Did Louis XVI deserve to die?

No, the revolution was a mistake.

>thinking anyone "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" death in history
>thinking it's ever mattered whether they have or not

Babbies first.

Death to kings and monarchists! !

Long live the Revolution! !

he wasn't in charge long enough to really show his stripes as a ruler. He was executed for Louix XV's crimes, which were immense and terrible.

There was more of that stuff under the monarchy than under any republic

He didn't give a shit about commoners.

He secretly colluded with foreign nobility to invade France and restore le ancien regime.

Fuck Louis, his wife and son.

Long live the Revolution!
Death to the enemies of the Republic.

He tried to betray his people by inviting foreign nations to invade France.

He deserved it.

>namefag
>"comrade"
Okay memester

I see his weenie

גוי טוב

Edgy

t.Burke

>Believing in revolutions based on abstractions.
Kill yourself pleb.

...

Betrayed his vows by trying to flee to Austria and help foreigners plunder, rape and burn the french countryside.
He deserved to die. Not because he was the King of France, but because he betrayed France.

>he betrayed France.
Nice abstraction faggot.
>Implying that Robespierre and his psyco buddies didnt do more harm to the French commoner than the foreing armies.

גוי טוב

>wah wah the revolutionaries were mean

No they really didn't, because foreign invasions were what put France into such a state of disarray to begin with.

Nope

>He betrayed France.
>Y-y-yes, b-b-b-ut... Look, this guy ! He's much worst ! I swear !

Robespierre may have fucked shit up too. It's not entirely historically true (He was more of a scapegoat for the jacobins than anything, he was against death penalty and abolished slavery), but whatever floats your boat ; Robespierre was put to death too. A traitor is punished as a traitor deserves.
Now, Louis XVI, he was the King of France, and more than one revolutionnary was happy to have him as a figurehead. He could have stayed in Paris and shut his damn mouth, instead of running away. He signed his death warrant the moment he conspired to join Austria.

You are assuming that the revolution was right,and it wasnt harmful to France. France decadence starts at that point,and huge portions of the population were alienated due to the autocratic and centralist face of the revolution. The foreing invasion would have been the best thing for France,and Louis would have done the reforms that he was planning to do,like taxing the nobility and such.

>No they really didn't, because foreign invasions were what put France into such a state of disarray to begin with.
Kek. No it wasnt. Half of the country was openly against the revolution,and masacres like Vendee would have happened for sure. Robespierre killed more civilians than all the Austrian and Prussian armies combined.

The death of Europe.

If it wasnt for the industrial revolution,Europe would have collapsed after the Napoleonic wars.

>Louis would have done the reforms he was planning to do

Do you even know french History at all ?
Louis XVI was the weakest King France ever had. He refused to do anything in his country because he was always shit-scared of everyone, of a few protests or strikes. Did you know that René Nicolas de Maupeou, his justice minister, already did all of the egality reforms the revolutionnaries would do (Free justice, end of the Parliament corruption, judges closer to the populace...) but Louis, seeing the aristocrats move up the peasantry, decided to end the reform and everything ?

The Revolution was caused by Louis XVI if anything else. Like every revolution, it was violent, unrestrained, but France was simply going to become a constitutionnal monarchy like in England.
Then, Louis decides to betray France and join the enemy. I mean, how can you support a man like that ? Do you know how atrocious a war is ? Think that in Northern France, austrians and prussians were going in every little village on horses, to burn down houses, rape women, plunder freely. Think that all of Europe declared war on the new regime, and they did so because they had the implied support of King Louis who didn't want to stay a simple figurehead.

The problem is that most people want to turn the French Revolution into a philosophical debate, and most philosophers at that time were monarchists quick to see "degeneracy" like the dumb conservators they were. The French Revolution wasn't. No philsophical plan was achived with the regimes of 1790. The Revolution happened because of a social, economical and political crisis that the Crown was uncapable, due to the personality of the Crown's holder, to halt. The Revolution happened BECAUSE of the King and his aristocracy.
And still, it wasn't so bad. Because afterwards, came Napoléon Bonaparte, who managed to bring back both the Monarchy's tradition and power, with the reached goals of the Revolution to enforce egality and liberty.

...

Not really. He was willing to go along with reforms, but popular opinion just demanded it after he tried to flee.

>He was willing to go along the reforms
He vetoed every great reforms the revolutionnaries wanted to do. He even vetoed the levy of a tax to pay for the french military while the prussians were invading.

