So, History Channel brings in Alan Woods, a Trotskyist, to comment on the French Revolution. I suppose a disciple of a mass muderer, one who author Robert Service wrote "revelled in terror," might know something about this sort of episode.
i have sympathy for Marie Antoinette, i believe she just wasnt aware of the miss-fortunes of the third estate and was out of touch with the people. she was so young and naive.
These things never take in account how brutal things were hundreds of years ago and how hard it was to survive just a few days. It was a more violent world.
I am reading a novel by Hilary Mantel on The French Revolution called 'A place of Greater Safety'. They are just about to storm the Bastille. Robespierre is portrayed as shy, softspoken and unsure of himself. I am wondering how his personality will evolve. Has anyone else read this book?
@Tomohawwwk I don't agree with you at all, and you're wrong about Haiti, it's documented, look it up. Napoleon was also part of what truly was a take-over plot in 1789. My view will not change and neither will yours, so that's the end of it.
Napoleon only wanted to invade Haiti because it was French, he thought he was entitled too. But it is historically well documented that Haiti kicked his ASS, beat 100,000 troops and sent Napoleon packing. They wanted no part of him.
@Tomohawwwk Napoleon, as I said was behind a take-over plot, not a revolution in France. Marie Antoinette was the only angel, but Louis XVI DID want to create a modern constitutional monarchy and was in league with the Americans. Standard newspapers are the best sources, tabloids like those of Marat, were 100% propaganda and lies. France had zero slavery. Haiti was self-governed, and people freely imigrated to French Louisiana territories, which were free states, thus the creole/cajun influence.
@Tomohawwwk Not True! It was the French Monarchy who posed the question "Don't you mean all white men are created equal?" to Jefferson, which he wrote about in his autobiography. Unrevised= 100% his words. Burke was part of a liberal conservative movement. Even though he was British, he supported the American Revolution, but not the French "revolution". How is a newspaper article describing events first hand from that era invalid? And yes, the list does go on. You knock it because you disagree.
@Tomohawwwk REPOST: Spend one day at any major library looking at micro newspaper articles from the standard (non-tabloid) newspapers in Boston, Paris, Madrid, Vienna, London 1783-1789. Read Thomas Jefferson's unrevised Autobiography. Read Edmund Burke's Debate on the French Revolution. The list goes on. This is all old news. It's just been forgotten for the past 100 years. Napoleon's "reign" was always controversial at best, yet the "history" that he enforced, is commonly preached today.
@StarQualityWins How did Napoleon pave the way for Hitler? He's the 19th century Hitler but I think Hitler would've had an easier time conquering Europe if Napoleon hadn't previously tried it.
@KayBeeEee1983 umm...does the holocaust ring any bells? I don't recall Napoleon wanting to eliminate all the Jews or everyone of a certain race, religion, etc.
The French Revolution was inevitable. The monarchy was decadent & oppressive & the people were poor w/ no hope in life. Besides in that day the masses were questioning the so called divine right to rule of kings. The French king was an absolutist monarchy. The British monarchy survives b/c they slowly gave up political power to Parliament. The Russian Czar had the same fate b/c it was absolutist & oppressive.
@Tomohawwwk Napoleon, even though only 20, was recognized by Robespierre and the ther 11 men in the faux 'national assembly', as a very charismatic person w/ strong presence. Napoleon was very ambitious and determined. Public mistook this as anger toward feudalism at first. The truth is that his presence made what these 13 men were doing more perceivable, which was, conniving and plotting as crooks to take France over under false pretenses. Napoleon laid low so that it wouldn't be obvious.
@Tomohawwwk I misunderstood your direction. I don't consider Robespierre and the faux 'national assembly', revolutionaries. YES, Napoleon DID make Robespierre Fall Guy at the hands of henchmen. And NO, it's not true that Napoleon came into power later. He didn't want to appear to be the Conquering Tyrant that he was, so he laid low at first. What these 13 men did, had NOTHING to do with a real Revolution. Therefore, Napoleon was not behind a Revolution. Napoleon was behind a Take-Over Strategy.
Nice Hollywood version of history!!! Banshee women, a Mara mad driven by deceases... it seems that the financial manipulation of the royalty and aristocrats especially of wheat and the fact that they tried to make the people pay for the debt does not play any role ... or the fact that class economy and politics progress with the classes changing most of the times amidst violence.
@Tomohawwwk Why not cut and paste these "exact words" from my comments themselves, citing date and page of comment, to prove it! My whole point is that there wasn't a real revolution. Napoleon used the calamity of Robespierre's riots, coupled with a modest civil code as a vehicle to take over France first, then Europe. King Louis XVI was going to do about 80% of what the Americans were doing with constitutional democracy. Robespierre and Napoleon only did 5%, and they knew they were thieves!
@Tomohawwwk I said Napoleon was trying to take France over. There was no revolution. Robespierre incited riots with lies and made it look as if there were a revolution is his tabloids and propaganda. It was all cover for a take-over strategy. The average French citizen at that time had no idea what was going on, it was chaos. Robespierre fired the people up with lies designed to make it appear that there was a dire need to chase all government, the royal court, and many nobles, out of France.
I said nothing of Napoleon being a true revolutionary! Debt means you owe, the treasury was just very low. let my comments speak for themselves, I don't need YOU slanting my words. I'm not an imperial elitist. I personally support democratic governments. I belive feudalism DID last too long. Democracies 2000 years ago fell to feudalism. Elizabeth I pretty much is why it began to end for she paved the way for constitutional rights. I support truth. Fascism is ridiculous. Louis' Monarchy WAS good.
I'd be more suspicious of a populace that would err in documenting history based on views created by a decade of propaganda, and tabloids no different than 'The National Enquirer', yet make no effort in correcting the errors to restore history. You suggest that even if my version of history was correct, no one would want to put it right anyway. What could that mean? The truth should be interesting.
The riots were incited by tabloid lies in Marat's tabloids, and by Robespierre's speeches designed to create anger. But these stories and speeches were lies. They lead the people astray, making them believe that they HAD to revolt. The truth is that the faux 'national assembly' prevented the people from understanding the true state of the Sovereign, and instead, worked to black out all Royalty and nobles with lies. Their intention was to take France over from the inside, utilizing the people.
@Tomohawwwk Once Napoleon destroyed all French records as well as many records in invaded countries that opposed his version of how things should be told so as to justify his actions and hide his crimes, we were left with his propaganda and tabloid tales coined into a faux historical account. There was nothing else on the surface to go by. There was too much chaos, confusion and wild stories with lack of witnesses during the 1789 riots for many to cite certainty in their understanding of events
@Tomohawwwk It wouldn't be the first time so-called "historians" were wrong. Beware, I know for a fact that records are surfacing, and while there are many classes and books backing up my claims (as much as I'd love to be the finder of this information, I give credit where it is due), major works are starting to come to the surface, recognizing the undeniable truth, verifiable by US Government records from 1776-1789.
