- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why did the French Revolution devolve into such bloodshed & not the American Revolution?
Posted on 10/10/18 at 6:34 am to RealityTiger
Posted on 10/10/18 at 6:34 am to RealityTiger
quote:
Unpopular fact #2: we also would not have gotten involved with Vietnam without the French. frick them.
Well, this isn’t true.
0
Posted on 10/10/18 at 6:56 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
They conquered Europe under Napoleon.
I wish carlin would do a pod series on this
Posted on 10/10/18 at 7:24 am to TigerFanInSouthland
The French Revolution was led by proto-Communists.
The American Revolution was led by proto-Republicans.
The American Revolution was led by proto-Republicans.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:05 am to celltech1981
quote:
I wish carlin would do a pod series on this
Judging by how slowly he gets episodes out, we might be dead by the time that’s over.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:09 am to S
quote:
The Brits actually had wars with France, Spain, and the Dutch concurrent with the Revolutionary war.
Hubris has always been the Brits’ biggest downfall.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:10 am to magildachunks
quote:
According to the Royal Historical society, it was not giving Washington a generalship
Agreed, if they gave Washington the regular commission that he sought for years it would have been game over.
Dude was a legit badass and no one on either side could match him.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:14 am to Cash
quote:
Dude was a legit badass and no one on either side could match him.
He was a badass but he was probably more of a middle of the pack general in terms of tactic and strategy. But his ability to keep the Army together and keep support up until the French got there is really really impressive.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:21 am to TigerFanInSouthland
His reputation in the colonies was unparelled. He was basically a real life Bill Brasky. He wasn’t a classically trained military leader, but his men would follow him to hell.
He also wasn’t classically educated but was extremely intelligent. Most of all he could keep his ego in check. Because of this he knew when to attack and when to retreat.
His tactical retreats keep his army intact.
He also wasn’t classically educated but was extremely intelligent. Most of all he could keep his ego in check. Because of this he knew when to attack and when to retreat.
His tactical retreats keep his army intact.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:27 am to Cash
quote:
He also wasn’t classically educated but was extremely intelligent. Most of all he could keep his ego in check. Because of this he knew when to attack and when to retreat. His tactical retreats keep his army intact.
The biggest tactical victory he had throughout the war was to not try and engage in conventional battle after conventional battle with one of the first rate militaries of the time.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 8:46 am to genro
quote:
The "French Revolution" was a proto-Commie civil war and overthrow
I was going to say like the 1900's revolutions/WWs to kill off old European ruling families, aristocracy, and essentially lobotomize countries.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:05 am to fr33manator
The main difference was the reaction to the catholic church. Pre French revolution, the church was aligned with the reining monarch. Dumping the royals required ending the rationalization provided by catholic church. France was De-christianized. That component was not found in colonial north America. Most colonies were a center of a particular sect.
French revolution exiled 95% of priests. 30,000 were exiled. Hundreds of catholic leadership were executed.
"God given power" was taken away by the revolutionaries.
French revolution exiled 95% of priests. 30,000 were exiled. Hundreds of catholic leadership were executed.
"God given power" was taken away by the revolutionaries.
This post was edited on 10/10/18 at 9:09 am
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:08 am to CelticDog
quote:
The main difference was the reaction to the catholic church. Pre French revolution, the church was aligned with the reining monarch. Dumping the royals required ending the rationalization provided by catholic church. France was De-christianized. That component was not found in colonial north America. Most colonies were a center of a particular sect.
No one railed against the local protestant minister. French revolution exiled 95% of priests. Hundreds were executed.
While all of this happened, I don't think it had much, if anything, to do with the reason there was so much civilian bloodshed in France.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:16 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
While all of this happened, I don't think it had much, if anything, to do with the reason there was so much civilian bloodshed in France.
the English upper class were horrified how the unwashed masses acted.
I think of that French civil war as I do about anti colonial wars of native Africans vs French, Belgian, or english.
They also killed missionaries.
I only have movies by Hollywood as guide as to the theatrical guillotine crowd.
Was the guillotine and the mob a feature in mid sized places or only Paris?
I'm asking because that mob scene depicted in film lended itself to excess.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:26 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Compared to the French Revolution, the American Revolution was virtually bloodless.
Many countries went through changes as a result of the Enlightenment ideals present in Europe at the time. France was no exception. Why so violent though?