>The Revolution was caused by Louis XVI if anything else.
It was caused because bad crops.
>Like every revolution, it was violent, unrestrained, but France was simply going to become a constitutionnal monarchy like in England.
No. The focus of the revolution was in Paris,and people were getting more radicalized and Paris had the most extremist focus of the war
>Then, Louis decides to betray France and join the enemy.
This is relative. You just created and abstraction to justify something. He didnt betrayed France. He betrayed the revolution. The revolutionaries commited open genocide in la Vendee later on. Do you consider that a betrayal to France?
> I mean, how can you support a man like that ? Do you know how atrocious a war is ? Think that in Northern France, austrians and prussians were going in every little village on horses, to burn down houses, rape women, plunder freely.
Nothing compared to Robespierre and his buddies. Look what they did at la vendee.
>Think that all of Europe declared war on the new regime, and they did so because they had the implied support of King Louis who didn't want to stay a simple figurehead.
And this is bad because?
>The problem is that most people want to turn the French Revolution into a philosophical debate,
It partially was.
>and most philosophers at that time were monarchists quick to see "degeneracy" like the dumb conservators they were.
Not an argument. Burke BTFO any revolutionaire philospher.
>The French Revolution wasn't. No philsophical plan was achived with the regimes of 1790.
Yes. Montesquieau heavily influemced that constitution
>The Revolution happened BECAUSE of the King and his aristocracy.
No. It happened because the bourgouis wanted to rule the country.
>And still, it wasn't so bad. Because afterwards, came Napoléon Bonaparte
Napoleon killed a whole generation of French people and started the fall of France for real. Defending abstractions wont erase his crappy legacy to France.

There were no great reforms from that mob

>it was caused because bad crops

Common misconception. The Revolution was caused by a LOT of things. The bad crops was just the little drop of water that made the whole vase overdrench. Before that, there was the economic bankruptcy, the criminal case of Guines, and the crisis of the parliaments that showed everyone how Louis XVI was uncapable to change anything in his corrupt country. There's even one of his ministers (Can't remember if it's Lamoignon or Choison), who, just when he was forced to resign because of the crisis of the parliament (So much before 1789), sent him a letter were he wrote : "Be really careful, your Majesty, and always try to be stronger than you are ; Weakness is what sent Charles I to the block".

Now, of course revolutionnary France wasn't a good regime. And at no point have I tried to defend them. I just told you that Louis betrayed the Revolution, and his betrayal was much before the rise of Robespierre and the Vendée massacre. One could even see in the jacobins' actions a desperate bid to hold together a country falling apart everywhere. Because, no matter how horrible it was, the Terror suceeded ; Paris wasn't taken.

Also Montesquieu was a monarchist.

>I just told you that Louis betrayed the Revolution
What is wrong with this? If someone made a coup in your country,and the exile goverment tried to take it back with foreing help,would it be justified?
>And his betrayal was much before the rise of Robespierre and the Vendée massacre.
And those wakos were gaining popularity,they wpuld have rised at some point.
> One could even see in the jacobins' actions a desperate bid to hold together a country falling apart everywhere.
The same could be said about Louis trying to end the revolution
>Also Montesquieu was a monarchist.
Never denied this. He was still a philosopher,and a pretty respected one.

The problem is, Louis vowed. Louis came before the people, and swore to uphold the principles of the Revolution and defend the french Nation. He wasn't in exile, he accepted it, fair and square. But by working in the shadows and trying to run away, he commited perjury. Louis XVIII, who will come after Napoléon, was pretty much the entire contrary of his brother ; Though he was King of France again, he never tried to run out of a deal and allowed the assemblies to hold the powers they were given by his Cartha.

>deserve
Obviously not

>had to
Sure

>He supports a revolution that installed another monarch.
Why can't frogs revolution like Americans?

He fucked up and listened to his wife instead of letting things go. If he hadn't, France would still be a monarchy today. So yeah, he deserve to die for his fuckup.

>It was caused because of bad crops
Lol, that oversimplification.
His financial ministers (one of them was named Necker I believe) also crashed the French economy with taking out constant loans with huge interest rates. While this worked in the short run, Louis XVI was forced to eventually pay the large interest on these loans, causing economic collapse as he was forced to tax the common man even moreso. Taxing the aristocracy would have been a death sentence for his centralized regime.
Overall, people that support the monarchy are just fringe historians that try to view things from a contemporary standpoint.

Like most monarchs, he was kind of dimwitted, wimpy, and out of touch. He didn't deserve to rule, certainly, but it wasn't his fault he was the heir to the crown.

What republic?

POUR DIEU ET LE ROY, MOTHERFUCKER

Pédale

Louis XVI was an intelligent man but not a leader. Slow to react on nearly everything and easily overrun.
Napoleon learned from his mistakes and showed the plebs that they need to be ruled by an elite.
He didn't deserve to die, his death was utterly useless, pretty much nothing changed. It took a while before the crazy french understood that being fundamentalist iconoclasts is insane and simply bizarre.
As I said, Napoleon later took the order back and made France en empire, which is of course pretty much the same thing as before.

The revolution should have been quickly and brutally suppressed.

>hating on based Burke for telling the truth

t. Mary Wollstonecraft