Would the French Revolution have happened if the American Revolution didn't?

I wonder whether or not the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution or contributed to it otherwise. If the American Revolution didn't happen, would the French Revolution still have happened?
 
It wouldn't have happened as IOTL, that much is sure.
Less because of inspiration (it was a thing, tough, but esentially in the first couple of years), than because French support to American Revolution weighted a lot on the kingdom's budget : not only as loans taken by France to help colonists, but loans taken by colonists and not yet repayed. This was quite an important addition to the kingdom's financial issues.

Now, would it have butterflied away French Revolution?
Maybe, but that's far from certain : most of French political and economical issues weren't directly issued from American Revolutionary War, but from french situation directly (refuse of Maupéou Reform and the parlementarian blockade power; nobiliar political contraction, etc.). Would that evolve in a full scale Revolution? Heh, hard to say. But it does have grounds to, even if it would likely be different right since the beggining.

That said, as the more safe way to prevent the American Revolution is to keep French Canada a thing, we may be talking of bigger butterflies leading to a better French situation when it comes to economics and politics.
 
I think avoiding the AR reduces the chance of such a catastrophic French Revolution but doesn't remove or even address the underlying problems as France's issues were very different from the US'. It will certainly be different and as LSCatilina pointed out a better financial situation improves the odds of a less violent outcome or even a peaceful resolution to France's problems.

The French Revolution always struck me as the absolute worst case scenario resulting from the wrong people in power making the wrong decisions at exactly the wrong time. A different set of parameters could easily butterfly away the worst of it.
 
While the French efforts in the American Revolutionary War certainly added to their problems, it was a small part of the French economical problems just before their own revolution.

The French debt before the revolution was up to 12 billion livres.

The US government owed the French government about 2 million US dollars.

There's 1,6 grams of gold to a dollar, which means the value of the debt was 3 200 kilos of gold.

There's 24 livres to a Louis d'Or, and 7,013 grams of gold in a Louis d'Or. The French debt was thus worth 3 506 500 kilos of gold.

So the US debt to France would, if fully paid off, count for about 0,066% of the French debt.

The entire cost of the American war was about 1,3 billion livres for France.

While it added up, it was still a minor part of the enormous French debt by the time of the revolution.

Owing 10 billion instead of 12 billion will not help at all. There's be a revolution due to failed harvests and economical crisis anyway.
 
That said, the debt due to American Revolutionary War was the proverbial last drop : as important dept was due to the SYW it did tended to get better, ARW basically managing to reverse this tendency.
I agree that this alone wouldn't butterfly away any kind of trouble, riot or possibly revolution, but it would be happening on a significantly different context : both economically and ideologically (absence of american revolution might mean a more important inspiration taken either from enlightement classics, either from Britain or Switzerland at first)
 
@von Adler, I would assume the costs of French participation in the war were higher than just what they loaned Congress. Do you have any figures on those?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
It is very true, as @von Adler and @Escape Zeppelin point out, that no ARW doesn't mean that the fundamental French economic problems are resolved. Far from it. However, economic problems do not automatically mean a revolution will take place. The specific extra costs of the French involvement in the war came at an inopportune moment, because in the mid-1780's a giant vulcano in Iceland erupted, and this caused crop failures in large parts of western Europe. France was hardest-hit by this, for a variety of reasons, and the exact fact that they has just spent that extra money meant that there was no leeway for the economy. No funds available to take emergency measures and prevent starvation. So king Louis ordered a succession of increasingly desperate finance ministers to solve the problem. Which they could not. They mostly made bad calls. Specifically, Jacques Necker was brought in, and he literally just committed fraud and faked the entire ledger, to pretend the debt was much smaller than it was.

