Why do some reject the French Revolution?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,944
Spain
French Revolution failed. Louis XVIII could establish absolutism in all its purity...Russia, Prussia, Austria had enough bayonets in 1815 to eliminate whom dared to rise up against the King. We never know why he didn´t impose the Pure Absolutism....in 1815... Charles X had not the Prussian-Austrian-Russian forces in France... Louis XVIII yes. I guess it was because he was a "soft" king... not a Hero ready to impose the Absolutism cause in purity... he was not a Peter the Great or Alexander III or Charles V o a Frederick William... he was very moderated king.

2018 Europe is not matched to the failed and bloody French Revolution... it is matched to EVOLUTION produced by Industrial Revolution. Revolutions in Europe failed... however Europe evolutioned.
 
Aug 2010
14,990
Welsh Marches
Or perhaps Louis XXVIII was just more sensible than Charles X; it would have been no more practical for him to impose absolute rule that it was for Charles II in 17th Century England.
 
Likes: martin76
Jul 2018
338
Hong Kong
He had more soldiers than Charles II.
But soldiers were not his pawn that had no thinking and feeling. They might sympathize with masses of revolutionaries and even side with them.

Unless he could gather abundant of royalist forming his real “personal army”, his attempt to impose absolute rule by military force won’t work. But the question is : where would he garner the fund ? The parliament and the public would be alerted of his intention and the rage would be sparkled. The chance to success was pretty low. It was in AD 1820s-30 which was the age of liberalism and nationalism at the reign of Charles X, not the age of the Sun King Louis XIV in AD 1700 wherein the absolute monarchy and fedualism rocked.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,153
Sydney
During the storming of the Tuileries palace , the Guarde Francaise sided with the insurgents while the Guarde Suisse died protecting the royal family
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,944
Spain
But soldiers were not his pawn that had no thinking and feeling. They might sympathize with masses of revolutionaries and even side with them.

Unless he could gather abundant of royalist forming his real “personal army”, his attempt to impose absolute rule by military force won’t work. But the question is : where would he garner the fund ? The parliament and the public would be alerted of his intention and the rage would be sparkled. The chance to success was pretty low. It was in AD 1820s-30 which was the age of liberalism and nationalism at the reign of Charles X, not the age of the Sun King Louis XIV in AD 1700 wherein the absolute monarchy and fedualism rocked.
Not... the Soldiers were the soldiers have just crushed the French Revolution in Paris in 1814... and in Flanders in 1815. The soldiers were as defenders of the absolutism as the own king... Austrian-Prussian-Russians were in France for 5 years. The King could have ordered to execute all the people have distinguished during the Revolution (1789-1799/1815) but didn´t.... REDS just did it in CHINA or RUSSIA...
Louis XVIII was a soft kind (I think he was so moderate that iti is possible to think he was a faint-hearted)... not White Terror in France in 1815 (around 300 - 500 executions only)....he could to impose the White Terror as the Reds in China or Russia but Louis XVIII didn´t... the Absolutism won the War... so the absolutism dictates the terms of its victory.

Woe to the losers!

Revolutionaries had failed... Czar and Kaiser were in Paris! Why not kill them all? I do not understand ... unless Luis XVIII was the typical liberated, trendy man, a hidden revolutionary or a faint-hearted (I think the last one).
Pure absolutism could have being imposed by the BAYONETS in 1815... but Louis XVIII didn´t want to do it.. he prefered a "modernist" and "super-cool" absolutism.... a historic opportunity lost by that idiot.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,613
Louis XVIII died as king, but his successor Charles X was deposed. Louis XVI also didn't fare that well. I am not sure if France was ready for the return of absolute rule. The constitutional monarchy was a compromise after the revolution. It wouldn't be that easy to be an absolute ruler installed by foreign powers.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,613
You suggest he execute large numbers of people to enforce absolute rule. Would that have gone over well with the powers that installed him? This is what was done by the Jacobins, and within a few years they were also all guillotined. It might have worked, but constituttional monarchy was a more prudent course, and that might have lasted if his successors had followed the same approach.

There wasn't a clear legitimate government at that point, which is why there were multiple monarchies and republics. It was a difficult situation for Louis XVIII, but his approach was probably the best under the circumstances.
 
Sep 2016
546
Georgia
French Revolution failed. Louis XVIII could establish absolutism in all its purity...Russia, Prussia, Austria had enough bayonets in 1815 to eliminate whom dared to rise up against the King. We never know why he didn´t impose the Pure Absolutism....in 1815... Charles X had not the Prussian-Austrian-Russian forces in France... Louis XVIII yes. I guess it was because he was a "soft" king... not a Hero ready to impose the Absolutism cause in purity... he was not a Peter the Great or Alexander III or Charles V o a Frederick William... he was very moderated king.

2018 Europe is not matched to the failed and bloody French Revolution... it is matched to EVOLUTION produced by Industrial Revolution. Revolutions in Europe failed... however Europe evolutioned.
This is so ridiculous. You are comparing rulers and state of societies from different eras. This shows historical ignorance. Charles V, really ? Don't make me laugh.

Nicholas II inherited problems from Alexander III. They were not resolved and possibility of Revolution became more real. Which is why situation exploded in 1905. First Russian Revolution begun. Romanovs of 19th century didn't resolve problems that Russia struggled with and became more and more serious as time passed. That's why there were attempts at liberal reforms during Alexander I and why there were series of reforms during Alexander II. However, they weren't implemented that well.

Absolutism would never return to France after 1789. No matter how brutal possible King would be in trying to make it happen. Revolution won and changed French society. Can't even believe things like that need explaining.
 
Last edited:

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,153
Sydney
A factor making a return to the "Ancient Regime" impossible was the confiscation of the Church and emigree properties
those had been sold to the Bourgeoisie and would not be given back , further the French Army officers were not massively noble anymore ,
they all owned their rise to the Revolution and the Empire ,
LouisXVIII owned his return to foreign bayonettes and French defeat , his prestige was Zero , his power base slight
he had to accept that for many French , the revolution was a fact the change it brought were not reversible
 

Similar History Discussions