ITT:Histroical figures who's lives have been literal suffering

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=a5wCl3aAMEQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVII_of_France#Prison_and_rumours_of_escape
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Wild_Boy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

me desu

>his heart only

>his heart only

>ywn go back in time and stop the French Revolution with a tank division
Why must we suffer like this?

...

...

>His heart only
I hope Robespierre's died a well deserved painful death.

>Following a tradition of preserving royal hearts, Louis-Charles's heart was removed and smuggled out during the autopsy by the overseeing physician, Philippe-Jean Pelletan. Thus, the heart of Louis-Charles was not interred with the rest of the body. Dr. Pelletan stored the smuggled heart in distilled wine in order to preserve the heart. However, after 8 to 10 years the distilled wine had evaporated, and the heart was further kept dry.[9]

it's not like they disemboweled him alive

>When clearing Robespierre's neck, the executioner tore off the bandage that was holding his shattered jaw in place, causing Robespierre to produce an agonised scream until the fall of the blade silenced him.
sometime's there's real justice in the world

Louis Charles was separated from his family after Louis XVI's death for "re-education." His "re-education" involved getting him drunk, abusing and punishing him whenever he acted "royally" or mentioned wanting to see his family and praising him when he acted "coarse"; for instance he was praised for swearing, drinking, and yelling out lines or songs about how great the Revolution was and how horrid his "bitch mother" was. He was eventually forced into accusing his mother and aunt of sexually abusing him.

After he had outlived his usefulness, they shut him up in a room and ignored him for more than a year. His bedding was never changed, room never cleaned, nor was he provided with so much as candle.The months in this neglect contributed to extremely poor health. He ended up severely ill, covered in bug and rat bites, and psychologically fucked up from the almost 2 years of abuse.

Some months after Robespierre's fall, he was allowed to be treated like a human being: his room was cleaned, he was given medicine and food, treated with kindness, and he was allowed to walk around the prison--including trips to the top of the tower for fresh air. But they hadn't told him that his mother died, and wouldn't give him any news about her. He would pass the door of her (former) room whenever he went for a walk at the top of the tower, and would pick flowers which were growing in one of the cracks outside and leave them outside her doorway. However the years of emotional and physical abuse had shattered his health, and he died from a longstanding infection.

After his death, they found the half-finished scrawl "Mama, I am sorry" written on the wall of his room. One of the men who attended to him after his conditions improved implied in a memoir that Charles thought his mother wouldn't come to him because she was mad at him.

He was 8 when he was separated from his family, and 10 when he died.

>After his death, they found the half-finished scrawl "Mama, I am sorry" written on the wall of his room. One of the men who attended to him after his conditions improved implied in a memoir that Charles thought his mother wouldn't come to him because she was mad at him.

>have autism
>mother dies
>father dies
>stepfather hates you
>have to run away from home
>see horrors beyond imagining while fighting in Mexico
>get transferred to VMI as a glorified math teacher because your superior hates you
>students hate you because they don't have high enough IQs to understand your lessons
>marry waifu
>stillborn son
>first waifu dies
>marry second waifu
>first daughter dies a month after birth
>secretly run Sunday School for blacks knowing full well the authorities could hang you for inciting slave insurrection
>hang abolitionist raider John Brown and wind up almost admiring him for his resolve in the face of death
>country splits in two
>write clergymen all over the country to call for a national day of prayer to avert the impending disaster
>warn students and friends that "war is the sum all evils"
>get ignored on both accounts
>you were always a Union man, but are compelled to follow your native Virginia as it joins the Confederacy
>fight in the largest military confrontation in the Western Hemisphere
>your friends and comrades are killed left and right
>tell President Davis and other Confederate leaders again and again that the South must take the gloves off and mobilize for total war if it is to have any possible chance at survival
>get ignored again
>narrowly miss opportunity to destroy the Union Army at Malvern Hill
>delighted by the birth of second child, but unable to see her because of the war
>spend last Christmas starving and freezing with the rest of the ANV
>rout the Yankees in your greatest battle
>get shot by your own men while returning from a scouting mission
>lose arm
>attack slows, resulting in the Union Army's escape
>see your daughter for the first and last time while lying in a makeshift hospital
>die of pneumonia on the eve of the Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania, its most crucial battle
>couldn't even save pregnant Anne Frank by winning the war

This man's life was literally nothing but suffering

George Washington was right not to side with Revolutionary France and remain neutral.

...

Robespierre wasn’t responsible, you idiot.

