Mistakes Louis xvi cause French revolution?

The biggest single mistake had to be the flight to Varennes. The constitution of 1791 left him a good amount of power and at that point he still was favorably viewed by much of the population. He may have run into trouble with the Legislative Assembly (as he did OTL) but would have had much more of public opinion on his side.

But I think the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was too hard for him to take, when the Pope would not sanction it. Louis had finally agreed to it in the end but was deeply troubled. Pius VI’s stance put Louis in a difficult position that he finally could not tolerate. If Pius endorses the Civil Constitution I think that creates huge butterflies. Louis accepts his new situation and reigns as a constitutional monarch.
 

Kaze

Banned
1. Marrying an Austrian
2. not having a son before his younger brother.
Some historians suspect that he needed an operation on his foreskin.
Or he was not really interested in sex - he was more interested in clock-making than sex.
Where in -- people started to ask "if she is not sleeping the king, who is she sleeping with?" (rumors range from Jeanne de Valois-Saint-Rémy, Yolande Martine Gabrielle de Polastron, Hans Axel von Fersen, Cagliostro, and others)
3. over spending.
-- taxes needed reform. Specially the Salt Tax and the Flour Tax. The latter one was a real problem. The chief tax collector in charge of it was stealing the money and arresting smugglers, he took the money and built himself a palace for himself and his live-in mistress. He was the only known person to ever be guillotined face-up towards the blade.
4. American revolution
5. the estates general
6. running away from Versailles
7. getting caught while running away
8. letting the Franco-Indian Company collapse.
-- This one is the lesser known causes. The French had their own version of the South Seas Bubble - the French had a company trading in India and the New World, the shares were over sold - nearly half of France had shares in the company, they were robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to cover the dividends. Then the bubble burst and the chief executives tried to run to South America before the creditors got to them. The revolution caught them, tried them, and executed them.
 
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.

THESE! Entirely both of these! Louis XVI's decisions were either based on courting popularity or gaining short-term success at the cost of long-term stability. Plus he lacked the necessary, I guess backbone is the word, to be an enlightened monarch. Carlos II, Joseph II, Friedrich the Great and José I (and sort of Catherine the Great, though the Tsars wielded enough power by that point to make the nobility relatively impotent) were all willing to piss off their nobility and accept unpopularity to get the job done. Louis wasn't. Really you need a monarch able to say f*ck off to the nobility and the Church, while at the same time getting the necessary unpopular reforms done to revitalize the monarchy.
 
THESE! Entirely both of these! Louis XVI's decisions were either based on courting popularity or gaining short-term success at the cost of long-term stability. Plus he lacked the necessary, I guess backbone is the word, to be an enlightened monarch.
Plus unlike the Russian nobility, the French nobility was pretty docile so they would be less likely to try and assassinate the King. The real disaster King for France was Louis XV who as a monarchist I absolutely abhor. The dude was so incompetent that he lost France's entire overseas Empire in North America and he refused to annex the Hapsburg Netherlands when the opportunity presented itself. This made the monarchy unpopular as it meant that France had just fought costly wars that weakened France's geopolitical security. Louis XV should have also forged closer ties to Bourbon Spain to form a Bourbon power block opposed to the English and Hapsburg encirclement. Maybe France could have aided Spain in the War of the Quadruple Alliance.

Carlos II
How was Carlos II an enlightened monarch?

ere all willing to piss off their nobility and accept unpopularity to get the job done. Louis wasn't. Really you need a monarch able to say f*ck off to the nobility and the Church, while at the same time getting the necessary unpopular reforms done to revitalize the monarchy.
I'm planning on writing a Timeline/Historical SI fic based on a successful and pragmatic Louis XVI where he looked to the great Kings like Philippe II Augustus, Louis XI, and Louis XIV for inspiration. Do you guys have any book recommendations on the Ancien Regime, France, Louis XV, and Louis XIV?
 