Needless to say, things only got worse. With no credit available, the king first had to appeal to the aristocracy, which provided no relief, and then had to call together the Estates-General to discuss radical budget-related steps. The Estates-General were rather unhappy about the situation, and that criminally negligent fool Necker then managed to outdo even his earlier madness by flat-out insulting them. He was called to explain his actions, and instead of offering apologies (which would have been accepted), he had the gall to defend his own actions and essentially dismiss the entire Estates-General as a meaningless body. The king foolishly sided with Necker. It is at this point that it became inevitable that the Estates-General were going to be opposed to the king, and some kind of drastic reform was going to be forced.

But even then: the initial plan was mostly to just curtail the (economic) power and spending authority of the king, and to keep the Estates-General permanently active (instead of only assembling when summoned by the king). Essentially a very modest move towards constitutional monarchy. But the king took this very poorly, and things escalated fast. Partially because the example of the American Republic inspired reformers in France.

So. No ARW. No extra spending spree for France. Volcano still erupts, but without that extra economic toll just having been imposed, the French crown has more leeway to import grain etc. from elsewhere, even when considering the raised prices due to European crop failures. The situation is less pressing. The finance ministry has more time to deal with the issues at hand. Without that pressure, there is no mad succession of increasingly panicky ministers. Necker never gets appointed, at least. The Estates-General aren't even assembled. There is no example of the American revolution. There will be no French revolution.

The financial problems remain, but what the European crop failures mostly proved was that the mercantillist system was unfit to deal with it. Britain was at that very time moving towards free trade. France lagged behind. Free trade economists were some of the intellectuals behind the revolution in OTL. In this ATL, increasing British success will likely prove to France that mercantillism needs to be ended, or at least tempered. The Physiocrats (or something like them), will come to influence policy. The french economy will be weakened by its vast debt for some time, but there is no reason it cannot recover.

If some ATL disaster occurs, like a war that France gets dragged into, things will get hairy. But keep in mind that Republican France just dealt with the debt problem by saying "piss off, that was the king's debt, not ours". A Royal France suddenly involved in a major ATL war might just take that same approach, and if it just wins that war, its problems are mostly over.
 
It is very true, as @von Adler and @Escape Zeppelin point out, that no ARW doesn't mean that the fundamental French economic problems are resolved. Far from it. However, economic problems do not automatically mean a revolution will take place. The specific extra costs of the French involvement in the war came at an inopportune moment, because in the mid-1780's a giant vulcano in Iceland erupted, and this caused crop failures in large parts of western Europe. France was hardest-hit by this, for a variety of reasons, and the exact fact that they has just spent that extra money meant that there was no leeway for the economy. No funds available to take emergency measures and prevent starvation. So king Louis ordered a succession of increasingly desperate finance ministers to solve the problem. Which they could not. They mostly made bad calls. Specifically, Jacques Necker was brought in, and he literally just committed fraud and faked the entire ledger, to pretend the debt was much smaller than it was.

Needless to say, things only got worse. With no credit available, the king first had to appeal to the aristocracy, which provided no relief, and then had to call together the Estates-General to discuss radical budget-related steps. The Estates-General were rather unhappy about the situation, and that criminally negligent fool Necker then managed to outdo even his earlier madness by flat-out insulting them. He was called to explain his actions, and instead of offering apologies (which would have been accepted), he had the gall to defend his own actions and essentially dismiss the entire Estates-General as a meaningless body. The king foolishly sided with Necker. It is at this point that it became inevitable that the Estates-General were going to be opposed to the king, and some kind of drastic reform was going to be forced.

But even then: the initial plan was mostly to just curtail the (economic) power and spending authority of the king, and to keep the Estates-General permanently active (instead of only assembling when summoned by the king). Essentially a very modest move towards constitutional monarchy. But the king took this very poorly, and things escalated fast. Partially because the example of the American Republic inspired reformers in France.

