WI: Louis XVI continues his grandfather's reforms?

So as most of you know, in his last years King Louis XV began a reform program designed to break the power of the parlements and reform the tax system, reforms that seemed to be going well. However, when he died Louis XVI discontinued them due to their unpopularity among the nobles and clerics, dismissing his grandfather's ministers and appointing replacements of a weaker quality. So what if Louis XVI had been persuaded to continue the reforms and keep the ministers on? Would early, successful reforms enable France to avoid a revolution or was it inevitable by the time Louis XVI came to the throne?
 
If there's no fiscal difficulty then French Revolution wouldn't happen.Critically,if they can avoid calling the Estates General then everything would be avoided.To be honest though,what the French needed was peace.They seriously need to stop fighting so much wars.If their debt continued to mount even after settling the problem of the loan defaults that originally caused the revolution,something crazy is bound to happen.
 
If there's no fiscal difficulty then French Revolution wouldn't happen.Critically,if they can avoid calling the Estates General then everything would be avoided.To be honest though,what the French needed was peace.They seriously need to stop fighting so much wars.If their debt continued to mount even after settling the problem of the loan defaults that originally caused the revolution,something crazy is bound to happen.

I get your point, but peace isn't necessarily what France needs. For example, if France had been able to regain some or most of her colonies at the 1783 peace negotiations that ended the Revolutionary war, she could have regained a good amount of lost prestige, both at home and abroad.

If France could combine financial reform with regaining prestige, she'd be sitting in a very good position.
 
Getting rid of Maupeou's work was one of the worst decisions he made. It was a self-inflicted wound that prevented the very reforms needed. While I'm not sure it could prevent the revolution, it could at the very least take the wind out of its sails. Radicals like the Jacobins might not rise to prominence if Louis XVI can implement change with his centralized authority.

Louis would need to be able to ignore the nobility in order to succeed, since they preferred his own death than to compromise with a constitutional monarchy.
 
Getting rid of Maupeou's work was one of the worst decisions he made. It was a self-inflicted wound that prevented the very reforms needed. While I'm not sure it could prevent the revolution, it could at the very least take the wind out of its sails. Radicals like the Jacobins might not rise to prominence if Louis XVI can implement change with his centralized authority.

Louis would need to be able to ignore the nobility in order to succeed, since they preferred his own death than to compromise with a constitutional monarchy.

Gotta agree, especially considering that all of Louis XVI's finance ministers hated the Parlements for their selfish and continued opposition to tax reforms. If the tax system and judiciary can be reformed at the beginning of the reign, then the horrific actions of the end of the reign could be avoided. No need to call the Assembly of Notables, let alone the Estates-General.
 
Louis XVI had a very bad habit of giving in to the vocal. Giving in to those that wanted to ignore reality (aka the fairly moderate reforms) is what started France on it's way to implosion. Going balls to the walls spending in the american revolution in some pie in the sky dream of doing serious damage to Britain, put a few more nails in the coffin, and being absolutely derelict in any attempt at taking control of a situation, instead putting all control in the hands of others, pretty much put an end to any hope Louis XVI had of being king. His total lack of even pretending to be in control eventually cost him his life.

France was never going to regain it's colonies. Doubtful that they could have gained an upper hand in India. What was left was reform of the homeland so that they could be dominant continental power. That was the path to glory, not wasting money on a USA that wasn't going to be a grateful trading partner. I think that was pretty obvious from day one, but Louis XVI was so blinded by being a glorious victor, that he failed to see that victory wasn't really going to pay for itself. instead, he simply gave in to everyone.
 
Louis XVI had a very bad habit of giving in to the vocal. Giving in to those that wanted to ignore reality (aka the fairly moderate reforms) is what started France on it's way to implosion. Going balls to the walls spending in the american revolution in some pie in the sky dream of doing serious damage to Britain, put a few more nails in the coffin, and being absolutely derelict in any attempt at taking control of a situation, instead putting all control in the hands of others, pretty much put an end to any hope Louis XVI had of being king. His total lack of even pretending to be in control eventually cost him his life.

France was never going to regain it's colonies. Doubtful that they could have gained an upper hand in India. What was left was reform of the homeland so that they could be dominant continental power. That was the path to glory, not wasting money on a USA that wasn't going to be a grateful trading partner. I think that was pretty obvious from day one, but Louis XVI was so blinded by being a glorious victor, that he failed to see that victory wasn't really going to pay for itself. instead, he simply gave in to everyone.