The biggest single mistake had to be the flight to Varennes

On Facebook, I asked the AHO (Alternate History Online) group about this particular question. I didn't get many responses, but what responses I did get suggest that they would've executed him even if they didn't try to flee Versialles.

THESE! Entirely both of these! Louis XVI's decisions were either based on courting popularity or gaining short-term success at the cost of long-term stability. Plus he lacked the necessary, I guess backbone is the word, to be an enlightened monarch. Carlos II, Joseph II, Friedrich the Great and José I (and sort of Catherine the Great, though the Tsars wielded enough power by that point to make the nobility relatively impotent) were all willing to piss off their nobility and accept unpopularity to get the job done. Louis wasn't. Really you need a monarch able to say f*ck off to the nobility and the Church, while at the same time getting the necessary unpopular reforms done to revitalize the monarchy.

In that case, is there any way to make sure Louis-August (King Louis's real name) does not assume the French throne? Did he have any brothers who could take his place?
 
On Facebook, I asked the AHO (Alternate History Online) group about this particular question. I didn't get many responses, but what responses I did get suggest that they would've executed him even if they didn't try to flee Versialles.

I suspect that, besides an obscure Facebook group, there is no hard proof to support this claim?
 
In that case, is there any way to make sure Louis-August (King Louis's real name) does not assume the French throne? Did he have any brothers who could take his place?
Louis-Phillippe d’Orleans the power hungry man he was “supported” the Revolution. He even voted to have his cousin King Louis XVI executed. This angered many Bourbon supporters. He eventually seized the throne from Charles X after the Bourbon restoration. He was called Phillipe-Egalite and some liberals proclaimed him King in the July monarchy. But he became autocratic and more conservative in his reign. He was deposed and the second Republic was declared. Thanks to him the French monarchists remained divided between the legitimist Bourbons and the Orleanists.

Maybe Charles X could have rallied support from the countryside and raised an army to retake Paris. Charles despite being a reactionary recognized the need for reform all the way back in 1786 and called for the revolution of the nobles’s financial privleges. He fled after Louis was captured I think. But maybe if he stayed and was able to use himself to gather monarchist support after the execution of Louis XVI he could retake Paris. Then he could Crown his older brother Louis XVIII as King. Perhaps after putting down the Revolution he could impose conservative reforms to France.

Perhaps if Napoleon wasn’t in Paris during the Royalist revolt, the monarchy could have used this moment to reassert itself.
 
I suspect that, besides an obscure Facebook group, there is no hard proof to support this claim?

I have no hard evidence, only my own belief, but I put much stock in the opinions of the AHO group.

Anyway, considering that Marie Antoinette was part-Austrian and that her brother was one of the signatories of the Declaration of Pillnitz, which threatened an invasion of Revolutionary France, which led to France declaring war on Austria, I don't think it's hard to imagine that the Revolutionaries would've executed Marie Antoinette for treason and then charged the King with the same crime.
 
I have no hard evidence, only my own belief, but I put much stock in the opinions of the AHO group.

Anyway, considering that Marie Antoinette was part-Austrian and that her brother was one of the signatories of the Declaration of Pillnitz, which threatened an invasion of Revolutionary France, which led to France declaring war on Austria, I don't think it's hard to imagine that the Revolutionaries would've executed Marie Antoinette for treason and then charged the King with the same crime.
I’ve always found that odd how can the king or queen commit treason against themselves
 
I’ve always found that odd how can the king or queen commit treason against themselves

This is Revolutionary France. Accusations didn't have to make sense.

But, in all seriousness, this was when France was a temporary constitutional monarchy. If they were charged with treason, it would've been against the Revolution or something like that, rather than the state itself.
 
This is Revolutionary France. Accusations didn't have to make sense.

But, in all seriousness, this was when France was a temporary constitutional monarchy. If they were charged with treason, it would've been against the Revolution or something like that, rather than the state itself.

