Alright everyone, I have noticed that in History & Humanities, there is a lack of Monarchist sympathy.
Lets find out a way this unfortunate great man could have saved not only himself but the great French Monarchy.
I believe that if Louis would have sent away Marie Antoinette and kept his financial minister Calonne, he wouldve stood a chance for a while until he would called back Turgot, the better financial minister whom was before Calonne. With the help of Turgot, he would get rid of the Taille and Gabelle taxes and would place a few taxes on the privileged nobility. With Turgot as the financial director and Calonne the internal minister, i believe France would have become the greatest country in Europe without the French Revolution ever happening, with no stupid Napoleon!
>>495970
>Lets find out a way this unfortunate great man could have saved not only himself but the great French Monarchy.
By replacing his French subjects with Prussians or English. Basically anyone less petty.
>>495970
I think you'd be basically right on the nose, if it weren't for the fact that Louis was a damn ninny simpleton who could barely find his way out of a paper sack, coupled with court's back-biting intrigues. That's what screwed him and the entire French monarchy.
Bad roll on the monarchy dice m8. He wasnt bad, just not good and had no spine.>>495970
>>495970
I'm a monarchist but Napoleon was great. Unfortunately in a france post revolution only a man like Napoleon could become a monarch (and make his family monarchs) while still maintaining support from the people. He ended the awful period of the revolution and redirected that fervor into making France truly great.
>>495970
Didn't he put more taxes on the nobility end end what was essentially welfare for inactive nobility?
>>496119
>>496224
Combo of these two.
Louis XVII wasn't really made of the right stuff to start with, but even if he was then they would've just had a later Revolution at the rate things were going.
Not saying the Revolution was inevitable, but by the time Louis XVII took the throne things were pretty dim. Those finances needed some pretty spectacular unfucking, best case scenario would've probably still been a shuffling of the classes and a constitutional monarchy and that'd be with some major luck.
>>496329
wrong louis, mate. louis xvii was a ten year old who died after some old fashioned revolutionary abuse
If he hasn't brought back the Parlement of Paris, no organized body would have been able to so publicly oppose and refuse to sanction his social and financial reforms--reforms that would have made many of the complaints of 1789 null and void.
Country would have still strughled, especially if he helped the American colonists, but the widespread desire for social change would not have had such fervor because his reforms would have made taxes based on your income, eliminated the corvee. etc, in 1774 instead of 15 years later.
Don't mind me, just posting the best leader France has ever had
>>496478
his scepter looks like it has a hand on it
>>495970
Boring.
Let's talk about that huge and sensitive cock he had.
>>496452
Whoopsidoodle. Louis XVI then.
Good thing you caught that, probably would've thrown off the whole thread.
>>496482
It does
The french kings were all various shades of mediocre since Charlemagne.
If France had not been the most populous country of europe they would have been irrelevant.
>>496478
Louis XIV was the greatest ruler in the 17th Century, if not the greatest ruler of all France
>>495974
Love this woman
Wasn't Turgot the one who lied about the state of the French finances? And then before he left published something that basically said LOL WE LIED ALL THOSE YEARS AGO WE'RE BROKE AS FUCK? I can't keep these ministers straight.
>>497624
Turgot was also one of the only officials that kept in touch with public opinion, and he never lied, he published an essay on the affairs of finance. Peopl2 hated him because he showed the corruption in the tax collecting system, if not the entire tax system.
>saved himself
He could have saved himself if he was more willing to shed blood. At every pivotal moment where he had chance of escape, he refused to do it.
>saved the French monarchy
Never recall the parlement OR have more balls and launch his own public campaign about his reforms that counteracted the noble-led parlement's "it's tyrannical to force these reforms... which make things easier for the poor..." campaign that turned public opinion against Louis XVI even though his reforms were just, necessary, and would be forced through after 1789 anyway.
The problem is that it just wasn't in his nature. He was timid. He second guessed himself. God knows how many of his ministers and contemporaries wrote that he was instinctively right but that he constantly sought the opinions of others because he was afraid of being like Louis XV. He also sucked at public speaking. One on one, or with a handful of people, he could move them to tears. In front of an entire group? Awkward as fuck.
>>499330
Okay I looked it up, I was thinking of Necker. Necker lied about the state of finances to make people think that things were were hunky-dorey when they weren't.
The one that could have been great. If only he had not die because of cancer after only 100 days.
