Ultimately a good thing, or a bad thing?

This was meant to be a poll, btw. :cry:

Sorry to hijack your thread, but who said in response to that very question "it's too soon to tell"?

Who can get the answer in the QUICKEST?

It was an inevitable thing, the outdated system of absolutist monarchy had to fall. And I'd also say it was a good thing, ultimately, though on the short term (and that's open for interpretation) it might look different.

Was it a good thing?Yes n no.T'was a popular uprising but it was led by the bourgeoisie.Only the rich had the right to vote.French then were hated throughout Europe because of Napoleon n his troops.Then came the 1830 n 1848 revolutions, bourgeoise revolutions giving political popular sovereignty(in some countries) but no economical popular sovereignty(we still don't have it).The bourgeoisie replaced the aristocracy n gave little to the people n people were happy.
In the Middle-Age,the richest were the landlords but with the development of trade,the bourgeoisie became the richest n we all know that the state needs money to live,so it was logical that the bourgeoisie overthrow the aristocracy.
Moreover,French people are very proud of the revolution whereas it was led by the bourgeoisie n it was anarchy.Moreover it failed.

A good thing.

But they sure made it easy to think otherwise along the way.

Would have been nice if the French had demonstrated a LITTLE self control in that second phase, eh?

Although it later degenerated into bloodshed,chaos and Napoleon it laid the foundation for civil rights in Europe (of course there was 1776 in America,but in Europe the French revolution had more influence I think).

It was the foundation of the modern world, and the inspiration for many other countries.

I recall that Switzerland practices direct democracy since the mid-13th century n that England had a revolution in the mid-17th century n the Bill of Rights in 1689.The reason of the expansion of liberalism in Europe isn't the french revolution but the 1830 n 1848 ones.

I'm going to vote negative, although only partially because everyone else voted positive. Balance!

The French Revolution romanticized revolution, communal violence and mob rule for the 19th and early 20th century, misleading so many of the oppressed peoples across Europe to commit national suicide in the disasters of 1848, and beyond. Yes, the French Revolution was the Continental answer to imperial oppression but its own bloody path should have been a warning that sending the masses into the streets to fight regular soldiers, and then run an administration if they win, leads ultimately to mass bloodshed. From the Tennis Court Parliament to Napoleon's assumption of the emperorship is an extremely violent story of mass executions, personal and class vendettas, anarchy, starvation, and of course a continuous series of wars lasting nearly a quarter century. Funny thing is everytime another European country tried to emulate the French Revolution, it pretty much played out the same way.

A professor-friend of mine once said, at some ungodly hour while we waited on the Romanian-Hungarian border (two countries infused with the romantic revolutionary ideal of the French Revolution), that she hated to hear her colleagues speak in glowing terms of the French Revolution because she wonders whether there wasn't perhaps another way. In my university city in Hungary the Soviets in 1945 forced the city to move its statue dedicated to Napoleon up to an obscure part of one of the hills surrounding the city. (Wonder why?) Poland sent volunteers by the tens of thousands to fight for Napoleon - being the last of his units to leave him as they escorted him to his Elban exile - and the Poles followed blindly into bloody Revolution against the Russians in 1830 (flying their old French banners), in 1846 against the Habsburgs and again in 1863 against the Russians, and for what? What did we finally achieve? The death of many thousands of Poles, the destruction of so many Polish towns, estates, churches, historic buildings, and even worse oppression.

Here's a final thought: What did the French Revolution really bequeath to Europe? Prussia (no friend of mine to be sure) is often blamed for its militarism - Alexander I said of Prussia that "most countries have an army but Prussia is an army that has a country". However, Prussian militarism was an outgrowth of French militarism, of the levée en masse, of the ideological army driven my nationalism and under the exclusive control of the state - these are French innovations born of the Revolution, not Prussian. The Prussian wholesale adoption of the French model was of course based on its clear success, but equally a reaction against the French conquest of Europe, a reaction that spawned modern German nationalism; Wacht am Rhein! The French Revolution raised the bar so to speak on the level of penetration both populism and militarism could achieve in society, and opened the floodgates for the growing militarism of the 19th century that would lead to the calamity of 1914.