Man, those revolutionaires were a load of dog shit
 
I’ve always found that odd how can the king or queen commit treason against themselves

May I remind you of the French constitution of 1791, under which the Kingdom operated and to which the King consented (after the attempted flight to Varennes)?

2. The nation, from which alone all powers emanate, may exercise such powers only by delegation.

The French Constitution is representative; the representatives are the legislative body and the King.

The King can't commit treason against himself, but he can betray the nation he is meant to govern and to represent.

This is Revolutionary France. Accusations didn't have to make sense.

The trial of Louis XVI was quite fair for the circumstances, at least compared to what happened in similar cases in other nations, or in France itself, for that matter.

Louis XVI was accused of several crimes, all presented to him and listed in the respective Wikipedia article. Many of these crimes were proven by writings of Louis himself, found in the famous armoire de fer. Nothing was trumped up; of course, some charges were presented in an exaggerated manner, but most accusations were substantial and would lead to a very serious sentence in an American court of law.

Mind you that Louis XVI was allowed to choose defense lawyers, and that he was found guilty and convicted by the National Convention, an assembly representing the civic body of France, elected by universal male suffrage and entrusted with full legislative, executive and judiciary power.

I consider Louis XVI a tragic figure, and I wouldn't have sentenced him to death, if only because I oppose the death penalty. However, depicting him as an innocent being lynched by mindless fanatics is distorting the reality beyond recognition.

But, in all seriousness, this was when France was a temporary constitutional monarchy. If they were charged with treason, it would've been against the Revolution or something like that, rather than the state itself.

What do you mean by this?

Louis was charged with treason against his own country, not against the Revolution.

Man, those revolutionaires were a load of dog shit

Maybe we can all work together to give this thread a bit more of nuance and neutrality.
 
May I remind you of the French constitution of 1791, under which the Kingdom operated and to which the King consented (after the attempted flight to Varennes)?



The King can't commit treason against himself, but he can betray the nation he is meant to govern and to represent.



The trial of Louis XVI was quite fair for the circumstances, at least compared to what happened in similar cases in other nations, or in France itself, for that matter.

Louis XVI was accused of several crimes, all presented to him and listed in the respective Wikipedia article. Many of these crimes were proven by writings of Louis himself, found in the famous armoire de fer. Nothing was trumped up; of course, some charges were presented in an exaggerated manner, but most accusations were substantial and would lead to a very serious sentence in an American court of law.

Mind you that Louis XVI was allowed to choose defense lawyers, and that he was found guilty and convicted by the National Convention, an assembly representing the civic body of France, elected by universal male suffrage and entrusted with full legislative, executive and judiciary power.

I consider Louis XVI a tragic figure, and I wouldn't have sentenced him to death, if only because I oppose the death penalty. However, depicting him as an innocent being lynched by mindless fanatics is distorting the reality beyond recognition.



What do you mean by this?

Louis was charged with treason against his own country, not against the Revolution.



Maybe we can all work together to give this thread a bit more of nuance and neutrality.
I’ve always thought the revolutionaries used
Louis as a scapegoat and the nobles joined in because they knew they were responsible for the mess.

And ehhh I’d say that’s a warranted opinion especially
Considering the reign of terror
 
I’ve always thought the revolutionaries used
Louis as a scapegoat

During the years leading up to the French Revolution, the mentality dominating the public opinion was "Good Tsar, bad ministers." The French population, which was overwhelmingly royalist, blamed most social ills on the king's advisors and on the system of government, not on the king itself. They wanted to give French a constitution, or even only protect the rights of Parliamants and General-Estates; they didn't want to overthrow the Bourbon monarchy.

This changed only after the begin of the Revolution, when it became more and more clear that Louis XVI, for all his redeeming traits of character, wanted to keep absolute power and opposed many important decrees of the National Assembly (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) until he was forced to sign them. But even then it took until the Flight to Varennes in 1791 to convince the radicals (the ones you call "revolutionaries") that a republic might be the best option, going forward.

