>a ruler so incompetent he caused the french revolution >6'

I like his shoes

>caused the French Revolution

that's now how history works, bro

>he thinks 6' 1" is a lanklet

How short do you have to be to think that lmao

>>1806038
the policy decisions of him and his father provoked the revolution
>>1806046
dumb swede

>>1806084
I'm a Burger.

>>1806087
i love how you objected to being called a swede but not to being called dumb

>>1805873
Lanklet? The dude was fairly fat.

>>1806095
There's literally nothing wrong with being dumb.

File: 1400809272165.gif (3MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 291x300px

>6'1"
>lanklet

>>1806114
his legs look kinda skinny
>>1806140
anything under 5'11" is manlet and anything over is lanklet

>>1805873
>Revolution happens
>Stay as the king of France
>People not intended on killing you
>Seeming like France is still a monarchy, just not an absolute one
>Suddenly decide to go to Austria for help
>Fuck upp
>Get caught
>Despite this massive act of betrayal the vote for executing you only pass through with one vote

Could he have fucked it up more?

>>1806391
They were basically prisoners, they had zero power before the escape

>>1806445
There were Prisoners people didn't want to kill.
Then they tried to flee despite imgaes of the King's face being spread out on all of France's coins.

File: GiantScales2.jpg (346KB, 900x758px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 900x758px

>>1806146
All humans are manlets.

>>1806445
>They were basically prisoners
Yeah, poor Bourbons! They just ruled the most powerful country in Europe and lived in extravagant wealth, but they were actually limited by a National Assembly that represented the people! Truly, I cannot imagine a fate more horrible than that!

>>1806454
>Then they tried to flee despite imgaes of the King's face being spread out on all of France's coins.
Yeah, there was some debate going on between republicans and constitutionalists about what direction France was going in, with the constitutionalists being more popular (Louis XVI was pretty beloved due to his intervention in the American war of independence, among other things). But then he betrayed his own country so naturally the republicans were winning out.

>>1806084
>and his father

Yeah, I'm not going to take the opinion of someone who thinks Louis XV was Louis XVI's father seriously.

>lanklet
>compensating for your shortness by attempting to counter-meme without appreciating how stupid the term is

Manlet works on multiple levels by A immediately evoking an image of the man's stature, and implying he's less of a man for it. Lanklet does neither of these.

>>1806391
He never "suddenly decided to go to Austria." He intended to flee to a stronghold in the French countryside. He specifically chose a (longer, shittier) route that would not take them across the border because he didn't want to be viewed as abandoning the country. He specifically chose not to have the Austrian soldiers who had fled to the other side of the border save him and his family because it would be likely that some French people would die in the skirmish. He refused to sanction the European powers desire to threaten the new government with force multiple times, until it was just weeks before the final violent act against the monarchy that would overthrow it.

The reason they decided to flee Paris in 1791 is that it had become clear that not only did the new government not want the king to have any legitimate power, they wanted him to be a puppet, and they did not even respect the new laws that they were putting into place. Just 2 months before the flight, he and his family (including 2 children) were threatened with murder if they went to their summer palace to hear Easter mass from a priest who hadn't taken the Constitutional oath. They were not allowed to leave the palace in Paris, despite being guaranteed by the new government the freedom to move about. And his life, and the life of his wife and children, was threatened more than once when he used his new government, by-the-people given right to veto measures that would result in religious discrimination and the (in his view) illegal government seizure of property.

It's surprising, but Louis XVI didn't care that France wasn't an absolute monarchy. He even embraced the concept of a Constitution--just not one which he was forced by threat of violence to agree with. He was vehemently opposed to the laws which restricted religious practices, and the laws which allowed the government to seize houses, property and even imprison people for political and religious beliefs.

>>1806445
Not true at all, the Constitution gave the King veto power, and he used it several times both before and after the escape

>>1808957
>He intended to flee to a stronghold in the French countryside
A stronghold full of royalist officers who wanted to get rid of the Constitution, and specifically chosen because it was near where the Austrian army was massed in Belgium.

>threatened with murder
By whom? Maybe some random republicans who were still a fringe element at this time, but not by anyone with any actual power.

>Louis XVI didn't care that France wasn't an absolute monarchy
It's unclear what Louis thought. His manifesto basically condemned everything that had occurred since October 1789, and there is evidence he wanted to return things to June 1789, before the storming of the Bastille, meaning basically still an absolute monarchy just with some minor reforms. Certainly the Queen, his brothers, and most of his courtiers wanted a return to absolutism.

>just not one which he was forced by threat of violence to agree with
So basically he wanted a Constitution, but only one that he agreed with and got to issue for himself without any popular pressure. How magnanimous.

>>1806140
17 camera crewmen were exucuted after this

>>1808957
t. Action Française

Parlement caused the Revolution. Louis XVI tried to push through a ton of reforms, but they blocked him.

