French revolution

>japanese
Explain

Anglos are honestly the worst people in the world.
Like it's illegal to be drunk in public? How tf are you supposed to get back to your place if it's illegal to walk there.

The framework of the US had already been in place with the way the colonial governments worked. Revolutions like the French Revolution had to turn an absolute monarchy into a republic.

Boy, you're really asking the tough questions there.

This.

Thank you
Anglos are also really ugly
I would not stick my dick in 80% of the British Isles

Now that is a truly good point. Fucking uggos over there.

and yet the Latin American revolutions which were also secession movements turned ludicrously bloody like all the othe revolutions.

Didn't lots of tax collectors get tarred and feathered?

>French Revolution
>transform from monarchy with the slow re-emergence of parliament to federal republic with an authoritative leader but universal suffrage
>Russian revolution
>liberal edition
>universal suffrage is given but the government is still unelected and large landed elites are stopping land reform and ministers are now appointed by the unelected government rather than a hereditary monarch
>Commie edition
>transition to a planned economy from a backwards oligarchic government with few land owning peasants in the middle of a civil war whilst foreign countries attack you
>Cuban revolution
>guerilla warfare to kill American backed dictator because he has more advanced tech than you, if your position is betrayed your whole leadership could be killed that day
>Chinese revolution
>take completely backwards state to communism whilst also killing off nationalists in a civil war
>American revolution
>Pay taxes to a local centralised government than one across the ocean, suppourt for your rightful sovereign is lost because of the chance that he may later abolish slavery whilst foreign countries defeat the British navy preventing the armies resupplying

Free press was in the February revolution for Russia and also the French Revolution
American revolution was the weakest of all revolution, even more so than the glorious revolution

By happenstance, they had a core group of unusually knowledgeable and intelligent political philosophers who guided the revolution and the new nation during its formation.

They were severely lacking in military minds, but ol' George understood the concept of Fabian tactics and had a real knack for keeping men in the field and loyal when every indication was that they would bug out at any moment. This allowed them to hold out until diplomacy could bring the French into the war, and long enough for the English will to win to collapse.

Comparing the US experience with what happened in South America is revealing. They had plenty of military minds, but lacked the collection of political minds that the US had. SO when the revolution is over, you have nobody to put the unified state together, but plenty of guys who know how to lead armies -- and everything fractures, plus your history is now one of "military strongmen equals government" for generations.

What do you mean by "lots?" I'm aare of one case, presumably there may have been a handful.

A central problem with many uprisings is that there isn't just 1 faction, but many different factions with differing goals. They might all agree that the status quo is bad, but disagree on what the end goal should be. This leads to in-fighting, which tends to be quite brutal.

Just for the Russian Revolution, you had liberals who wanted a constitutional republic and radical socialists who wanted to completely destroy capitalism. And then within the radical socialists, you have division between those who wanted to end the war immediately and those who wanted to keep fighting the war in hopes of spreading the Revolution to Germany. Then you had the peasants who were generally in favor of capitalism because their entire livelihood depended on being able to sell surplus grain for a profit. The peasants wanted the war to end, but socialism didn't appeal to them, especially since the socialists tended to be very anti-religious. There was also a less consequential split among the liberals between those who wanted a constitutional republic and those who wanted a constitutional monarchy.

All the Founding Fathers were liberals who wanted a Constitutional Republic. That made things easy. There was still some internal bickering, but it tended to be pretty civilized. The two biggest splits were about the role of the federal government in the new republic, and whether or not the new republic should allow slavery. The first question, the question regarding the role of the federal government, was solved mostly without bloodshed, although it still had its casualties. The second question, the question regarding the future of slavery in the new republic, the founders left that question unresolved, kicking it down the road for the next generation to grapple with.

>American Revolution
>Shays Rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, the civil war

What about the large swaths of loyalist who were forced to flee the country to upper and lower Canada during the revolution as they were being harassed and assaulted by "patriots"?

The reign of terror only last 2 years in the french revolution

Yeah and 800 people got the national razor a month in Paris

The American revolution was pretty EZ mode. It was fought in a sparsely populated homogenous colony, the loyalist population simply moved a few hundred miles into Canada because the British crown offered them huge incentives (most of those families are still wealthy to this day) so there was no need for a violent purge, there was only really one ideological current accepted and they had the overwhelming support of the world vs the Bolsheviks who were invaded by 20 countries and the French Revolutionaries who had to fight constant wars against every monarchy in Europe.