In 1832 the British Parliament passed the first in a series of reform bills that immediately just about did away with the corrupt old "rotten borroughs" and doubled the voting franchise. Nobody got killed, no one was guillotined, and the country set on a course for greater democraticization; a true revolution and yet because it took place through unromantic political backroom wrangling and heated floor debates it is largely discounted today. Everyone remembers the Revolution with the nifty banners, slogans and romantic storming of prisons (with lots of bloodshed for good effect) but few are interested in the Revolution that really achieved what it set out to and did so peacefully.

Oddly enough actually, one man did notice - Karl Marx, who opined that the Anglo-Saxon states would probably reform their way out of the worst aspects of capitalism without revolution. (Hey - could Poland be exempt from the "revolution rule" too? Please?) Nice, that. The communist schools in Eastern Europe taught everyone how wonderful the French Revolution was, even glorifying the mass executions and bloodshed. No wonder I'm suspicious...

I have always thought that, "A Tale of Two Cities" captured the ruthlessness of the revolution fairly decently. I would like to hear your thoughts on it though.

Good perspective Vyrlakas. :goodjob:

A question though, given that the French model did prove to be more effective, isn't it likely that even without the revolution some European power would have harnessed that power sooner or later? Obviously any change could result in a 'better' history, but also could result in a 'worse' one as well.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
In 1832 the British Parliament passed the first in a series of reform bills that immediately just about did away with the corrupt old "rotten borroughs" and doubled the voting franchise. Nobody got killed, no one was guillotined, and the country set on a course for greater democraticization; a true revolution and yet because it took place through unromantic political backroom wrangling and heated floor debates it is largely discounted today.

Well, that sounds lovely, but I may point out the obvious flaw in that: The 1832 reform act was not brought about by the empowered classes thinking 'What a great idea it would be to diminish our power!', rather it was brought about by a huge amount of pressure from the public. The short-term leading up to reform can probably be noted as the point in modern British history that a revolution was most likely to take place. The atmosphere was explosive, with riots, disturbances and the like. Peel was even pondering whether or not to fortify his house.

Luckily, and I'd say it was luck above anything else, the situation was defused by The Lords in Parliament staging a mass-abstention excercise, and the bill got passed. However, reform was by no means an 'easy ride', and one fault by any of the parties involved may have lead to revolution.

I have to say that some systems are almost absolutely incapable of reforming themselves and genuinely need a revolution. Absolutist France was one of those.

Knowltok2 wrote:

A question though, given that the French model did prove to be more effective, isn't it likely that even without the revolution some European power would have harnessed that power sooner or later? Obviously any change could result in a 'better' history, but also could result in a 'worse' one as well.

In a sense the various Continental powers did try to harness that power by the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th. This is part of the reason behind the disastrous war of 1914-18, that what started as a good old fashioned imperial war over position in Europe degenerated into a nationalist war to the death between the nations. The governments thought they could control this power but it overcame them when the casualties began to pile up and they needed to explain why to their countries.

BTW Knowltok, are you done with that cookie problem? I notice I've only been seeing "Knowltok2" recently...

Hamlet wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
In 1832 the British Parliament passed the first in a series of reform bills that immediately just about did away with the corrupt old "rotten borroughs" and doubled the voting franchise. Nobody got killed, no one was guillotined, and the country set on a course for greater democraticization; a true revolution and yet because it took place through unromantic political backroom wrangling and heated floor debates it is largely discounted today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that sounds lovely, but I may point out the obvious flaw in that: The 1832 reform act was not brought about by the empowered classes thinking 'What a great idea it would be to diminish our power!', rather it was brought about by a huge amount of pressure from the public. The short-term leading up to reform can probably be noted as the point in modern British history that a revolution was most likely to take place. The atmosphere was explosive, with riots, disturbances and the like. Peel was even pondering whether or not to fortify his house.

Actually, that fits exactly into what I was saying. Elites rarely voluntarily give up or "diminish" their power, only doing so under pressure. That's a rather given. The question of course is whether that pressure coulde be politically brought to bear as it was in 1832 Britain or through violence, as in 1789-1815 France. The "Bull Moose" candidate in the 1912 American Presidential elections, Teddy Roosevelt, gave a speech ringing with the sentiment you mention above, effectively chastising his fellow conservatives for being irresponsively reactionary in always trumpeting business needs over the working man's, as this will surely lead to revolution and chaos. With the growing militancy of the labor movement in the U.S. and the Wobblies, this was not an idle threat. My point would be that Peel did avoid revolution by acquiescing to at least some of the street's demands, much as the extremely conservative Bismarck decades later would diffuse Socialist agitation in Germany by adopting many of their social welfare platforms.

