[kayo_20211030]

Maybe. I'd propose that Louis XVI is more or less historically irrelevant. He just happened to be the king on the throne when the real historical figures came for him - Robespierre, St. Just, Danton etc., and they then were followed by Napoleon, who, no matter how you look at it, must be high on the HPI scale. Louis XIV, and even Louis XIII, seem to me more fundamentally "historical" than poor old sixteen.

[achierius]

I think it's very plausible, looking at the individual events of the revolution, that a different king could have averted what eventually came to pass -- certainly, it could have been possible to have a much more 'moderate' result adjudicated entirely within the Estates General, or even without calling it at all. That alone is enough to suggest that Louis XVI, while 'unremarkable' in and of himself, was historically quite relevant precisely in that he was unremarkable. A remarkable king could have resulted in a very different result and thus course to history overall.