August 10, 1792 – Could Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette have resisted the overthrow of French monarchy?

Jun 2013
338
USA
#1
All of Paris marched on Tuileries palace on August 10, 1792, to throw out the King and Queen whom the people thought were in bed with the Austrians, Prussians and emigres and traitors to the French nation. The valiant Queen Marie Antoinette wanted to repel the expected attack - to use their 900 loyal Swish guards to fight to save the monarchy. However, the timid King Louis XVI did not wish to shed French blood even to save his crown. He accepted the word of Roederer that the situation was hopeless, fled to the Assembly and no defense was made of the monarchy. Certainly, the murder of the royal commander Mandat imperiled the royal position. But what if ...Mandat had been ordered by the King to stay at his post and was not murdered on August 9 – was there any chance that if King Louis had shown the same resolve as his wife, Marie Antoinette the monarchy might have withstood the attack of August 10, 1792?
 
Jul 2019
349
New Jersey
#2
By the time the Tuileries was attacked, things were way too far gone. The radicals controlled the city and the Swiss Guard would've been overwhelmed by sheer numbers regardless. The only time the rebellion could've been stopped was immediately following the fall of the Bastille, but Louis XVI was no Saddam Hussein or Assad. He thought of himself as father of his nation and wasn't willing to slaughter them wholesale.
 
May 2017
1,011
France
#3
No it was impossible,because the unities of the french body corp had passed in the troops of the Insurgents,the german cavalry men were completely neutralized,and even the swiss guard of Choisy didn t want to fight in Paris.It was cooked.
 
Feb 2014
294
Miami
#4
Only if he would have accepted his role as a figure head and not attempted to flee or subvert his nation in favor of Austria . I think the original goal of the revolution was to install a British style government with more representation for the masses?
 
May 2017
1,011
France
#5
No because since 1780,the conservative reaction of the aristocracy had blooked a lot of things and cut the possibility to evoluate.In 1785,to be received has lieutnant in an infantry regiment,my ancester Francois Basile Du Puy Montbrun du Mazeldan has been obliged to prove the aristocracy of his ancesters since 1240 (Cherin/Bertier de Sauvigny (assassinated) collection volume 165,old B.N rooms adapted to the precious manuscrits in Bussy Saint Georges)......Which member of the bourgeoisise culd accept that ?
 
Jul 2019
29
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
#6
The Monarchy could not have been saved absent controlled radical change. What France got was uncontrolled radical change.

The French State was bankrupt – a condition that will always lead to radicalization of society of some sort.

French finances were in trouble even before the onset of the French Revolution. The War of the Austrian Succession led to the Seven Years War that cost both France and England dearly. In trying to pay for it the English lost their American colonies and eventually the French state collapsed.

Part of the French response was to help with the American Revolution – a very expensive undertaking it could not afford. Naturally, getting back at England that way made the problem worse.

Both Turgot and Necker struggled unsuccessfully with the financial chaos.

Turgot’s first act in office was to submit to the king a statement of his guiding principles: "No bankruptcy, no increase of taxation, no borrowing." Obviously, this meant, given the already desperate financial position of the state, a rigid economy in all departments – what a couple of decades ago Newt Gingrich called “root canal politics.” When Turgot announced as his object the abolition of privilege, and the subjection of all three Estates of the realm to taxation his time in office grew very short.

So Turgot tried to the work the problem from an expenditure and income perspective and had insufficient success.

Tax policy is easier than dealing with spending; make a political decision and taxes go up or down at a single swipe. State spending is a very different beast politically. Turgot had some good ideas, but he could not get the large political buy-in that was needed.

Necker later went so far as to make the government’s budget public for the first time. It was not a pretty picture and he was dismissed within a few months – truth becomes unpopular in difficult times.

But by 1788 the compounding of interest on the national debt brought France to a fiscal crisis – something the United States is now beginning to feel as well. Necker was recalled to service. When Necker was dismissed on July 11, 1789 it caused the Storming of the Bastille.

It would have taken a strong king with a firm grip on reality to even potentially save the French monarchy with serious, and by that point necessarily radical, fiscal reforms. But realists were in very short supply in that era in France, the royal couple were not among the few, and internal power struggles within the government effectively paralyzed it even as social chaos overwhelmed it.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,072
Republika Srpska
#7
Only if he would have accepted his role as a figure head and not attempted to flee or subvert his nation in favor of Austria . I think the original goal of the revolution was to install a British style government with more representation for the masses?
This. The Revolution was not really planning to establish a republic.
 

Similar History Discussions