in other words, what did he do wrong and what did he do to cause the french revolution
2006-12-21 12:13:28 · 8 answers · asked by hi 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The situation was similar to that of the last czar. Both lacked charisma, ability to rule a kingdom, and their wives were unpopular with the people. The population was in great misery, and the monarchs did nothing to solve the problem.
In the case of Louis, he called the three states, and the common ones decided to make themselves heard.
Louis payed no attention
2006-12-25 05:07:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In France, before the time of the French Revolution, the country was already in distress. King Louis xvi should have been able to recognize this and dealt with it in advance. He was just too weak to deal with the issues that a good king should be able to handle. He spent a lot of money and put himself further into debt and in order to deal with this, he raised the tax especially for peasants. This caused outrage among the poor peasants and thus caused them to rebel in order to get the change they desired. In other words, they started a revolution.
2006-12-21 20:30:10 · answer #2 · answered by dvd_clapp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was feeble minded. He liked to play with his hobby gadgets rather than take care of courtly matters and Marie Antoinette. He was a child man, who couldn't make a decision about how to react to the peasant's revolt of being overly taxed and burden. General Lafayette, the American Revolutionary War hero, tried to help the king and his family, but Louie XVI was making all the wrong moves.
2006-12-21 20:26:00 · answer #3 · answered by mac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well...
He lacked a lot of things...
In part, I think, he lacked commitment to his people. He was more interested in his hobbies than in ruling the nation....
I think he was a good-hearted man, but wasn't very intelligent, so perhaps intelligence might have been a factor.
I think he lacked good ministers and advisors as well. A good cabinet of ministers could have helped him stave off the revolution.
He lacked personality, as everything he did seemed just to anger his people more and more.
He lacked Charisma, and he was a naturally unlikeable character.
He lacked good fiscal judgment, as he deemed it fitting to finance our revolution, while letting his own people starve.
He lacked character, letting the church dictate his policies for him, not knowing how to separate his rule from the bishops -- a skill that many French monarchs lacked.
That's about it from my perspective...although I think there are probably many other things that he lacked....
Namaste,
--Tom
2006-12-21 20:22:39 · answer #4 · answered by glassnegman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a weak king in a time that required strength. He was unable to recognize that change was inevitable and he had not the slightest idea as to how to cope with the financial burden left to him by Louis XIV. He wasn't a bad man, but he was definitely the wrong man at the wrong time.
2006-12-21 20:17:46 · answer #5 · answered by balderarrow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think he wasn't allowed to get a clue about what was really going on in his country...his advisors kept him in the dark...kings make such good and handy scapegoats, when one desires to start a revolution and grab some power and perhaps some wealth along the way. the queen's remark "let them eat cake" was an honest reply, she truly didnot know the state of the people, and when she was told they had no bread, she wasn't thinking that they could be starving, so she really wasn't the heartless witch history has painted her out to be.
2006-12-21 20:24:05 · answer #6 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He bought that ridiculously expensice necklace for Marie Antoinette. With no money, he raised up the tax and cause revolition among peasant.
So I think he needs more ambition and power over people.
And good financial advisor.
2006-12-21 20:26:06 · answer #7 · answered by BryanB 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he lacked a head. at least at the end he did.
2006-12-21 20:24:28 · answer #8 · answered by Smith Jerrod 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