@Tomohawwwk I'm tired of repeating myself. The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson and the Memoirs of Benjeman Franklin both mention events, without the forsight of understanding how obscure the past would become, thus the 'clean-up' detail is lacking. Countless Newspaper articles from that era available in micro-format in major libraries, from America, such as "The American Herald", and "Daily Advertiser", Austrian, British, Swedish newspapers and magazines, Rochembeau's biography, several books.
@Tomohawwwk You haven't cited any sources. This documentary doesn't cite its sources. Anyone can write the wikipedia entries and edit them. Even your skewed ideas have windows to the truth. Napoleon enforced how that period of history would be recorded in a self-justifying manner. Therefore, the primary Napoleonic version is skewed and set up to defend and uphold his actions, concealing all incriminating evidence. There is also enough literature supporting other versions that approach the truth.
Where the people DID fight in a noble fashion was NOT in overthrowing the Monarchy, but in fighting to end The Reign of Terror begun by Robespierre. While the people were utilized to chase Monarchy out, it wasn't necessary; The people were misinformed and lead astray during a transitional period where taxes were temporarily a bit higher, the Treasury was temporarily depleted and crop soil had to be replenished thus temporary grain shortage. Louis XVI did project improvement and was not to blame.
@Tomohawwwk Wrong. There's no way in the world that the stories weren't exaggerated. What caused this suffering, pray tell, that brought on insanity and blindness? The absence of bread in the diet? Milk, carrots apples weren't good enough? "Arrrr I can't eat 32 oz. of bread every day. The Treasury is low. I can't compensate enough for fortune to enter my life, I'm going to kill kill kill!" Compared to what poverty is today, they were middle class, with land and personal freedom we only wish for.
Robespierre was 2 sided. He lied to the people and with-held information from the Royal Court. The people had no idea of what was truly happening w/the Sovereign or otherwise. Louis XVI only surrendered his throne when Robespierre made it appear that the people did not want a King or Monarchy or Royalty of any kind, and instead wanted an elected President. When the people seemed adamant, he reluctantly gave in. The people were blinded by lies. Louis thought Constitutional Monarchy wasn't enough.
@Tomohawwwk Not True. Robespierre painted a portait of exaggerated hopelessness that was invalid, in order to fire up the people, Napoleon enforced this as fact. To think otherwise was punishable by death.
This event was begun by Robespierre inciting anger via preaching to crowds. He was a dishonest opportunist and needed to brainwash the public in order to succeed in taking France from the inside. He disguised it as a class struggle so that no one would understand what he was up to until it was too late. He blocked all chances of genuine communication with help from Marat. The entire thing was based on lies. Louis XVI had already freely written a French Constitution verifiable by Thomas Jefferson
@Tomohawwwk Napoleon was 20, and with Robespierre, NOT the Royal Court. He only ended The Terror, because the people were fed up, trying to stop it themselves. He wanted to "make nice" so as not to get tossed out. He made Robespierre fall-guy.
@Jeanne189 You are wrong. Far too much has been written against Napoleon for your ignorant responses. You are the one doing the things you accuse me of.
There were Noble and Royal charities for the poor with enough combined funds to bring relief, that were available to the public. Why weren't they tapped into? Because the faux "National Assembly" didn't truly seek solutions and lied about formally addressing the Royal Court as well as the Church, regarding the people's needs. They wanted to take over France, NOT help the people. They got France, and the people got a few loaves of bread w/War. Who knows what became of the unused charity funds.
i love how people watch a video on youtube and suddenly become PH.D level experts on the subject and feel compelled to leave their comments to educate anybody who will listen
This documentary contains a lot of bias, misconceptions and errors. Just one BIG, BIG example: Louis XVI. did NOT "realise" he needed the help of a foreign army, nor would he have probably needed one. His flight from Paris was in order to reach a ROYALIST stronghold - you know, one of the many regions where millions were still loyal to their king, not some rabid dog like Robespierre or Marat? Wherever you stand on the Revolution: it was NEVER speaking for all of France.
This documentary contains a lot of bias, misconceptions and errors. Just one BIG, BIG example: Louis XVI. did NOT "realise" he needed the help of a foreign army, nor would he have probably needed one. His flight from Paris was in order to reach a ROYALIST stronghold - you know, one of the many regions where millions were still loyal to their king, not some rabid dog like Robespierre or Marat? Wherever you stand on the Revolution: it was NEVER speaking for all of France.
"Marie-Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". She probably never even noticed that there were any poor in the country to make such a statement".
Oh, well, fine, then, no problem !
Jesus, I HATE this new fashion of defending Marie-Antoinette. Studies have shown that her personal expenses made up between 5 and 10% of the deficit at the time. Do you imagine that ? 5% of the nation's deficit JUST FOR ONE FRIGGIN' BIMBO ?
Robespierre INVENTED the concept of Marie over-spending via tabloid lies. There are no genuine records of such. The faux "National Assembly" NEVER informed the Sovereign of what they were doing or the concerns of the people as they claimed to have done. Instead they made use of the 10 miles between Versailles and Paris to isolate The People and The Royal Court apart from one another. With this they served as a wedge to block all intercommunication. The Court was thus deprived of all information.
@Versus1984 The most common misconception in modern history. The American Revolution was "Themother of all revolutions". There was a take-over strategy disguised as a revolution in France, where the people were used to achieve said take-over. The Americans were the people that actually rose against their sovereign for Democracy.
The Enlightenment had already well begun in France. There was an open unopressive environment conducive to such thinking. Voltaire died in 1778 before any signs of upheaval. Mozart was helped by Marie's brother Joseph II in Austria. All of Europe was experiencing it. The French "Revolution" did not initiate it. Sensationalism and tabloid lies exaggerated hardships w/ poor prognosis. Yet, the severity of the crop failures were never formally communicated to The Royal Court by paper or otherwise.
@Jeanne189 P.S. And believing the first thing that comes up on google doesn't qualify as research. You have a Wal-Mart, pre-packaged complacent view of history. If that suits you, fine. Sit with it. But never think you can tell me or those more sophisticated what they can and cannot know.
@Jeanne189 How do you know? Because you were told? Because those under Napoleon were going to record it that way? Where's the evidence as opposed to "taking their word for it"? You know nothing at all if you would chalk it up to my "imagination". You yourself can't explain anything. And you are far from an authority. I know that I am right. You know what you have to believe so you can sleep at night. Marie's body is not at St. Denis, as was never in a "fosse commune". Either research or shut it.