America's Constitution was written with checks and balances specifically to prevent the extreme excesses of mob rule you saw during the French Revolution. So yes, Washington and most of the Founding Fathers except Jefferson found the French Republic's degenerating into a witch hunt and bloodbath in the name of "liberty" rather disturbing. Of course they were unwilling to risk their newly achieved independence (only won after a hard-fought eight year-long war that had resulted in the deaths of 70,000 Americans) in the name of tying their fate to a politically unstable France.

And that's not even beginning to touch upon the persecution of the Vendéens, which was a crime against humanity unto itself.

Also my favorite scene from John Adams.

youtube.com/watch?v=a5wCl3aAMEQ

Plus the last thing the fledgling US could afford was losing trade with Britain

>is married to picture related
>she isn't interested
>brother is shot in mexico
>son commits murder suicide
>wife is stabbed
>heir is shot
>lives to see the start of WW1

feels bad man..

A sad death, but totally unremarkable when held against the tens of millions who suffered and died from a thousand years of French feudal tyranny

>the tens of millions who suffered and died from a thousand years of French feudal tyranny
Source: The depth of user's hairy, acne filled ass.

>tens of millions

Statement incorrect.

Of course she wasn’t interested
He’s fucking old and it wasn’t truly her decision
How would you like your parents to marry you off to an old fart of a woman user? How would you?

>She isnt interested.
Nah they started off truly in love. Mcfucking Franz Joseph CHOSE Sisi when he was matched to meet meet her elder sister instead.

They fell out of it when Sisi's carefree Bavarian upbringing clashed with rigid Hapsburg court life.

>brother is shot in mexico
FUCK YOU JUAREZ

jfc
How horrid
Democracy was unironically a mistake. Is a psychological human crush until no one is left breathing

This actually broke my heart.

I like how so many people on the history chan didn’t even know what happened to Marie Antoinette’s son

I mean... why would most people, unless they specifically studied this era and had a focus on the monarchy? He's a footnote to the revolution, he died young, and his death caused no political uproar or incident.

I'm a Veeky Forums noob desu. Regret that I never found this sub earlier

There’s a chance he was smuggled out by a sympathizer though
Anyone less lazy have the sources handy?
If I remember correctly one of them is actually weirdly convincing

I feel like the French Revolution is something almost anyone interested in history looks into naturally, on their own accord. It doesn’t have to be the area of study you’re going to school for. You just end up looking into it (or so I thought)
If you’re clicking around on Wikipedia it makes it a bit easier to think “wait, what happened to him anyway?”
No judgement though desu
Pls stay and contribute it’s always a good time when the board comes alive

also there were fake Louis Charleses just like there were fake Anastasias and other Romanovs. One of them went so far as to sue Marie Therese, Marie Antoinette's daughter who survived the revolution, for "royal property." He hounded her with letters and even managed to convince some former courtiers--including Charles' nurse--that he was really Charles. Except he was German, couldn't speak much French, claimed to have been held captive by Napoleon in various dungeons which he could provide no evidence of, and was a known criminal. He also didn't claim to be Charles' until he was in his 40s.

Marie Therese was deeply wounded by his pretense, especially since his former nurse was convinced that he was Charles and kept trying to see her about it. His last cruelty was a letter he had sent to her which he wrote on his death bed (a few months, mind you, after trying to sue her for her property)

>You have read, Madame, the last wishes of our good mother, written by her own hand just before her death. “She must help her brother; union alone can give them happiness.” These words will remind you of what she had already said to you during a scene which took place in the chief tower of the Temple. And it is because these words are so absolutely true that our enemies, by spreading infamous calumnies, have done everything which lay in their power to keep you from me; they have deceived your sisterly affection by giving my name to several of those wretches whom they hold in reserve and, by fraudulently extracting our secrets, they parody all my endeavours to make myself known to you.

>God, Madame, has give you eyes that you may see, and ears that you may hear. In the presence of our beloved mother, before the judgement-seat of our Sovereign Judge, you will have to explain why you would neither see with your own eyes he who has already given you so many proofs of his identify, nor hear with your own ears the reply to all questions put by you to your own brother.

but he continued to love her his whole life....

his rooms and studies are full of pictures of her

...

He wasn't. The wikipedia article on his supposed escape is extremely misleading in that it lists a bunch of things "wrong" with his supposed captivity and death which... well, aren't weird or wrong at all. Hold on, I broke them down a while ago because I was so mad at how blatantly ridiculous it was.

poor Marie Therese had to go though some shit too...

