Plausibility: Marquis De lafeyette leads French Rev

This seems highly plausible but my knowledge of the French Rev. FYI I plan to butterfly this into a timeline I am sketching in my head. I envision the Marquis either convincing the King Louis to concede to the Constitution or winning the mayoral election that fall. Any thoughts?
 
IIRC Lafayette was one of the leading figures of the French Revolution until it got too radical; just have the constitutional monarchy actually work and he'll be fine.
 
He was part of it, at least in the Constitutional Monarchy stage. When it got to the Reign of Terror... well Gilbert du Motier was a marquis after all...
 
Under the right circumstances, radicalization could probably be preempted. But the best way to do this could be to have a king who is willing to compromise.

Is it possible for Louis to fill this role? I think if he listens to the Marquis and Rochambeau both having experience with America's Revolution and possibly making him see the light? I guess I am trying to envision a situation were the Flight to Variennes isn't necessary and Louis instead of running compromises and gives the conservatives the cover they need.

If context helps, this in conjunction to a Hamilton as President scenario that I am toying with. I know this is a much done topic in these pages but I think I have a novel POD with a possibly unique result.
 
Is it possible for Louis to fill this role? I think if he listens to the Marquis and Rochambeau both having experience with America's Revolution and possibly making him see the light? I guess I am trying to envision a situation were the Flight to Variennes isn't necessary and Louis instead of running compromises and gives the conservatives the cover they need.

If context helps, this in conjunction to a Hamilton as President scenario that I am toying with. I know this is a much done topic in these pages but I think I have a novel POD with a possibly unique result.
Louis definately seemed to bounce back and forth between pro and anti-revolution a few times; with different advisors and less influence from arch-conservatives in court I could see him being willing to compromise with the Revolution.
 
Louis definately seemed to bounce back and forth between pro and anti-revolution a few times; with different advisors and less influence from arch-conservatives in court I could see him being willing to compromise with the Revolution.
I think the problem with Louis XVI was that he was too liberal at times, and too sensitive towards the people at times when a firm hand was necessary to maintain order. For example, the maintaining of French troops in 1788 to enforce the destruction of the parlements could have been the herald of a peaceful, bureaucratic revolution. But in any case, I think that almost all of the results achieved by the revolution would have been lauded by Louis had he been able to observe the situation objectively. Everything that was done at the expense of the aristocracy was supported by the monarchy. It was originally the monarchy that supported the Third Estate over the other two, interestingly enough.
 
I think the problem with Louis XVI was that he was too liberal at times, and too sensitive towards the people at times when a firm hand was necessary to maintain order. For example, the maintaining of French troops in 1788 to enforce the destruction of the parlements could have been the herald of a peaceful, bureaucratic revolution. But in any case, I think that almost all of the results achieved by the revolution would have been lauded by Louis had he been able to observe the situation objectively. Everything that was done at the expense of the aristocracy was supported by the monarchy. It was originally the monarchy that supported the Third Estate over the other two, interestingly enough.
That was definately a factor; my personal reading of the situation has always been that Louis was somewhat sympathetic to many of Revolution's goals, but too weak-willed and easily influenced to follow up on it and increasingly horrified by the mob violence that went hand-in-hand with the Revolution. Really, the problem was that Louis just didn't have good leadership skills; he wasn't willing the exercise the power of the monarchy and take decisive action when things needed to be don.
 
That was definately a factor; my personal reading of the situation has always been that Louis was somewhat sympathetic to many of Revolution's goals, but too weak-willed and easily influenced to follow up on it and increasingly horrified by the mob violence that went hand-in-hand with the Revolution. Really, the problem was that Louis just didn't have good leadership skills; he wasn't willing the exercise the power of the monarchy and take decisive action when things needed to be don.

so would a more influential Marquis be more or less helpful?
 
AIUI, LaFayette had the potential to be a major figure in the Revolution, until the "Massacre" at Champ de Mars -- butterfly that out, and I think he's got a shot.
 
Top