Thanks for uploading! My schoolwork focused more on Napoleon, but I was very interested in Robespierre. This really helped. (Plus it was awesome revision for upcoming tests. ;D )
It is arguable that the american revolution's ideas could have sparked the french revolution and then the rest of the dominoes due to the ideas of Lafayette
You could also argue that the "little colonial war" changed the face of the world. A new nation was created that would become an important player in world politics.
@Eternal1Truth Are you kidding me for most of its history the U.S was a back woods country with its most important act was inspiring France the worlds most powerful country at that time to change government it wasn't until the 1900's that the us started to matter in the world as an actual military power
Maybe but the french revolution was ONLY stupidity, unlike the American revolution, which was far more intelligent and noble!
Biased. Two revolutions, same roots : crowned heads greed. It was all about taxes in both cases. Then in one case it's stupid...and in the other it's noble. Obviously and tipically biased.
At the end of the documentary, they say that the French Revolution inspired China, Russia, etc. Whats funny is that the American Revolution was the one that inspired the French Revolution. What were they thinking?!
"First and enduring model of a people taking destiny in their own hands." How can she make that claim without realizing that it was neither first nor sustained.
What so that whole business with Robespierre and Napoleon just doesn't count.
France wasn't the only country that overthrew it's monarch with a bloody revolution. England did the same thing 150 years before with Oliver Cromwell leading the revolution against Charles I who was beheaded in 1649. In fact, Desmoulins was accused of being 'another Cromwell' by French nobles to objected to his radical ideas.
France did help American win independence but Louis XVI was not a big proponent of the war. It was a French official who convinced Louis XVI to support America. France admired America but their motive was payback against Britain after France lost Seven Years War, not democracy. There's no evidence Louis XVI supported or believed in democracy for France.
the concept of the revolution is that is how much violence is justified and do the people on a nation have the right to overthorw a government they see as unjust for the good of the nation or for power. Should empire rise once more to bring an end to violence within a nation and prevent anarchy from taking over.
The Americans resorted to war, not barbaric violence. The only genuine revolt in France on behalf of the people, was against Robespierre's Terror. Otherwise nothing that you've described took place in France. On Mars, maybe, lol, it's an interesting point, but it was not what was truly happening in France. Riots were incited by 13 men who were clandestinely taking France over from the inside. Riots were incited to create the illusion of Revolution. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were innocent.
@QCBEC 2000 years ago Democracy was attempted in Syria, Vishali India, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and 100 A.D. London. What prevented people from embracing the positive ideas then? Feudalism lasting 1400 years unchallenged as it did is a sign of stagnant civilization. At Elizabeth I through George Washington, again positive ideas are being attempted. I agree the Americans weren't Saints. But in France Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI wanted to implement positive ideas but were halted and buried in lies.
Robespierre himself was not the grand tyrant of legend. Many others especially St. Just were even more responsible for excesses of the Terror. Robespierre became a convenient scapegoat and was arrested July 27 (not June as in this film), and executed July 28, 1794 (10 Thermidor).
The way I would put it, is that it took the death of the king to make the birth of the republic, now it will take the death of a tyrant to secure the birth of peace..
Robespierre couldn't hold his hand steady enough to write a constitution. Irrational thinking suggests a madman and his crew, including Lafayette who was but a skilled mercenery, could "care" enough to spread democracy via barbaric violence and murder, providing about 5% of what the Americans had achieved, just to give way to a new Emperor who'd conquer the world. Those men were selfish and blocked intelligent public involvement . Where's the EVIDENCE against Louis XVI embracing Constitution?
Wow. Judging by the confidence votes youtubers have read zero historical research. Starquality, have you read any books by a french historian? The dumbest two comments gets a thumbs up obviously by masturbating americans and some british. Losers, live in your BBC, History Channel propaganda about the Revolution, about who Napoleon was or what he really represented. Because masturbating is easy, your side wins all the time.
THE GREAT LESSON HERE IS THAT HUMANS CAN GO VERY WRONG AND DO MUCH EVIL IN THE NAME OF DOING GOOD. WE MUST ALL GUARD OURSELVES FROM DOING SUCH THINGS WHEN STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.NEVER FORGET WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THE DEVIL WALKING UP AND DOWN THE EARTH SEEKING WHO HE MIGHT DESTROY. THE DEVIL IS IN ALL OF MANS BUSINESS, BOTH GOOD AND BAD, AND ALWAYS LOOKS TO SPOIL THE SOUP, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS EVENT.