Gotta disagree here. France could have reclaimed her colonies during the Revolutionary war if all their attention was focused towards that goal. Let the US drain British resources while France retakes her most valuable colonies. Once they're secure aid the US or cut the losses and make peace with Britain. Difficult yes but not impossible. It was France's failure to gain anything from the war that really damaged Louis XVI's reputation domestically. If the war had gone exactly the same but France regained parts of New France, then things would be different.

As for the King himself, he wasn't blinded by being on the winning side, but more of wanting to get revenge on Britain. But really Louis XVI's failure to act as a King, his indecisiveness and unwillingness to do what was necessary to reform his county is all true. Like Nicholas II he was a good man, but not a good sovereign. I can understand dismissing the Duc d'Aiguillon, but he should have kept the rest on.
 
The only valuable former colonies would be India and perhaps some rich British islands in the Caribbean.Canada was correctly so considered an unprofitable "few acres of snow".France was also having trouble paying for the war at the time,so it's financial difficulty that forced the war to be ended prematurely.
 
The only valuable former colonies would be India and perhaps some rich British islands in the Caribbean.Canada was correctly so considered an unprofitable "few acres of snow".France was also having trouble paying for the war at the time,so it's financial difficulty that forced the war to be ended prematurely.

The value of the former colonies was in prestige, both at home and abroad. I doubt the peasants of France knew what colonies were profitable or not, but they did know that their King had lost them. And they would know that their King regained them. Reclaiming the colonies lost would give the King prestige and popularity among all of his subjects, noble and common.

Also, I'm not saying that France should focus solely on former colonies. I'm saying that between reforms of the judiciary and the tax system and reclaiming lost lands, France and the monarchy would be sitting in a fairly secure position. After all, France had recovered from financial disaster before, under Cardinal Fleury's term as First Minister. So, with careful ministers and reform France could end up bouncing back from the brink once again.
 
The value of the former colonies was in prestige, both at home and abroad. I doubt the peasants of France knew what colonies were profitable or not, but they did know that their King had lost them. And they would know that their King regained them. Reclaiming the colonies lost would give the King prestige and popularity among all of his subjects, noble and common.

Also, I'm not saying that France should focus solely on former colonies. I'm saying that between reforms of the judiciary and the tax system and reclaiming lost lands, France and the monarchy would be sitting in a fairly secure position. After all, France had recovered from financial disaster before, under Cardinal Fleury's term as First Minister. So, with careful ministers and reform France could end up bouncing back from the brink once again.
Like I said,the problem is that they couldn't continue the war because they are close to bankruptcy already.A significant portion of the government's revenue was spent on paying interest.It wouldn't do any good to fight a war for prestige.Prestige isn't something that you can eat.They should ideally cut the size of the army.France's army was ridiculously large at the time.Fleury managed to keep the French debt under control but not entirely solve it.By the time of the French revolution,the debt exploded.As far winning land,they won Senegal and Trinidad I believe.
The French should have paid their debt first,reformed their taxes AND THEN fight wars if necessary.The whole reason why the French had to cut back their involvement in the American Revolutionary War was because they ran out of money.
 
Last edited:
Darthfanta,
gotta agree with this: "The French should have paid their debt first,reformed their taxes AND THEN fight wars if necessary. "

and, while I disagree that the French are regaining their colonies, you are correct that if it was going to be remotely possible, they should have conducted the war as if that were their priority. However, I think they didn't have it as a priority. It's hard to see what their priority was, other than bring Britain to it's knees around the globe. Spain, wisely, chose to limit it's goals: regaining Florida (granted, S had a very nice advantage of being able to launch from New Orleans/Cuba), regaining Minorca, regaining Gibraltar, and limiting spending on the actual revolution. France was almost the exact opposite: No real goal except beating England, and giving the revolutionaries as much as possible. a huge part of the problem is that France completely misread the situation, and thought that the Patriots were on the cusp of winning, so one nice push from France would send Britain packing, and limited output would gain France a grateful trading partner. wrong on all counts. Britain proved they were in it for the long haul, the Patriots waged war based on the long haul, France got sucked in for the long haul, and the future US showed they didn't much care what happened to France in trade or as allies after independence.

But IF France had limited it's goals to regaining Canada, now you allow Britain to concentrate everything in the Atlantic and the ability to defeat France directly and knock them out of the war.
 
Top