Mistakes Louis xvi cause French revolution?

He listened to his wife Marie Antoinette and did not establish a constitutional monarchy despite given several chances to.

He never listened to his wife. She said it herself "I have very little influence, and if I tried to use it, it wouldn't work, I'd lose my credit, and the little of influence that goes with it."

Also the monarchy was constitutionnal for a few years, but the classes were tearing themselves apart instead of trying to work the deficit crisis together.

What were the main mistakes/errors of Louis XVI that cause the French revolution?

If you mean avoiding the Bastille and that kind of stuff, he can't, it's just too late, even not supporting the United States for independance is too late to save the monarchy's bank account. If you mean the overthrowing of the monarchy, then we have a few leads.

The French Revolution was caused by an artificial rise of the prices in the capital, there had been a few bad harvests in the year before, but the bread was at a normal price, still people were queuing for dayss, and AFAIK it's like a rush-selling in a stock exchange except there's no market crash, causing an actual market crash to happen.

The main mistake he personnally made is accepting the nibility's demand of refusing a universal taxe that would directly impact high clergy and nobles, and firing the Minister who came up with the idea, which pissed the people because he was the only person in the government they appreciated.

Trying to escape and getting caught in Varennes. He had VERY good reasons to do it. He was forced to stay in the Tuileries, surrounded by the highly polarized Parisian society. Also his son died, he asked for a few days recess to be able to grieve, and the Third-Estate refused. For somebody highly sensitive like Louis XIV, it's a very clear "you're in danger and your people want you to die" signal.

He also took very badly the whole dechristianizing of the country by the Revolutionnaries. Also, he left a letter, which was found in 2009, where he wrote what he exactly wanted : a strong executive king, a legislative assembly, he wasn't against an abolition of the class society or civil equality, and he hated the fact that the Jacobins were becoming so popular, because he found them dangerous.
 
Give him a less mechanical mindset. There's a story that someone left a painting of Charles I's execution in Louis' rooms as a calling card. Louis basically took it as meaning that as long as he DIDN'T screw up in the SAME way as Charles I, he'd keep his head.

Otherwise just let him have the guts to stand by his decisions - not sure if this is possible but when the nobility protest at being taxed he tells them in the words of Louis XIV, "sorry monsieur, but you will HAVE to pay" (what Louis XIV responded to a courtier who protested at some fee or other Colbert had introduced). Or at least, avoid him appoint the idiot Calonne (I think) as minister with his spend-spend-spend mentality as a means of encouraging production in France. Actually, Necker was equally bad, since IIRC he cooked the books.

Biggest change is Louis XVI NOT reinstating the parlements in the beginning of his reign
 
Summoning the Estates General in Versailles: too close to Paris. If I were him I would have chosen Soissons or Reims, though maybe there wasn't enough space there(?).

Well, frankly, I'm afraid it's like the marriage of Marguerite de Navarre and Henri IV in Paris, it can't really be moved.
 
Not having son earlier.

Capet show that primary ingredient for strong monarchy is virile King who capable to sire sons to maintain stable succession.
 
Avoid getting entangled with the ARW would be a start. If that can't be avoided get Britain to pay enough in reparations to cover the debts incurred. France really got fucked during the peace negotiations.
 
Avoid getting entangled with the ARW would be a start. If that can't be avoided get Britain to pay enough in reparations to cover the debts incurred. France really got fucked during the peace negotiations.

Why would Britain be obliged to pay anything to France (when they didn't to any of the other concombattants)? France entered the ARW with the intention of "displacing" Britain as the dominant world power, and then hoped, at the peace talks, to become the predominant trading partner for the US by picking up the slack since Britain wouldn't want to trade with their wayward colony. France got screwed in both ends there.
AIUI the US never repaid the "loans" France dished out to them during the war EITHER nor gave the French the trade concessions that Louis had been banking on. America basically said "thanks for the cash" and then turned and carried on as before with Britain. See France as the cops called out for a domestic abuse scuffle between America and England. And America is the wife who refuses to press charges against the British husband. France can't do jack about it if she decides to stay with the guy.
It's a bad metaphor, but hopefully you get the idea.
 