Luckily, and I'd say it was luck above anything else, the situation was defused by The Lords in Parliament staging a mass-abstention excercise, and the bill got passed. However, reform was by no means an 'easy ride', and one fault by any of the parties involved may have lead to revolution.

Reform is never an easy exercise, and I didn't imply that in my original post. The bottom line though is that revolution was averted, that these reforms did take place and no one had to die for them to do so.

I have to say that some systems are almost absolutely incapable of reforming themselves and genuinely need a revolution. Absolutist France was one of those.

Perhaps, but we're not so much talking about the French Revolution itself as its legacy. My question would be (was), "With more than two centuries' hindsight, can we now say that the glorification of the French Revolution, the romanticization of it, has been beneficial for Europe and humanity in general?" The French Revolution was touted by many in the 19th and 20th centuries as a model solution for many national problems, despite the fact that:

A. It failed to achieve any of its stated aims. It collapsed into an imperial dictatorship that ultimately resulted in the restoration of the monarchy.

B. It was an extremely bloody revolution with very random violence, presaging the the socialist dictatorships of the 20th century with its thought police, secret denunciations and trials, and mass executions of people whose crime was their class affiliation and not any particular action on their part.

C. It sparked 23 years of warfare across the Continent and across the world, which in turn revitalized and re-launched a new European imperial colonial era that would last until 1918, and in some cases until the 1990s.

The question isn't so much whether the people of France had any other choice but revolution or how it in particular turned out - I'm reminded of Mel Brooks' "Rue du Merde" in his [i]History of the World Part I" - but whether it was such a good idea since those events to hold them up as a model of how to do things. Much of Continental Europe did throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, and that is what I am criticizing.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Knowltok2 wrote:

A question though, given that the French model did prove to be more effective, isn't it likely that even without the revolution some European power would have harnessed that power sooner or later? Obviously any change could result in a 'better' history, but also could result in a 'worse' one as well.

In a sense the various Continental powers did try to harness that power by the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th. This is part of the reason behind the disastrous war of 1914-18, that what started as a good old fashioned imperial war over position in Europe degenerated into a nationalist war to the death between the nations. The governments thought they could control this power but it overcame them when the casualties began to pile up and they needed to explain why to their countries.

BTW Knowltok, are you done with that cookie problem? I notice I've only been seeing "Knowltok2" recently...


I think you missed the thrust of my question. I agree that the others adopted it, my thought is that, wouldn't someone else have come up with the same type of system on their own even without the French Revolution? True it may have been delayed, but the potential was there waiting to be harnessed, I figure that someone would have come up with it sooner or later, and after having done so, war on the destructive scale of WWI would likely follow, just as it did in the real historical timeline.

Yeah, it looks like the cookie problem is done. I think it may have to do with one of the new versions that TF installed, but I don't know for sure. I figured I'd just stay with knowltok2 instead of trying to change it. I was enough of a problem with TF as it was getting multiple accounts deleted, etc.

I think that it had the potential to be a good thing, but the lack of organization that led to Robespierre's rule made it a bad thing. I have much more mixed feelings feelings about Napoléon. Many forget (perhaps because they get their information from the English) that he really elevated the middle class, established public universities and schools, created the Napoleonic code, discovered the ancient Egyptian civilization, and freed many Italians from oppressive kingdoms (much to their delight). But then again, these achievements are counter-balanced by his hunger for power, etc.

I have to say that some systems are almost absolutely incapable of reforming themselves and genuinely need a revolution. Absolutist France was one of those.

I have to disagree with you here. Louis XVI, a rather weak king, was passing more power over to the people, although not as quickly as they desired. When the Third Estate defiantly created the National Assembly he legalized it. He didn't take significant action when the Assemblée Nationale wrote its constitution -- His troops surrounded Paris to stop the spread of the revolution, but took no action. He even cooperated when they took him to Paris! The two things that cemented his fate were his marriage and Robespierre's politics. It may have taken longer, but I'm sure the same, or almost the same, could have been accomplished by different means.

