Happy Bastille Day, Veeky Forums. Was the French Revolution a mistake?

>the reign of terror was a prelude to the red terror
>the bolshevik revolution was french revolution 2: slavic boogaloo
>implying this is a good thing

>equating the french revolution to the Russian to denounce the former
ishiggydiggy

this

>you can't equate two violent, egalitarian, anti-monarchist populist uprisings with each other to denounce violent egalitarian, anti-monarchist, populist uprisings

How are proletarian revolutions led by an intellectual vanguard against a corrupt aristocracy meaningfully different, again?

>One was fueled by republicanism
>Another by communism
>One kill its king when he fucked up big time
>Another did when they got the chance
etc etc

>One kill its king when he fucked up big time

He fucked up by not being a tyrant and squashing the revolution with violence when it started.

He fucked up by fumbling around inconsistently. Both cracking down on the reformers and embracing the reforms would have saved his kingdom and his life. Louis was just too timid and stupid to ever take a side.

Parlement was, they're the ones that cockblocked Louis XVI's reforms.

>Embracing the reforms

He did embrace the reforms. 99% of the reforms passed in the early stages of the revolution were the reforms he tried to introduce over the past 20 years, only to be constantly rejected by the nobility filled Parlement. The only reforms he didn't embrace were the ones which infringed on religious freedoms and which made it possible for emigres to be sentenced to death without proper trial.

>republicanism
>communism

You're making it sound like they're mutually exclusive. Look up what the "R" in USSR means.

>If i call my country a republic it must be based on republicanism!
Someone better break that news to North Korea

Are you saying the USSR was not a republic?

No?

>fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the third estate
>plotted to have Austria and Prussia invade France to squash the reforms
>attempted to flee the country and return at the head of an army
Louis did not embrace reform and he was an enemy to all of the French.

Legally, Russia was republican. The Constitution Stalin wrote is pretty based, it's just that Russian dictator's didn't care about their own laws.

Then what are you even arguing about? USSR was republican, called itself a republic and everyone considers it a republic.

He fought tooth and nail to better the third estate, his efforts were opposed by the second and first estates very vigorously. Louis, of course, was not a republican, he was a monarch who if anything felt his power should be more absolute (and if it were, he would have massively reformed the country), so he'd naturally be the enemy of any revolution in that regard.

What he said

Stalin being a dictator has nothing to do with being a republic, a republic can be and often is a dictatorship.

Republic =/= democracy

But as i said it was not based on republicianism since it was as you said a dictatorship

Republics and dictatorships are not mutually exclusive is what I'm saying. The French republic also ended up being a dictatorship.

The only thing that Louis cared about was Louis. He just sat there while his ministry pissed away the kingdom, and he caved at the first sign of resistance when reform was needed. France did not need this man to have more power, France needed this man to face the guillotine.

Yes but as i said earlier FR was propelled by republicanism and RR is by communism to highlight once of the difference between the both of them

1/2

>fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the third estate

He didn't fight "tooth and nail" to disenfranchise the Third Estate. He initially supported the Third Estate's wishes to have double representation, and saw it as natural that they--the common people, who made up the bulk of the realm--would have more representation. His first actions as king in 1774 were to try to massively reform the country and ease the burden of the poor.

>plotted to have Austria and Prussia invade France to squash the reforms

He and Marie Antoinette only began contacting the European Powers for outside assistance after their lives were continually threatened and it became clear they needed help. Initially, they demanded that the European Powers not use the threat of force, but instead make a declaration that they wanted the safety of the royal family guaranteed. However, Fersen and their other allies outside France convinced them that this would basically be an empty gesture, and they agreed to allow the Powers to imply they would use military force--though they did not agree with the wording of the Declaration which threatened to slaughter citizens en masse, which caused an even further rift between Louis XVI+Marie Antoinette and the people they were attempting to get to help them. (It's a shame they didn't trust Barnave&co, who could have actually guided them into a reformed constitutional monarchy. I mean, I can understand why they didn't trust them after all that had happened but, damn shame.)

In any case, there is no evidence that he plotted to have Austria and Prussia invade to squash the reforms. He WANTED these reforms!

2/2

>attempted to flee the country and return at the head of an army

He never attempted to flee the country. He wanted to flee to a French countryside stronghold because of the increased violence against him and his family, and the increasing violation of their Constitution-guaranteed rights, which literally made it impossible for him to make decisions on his own, because he was being threatened into making them. His Manifesto, which he left behind, makes it clear what he was doing: he wanted to flee to somewhere where he wasn't being literally threatened with mob violence at every turn, so that he could be free to make his own decisions and speak his mind without fear of death.