@StarQualityWins Robespierre started out with good intentions like everyone else however he lost sight of who he was becoming along the way. I agree that Louis wasn't given a chance. It was unfair that they killed Marie too, it was't her fault. She didn't make the decisions and did'nt know what was happening. The people that were trying her were hipocrits. As if they wouldn't have spent the money if they thought that they could afford it . Don't judge unless you've been in the same predicament.
@mubul09 You've misunderstood my entire point/argument: What's understood about this event is based on lies. Robespierre portrayed himself dishonestly and wasn't actually good at all. Marie Antoinette did not spend the French Treasury; This story was a lie invented by Robespierre, published by himself in cheap tabloids, as he was intending to incite anger toward her. Louis XVI and Marie were not executed, the story was another lie printed by Robespierre to frighten England. He lied passionately.
all history books and videos stated dat they where executed....i do believe that sometimes history is full of lies...
if louis and marie were not executed,what happened to them?did they escaped? i truly believe that marie is not guilty,and there is a conspiracy during this event....@mubul09 could u please give me some info or resources that prove marie and louise were not executed..thanks...
@StarQualityWins wtf are you smoking man? Are you trolling or what? how can Louis the 16th not be EXECUTED? If he wasnt beheaded then what happened to him anyways if you think it was a lie?
@guardman12345 It's documented that France was fine until the crop failures. Taxes were raised when they helped the Americans, but it was do-able, and meant to be a temporary increase. In 1788, the crop failure hiked up the price of bread and grains. This made things tight. It's not true that people were suffering gravely for years. Louis XVI and family were chased out, not executed. The event that caused hardship for people was the reign of terror. Propaganda and tabloids dominated with lies.
@StarQualityWins, how was it a fact that Lousis and his family were chased out and survived? Record books from france itself as well as many paintings and murals depict Louis being beheaded and such. These are from the french historial books that state that Louis and his wife went towards the guillotine not walking away safely. Where is your source for this? How are YOU able to find the so called "REAL" documentation of these events that you speak of?
Have you seen those "records" for yourself? True Historians make the same discovery: Original records pre-dating 1789 are extremely rare to find in countries occupied by Napoleon. An educated guess would be that they were destroyed by Napoleon. Yerba Buena, now San Francisco, had complete Spanish Records that survived Napoleon. However, they were lost in the Earthquake of 1906. In private libraries, respectable newspaper articles written between 1776-1789, and pieces of evidence have survived.
@StarQualityWins "lie" is necessary for history or the development will be stopped by invariant world.Rights can only be gained through any kind of methods.
@memphisdarkwolf There's a Death Certificate in Vienna, in Marie's birth maiden name, in 1810, natural causes. Louis XVI lived until 1815, but other than the fact that Versailles had a proper burial, and that he may have gone to Luxembourg with his son when he left France in 1790, it's very hard to find info/records.
Tallien, Fouché, Billaud-Varenne, Collot d'Herbois, Barras and Fréron, were Napoleon's henchmen. Napoleon was a corrupt fascist with mafia-like undertakings.
If this documentary is all you have, you still know nothing. Robespierre was brought down by the People to end the Terror. He was ever only a Terrorist.
@StarQualityWins Robespierre was brought down by a group of people called "Thermidoriens". Their names were Tallien, Fouché, Billaud-Varenne, Collot d'Herbois, Barras and Fréron. They were all the so-called Terrorists and the purpose of their conspiracy was not to end the Terror but to save their asses because they had more blood on their hands than anyone else.
@Jeanne189 The People themselves tried to end the Terror. Once people were in a state of recognizing that things were wrong, Napoleon did make Robespierre fall guy, then attempted to appease the people. But he too was a Terror, the biggest Terror of them all. Without the people's fight, the Terror would have continued and Robespierre would have remained Napoleon's right-hand man. Napoleon, of course, knew no loyalty as was wicked, but his whole regime needed to come down. We wait until Waterloo.
@StarQualityWins and there goes another well-argumented comment! well done! oh btw, i'm not french but thank you for your compliments. i would be more than proud if i were french, especially if i were napoleon's descendant. oh, and did i tell you you're slightly insane? i guess i didn't, so there.