...

what parts on wiki are you referring to?

concubine qi, at least at the end

> In one early morning in the twelfth month of the first year of Emperor Xiaohui, the emperor went on a hunting trip; this time King of Zhao was left alone because he could not wake up early. Emperor Xiaohui supposed his mother would not plot against King of Zhao as several months had passed without any occurrence. Nevertheless, Empress Dowager had an assassin force venom down King of Zhao's throat....She then had Concubine Qi's limbs chopped off, blinded her by gouging out her eyes, cut off her tongue and locked her in the pigsty, and called her a "Human Swine" (人彘). Several days after, Emperor Xiaohui saw the "Human Swine", and after realising that it who the "Human Swine" was, the emperor was so sick of his mother's cruelty that he virtually relinquished his authority and indulged in carnal pleasures.

How? (expect for that time his uncle tried to kill him and that he died young)

Aside from that, he was always a sickly kid. Also it's unfortunate that nothing good can be said about his short rule.

>Edward's reign was marked by economic problems and social unrest that in 1549 erupted into riot and rebellion.

Also, he died at 15.

Yup.

Gradually everyone in her family was taken from her. Her father, then her little brother, then her mother, then her aunt. She's a teenage girl left alone in the care of drunken revolutionary guards who come into her room at all hours, even at night, trying to catch her in bed.The guards refused her request for an adult woman as a companion, and then began taking away anything that might keep her occupied or comfort her.

She's repeatedly denied any news of her family, and only finds out they are all dead in the summer of 1795.

She's traded to Austria for French POWs and reunited with her family. During the family's exile she goes through the deaths of 3 family members, and is at the death bed of the priest who accompanied her father to his death. By the time they make it back to France, she searches for her (quasi-) adopted sister she grew up with, but she too has died. And after the Bourbons were restored to the throne she became gradually unpopular because she was not who the people or court wanted her to be. She was shy, deeply religious, and suffered from what we'd probably consider PTSD today, causing her to behave irrationally at times.

She was pregnant sometime between 1816 and 1820 but she miscarried, or rather she had a still birth since the baby was about 8 months along. Then her cousin is assassinated in 1820 and she's there at his bedside as he dies. Her uncle Louis XVIII dies. The Bourbons are exiled again in 1830, and forced to go from place to place by whomever would keep them. Her uncle Charles X dies. Her husband dies. Everyone she knows, save her niece and nephew, dies before her.

She died, age 72, in 1851--a few days after the anniversary of her mother's death. She was ill and was trying to get to the chapel to pray for her mother, but could not get out of bed.

From her last will and testament

>I pray God to shower down his blessings upon France—France, that I have never ceased to love even under my bitterest afflictions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVII_of_France#Prison_and_rumours_of_escape

This part.

here's my breakdown

Pretty much that whole "Controversy" section explaining the "weak parts" of the story are incorrect.

>the sudden and unexplained departure of the Simons

The departure was not unexplained or sudden. Simon had requested a month before his removal to leave, because he didn't like the increasingly tight restrictions placed on him (he was not allowed to leave the Temple to go to a festival, for instance) and there were complaints from his compatriots that he was given too much privilege by being the personal guard of Louis-Charles while having a role on several commitees. He was asked to leave, he accepted, and he and his wife left.

>The subsequent cruel treatment of the child – keeping him in a dark room practically out of sight (unless any doubt of his identity was possible), while his sister Marie-Thérèse was in comparative comfort

Marie Therese was not a political threat. The "little king" of France was. And during the time period when he was neglected the most, there were some major political upheavels resulting in the arrest and execution of about 12 men associated with Louis Charles' imprisonment. Most of them, like Chaumette and Herbert, were accused of trying to put Louis Charles on the throne. So any guards who might entertain the idea of being kind to the boy would certainly be afraid of being arrested themselves. Afterward Charles became more and more of an afterthought to the revolutionary government.

The reason why Marie Therese was in comparative comfort was that she was 15 years old and could take care of herself: she cleaned her own cell, she had been taught how to wash herself and keep her mind occupied. Louis Charles was an 8-9 year old boy who was ripped from his loving family, physically and emotionally abused, then tossed into a cell all alone. He and Marie Therese were given the same treatment, it's just that Charles was too young to care for himself or overcome his despair and sadness.

>the cause of death, declared to be of long standing, but in fact developing rapidly, and the fact that the disease is usually not fatal and is self-limiting

Whoever wrote this doesn't study disease, I'm guessing? A long-standing disease can get worse. The decline of his already poor health was over a period of 3 weeks, hardly "rapid" in context. Also 2 of his siblings died from complications related to tuberculosis and they were getting round-the-clock medical care from royal doctors, so a neglected 10 year old who was only given medical treatment within the past few months dying from complications related to that is not shocking. Almost 3 million people die each year even nowadays from complications related to the same type of infection Louis Charles had.

