The French Revolution wasn't *that* violent in the beginning, in 1789-1792. You get the impression many people think French commoners spontaneously rose up and cut off the King's head but it was 3.5 years between the Bastille and Louis XVI's execution. Hell the King even participated in the first ever Bastille day celebration.

All hell broke loose, the Terror, the mass killings, *after* France got involved in an existential war and the King was exposed as a traitor and everyone panicked.

The first thing that happened is that the Crown went bankrupt and its authority disappeared. The King needed to regain legitimacy and for that he needed to share power more broadly. France had a growing ambitious bourgeoisie who was largely shut off from power and wouldn't let this opportunity slip.

The King lost control of the reform process but he was still a convenient lynchpin of the Constitution, which still gave him extensive veto powers.

The French were the ones to declare war on Austria, it's interesting to think of an alt history where cooler heads prevail and focus on internal regime consolidation rather than chasing the reactionary émigré nobles.

It's still a very difficult environment for the Revolution, after all the Austrians might end up declaring war themselves anyway.

And there's very little in the way of democratic tradition, most of the population is still peasants who maybe don't trust corrupt bishops, distant nobles or a traitor King, but still look up to their local priest, their local baron and have the general idea that some sort of King should be in charge. The engines of the Revolution, the urban artisans and the bourgeoisie, are in the minority and don't necessarily love each other.

@DiegoBeghin These kind of analyses are super interesting.

We see the revolutions of 1848 as mainly having been failures, but they actually democratized huge parts of Central and Eastern Europe's populace, and further catalysed the democratization process in France, Benelux, and Scandinavia. (I wrote my BA thesis on this).

@Squig That makes you more of a specialist than me 😅

But yeah, it's interesting how many failures it takes until "we" get it right. Even the English who like to be smug about their political stability had a bunch of revolutions and civil wars in the 17th century. Didn't result in modern democracy because the material conditions weren't right, but they did limit the monarch's power, a pretty good system for their time.