This Place is dead and I blame the moderator.

Now onto history.

Why did France of all the oppersed European peoples going all the hardships Europe likes to put itself through revolt? Why did no one else?

Surley in much of contentital Europe it was the same story?

What makes France special?

IMO it was France's proximity to Americans who planted these wonderful ideas in there little French heads.

And in typical French fashion they took what could've been nothing more than a few hundred dead peasants in a few skrimishes into an orgy of dead nobles all by a giant razorblade

mon cher

Quote:

---

Why did France of all the oppersed European peoples going all the hardships Europe likes to put itself through revolt? Why did no one else?

---

Several reasons :

1 - France's economy was in ruin, mostly because of Louis 14th. Building Versailles crippled the kingdom for centuries to come. While the finance were slowly starting to recover, Louis 16th decided to help the 13 colonies, which made the situation even worse.
2 - The country (especially the bourgeoisie) was deeply influenced by "radical" ideas. Rousseau and Voltaire were national heroes long before their bodies were moved to the Pantheon. Free masons lodges and reflexion groups (such as what would latter become the Jacobins) were being created in most important cities.
3 - These radical ideas flourished in what was still largely an absolute catholic monarchy. Not that Louis 16th was a tyrant, but the French kingdom didn't give much (any) political weight to the "people", at least when it came to national policies.
4 - Despite the fact that the country had enough farmland to feed itself, famine started to reappear in the 1780's (the Icelandic volcano is to be blamed).
5 - Marie Antoinette was an idiot. Louis 16th made bad choices.

The situation was different from say, Spain, because the emerging and growing bourgeoisie was quite fond of new ideas.
The situation was different from say, the UK because the bourgeoisie didn't hold any power, while it was starting to become the dominant economical class (industrialization was starting to kick in).

Lastly, most of the casualties of the Revolution were proles, followed by peasants, priests and bourgeois. The nobles fled or joined the revolutionnaries and were the most "spared" class.

Well I was going to make a thread on the anniversary of Fall Weiß discussing the major operations and battles, and some of the historical misconceptions about the campaign. However, there seems to be limited interest in the Eastern Front during WW2 so I didn't bother. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Well I was going to make a thread on the anniversary of Fall Weiß discussing the major operations and battles, and some of the historical misconceptions about the campaign. However, there seems to be limited interest in the Eastern Front during WW2 so I didn't bother. :shrug:

---

Please do post that thread.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Well I was going to make a thread on the anniversary of Fall Weiß discussing the major operations and battles, and some of the historical misconceptions about the campaign. However, there seems to be limited interest in the Eastern Front during WW2 so I didn't bother. :shrug:

---

Really? I'd be interested too... I read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad a few months ago and have Berlin sitting around waiting too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

The situation was different from say, Spain, because the emerging and growing bourgeoisie was quite fond of new ideas.
The situation was different from say, the UK because the bourgeoisie didn't hold any power, while it was starting to become the dominant economical class (industrialization was starting to kick in).

---

Why France is an interesting question. Meneldil does a good job of outlining the internal factors which led to the revolution (going back years). I'd expand a little on the famine point as spikes in bread prices, generating riots (which were variously exploited or channeled by politicians) were a key feature in generating flashpoints of the conflict/situation. Keeping control of the mob was as much a problem for the "revolutionary" leaders as it was for the ancien regime.

To answer: "Why not elsewhere in europe?", we should acnowledge that first of all, the french revolution was a move from absolute monarchy to consitutional of which there were other contemporary such movements, e.g. the low countries and England, decades before. What is unique about the French revolution is how far it went. But, few if any of the original individuals and groups pushing for reform from Absolute Monarchy desired or envisaged not having a king, let alone any of the particularily radical measures that were to ensue. Their movement was essentially one of the (bourgeois) property-owning middle class, whom the absolute monarchist system excluded from political power and respect/influence. The revolution was actually a long process, in stages, which gained momentum as the (primarily economic) crisis in France deepened.

The first few years were watched with avid interest and much liberal support from accross Europe -including Britain. Only when the constitutional government (i.e. non absolute monarchist) lost its grip and the sans-culottes started to run riot did the outside liberal world recoil in horror at the Jacobin "terror". In fact, during the first years, there was so much support and enthusiasm in Britain for what was happenening in France that it seemed things might also change in Britain. Then, as now, what was seen as Jacobin terror gave great credence to the supporters of "order" and for the protection of private property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

The first few years were watched with avid interest and much liberal support from accross Europe -including Britain. Only when the constitutional government (i.e. non absolute monarchist) lost its grip and the sans-culottes started to run riot did the outside liberal world recoil in horror at the Jacobin "terror". In fact, during the first years, there was so much support and enthusiasm in Britain for what was happenening in France that it seemed things might also change in Britain. Then, as now, what was seen as Jacobin terror gave great credence to the supporters of "order" and for the protection of private property.

---

Well, though there was indeed some sort of support in favor of the newly born Revolution in UK, the country at large was hostile to it. Let's not forget that Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France was published in october/november 1790, long before the Revolution took its radical turn. The book became a best-seller before the "Terror".
I guess my point is that the UK bourgeoisie didn't show as much interest for the Revolution as the American and west-German upper class.

