What did the Americans do "right" in their revolution that the French did "wrong" in theirs?

Successful in that its ideals inspired future thinking but a failure in that it didn't live up to its own ideals by devolving into a bloodbath with the Reign of Terror, corruption under The Directory, and despotism under Napoleon

For fuck's sake, Napoleon was as far from a tyrant as can be, and America didn't have a revolution.

>American didn't have a revolution

1. Quit saying stupid things.

>Napoleon was as far from a tyrant as can be

2. Tyrant definition, a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly

The Reign of Terror didn't start the bloodbath, it put an end to it.

Could someone make a single non-retarded post ITT?

The French Revolution was an intense civil war while being at war with all Europe
Of course it's gonna be bloodier than a mere independence war from a far away country with heavy foreign assistance

Givenjh the odds, it's a miracle the French Republic survived the onslaught, while it would have needed Americans to be really pathetic to fail theirs

Pipe down Robspierre, anglos are talking.

The american revolution wasn't ruined by an angry corsican manlet

>about 17,000 executions in a year
>civil war in the Vendee ongoing
>end of bloodbath

Quit memeing

1. When did Americans rise up to overthrow their elites? America had a war of independence, not a revolution.

2. Who did Napoleon oppressed? He even gave civil rights to previously oppressed groups. How was his rule unjust? He was elected by direct universal suffrage, which makes him more legitimate than any American president to this day.

Quit saying so much bullshit.

>implying the Reign of Terror wasn't all about slaughtering defenseless Vendeens and throwing millions of children to the guillotine
>implying Napoleon wasn't the Hitler of his time
>implying the American Revolution isn't the greatest historical event of all time
>implying the French Revolution changed anything

>what are the September Massacres

Oh wait, you unironically don't know.

>who uses power oppressively or unjustly

Aka not Napoleon
French citizens had much more rights under him than Prussian, Austrian or Russian ones, or even than French citizens under the monarchy
There's a reason why his Civil Code is still used nowdays

I'm not even sure this is sarcasm anymore judging by the posting on this board.

I don't know if it's fair to compare both revolutions.

In France the lower classes rebelled against the upper class and the system

Americans rebelled against a state that surpressed their freedom and their will to form a independent government.

Not an expert but this is my understanding.

It seems like of the two, the American revolution was the more orderly revolution

Rather than completely restructuring their government, they simply removed the guy at the top and kept the already existing government structures. Though the difference seems slight it gave the Americans what they were looking for: taxation with representation.

The French Republic seemed to have the misfortune of being surrounded by enemies who thought that the revolution was setting a dangerous precedent and thus necessitated a Napoleon to deal with the problem

>1. When did Americans rise up to overthrow their elites? America had a war of independence, not a revolution.

1. Quit saying stupid things.

>2. Who did Napoleon oppressed?

2. The people he went to war with.

>. How was his rule unjust?

3. Because he killed people who didn't submit to him.

>which makes him more legitimate than any American president to this day.

4. See number 1

>French citizens had much more rights under him than Prussian
no
> Austrian
maybe
>or Russian ones
yes

It was quite successful

That's because it wasn't a revolution. No they didn't even "remove the guy on top", king George remained king of England, and the wealthy land-owning quasi-aristocracy of America remained in charge in America, without even giving most people the right to vote.

The American independence war was an independence war, not a revolution. This stupid meme has gone on far too long.

>17,000 executions in a year
That's not much for a Revolution. And Vendéens were foreign agents KIA

Are you literally 12?

Less than 2,000 dead versus around 17,000 during the Reign of Terror, not counting the amount who died in the Vendee during the time the Committee of Public Safety was in power. Sounds like an intensification of the killing to me

Neither was the French one
Napoleon pretty much saved the revolution

Before his coup d'etat, the Directory was about to betray the revolution and help to restore monarchy in exchange for nobility titles
At the point, the revolution had been going for less than a decade, and it would have been easy for Bourbon kings to completly undo everything it had accomplished

But instead, Napoleon seized power and restored order while keeping the most fundamental ideals of the revolution
Because of that, even when Napoleon fell in 1815, stuff such as meritocracy, equality before the law...etc had been going on for two decades and completly anchored within the minds of the people of France and French-occupied lands
That's why even after the restoration, monarchs could never completly bring back feudalism and not too long after new revolutions happened and put their powers in chack even more

So women and children are suddenly foreign agents

What problems with that post did you have, exactly?

