Printable View
One needs a strong leader. Someone, quite admittedly like Adolf Hitler, who can fire up the crowds with a speech. Some one who when people walk by stop and listen and go... "You know? He's right."
One needs a long term plan.
What else would one man need to start the revolution the world requires.
Does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
A unifying ideology would be useful.
An alien invasion. Seriously.
Also, a way to not get vanned by the CIA/NSA/Men in Black.
You need to be outspoken, condemn your opponents point of view, while never mentioning the drawbacks of your own. Give people the attention they want, by focusing on the issues that affect them the most. Gather a close retinue of intelligent, like minded individuals to back up your own agenda, and for gods sake don't strike until the iron is hot. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Oh and send to Prisioners Administration (aka Gulags) 40 million of people. Because any revolution would work without killing the opposition.
Not really. The French Revolution had many such people, but more importantly they had a citizenry devoted to their cause - one cannot make a revolution without the support of a mass movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
The number 1 thing a succesfull revolution needs is.....
SOMEONE TO HATE.
Thats all you must have
do everything the American colonials did-including everything that was wrong:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Something that angers the masses to unify them, such as "Were tired of paying unfair taxes without representation in the parliament!", is always helpful. Personally for me it is a fear that the price of prophylactics might go up due to the rising cost of oil. :no:
Wrong. The French revolution didn't have any real leader, and is - at least by my standards - the most important revolution of the modern era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Actually, the Revolution ended when such a guy took the power (Napoleon). Until then, everything was pretty much decided by political parties, administrations, clubs and what not. The few people who tried to become dictator before Napoleon (Lafayette, Dumouriez) failled big time. Even Robespierre didn't rule alone. He was just the most important member (as in, the one everyobody would listen to) of the Comité de Salut Public.
Now, one can discuss whether or not the French revolution was successful. Even though it led to a - benevolent - dictatorship and to a return of the monarchy after 1815, it did a good job of exporting the ideas of the Enlightnement in Europe and of strenghtening them in France.
Quote:
Meneldil Now, one can discuss whether or not the French revolution was successful. Even though it led to a - benevolent - dictatorship and to a return of the monarchy after 1815, it did a good job of exporting the ideas of the Enlightenment in Europe and of strengthening them in France.
I would say that Napoleon's rule was anything but benevolent. His rigging of electoral results, control of the media, repression of the intelligentsia, mass murder of religious and political opponents (through his minister of police Fouche) are but a few of many such examples. This is not to mention a penchant for loot that made Hermann Goering look like a petty shop lifter. Enlightened he may have been, even progressive in many ways, but he was still a thug, something akin to a mafioso don.
No! He's my hero! :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Well he did at least leave us the Napoleonic Code, still in use in French law today. I do give him grudging admiration as a soldier. Alas, we are diverging from the intent of the thread. The independence movement of India as led by Gandhi is a fascinating example of what was needed for a successful revolution; repressive rule there, and exploitation of the people were the main factors which drove the Hindi to revolt against their British overlords. There was also a great cultural divide to further the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
I am not a Napoleon fan, however:
I would say that Napoleon's rule was anything but benevolent.
His rigging of electoral results (what elections?)
Control of the media, repression of the intelligentsia: Any difference with the Regimes in UK, Russia, Prussia, Spain?
Mass murder of religious: Er, he is the guy you signed the Concordat with Rome, resolving the Religious problem in France.
and political opponents (through his minister of police Fouche) are but a few of many such examples. No political mass Murder as far as I know. One crime against the Duc d’Angien but for what I remember, Napoleon escaped few attempt of murder (e.g. from Cadoudal) and no massive reprisal on the Vendee populations happened…
This is not to mention a penchant for loot that made Hermann Goering look like a petty shop lifter. Again, I fail to see any difference with others regimes of the times, where spoils of war were quite a normal way to do war and to reward your armies…
Enlightened he may have been, even progressive in many ways, but he was still a thug, something akin to a mafioso don. That is the Corsican side…:laugh4:
To succeed a Revolution you need a good pre-revolution situation: Popular dissatisfaction and some unrest, a weak opponent, a population able to take arms...