So. No ARW. No extra spending spree for France. Volcano still erupts, but without that extra economic toll just having been imposed, the French crown has more leeway to import grain etc. from elsewhere, even when considering the raised prices due to European crop failures. The situation is less pressing. The finance ministry has more time to deal with the issues at hand. Without that pressure, there is no mad succession of increasingly panicky ministers. Necker never gets appointed, at least. The Estates-General aren't even assembled. There is no example of the American revolution. There will be no French revolution.

The financial problems remain, but what the European crop failures mostly proved was that the mercantillist system was unfit to deal with it. Britain was at that very time moving towards free trade. France lagged behind. Free trade economists were some of the intellectuals behind the revolution in OTL. In this ATL, increasing British success will likely prove to France that mercantillism needs to be ended, or at least tempered. The Physiocrats (or something like them), will come to influence policy. The french economy will be weakened by its vast debt for some time, but there is no reason it cannot recover.

If some ATL disaster occurs, like a war that France gets dragged into, things will get hairy. But keep in mind that Republican France just dealt with the debt problem by saying "piss off, that was the king's debt, not ours". A Royal France suddenly involved in a major ATL war might just take that same approach, and if it just wins that war, its problems are mostly over.

I am afraid you are being way too anti-Necker here. Necker was called at the Finances on october 1776 and was dismissed on may 1781 because he wanted to reduce the expenses and enhance the taxes. Then you had some short-terms ministers, among them Calonne (november 1783-april 1787). Necker was called back in august 1788, after the decision to summon the Estates. The all "fake budget" thing was agitated by Calonne in 1787. He justly said the figures of the 1781 finances plan by Necker were false (under-estimated). But Calonne's own figure was also underestimated.

France had a longer-term issue in its institutional organization since the 1720' : the Finances Department was weak during the all century. The Department (called the Contrôle Général des Finances) could not control the expenses of many government bodies, among them the Deparments of War and Navy, nor could it oversee the ledgers of the private actors of the public finances. After the Seven Years War, no effort was made to separate the ordinary expenses from the extraordinary and to create real accounting tools to "terminate" the funding situations created by the war. Almost all Finance Minister aggravated the situation. If Necker was responsible, Calonne had his equal share, as he created "anticipations" on the royal budget and removed almost all accountant verification in the public finances. He managed to attract some capital, but he also let in an unrestricted capital speculation, which huge consequences on the public debt service.

Long story short, given the institutional weaknesses of the Public finances in France, the situation was a powder keg, even without the extra debt of the ARW. The bankruptcy of the State may not be invoked in 1788 as OTL, but it would be in the years that followed, except for an willy reform - that means another king. But it is interesting to know that all the ideas of the Revolution, including the nationalization of the Church properties and the abolition of the taxes inequalities, were already discussed in the 1780'. The bankruptcy decided by the Directoire in 1796 (there never was a general default on the debt, be it the King's or not) followed the wild speculation on the former Church properties, but it allowed for a more efficient debt service, because the Finances Department was reorganized and given efficient administrative tools.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I am afraid you are being way too anti-Necker here. Necker was called at the Finances on october 1776 and was dismissed on may 1781 because he wanted to reduce the expenses and enhance the taxes. Then you had some short-terms ministers, among them Calonne (november 1783-april 1787). Necker was called back in august 1788, after the decision to summon the Estates. The all "fake budget" thing was agitated by Calonne in 1787. He justly said the figures of the 1781 finances plan by Necker were false (under-estimated). But Calonne's own figure was also underestimated.

France had a longer-term issue in its institutional organization since the 1720' : the Finances Department was weak during the all century. The Department (called the Contrôle Général des Finances) could not control the expenses of many government bodies, among them the Deparments of War and Navy, nor could it oversee the ledgers of the private actors of the public finances. After the Seven Years War, no effort was made to separate the ordinary expenses from the extraordinary and to create real accounting tools to "terminate" the funding situations created by the war. Almost all Finance Minister aggravated the situation. If Necker was responsible, Calonne had his equal share, as he created "anticipations" on the royal budget and removed almost all accountant verification in the public finances. He managed to attract some capital, but he also let in an unrestricted capital speculation, which huge consequences on the public debt service.

