Looking for Suggestions for My Different Louis XVI TL

After banging my head against the wall trying to get rid of my writer's block, I've decided to turn the floor open for suggestions for my Louis XVI-TL.

It's TTL 1787, Louis XVI (POD is that Louis, duc de Bourgogne has survived) has avoided the American Revolution, managed to level taxes across the board, and is improving the army's arms (they've got new pistols and better gunpowder) as well as starting with colonial adventures in the recently reacquired Louisiana territory, and building up the navy. Over the border in the Netherlands, Joseph II and Willem V's style of government is reaching boiling point, with there already having been Prussian intervention in the Netherlands.

However, I'm at a loss of where to go from here, especially since I want to avoid wankish territory. I'd like to know what you guys would suggest?
 
The most easy thing would be to push the king to search a peace quickly, to concentrate his efforts in France, even with these reforms, the situation in France is particularly worrying at this time, the recolts are disastrous and the people are not in the mood for the war and want reforms.

The king could ask for the people doleance and spend his time to reforme the country, alternating between the interest of the nobility, clergy, people, ...
accentuating the conflicts between them and pusing his country in trouble or even in a civil war.
 
After banging my head against the wall trying to get rid of my writer's block, I've decided to turn the floor open for suggestions for my Louis XVI-TL.

It's TTL 1787, Louis XVI (POD is that Louis, duc de Bourgogne has survived) has avoided the American Revolution,

As in "money had not been wasted"?


managed to level taxes across the board, and is improving the army's arms (they've got new pistols and better gunpowder)

How about reforming artillery? In OTL Gribeauval system was adopted in 1765 and the new, "Year XI system" was developed only in 1803 and did not fully replace the old one. The problems with the Gribeauval system were nothing new (4-pdrs were too light and 8-pdrs too heavy) so switching to the 6, 12, 24 system was quite logical and did not require any technological advances and ASB involvements.


as well as starting with colonial adventures in the recently reacquired Louisiana territory, and building up the navy.

Building up navy is reasonable but was there any real profit in fighting for Louisiana?

How about (if you can't stay out of the wars ;)) trying to regain French positions in India? It is still far from being controlled by the Brits and if Louis is advanced enough with his navy, then he can try.


Over the border in the Netherlands, Joseph II and Willem V's style of government is reaching boiling point, with there already having been Prussian intervention in the Netherlands.

However, I'm at a loss of where to go from here, especially since I want to avoid wankish territory. I'd like to know what you guys would suggest?

IMO, as far as more or less harmless territorial games are involved, there are options:

(a) Confront the Brits in India either by trying to get back the old Carnatic territory (most probably will require a war) or by capturing some pieces to which the Brits did not come too close (may happen peacefully, the "natives" do not count).

(b) Start conquests in Africa. The Northern Africa is obvious target and, with Algiers and Tunisia conquered (at least coastal areas), then conquest of Egypt is simplified (reachable by land). Most of African coast is open for grabs so plenty of opportunities there.

(c) Start conquests in Indo-China.

All of the above are "normal" colonial activities which may or may not led to the confrontation with Britain but more safe, in the terms of resources and complications, than the European adventures. At least some of them may produce almost immediate economic gains (cynically, a greater volume of the slave trade).

In OTL at approximately that time France prepared a trade agreement with Russia which was dragged through the French bureaucracy and eventually died from the natural cause (Revolution). The irony was in the fact that France had a positive trade balance with Russia and this agreement was going to improve it even further. For Russian side the advantage was purely political: France promised not to help the Ottomans (at least officially). If this agreement comes to live, then economy of France is at least somewhat improves due to a new market for their products (you can start with champagne, which was already quite popular in Russia :cool:).

Don't take any sides in the European mess.
 
As in "money had not been wasted"?

Yup. Louis basically tells the Americans politely that they're barking up the wrong tree. However, he does have La Polignac (Marie Antoinette's spendthrift friend of OTL) as a mistress.

How about reforming artillery? In OTL Gribeauval system was adopted in 1765 and the new, "Year XI system" was developed only in 1803 and did not fully replace the old one. The problems with the Gribeauval system were nothing new (4-pdrs were too light and 8-pdrs too heavy) so switching to the 6, 12, 24 system was quite logical and did not require any technological advances and ASB involvements.

Makes sense, I'll see if I can work it in. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Building up navy is reasonable but was there any real profit in fighting for Louisiana?

How about (if you can't stay out of the wars ;)) trying to regain French positions in India? It is still far from being controlled by the Brits and if Louis is advanced enough with his navy, then he can try.

The navy's only got a real former sailor in charge of it comparatively recently, so Louis' definitely going to try and flex his naval muscle a bit. As to Louisiana, Louis and his ministers have decided to go with trying to settle higher upriver along the lines of the English settlers in the Americas rather than the plantation based deep south. They've got Alsatians, Rhinelanders, Lorrainers, Swiss, Venetians and more than a couple of Frenchmen (including former Acadiens) to go to the colonies - not only in Louisiane but also in Guyana.