As for the radicalization of the Revolution, it is in my opinion mostly Louis 16th's fault. He didn't have the will to simply crush the opposition (as his forefathers would have done), but didn't really show any enthusiasm for the reforms either. His constant double-play (encouraged by his retard wife who acted as the voice of the most conservative fringe of the nobility) could only lead to trouble. He wasn't a really good politician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Well, though there was indeed some sort of support in favor of the newly born Revolution in UK, the country at large was hostile to it. Let's not forget that Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France was published in october/november 1790, long before the Revolution took its radical turn. The book became a best-seller before the "Terror". I guess my point is that the UK bourgeoisie didn't show as much interest for the Revolution as the American and west-German upper class.

---

True, but Britain was already a constitutional monarchy and its bourgeoisie were also much more empowered. Remember many in Britain were supportive of enlightenment and even the values underpinning the independance of the USA. There was also a fair bit of jingoism around how France was (finaly) modernising -following Britain's example of course.

The following link includes an interesting discussion of this very topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...h_rev_01.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

As for the radicalization of the Revolution, it is in my opinion mostly Louis 16th's fault. He didn't have the will to simply crush the opposition (as his forefathers would have done), but didn't really show any enthusiasm for the reforms either. His constant double-play (encouraged by his retard wife who acted as the voice of the most conservative fringe of the nobility) could only lead to trouble. He wasn't a really good politician.

---

Most historians I've read have indeed panned him as useless and dithering. His counsel (including his wife), as you point out, were also responsible for his comprehensive mismanagement.

Some have postulated that another factor was a poor harvest which causes obvious pressures, but also that this in turn forced more to eat mouldy wheat which can cause effects ranging from illness to hallucinations. Nutters appearing all over the place is hardly going to aid stability.

I've not read about the Eastern Front in a while, but that is more to time constraints than lack of interest.

~:smoking:

The French Revolution happened because the debts due to mainly the help against the English to US (and few financial scandals as Laws system –1720-) and the seperate Peace Treaty signed by the now US where the French monarchy gained next to peanuts (few islands).

Louis the XVI needed money, so he needed to change the tax system.
In order to do this he had to gather les Etats Generaux, created by the King Philip IV Le Bel (the bad king who burned the Templars).

He was obliged to do thanks to Reactionary Nobility movement that resented the Absolute Power finally imposed by Louis the XIV (but started by Louis XIII and his Prime Minister Richelieu) after the Fronde, and that wanted to recover the feudal Rights, as price to be paid.

The gathering of the Etats Generaux had to be preceded by the writing of the Cahiers de Doleances where the good people of France politely showed what was wrong in the Humble Opinion and asked his gracious Majesty to do something about it, especially in term of tax and no more feudal Rights.

So he had 2 completely different oppositions. He could have work on it.

The food situation was not good, but the detonator, the ignition was more about the speculation on the wheat than the shortage. It was a free market economy so some did what some would call an honest speculation in stockpiling the goods then releasing at high prices in small quantities…
Bread was the main aliment of the French population at these times…
The exasperation of the populace due to this disette (light famine, don’t know in English) and the political turmoil joined in one movement, and this movement helped by the total incapacity from Louis the XVI to grasp what happened. Revoking his popular Prime Minister to please the Extreme Nobility, then recalling him under the streets pressure, promising then withdrawing changes, Louis the XVI dig the gap between him and his bon Peuple de France. The good People of France started to distrust his King.
At first the French wanted a Constitutional Monarchy, as in England.
But misusing his remained powers Louis the XVI showed his intentions to take back the absolute and full power.
So he started a process where he will loose his head, and at the end, the French Monarchy, even if few attempt to restore it were made (was the help of Foreign powers) and eventually failed.

disette:

Perhaps the English would be food shortage? That would mean there wasn't quite enough food but the situation was not desperate. People would be hungry but not many would actually be starving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why did France of all the oppersed European peoples going all the hardships Europe likes to put itself through revolt? Why did no one else?

Surley in much of contentital Europe it was the same story?

---

Ahem

Anglo-Irish MP Henry Grattan a protestant who opposed the union with England in 1800 threatend war with UK in defense of free trade

The Society of United Irishmen group hevily influenced by the ideas of the American and French revolutions

United Irishmen Rebellion of 1798

Irish Rebellion of 1803 by Robert Emmet

I could go on

Quote:

---

This Place is dead and I blame the moderator.

---

Dude, don't blame me. Me and the guys from the Mod Crew have this betting pool on, to see who can ban most patrons from their forum.

So one slight slip of the tongue in the Monastery and it's *wham!* teh massive warning points, or even the banstick.


As a somewhat unintended consequence, this place is a bit quiet nowadays. What can you do, eh? Only the very fit have survived, dare to post here anymore. Call it a Darwinist experiment.

As an advice to other posters with dreams of forum greatness through provocation of the authorities: did you notice the OP hasn't posted for four days? That's because his peachy little buttocks ached so bad from my spanking, he couldn't walk to his computer to log on for days.