Mind you: France as a whole, especially the common populace, stayed monarchist; this changed only very slowly, and the republic only became generally accepted at the turn of the 20th century.

the nobles joined in because they knew they were responsible for the mess.

The nobility was in a complicated position, as it had to defend against the growing centralization of the French monarchy, and the demands for equality originating in the Third Estate.

Both the King and the bourgeoisie wanted to tax the nobility to restore the financial standing of the French kingdom; aditionally, the bourgeoisie wanted equality before the law.

Meanwhile, the rural population sought to free itself from the feudal order, which was still encroaching on their lifes; the summer of 1789 saw the Great Fear, with a lot of noblemen going into exile, and the peasants in many places de facto ending the extent social hierarchy. That's what forced the bourgeoisie in the National Assembly to not only de jure, but also de facto abolish feudalism and all rights and priviliges of the nobility.

And ehhh I’d say that’s a warranted opinion especially
Considering the reign of terror

I think what you need to keep in mind is that "the revolutionaries" didn't exist. There was no monolithic bloc of men conspiring to overthrow the existing order and wreak havoc.

There were several groups of men (and women) and thousands of individuals active in the succeeding assemblies and administrations between 1789 and 1815 who shaped the French public life. That many of them have a lot of blood on their hands is pretty clear, but not all were guilty to the same degree.
 
Last edited:
During the years leading up to the French Revolution, the mentality dominating the public opinion was "Good Tsar, bad ministers." The French population, which was overwhelmingly royalist, blamed most social ills on the king's advisors and on the system of government, not on the king itself. They wanted to give French a constitution, or even only protect the rights of Parliamants and General-Estates; they didn't want to overthrow the Bourbon monarchy.

This changed only after the begin of the Revolution, when it became more and more clear that Louis XVI, for all his redeeming traits of character, wanted to keep absolute power and opposed many important decrees of the National Assembly (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) until he was forced to sign them. But even then it took until the Flight to Varennes in 1791 to convince the radicals (the ones you call "revolutionaries") that a republic might be the best option, going forward.

Mind you: France as a whole, especially the common populace, stayed monarchist; this changed only very slowly, and the republic only became generally accepted at the turn of the 20th century.



I think what you need to keep in mind is that "the revolutionaries" didn't exist. There was no monolithic bloc of men conspiring to overthrow the existing order and wreak havoc.

There were several groups of men (and women) and thousands of individuals active in the succeeding assemblies and administrations between 1789 and 1815 who shaped the French public life. That many of them have a lot of blood on their hands is pretty clear, but not all were guilty to the same degree.
If only they’d kept their monarchist sympathies
 
Louis was charged with treason against his own country, not against the Revolution.

They were also charged with 'undermining the Revolution'. And I was saying that in an alternate timeline, I don't see how they can make a charge of treason against the nation as a whole stick without the incriminating dash away from Versailles, so if they executed Marie Antoinette, it would've been for 'undermining the Revolution' for writing letters to her relatives in Austria.
 
I don't think it's hard to imagine that the Revolutionaries would've executed Marie Antoinette for treason and then charged the King with the same crime.
This would have likely pissed Louis off more than anything. If anything this might harden him and make him try to go full Sun King on the Revolutionaries. Louis XIV grew to be distrustful of the nobles after they stormed his palace when he was a child and nearly assassinated him.

This is Revolutionary France. Accusations didn't have to make sense.
Laughter in Robespierre intensifies......

May I remind you of the French constitution of 1791, under which the Kingdom operated and to which the King consented (after the attempted flight to Varennes)?
He did not willingly consent to it. He was forced to by an angry mob that surrounded him and his family in Paris and held him at gunpoint. These same people also raided his palace. Forced consent isn’t binding.