IMO, as far as more or less harmless territorial games are involved, there are options:

(a) Confront the Brits in India either by trying to get back the old Carnatic territory (most probably will require a war) or by capturing some pieces to which the Brits did not come too close (may happen peacefully, the "natives" do not count).

(b) Start conquests in Africa. The Northern Africa is obvious target and, with Algiers and Tunisia conquered (at least coastal areas), then conquest of Egypt is simplified (reachable by land). Most of African coast is open for grabs so plenty of opportunities there.

(c) Start conquests in Indo-China.

All of the above are "normal" colonial activities which may or may not led to the confrontation with Britain but more safe, in the terms of resources and complications, than the European adventures. At least some of them may produce almost immediate economic gains (cynically, a greater volume of the slave trade).

I was planning on Indo-China, specifically in and around Vietnam, but relations between Vietnam and France seem to have ground to a halt during the revolution. And it's basically to see how France develops with reforms (taxes across the board, curbed royal spending etc) but without the Revolution, that I'm going for. I don't say a Louis is going to be a constitutional monarch sometime soon, but he's definitely more along the lines of Carlos III of Spain than Louis XVI of OTL.

Africa sounds like a good idea. Louis' getting his war on against the Muslims in North Africa and has got Genoa, Tuscany, Naples and Spain to sign onto his league. But I'm worried that a crusade-type conquest is too rule of cool. So might still retcon that.

In OTL at approximately that time France prepared a trade agreement with Russia which was dragged through the French bureaucracy and eventually died from the natural cause (Revolution). The irony was in the fact that France had a positive trade balance with Russia and this agreement was going to improve it even further. For Russian side the advantage was purely political: France promised not to help the Ottomans (at least officially). If this agreement comes to live, then economy of France is at least somewhat improves due to a new market for their products (you can start with champagne, which was already quite popular in Russia :cool:).

Thanks, I knew that there were decent relations between Paris and St. Petersburg, but wasn't sure if it would have any effects outside of politics.
 
The question arises of what sort of something?

Well apparently Prussia believes to be important, maybe some people should try to wake it up ? Or some new religious problems like an uncoveniant personnal union making a catholic/protestant state far to important and the would break the fragile balance between the religions ? Or Austria trying to pass seriously impopular reforms in HRE, that would require French intervention and tie the two states and their fates ?
 
Well apparently Prussia believes to be important, maybe some people should try to wake it up ? Or some new religious problems like an uncoveniant personnal union making a catholic/protestant state far to important and the would break the fragile balance between the religions ? Or Austria trying to pass seriously impopular reforms in HRE, that would require French intervention and tie the two states and their fates ?

It's Joseph II - unpopular reforms are his second name. Whether the French would exploit that, or help the Habsburgs is open to question. But it's something I'll take under consideration.
 
Yup. Louis basically tells the Americans politely that they're barking up the wrong tree. However, he does have La Polignac (Marie Antoinette's spendthrift friend of OTL) as a mistress.

She can spend only as much as he allows her, which is better than nothig.


The navy's only got a real former sailor in charge of it comparatively recently, so Louis' definitely going to try and flex his naval muscle a bit. As to Louisiana, Louis and his ministers have decided to go with trying to settle higher upriver along the lines of the English settlers in the Americas rather than the plantation based deep south. They've got Alsatians, Rhinelanders, Lorrainers, Swiss, Venetians and more than a couple of Frenchmen (including former Acadiens) to go to the colonies - not only in Louisiane but also in Guyana.

The problem with Louisiana, as far as I can tell, is that it would require a lot of effort and money to populate, almost inevitably causes tensions with the British colonies and is of a very questionable economic value to the crown. Then, the whole logistics is based pretty much on a single port and a single river which makes territory very vulnerable in the case of war.

What would it produce that could be of a serious value? The furs? As I understand European market of the "2-nd rate furs" (beaver, etc.) is pretty much saturated and the "1-st rate" ones (sable, silver fox, ermine) are coming from the different places. IIRC, the American colonists (not plantation owners) did not produce anything of a serious export market value and had very specific attitude regarding the taxes. So, Louisiana would cost a lot of money to the crown with the only tangible advantages of having a lot of French-speaking people in a middle of nowhere. Compare this to the French colonies on the Caribbean which had been producing products which even these American colonists wanted but were not permitted to have (sugar, molasses, rum, etc.).

You need colonies which are producing items which have a big consumer market in Europe (sugar, coffee, chocolate, tobacco, exotic fabrics, etc.), not the places where you can send a surplus of your population.



Africa sounds like a good idea. Louis' getting his war on against the Muslims in North Africa and has got Genoa, Tuscany, Naples and Spain to sign onto his league. But I'm worried that a crusade-type conquest is too rule of cool. So might still retcon that.

You got it wrong. Forget about all that crusading and unnecessary alliances in which you are tied in your actions by the interests of the allies without which you can do just fine. Go for a naked and unmasked colonialism without any religion or ideology involved.:cool:
 
The problem with Louisiana, as far as I can tell, is that it would require a lot of effort and money to populate, almost inevitably causes tensions with the British colonies and is of a very questionable economic value to the crown. Then, the whole logistics is based pretty much on a single port and a single river which makes territory very vulnerable in the case of war.

