Which in the longer run benefited France quite a bit. It's hard to immediately judge whether something is beneficial or not. See also the 'We'll see' parable.

And what happened after that? You're not being serious if you just end there. Liberal democracy, capitalism and the metric system in most of the world...

I don't think the country realising it's mistakes and trying a different thing is all that bad. Compared to the American model where the constitution ia considered as the word of god and it cannot be touch, i know which one i prefer.

Not a meaningful metric. Changing when you need to change is a good thing. One could just as easily argue that the US elevation of its original constitution into a quasi-religious document has a lot to do with the country's current dysfunction.

Technically the current US one is the second.

A stable nation with good quality of life for it's citizens, as opposed to a revolving door of failed governments, or a new dictatorial government that quickly becomes as bad as the one that was ousted. Which is often what violent revolutions lead to. It turns out that a civil war leaves a nation on fragile ground, and the leaders who are so effective during your uprising often are not the ones best suited for rebuilding after the fact. And that's assuming your uprising has a single coherent faction and not many who will now set to squabbling amongst themselves about how the new government should work now that the common enemy is gone.