>without even giving most people the right to vote.

uh...what

>and the wealthy land-owning quasi-aristocracy of America remained in charge in America
And it was the same way in France during and after the Revolution. The former land-owning nobles still remained incredibly wealthy. On the contrary, living conditions worsened in Europe until the advent of worker's rights. Former nobles were no longer obliged to take care of their former serfs.

>French citizens had much more rights under him than Prussian
>no
> Austrian
>maybe

Yeah, nah
The only monarchy in Europe that granted more rights to their citizens than Napoleon's Empire was Great Britain
And even then it was mostly for high class citizens
When It came to lower class, you were better off in France

The September Massacres are just 5 days out of the bloodbath that was the Revolution under the Girondin assembly.

The difference is that before the Terror it was completely chaotic, riots and massacres and mass executions decided by the Paris Commune based on the day's newspaper articles written by popular journalists. The Terror eliminated all the fanatics and put the power of violence back into the hands of the State. It wasn't an intensification of killing, it was a restoration of order.

Yeah but it seems like you're arguing over semantics.

The American proletariat and bourgeoisie allied against the nobility to drive them out of their land and establish themselves as an independent country. An entire class, the land owning class, was removed completely from the decision making process and a representational government was installed in their place. Yes, the bourgeoisie were firmly in control and future revolutions addressed this but the American revolution got the ball rolling on emancipation

>women and children
Nice meme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_and_Royal_Army

In America you had to pay for the right to vote and it was restricted to wealthy landowners. In France everyone had the right to vote regardless of wealth, and Napoleon was elected by direct universal suffrage, something America still doesn't have today.

Now come back when you're old enough to post on this board.

American revolution: glorified tax evasion by wealthy landowners seeking to steal indian territories protected by treaties

French Revolution: vilified societal upheaval inducing incredible changes in France, Europe will never be the same after Napoleon

The american revolution was not entirely a revolution but more of an independence movement.
They didn't have as many nobles and people to execute, everyone important was across the Atlantic
They didn't have to destroy the old way of life to create a new one, it was fought with the motivation to preserve their way of life in fact.

There was no nobility in America, what the fuck are you talking about? The closest America had to a nobility was the wealthy land-owners who gave themselves even more power through the """"""revolution""""".

Words have meanings, independence wars aren't the same thing as revolutions at all, not even close.

>2. Who did Napoleon oppressed?
>2. The people he went to war with.
So the people who declared war on him?
Fucking Napoleon! How dare he oppress people who attack him?!?
Literally Hitler!

>3. Because he killed people who didn't submit to him.
Good joke bro
You could literally insult Napoleon in his face, the worst you would get was him not wanting to see you again (thus compromizing your career)
Lots of generals/politicians...etc of the era were known for having had arguments with him, and none ever ended up in jail
Meanwhile under Louis XIV, not feeling honored by the fact he fucked your wife could send you to prison....

>"That's because it wasn't a revolution. No they didn't even "remove the guy on top", king George remained king of England"
Why would the American revolutionaries sail to Britain to overthrow the King? They removed the guy on top in their land, that is a revolution.

>When It came to lower class, you were better off in France
Why do you think the Revolution happened in the first place?

>The only monarchy in Europe that granted more rights to their citizens than Napoleon's Empire was Great Britain
>And even then it was mostly for high class citizens

Serfdom was pretty much gone in England around 200 years or more before the French Revolution.

Now come back when you're old enough to post on this board.

Honest question, are you aware that Napoleon reigned after the Revolution and not before?

Either way, before or after, you were better off being lower class in Great Britain

Now come back when you're old enough to post on this board.

>Serfdom was pretty much gone in England around 200 years or more before the French Revolution.

Your point being, literal retard?
Did I claim that Britain had serfdom?
I just pointed out that lower class in Britain had less rights than in the French Empire, as real meritocracy, equality before the law and universal suffrage werent a thing yet

Basically the same? Ancien regime intact??