BTW, during my recent trip to France, for 11 of 21 days I had a tour guide who was a classic royalist. The other 10 I days had no tour guide. Anyway, he kept getting into arguments with my French teacher. Pretty funny!

The revolution?

Yes.

The terror is a SEPERATE thing, and the French revolution was Completely inspired by the infant United States, Lafayette hoped to bring the ideals of America to France, and be leader as his idol George Washington was.

To blame France for the Napoleonic wars is totally unjust, it was hardly French militarism that was behind it, but rather Britain's fear of a strong France couped with heraditary monarchs determined to rid the Corsican usurper from their midst lest others follow his example, as well as the emigrants wanting back their privaliges and postions in France.

Remember, France was not attacking anyone in 1792, Prussia and Austria, with troops paid for by Britain, were on their way to Paris to restore a hated and repressive monarchy when they were defeated at Valmy and Jemappes.

Bonaparte later took advantage of the situation, but wherever he went, his code Napoleon followed, and it was the begining of modern European justice.

Vive L'France!
Vive L'Napoleon!
Vive L'Emeperor!

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The revolution?

Yes.

The terror is a SEPERATE thing, and the French revolution was Completely inspired by the infant United States, Lafayette hoped to bring the ideals of America to France, and be leader as his idol George Washington was.

I don't think so...french thinkers were inspired by the english system and most of em died before the Revolution.

They all wanted the power for the bourgeoisie.

Rousseau,who was swiss,wanted the power for everyone and by everyone.

The american Revolution encouraged the french though.

Read about Lafayette and his life, and it becomes obvious.

Ok,but he didn't trigger the Revolution.

What triggered the Revolution was the heavy taxes and years of 1787-8.
Then the bourgeoisie led it.

Actually, in a rare step, I have to hand it to Damien on this one, AOA.

Lafayette was a mere participant in events that were far, far out of his control. While many French revolutionaries pointed to the U.S. as an inspiration, to say it was "completely inspired" sort of ignores the mass-readership that the philosophes had built up before 1776 (in the U.S. as well as France) and dismisses the internal pressures a bit too casually.

And I'm actually quite amused that with the Soviets, everyone is quick to insist that communism and its totalitarian consequences are linked, but that somehow, this linkage is unfair when applied to the Terror and the continous process of radicalization of the French Revolution. In my mind, they were linked: the excesses of the revolution fed on themselves until the Terror became a self-fulfilling process within it. Where else did the Terror come from? Insidious forces from Morocco? NASA? Lee Harvey Oswald? No, it was French revolutionaries who did it all, and all of it justified in the name of the revolution, its ideals and its defense, just as the Sovs did.

That's the trouble with violent revolutions. Even the English Civil War suffered from it; good cause, fair fight, good consequences in the long term, but the whole process of whipping up the commons and the population to make it all possible pushes society to extremist limits. The extremes are relative, but they are still extremes. Would Americans have thought to drive out thousands of their neighbors and business partners and seize their property before the Revolution? Doubt it.

R.III

Your forgetting something, why were taxes so high in France, and the government broke?

Paying for the US revolution is the reason.

Also, if you look, Lafayette leed the consil of 500 and tried to shape every step, but he wanted so badly to be Washington, that he refued to assert himself unless the people proclaimed it, ala Washington, and he retired to his estate to await this, leaving the jacobins a free road to power, and THEY are the ones, led by Robspieere that spread the terror, but the ideals that began it began in the US, not France, and it didn't start as a peasant revolt, but by nobels with Le Grande ideal, and it simply became to much for them.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Your forgetting something, why were taxes so high in France, and the government broke?

Paying for the US revolution is the reason.

>>>The 7 Years War was the reason for taxes raised on Americans and French,the american independance war made the taxes higher.

, but the ideals that began it began in the US, not France, and it didn't start as a peasant revolt, but by nobels with Le Grande ideal, and it simply became to much for them.

Since the mid-13th,many swiss cantons had a democratic system where all men in the canton gathered once a year and voted by show of hand.

In other cantons the guilds had the power.

Free-enterprise began in the Netherlands I think.

Then came the english revolution.England was very progressist for a great power....the Magna Carta,the judicial system with the 12 commons judging criminals,etc.

