Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Louis XV lacked his father's consuming passion for directing the state and delegated more than he should have to ministers, but was an improvement on the Regency and, when he chose to focus, had acceptable capability. The problem was that there had been so little effective effort to strengthen and rationalize governance that much of the power that Louis had soaked out of the nobility was just allowed to dissipate instead of being consolidated for the benefit of the state. Louis XVI was a full order of magnitude less competent than his father, it seems to me. My point was that there are a great number of times in various kingdoms when the monarchy was threatened but very few times when successful revolutions occurred.

The French Republic harnessed political, social and military power on a scale that created a new norm. The only other kingdom in Europe to have gone through such a transformation was Great Britain, so Great Britain and France resumed their traditional roles as rivals on more equal terms that before the revolution, with Great Britain playing a largely defensive role, financing and supporting those increasingly fewer allies it could find on the continent.

The energies released by the French Revolution set France on the path of transition to a more industrial nation, but intermittently. Slowing that process was one result of the Congress of Vienna, though the intent may have been more to slow secularism and republicanism, especially from the point of view of Austria and Russia, but anything that slowed France from going through an agricultural commercial, and industrial revolution was a benefit to Great Britain.

But we have now 'progressed' to the point where we have recreated the kind of parasitic, unaccountable, rent seeking dominance by a small group in the financial sector that we previously saw in the clergy and nobility of the ancien régime in France or in pre-Civil War Stuart England. Even though the 18th Century was an 'empty world' and we are now in a quite 'full world' and facing ever rising prices for natural resources I think we could still harness a much greater efficiency by instituting economic and social organizations that mobilize the full potential of the whole population and serve to equalize both wealth distribution and leisure rather than, as at present, further concentrate wealth at the top.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 03:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"but was an improvement on the Regency"

I am a fan of the view that the regency was the happiest period in 18th century France.

"The French Republic harnessed political, social and military power on a scale that created a new norm."

I am still a fan of the Toqueville view that the revolution and napoleon just finished off the centralizing tendencies of the ancien regime.

by IM on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 03:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the revolution and napoleon just finished off the centralizing tendencies of the ancien regime

Yeah, because the French Republic hasn't been centralist at all. Oh, no.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 04:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thinkn IM meant finished as in compleated, not as in ended.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 04:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
finished off on the sense of completing it. That is the Toqueville thesis in the

L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Regime_and_the_Revolution

"It is one of the major early historical works on the French Revolution. In this book, de Tocqueville develops his main theory about the French revolution, the theory of continuity, in which he states that even though the French tried to disassociate themselves from the past and from the autocratic old regime, they eventually reverted to a powerful central government."

As I said a plausible thesis.

Could you for once think before firing?

by IM on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 04:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nah, it's more fun this way.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 04:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am a fan of the view that the regency was the happiest period in 18th century France.

Certainly it was for the nobility at court and the attendant courtesans and dandies, and the inflating of the Mississippi Bubble was accompanied by the usual euphoria.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jul 4th, 2012 at 06:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Courtesans and dandies are people too, my friend.

I was more thinking of more peace, less gloire. At the death of the regent France was better off then at the death of Louis XIV.

by IM on Thu Jul 5th, 2012 at 02:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also: new Orleans, a city still holding up the spirit of it's name patron! That alone is a pro regency argument.
by IM on Thu Jul 5th, 2012 at 02:16:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series