You're bringing serfdom when the other guy was taklking about the First Empire. And before that you were talking about the Revolution as if its causes were still there under Napoleon.

What point are you trying to make?

>Your point being, literal retard?
You said that it was better to be lowerclass French than British.

Serfdom still existed in France long after the British got rid of it.

HE means the American revolution

You literally said this:
>When It came to lower class, you were better off in France

You're wrong.

i don't care what the fuck you're saying but i think posting a meme like that invalidates your argument instantly, you fucking newfag.

Our philosophical movements and societies were organized differently.

The American Enlightenment was more related to the British and Scottish Enlightenment (despite Montesquieu's ideas of separation of powers). The French Enlightenment was way more radical. They changed their calendars, religion, everything in their society. American society stayed pretty much the same since we sort of already were ruling ourselves. We got rid of a king thousands of miles away, France killed their king in their backyard. Also the French were starving, Americans were, as usual, very plump and well fed.

They wouldn't, because they weren't doing a revolution, but an INDEPENDENCE WAR.

He said that it was better to be a lowerclass French under NAPOLEON. After the Ancient Regime.

Why the fuck are you even talking about serfdom? Holy shit.

Serfdom was formally abolished in France in 1315, although it had effectively disappeared long before.

You absolute retard.

I'm not the one who said that but who cares.

Here is a big hint about why you're being called a retard: there was no serfdom under Nappy. There is litterally no reason to bring serfdom into the discussion other than to avoid addressing his point about meritocracy and stuff.

You're unironically mentally depleted
I said it was better to be lower class in France DURING the Napoleonic Era than in Britain DURING the Napoleonic Era (when both countries had abolished serfdom AND lower class had more rights in France than in Britain).
How hard is that to understand?

Yes, under Louis XIV, Louis XV...etc it was better to be lower class in Britain than in France, but that's not the point, imbecile

>Is wrong
>gets angry
>"n-n-newfag"
>"m-memes!"

The lower class in France have never had a better life than the lower class in England. At least not in over 1,000 years.

Go read some de Tocqueville, please.

citation needed

The point still stands: lower class in England has always been better than France, even under "Nappy"

Anglos should be banned from talking about history.

>I said it was better to be lower class in France DURING the Napoleonic Era than in Britain DURING the Napoleonic Era

You're wrong.

>Yes, under Louis XIV, Louis XV...etc it was better to be lower class in Britain than in France
Actually, no. Depending on how you define it.

>using meme pics
>talking about serfdom when trying to rebut the idea that lowerclass poeple were better off under Napoelon than in England
>don't cite anything but ask for source
Okay.

...

>The point still stands: lower class in England has always been better than France, even under "Nappy"

Except that wrong
Neither country had serfdom (so you can put this "argument" back into your rectum) but lower class in France benefited from real meritocracy, equality before the law and universal suffrage while those in Britain didnt

>The lower class in France have never had a better life than the lower class in England.

lmao, that must be why half the population of England ran away to the other end of the world in the hopes of a slightly less shitty life.

You were wrong. Life was never better in France for the lower class. I just gave you a huge source.

> but lower class in France benefited from real meritocracy, equality before the law and universal suffrage while those in Britain didnt

This is incredibly wrong. Pic related, maybe?

That's has nothing to do with anything, but I'll play along

"Lmao, that must be why the British Empire dominated the 19th century while the French "empire" crumpled"

>"Lmao, that must be why the British Empire dominated the 19th century

How does the fact that British lower class would rather move to shitholes like Australia or India than keep living in England prove they had great living standards exactly?

>How does the fact that British lower class would rather move to shitholes

It shows that the British system gave even the lower classes an opportunity to succeed in life.

Also, the colonial system was different between the two empires.

>It shows that the British system gave even the lower classes an opportunity to succeed in life.

By getting the fuck out of the giant pile of shit that was England, lmao.

That feel when you were literally better off living in a malaria-infested swamp half a world away from civilisation than in England

>Life was better in Britain because it was worse so people had opportunity to emigrate

:^)

Be 3,000 miles away from the court.