@Jeanne189 I've cited several. There are many. First, there is no death certificate for Marie Antoinette until 1810 Austria. There was a burial for her in France in 1815. Her daughter grew up in the public eye in Austria and has a death certificate for 1851. This alone proves that they lied when they said they captured and beheaded Marie Antoinette and imprisoned her children. Look up the rest yourself. Also, a troll is a demon that screws things up. That's what you are. I straighten things out.
@Jeanne189 Lafayette had been a French soldier fighting for the Americans. Louis XVI honored him after the Revolutionary war ended. However he was a traitor and jumped ship. He joined Robespierre, with the audacity to openly claim credit for things already under way at the hand of the Sovereign. Louis XVI wrote "The Rights of Man" and the new flag had already been designed. "Revolutionaries" were power-hungry opportunist thieves. Louis had begun work @Constitutional Monarchy in compliance w/USA.
@Jeanne189 Marat's job was agitator; He made sure the slander campagne produced a public image of the Queen and King that was negative enough to incite rage. It was all lies. His newspaper was like "The National Enquirer" at best. And incidentally, if there were no sources, then why do I have so much information? Robespierre & Co. chased out all real Government: King, Queen, the Real Parliament (as opposed to the faux "Revolutionary" assembly). No one legitimate was left. Only your loser list.
It was because Versailles was 10 miles from Paris, thar Robespierre could keep the people isolated. He claimed to communicate with both the Church and Royal Court, but he did neither. What he was preaching to the people, was what was already happening for France, It should be obvious. But media was not then what it is today. France however, was vulnerable for take-over and that's what Robespierre and his men, Napoleon included were planning--from the inside. They used the people to pull it off.
You may say that the "rioters" can't represent all of france, but remember that the lower class only got presented by a small per cent of the legal system. that in it's self is unfair.
Right now, if you ran outside with a shovel and set things on fire, whacking at people, you'd go to jail. If you were faced with conflict, and rather than genuinely trying to understand how to work it out, grabbed a shovel, and again ran outside, you would miss the opportunity to resolve the issues. Words like "Justice", aren't undefinable terms to disregard the meaning of, they are words to be heard, and listened to, with reason, not violence. As: Truth, awareness, fairness, evidence, solution.
The 'peasants' were actually rioters and looters. They did not formally address the Royal Court. They screwed France over with their actions. Criminal activity is never condoned. There were bread trucks and charities. The Sovereign never had a fair chance to do something about the issues themselves. Barbarism incited by vigilantes, rather than reason. Napoleon could take advantage, and take credit for the returns on the French investment in America. Exaggerations!!! Marie returned to Austria.
@StarQualityWins The lives of a few soldiers is worth the freedom of the masses. In the end, we are all mortals, human...the integrity of my neck is just as precious as yours, even if you are royalty or descendent of royalty. And if it is in the book that the king and queen shall be guillotined as a stark declaration to the advancement of freedom for the masses, no matter how marginal...so let it be written.
By the way, are you royalty? (To borrow a line from Sgt. Hartman!)
@Houseofthe7gayboys The lives of the King and Queen have to also be just as precious as the lives of a few soldiers, or the lives of the masses. Life in general has undeniable value. It very much matters what the margins are and "it" hasn't been written that death = life. Evidence is needed, plans for solution, communication with awareness of truth and fairness, are needed. Not blood, blindness, demonic behavior, where life has no meaning or value. You declare that Marie's soul should not exist?
@StarQualityWins You're totally missing the point. You cannot take today concepts and apply them to France of 1789! Life at that time wasn't considered as important as today. The live of a peasant had no value but what he could produce for his "master"... you see what I mean? I agree with Houseofthe7gayboys: The lives of a few soldiers is worth the freedom of the masses.
@ImperialGuard9001 I agree. Hundreds of people rioting, were supposed to represent all of France. Clearly it did not. The people didn't have their own negative claim against the Monarchy until Robespierre started spreading lies via tabloids. In this moment, things change, but primarily because Robespierre lied to the people when he told them that he was communicating with the Royal Court. He never had, nor did he intend to. The plan for take-over was clearly the secret of he and Napoleon both.
Crime is a trespass on established law. Your statement presumes that law is always just and legitimate. This, of course, is not the case. The prudence to employ disobedience when it is needed is more virtuous than unconditional obedience.
@1IIIIIIIIII1 That's correct. She was not punishable. Propaganda, tabloid lies, designed to scare Britian, and convince the world that Napoleon had control. Robespierre fronted, with help from Marat.
@1IIIIIIIIII1 The people killed Marat, and went after Robespierre. Napoleon had Robespierre killed as fall-guy, in attempts to appease the people, as they demanded an end to the terror! Napoleon, however wasn't really a good-guy. He had to be stopped. The British finally brought him down at Waterloo.
@StarQualityWins WELL I AGREE THAT NEPOLIAN WAS PROBLY A SOCIOPATH, AS ARE MOST PEOPLE WHO SEEK GLORY AND POWER. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND THE INFORMATION YOU GO BY THAT SAYS THIS HISTORY DID NOT HAPPEN AS IT HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS. THANKS
@1IIIIIIIIII1 There are over 6000 books written about the French Revolution. I cannot recommend just 1, for you'd need several books, like puzzle pieces to start to see the picture. My Norwegian History Professor is working on a new book with all the facts in one place. She had to go to private home libraries in France, New Orleans, Austria, San Francisco, Sweden, Hudson Valley NY, London, and other places, to look at first print letters, books, and documents, directly from 1776-1803.
When they were made to move to Paris with the heads of the guards being paraded, Louis Seize must have known he would eventually suffer the same fate. I don't understand how someone could be so blind towards the needs of his own people.
I'm glad the Revolution happened. Without it, it would be near impossible for Napoleon to take power. Whether you like Napoleon or not, you have to understand that he highlighted new steps towards democracy in France, and helped stir the formation of unifications of Europe powers that would help create a sense of equal power in Europe. And he also introduced completely new revolutionary forms of laws, documents, and government which would later be utilized by France in the age of Imperialism.
@UserNamei5 Completely obliterating the peoples' poltical freedoms merely unbolts the doors that lead to revolution. The manipulation of the mind is necessary, yet manipulating the masses would be a stroke of genius that could only last so long.
I know that the monarchy should have helped the people some more, but these people were crazy. The whole head thing is just so violent that it makes me feel bad for the King and Queen. It's just so sickening that people could be so violent.
They demand a constitutional monarchy? Maybe they should have starved a little longer, then perhaps they would have known better than to support this system, any any way,shape or form it comes in.
@bosnia91 Sometimes a constitutional monarchy could be a better option that a democracy. Take the UAE for example; had it been a democracy referendums and elections would have plagued the political scene and created such an upheaval that Dubai probably would have never developed so quickly under the Sheikh's rule. Giving people equal rights and votes in elections also has a downside to it; some people might vote for politicians just because of their Charisma or their public speaking skills.