Long story short, given the institutional weaknesses of the Public finances in France, the situation was a powder keg, even without the extra debt of the ARW. The bankruptcy of the State may not be invoked in 1788 as OTL, but it would be in the years that followed, except for an willy reform - that means another king. But it is interesting to know that all the ideas of the Revolution, including the nationalization of the Church properties and the abolition of the taxes inequalities, were already discussed in the 1780'. The bankruptcy decided by the Directoire in 1796 (there never was a general default on the debt, be it the King's or not) followed the wild speculation on the former Church properties, but it allowed for a more efficient debt service, because the Finances Department was reorganized and given efficient administrative tools.

I am not saying Necker caused all the economic problems, but that he was certainly one of those who messed up in that regard. Calonne certainly messed up, too, but let's not pretend that the "fake budget"-accusation was mere agitation by Calonne. Indeed, his own role had been 'dirty', too, but as he put it: "I was cheered on when I set the fire, and dismissed when I (saw my error and) tried to put it out". His accusations of Necker were simply accurate, he didn't deny that he had made similar mistakes, but charged that he had seen the error of his ways, while Necker purposely kept doing the wrong thing.

Far more crucial to the question of this thread, however, is the fact that Necker so utterly mismanaged the political situation. Even if he had made the same economic mistakes... if he had merely been so much as polite to the Estates-General, the whole split between the king and the Estates would have been avoided. Perhaps it would still have happened, over something else. But not having Necker in that position would have dramatically decreased the chances of an actual revolution. There would have been more of a perspective for a less dramatic solution like a reform of the economy and of the king's powers, within a monarchial framework.

Anyway, I maintain that there can be no such thing as being too anti-Necker. ;) To say Calonne and others did it wrong, too, does not change the fact that Necker was a disaster in every single way.

No Necker would help even if that's the only change. If there's no ARW at all, then the various factors I mentioned come into play, and the chances of there being a real 'revolution' just dwindle and dwindle. France was hardly incapable of reform, after all. It's just that in OTL, all sorts of things just came to a head at the same time. Without the ARW and its extra expenses, the situation is still a powder keg... but the fuse has been removed for the moment, and people have some time to think about how they can deal with that big powderkeg. The economic system that had served France well in the days of Colbert - mercantillism - had become severely outdated, and France was lagging behind Britain e.a. when it came to reforming economically. But this was just a matter of time. The situation of OTL meant that time was simply not available. But an ARW-less ATL would probably be different in that regard.

Long story short: I'm rather confident that a France that is not gang-mobbed by a confluence of bad events, as in OTL, will be able to get with the times and implement the required reforms.
 
Necker's speech to the Estates was not a good one : too technical but in the same time too imprecise. But, while Necker disappointed the Third Estates Delegates, he did not antagonize them. On the contrary, he proposed to Louis XVI the head count of the votes, a reclamation of the Third Estate, on June 19. Louis XVI, advised by some conservative members of his council, refused then tried to sack Necker on June 23. At this time, Necker managed to counter the threat by surfing on the Third Estate's resistance and the popular support he enjoyed. On July 11, having summoned more troops, Louis XVI sacked Necker. As soon as it was known in Paris, a riot erupted, badly handled by Besenval and Lambesc. On the 13 the National Assembly petitioned Louis XVI for the return of Necker. The King refused, even after the Bastille riot, but the evolution of the situation made him accept to call back Necker on July 16.

If there is the split between the King and the Estates in 1789, it was not caused by Necker, but by Necker's dismissal.
 
If there is the split between the King and the Estates in 1789, it was not caused by Necker, but by Necker's dismissal.

So if Necker were not appointed could he still be dismissed?

Otherwise it still looks likely that without Necker the whole breach is more likely to be less abrupt.
 
So if Necker were not appointed could he still be dismissed?