What an inspirational story, before knowing nothing about the French Revolution I loved every second of it. I found it quite an ironic twist in the documentary that at the beginning Robespierre appears as someone who eventually became an oppressed martyr but in reality he wasn't killed by the enemies of the Revolution he was brought down by the revolution itself. That which he spent so long shaping, guiding and leading was in the end his final undoing.
The most glaring inaccuracy of all, is overlooking the fact that France, under Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, lent a large sum of money, troops, and spent so much time helping the Americans; Owned the Louisiana Territories in America; Had Benjamin Franklin, then Thomas Jefferson as Ambassadors to France. France helped win the American Revolution. George Washington's Democratic thinking was admired, the "Declaration of Independence" praised. How could Louis and Marie not embrace Democracy also?
@donorleone They gave everything, they wouldn't do that merely to anger the British; That is neither logically or financially sound. They put themselves at risk. They immediately drafted a Peace Treaty w/England after the war. They needed a far greater motive to get involved. This motive was genuine interest and support, They ended up losing everything!
@StarQualityWins They didn't help America out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because they were fighting a macro war with Great Britain. The United States did not help the Mujahideen out of a great love for Sharia or Islam but out of the desire to see the USSR lose in the long run.
@Renderless1 There was no other reason for Louis XVI and Marie Antonette to help George Washington and America outside of genuine support. Except that it was also a good investment and opportunity for growth. of course. Louis had to believe they'd win in order to justufy the financial risk. France had much to gain as a country, upon America's victory. Robespierre, Napoleon, and the other traitors in the 'Internal Seige', used these gains as cover for their tyrrany, take-over, and conquering.
@StarQualityWins You seem to know much about what truly happened during the French Revolution. Can you recommend any good books on it? I would just read Edmund Burke but he is hard to read.
@StarQualityWins Because they werent fighting for democracy and liberty, They were fighting against Britain which was a common enemy with France and the American Revolutionaries. They wanted revenge for the loss of the seven years war against Britain.
@josalazar18 Revenge isn't enough motive to deplete the treasury via loans and expenses. Louis XVI had to perceive that he'd get repaid and regain his treasury. Going broke would only make France vulnerable, it wouldn't exact revenge. The cause the Americans were fighting for was one that France wasn't afraid to support. Democratic Independence was the idea that Britain didn't like. King George didn't want to lose the colonies. France was able to embrace the concept of a Constitutional Monarchy.
You're paying absolutely no regard to the total difference between America and France of the time.
French society was feudal, it was always going to lavish the nobility and rich whilst the poor were left to pay high taxes and starve under a Constitutional monarchy.
America didn't have such classes, it was created of immigrants forming hardy colonies on the other side of the world from Europe.
'Democracy' as you put it, would be starkly different between the two.
@StarQualityWins You can't be serious... "Hey, they tried that thing over there that we helped them with, that democracy thing... Hey, let's try that, it can't do us any harm, we're king and queen, what've we got to lose?"
Seriously? They helped with the American Revolution because it weakened the British. Period. You're completely forgetting that aspect of the question...
France wouldn't risk financial vulnerability to anger The U.K. The costs ensuring America's win combined with costs of the Seven Years' War (which involved Greater Europe and North America) are the sole depleters of Treasury. That Marie Antoinette was spending ANY of the Treasury was invented by tabloid lies and untrue. The French Court relaxed upon her arrival, as she was accustomed to the less formal Austrian Court, Royalty cut down on spending for luxuries, jewelry was cut out, amongst other.
@StarQualityWins Nothing to do with angering them, if they wanted to anger them they could've just said: "the King smells" or something. They wanted to WEAKEN them.
Oh, and how do you account for Marie Antoinette's lavish lifestyle in the Petit Trianon? The building of the Temple de l'Amour, of the "ideal hamlet", of the gardens, of the artificial lake? And I just mention those because they have survived,e.g. the jewelry cannot be accounted for, as it would have disappeared, if it ever existed.
@lethe56 An exaggerated fued. Sure, losing the colonies makes England smaller, but in no way did they become weaker. England was instrumental in bringing Napoleon down at Waterloo. Marie Antoinette's dowry was $300,000 Austrian Crown in gold. Worth millions of USD today. Versailles already had The Petit Trianon, this wasn't new property. Marie Antoinette merely remodeled it and planted more trees on the property, before the grain shortage began. Technically, it was all still property of France.