One of the reasons the flight to Montmedy failed is because Louis XVI refused to take the quicker route to Montmedy that involved crossing the border and going back, because crossing the border, to him, would give the appearance of abandoning his country. Another reason it failed is that he refused to allow the soldiers who were waiting just outside of town rescue him, because it might mean that some of the people in the town could be injured or killed.

(Incidentally, there's been recent research on the correspondence between Axel Fersen and the comte de Provence (aka future Louis XVIII) which suggests Fersen and Provence were hoping--indeed, planning--for the flight to fail because Provence wanted to be declared de facto king in the case of Louis XVI being imprisoned or killed after the flight. Provence, of course, had no problem with using violence and armies and continually went against Louis XVI's wishes when it came to raising emigre armies and threatening to invade France. And then when Louis XVI declared, of his own free will for once, that any European powers who were harboring emigre armies who threatened to invade would be essentially declaring war on France, Louis XVIII and Fersen flipped their shit.)

No, Louis cared about the French people a lot more than Napoleon did.

Honestly this.

Napoleon was a reactionary traitor to the revolution and to France. He is no better than Louis.
>trying this hard to re-write history
Louis Capet was a barrier to French liberty and his death paved the way for a virtuous and egalitarian republic.

>The only thing that Louis cared about was Louis.

Oh yes, that's why he constantly helped the poor, attempted reforms that were unheard of in an absolute monarch, constantly refused to do what could have saved his life, and the life of his family, because a French citizen might get hurt. Yup. Totally only cared about himself.

>and he caved at the first sign of resistance when reform was needed

He didn't "cave at the first sign of resistance." The Parlement was unleashing waves of propaganda against the king and the ministers which supported reform when he introduced these laws to the Parlement. Parlement's actions resulted in a deluge of negative press about him and minor riots in Paris, accusing the king of being a tyrant, accusing him of not caring for his people's welfare, etc. It didn't matter that the reforms were the opposite of tyrannical, the press machine won out. In the face of a potential rebellion and massive unpopularity, which mind you were piggybacking off the Flour Wars just a short time before, he backed off on those drastic reforms. Over the next 20 years he introduced mostly social rather than financial reforms (outside of reducing his household, which was unpopular to do) which, while not exactly popularity with the Parlement, weren't going to impact their finances enough for them to resist.

>virtuous and egalitarian republic
>LITERALLY evolved back into a monarchy with an emperor in charge after a few years

Republicucks are absolute moron

>trying this hard to re-write history

Notice how you can't write more than a sentence in your responses. If I'm "rewriting history," prove that he intended to flee the country. If I'm "rewriting history," prove that he wanted Austria and Prussia to squash the reforms.

But I'm guessing you can't. All you can do is LOL LE EDGY sentence replies. This is Veeky Forums, make the tiniest bit of effort, eh?

>Napoleon was a reactionary traitor to the revolution and to France. He is no better than Louis.
the masses voted for him to be emperor.

>Louis Capet was a barrier to French liberty and his death paved the way for a virtuous and egalitarian republic.
Right

>Fouché went on to Lyon in November with Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois to execute the reprisals of the Convention. Lyon had revolted against the Convention and needed to be dealt with. Lyon, on 23 November, was declared to be in a "state of revolutionary war" by Collot and Fouché. The two men then formed the Temporary Commission for Republican Surveillance. He inaugurated his mission with a festival notable for its obscene parody of religious rites. Fouché and Collot then brought in "a contingent of almost two thousand of the Parisian Revolutionary Army" to begin their terrorizing.[6] "On 4 December, 60 men, chained together, were blasted with grapeshot on the paline de Brotteaux outside the city, and 211 more the following day.[7] Grotesquely ineffective, these mitraillades resulted in heaps of mutilated, screaming, half-dead victims, who had to be finished off with sabres and musket fire by soldiers physically sickened at the task."[8] Events like this made Fouché infamous as "The Executioner of Lyons."[9] The Commission was not happy with the methods used for killing the rebels so, soon after, "more normal firing squads supplemented the guillotine." These methods led to the carrying out of "over 1800 executions in the coming months."[8] Fouché, claiming that "Terror, salutary terror, is now the order of the day here... We are causing much impure blood to flow, but it is our duty to do so, it is for humanity's sake," called for the execution of 1,905 citizens.[9]

>Alas, Fouché's enthusiasm had proved a little too effective, for when the blood from the mass executions in the center of Lyons gushed from severed heads and bodies into the streets, drenching the gutters of the Rue Lafont, the vile-smelling red flow nauseated the local residents, who irately complained to Fouché and demanded payment for damages. Fouché, sensitive to their outcry, obliged them by ordering the executions moved out of the city to the Brotteaux field, along the Rhône.