Those women were bloody awesome the way that they stormed the palace! And that the public was so much more active than most of the U.S. today... how could it not put one to shame?
i love the fakt that when the women marched the streets, there where also hundreds of men dressed up like women just to paticipate. thats just hilarious XD
I'm watching this because the french revolution is going to be a part of the test we're having in history tomorrow.. This is so much more interesting then the book we have tought haha.
@selecto16 Well...u cant deny that those women in the revolution were just nuts...and so was the revolution, al that brutal violence had just weaked french at that time, ah well it happend but I am proud that my country is still a kingdom...God save our queen
They fail to mention that the reason why the guards were so easily killed, is becuase the king gave the gaurds direct orders to not fire upon the people. If that order was not enforced, then those crazy women would have not made it into the palace.
@mard420. if you want to be a nameless commoner, then be my guess. We are HUMAN BEINGS not subjects. hereditary rule is a degenerate concept in itself. down to aristocracy. long live FREEDOM.
@14fede14 dude shut the hell up during the video on guy sounded like arnold which is why i said lol you're a fucking retard for thinking i dont know who arnold is. he is the governor of california and a movie star so shut the fuck up and troll somewhere else
@burningjelly4lyfe the 'he' ur talking about is ur self, so u shut the fuck up, u little pimply nerd and suck my cock. California is a retarded state for voting some guy who says that lifting weights is as good as having sex.
At 8:11, there starts the half of this video that I saw in World Studies. Ah, doesn't the History Channel make historical events seem more dramatic and exciting? To my opinion, it definitely does better than the history textbooks.
i like french fries
TonyRomano41 2 weeks ago
So, History Channel brings in Alan Woods, a Trotskyist, to comment on the French Revolution. I suppose a disciple of a mass muderer, one who author Robert Service wrote "revelled in terror," might know something about this sort of episode.
shortist2003 4 weeks ago
i have sympathy for Marie Antoinette, i believe she just wasnt aware of the miss-fortunes of the third estate and was out of touch with the people. she was so young and naive.
bushtalefairytale0 1 month ago
@bushtalefairytale0 Yes,i 100% agree with you.The seniors at versailles would never tell her how bad things were.
kingofcouture1996 1 month ago
These things never take in account how brutal things were hundreds of years ago and how hard it was to survive just a few days. It was a more violent world.
Graham6762 1 month ago
Why is it, when Men charge, they are described as Brave heroes... but when Women Charge, they are described as Banshees?... DOUBLE STANDARD.
starquant 1 month ago 7
people are sheep always shepherd exists when the true revolution will come?
casperblack30 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/watch?v=rwCRFbwAgRQ
look at the this revolution or look my canal plz
KaDirDeHsEt 2 months ago
Occupy Versailles
randomguy019 2 months ago 3
@selecto16 Didn't Thomas Jefferson from the United States help the French to make the Documentation of the rights of men?
MiguelGiant820 2 months ago
savages Europeans
jac8897 2 months ago
maybe she did said "let them eat cake", but as in "send them some cake" not "if they don't have bread, let them eat cake"
BlueUmbrellaGirl 3 months ago
From where the mob forced the king and queen to move to Paris??
CaptainCrules4life 4 months ago in playlist Liked 2
@CaptainCrules4life From Versailles, a city a couple of miles away from Paris
selecto16 4 months ago
Comment removed
CaptainCrules4life 4 months ago
@CaptainCrules4life Ok thanks. Isn't there where there was the Treaty of Versailles after WWII?
CaptainCrules4life 4 months ago 2
@CaptainCrules4life Exact, in that castle
selecto16 4 months ago
@CaptainCrules4life actually treat of versailes took place in WW1
sofamp3 3 months ago
@CaptainCrules4life WWI not WWII
J3rEmY17 3 months ago
@CaptainCrules4life it ended WW1 actually
rq6715 3 months ago
@CaptainCrules4life Treaty of Versailles ended WWI
Bladefan76 1 month ago
@CaptainCrules4life
I think you mean after World War I
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
what part and time are the "civil Constitution of the clergy" and "Constitution of 1791" at?
malik1 4 months ago
@malik1 1791, duh
CaliforniaSun3 4 months ago
THEY REMADE AMERICA INTO OLD FRANCE
kill60061e 5 months ago
I am reading a novel by Hilary Mantel on The French Revolution called 'A place of Greater Safety'. They are just about to storm the Bastille. Robespierre is portrayed as shy, softspoken and unsure of himself. I am wondering how his personality will evolve. Has anyone else read this book?
ProfessorSSJ 6 months ago
@Tomohawwwk I don't agree with you at all, and you're wrong about Haiti, it's documented, look it up. Napoleon was also part of what truly was a take-over plot in 1789. My view will not change and neither will yours, so that's the end of it.
StarQualityWins 6 months ago 3
Napoleon only wanted to invade Haiti because it was French, he thought he was entitled too. But it is historically well documented that Haiti kicked his ASS, beat 100,000 troops and sent Napoleon packing. They wanted no part of him.
StarQualityWins 6 months ago 10
@Tomohawwwk Napoleon, as I said was behind a take-over plot, not a revolution in France. Marie Antoinette was the only angel, but Louis XVI DID want to create a modern constitutional monarchy and was in league with the Americans. Standard newspapers are the best sources, tabloids like those of Marat, were 100% propaganda and lies. France had zero slavery. Haiti was self-governed, and people freely imigrated to French Louisiana territories, which were free states, thus the creole/cajun influence.
StarQualityWins 6 months ago 8
@Tomohawwwk Not True! It was the French Monarchy who posed the question "Don't you mean all white men are created equal?" to Jefferson, which he wrote about in his autobiography. Unrevised= 100% his words. Burke was part of a liberal conservative movement. Even though he was British, he supported the American Revolution, but not the French "revolution". How is a newspaper article describing events first hand from that era invalid? And yes, the list does go on. You knock it because you disagree.
StarQualityWins 6 months ago 8
@Tomohawwwk REPOST: Spend one day at any major library looking at micro newspaper articles from the standard (non-tabloid) newspapers in Boston, Paris, Madrid, Vienna, London 1783-1789. Read Thomas Jefferson's unrevised Autobiography. Read Edmund Burke's Debate on the French Revolution. The list goes on. This is all old news. It's just been forgotten for the past 100 years. Napoleon's "reign" was always controversial at best, yet the "history" that he enforced, is commonly preached today.
StarQualityWins 6 months ago 6
@Tomohawwwk He is not making it up it is his opinion and he is entitled to that. End of argument.
lebugnon23041994 6 months ago
Napoleon was the conquering fascist tyrant that paved the way for Hitler.