@StarQualityWins What on earth are you talking about? Louis used the American War of Independence as a kind of, 'fuck you!' to the British, after Britain had one the 7 year war. Louis didn't care what happened in America he just wanted to get back at the British. The only people influenced by the democracy in America were the soldiers sent to aid them.
There's no proof of that. Rochembau was a Revolutionary, he won the deciding battle for the Americans, stayed true to Louis XVI yet was marked for guillotine by Robespierre. Thomas Jefferson was slandered in tabloids by Robespierre. Anyone who spoke against Robespierre, Marie Antoinette included, was brutalized via tabloid. Marie wanted Democracy. If I'm wrong and you're right, then 12 years of U.S. relations didn't inspire Louis XVI to write a Constitution, with support of true Revolutionaries.
@StarQualityWins I am not sure you would have had the same conciliant words to the french monarchy, had you lived in that era. And of course, not as a patrician but as a commoner ;)
@selecto16 You'd be over 220 years old if you were there, and you weren't either. All we have are the words of Robespierre, his faux "national assembly", and Napoleon Bonaparte, creating the view, image, and portrait of conditions in France. Thus the source of all misconceptions, the words of 13 madmen. And it's a fact that original documentation prior to 1789 is scarce, almost impossible to find.
@StarQualityWins I am sure you beleive the bible words are authentique and genuine but not some texts dating back to late 18th century.
Napoleon has nothing to do with Robespierre. Robespierre and all the revolutionnaries were everyday people who wanted to get out of the tyranny of the monachrs. Some things went wrong, beacause nothing is perfekt.
The thousands who died should be seen as examples to mankink. Not kill them a second time today.
@selecto16 Bible was written by humans w/many translations, revisions, interpretations. Highest Father in True Heaven is an energy so potently powerful, coming close enough to Earth to dictate text could create tidal waves and hurricanes everywhere. Irrational. Napoleon DID have something to do w/Robespierre. The 12 members of the faux "national assembly" were not just people trying to get a break from the castle on the hill. They were opportunist tyrant liars. People fought to end their Terror.
@SirOttoVBismark The Sovereign WAS in the PROCESS of building a Modern Constitutional Monarchy. Louis XVI already HAD written the first French Constitution. 90% of the People's "rage" was unfounded, based not on truth, but on tabloid lies and Robespierre's speeches filled with only LIES. The Truth was concealed by Robespierre, because he and 12 other men, Napoleon included, wanted to take over France. Progress wasn't the issue with 13 tyrrinical, opportunist, evil men. All was for acquisition.
@StarQualityWins no contry aspiring or at least pretending to achieve true meritocracy needs a blood-line "nobility". that includes the royal family...
@StarQualityWins "The Sovereign WAS in the PROCESS of building a Modern Constitutional Monarchy" - Only when he felt the fire : much to late... "90% of the People's "rage" was unfounded" - Wrong "based on tabloid and Robespierre's speeches" -Right "filled with only LIES" Wrong "The Truth was concealed by Robespierre, because he and 13 other men, wanted to take over France" Part Right "Napoleon included" Wrong "Progress wasn't the issue All was for acquisition. Right
@StarQualityWins The establishment of a new state is very different to the reformation of an existing state. The French monarchy supported the former (instrumentally more than anything else) but, in their own case, where fundamentally against the latter.
In 1789, Royalty was chased out by Robespierre's slander campagne and riots. Napoleon was 20 years old. Robespierre was 31. Napoleon was "old enough to do stuff". And in 5 years, he'd take it all over. You're crazy if you don't think that was the plan of Napoleon, all along. The Reign of Terror and Napoleon, screwed France over. 10 years were wasted. With patience, the work of the Monarchy would pay off, with far greater results, and no war. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette weren't given a chance.
@Amuoralzg I'm NOT a monarchy supporter. You did not read my comments. A natural and obvious progression toward Democracy was already starting to take place for France before Robespierre's bullshit. He stole credit. He stole plans and ideas from Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and Parliament, in conjunction with America.