What would it produce that could be of a serious value? The furs? As I understand European market of the "2-nd rate furs" (beaver, etc.) is pretty much saturated and the "1-st rate" ones (sable, silver fox, ermine) are coming from the different places. IIRC, the American colonists (not plantation owners) did not produce anything of a serious export market value and had very specific attitude regarding the taxes. So, Louisiana would cost a lot of money to the crown with the only tangible advantages of having a lot of French-speaking people in a middle of nowhere. Compare this to the French colonies on the Caribbean which had been producing products which even these American colonists wanted but were not permitted to have (sugar, molasses, rum, etc.).

You need colonies which are producing items which have a big consumer market in Europe (sugar, coffee, chocolate, tobacco, exotic fabrics, etc.), not the places where you can send a surplus of your population.

The Louisiana colonization was based on this thread here. And while France probably doesn't think much of Louisiana, my idea was that when the French grain shortages of OTL 1788-1789 occur, the king has a store of grain - i.e. shipments of wheat etc from the colonies - to sort of even out the situation. Not sure if it's plausible though, but as I said, it was/is a thought-bunny I had.

You got it wrong. Forget about all that crusading and unnecessary alliances in which you are tied in your actions by the interests of the allies without which you can do just fine. Go for a naked and unmasked colonialism without any religion or ideology involved.:cool:

It isn't a crusade per se. It's simply seen as one by some, and the king as a sort of new St. Louis. It's more like Napoléon's Egyptian campaign than a crusade. But also, would France setting up shop in Algeria a few decades early be absolutely unthinkable?
 
The Louisiana colonization was based on this thread here. And while France probably doesn't think much of Louisiana, my idea was that when the French grain shortages of OTL 1788-1789 occur, the king has a store of grain - i.e. shipments of wheat etc from the colonies - to sort of even out the situation. Not sure if it's plausible though, but as I said, it was/is a thought-bunny I had.

Trade treaty with Russia would solve this problem cheaper and faster: they were already selling a LOT of grain (to the Brits). If France managed to mediate an earlier end of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1787 - 92, then a route would be opened for transporting grain from "Novorossia" through the Black Sea and Mediterranean to Marseille. If not, it could go the usual way through Baltic Sea.

In Louisiana there would be a need to develop a massive grain-producing agriculture from the scratch (aka, a lot of people, investments and time) and then carry it all the way across the Atlantic. This grain (when it is available) has to be bought from the farmers for gold while with Russian case at least part of the coast would be compensated by the French positive balance. Plus, no matter what, Louisiana would be under pressure from the British settlers looking for the new territories and, if it is to become a major grain producer, it almost inevitably means at least some conflict with the Indians who are going to be pushed from their territories by the white settlers.



It isn't a crusade per se. It's simply seen as one by some, and the king as a sort of new St. Louis. It's more like Napoléon's Egyptian campaign than a crusade. But also, would France setting up shop in Algeria a few decades early be absolutely unthinkable?

IMO, it would be much more practical than Egyptian fantasy. 1st, a much shorter route from France. 2nd, no immediate opposition from the Brits. And it seems that fertile area of Algeria is reasonably close to the coast so there is no immediate need to conquer more than a fracture of what is now "Algeria".
 
Trade treaty with Russia would solve this problem cheaper and faster: they were already selling a LOT of grain (to the Brits). If France managed to mediate an earlier end of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1787 - 92, then a route would be opened for transporting grain from "Novorossia" through the Black Sea and Mediterranean to Marseille. If not, it could go the usual way through Baltic Sea.

In Louisiana there would be a need to develop a massive grain-producing agriculture from the scratch (aka, a lot of people, investments and time) and then carry it all the way across the Atlantic. This grain (when it is available) has to be bought from the farmers for gold while with Russian case at least part of the coast would be compensated by the French positive balance. Plus, no matter what, Louisiana would be under pressure from the British settlers looking for the new territories and, if it is to become a major grain producer, it almost inevitably means at least some conflict with the Indians who are going to be pushed from their territories by the white settlers.

Well, Britain's lost the OTL 13 Colonies, but France taking Louisiane back from the Spanish, made the colonists realize they need a friend in Europe that can keep France in check. France took it back and exported a bunch of settlers to the upper reaches of the Mississippi to become yeomen farmers on the English model.

As to Russia, it's all well and good, but since OTL's Ekaterina II lost her gamble (she's currently locked in a monastery) to take the throne, Pyotr III divorced her and remarried. So, Russia hasn't quite done the same things as OTL.

IMO, it would be much more practical than Egyptian fantasy. 1st, a much shorter route from France. 2nd, no immediate opposition from the Brits. And it seems that fertile area of Algeria is reasonably close to the coast so there is no immediate need to conquer more than a fracture of what is now "Algeria".

Makes sense.
 
Top