The question is obviously, even if the counter-revolution led by Angoulême is successful, no one knows if Louis XVII is still alive or not (I think), MR is still in the Tower, and it could lead to something a la Paris Commune come early if the provinces declare for the king and Paris stays Republican and the Regent (Louis XVIII) has to lay siege to Paris. How might the French regard the reimposition of the Bourbon regime? Would they (after they've ascertained that LXVII is dead (or conveniently done away with if he isn't)) try to reinforce the ancien regime (and go on a killing spree a la White Terror) or say 'okay, this is what's happened, we pardon all except Robespierre, Danton etc (can't remember if they're still alive), and we find them who executed LXVI, Marie Antoinette and Elisabeth guilty of regicide, sentenced to death).
Successful bourbon restoration in 1795
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
Civil war, but not Paris/rest of France. There were many regions with important republican leanings. The White Terror of 1795 might give a map : the South, principally South-East, Lyon area and Rhône Valley were regions where royalists were capable of violent organized actions in 1795. Add to that the Vendée, Bretagne and Anjou, of course, and you will have a map of regions who may have risen in support of the king. Even iin federalists regions like Bordeaux and Normandy the royalists were not active in 1795.
The question comes up, what is chaos? Since what's normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.
However, if we assume that the king (whichever Louis it is), can count on support from the south and southeast, he's going to need an allied push from those regions. That immediately rules out Britain (since they would have to sail into the Med to get an army on the ground), unless they can choreograph a simultaneous uprising in the Vendée/Bretagne, or they provide financially for whichever power (Savoy/Austria/Royalists) decides to make trouble for the republican government in Paris. Perhaps while the Republicans are away to deal with the rising up in the Rhône Valley the British ferry royalist troops over to the Vendée etc.
@Cornelis: Wasn't Lorraine and parts of Bourgogne also primarily royalist? Or had that since died off? I seem to recall reading that that was at least part of the reason that LXVI and co. were making for Metz, that the more outlying provinces were more staunchly in favor of the monarchy than the main centres - Paris, Rouen and Toulouse (I think?)
Not particulary, Louis XVI wanted to join with Gen. de Bouillé, military commander of Metz, Toul and Verdun, who won fame by repressing a mutiny in Nancy in 1790.
Don't forget what in 1793-1794, in a far worse situation (defeats by the Austrians, Vendée, Federalist insurrections), the Republican government had managed to hold fast. I do not see in 1795 enough organized royalists to threaten the Republic. The armies were both politically sure and experienced. Even in Vendée, the insurrection was cracking down.
Very possible, perhaps if there is
More than enough dissatisfaction with the republic
Not necessarily - Louis XVI seems to have had a mechanical mentality - he refused to make war on his people (since he reasoned, apparently, that Charles I did that, and he lost his head, so I won't do that, so I'll be safe), so I'd say that he's about as much of a help as a liability.
Hmm true, though what else might the approach be? Would the republicans march forward or go looking for them? Would Louis use his brain and try and reach a settlement once it becomes clear just how shit the situation is
Antonia Fraser said of Louis XVI: He was a good man, which is not the same as saying that he was made to be a good king. A good man can be a good king, but hardly a great one.
Not me, Ms. Fraser. And I agree. LXVI was poorly suited for government, he was strong when he was alone and weak when he needed to be strong. He dismissed minister after minister following his promises to support their ideas, but the minute he encounters any resistance, instead of standing by the minister, he sends the minister packing. His lack of confidence - I've seen it suggested that it stemmed from the fact that he was unable to consummate his marriage (among other things) - meant that he generally took the conflict-avoidance route. He was depressed after the Dauphin died in 1789, and if one sets any store by Kevin Leman's theories on the birth order (and it's influence on the personality), LXVI exhibits almost all the traits of a middle/second-born child (the conflict avoidance, the lack of confidence (due to there being an older sibling of the same sex who takes the shine), a personality opposite to the older sibling (and from what I've read, Bourgogne was very much an extroverted child (much like many other pairs of brothers, there are stories that he bullied LXVI when they were children, too, for his shyness and his timidity), the indecision, the attempts to abjure responsibilty (his hobbies of hunting and making locks when he should have been reigning and making love to his wife instead) etc). And Bourgogne dying did no help to anyone - since by then LXVI was ten already, and Leman posits that the birth-order is concretized in the first five to seven years of life.
EDIT: And yes, I know I'm basing this on pop-psychology. But, if one looks at both Louis XV and Louis XVI (as well as Charles X), one sort of sees a pattern that Leman's theories fit very well. Second-born child thrust into the limelight after the death of the much brighter, much bolder, much stronger (whatever) older sibling, and instead of being allowed to mourn the loss like a normal child would, it gets put upon him to fill the older child's shoes immediately, so there's that amount of stress from a young age too, I guess. Charles X is an example of the traits Leman couples to the youngest child of the specific sex in the family (irresponsible, impetuous, lovable, self-centred etc),
Last edited: