would a failed American Revolution result in no French Revolution?

[Mister Abbadon]

France supported the American Revolution quite a bit. If they had not lent this support the American Revolution would have probably failed. However doing this damaged The French Economy and some say triggered the French Revolution.
So, if no French support is given to the American Revolutionaries would there be a French Revolution?

 

[Tripwire]

It would probably give the French monarchy some extra time before the full financial crisis hit. Whether they would be able to use that time to successfully fix things is anyone's guess. Any butterfly effects on the revolution would be very strong, it was a dicey time.

 

[Mark Ford]

The food shortages in Europe were the result of a disease that attacked food crops and spread across Europe from east to west, the Napoleonic wars probably delayed their arrival in the British Isles, the potato blight in Ireland was the last manifestation of this is this phenomenon. All of which had nothing to do with war in America, secondly even with a full treasury I doubt the French monarchy would have spent their money to feed the huddled masses.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Eer

It would probably tarnish somewhat the concept of republicanism, which might not butterfly away French anger when the food shortages come, but might very well channel it in more traditional ways. Moreover, whether occupying America makes the UK relatively weaker or stronger than otl in the long run, it is going to seem as a bigger threat to the French and the rest of Europe than it did just coming off loosing part of its empire, which could effect the calculus of other European powers if the French Revolution happens but perhaps becomes dominated by the petty nobility or men like Lafayette rather than Robspierre, ect. It might be a revolution more in charActer with what happened in the US otl than what happened in France otl, with a constitutional monarchy the end result rather than a dead king, the Terror, and Napoleon.

 

[Socrates]

I have thought about this question a lot.

Financially, it would give France a few more years, if they don't get involved in other wars (a big if). However, I'm not sure this would make much of a difference. The reason they called the Estates-General was because they'd been on a bad trajectory for a while and every other political institution had been tried. This isn't changing, so we'll likely get the Estates called in the late 1780s/early 1790s whatever happens.

However, there is another causal link: the American revolution showed the French people that popular violence could be successful against a powerful government. There were times during the French revolutionary timeline where it was really the mob setting the agenda: the Day of the Tiles, the Storming of the Bastille, the Women's March on Versailles. It was a real turning point in European reformist thought: previously leading thinkers always believed that progress could only come from benevolent powerful people. If there was less belief in the potential of this sort of popular action, the crowds could be smaller and less successful. That could have all sorts of butterflies.

If the Day of the Tiles didn't happen, there would not have been the precedent of double representation of the Third Estate. That means the Third Estate wouldn't have any advantage in calling itself the National Assembly, no Tennis Court Oath, etc. I imagine the likely other path is that the First Estate, particularly the lower clergy, would prove critical in playing off the Third and Second Estates off against each other. The likelihood is that you'd get a fair amount of social reform, but the Church would play a central role in the revolution and it would move in a more devout Catholic direction, perhaps similar to Egypt today.

If the Storming of the Bastile did not happen, you would likely not have the flight of the emigres to Belgium. That means no Declaration of Pilnitz and no French declaration of wars. The revolution could have stayed confined to French borders.

If the March on Versailles did not happen, it would likely lessen the rise of Robespierre, and the revolution's turn towards state terror.

Are there any other major incidents of mob rule I've missed?

 

[Tom_NUFC]

There would have still been unrest. France's involvement in the War of Independence merely exacerbated its already considerable financial problems rather than causing them. There would have still been poor weather, leading to poor harvests and food shortages. Still plenty for there to be lots of anger about come July 1789.

The French revolution itself took inspiration from the War of Independence, but enlightened ideas were prevalent way before 1775. Plus, if the War of Independence failed, then it was still attempted and the ideas behind it still exist to inspire others. Perhaps some feel that the backward American colonials had some good ideas, but they were bound to fail against Britain's superior strength. An advanced society such as France however is another matter...

Perhaps the establishment have a bit more 'wiggle' room and Enlightened men with more moderate views can reason with Louis XVI. And the general public want change, but haven't reached the point where they feel the King has to go.

It depends how the War of Independence failed and how Britain reacted., but if Britain was magnanimous in victory and granted the Americans favourable concessions, the French enlightenment may have been impressed with Britain's reactions. This itself may inspire them and set them down the path of pushing for a Constitutional monarchy.

It wouldn't just happen like that and Louis XVI will have tantrums and strops but he was prepared to listen to grievances (in OTL, he returned to Paris when the Market women marched to Versailles with Lafayette and remained there while discussions over his future role took place). With coaxing, pursuasion and some ego massaging by moderates, eventually he comes round to the idea, despite the opposition of Marie Antoinette.

 

[Henriksson]

It would probably tarnish somewhat the concept of republicanism, which might not butterfly away French anger when the food shortages come, but might very well channel it in more traditional ways.

Consider the world of the French at this time. It is an era where French foreign policy has much more interest in the ongoings of the Ottoman empire than what happens in the Americas. Do the actions of a few English colonists really affect the French very much? Keep in mind that what we think of as important events now might not have been as very important back then.

