Erich von Zhukov
Banned
What if the French Revolution had succeedeed in establishing a constitutional monarchy and had avoided the purges and the Terror and thus discredit democracy in Europe for generations?
Imladrik said:It would need an intelligent king, a nobility not overprotective of it's privilege. The other european monarchs should also be more intelligent as to not issue the Brunswick Manifesto, the king should not try to force a war against Austria and then refusing to support the war. The king should also accept to collaborate with the Girondins.
Imladrik said:And also you assume that after the republic is proclaimed, the Terror is inevitable, even if the more moderate of the assembly prevailed.
Imladrik said:And i don't think that the establishment of a Constitutional Monarchy would discredit democracy, as it was a sort of democracy, and it would encourage other people of Europe to make their own revolution and establish other Constitutional Monarchies, as their won't be any form of hate against the French and their ideas (if they don't go on a spread of conquest).
Louis XVI wasn't stupid : he was quite intelligent on the contrary. He was also quite willing to make the reforms : he did a few of them BEFORE the Revolution started. For example, shortly before the Revolution started, he got rid of the Lettres de Cachets, a symbol of a Absolutism which authorized the King to send someone in prison just because he wanted so.
What Louis XVI lacked was assurance : he wasn't combattive enough to fight the overpriviledged nobility. Plus, he had been ill prepared to become King as his family felt he was more stupid than his eldest brother (who died in 1761 at age 10) : he thus never acquired all the qualities needed to be King. Two quotes of him prove he never found kingship easy :
"God, protect us! We are reigning too young." - Upon his accession to the throne (he was 20)
"What a burden! And I learned nothing about it." - Sometime during his reign.
If Louis XVI had had a little more guts, he might have been able to handle the Revolution better.
Getting the other monarchies not involved would be easy : just have the French Revolutionnaries refuse to propagate their ideas with military force. Robespierre, whom I don't really like, was right when he said "No one loves armed missionaries". Preventing the execution of Louis XVI is also a good way to avoid foreign intervention, since they wouldn't feel threatened.
I don't think the Terror was inevitable personnally. What lead to the Terror was a feeling of inside and outside opposition to the French Revolution. Get rid of both, and you wouldn't need the Terror. Avoiding the Jacobins clique of Paranoids and Purists (Robespierre, Saint Just, Fouquiers-Tainville and their associates) would also be a good way to prevent the radicalisation of the Revolution which lead to the Terror.
Shogun said:France would have this as its flag instead of the OTL revolutionary tricolor:
The reason I think the French Revolution was quite bloody was because it contained alot of class warfare. You get poor french fighting wealthy french. Now what were the differences between the American and French Revolutions?
Well putting aside the geographical politics I would say that what made the American one less bloody, and therefore more successful was the Great Awakening. America was influenced by the enlightenment, which had an anti-clerical/religious tendency. At the same time there was the Great Awakening, a religious revival. So you had people saying "think for yourself" at the same time as others saying "Repent, God wants a good and moral people". Its this combination of ideas that created America. In France on the other hand you had just the enlightenment, which was not so much saying "think for yourself" as much as it was saying "Destroy the old order".
The main difference between the American and the French Revolution was that the American Revolution was an independence war and not a revolution. A revolution is the overthrow of the government and social system. That simply didn't happen in America: the merchant interest, the landed class, the slaveocracy and the people voted into political office all stayed the same. Meanwhile the government they were protesting about remained in place - they just lost 20% of their people that were an ocean away. True revolutions have class conflict almost by definition. You can make a case regarding local colonial officers being overthrown, but its a weak one, seeing they didn't exude too much power themselves to begin with.
I think you're attributing far too much to religion. There have been plenty of revolutions in Eastern Europe during the downfall of communism that were less violent than the ARW despite no religion intact. The reason the French revolution got so nasty is because of the sheer anger on the part of the oppressed, due to the huge numbers in terrible poverty. Ironically, America's success as a stable nation owes a lot to the British actually being pretty good overlords (to them, if not elsewhere!).
Well in France the Royalists had significant popular support while in the Eastern Europe, without the USSR, there simply was no support for the regime.
Not completly wrong, but not completly true. The reforms he made were mostly done under the pressure.Louis XVI wasn't stupid : he was quite intelligent on the contrary. He was also quite willing to make the reforms : he did a few of them BEFORE the Revolution started. For example, shortly before the Revolution started, he got rid of the Lettres de Cachets, a symbol of a Absolutism which authorized the King to send someone in prison just because he wanted so.
I don't agree. Every big revolution has a phase of purge. Look at Tunisia.I don't think the Terror was inevitable personnally. What lead to the Terror was a feeling of inside and outside opposition to the French Revolution. Get rid of both, and you wouldn't need the Terror. Avoiding the Jacobins clique of Paranoids and Purists (Robespierre, Saint Just, Fouquiers-Tainville and their associates) would also be a good way to prevent the radicalisation of the Revolution which lead to the Terror.
It wasn't poors against wealthy, it's aristocracy (and a part of the clergy) against third state (and a part of the clergy). But there were poor aristocrats and very wealthy bourgeois (actually, they were the greatest winners of the Revolution).The reason I think the French Revolution was quite bloody was because it contained alot of class warfare. You get poor french fighting wealthy french. Now what were the differences between the American and French Revolutions?
France would have this as its flag instead of the OTL revolutionary tricolor:
![]()