>the insufficient excuse provided for the child's muteness under Gomin's regime (he had answered Barras)

He was not mute with Gomin. He did not speak very much, but Gomin did write that Charles talked to him several times. Just another incorrect statement.

>the irregularities in the formalities in attending the death and the funeral, when a simple identification of the body by Marie Thérèse would have prevented any doubt of his death.

The Committee refused to allow Marie Therese to identify the body because of the decree from September 1793 that forbade the two children from being together. They decided to apply this law even in death. Also, they had not even told Therese about the death of her mother and aunt at this point, so suddenly springing the body of her dead 10 year old brother probably wasn't something they were considering.

>Simien-Despréaux, one of Louis XVIII's authors, stated in 1814 that Louis XVII was living and someone possessed proof of this; and Eckard, one of the mainstays of the official account, left among his unpublished papers a statement that many members of "an assembly of our wise men" obstinately named Louis XVII as the prince whom their wishes demanded.

There were dozens--dozens!--of Louis XVII pretenders. Many of them, like Anna Anderson, managed to convince people that they were the real deal. Either using details they'd gleaned from books or from talking with people who knew the child, or simply banking on sentimentality.

>The royal family made no serious attempt to ascertain the truth, though they paid no tributes to the memory of the deceased king as might have been expected, had they been convinced of his death.

Louis XVIII commissioned countless engravings and medals memorializing Louis Charles. He also paid for 2 separate investigations into what happened to him. Every year on the anniversary of his death, they held memorial services for him.

>Even his sister wore no mourning for him until she arrived at Vienna and saw that this was expected of her.

Therese didn't wear ANY mourning for her family at the Temple because she was not given permission to order mourning for her family while in the Temple. She was allowed to ordered a few dresses and some stockings/undercloths, but not in black.

what? the only suffering was that he likely died of smallpox. otherwise, he would have probably made a good king who would have turned england truly protestant. i suppose that he was molded by his protestant regents is a bit sinister though

I mean, I feel like all of that is more significant given his short life. Granted, his situation isn't as bad as some others in this thread, but it's still worth mentioning at least.

>Pretty much that whole "Controversy" section explaining the "weak parts" of the story are incorrect.

It's Wiki. Anything unsourced can be challenged, either by deletion outright or passive aggressive {{CN}} tags on everything. Anything with reliable soruces wins by default.

Yeaaahthat sucks your right.
Also when his uncle tried to sneak into his room to kill him, Edward's dog began to bark so Uncle Thomsd killed his him/her. That sucks too

>ywn secretly kill all top revolutionaries, preventing them from even starting the revolution, and protect the smiles of millions of innocent Frenchmen, peasants and the wealthy alike
Why?

>sub
Please just go back to where you came from. We don't need any more of your kind here.

Well it's certainly frustrating at times!

>On the 3d of July, they read to us a decree of the Convention, that my brother should be separated from us, and placed in the most secure apartment of the tower. As p223soon as he heard this sentence pronounced, he threw himself into the arms of my mother, and entreated, with violent cries, than to be separated from her. My mother was stricken to the earth by this cruel order; she would not part with her son, and she actually defended, against the efforts of the officers, the bed in which she had placed him. But these men would have him, and threatened to call up the guard, and use violence. My mother exclaimed, that they had better kill her than tear the child from her. An hour was spent in resistance on her part, and in prayers and tears on the part of all of us.

At last they threatened even the lives of both him and me, and my mother's maternal tenderness at length forced her to this sacrifice. My aunt and I dressed the child, for my poor mother had no longer strength for any thing. Nevertheless, when he was dressed, she took him and delivered him herself into the hands of the officers, bathing him with her tears, foreseeing that she was never to see him again. The poor little fellow embraced us all tenderly, and was carried off in a flood of tears. My mother charged the officers to ask the council-general for permission to see her son, were it only at meals. They engaged to do so. She was overwhelmed with the sorrow of parting with him, but her horror was extreme when she heard that one Simon62 (a shoemaker by trade, whom she had seen as a municipal officer in the Temple), was the person to whom her unhappy child was confided. She asked continually to be allowed to see him, but in vain. He, on his side, cried for two whole days, and begged without intermission to be permitted to see us.

>In the cabinet in the tourelle was a narrow opening through which we could see my brother when he went up to the battlements, and the sole pleasure my mother had was to see him through that little chink as he passed in the distance. She stayed there for hours, watching for the instant when she could see the child; it was her sole hope, her sole occupation.