It is a sensitive alchemy...
His rigging of electoral results: Don't you think it odd that Napoleon won 99.9993 % of the national plebiscite to decide on his becoming Emperor on November 6th, 1804- 3,572,329 for to 2,569 against? Napoleon, as first council controlled the armed forces, police, press, publishing, and the theater. There was no independent means for anyone to challenge such a statistical impossibility.
Control of the media, repression of the intelligentsia: If there was no difference with other contemporary regimes, than what was Libertie, Egalatie, Fraternitie all about? He certainly presented himself to the French people as a protector of these principles.
mass murder of religious and political opponents (through his minister of police Fouche): I stand corrected on that one. The Massacre of Lyons perpetuated by Fouche against Catholics, all in the name of the revolution, was actually committed while he served under Robespierre. The fact that Napoleon used such a man to his own ends speaks of his true nature...a man of few moral scruples. Fouche used over 900,000 Lvr. of stolen Police Ministry funds to aid Napoleon in his plan to seize the consulate.
This is not to mention a penchant for loot...: Agreed that loot was a normal way to reward your armies and was the right of the victor, but this even extended to the people of France. He was not beyond extorting the national bank to fund his own personal projects, or those of his family, money that was often diverted from the military.
I would suggest a reading of Napoleon Bonaparte by Alan Schom. He writes rather critically of him, and I learned many things I didn't know from all those biographies which gloss over much of the darker side of Bonaparte's reign. Most concentrate on his genius, which was remarkable.
Like i said something to unify the people. And hate is unfortunately very effective at doing such.
French Revolution- The Aristocrats
Iranian Revolution- Western Imperialism and the Shah
American Revolution- To a lesser extent the British
Russian Revolution- White Russia
Nazi's- Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc.
I could go on and on and on
“national plebiscite” Plebiscite, not election. And it was far from a general electorate but censitaire (based on the cens, a tax on lands and property) and male population.
Napoleon was a dictator, no doubt but no more no less than all the others rulers in Europe.
“He certainly presented himself to the French people as a protector of these principles.” “Presented himself” is the key. He was much better than Louis XIV or the XV, but his thrust for absolute power was the same.
All Eastern Countries were Democratic in the title...:beam:
“The Massacre of Lyons perpetuated by Fouche against Catholics, all in the name of the revolution, was actually committed while he served under Robespierre”
Yes, but Napoleon wasn’t involve in it. It was during one of the civil wars that France is keen on, Federalists against Centralist (not against the Catholic, which in France were around probably 95 % at the times. You probably refer to the Vendee and Chouans rebellions which started with the clergy having to sworn allegiance to the Republic (les Jureurs) but was more importantly against la levee en Masse, the raise of 150 000 conscripts)…
Napoleon was friend was Robespierre’s brother, but this event can’t be held against him.
And Fouché served under the King as well... Not long but did. So is Louis the XVIII aswell guilty for Lyon misfortune...
Well certainly a leader is required. I am not available since my serving in the military requires my being apolitical. How about you Brenus? Would you care to be first counsel for the Republic of the Guild Orgahs? :clown: Does the title Emporer suit you better?
For a revolution to succeed, the one and only thing that matters is that the historic forces are behind it.
Charismatic leaders, populist support etc... these things are little more than catalysts when you really look into things. They let the historic forces flow more freely, they are in themselves largely a product of them, but they are never a significant factor in causing the revolution themselves.
All those 'turning points' in history were nothing unexpected and never brought any real changes, they were the inevitable culmination of all the events that proceeded them (the Arab empire had reached its natural extent by Poitiers anyway). All those radical ideologies were a product of their earlier counterparts that formed their roots (even Marxism is heavily influenced by the likes of Locke, he just applied it to a different time in history). All those great events such as national unification were really nothing more than the consolidation of the changes that had already taken place (the German people were sharing an identity well before Germany came into being).
