Lafayette, we have come.

Kaze

Banned
The Revolution happens differently. Lafayette looks onto the French chaos. But now there was a new wrinkle. There was a dictator - Lafayette. Lafayette looks onto France and asks, "Now what?"
 
Last edited:
Lafayette tries to do what Washington did in United States three branches all the good stuff with most likely constitutional monarchy thrown in to get royaltists support for Lafayette government.
 
Lafayette tries to do what Washington did in United States three branches all the good stuff with most likely constitutional monarchy thrown in to get royaltists support for Lafayette government.

Now there's an interesting timeline, assuming we don't let it fall into all of the most tired cliches about more and more egalitarianism inevitably triumphing. This would likely lead to less democracy and more aristocratic republicanism worldwide as the norm. There would probably be local democracy, but national affairs would be for a propertied class that has leisure and/or citizens who have contributed to the state some kind of national service.
 
How do you figure? Why is Egalitarianism stopped by a successful French Revolution when in OTL it wasn't stopped by the Ogre losing?
 
How do you figure? Why is Egalitarianism stopped by a successful French Revolution when in OTL it wasn't stopped by the Ogre losing?

Because the radicalism of the Revolution never occurs if Lafayette steps on as dictator early, only to restore the monarchy as a mixed regime under a Roman republican aegis. Montesquieu spoke of the absolutism of the Louies being a divergence from the medieval constitution of the French monarchy. I imagine that the semi-Americanized monarchical republic proposed here would be presented as a legal reformation that is also a restoration of authentic national tradition, so, a mixed regime that appeals to the Kingdom of the Franks and the Roman Republic.

Likely, then, reforms against absolutism in other countries would mimic this classical republican mixed regime idea. America would remain a patrician republic with a president, who is basically a short term elected monarch. Others in Europe would follow suit, with dynastic executives but similar reforms over all.

Without the Jacobins, I don't envision egalitarianism being taken as far as it has IOTL.
 
Only problem is Lafayette had not the will nor the capacities for becoming a ruler, even less a dictator. Even if he took the power, his political aim was a constitutional monarchy and it is not possible to put this into order with Louis XVI as king.
 

Kaze

Banned
If he still wanted constitutional monarchy - Lafayette could offer to act as regent for Louis-Charles, the Dauphin, until he becomes into the majority. That is IF the dauphin would be acceptable to those who wanted to keep some vestiges of the ancien regeme, if the little brat is still alive at the time, and if Lafayette could hold power as temporary dictator. Of course, there would be other butterflies if Lafayette becomes dictator (even if temporary one) - Napoleon might not have much a military carrier, unless he becomes quite ambitious and want the title of dictator for himself.
 
If he still wanted constitutional monarchy - Lafayette could offer to act as regent for Louis-Charles, the Dauphin, until he becomes into the majority. That is IF the dauphin would be acceptable to those who wanted to keep some vestiges of the ancien regeme, if the little brat is still alive at the time, and if Lafayette could hold power as temporary dictator. Of course, there would be other butterflies if Lafayette becomes dictator (even if temporary one) - Napoleon might not have much a military carrier, unless he becomes quite ambitious and want the title of dictator for himself.

Sure, but you would need to kill Louis XVI beforehand. Only window of opportunity Lafayette had was days after August 10, 1792, but no one rallied to him. If, by a twist of things, most generals in the French army rallied to his Tricolour panache, the only thing he can do is re-instate Louis XVI as King. OTL Marie-Antoinette said of him she'd rather be dead than owing him her freedom, to state the consideration he enjoyed in the royal family...
 
Lafayette was de facto dictator of Paris for much of the Revolution due to his command of the National Guard and also was the second most powerful man in France. At several points he was offered dictatorship or near enough to it during the Revolution and he always rejected it. Even when the Jacobins were taking over the General Assembly elected Lafayette president and offered him near dictatorial powers he chose to retire rather than accept. He also never attempted or conspired to depose the Jacobins when they made him a general of one of their armies. All in all, it is very difficult to believe Lafayette would accept the position of dictator. Perhaps the only plausible way is to have Lafayette actually run for Mayor of Paris when the Constitutionalists drafted him to run. OTL he got a third of the votes without doing anything, in fact he was not even in Paris for the whole election and instead was in Auvergne. Had Lafayette run he probably would have won. As Mayor, when the Jacobins attempt to arrest the royal family Lafayette will oppose them. Should the struggle result in the brutal death of some royal family members and several members of the royal retinue but ultimately fail to capture the whole royal family then Lafayette as dictator becomes more plausible. The death of royalty without trial or any form of justice may be enough to scare French peasants away from the Jacobins and give the Constitutionalists the power and support to forcibly depose the Jacobin government. At the end of this conflict Lafayette would be asked to act as dictator and regent and he might accept as he now believes that the revolution needs someone to steer it to towards rational liberalism while avoiding vicious radicalism.
 
Only problem is Lafayette had not the will nor the capacities for becoming a ruler, even less a dictator. Even if he took the power, his political aim was a constitutional monarchy and it is not possible to put this into order with Louis XVI as king.

I disagree that a Consti. Mon. was not possible with Louis XVI. At the end of the day, the King wanted to keep his head and what remained of the trappings of his presiptigious family. If you had a powerful but still reasonably authority figure like a dictator Lafayette you could keep the king in line (whether that would happen is another matter)

If he still wanted constitutional monarchy - Lafayette could offer to act as regent for Louis-Charles, the Dauphin, until he becomes into the majority. That is IF the dauphin would be acceptable to those who wanted to keep some vestiges of the ancien regeme, if the little brat is still alive at the time, and if Lafayette could hold power as temporary dictator. Of course, there would be other butterflies if Lafayette becomes dictator (even if temporary one) - Napoleon might not have much a military carrier, unless he becomes quite ambitious and want the title of dictator for himself.

The idea of Lafayette as Regent-dictator to a child-king Louis XVII is a good one, as it gives Lafayette the political coverage and authority while also giving him a decade to sort out new French institutions. This may be my favourite way of having Lafayette as dictator in the revolutionary period.

If he’s another sort of dictator, then the stability of a post revolutionary regime is in gaining logevity - the longer a system is in place the more entrenched it becomes - and through operating under a reasonable and understandable set of principles and rules.

The first you might achieve with a new constitution - likely best adapted from the 1791 one. Lafayette’s position need not be included in it but it must be clear that he was going to be de facto in charge for the time being. You don’t want a dictatorial precedence if you can avoid it (even while having a dictator)

Alternatively you need the absolute loyalty of the biggest guns. To which Dictator Lafayette would need to quickly co-opt the French Army to retain power. The National Guard were by and large too undisciplined to be the foundation of a enduring dictatorship. You need the guns to restore & maintain order and to allow for the National Assembly to finish its job of dismantling/replacing the ancien regime’s governing structures.

The pros of Lafayette as leader of France are that he is a both a noble and a Republican, as well as a pragmatist and a war hero. At least before the Champs de Mars, he’s an acceptable choice for all major factions except the most radical of the revolutionaries. The cons are that he is too principled to be a populist but too much of a populist to remain consistently principled. He love to have the love of the people but when it was unclear what action would get him that love he was indecisive to the point of ineptitude.

OTL Marie-Antoinette said of him she'd rather be dead than owing him her freedom, to state the consideration he enjoyed in the royal family...

I bet that’s just because she’s still a snob from when Lafayette and Marie Antoinette danced as teenagers at the royal court, that the Marquis was such a bad dancer that Marie Anotinette would laugh and mock him. The whole court back then thought Lafayette a bit of a country rube for such uncourtly ideas like loving your wife.
 
Top