Why would Britain be obliged to pay anything to France (when they didn't to any of the other concombattants)? France entered the ARW with the intention of "displacing" Britain as the dominant world power, and then hoped, at the peace talks, to become the predominant trading partner for the US by picking up the slack since Britain wouldn't want to trade with their wayward colony. France got screwed in both ends there.
AIUI the US never repaid the "loans" France dished out to them during the war EITHER nor gave the French the trade concessions that Louis had been banking on. America basically said "thanks for the cash" and then turned and carried on as before with Britain. See France as the cops called out for a domestic abuse scuffle between America and England. And America is the wife who refuses to press charges against the British husband. France can't do jack about it if she decides to stay with the guy.
It's a bad metaphor, but hopefully you get the idea.


You'd be surprised about how much horse trading went on in peace negotiations. Britain lost the war. And were a fair bit richer. It wouldn't have been impossible to stick a term on the Treaty of Paris for Britain to repay the "loans" as reparations as well as formalising the trade agreements. They might have had to give up some fishing rights and a small island or two. But it's not like their colonies were profitable. They lost the bulk of them in the Seven Years War. Of course that requires a competent foreign policy. And a competent foreign policy wouldn't have gotten them into the mess in the first place.
 
What were the main mistakes/errors of Louis XVI that cause the French revolution?
Well, allegedly, Nappy said at the sight of Louis bowing to the crowd that he should kill few hundreds with a grapeshot and the rest would disperse. This is totally apocriphical and I’m not sure that the recipie would work but Louis was rather stubborn than decisive and definitely not a fast thinker (if thinker at all). Specific mistakes and their results were mostly byproducts of his character so you need a seriously different Louis.
Anyway, keeping an army loyal would be helpful. :)
 
Louis was rather stubborn than decisive and definitely not a fast thinker (if thinker at all).

AFAIK, nowadays, historians are going back on this statement. It is right that he was more stubborn than decisive, but he wasn't as dumb as he was poorly educated to politics and lacked confidance in his capacities, therefore he needed the approval of his political entourage : a jealous cousin, a hateful cousin, and opportunistic nobles.

He would've been a great constitutionnal monarch
 
AFAIK, nowadays, historians are going back on this statement. It is right that he was more stubborn than decisive, but he wasn't as dumb as he was poorly educated to politics and lacked confidance in his capacities, therefore he needed the approval of his political entourage : a jealous cousin, a hateful cousin, and opportunistic nobles.

He would've been a great constitutionnal monarch
Only if he had taken the throne as Constitutional King. Trying to have him accepting the imposition of that kind on ruleship on him was a big mistake. The only way in which the constitutional monarchy would be able to survive in the OTL revolution was with a successful (and maybe earlier) escape of the royal family (with the Assembly declaring Louis and his son, brothers and nephews who were all emigrated as traitors of France and deprived of any right on the French crown and putting Philippe Egalite of Orléans on the throne)
 
AFAIK, nowadays, historians are going back on this statement. It is right that he was more stubborn than decisive, but he wasn't as dumb as he was poorly educated to politics and lacked confidance in his capacities, therefore he needed the approval of his political entourage : a jealous cousin, a hateful cousin, and opportunistic nobles.

He would've been a great constitutionnal monarch

I did not say that he was “dumb” but as far as education is going, neither Louis XIV nor Nappy had too much of a formal education in politics (of course, it can be argued that both of them eventually failed in their foreign policies but OTOH both managed to keep country loyal; in the case of Nappy - loyal until the last moment).

Quite agree with what you wrote about self-confidence but looking all the time for approval of a people, especially the wrong people, hardly a sign of him being a good thinker.
 