StarQualityWins 7 months ago
@StarQualityWins How did Napoleon pave the way for Hitler? He's the 19th century Hitler but I think Hitler would've had an easier time conquering Europe if Napoleon hadn't previously tried it.
KayBeeEee1983 4 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 NO...Hitler was the Devil, he was nothing like Napoleon.
Shame85 3 months ago 3
@Shame85 He was exactly like hitler except Napoleon didn't commit genocide.
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 umm...does the holocaust ring any bells? I don't recall Napoleon wanting to eliminate all the Jews or everyone of a certain race, religion, etc.
Shame85 3 months ago
@Shame85 Do you know what genocide is?
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
5:10 Caucasian Kim Jong Il
siralucard19 7 months ago
Comment removed
siralucard19 7 months ago
The French Revolution was inevitable. The monarchy was decadent & oppressive & the people were poor w/ no hope in life. Besides in that day the masses were questioning the so called divine right to rule of kings. The French king was an absolutist monarchy. The British monarchy survives b/c they slowly gave up political power to Parliament. The Russian Czar had the same fate b/c it was absolutist & oppressive.
AlternityGM 7 months ago
@Tomohawwwk Napoleon, even though only 20, was recognized by Robespierre and the ther 11 men in the faux 'national assembly', as a very charismatic person w/ strong presence. Napoleon was very ambitious and determined. Public mistook this as anger toward feudalism at first. The truth is that his presence made what these 13 men were doing more perceivable, which was, conniving and plotting as crooks to take France over under false pretenses. Napoleon laid low so that it wouldn't be obvious.
StarQualityWins 8 months ago 4
@Tomohawwwk I misunderstood your direction. I don't consider Robespierre and the faux 'national assembly', revolutionaries. YES, Napoleon DID make Robespierre Fall Guy at the hands of henchmen. And NO, it's not true that Napoleon came into power later. He didn't want to appear to be the Conquering Tyrant that he was, so he laid low at first. What these 13 men did, had NOTHING to do with a real Revolution. Therefore, Napoleon was not behind a Revolution. Napoleon was behind a Take-Over Strategy.
StarQualityWins 8 months ago 3
Nice Hollywood version of history!!! Banshee women, a Mara mad driven by deceases... it seems that the financial manipulation of the royalty and aristocrats especially of wheat and the fact that they tried to make the people pay for the debt does not play any role ... or the fact that class economy and politics progress with the classes changing most of the times amidst violence.
kkostas07 9 months ago
@Tomohawwwk Why not cut and paste these "exact words" from my comments themselves, citing date and page of comment, to prove it! My whole point is that there wasn't a real revolution. Napoleon used the calamity of Robespierre's riots, coupled with a modest civil code as a vehicle to take over France first, then Europe. King Louis XVI was going to do about 80% of what the Americans were doing with constitutional democracy. Robespierre and Napoleon only did 5%, and they knew they were thieves!
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 3
@Tomohawwwk I said Napoleon was trying to take France over. There was no revolution. Robespierre incited riots with lies and made it look as if there were a revolution is his tabloids and propaganda. It was all cover for a take-over strategy. The average French citizen at that time had no idea what was going on, it was chaos. Robespierre fired the people up with lies designed to make it appear that there was a dire need to chase all government, the royal court, and many nobles, out of France.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 8
I said nothing of Napoleon being a true revolutionary! Debt means you owe, the treasury was just very low. let my comments speak for themselves, I don't need YOU slanting my words. I'm not an imperial elitist. I personally support democratic governments. I belive feudalism DID last too long. Democracies 2000 years ago fell to feudalism. Elizabeth I pretty much is why it began to end for she paved the way for constitutional rights. I support truth. Fascism is ridiculous. Louis' Monarchy WAS good.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 7
I'd be more suspicious of a populace that would err in documenting history based on views created by a decade of propaganda, and tabloids no different than 'The National Enquirer', yet make no effort in correcting the errors to restore history. You suggest that even if my version of history was correct, no one would want to put it right anyway. What could that mean? The truth should be interesting.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 10
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 3
The riots were incited by tabloid lies in Marat's tabloids, and by Robespierre's speeches designed to create anger. But these stories and speeches were lies. They lead the people astray, making them believe that they HAD to revolt. The truth is that the faux 'national assembly' prevented the people from understanding the true state of the Sovereign, and instead, worked to black out all Royalty and nobles with lies. Their intention was to take France over from the inside, utilizing the people.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 7
@Tomohawwwk Once Napoleon destroyed all French records as well as many records in invaded countries that opposed his version of how things should be told so as to justify his actions and hide his crimes, we were left with his propaganda and tabloid tales coined into a faux historical account. There was nothing else on the surface to go by. There was too much chaos, confusion and wild stories with lack of witnesses during the 1789 riots for many to cite certainty in their understanding of events
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
@Tomohawwwk It wouldn't be the first time so-called "historians" were wrong. Beware, I know for a fact that records are surfacing, and while there are many classes and books backing up my claims (as much as I'd love to be the finder of this information, I give credit where it is due), major works are starting to come to the surface, recognizing the undeniable truth, verifiable by US Government records from 1776-1789.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
@Tomohawwwk I'm tired of repeating myself. The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson and the Memoirs of Benjeman Franklin both mention events, without the forsight of understanding how obscure the past would become, thus the 'clean-up' detail is lacking. Countless Newspaper articles from that era available in micro-format in major libraries, from America, such as "The American Herald", and "Daily Advertiser", Austrian, British, Swedish newspapers and magazines, Rochembeau's biography, several books.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
@Tomohawwwk You haven't cited any sources. This documentary doesn't cite its sources. Anyone can write the wikipedia entries and edit them. Even your skewed ideas have windows to the truth. Napoleon enforced how that period of history would be recorded in a self-justifying manner. Therefore, the primary Napoleonic version is skewed and set up to defend and uphold his actions, concealing all incriminating evidence. There is also enough literature supporting other versions that approach the truth.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 6
Where the people DID fight in a noble fashion was NOT in overthrowing the Monarchy, but in fighting to end The Reign of Terror begun by Robespierre. While the people were utilized to chase Monarchy out, it wasn't necessary; The people were misinformed and lead astray during a transitional period where taxes were temporarily a bit higher, the Treasury was temporarily depleted and crop soil had to be replenished thus temporary grain shortage. Louis XVI did project improvement and was not to blame.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 8
@Tomohawwwk Wrong. There's no way in the world that the stories weren't exaggerated. What caused this suffering, pray tell, that brought on insanity and blindness? The absence of bread in the diet? Milk, carrots apples weren't good enough? "Arrrr I can't eat 32 oz. of bread every day. The Treasury is low. I can't compensate enough for fortune to enter my life, I'm going to kill kill kill!" Compared to what poverty is today, they were middle class, with land and personal freedom we only wish for.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 7
Robespierre was 2 sided. He lied to the people and with-held information from the Royal Court. The people had no idea of what was truly happening w/the Sovereign or otherwise. Louis XVI only surrendered his throne when Robespierre made it appear that the people did not want a King or Monarchy or Royalty of any kind, and instead wanted an elected President. When the people seemed adamant, he reluctantly gave in. The people were blinded by lies. Louis thought Constitutional Monarchy wasn't enough.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 10
@Tomohawwwk Not True. Robespierre painted a portait of exaggerated hopelessness that was invalid, in order to fire up the people, Napoleon enforced this as fact. To think otherwise was punishable by death.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 9
This event was begun by Robespierre inciting anger via preaching to crowds. He was a dishonest opportunist and needed to brainwash the public in order to succeed in taking France from the inside. He disguised it as a class struggle so that no one would understand what he was up to until it was too late. He blocked all chances of genuine communication with help from Marat. The entire thing was based on lies. Louis XVI had already freely written a French Constitution verifiable by Thomas Jefferson
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 8
@Tomohawwwk Napoleon was 20, and with Robespierre, NOT the Royal Court. He only ended The Terror, because the people were fed up, trying to stop it themselves. He wanted to "make nice" so as not to get tossed out. He made Robespierre fall-guy.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
@Tomohawwwk You're DEFINITELY the one with false information!