1. As someone said earlier, population density. France was the most populated country in Europe at the time with a population of about 23 million. Paris itself was bursting with extremely urban poor. Urban poor are in a more precarious situation than rural poor who have more resources available to them. Because if this, the Parisian mob was extremely dangerous. And mobs are prone to violence. This extremely urbanized society didn’t really exist in the Colonies.
2. The French Revolution was extremely divided between urban/rural, atheist/Christian lines. The mostly urban/atheist leaders who took control during the more radical phases were very brutal in crushing any revolts or uprisings that popped up in the more rural provinces. The colonies were historically religiously tolerant. And this line of division never really cropped up.
3. The historical oppression of the 3rd Estate (non-clergy, non-nobility) cannot be dismissed or exaggerated. Generations of oppression that didn’t really exist in the colonies exploded in waves of violence like long extended riots.
Mike Duncan has a complete series on the French Revolution and that specific question is brought up in this podcast. LINK
Many countries went through changes as a result of the Enlightenment ideals present in Europe at the time. France was no exception. Why so violent though?
1. As someone said earlier, population density. France was the most populated country in Europe at the time with a population of about 23 million. Paris itself was bursting with extremely urban poor. Urban poor are in a more precarious situation than rural poor who have more resources available to them. Because if this, the Parisian mob was extremely dangerous. And mobs are prone to violence. This extremely urbanized society didn’t really exist in the Colonies.
2. The French Revolution was extremely divided between urban/rural, atheist/Christian lines. The mostly urban/atheist leaders who took control during the more radical phases were very brutal in crushing any revolts or uprisings that popped up in the more rural provinces. The colonies were historically religiously tolerant. And this line of division never really cropped up.
3. The historical oppression of the 3rd Estate (non-clergy, non-nobility) cannot be dismissed or exaggerated. Generations of oppression that didn’t really exist in the colonies exploded in waves of violence like long extended riots.
Mike Duncan has a complete series on the French Revolution and that specific question is brought up in this podcast. LINK
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:30 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
But his ability to keep the Army together and keep support up until the French got there is really really impressive.
You are correct about Washington. He wasn’t the most impressive tactician by any means. But his ability just to keep an army together to face the British was his greatest feat. Especially after the final defeat of the British at Yorktown. It was more than two years before the British actually left the colonies after the treaty was signed. He kept his army together all that time without a clear campaign goal or military goal.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:35 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
was the french’s Lack of technological foresight in both WWI and WWI that was heir undoing. It just that the Germans we quite literally so fast in WWII that the French could not defend themselves, and hence surrendered.
No, it wasn’t. It was Marechal Petain, singlehandedly. He was the hero of WW1, but then became seduced by the dark side and their talk of racial superiority and what not, like many on the Poli board. Pétain stood down while Germany swept through France with no opposition. It's also believed that he had dementia and that was exploited by germany.
It took smuggling French generals to England to devise a war strategy with the allies and get France as prepared as she could be. Charles de Gaulle eventually marshaled enough troops to retake Paris.
This post was edited on 10/10/18 at 9:52 am
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:36 am to CelticDog
quote:
"God given power" was taken away by the revolutionaries
Yup. The declaration of independence was recognizing the belief that the British governments authority came from god. It cast out this notion stating that government derives its power from consent of the governed. The constitution starts with "we the people". I think that was in recognition that our rights do not come from god but from human progress and action.
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:38 am to celltech1981
quote:
Unpopular fact: we would not have won the revolution without the French. I guess they weren't always known as pussies.
That’s a popular opinion, but it depends on what you mean by win. General Howe, who relieved Thomas Gage said he would need 200,000 troops to squash the Revolution. He understood real quick what the situation was.
So while the victory terms probably wouldn’t have been the same and it may have taken longer, IMO, the cat was out of the bag and the Americans were going to get some sort of independence eventually.
This post was edited on 10/10/18 at 9:39 am
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:44 am to zatetic
Napoleon went out of his way during the wars to burn down the libraries. It was all about destroying history
This post was edited on 10/10/18 at 9:45 am
Posted on 10/10/18 at 9:47 am to celltech1981
quote:
I think that was in recognition that our rights do not come from god but from human progress and action.
Idk, the framers believed in natural law and natural rights like Cicero except they believed that certain rights were derived by God or just by being itself.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News