Otherwise it still looks likely that without Necker the whole breach is more likely to be less abrupt.

Less abrupt maybe, but Louis XVI's inability either to support an unpopular minister and to create a "new deal" with the elites would still be here, meaning any institutional reform could only happen in a violent conflagration used by a political group to strong-arm the king.
 
Without an American Revolutionary War, France would have got involved in some other war before too long. Most likely the War of the Bavarian Succession. I would guess a land war in Europe would be much more expensive than the ARW, but I'm happy to be corrected.
 

Redbeard

Banned
First of all thanks to von Adler for his figures on the French debt. I hadn't seen those before, but EXTREMELY interesting. Such data/information makes this board very worthful reading :)

But back to the thread it would appear like the French "system" was in deep trouble anyways. Not just because of the debt in itself, but because the old elites of France - the King and the nobles, simply weren't fit for the job any longer - they cost too much and did too little. And that is bad when those actually doing the work and paying the taxes start to see it. Just ask Hillary... ;)
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Necker's speech to the Estates was not a good one : too technical but in the same time too imprecise. But, while Necker disappointed the Third Estates Delegates, he did not antagonize them. On the contrary, he proposed to Louis XVI the head count of the votes, a reclamation of the Third Estate, on June 19. Louis XVI, advised by some conservative members of his council, refused then tried to sack Necker on June 23. At this time, Necker managed to counter the threat by surfing on the Third Estate's resistance and the popular support he enjoyed. On July 11, having summoned more troops, Louis XVI sacked Necker. As soon as it was known in Paris, a riot erupted, badly handled by Besenval and Lambesc. On the 13 the National Assembly petitioned Louis XVI for the return of Necker. The King refused, even after the Bastille riot, but the evolution of the situation made him accept to call back Necker on July 16.

If there is the split between the King and the Estates in 1789, it was not caused by Necker, but by Necker's dismissal.

Your point about Necker having lots of supporters in the third estate is accurate, and that's certainly relevant. But Necker did antagonise the aristocracy (and to some extent the clergy). Certainly, it was a complicated situation, and just about everyone handled it poorly. My point here is mainly this: in an ATL where Necker gets free reign to continue his policies, disaster ensues without question. That is why I can confidently say he was a disaster. In an AL where Calonne gets to continue his original, poor policies, much the same happens (although less acutely). In a world where Calonne gets to implement the revised view he later adopted, the problems begin to get solved. But reform is painful and difficult. With royal support, the first and second estates could be brought on board. The third estate, falling for Necker's 'soft lies' rather than wanting to hear the hard truth, would still protest. It's why he enjoyed support there in OTL. Pure opportunistic populism.

Enfin. The actual point of discussion remains "what if: no ARW". My position remains that the whole point gets to be moot, then, because Calonne will not be removed when things get tricky. Because they get less tricky, less rapidly. The situation will be less pressing. Still, the whole thing inspired Calonne to change his view in OTL, and it will in an ATL as well, I expect. He'll still muck about somewhat, probably get there less quickly, but given the obviously raised prices for grain, the general defecit etc. he'll most likely reach his OTL conclusions-- which would allow France to get going in the right direction.

After that, I basically expect what I already described earlier. The Estates-General may not even be called to gather. If they are, Calonne can propose certain reforms. Basically what he wanted at that point in OTL, but less radical. So... a move towards fiscal responsibility. If they are not, he'll propose the same to the aristocracy, who will probably go along with it for the most part. Essentially....

Less abrupt maybe, but Louis XVI's inability either to support an unpopular minister and to create a "new deal" with the elites would still be here, meaning any institutional reform could only happen in a violent conflagration used by a political group to strong-arm the king.

the French "system" was in deep trouble anyways. Not just because of the debt in itself, but because the old elites of France - the King and the nobles, simply weren't fit for the job any longer - they cost too much and did too little.