@Amuoralzg I do believe that Napoleon enforced a historical account that supported how he wanted the world to view him, in addition to preventing the world from understanding his true motives. He needed the "Emperor" title, which is the same as King, except they rule more than one country. Where is the Democracy in that?
@Amuoralzg Because he was a crooked liar dictator trying to take over the world under the guise of a "civil code" that he ripped off from the Americans. I doubt Hitler told the truth much, either. How is it such a surprise? For many, the idea of Napoleon being some sort of anti-christ is a given. I was surprised to see how many people feel the need to defend that man.
@StarQualityWins I'm puzzled. You think change and democracy would have come eventually if France had been run by a monarch? French Revolution was a nessecity for the entire world and it was born of tyranny, ignorance and the decadence of the nobility and king. It was unavoidable. It's part of human cultural evolution.
The bloodshed of the French Revolution was the result of the inability of certain people to lead and to govern.
@Berrylaff Consider the tyranny Robespierre used for his "Reign of Terror". ALL of Napoleon's opponents perceived him as a Tyrant. He became Emperor and installed his brother as King of Spain, other family members in other countries. He was not spreading civil code, he was invading and taking over Europe, trying to build an Empire. He had to be stopped. All of this is not very Deomcratic and infringes on Constitutional Rights. Humans aren't blind. Democracy was perceivable as obvious progress.
@Berrylaff I'm suggesting that Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI both, were far more capable than credited and indeed, especially after so much close proximity with the Democratic ideas in America, could not help but to recognize and embrace the ideas themselves. They, with the REAL Parliament, were working on a Constitutional Monarchy. I believe that all of Europe would have eventually embraced the idea on their own and did not need Napoleon. The French people were betrayed and used by him.
@StarQualityWins I've read many of your comments with interest. I heard from one source that Napoleon's goal was to spread masonry; by the sword, albeit, but that was his purpose. Do you have an opinion on that?
@countmein33 I've never heard of it. I do think historians have been too generous with their portrayal of Napoleon, as if he were righteously on a mission to do good. He got away with being a terror in the name of conquering for himself, simply by attesting to a bare bones "civil code" ripped off from The Declaration of Independence. His code simply stated that 'all humans are equal and have the right to live'. About 2% of what Americans were enforcing. He used it as a guise. But he was a tyrant
"Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI both... with the REAL Parliament, were working on a Constitutional Monarchy."
Not true. Louis and Marie were like the Happy Prince in the Rudyard Kipling story. They lived their lives before 1789 insulated by their servants and ministers from the suffering beyond the gates of Versailles. They would have happily continued this way, blissfully ignorant in their dream world, to the end of their days, had the Revolution not occurred.
@mosquitobight France would not have been one of the most powerful European Nations, one of the major seats of the Enlightenment which had begun several decades before 1789, nor would France have been capable of ensuring that the Americans won their Revolution, if your accusations were true. The fluff of junk propaganda and tabloid gluttony, gave birth to that false perception. The French "Revolution" needs to be the subject of expose.
It's a testament to the natural strengths of France's position in the 18th century that she was able to be a major power and enlightenment beacon in spite of the crippling effects of the ancien regime. The reforms of the Revolution tapped such latent strengths and resources that Napoleon was able to briefly make France mistress of Europe, something that would have been quite impossible if France was still wearing the ancien regime's many straightjackets.
@mosquitobight Agreed. the success of France philosophically and intellectually even before the crap hit the fan was not based on the monarchy's leadership, but other factors. It is hard to believe that the monarchy was as incompetent as they say, but the overall impotency of their rule may well have contributed to Enlightenment thinking in France.
@StarQualityWins I don't agree with you on the fact that the royal family weren't given a chance. I'm sorry but the King was warned. He just ignored every letter that he got about the bad economic situation and wasted his time eating and hunting. Marie Antoinette had the intelligence of a little girl. She couldn't even speak German.
Despite that I agree, 10 years were wasted because of la Terreur and Napoleon!
@hoiiooiiooiiooiiooii What letters are these? There were no letters. France knew of its financial state, which resulted from a recognizable investment that was scheduled to pay off. There was further land acquisition in the Louisiana Territories and a repayment schedule w/ the U.S. Treasury. The French Treasury was lowered solely because of the American Revolution, but it was a temporary state. The tabloids painted an aloof portrayal of Louis XVI that wasn't true. And Marie was very intelligent.
