WI: Louis XVI

What if the last king of France and the last king of Bourbon family, Louis XVI, was a man of strong leadership and a listener?

As one of the main contributing reasons for the French revolution is the lack of strong leadership to support necessary reforms or restriction on the one that needs restrictions.

So, instead of a weaker king, Louis XVI is a man of confidence, strong leadership, and with a pair of ears to listen to his advisors (he was in OTL, someone who cares nothing about his advisors). How would this, maybe in less extent, ease the violence of the French Revolution? (I really wouldn't expect the French Revolution to vanish, simply due to the multitude of the problem and the bad condition France was in before him)
 
well he did listen to his advisors in the OTL but his advisors were nobles and urged him to side with the 1st and second estate over the third... had Louis sided with the 3rd estate the Revolution most defintly would have been stopped or postponed.....
 
What if the last king of France and the last king of Bourbon family, Louis XVI,

Louis XVI was neither last King of France ( that would be Charles X ), not of the french ( that would be Louis-Phillippe ) and definitely not of the Bourbon Familly who is the current royal familly of Spain.

WI some people knew a little more about history?:(
 

Susano

Banned
Louis XVI was neither last King of France ( that would be Charles X ), not of the french ( that would be Louis-Phillippe ) and definitely not of the Bourbon Familly who is the current royal familly of Spain.

WI some people knew a little more about history?:(

....
18_buegeleisen.jpg


Seriously, your last sentence is so ironic funny that it hurts :D
 
If Louis XVI was more like Loius XIV there wouldn't have been a Revolution; he never would have called the Estates General to begin with, and certainly would never have let them get out of control badly enough to spawn the Revolution.

Alternately if Louis is still a strong leader but a bit more inclined towards Enlightenment thought, he could take control of the Revolution and shape the new government; in that case the more onerous noble priviledges would be removed, some badly-needed economic reforms would be passed, and the National Assembly ends up as an elected advisory body to the King, who still maintains control over the government.
 
Actually all Louis XVI needs is to refuse to have anything to do with supporting rebels against royal authority (those damned colonials). No war, no financial crisis, no meeting of the Estates and no army officers who have seen a republic functioning. We British feel he brought it all on himself!
 
The greatest problem Louis XVI faced was not a personal problem, although he may have lacked the strong will of Louis XIV, very few men in history have had that man's character strength. He was also by no means a dumb man, in fact he was quite educated and intelligent; no, the problems that wracked France at the end of the XVIIIth Century were simply beyond him, and beyond almost anyone.

All his efforts to reform the tax code or to repeal some of the more atrocious noble privileges were shot down by the local Parliaments, all problems that predated him by a considerable amount of time. He wasn't all that opposed to change, he simply mistrusted the more radical elements of the Revolution (with good reason, as it turned out).

Now, if he had not attempted to flee in 1792, he might well have lived on as the constitutional monarch of France, the only problem being that it wasn't in his upbringing or his character to relinquish any of the authority that made him an absolute monarch.
 
Sorry, haven't done enough research on Louis XVI or the Bourbon Dynasty. I was wrong to state that Louis XVI is the last King of France (technically, the second to last king of France of the senior Bourbon family.) or the last King of Bourbon (the Bourbons have other lines that ruled other kingdoms. And the current Spainish King is from the Bourbon Dynasty). Sorry for the very-flawed and inaccurate original post.


So was France really in such a bad state that no one can solve the problem? Unless certain works are done before?
 
well he did listen to his advisors in the OTL but his advisors were nobles and urged him to side with the 1st and second estate over the third... had Louis sided with the 3rd estate the Revolution most defintly would have been stopped or postponed.....

His siding with the Third Estate, and whatever reforms came out of it, that would have been "the Revolution."

There may still be ruckus anyhow. The First and Second Estates wouldn't like generations of tradition and privilege simply side-stepped just like that. They might start openly quarreling with the king, and then the work of Louis XIV would have been undone, as the nobility would once again start slipping out of the central government's control.
 
WOW Louis goes from losing his head in OTL for supporting the 1st and 2nd Estates to losing his head ATL for supporting the 3rd Estates:D
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I'd tend to agree than Louis XVI wouldn't be able to ride out the Revolution even if he started it so to speak. Perhaps it would unfold differently but I doubt he could control it or even survive it. The wholesale changes that occurred during the Revolution seem to preclude any one man seeing it through from start to finish. Remember the Revolution is like Saturn devouring its own children to quote one such victim.
So although, when they were restored, the Bourbons kept most the reforms in place (the departments stayed the parlements didn't come back etc) I doubt a Bourbon King could have implemented them himself. If Louis XVI tried to dismatle the Ancien Regime himself it would have meant civil war, regional interests against centralization, 1st and 2nd estate against third and so forth. I doubt he could have held together a strong enough coalition of moderates to create a modern efficient and most importantly lasting Bourgeois Monarchy.
 
Top