French Revolution

[Stuckenschmidt]

I am currently (and finally) reading a book that is a bit more in-depth concerning the topic. Actually it is pretty decent and covers the time period from the death of Louis XV to the 18th Brumaire. Right now I have reached the point, where Louis XVI got beheaded.

So here is the what-if. If Louis had abdicated in, say, mid 1790, would that have saved his life? Would he have been allowed to leave the country then? Or would the revolution have progressed (and radicalized itself) as it really happened and the citoyen Louis Capet had been accused and executed anyway (just to make sure that all remnants of the Ancien Regime are definitely gone)?

 

[Narwhal]

As I see it, most probably not.

The Revolution radicalized incredibly after the flight to Varennes and the declaration of war by foreign powers officially to help their cousin/brother.

In mid-1790, the question was not so critical that Louis XVI could have saved not only his life, but even I believe his throne [though as a Constitutional Monarch].
Even after mid 1790, the King could have probably saved his life by abdicating. It takes an awful lot of mistakes for a country in that era to get rid of a King .


Speaking of Revolutions, I highly highly recommand this podcast :

http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/

 

[Amallric]

There would not be much point for Louis XVI in abdicating in 1790. Noone wanted him to.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

There would not be much point for Louis XVI in abdicating in 1790. Noone wanted him to.

That`s why it is called a what-if.

 

[Lord Finnish]

I don't think it would have saved his life if he remained in France, but obviously if he left the country he would have been safe.


Then probably reinstated to the throne after Napoleonic Wars if he were still alive at that time.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

The fact I find truly the most interesting as a trend in revolutions in general is personified by Robespierre, the man who prosecuted the king. The man was passionately oppossed to the death penalty early on, but when given power over his enemies he RACED them into the arms of Madame Guillotine to forward his own objectives and maintain the purity of the Revolution through the Reign of Terror.

I simply find that little facet of human life fascinating since it repeats so often. You need to put Dr. Zhivago's Pavel Pavlovich ("Pasha") Antipov transformation into Strelnikov alongside this one.

 

[Jorlaan]

There is a saying about power corrupting...

Robespierre found himself in a position of pretty much absolute power and he used it. Most good people become corrupted once they have that level of power.

 

[makif130289]

There is a saying about power corrupting...

Robespierre found himself in a position of pretty much absolute power and he used it. Most good people become corrupted once they have that level of power.

But he is l'Incorruptible, he can't be corrupted. He fiercely defended his views to the very end. He genuinely believed that he fought for the liberty of ordinary people against aristocracy. I think corruption saying is more suitable for dictators like Saddam, Kaddafi etc. Robespierre was a romantic idealist.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

But he is l'Incorruptible, he can't be corrupted. He fiercely defended his views to the very end. He genuinely believed that he fought for the liberty of ordinary people against aristocracy. I think corruption saying is more suitable for dictators like Saddam, Kaddafi etc. Robespierre was a romantic idealist.

Then God save us from romantic idealists. He was seduced by a dream of innocence and virtue, and chose the most blood strewn path he could find to get there. If this is not corruption, and proof that good intentions pave the road to Hell, then I do not know what is.

 

[Jorlaan]

Yeah he started out with the best of intentions but actions speak louder than words, and his actions became pretty bad.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Meh. Robespierre was always Robespierre. He wasn't "corrupted" or "deviated" . Every action he took was for the revolution. He was just ruthless about it.

Every revolution started by a Desmoulins is followed by a Robespierre. They settle in right after the giddy feel-good moments have passed.

 

[Arilou]

It's also a bit easy to blame Robespierre. He never had dictatorial powers and when the Reign of Terror ender the Thermidoreans (who most of them had been right beside him signing death warrants) tried to pin all the blame on him.

He was clearly a ruthless man, but it's questionable if replacing him would have changed much.

 

[Tamerlan]

I am currently (and finally) reading a book that is a bit more in-depth concerning the topic. Actually it is pretty decent and covers the time period from the death of Louis XV to the 18th Brumaire. Right now I have reached the point, where Louis XVI got beheaded.

So here is the what-if. If Louis had abdicated in, say, mid 1790, would that have saved his life? Would he have been allowed to leave the country then?

Until the war started between France and Austria, Louis was safe. He was executed for treason, as he had commited treason. He journeyed to Koblenz to reach an émigré army, on the eve of a war.

Had he abdicated in 1790, his son would have become king. There would have been a regency. It's very unlikely that the monarchy would have been overthrown, unless he and his family tried to reach out to noblemen abroad.

The man was passionately oppossed to the death penalty early on, but when given power over his enemies he RACED them into the arms of Madame Guillotine to forward his own objectives and maintain the purity of the Revolution through the Reign of Terror.

