by which point is would it be impossible for the French royals (lets limit it to a change in Royal (geo)political positioning for now) to stop the Revolution from happening? How far back do you need to go with a PoD to dodge the 'unpleasantness' ? From what I can read Louis XVI did try to nudge towards a more reformist course, but was more or less blocked by the aristocracy from actually succeeding in more than inadvertently giving the population the tools needed to revolt (From what I can read it was more about being badly advised than active malice or personal incompetence, since a large part of the things seemed to make sense, absent 20/20 hindsight) before they blew up in his hands)
How far back to go for French Revolution averted?
- Thread starter Sian
- Start date
You don't need to go far back because there were really many occasions to butterfly the french revolution away.
Louis XVI dies just before summining the Estates Generals and there will probably be no french revolution.
And I will just add that the french revolution was not a revolt of the population. It was a revolution of the elites : first of all of the privileged elites in 1787, then of the unprivileged elites in 1788/1789 who were joined by a part of the privileged elite.
Only after in the last days of july 1789 did the peasant masses begin to move.
Louis XVI dies just before summining the Estates Generals and there will probably be no french revolution.
And I will just add that the french revolution was not a revolt of the population. It was a revolution of the elites : first of all of the privileged elites in 1787, then of the unprivileged elites in 1788/1789 who were joined by a part of the privileged elite.
Only after in the last days of july 1789 did the peasant masses begin to move.
Skallagrim
Banned
All true, but the French situation was dire. The debt was at a level that could not be handled; the recent eruption of that huge Icelandic volcano had caused food shortages in large parts of europe, and the French mercantillist policies (just as those were going out of style) ensured that France was hit hardest by that problem. Unless those issues are dealt with, there is going to be a crisis of one kind or another. Of course, any kind of crisis that is not a revolution meets the OP's requirements.
The debt could be handled. It was not higher, as a percentage of estimated GDP, as It had been at the end of the war of spanish succession.
All that had to be done was setting a decent tax system and a central bank.
Skallagrim
Banned
Tax reform alone would suffice. Yet this would mean that people with money - the elite - would actually have to pay up, at least to some modest extent. Which was not a popular idea with those who'd have to do the paying. Commoners were already taxed, and taxing them more would cause problems at once, since there was already a famine underway. This means that for the extra revenue, the king must look to either the aristocracy or the church. Getting them to agree to that would be... tricky. They'd want increased power in return: essentially limiting the king's power. Which he, in turn, obviously wouldn't be very keen on.
I'm sure some compromise could be managed, but I don't think it should be seen as a simple matter.
Its at least as late as Louis XVI's decision to reinstate the parlements. Without that a revolution is extremely unlikely. I also think you could go later, to better handling of the Assembly of Notables. Even after the calling of the estates, had they never given double represenation to the third estate, then the whole reforming to become the National Assembly would not have worked.