Only if he had taken the throne as Constitutional King. Trying to have him accepting the imposition of that kind on ruleship on him was a big mistake

Before leaving the Tuileries, he left a letter that I just read, where what he wrote was basically "If I were authorized to actually use the powers you pretend I have (diplomacy mostly), if the Assembly actually was taking care of the deficit, and if the revolutionnaries and their Clubs weren't polarizing the society, I'd accept my role. He also wanted to be able to give exceptionnal royal pardon, if he could justify himself for doing so

@alexmilman

In the same letter, he also explained that he didn't know who to believe anymore, as apart from Lafayette and Fersen, he felt like he was alone in politics, with only the people liking him.

But he was indeed pretty suggerable, and listening to the high nobility at the beginning was a huge mistake.
 
A way which could maybe stop the revolution would be if the king whit force take over the nobles grain and sell it cheap to the pepole it could 1 make them not starve 2 restore some faith in the king. But if he did this he would need to make sure the nobles dont kill him
 
Not keeping the Parlements abolished in France. The Nobles used this as a legal means to oppose the King when he tried to pass financial reform or legal reforms. Louis XIV managed to get what he wanted with his balancing act he played with the Nobles. Louis XV was incompetent and a disaster but the one good thing he did of note was to finally close down the Parlements. Louis XVI tried to rule in the fashion of the Enlightenment like Maria Theresa and Joseph of Austria, but his reforms were shot down by the nobles. He eventually gave up and stopped trying. Had Louis been more like his great-great grandfather he could have stood up to the nobility and kept Parlement closed.

Louis could have then taken away the financial powers/privileges of the nobility. Even Charles X realized this in 1786 way before he became King. Louis should have also tried to unify the legal and taxation system in France so government would be more effective. This pissed many peasants off as taxes were inconsistent across the provinces.

Another mistake Louis XVI did was not using the army and not arresting the National Assembly. Louis should have gathered the army near Versailles as soon as he heard news about riots and other such events. He also poorly dealt with the Estates General and the National Assembly. The National Assembly should have been allowed to meet when Louis could have stormed in and arrested its members with an armed group of soldiers. Louis could have maybe used the Estates as a Rubber stamp like other French kings had done. The Estates hadn’t been called in 175 years so there was no one in living memory who knew how it operated. It’s kinda like giving the Senate power and turning Rome back into a Republic. No one would really know what to do. The Estates also failed to fix France’s financial situation, so Louis might be able to use that as pretext to surround the body with soldiers to force them to do what he wanted. Thus the nobles and Clergy would be taxed.

He should never have gotten involved in the American Revolution as France had been making a recovery before. He should have encouraged the Spanish to do so. Perhaps without French support, America would be more reliant on Spain. Maybe while France recovers England would be in a long and protracted war. Maybe instead of providing financial assistance, Louis could have sent military advisers to train an American army. While France is rebuilding itself and Britain is weakened, the French might be able to strike and retake Quebec. Maybe they could buy back Louisiana from a beleaguered Spain.
 
Louis XVI simply didn't have the temper to deal with the situation. In situation that probably required the use of strength, he refused to use it because he didn't want to shed his people's blood. He was also highly indecisive as he was always trying to please everyone. Add in the fact that he lost his eldest son in 1789, and you have a man who also was facing a personnal tragedy in the middle of a very difficult situation.

It's arguable that he did few mistakes actually and inherited more the troubles left by his predecessors. But among those he did do, the first one was to recall parliaments at the beginning of his reign like everyone said. Louis XV had suppressed them because, in the end, parliaments were actually extremly conservative and thus opposed many of Louis XV's reforms. Recalling the Parliaments actually resulted in the block of many of the much needed financial reforms Louis XVI.

Supporting the American Revolutionnary War was a bit of another, though at the time it was also a good occasion of curtailling British power. The trouble though is that the war costed a lot to France, which didn't help the country's debt: damages to the French fleet were especially important and ships costed a fortune at the time. Not helping is that the ARW had also ideological consequences in France, because you know had a Republic basing itself on Enlightened principle (hugely popular at the time) being born.
 
Top