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 4
@Jeanne189 You are wrong. Far too much has been written against Napoleon for your ignorant responses. You are the one doing the things you accuse me of.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 3
@Jeanne189 SO ARE YOU BY CALLING ME STUPID SAYING THAT STARQUALITYWINS IS ALL WRONG?
1IIIIIIIIII1 10 months ago
There were Noble and Royal charities for the poor with enough combined funds to bring relief, that were available to the public. Why weren't they tapped into? Because the faux "National Assembly" didn't truly seek solutions and lied about formally addressing the Royal Court as well as the Church, regarding the people's needs. They wanted to take over France, NOT help the people. They got France, and the people got a few loaves of bread w/War. Who knows what became of the unused charity funds.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 12
i love how people watch a video on youtube and suddenly become PH.D level experts on the subject and feel compelled to leave their comments to educate anybody who will listen
jumar1281 10 months ago
This documentary contains a lot of bias, misconceptions and errors. Just one BIG, BIG example: Louis XVI. did NOT "realise" he needed the help of a foreign army, nor would he have probably needed one. His flight from Paris was in order to reach a ROYALIST stronghold - you know, one of the many regions where millions were still loyal to their king, not some rabid dog like Robespierre or Marat? Wherever you stand on the Revolution: it was NEVER speaking for all of France.
fegx220 10 months ago
This documentary contains a lot of bias, misconceptions and errors. Just one BIG, BIG example: Louis XVI. did NOT "realise" he needed the help of a foreign army, nor would he have probably needed one. His flight from Paris was in order to reach a ROYALIST stronghold - you know, one of the many regions where millions were still loyal to their king, not some rabid dog like Robespierre or Marat? Wherever you stand on the Revolution: it was NEVER speaking for all of France.
fegx220 10 months ago
"Marie-Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". She probably never even noticed that there were any poor in the country to make such a statement".
Oh, well, fine, then, no problem !
Jesus, I HATE this new fashion of defending Marie-Antoinette. Studies have shown that her personal expenses made up between 5 and 10% of the deficit at the time. Do you imagine that ? 5% of the nation's deficit JUST FOR ONE FRIGGIN' BIMBO ?
Angarwaen 11 months ago 2
Robespierre INVENTED the concept of Marie over-spending via tabloid lies. There are no genuine records of such. The faux "National Assembly" NEVER informed the Sovereign of what they were doing or the concerns of the people as they claimed to have done. Instead they made use of the 10 miles between Versailles and Paris to isolate The People and The Royal Court apart from one another. With this they served as a wedge to block all intercommunication. The Court was thus deprived of all information.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 43
@StarQualityWins Sources?
hippotoast 9 months ago
@StarQualityWins Talking so much crap.
erzan 7 months ago
Simply, The mother of all revolutions
Versus1984 11 months ago
@Versus1984 The most common misconception in modern history. The American Revolution was "Themother of all revolutions". There was a take-over strategy disguised as a revolution in France, where the people were used to achieve said take-over. The Americans were the people that actually rose against their sovereign for Democracy.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 13
The Enlightenment had already well begun in France. There was an open unopressive environment conducive to such thinking. Voltaire died in 1778 before any signs of upheaval. Mozart was helped by Marie's brother Joseph II in Austria. All of Europe was experiencing it. The French "Revolution" did not initiate it. Sensationalism and tabloid lies exaggerated hardships w/ poor prognosis. Yet, the severity of the crop failures were never formally communicated to The Royal Court by paper or otherwise.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 34
This has been flagged as spam show
@StarQualityWins Talking so much crap.
erzan 7 months ago
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 1 year ago
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 1 year ago
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 1 year ago
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 1 year ago
@Jeanne189 P.S. And believing the first thing that comes up on google doesn't qualify as research. You have a Wal-Mart, pre-packaged complacent view of history. If that suits you, fine. Sit with it. But never think you can tell me or those more sophisticated what they can and cannot know.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago
@Jeanne189 How do you know? Because you were told? Because those under Napoleon were going to record it that way? Where's the evidence as opposed to "taking their word for it"? You know nothing at all if you would chalk it up to my "imagination". You yourself can't explain anything. And you are far from an authority. I know that I am right. You know what you have to believe so you can sleep at night. Marie's body is not at St. Denis, as was never in a "fosse commune". Either research or shut it.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 4
@Jeanne189 I've cited several. There are many. First, there is no death certificate for Marie Antoinette until 1810 Austria. There was a burial for her in France in 1815. Her daughter grew up in the public eye in Austria and has a death certificate for 1851. This alone proves that they lied when they said they captured and beheaded Marie Antoinette and imprisoned her children. Look up the rest yourself. Also, a troll is a demon that screws things up. That's what you are. I straighten things out.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 8
@Jeanne189 Lafayette had been a French soldier fighting for the Americans. Louis XVI honored him after the Revolutionary war ended. However he was a traitor and jumped ship. He joined Robespierre, with the audacity to openly claim credit for things already under way at the hand of the Sovereign. Louis XVI wrote "The Rights of Man" and the new flag had already been designed. "Revolutionaries" were power-hungry opportunist thieves. Louis had begun work @Constitutional Monarchy in compliance w/USA.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 11
@Jeanne189 Marat's job was agitator; He made sure the slander campagne produced a public image of the Queen and King that was negative enough to incite rage. It was all lies. His newspaper was like "The National Enquirer" at best. And incidentally, if there were no sources, then why do I have so much information? Robespierre & Co. chased out all real Government: King, Queen, the Real Parliament (as opposed to the faux "Revolutionary" assembly). No one legitimate was left. Only your loser list.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 11
It was because Versailles was 10 miles from Paris, thar Robespierre could keep the people isolated. He claimed to communicate with both the Church and Royal Court, but he did neither. What he was preaching to the people, was what was already happening for France, It should be obvious. But media was not then what it is today. France however, was vulnerable for take-over and that's what Robespierre and his men, Napoleon included were planning--from the inside. They used the people to pull it off.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 11
Let them eat`s cakes
Hnkl7 1 year ago
noone sees any similarities between this and egypt, this I find funny
noobler9 1 year ago
What is the font used in the Robespierre's newspaper.