An independece war is not a revolution

It didn't last 2 years. It lasted 11 months.

And how many had died under the rule of an unaccountable king over France's history? How many petty squables between the first estate killed those who only wanted to tend to their fields?

>Fetched from his prison cell on the morning of 28 March 1757, Damiens allegedly said "La journée sera rude" ("The day will be hard").[7] He was first subjected to a torture in which his legs were painfully compressed by devices called "boots".[8][9] He was then tortured with red-hot pincers; the hand with which he had held the knife during the attempted assassination was burned using sulphur; molten wax, molten lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. He was then remanded to the royal executioner, Charles Henri Sanson, who harnessed horses to his arms and legs to be dismembered. But Damiens' limbs did not separate easily: the officiants ordered Sanson to cut Damiens' tendons, and once that was done the horses were able to perform the dismemberment.[8][9][10] Once Damiens was dismembered, to the applause of the crowd, his reportedly still-living torso was burnt at the stake.[11] (Some accounts say he died when his last remaining arm was removed.)[8][9]

This is what the French kings did to a guy who got near one of them with a little pen knife. They were dogs and deserved no mercy and anyone siding with them over the people had it coming

No it isn't. Maybe in America.

>Make an independence war
>Call it a revolution
American education, everyone.

Terror managed to keep the nation together while the revolutionary clubs were fucking each other over, Sans-Culottes and random mobs were killing people in the streets over imaginary bullshit, most of the countryside wanted to burn Paris to the ground and most of Europe was gangbanging their armies and taking their land. Robespierre was a massive tool who richly deserved his comeuppance but the Terror was a good call.

>Wow why he was he so mean to someone that tried to kill them

It wan't a revolution. It was a war of independence.
All of our power structures already existed. The men who were in power before, during, and after the war were, in bulk, the same, other than young men who grew up during the war and a few loyalists who fled. By the way, only about 20% of loyalists fled.

>absolute monarchy
It was a constitutional monarchy, by the time the Revolution took place.

It's a revolution because the form of government changed

This is literally one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen on this board

>an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
It wasn't really this, because most the established government continued governing. Of course, some leaders were killed or kicked out, and England's rule was abolished, but most of the leaders stayed and led the new country.

Yes we went from having a Parliamently monarchy to a republic. You also forget that many of the colonial governments were never respected in England. That's why you cant be tried for the same crime twice

>haitian revolution
>serbian revolution
>belgian revolution
>phillipine revolution
actually die

>thorough replacement of an established government
Do you know what the word "thorough" means? Many of the leaders of the colonial governments became the leaders of the new USA. And much of the British political system were adopted into our new political system. Just because we didn't adopt one of the, admittedly important, part of the British political system doesn't mean that we "thoroughly" replaced the system.

Serb here, I don't remember us having a revolution of any sort.

Unless you mean the 1999. thing, but that was just foreign powers shuffling our thieves and incompetents around.

>Like it's illegal to be drunk in public?
Not really. It's illegal to be outright taking swigs from a handle of vodka in public, which is why people put their drinks in brown paper bags. all in all it's just a way to give someone an extra fine for acting like a drunken asshole picking fights with strangers.

the only difference is that the king and the prime minister are fused together and the president actually use the power that the king has in theory.

>the peasamts tended to support capitalism

Are you fuckingnhigh the peasants couldnt read and didnt know what capitalism was, they wanted to own the land for themselves rather than working on land owned by rich nobles, the socialists promised them this so they supported the socialists in the beginning but descended into like a million different factions later on when they realized they weere being played

If your day-to-day existence depends on being able to sell things for a profit then yes, you're going to support capitalism, whether you know what the word means or not. Lenin was constantly having to send in Cheka to gun down peasants who wanted to sell their surplus grain for a profit rather than simply give it to the government. So maybe the peasants didn't support "capitalism" in the purest sense of the word, but they were infuriated that Lenin wouldn't let them sell their surplus as they'd done for literally centuries. Now, Lenin eventually did let them sell their shit, that's what the NEP was, but that was only after literally millions were already dead.

Because it had very little cause (pettiness over taxes and borders) , hence there was less brutality after the fact due to zeal and so less instability. Also having baguette behind you helps when they just came out of a war with tea.

But that's wrong, you fucking retard