>>1809040
>A stronghold full of royalist officers who wanted to get rid of the Constitution

It doesn't matter what the officers think, since it's not what the king intended.

>By whom? Maybe some random republicans who were still a fringe element at this time, but not by anyone with any actual power.

By mobs which were not stopped, condemned, or allowed to be punished. Mobs who were praised in newspapers and pamphlets for continually threatening the life of the king, his wife, and children.

>So basically he wanted a Constitution, but only one that he agreed with and got to issue for himself without any popular pressure. How magnanimous.

Yes, he wanted a Constitution that he sanctioned freely and not at the force of violence. That's not shocking or unreasonable at all. Not only was he completely left out of the creation of the Constitution, he was then forced to sanction it at the threat of violence. But sanction it he did--then he obsessively followed it to the letter of the law (even though the people who created it didn't bother) to show how poorly thought out it was. And it flopped.

From his Manifesto

>with what pleasure will he forget all the personal injuries and find himself in your midst again, when a Constitution which he has freely accepted ensures that our holy religion shall be respected, that government shall be established on a stable footing, and through its operation no one shall be troubled in their goods or their condition, that laws shall no longer be infringed with impunity, and finally that liberty shall be established on firm and unshakable foundations

also
>minor reforms

The reforms Louis XVI wanted were not minor at all. They completely overhauled the tax system and social system of the ancien regime--that's why the noble-led Parlement kicked up such a fuss and refused to sanction them decades prior. Louis XVI just didn't want to be a puppet king who was threatened with violence if he used the powers given to him by the people.

>>1807710
>But then he betrayed his own country
Stepping away from psychopaths willing to kill you isn't much of a betrayal.

Dude just wanted to be left alone to his watchmaking.

>>1808957
Louis was a cuck and I'm saying this as a hardline monarchist, you simply CANNOT, under no circumstances, negotiate with leftist rebels. They will break every promise they've given to you 5 second after they get the upper hand, you actually have to act like the "evil tyrant" their propaganda portrays you as to restore order.

Nicholas II followed more or less the exact same naive path and got the exact same results out of it. The revolutionaries are not human and they shouldn't be treated as human.

>>1808927
it's a lanklet thread why would you take it seriously

and why would you ruin it with actual historical discussion holy shit

>>1809228
>It doesn't matter what the officers think, since it's not what the king intended.
The kings had been wanting to push through those reforms for years and he had never gone through with it because his nobles talked him down from it.
Why wouldn't the officers be able to do the same to him now?

>>1809228
>It doesn't matter what the officers think, since it's not what the king intended
Ridiculous. The people that surround the King are obviously important, especially for a spineless one like Louis.

>By mobs which were not stopped, condemned, or allowed to be punished. Mobs who were praised in newspapers and pamphlets for continually threatening the life of the king, his wife, and children
And when did these "mobs" threaten the lives of the royal family before the flight to Varennes? Because before the flight, most of them believed the King was a benevolent father who had their best interests at heart, and if they just told him what they wanted, he would do it. No threats involved.

>Yes, he wanted a Constitution that he sanctioned freely and not at the force of violence
The threat of violence is the only way to make someone do something they don't want to do, so when you talk about "a Constitution that he sanctioned freely" you're basically saying "only a Constitution he agreed with".

>That's not shocking or unreasonable at all
It's not shocking, obviously people only want to do what they want to do, but it is unreasonable. Why should he be able to only do what he wants, with no input from the people?

>>1809697
Exactly. They betrayed their king, so he betrayed them in order to restore order. Post-1789 Paris was a fucking shitshow.

>a ruler so incompetent he caused the french revolution

american tier education
Louis XVI was the one that actually tried to reform the country but the nobility and clergy cockblocked him and the people got mad at him because he was the public figure also they lost respect for him when they found out he was a c***

>>1810704
>And when did these "mobs" threaten the lives of the royal family before the flight to Varennes?
>before the flight
>No threats involved.

So when a mob of thousands descended on Versailles, broke into the palace, murdered the guards protecting the family with the intent of finding the queen and killing her with bayonets, then pointed guns at the king and queen, and demanded that the king must come to Paris or else, that wasn't a threat?

When mobs regularly gathered at the Tuileries palace to shout threatening insults at the family, especially the queen, that wasn't a threat?

When the family attempted to leave Paris for their summer palace at Easter, and were blocked by a mob who threatened them for hours with violence and death if they attempted to leave--even though the new government guaranteed that they should be at liberty to move about-- that wasn't a threat?

>>1811268
>Absolute monarchy where nobless was put down by his grand-father, restore the parlement and their power.
He was incompetent.

>>1806146
5'9 and everything beneath is considered as legitimately short.