>From late 1793 into spring, 1794, every day "batch after batch of bankers, scholars, aristocrats, priests, nuns, and wealthy merchants and their wives, mistresses, and children" were taken from the city jails to Brotteaux field, tied to stakes, and dispatched by firing squads or mobs.[9] Outwardly, Fouché's conduct was marked by the utmost rigour, and on his return to Paris early in April 1794, he thus characterised his policy: "The blood of criminals fertilises the soil of liberty and establishes power on sure foundations".

Just curious, but do you consider the American Revolution to also be "equal" to the French and Russian ones?

>tfw Robespierre tried to get this guy arrested and executed for his crimes but other members of the Committee of Public Safety protected him

when even Robespierre is like "holy shit this guy went overboard," you've got a problem.

>tfw he gets made minister of Napoleon's secret police

That was a war of independence, not really the same thing. The English Civil War would be more comparable.

American "revolution" wasn't really a revolution but a separatist war. They didn't depose the king in London.

Are you implying the Colonists weren't revolting?

Saint Just killed the revolution. Saint Just was a disgusting piece of shit who spent all of his time ensuring that Robespierre felt he could only go more into terror, removing the possibility for reconciliation with Danton. The whole thing after Lafayette is a tragedy.

Then call it the American Revolt

>revolt against an over-taxing, centralizing absolutist regime
>ends up with an even more over-taxing, centralizing absolutist regime

That's the entire French Revolution for you. I don't even care they killed the King because in the end, what they did is exactly what the king wanted to do, the absolute centralization of France and the destruction of all autonomous institutions between the individual and the State.

I'm not one of those reactionaries that lament the fall of the Bastille. I'm one of those who lament the defeat of the Fronde.

It was the opposite.

The American colonists wanted descentralization, they fought against a centralizing king. The regimes they established were rooted in the colonial governmental tradition (they didn't even establish an central government authority until that monarchist Hamilton gained influence), not something conjured out of thin air by some "philosophes".

The French and Russian revolution desired the complete reformation of society through political action, and radically changed society, centralizing all power in a single authority to do so, the central State.

Was it autism?

>be 13
>I admire Robespierre so much
>I know all his quotes
>All evenings I pray to Robespierre
>I think him for the Republic that we've been given, by our Creator
>"Robespierre is love, Robespierre is the Revolution", I say
>My father gets mad and calls me a faggot
>He's jealous of my devotion to the Terror
>He slaps me and sends me to my room
>I cry because it hurts
>I lie on my bed
>A warmth is moving towards me
>It's Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre
>I am so happy
>He whispers in to ear, "it's time for Terror"
>He makes me lie down on the bed
>I'm ready
>I spread my ass cheeks for the Revolution
>He penetrates me with his incorruptible dick
>It hurts, but I do it for la Republique
>I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
>He pushes farther
>I want to please Maximilien
>He roars "Despotism!" while he fills me with his fraternity
>My dad walks in
>Maximilien looks him in the eye and says "The Revolution is the war of liberty against its enemies."
>He leaves through my window
>Maximilien Robespierre is life, Maximilien Robespierre is the Revolution
>Next morning, I find my dad decapitated

yes.. yes... Happy Bastille day Antoine.

HOWEVER

Yep.

That's just a myth.

Louis left behind a telling declaration in which he essentially eschewed the constitutional monarchy, for which he had previously expressed his support. The implication was that he intended to go into exile, before rallying France against the revolution and returning in triumph.

Ja, it brought about liberalism.
t. Adolf

>Louis left behind a telling declaration in which he essentially eschewed the constitutional monarchy, for which he had previously expressed his support.

No, he didn't. He had no intention of doing away with the constitutional monarchy.

From that declaration:

>Frenchmen, and above all you, Parisians, inhabitants of a town which his Majesty’s ancestors found pleasure in calling the good town of Paris, beware the suggestions and lies of your false friends; come back to your King, he will always be your father and your best friend; with what pleasure will he forget all personal injuries and find himself in your midst again, when a Constitution which he has freely accepted ensures that our holy religion shall be respected, that government shall be established on a stable footing, and through its operation no one shall be troubled in their goods or their condition, that laws shall no longer be infringed with impunity, and finally that liberty shall be established on firm and unshakable foundations.
>when a Constitution which he has freely accepted

Louis XVI was being physically threatened with violence on a regular basis. People were threatening to kill him, his wife and children anytime he disagreed with the National Constituent Assembly or refused to do what they wanted, even though it was in his Constitution-granted rights (which the Assembly, not Louis XVI, drafted and approved) to disagree, to use the veto on certain measures and have the freedom to move about. He fled to the countryside where he could act and speak on his own terms without the fear of being killed for it.