...all that is mostly just speculation based on a terrible crisis situation that happened in OTL, in which just about everyone reacted poorly. Not just the king and the aristocracy. Given a substantially reduced crisis (not removing the powder keg, but taking out the fuse at least), I fully expect most reactions to be less panicked and just generally better. The whole idea that royal France was somehow utterly calcified and could not ever reform is a myth. It won't be magically easy, but it's not at all impossible.

If reform can be implemented without gathering the Estates-General, so much the better. If they do need to be called, at least Calonne will do better with the situation than Necker. Calonne will at that point be proposing reforms. The third estate will be largely opposed, for the same reason they largely supported Necker when he populistically denied the need for reform. But in this ATL, each estate's collective vote will have the same weight. So... first and second will outvote third, and Calonne gets his way. Perhaps he could even play it smartly, and manipulate events so extra fiscal controls on the royal court get thrown in as a 'sop' to the third estate. (At this point in time, he wanted those controls to be implemented anyway!)

Whichever way we get there, the result is an improvement in fiscal and economic policies. Not enough of an improvement yet, but enough to stave off disaster. Enough to get some breathing time, which allows for more reform later. (As I observed earlier: a movement towards free trade and a more responisible fiscal policy was just getting started at the time). Add to that the fact that there is no American republicanism to inspire would-be revolutionaries, and I just don't see the basis for this supposedly inevitable "later revolution" that some people seem to expect.

Mind you, I'm not saying it's impossible. If some kind of gross mismanagement comes up later in the ATL, there might still be a crisis and a revolution. But I wouldn't call that a certainty or even that big of a likelihood. So yes, if this happens:

Without an American Revolutionary War, France would have got involved in some other war before too long. Most likely the War of the Bavarian Succession. I would guess a land war in Europe would be much more expensive than the ARW, but I'm happy to be corrected.

...France might still be screwed. But if reforms are underway, those doing the reforming will not be eager to start an expensive war. What exactly makes it so likely that France will just decide to get involved in a major war? If no ARW, the concurrent war in India has also been prevented. A colonial conflict with Britain seems inevitable, then. But that will be relatively cheap (compared to, say, a major war in Europe itself) and thereby demonstrate exactly how bad for the treasury even such a colonial conflict is. So if anything, that would encourage the French crown to not get involved in a major war until the French economy is healthier.


Just as a final note: I am by no means trying to deny the major problems France faced, or their gravity. I'm not saying at all that an alternative revolution would automatically be prevented if there had been no ARW. What I am arguing is that in such an ATL, royal France simply has a good fighting chance. It isn't doomed, and a revolution is no longer a certainty.
 
the King and the nobles, simply weren't fit for the job any longer - they cost too much and did too little. And that is bad when those actually doing the work and paying the taxes start to see it. Just ask Hillary... ;)
You do know that non-nobles or annoblished magistrature did played a growing part of French administration since the XVIIth, right?

The whole "French system was run by powdered aristocrats" is maybe good looking on novels and movies, but doesn't fit reality.

The last time aristocracy attempted to take the bulk of political power was during the polysynodal experience, and it was such a joke it was reverted in mere years.
 
Your point about Necker having lots of supporters in the third estate is accurate, and that's certainly relevant. But Necker did antagonise the aristocracy (and to some extent the clergy). Certainly, it was a complicated situation, and just about everyone handled it poorly. My point here is mainly this: in an ATL where Necker gets free reign to continue his policies, disaster ensues without question. That is why I can confidently say he was a disaster. In an AL where Calonne gets to continue his original, poor policies, much the same happens (although less acutely). In a world where Calonne gets to implement the revised view he later adopted, the problems begin to get solved. But reform is painful and difficult. With royal support, the first and second estates could be brought on board. The third estate, falling for Necker's 'soft lies' rather than wanting to hear the hard truth, would still protest. It's why he enjoyed support there in OTL. Pure opportunistic populism.