Please answer.
Th3BlindStudios 1 year ago
You may say that the "rioters" can't represent all of france, but remember that the lower class only got presented by a small per cent of the legal system. that in it's self is unfair.
skyline777 1 year ago
lack of food=revolution
scrambledpenis 1 year ago
Right now, if you ran outside with a shovel and set things on fire, whacking at people, you'd go to jail. If you were faced with conflict, and rather than genuinely trying to understand how to work it out, grabbed a shovel, and again ran outside, you would miss the opportunity to resolve the issues. Words like "Justice", aren't undefinable terms to disregard the meaning of, they are words to be heard, and listened to, with reason, not violence. As: Truth, awareness, fairness, evidence, solution.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 3
ahaha I saw this in English class. Why? Because we're reading A Tale of Two Cities :D lol
woodstock767 1 year ago
Im so proud of those hardworking women removing those corrupt leeches from Versailles
xhappyxlifex 1 year ago
The 'peasants' were actually rioters and looters. They did not formally address the Royal Court. They screwed France over with their actions. Criminal activity is never condoned. There were bread trucks and charities. The Sovereign never had a fair chance to do something about the issues themselves. Barbarism incited by vigilantes, rather than reason. Napoleon could take advantage, and take credit for the returns on the French investment in America. Exaggerations!!! Marie returned to Austria.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 34
@StarQualityWins The lives of a few soldiers is worth the freedom of the masses. In the end, we are all mortals, human...the integrity of my neck is just as precious as yours, even if you are royalty or descendent of royalty. And if it is in the book that the king and queen shall be guillotined as a stark declaration to the advancement of freedom for the masses, no matter how marginal...so let it be written.
By the way, are you royalty? (To borrow a line from Sgt. Hartman!)
Houseofthe7gayboys 1 year ago
@Houseofthe7gayboys The lives of the King and Queen have to also be just as precious as the lives of a few soldiers, or the lives of the masses. Life in general has undeniable value. It very much matters what the margins are and "it" hasn't been written that death = life. Evidence is needed, plans for solution, communication with awareness of truth and fairness, are needed. Not blood, blindness, demonic behavior, where life has no meaning or value. You declare that Marie's soul should not exist?
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 3
@StarQualityWins You're totally missing the point. You cannot take today concepts and apply them to France of 1789! Life at that time wasn't considered as important as today. The live of a peasant had no value but what he could produce for his "master"... you see what I mean? I agree with Houseofthe7gayboys: The lives of a few soldiers is worth the freedom of the masses.
TheDGP17 1 year ago
@StarQualityWins Many peasants actualy oposed the "Republic" and "French Revolution" and instead still suport the King and God
ImperialGuard9001 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 I agree. Hundreds of people rioting, were supposed to represent all of France. Clearly it did not. The people didn't have their own negative claim against the Monarchy until Robespierre started spreading lies via tabloids. In this moment, things change, but primarily because Robespierre lied to the people when he told them that he was communicating with the Royal Court. He never had, nor did he intend to. The plan for take-over was clearly the secret of he and Napoleon both.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 17
@StarQualityWins
Only one criticism:
"Criminal activity is never condoned. "
Crime is a trespass on established law. Your statement presumes that law is always just and legitimate. This, of course, is not the case. The prudence to employ disobedience when it is needed is more virtuous than unconditional obedience.
xORIGINx 1 year ago
@StarQualityWins ARE YOU SAYING THAT MARIE WAS NOT KILLED?
1IIIIIIIIII1 10 months ago
@1IIIIIIIIII1 That's correct. She was not punishable. Propaganda, tabloid lies, designed to scare Britian, and convince the world that Napoleon had control. Robespierre fronted, with help from Marat.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 10
@StarQualityWins SO WAS MARAT AND ROBEPERRIE KILLED? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
1IIIIIIIIII1 10 months ago
@1IIIIIIIIII1 The people killed Marat, and went after Robespierre. Napoleon had Robespierre killed as fall-guy, in attempts to appease the people, as they demanded an end to the terror! Napoleon, however wasn't really a good-guy. He had to be stopped. The British finally brought him down at Waterloo.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 16
@StarQualityWins WELL I AGREE THAT NEPOLIAN WAS PROBLY A SOCIOPATH, AS ARE MOST PEOPLE WHO SEEK GLORY AND POWER. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND THE INFORMATION YOU GO BY THAT SAYS THIS HISTORY DID NOT HAPPEN AS IT HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS. THANKS
1IIIIIIIIII1 10 months ago
@1IIIIIIIIII1 There are over 6000 books written about the French Revolution. I cannot recommend just 1, for you'd need several books, like puzzle pieces to start to see the picture. My Norwegian History Professor is working on a new book with all the facts in one place. She had to go to private home libraries in France, New Orleans, Austria, San Francisco, Sweden, Hudson Valley NY, London, and other places, to look at first print letters, books, and documents, directly from 1776-1803.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 14
LOL Jean-Paul Marat = Glenn Beck of his day!
Anonlololwhi 1 year ago 6
@Anonlololwhi
Oh someone already beat me to pointing this out, lol
Anonlololwhi 1 year ago
PEOPLE OF PARIS
IT'S TIME TO OPEN YOUR EYES
WAKE UP
WAKE UP
>:C
lawldrattigan 1 year ago 3
10:07 busted ...lol
DungeonSouls 1 year ago
When they were made to move to Paris with the heads of the guards being paraded, Louis Seize must have known he would eventually suffer the same fate. I don't understand how someone could be so blind towards the needs of his own people.
lurconis666 1 year ago
I'm glad the Revolution happened. Without it, it would be near impossible for Napoleon to take power. Whether you like Napoleon or not, you have to understand that he highlighted new steps towards democracy in France, and helped stir the formation of unifications of Europe powers that would help create a sense of equal power in Europe. And he also introduced completely new revolutionary forms of laws, documents, and government which would later be utilized by France in the age of Imperialism.
