to support a true democracy than any philosophical aversion to democracy.

The second French Republic was a true republic.

Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte was democratically elected president of this republic. He won with a crushing majority of 75% of the votes.

The point is that he then staged a coup in order to perpetuate his power and turn this republic into a monarchy.
 

Kaze

Banned
If the Americans fail. The common people might blame the foreign queen had bewitched the King for the loss and take matters in their own hands.
 
Well they did it in 1848 with "Prince-President" Napoleon III. Followed by a true republic in 1871.

But that says more about the government structures being inadequate to support a true democracy than any philosophical aversion to democracy.

I think you may be confusing the 1830 and 1848 revolutions.

The July (1830) revolution caused the replacement of one king (Charles X) with another (Louis-Philippe), who declared himself "King of the French".

The 1848 revolution created the Second republic and Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte was elected President . . . only to stage a coup d'état three years later and become Emperor.
 
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.
Yes; France had been badly run for a long time and had been outclassed not just militarily but also economically by Britain. You could almost argue that France's spoiling action in the American colonies was an effect of her parlous finances, not a cause.
 
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.

When I look at the leaders of the American "revolution", I see an awful lot of, at the very least, well-to-do professionals, ranging up to, and including, owners of vast estates, frequently worked by industrial level slavery. Opening working people's eyes indeed, "against the great and powerful", but they still had to look down.
 
I think you may be confusing the 1830 and 1848 revolutions.

The July (1830) revolution caused the replacement of one king (Charles X) with another (Louis-Philippe), who declared himself "King of the French".

The 1848 revolution created the Second republic and Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte was elected President . . . only to stage a coup d'état three years later and become Emperor.
No I'm not. Napoleon styled himself "Prince-President" derived from his father's brief tenure as King of Holland. And of course his own ambitions
 
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.
hmm depends how you define England during the Commonwealth..... which after all had decapitated a king.
 
If the French still have a revolution and still cannot stand their King, but cannot conceive of their great state becoming a "Republic" perhaps they could follow English precedent and call it a Commonwealth, or selected a "Lord Protector" to be dictator.

It should be noted that the English thought their lesson from the Commonwealth was "That was a Nice Model Army, other than that let's not go through that nonsense again." In short, a model of what not to do, unless killing bad kings was more important than the economy.

Yes; France had been badly run for a long time and had been outclassed not just militarily but also economically by Britain. You could almost argue that France's spoiling action in the American colonies was an effect of her parlous finances, not a cause.

I think Napoleon, only 3 decades later, has something to say about that. True he got defeated in the end but he had a good run.

Except the genuinely republican stadtholdlerateless period was seen to have been a failure that saw the Dutch collapse as a great power. d.

Wait really? I never paid too much attention to Dutch history, but given that their Great Power period they were competitors of England I thought I would have heard of it if their decline was due to internal stuff and not just the natural wane and waxing of great Empires.
 
Top