/thread

It's you versus the rest of the world on that one buddy

Ours was ran by our upper classes and colonial aristocrats, not a bunch of unwashed peasants.

No, mainly because it was helped and basically won by those dirty, unwashed peasants, which ended up literally starving them.
Have some respect.

America didn't have a revolution; it had a rebellion. It's different.

America's war of independence was a war against a foreign power. America's enemy was external to itself. At the end of the war, our ruling class and power structures remained mostly intact.

France fought a true revolution, in which the enemy was an internal enemy. The victory of the revolutionaries meant the destruction of the very structure of French society, leaving a power vacuum for power-hungry despots to fill.

First of all American revolution wasn't a real revolution, it was a war of secession. They didn't overthrow the king in London.

The American Revolution sought the restoration of a previous political order that was being challenged by the increased power of the British monarchy, it was more concerned with traditional rights and descentralization, with an idealized view of the past.

The French Revolution sought the creation of a new political order, based in a strenghtening central authority using it's power to enact rationalist policies, with an utopian view of the future.

>the American "Revolution" is just a meme that never actually hapened.

What did he mean by this?

The French believed that democracy was based around unity. That every citizen will subscribe to a general will and make decisions about what is the best interest of everyone in the country. But that doesn't really work because what is in "the best interest" is subjective as fuck and not everyone will agree on shit. The French were so focused on this idealistic viewpoint of Democracy as being quick moving and uniform that they started getting rid of any dissenters of popular opinion, and this became more and more twisted until they just straight up started executing anyone that they saw as inhibiting political progress.

The Americans believed a healthy democracy was filled with political discourse; that argument is a central component, and that in reality democracy is about slow-moving, careful progress and compromise between various different ever-changing ideologies. They believed democracy was ultimately flexible and able to change and adapt over time and thus political discussion and disagreement was expexted and welcome to ultimately refine decisions.

The difference in the two approaches is probably due to the lack of experience on the French side. The founding fathers pretty much all had some level of experience with self-government, and served some kind of political position years before the Revolution ever began. Their distance from the King meant that they had to be familiar with politics so they could govern their colonies. They knew what was realistic and what wasn't. The French citizen on the otherhand went from being entirely excluded from political life and government to literally being the government. It's no surprised that they clung to an overly-idealisfic viewpoint of Democracy that was not at all practical and doomed to fail.

This is the most pertinent answer.

>you had to pay for the right to vote
No, you didn't you lying fuck.

America had a revolution, created the first modern democratic state, and started an empire of freedom which had lead to the greatest realization of human potential ever.

dealwithit.jpeg

>revolution

I've never seen such a Facebook tier basic bitch opinion on Veeky Forums ever.

at least 2 million kills / 10 years = 17k executions/year
>yeah

>american revolution

Are you talking about the american independence war?

>about 17,000 executions in a year
How many executions a year were "normal" at the time? We need that for comparison.

Keep in mind that in Britain, you could be executed for such things as being in the company of gypsies for over a month and "suspicions of malice" in a child age 7-14.

Somebody got bootyblasted.

>there are people in this thread who actually think the American Revolution wasn't revolutionary

Holy fucking shit, I knew Veeky Forums was stupid, but this is plain retarded

Read some fucking Gordon Wood, you illiterates

Start with his "The Radicalism of the American Revolution"

Americans were much more modest in their goals, so it was easier to achieve them.

The French were practically millenniumal in their hopes for a heavenly paradise, of course it was bound to fail.

>In France the lower classes rebelled against the upper class and the system

It was actually a upper class revolution. While they kicked out the monarchy, the «bourgeois» really got in power.

>white rich dudes in power before
>the same white rich dudes in power after

Pretty radical.

>The same

What?

>eliminating the monarchy
>completely changing the foreign policy and military
>shooting at former countrymen until they leave you alone
>not revolutionary

The founding fathers were all movers and shakers in the colonies before the "revolution."

So are all wars of secession revolutions?

Amazing user, with your single post you have disproven one of the greatest scholars of the American Revolution

Surely the Wood name lies in the mud now.

>some literally who
>greatest scholar

Yeah, OK.