SUPERBAD119 1 year ago 2
@SUPERBAD119 he also got his ass kicked by the British :)
len139 1 year ago
@UserNamei5 Completely obliterating the peoples' poltical freedoms merely unbolts the doors that lead to revolution. The manipulation of the mind is necessary, yet manipulating the masses would be a stroke of genius that could only last so long.
SUPERBAD119 1 year ago
Louis shouldnt hav been so French
donkeywithsumpizzazz 1 year ago
change comes from the sewer :))
Isaiah6517 1 year ago
its just crazy that the revolution just ends back to one rule leader, Napolean!
frasermack18 1 year ago
I know that the monarchy should have helped the people some more, but these people were crazy. The whole head thing is just so violent that it makes me feel bad for the King and Queen. It's just so sickening that people could be so violent.
amberg93 1 year ago
maybe if royalty didnt eat like hobbits they wouldnt have trouble feeding their people
thewowbud 1 year ago
french nutters
trueblue259 1 year ago
hey thx.........you helps he lot in EXAMS....love you YOUTUBE...
TheJbsdhindsa 1 year ago
@LaBelledAutriche So cute. :)
blairwitchgrl 1 year ago
Marat was like the Glenn Beck of the 18th Century: loud, stupid, and popular with the craziest members of society.
Geneva009 1 year ago
@Geneva009 Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you must be crazy. That's a good outlook for life.
Instead of name calling you should find common ground with those you disagree with.
axlrose9951 1 year ago
King Louis XVI is a perfect example of why monarchy fails
bobj1009 1 year ago
Sounds to me like Marat was 19th century French equivalent of Alex Jones. "WAKE UP TO THE NWO!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!"
christopher81818 1 year ago
LOL these babes are awesome. They can tear me to pieces anytime.
metaflux2 1 year ago
Marat has a funny voice.
Libellebr 1 year ago
i don't get that after all this blood that when napoleon fell they put a king back 3 times
fdr100100 1 year ago
10:17 BUSTED!!
kufygfykt 1 year ago
Comment removed
melosebrainuhoh 1 year ago
French women have since never got intinidated by riches and royals !!
frog222able 1 year ago
They demand a constitutional monarchy? Maybe they should have starved a little longer, then perhaps they would have known better than to support this system, any any way,shape or form it comes in.
bosnia91 1 year ago
@bosnia91 Sometimes a constitutional monarchy could be a better option that a democracy. Take the UAE for example; had it been a democracy referendums and elections would have plagued the political scene and created such an upheaval that Dubai probably would have never developed so quickly under the Sheikh's rule. Giving people equal rights and votes in elections also has a downside to it; some people might vote for politicians just because of their Charisma or their public speaking skills.
MaboroshiPan 1 year ago
What a useless man Louis XVI was.
ImperiumBritannica 1 year ago
@ImperiumBritannica Not at all, he tried by calling this assembly but they became power hungry -.-
Long live the Monarchy and Aristocracy
Britishguy18 1 year ago
people stop complaining about politcs and the history channel and just enjoy the documentary
Sizzmaster6985 1 year ago
this is much better than any text book. I'm revising my A-Level History solely on these videos - such fun!!!
0e0l7i 1 year ago
Those women were bloody awesome the way that they stormed the palace! And that the public was so much more active than most of the U.S. today... how could it not put one to shame?
diddims 1 year ago
VIVE LA FRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fra2603 1 year ago 2
i love the fakt that when the women marched the streets, there where also hundreds of men dressed up like women just to paticipate. thats just hilarious XD
shibby192 1 year ago
I'm watching this because the french revolution is going to be a part of the test we're having in history tomorrow.. This is so much more interesting then the book we have tought haha.
EdithyNeko 1 year ago
@EdithyNeko Omgod same here! lolz hope my histry teachrll be impressed. she taught us like HALF the stuff heree
AnimationWarehouse 1 year ago
Why does American politics dominate the minds of the simpletons, even when the video does at all not deal with American politics?
AntiquityCentury21 1 year ago
and people have the nerve to call us pussies ?
alexandreleverrier 1 year ago
that king was a fat, weak, indecisive prick. this whole thing was made 1000 times worse because of his stupidity.
clarabella1234 1 year ago
Jean-Paul Marat = Glenn Beck perhaps?
MrEricthebilliken 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
piperalways 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuckn French women are krazy lol
MobHeataEnt 1 year ago 13
@MobHeataEnt fuck you asshole
selecto16 1 year ago 12
@selecto16 Well...u cant deny that those women in the revolution were just nuts...and so was the revolution, al that brutal violence had just weaked french at that time, ah well it happend but I am proud that my country is still a kingdom...God save our queen
iSteven00 1 year ago
@iSteven00
YES. Even if they have some grievances, what kind of Jeffrey Dahmer behavior is it to cut someone's head off and play with it.
Mrmys1900 1 year ago
@selecto16 I enjoyed this vid a lot. Do what you gotta do to survive!
ha38bb1 1 year ago
@MobHeataEnt And Hott I love there bicepts
Hunte9753 1 year ago
lol @ Marat's voice
TheNewMeChannel 1 year ago
They fail to mention that the reason why the guards were so easily killed, is becuase the king gave the gaurds direct orders to not fire upon the people. If that order was not enforced, then those crazy women would have not made it into the palace.
Mark123USA 1 year ago
@mard420. if you want to be a nameless commoner, then be my guess. We are HUMAN BEINGS not subjects. hereditary rule is a degenerate concept in itself. down to aristocracy. long live FREEDOM.
Derrian6 1 year ago
Republics are too ego centric, it encourages a bad attitude among the population in comparison to having a king as the head of state
mard420 2 years ago
sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger isnt very happy lol
burningjelly4lyfe 2 years ago
@burningjelly4lyfe Dude shut ur mouth if u dont have a clue what u are speaking about.
14fede14 1 year ago
@14fede14 dude shut the hell up during the video on guy sounded like arnold which is why i said lol you're a fucking retard for thinking i dont know who arnold is. he is the governor of california and a movie star so shut the fuck up and troll somewhere else
burningjelly4lyfe 1 year ago
@burningjelly4lyfe the 'he' ur talking about is ur self, so u shut the fuck up, u little pimply nerd and suck my cock. California is a retarded state for voting some guy who says that lifting weights is as good as having sex.
14fede14 1 year ago
At 8:11, there starts the half of this video that I saw in World Studies. Ah, doesn't the History Channel make historical events seem more dramatic and exciting? To my opinion, it definitely does better than the history textbooks.
CariPR 2 years ago 46
@CariPR I saw all of it, but MY GOODNESS YES! History Channel rules!