There is no significant unexpected event in history, everything is inevitable! :whip:
^ unless a leader who is the driving force behind their nation dies unexpectedly in the prime of their lives.
A valid point you make; as Napoleon said of revolutions, "A revolution can be neither made nor stopped. The only thing that can be done is for one of several of its children to give it a direction by dint of victories." So, a leader is still needed who can recognize and give direction to the historic forces of change. What of cause and effect though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
CAUSE/ EFFECT
The boy kicked the ball./ The ball rolled.
The girl teased the cat./ The cat growled.
Sally studied hard for a test./ Sally earned an A on her test.
Joe became really tired./ Joe went to sleep early.
Napoleon saw the opportunity/ Napoleon became First Council, then Emperor
What if Napoleon had been killed in the Christmas Eve Plot? Perhaps Louis XVIII would have been restored. Maybe the republic would have made peace with Europe and survived without him.
“I am not available since my serving in the military requires my being apolitical.” And? Napoleon was a General, so Eisenhower…
And if you are tempted by a Coup, better to have your Legions with you.
Admittedly, a sergeant would have more difficulties…:beam:
As fare I am concern, I am too old and change too much time of opinion to be a trusted dictator.
I not tough enough for the job and have too much antagonist opinions or feeling to have a clear view of the path of light for my people… I am more in “let it does” tune now.
Aahhh!!! If you would have know me when I was young… Full of certitudes, no doubts, democratic if you share the same views and opinion than me, I had the seeds to be a good Enlightening Leader…
The FAMAS in one hand and the flag of the People Freedom (French Flag) in the other I was ready to spread the wind of Freedom all over the world again…:leer:
I would have re-educated all my political enemies/doubtful (I was yet fascinated by the Vietnamese Communism and how they push the logic to the end) and converted all the wreaks and hesitant to the new movement…
:evilgrin:
This might deserve a topic by itself, in which case we'll have to move, but
First of all, in 1799, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité wasn't the french motto. It had been used by the (first) Paris Commune (the exact quote being 'Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la Mort').
Secondly, Napoléon never assumed or even pretended to protect these principles (which as said, didn't really exist anyway). He clearly stated that his reign would be the end of the Revolution and of the state of anarchy that had been plaguing France for (more than) 10 years.
Now, mind you, I'm not one of these Napoleon freaks. I clearly know the character had a bad side. He was by all standards, a dictator (which kind of implies a limited freedom of press, repression of political opponents and what not). He decided to lift the ban of slavery, he exiled his opponents. I'm even willing to admit that he purposedly and willingly slaughtered thousands of revolted former slaves in Haiti.
That said, how would that make him any more malevolent than other rulers of the Napoleonic era?
As for another misconception, Robespierre wasn't responsible for the massacre of Lyon.Early historians have grossly overestimated his role during the Terror (which was started by the Girondins, fiercely opposed to Robespierre and his Jacobins). Robespierre have always opposed blind repression and massive executions. At several points he tried to avoid this kind of slaughter, in Vendée, in Nantes, in Lyon, in Marseilles.
In any case, back to the topic, I don't think any revolution require anything specific. The french revolution wasn't driven by hatred, or by anger. Sure, a large part of the population was bitter and thought many feodal rights were an unfair burden, but the aristocracy (or rather nobility) wasn't widely hated throughout the kingdom. Louis 16th, who was a fairly competent monarch (much more than the Sun King IMO) was widely respected by the population, even by mid-1792.
Noooo keep going, I am enjoying this immensely.
Do you mean our discussion about Napoleon and the French revolution; the thread concerning starting and leading a successful revolution; or is it the talk of Napoleon as a separate subject that so intrigues you? If it is other than the thread topic, then Meneldil is correct. We really should begin a separate thread according to the general Org. rules. I am willing to do so, as that particular time in French history, and French history in general fascinate me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Well pretty much all of it. I just liked reading what you guys are saying.