To a large extent, Robespierre was a convenient scapegoat for those who had supported the reign of terror and wanted to distance themselves from it and its excesses, at a time when it was no longer necessary since republican armies had stopped Austrian and Prussian armies, and the royalist rebellion in the west had been crushed.

 

[IsadorBG]

The Monarchy was very popular even after the Revolution... even after the royal family tried to flee. Why do you think France descended in civil war after the proclamation of the republic ?

If Louis XVI had abdicated he may have not save his life (a former King can be prosecuted in theory afterall) but he would have probably saved the monarchy.

 

[krieger11b]

At least being out of France was the minimum for King Louis, there was a bad famine at the time of the revolution which in many ways was a catalyst of the most important events of the revolution, including capturing the Royal Family at Versailes by a bunch of starving women that heard a rumor that grain was being horded there. Things kind of well a bit, well, downhill for the dear King and his famliy after that.

 

[SDSkinner]

Wasn't Robespierre just the spokesmen/head of the Committee of Public Safety? I was under the impression there were other people in the Committee who he worked with so he wasn't actually a dictator, just an oligarch.

 

[yezhanquan]

Wasn't Robespierre just the spokesmen/head of the Committee of Public Safety? I was under the impression there were other people in the Committee who he worked with so he wasn't actually a dictator, just an oligarch.

A first-among-equals always gets all the blame even when the group was really the one making most of the mistakes.

 

[Drakken]

Power under the "Robespierre regime" was extremely diffuse. There was no head of the Republic overseeing the Revolution, like a Washington, a Lenin or a Castro, and the Convention harbored a lot of different committees for prerogatives that would be usually held by the Executive. The Committee of Public Safety was indeed one of the most important keeping the Revolution going, but it wasn't the Head of the Executive. We tend to see Robespierre as a monarch (as in monopolizing all power), but while one of the most important actors he was not omnipotent. Plus you also had the Committee of General Security, which actually carried the investigations and named people to be arrested by the CPS, and eventually became the nest of opposition to Robespierre, and the Committee of General Defence, which was managing the war against not only European powers but Royalists rebels in Vendée. Even inside the CPS, even though he was definitely an inspirational decision-maker Robespierre also faced opposition and contrarian opinions all the time, and he had to manage those representatives and the factions who were behind them.

Robespierre was, in fact, the loudest and the most influential, morally-unattackable leader. However he was never a charismatic and popular figure among the Conventionnaires, like Danton had been, and his extremism and unwillingness to moderate the Revolution meant that a lot of those who had the slightest disagreement with him risked following the same road to the guillotine Danton and Hébert took, for one reason or another. He was also alienating a lot of profiteers and would-be center-right representatives by his social policies to better the situation of the poor, like imposing the maximum (a floor price for necessary foodstuff like bread and wheat).

 

[Drakken]

The Monarchy was very popular even after the Revolution... even after the royal family tried to flee. Why do you think France descended in civil war after the proclamation of the republic ?

If Louis XVI had abdicated he may have not save his life (a former King can be prosecuted in theory afterall) but he would have probably saved the monarchy.

Abdicate in favour of whom? The future Louis XVII was only a toddler, Marie-Antoinette would never have been considered a suitable Regent, and neither of his younger brothers would ever, ever accept the Revolution. Besides, both had in fact fled the country to Koblenz soon after the fall of the Bastille, and they would have come back only with a Prussian/Austrian army with émigrés along the supply wagons.

Abdication would have made Monarchy even more dead. At least the guillotine made Louis XVI a political martyr for Royalists, which was a card Louis XVIII shamelessly played even though he had no personal love for his older brother.

 

[IsadorBG]

Abdicate in favour of whom? The future Louis XVII was only a toddler, Marie-Antoinette would never have been considered a suitable Regent, and neither of his younger brothers would ever, ever accept the Revolution. Besides, both had in fact fled the country to Koblenz soon after the fall of the Bastille, and they would have come back only with a Prussian/Austrian army with émigrés along the supply wagons.

Abdication would have made Monarchy even more dead. At least the guillotine made Louis XVI a political martyr for Royalists, which was a card Louis XVIII shamelessly played even though he had no personal love for his older brother.

His son of course. Yes it will be a regency probably overseen by the national assembly. And I disagree that it would have made the monarchy even more likely to fall. The flee of the royal family was the excuse the jacobin needed to terminate the monarchy.
And even then the majority in the assembly was againt the proclamation of the republic not even talking about how the people felt about it (and yes there is people living outside Paris too),

Louis XVII may have been a toddler but he actually was fairly popular way moreso than his father.