The French revolution was fine you babies, you just gotta stomp out The Mountain

>tfw we'll never get an ending where Louis becomes the People's Monarch that we deserve, ushering in a constitutional monarchy that balances the needs of the people with the prestige of the monarchy

Louis was too much of a woobie to be the king they needed. He let his wife and his brother dictate policy to him and wiffle waffled. He could never have been anything but a puppet

It's a shame he wasn't born decades later. He'd have been the perfect replacement for Chambord, who fucked things up because of his flag obsession.

>After his death, they found the half-finished scrawl "Mama, I am sorry" written on the wall of his room.

There was more to it than that, though Washington was super wary of the radicals on the Mountain. It's also that the guy they first sent to America was such a douche and crossed Washington so many times he actually made him swear (George Washington doesn't swear). And then later Tallyrand demanded a bribe to recognize America's political ambassadors to the country.

Bump.

>tfw no perfect waifu

...

>After his death, they found the half-finished scrawl "Mama, I am sorry" written on the wall of his room. One of the men who attended to him after his conditions improved implied in a memoir that Charles thought his mother wouldn't come to him because she was mad at him.

He looks so sad

At least Luigi Cadorna made him happy in his last years.

>The French revolution was fine

This. Kings need to be killed.

>tens of millions of peasants
Nothing compared to Royal blood

Louis Charles cared about the peasants more than any revolutionary ever did though.

>When he was only 6, his parents took him to visit an orphanaged for abandoned or otherwise orphaned children, telling him that he should never forget them and when he was older extend all his protection to unfortunates like these.

>He became very interested in the orphanage there and often asked to go visit. At the same time, he started keeping all of the pocket money he recived in a box. Louis XVI saw him counting the money and told him, "What, you are hoarding your money like a miser?" And Charles replied, "Yes father, I am being a miser, but the money for those poor lost children."

Based Hamilton

...

>Survive Auschwitz
>Get shot by jewish communists

fuck...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Wild_Boy

>pampered rich kid
>suffering

Nah

Royal blood is practically worthless thanks to a thousand years of genetic disease accumulation

We got Napoleon in that role, and he did a billion times more glorious (if doomed to fail) job.

Napoleon III was more successful in that regard, but he got fucked up too eventually. Still did a better job at running the country that the Restauration, the Orleanists and the Republicans, so there's that.

All these pussy monarcucks crying over dead inbred retards, absolutely shameful.

Royal blood is practically worthless thanks to a thousand years of genetic disease accumulation

This is the ideal male body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like

>"murdering children is good!"
the average republican, folks.

That's not pregnant Anne Frank.

Wrong, you're thinking of monarchist autocracy.

These sorts of abuses are generally less common in democracies because the average person is rational. It's much more likely for a king to be cruel and ruthless than for the majority of all people in a country to be cruel and ruthless.

Millions of peasant children probably had TT even worse.

that doesn't justify killing Louis-Charles.
do away with the king and queen if you have to but he did literally nothing to deserve his fate, very much the opposite actually as you can read here

>because the average person is rational.
Pic related
>It's much more likely for a king to be cruel and ruthless than for the majority of all people in a country to be cruel and ruthless.
I don't think so, Mob rule is the most terrifying form of tyranny bar none.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

French Revolution was unironically the worst event in history. Not a single good thing came from it.

Nobody said that, but we also need to remember the many, many more children who were killed by royal soldiers or a baron's retinue or starved because of the king's war or feudal obligations

Bullshit. Today's liberal democracies are unimaginably less violent than earlier feudal kingdoms, or even modern autocracies like Saudi Arabia or North Korea

This is what you get when aristocrats and the clergy are too jewish to pay taxes.

You guys are being unfair.
8/10 years of his life were pretty good. Lots of people can't claim as much for theirs, or anywhere close.
And Robespierre's intents were virtuous.

>Today's liberal democracies
Neo-Liberal Oligarchies*. Don't even delude yourself into thinking the current system you live under is Democracy.The oldest ''Liberal Democracy'' is barely 200 years old. Monarchies went on for millennia's. Let's see how long they survive.

f

>And Robespierre's intents were virtuous.
Actions speak louder than words. Who gives a damn what his intention was when the end result was the Reign of Terror. Robespierre was unironically more tyrannical than the people he claimed to be tyrants.

Monarchies are great for administering feudal agrarian societies. When they try to administer mercantile or capitalist societies, you get the English Civil War or the French Revolution

Brainlet here. Been reading a bit about the French Revolution. How the hell did the state continue to function when there was so much chaos?

>FUCK you dad!

>How the hell did the state continue to function when there was so much chaos?
It didn't. It descended into mob rule then into military rule once Napoleon and the army took over. France went back into being a monarchy again once Napoleon crowned himself emperor.