 

[stevep]

Guys

I think it might delay matters but is unlikely to prevent at least an attempted revolution. The two main impacts of the American revolt were:
a) The extra burden of another very expensive war on the French economy. This won't occur if France doesn't intervene but even if they don't have another war the basic problems are there of deep debts, a corrupt and inefficient taxation system and established privileges. Louis XVI might be willing to agree reform if pressed but will the clergy and aristocracy?

b) The example given by the American revolt and also the personal experience of some of the people who interacted closely with the rebels. Most famously Lafayette of course. However as others have said few people will have much knowledge of or interaction with the American example. More likely any rebels looking for examples might look at the English example or events in the Netherlands and Switzerland say.

As such I would say that some sort of revolt is very likely but probably delayed a bit. Which with other butterflies might affect whether it works or not.

Steve

 

[Socrates]

Guys

I think it might delay matters but is unlikely to prevent at least an attempted revolution. The two main impacts of the American revolt were:
a) The extra burden of another very expensive war on the French economy. This won't occur if France doesn't intervene but even if they don't have another war the basic problems are there of deep debts, a corrupt and inefficient taxation system and established privileges. Louis XVI might be willing to agree reform if pressed but will the clergy and aristocracy?

b) The example given by the American revolt and also the personal experience of some of the people who interacted closely with the rebels. Most famously Lafayette of course. However as others have said few people will have much knowledge of or interaction with the American example. More likely any rebels looking for examples might look at the English example or events in the Netherlands and Switzerland say.

As such I would say that some sort of revolt is very likely but probably delayed a bit. Which with other butterflies might affect whether it works or not.

Steve

The Dutch example wouldn't happen without the American example. The Patriot movement's movement to fighting for the people was almost entirely inspired by US political thought.

 

[stevep]

The Dutch example wouldn't happen without the American example. The Patriot movement's movement to fighting for the people was almost entirely inspired by US political thought.

Socrates

True for that case perhaps but there had been earlier periods of republicanism in the Netherlands and frequent limitations on the power of the monarchy.


Steve

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Socrates

True for that case perhaps but there had been earlier periods of republicanism in the Netherlands and frequent limitations on the power of the monarchy.


Steve

It's to note, as Henri Guillemin have shown it in his 'L'autre avant Guerre' serie-investigation, Republics can do wonder and more than Monarchies for the real powers.. Bourgeois, capitalists and all.... les 'Républiques des Républicains', 'gens de biens', etc.

the first Revolution, 1789, was actually a prelude, based quite on ideas as Voltaire, not so progressive as thought actually, postulated.. In France, they got frustrated about the hereditary money, and moved to seize power and houst THEIR power out. And used canons and guns to quiet down the poors when they got a bit.. angry. And 1792 and Robespierre, one of the few who actually wanted to push things to the logic, to the peoples conclusion and not 'they who have VS they who don't have'., ended ensuiing.

As 1848 to a minor, and the Commune, to a MAJOR way.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

No Fench involvment in ARW = English Win

The French had to find a way to recover from the Seven Year War with very little in the way of colonies to stimulate their economy. If they had more than 13 years to do this (7 year war ended 1763, ARW started in 1776) then they may be able to avoid bankrupcy, but they needed the complete over haul the British system had following the Glorious Revolution and I can't see this happening.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The food shortages in Europe were the result of a disease that attacked food crops and spread across Europe from east to west, the Napoleonic wars probably delayed their arrival in the British Isles, the potato blight in Ireland was the last manifestation of this is this phenomenon. All of which had nothing to do with war in America, secondly even with a full treasury I doubt the French monarchy would have spent their money to feed the huddled masses.

IIRC there WAS a plan to build grain warehouses to make sure that stocks were available in hard times, but anti-government propaganda portrayed this as government hoarding and manipulation of prices so they were forced to release the stocks onto the market and abandon the plan.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[wietze]

Not just the french, the Dutch quite extensively supported the american.
Why do you think the 4th anglo-Dutch war was fought?

I doubt if failure of the us revolution would stop the patriot movement in the Netherlands, it might just get another shape and name. the battle for power between the regents and princes of orange had been going on since the formation of the Netherlands. one needs to remember that the return to power of the orange clique was pretty recent at this time, the second stadtholderless era lasted until 1747.

One result of no french support for the us might be that the United Provinces also invest way less into it. it would mean no 4th anglo-Dutch war, and a very much delayed collapse (maybe prevention) of the VOC (dutch east india company).

A consequence of no patriots or at least a far less severe crackdown on the patriots might be no french revolution. A lot of the wealthy patriot fled to france, and were well connected later on to french revolution.

 

[Socrates]

Not just the french, the Dutch quite extensively supported the american.
Why do you think the 4th anglo-Dutch war was fought?

I doubt if failure of the us revolution would stop the patriot movement in the Netherlands, it might just get another shape and name. the battle for power between the regents and princes of orange had been going on since the formation of the Netherlands. one needs to remember that the return to power of the orange clique was pretty recent at this time, the second stadtholderless era lasted until 1747.

One result of no french support for the us might be that the United Provinces also invest way less into it. it would mean no 4th anglo-Dutch war, and a very much delayed collapse (maybe prevention) of the VOC (dutch east india company).

A consequence of no patriots or at least a far less severe crackdown on the patriots might be no french revolution. A lot of the wealthy patriot fled to france, and were well connected later on to french revolution.

Without the American revolt it would almost certainly remained a political battle. There was a very clear change jn political thought in the Patriot movement which started to stress popular revolt.