The escape turned into a fiasco. It was badly compromised before it even began, as the stubborn royal household insisted on a party too large for a single conventional carriage, requiring a huge, lumbering replacement to be custom-built in secret at vast expense. A faster vehicle might have made the border, where friendly Austrians awaited.

The game was up when Louis could not but accept the profession of loyalty from a local judge who recognised him and knelt, sighing, "Ah, Your Highness." "Yes, I am your king," Louis replied. "I have come to live among you, my faithful children, whom I will never abandon."

This was one of the supreme symbolic moments of the revolution. From his own mouth Louis had revealed the unreconstructed nature of his world view. Whatever the proclamations of the revolution, it seems clear he never truly embraced the idea that his power was less than absolute. Here was the living incarnation of the Bourbon line in direct confrontation with humble citizens, who would shortly force his humiliating return to Paris.

Thanks for the quote from Timothy Tackett's book? But that nothing to do with the false claim that Louis XVI intended to do away with the constitutional monarchy. Based on Louis XVI's own written words, left behind in a declaration that he wrote when he believed he was about to be at liberty from Paris, he did not intend to do away with the constitutional monarchy.

Also, Tackett's scholarship here is disingenuous. He attributes this scene and quote from Louis XVI to 'L'evenemnt de Varennes' by Victor Fournel, published in 1890.

Tackett claims that a judge recognized him and knelt, then Louis (unable to resist, absolutist king that he is) admitted he was the king rather than hide his identity, giving away the family and thus proving he couldn't give up his Bourbon absolutist power for a moment, even to successfully flee.

Yet if you check out L'événement de Varennes, it describes the scene (which is a quote from an 1855 publication which claimed to be the first ever published Council General of Varennes minutes of the events, done soon after and sent to the Assembly in Paris) as after the king and his family were taken by the people from the town into Sauce's house, the public prosecutor of Varennes was brought in, and the king admitted who he was and said that they were not attempting to go to across the border but to Montmedy and that's when he said the "Yes, I am the king. Here is the Queen and the Royal Family, I have come to live in the bosom of my children, I am not abandoning you." quote. So the book Tackett is using as a footnote didn't say that a judge knelt before him and then Louis XVI gave it all away with his hubris--it said that by that point, their identities were known, and the king confirmed it, and was attempting to persuade the people of his intentions.

The threats towards Louis XIV was a manifestation of the hatred towards French monarchy from the French People not towards Louis XIV himself. Poor Louis XIV had to pay for the decadence of his forefathers.

His attempt to escape to and the Declaration of Pillnitz, thoroughly convinces me he was against the revolution and wanted to restore his power.

The Great French Revolution is one of the most momentous events in human history.

The progress of Liberty is still moving forward.

Louis XVI*

>His attempt to escape to and the Declaration of Pillnitz, thoroughly convinces me he was against the revolution and wanted to restore his power.

Louis XVI did not draft the declaration of Pillnitz, nor did he agree with everything it contained. In writing about her and Louis' response to the Declaration to the former Austrian ambassador to France, Marie Antoinette wrote: "They say that in the agreement signed at PIllnitz, the two Powers undertake not to allow the new French Constitution to be established. ... in what concerns the internal laws of a country, everyone is at liberty to adopt what suits him in his own [country]. They would therefore be wrong to exact this."

His attempt to escape was based on the fact that he, and his family, were being threatened with daily violence in Paris. He was not free to act of his own accord, express his opinions, or even travel outside of Paris without being threatened and denied his own new government-granted liberties.

Louis XVI did not like the Constitution that the Assembly came up with. He also did not like that he was pressured with physical violence to accept things he did not think were good for the nation, hence stating in his Declaration that he wanted a Constitution he could accept freely, aka not through threats.

Louis' policy, written in letters to his brothers and in Marie Antoinette's letters abroad, was to accept the current Constitution and follow it to the letter, because he believed that 1) rejecting the Constitution would only cause an unnecessary wave of violence, which could totally collapse the government 2) that the people would come around once the Constitution had been in place for some time, because he believed it would not work out and they would change their minds. (And indeed a few weeks after accepting the Constitution he received a petition from several Paris districts asking for changes.)

2/2

Louis XVI did not have any objections to the notion of a Constitution or a constitutional monarchy. It was the specific constitution they were drafting, and the direction of the new government, which he did not approve of.

People had equal rights before the law.
Feudal privilege was dead.
Social programs to aid the poor.
Secular education (if desired).
Veterans hospitals.

Not a monarchy.

Emperor of the French.

Spread the ideas of the Revolution all across Europe.

The Republic is alive!!

bump