Take note and learn. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

Why did France of all the oppersed European peoples going all the hardships Europe likes to put itself through revolt? Why did no one else?

Surley in much of contentital Europe it was the same story?

What makes France special?

---

Why France?

Reason one, you got correct already: sheer Gallic coolness. Southern temperament and northern rationality - the French synthesis. Which, speaking of Darwin, surely makes the French the pinnacle of human evolution.


Reason two (let's be obscure): beauty.

Beauty - that forgotten mover of the human temperament. The French enlightenment was forged, amongst other places, in the great Jardin des Plantes of Paris (pic below). You go there for a stroll, are overwhelmed by beauty, and thus you are naturally in the mood to ponder the existence of man, of nature, of natural law, and of what is right and good and worthy in this world. And all in a peaceful, uplifted state of mind.

Note that in French gardening, as in French philosophy and political ideas, man perfects nature. Human rationality must be imposed on the world to perfect it - this imposition of order is beauty as understood in French aesthetics.
Duality, rationality, and beauty through order. France:
https://img829.imageshack.us/img829/...21d5e3307o.jpg

The result are lofty human rights. If you stroll through stern Berlin, the result is dreams about a pointy-helmeted orc army. Take a stroll in wintery Moscow, and one's thoughts produce a Gulag archipelago. Not so in Paris!

The revolution did not originate in a slum, not in a place of poverty and ugliness, but in the heavenly gardens of the Palais Royal (pic below). It is beauty that makes a man understand the nobleness of his being, that inspires him to look to the stars and dream.



https://img827.imageshack.us/img827/...sroyalpari.jpg



It is the forgotten, at least overlooked, contribution of French culture to Western civilization: aesthetics. The pursuit of beauty. A society that strives for beauty, strives for beauty of ideals.

Also, revolutions are a summery affair. Paris excells in summer. The best part of Paris are the large public spaces. Not the cold, grey, dismal Paris of winter, but the heavenly Parisian public spaces of summer forged the revolution.

Qu-est-ce-qu'il est coquin ce modérateur!

This charlatan triple-postes in his own forum. Quelle honte !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

This charlatan triple-postes in his own forum. Quelle honte !

---

And indeed quelle ironie when we are discussing absolute monarchy and the abuse of power...

///////

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Why France?

Reason one, you got correct already: sheer Gallic coolness. Southern temperament and northern rationality - the French synthesis. Which, speaking of Darwin, surely makes the French the pinnacle of human evolution.


Reason two (let's be obscure): beauty.

Beauty - that forgotten mover of the human temperament. The French enlightenment was forged, amongst other places, in the great Jardin des Plantes of Paris (pic below). You go there for a stroll, are overwhelmed by beauty, and thus you are naturally in the mood to ponder the existence of man, of nature, of natural law, and of what is right and good and worthy in this world. And all in a peaceful, uplifted state of mind.

Note that in French gardening, as in French philosophy and political ideas, man perfects nature. Human rationality must be imposed on the world to perfect it - this imposition of order is beauty as understood in French aesthetics.
Duality, rationality, and beauty through order. France:
https://img829.imageshack.us/img829/...21d5e3307o.jpg

The result are lofty human rights. If you stroll through stern Berlin, the result is dreams about a pointy-helmeted orc army. Take a stroll in wintery Moscow, and one's thoughts produce a Gulag archipelago. Not so in Paris!

The revolution did not originate in a slum, not in a place of poverty and ugliness, but in the heavenly gardens of the Palais Royal (pic below). It is beauty that makes a man understand the nobleness of his being, that inspires him to look to the stars and dream.



https://img827.imageshack.us/img827/...sroyalpari.jpg



It is the forgotten, at least overlooked, contribution of French culture to Western civilization: aesthetics. The pursuit of beauty. A society that strives for beauty, strives for beauty of ideals.

Also, revolutions are a summery affair. Paris excells in summer. The best part of Paris are the large public spaces. Not the cold, grey, dismal Paris of winter, but the heavenly Parisian public spaces of summer forged the revolution.

---

Attachment 909

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

*look up*

---

Agreed. Wonderful. :bow:

France wasn't that unique, you can draw a lot of parallels with its Revolution and the one throughout Britain the previous century.

Both were essentially reactionary movements against increasingly absolutist kings. Of course, absolutism preceeded both Louis XVI and Charles I of the British Civil War, but these two figures lacked the tact to get away with it.

And what were both rebellions at first termed in conservative language (to limit the king to his proper powers) turned into much more radical republican movements that resulted in what were arguably tyrannies.

As to why all this happened later in France, probably the fact that it was less economically developed than England had something to do with it, so it took longer for the middle-classes to develop and push for their place in the political system. Plus kicking the Huguenots out probably helped delay things, Richard Baxter gives a good contemporary account of how the French merchants and such like adopted the Reformed religion and its associated political theories regarding the limited rights of King's etc (eg Hotman's 'Francogallia' for the French)... so when they were massacred or expelled to the Netherlands/England then France lost a potential revoutionary 'class' as Marx would say.