Enfin. The actual point of discussion remains "what if: no ARW". My position remains that the whole point gets to be moot, then, because Calonne will not be removed when things get tricky. Because they get less tricky, less rapidly. The situation will be less pressing. Still, the whole thing inspired Calonne to change his view in OTL, and it will in an ATL as well, I expect. He'll still muck about somewhat, probably get there less quickly, but given the obviously raised prices for grain, the general defecit etc. he'll most likely reach his OTL conclusions-- which would allow France to get going in the right direction.

After that, I basically expect what I already described earlier. The Estates-General may not even be called to gather. If they are, Calonne can propose certain reforms. Basically what he wanted at that point in OTL, but less radical. So... a move towards fiscal responsibility. If they are not, he'll propose the same to the aristocracy, who will probably go along with it for the most part. Essentially....





...all that is mostly just speculation based on a terrible crisis situation that happened in OTL, in which just about everyone reacted poorly. Not just the king and the aristocracy. Given a substantially reduced crisis (not removing the powder keg, but taking out the fuse at least), I fully expect most reactions to be less panicked and just generally better. The whole idea that royal France was somehow utterly calcified and could not ever reform is a myth. It won't be magically easy, but it's not at all impossible.

If reform can be implemented without gathering the Estates-General, so much the better. If they do need to be called, at least Calonne will do better with the situation than Necker. Calonne will at that point be proposing reforms. The third estate will be largely opposed, for the same reason they largely supported Necker when he populistically denied the need for reform. But in this ATL, each estate's collective vote will have the same weight. So... first and second will outvote third, and Calonne gets his way. Perhaps he could even play it smartly, and manipulate events so extra fiscal controls on the royal court get thrown in as a 'sop' to the third estate. (At this point in time, he wanted those controls to be implemented anyway!)

Whichever way we get there, the result is an improvement in fiscal and economic policies. Not enough of an improvement yet, but enough to stave off disaster. Enough to get some breathing time, which allows for more reform later. (As I observed earlier: a movement towards free trade and a more responisible fiscal policy was just getting started at the time). Add to that the fact that there is no American republicanism to inspire would-be revolutionaries, and I just don't see the basis for this supposedly inevitable "later revolution" that some people seem to expect.

Mind you, I'm not saying it's impossible. If some kind of gross mismanagement comes up later in the ATL, there might still be a crisis and a revolution. But I wouldn't call that a certainty or even that big of a likelihood. So yes, if this happens:



...France might still be screwed. But if reforms are underway, those doing the reforming will not be eager to start an expensive war. What exactly makes it so likely that France will just decide to get involved in a major war? If no ARW, the concurrent war in India has also been prevented. A colonial conflict with Britain seems inevitable, then. But that will be relatively cheap (compared to, say, a major war in Europe itself) and thereby demonstrate exactly how bad for the treasury even such a colonial conflict is. So if anything, that would encourage the French crown to not get involved in a major war until the French economy is healthier.


Just as a final note: I am by no means trying to deny the major problems France faced, or their gravity. I'm not saying at all that an alternative revolution would automatically be prevented if there had been no ARW. What I am arguing is that in such an ATL, royal France simply has a good fighting chance. It isn't doomed, and a revolution is no longer a certainty.

But the needed reforms weren't underway on the scale needed. And in OTL France deliberately excused itself from the Bavarian War (it had an alliance with Austria) by citing the American conflict. Even without a conflict if just gives them a couple of years.

One thing I wonder is if a lack of an American Revolution reduces mass political violence (less power to the people sentiment). If things like the Day of the Tiles don't spontaneously break out, then there is no double representation of the Third Estate in the provincial estates in Grenoble. That would reduce the expectation for double representation in the general estates, and the subsequent betrayal in our timeline. We all know that missed expectations is the main driver of revolutions so that could make a big difference. When the Estates are called, the Third might need to form shifting coalitions with the Second and First to get laws passed.
 
Top