French and Americans glorify their history and think their country is the best country.

The U.S.=the country of freedom and free-enterprise for Americans.

France=the Right of Man's country for French.

Both peoples believe that they invented freedom and democracy.

The reality is that slavery continued till the 1960's with the system of peonage in America and France transferred the oligarchic system in the colonies.

Even nowadays,nothing is said about what happens in the oversea territories in the news.What happened in the colonies isn't said at school.Only France is studied.

The ideals that began the French revolution began in Europe with the enlightenment. The US was merely the first occasion of putting said ideals into some form of practise.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Your forgetting something, why were taxes so high in France, and the government broke?

Paying for the US revolution is the reason.
=

I'll deal with Lafayette later, but you've got to admit that "paying for the costs of the U.S. war" and "being completely inspired by the U.S. war" are two separate claims.

R.III

I suppose it really depends on who you are asking. To major powers like Britain it has a level of detatchment in that 'it didn't happen here' but to countries like Ireland or Cuba which subsequently won independence through bloodshed it is very difficult to deny it being a good thing.

Yours

Ross

Originally posted by Damien
The reality is that slavery continued till the 1960's with the system of peonage in America and France transferred the oligarchic system in the colonies.


I can't speak for France, but I hope you mean 1860's as it applies to America. :D

Cromwell beat them to it.

I would wear a red cap with pride.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


I can't speak for France, but I hope you mean 1860's as it applies to America. :D

Nope 1960's.The abolition was promulgated in the 1860's but it actually continued with a system called peonage.

It's the feudal system in the Americas.

The landowner(former master)gives the wages of the next months to his black workers(former slaves).

The wage is so low that the guy spends everything in no time and therefore he's in debt.His children had to pay for him and spent their wages as well etc.

As they were in debt,they couldn't leave the fields.

This was forbidden by the federal govt in the 1960's.

Originally posted by Hamlet
The ideals that began the French revolution began in Europe with the enlightenment. The US was merely the first occasion of putting said ideals into some form of practise.

Actually, the US Revolution was inspired mainly by British ideas, both the long established ideas of liberalism that had come out of the Civil War in the 1600s, and the more radical and more recent ideas of Thomas Paine and co. The French Revolution was in the tradition of the continental Enlightenment, which had a lot of similarities but more differences. This is why the legal system on the Continent (Roman law by way of Napoleon) is so different from the Common Law of the UK, and why we have so much trouble with European Directives.

Anyway, everyone knows both the US and French Revolutions were run by the Illuminati, who were based in Bavaria :crazyeye:

Originally posted by Supernaut
Actually, the US Revolution was inspired mainly by British ideas, both the long established ideas of liberalism that had come out of the Civil War in the 1600s, and the more radical and more recent ideas of Thomas Paine and co. The French Revolution was in the tradition of the continental Enlightenment, which had a lot of similarities but more differences.

Mainly? I disagree. The Enlightenment was a Europe-wide phenomenon.

Yes, The English civil war highlighted an instance of, if we are to get into the techincalities of it, an instance where the social contract was broken by the ruler, (arguably) but this was merely an instance in history that highlighted a theme that was to become more prominent. Remember, that the war was fought against said British state, no matter how 'liberal' it was in comparison to it's European counterparts, it was still objectionable to most Enlightenment thinkers.

And Paine was one of the latter enlightenment thinkers and it's slightly laughable to attribute him to being the be all and end all. Paine was, really, at best, espousing ideas that had already been forumlated by others - Even Voltaire and Rousseau did this to some extent. Paine's 'Common Sense' was influential, yes, but the ideas from that were derived from elsewhere. The idea of The 'Social Contract' laid down by Rousseau probably lies at the heart of The ethos of The US, whereas I'd say Paine's contribution was very much more short-term - indeed, this is one of Paine's great strenghs, as he is often writing on events.

Originally posted by Supernaut
This is why the legal system on the Continent (Roman law by way of Napoleon) is so different from the Common Law of the UK,

Yes - because The French Legal system was demolished and re-built from the bottom up during the revolution, and this was later imposed upon the conquered territories by Napoleon.

It's got more to do with the fact that Mr Bonaparte had a nice little juant around Europe and missed out Britain than it has to do with any great difference between British and continental thought - I refer you back to your Mr Paine's defence of said revolution.