This changed only after the begin of the Revolution, when it became more and more clear that Louis XVI, for all his redeeming traits of character, wanted to keep absolute power and opposed many important decrees of the National Assembly (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) until he was forced to sign them.
The French monarchy NEVER had absolute power. To call it an absolute monarchy during the reign of Louis XIV is not accurate. Louis XIV managed a balancing act between himself and the nobles who while losing most of their military power, still possessed tremendous legal and financial powers that hampered the state’s efficiency. Louis XIV was able to force through stuff with his sheer charisma and presence. The French Parlement not to be confused with the English Parliament was noble dominated. They could oppose the King’s reforms and it was why France retained an archaic legal and inconsistent taxation system in France while Prussia and Austria modernized their administrations. France was a collection of various feudal domains each with their own tax codes and laws. To make matters worse when the King tried to force things through the Parlement appealed to the public saying that it was in their interests to stand against the tyranny of a domineering monarchy when that wasn’t true. If the Kings had absolute power like in Austria, Russia, or Prussia they wouldn’t have faced much opposition in regards to centralization and modernization of the government and finance system. The National Assembly and Estates General failed at this and left France in chaos for over a decade after much Blood was spilled and devastation was wrought to the countryside.

This all changed under Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon possessed true absolute power because he had charisma and was able to rally France’s army after his victories and his devotion to his men, the Church after he ended Robespierre’s reign of terror and the revolutionary cult of the supreme being by restoring the clergy’s position, and the people after bringing about order from an ineffective and corrupt regime. Napoleon’s Civil Law Codes modernized France’s administration by giving a standard and uniform set of laws under a unitary government in Paris. His financial reforms gave France a balanced budget for the first time in decades. His military reforms rebuilt France’s armies after the Revolutionary Government gutted the officer corps and horribly mismanaged the army’s maintenance. Napoleon was not able to rebuild the French Fleet or restore its naval prowess. The Navy corps has fled and there was no Napoleon of the seas to rebuild the navy from the ground up. France until the Revolution had a powerful fleet that gave Britaina run for its money. Many times Britain was forced to keep a huge chunk of forces near the European theater to avoid the chance of France or Spain mounting an invasion. This limited reinforcements sent to America, and gave them an edge during the War for independence.

Both the King and the bourgeoisie wanted to tax the nobility to restore the financial standing of the French kingdom; aditionally, the bourgeoisie wanted equality before the law.
A younger Louis who didn’t become disillusioned with the Enlightenment would have supported this so long as his own rightful power and author over France wasn’t compromised.

Mind you: France as a whole, especially the common populace, stayed monarchist; this changed only very slowly, and the republic only became generally accepted at the turn of the 20th century.
Even during the Bourbon Restoration, Charles could have likely rallied support from the countryside who supported the monarchy. The main concern for most peasants was that France as faced a crop failiure and many peasants we’re starving.

However, depicting him as an innocent being lynched by mindless fanatics is distorting the reality beyond recognition.
They weren’t mindless fanatics but power hungry fools. The King had called the Estates General to help fix France’s financial system. They had failed in that regard and instead the Third Estate went and proclaimed a new government that reduced the King to a figurehead. They should have directly petitioned the King before declaring the tennis court oath.

Louis Philippe the Kings one cousin voted to have him executed. The Bourbons stripped the Orléans of all their royal rights and effectively excommunicated then from the House of Bourbon. Charles X restored this to present a unified front, and then Louis-Philippe repayed this gesture by leading a coup against Charles.
 
On Facebook, I asked the AHO (Alternate History Online) group about this particular question. I didn't get many responses, but what responses I did get suggest that they would've executed him even if they didn't try to flee Versialles.

I'm not sure. Without the flight they would have less evidence against him and he would have more public sympathy, at least for a while. He might still end up deposed (or perhaps, forced to abdicate in favor of his young son) but I don't know if he would actually be tried for crimes.
 
Top