Napoleon, a teenager in the ranks of the French military engineered the Revolution??? WELL HOW ABOUT THAT. Louis XVI ruled the country for 20 odd years and ruined the country, there is no conspiracy, the royals lavished ENORMOUS amounts of wealth on themselves with no thought of the people. You're arguing with your imagination and aristocratic fawning, not historical fact.
We saw Louis XVI's idea of Democracy when the commoners were locked out of the national assembly.
@Tomohawwwk Your belief is based on a slanted view of things. Many variables have to be perceived a particular way in order to support your version of history. This is called a 'set up'. If you choose to call false accounts of history 'conspiracies', then there is definitely a conspiracy concealing the truth of what occurred in 1789 France. Missing chunks of information aren't explained. Where are the records of French negotiations and close relations with the USA that lasted from 1777-1789?
I'm sorry but if you've ever studied the subject of history you'll know you can't argue off the back of conspiracy with absolutely no evidence to back it up as you are. This 'version' of history is the accepted history by the vast majority of people and historians. You can't fabricate such events in 1789.
France gained nothing from American independence but debt, your idea of Democratic inspiration is a fairytale. Any relations were on the subject of Britain in Canada.
I don't know what really happened and what did not but watching this documentary I felt a serious deficit. In the starting parts there is so much about the economy and the economical state of france but as it reaches the later half they don't talk about economy anymore. Its all about bread isn't it? Did the people get that or not? Its all they were doing it for.
and i doubt they told people the Napoleonic version of the Revolution. You're right, tyrants lie, but after they die, their legacy dies along with them. The French HATED Napoleon, you don't need any "evidence" to figure that out for fucks sake. People don't like being oppressed, plain and simple. Im done arguing with you now, because i know you're just some retarded conspiracy theorist who believes anything he sees on the web without any reliable source or evidence. And stop liking your own post
@elo333333333 True stories passed down by those who didn't "sell out" to the hysteria, only support what I'm saying. Napoleon had the conspiracies, not the true story beneath. You're the type that believes what's been dictated to believe, not me. And how official documents become "unreliable sources" is peculiar. Believe it or not, I'm not the only one who agrees with me.
@StarQualityWins PROOF, PROOF, PROOF. What official documents? from what year? define your definition of "selling out". Whatever your arguements are, you can't disprove the fact that people witnessed the executions firsthand. Its unrealistic that Napoleon could've seduced all of them. If i believed everything i read i would've bought in to your bullshit, just like 23 other people did. So don't even try to accuse me.
@elo333333333 What proof have you offered? You can look some of it up on wiki, although they favor Napoleon, and I already mentioned the "Freedom of Information Act" w/the US Government. America did not support Napoleon at all. There are journals, memoirs, it's out there, but apparently, it's not what you're looking for. There were no witnesses to any executions. Magazine articles claimed Louis was executed before a demanding mob. However, this whole thing was orchestrated with tabloid lies.
@StarQualityWins The sad reality, is that once the people screwed up, passing France over to Robespierre, they had to deal with the consequences. When Napoleon emerged, Robespierre became the fall-guy, and those who would recognize the error, could blame him. Otherwise Napoleon covered for the people, and gave them credit for overthrowing the Monarchy; He did this to cover himself. At this point, those who participated in the riots had no choice but to believe and play along. He used the people.
@StarQualityWins Ok...dude, im not trying to argue with you anymore. Im just saying that unless you can't give me a link to some sort of evidence to your claims, then i simply won't acknowledge them. And im not the only one who agrees with that either.
England was once ruled by monarchic and feudal system...how did these mofo achieve that transition to a fundamentally democratic republic without the violent upheaval of the French revolution, the chaos of which lead, not to democracy, but rather a military dictatorship in the form of Napoleon. Who held sway over the military seems critical in determining the outcome of any political upheaval. In America, the civilian control the military and the presidency is constrained by constitutional
@Houseofthe7gayboys limits. If I wanna be a dictator and supreme maximum leader of the Americans, what does history suggests as regards a blueprint to achieve this...suggestions welcomed.
@Houseofthe7gayboys In England the Kings were limited in their power by the nobles since centuries and so Kings had to give up more and more rights over the centuries. Because the first kings of England were French (Guillaume 1066), didn't speak any English and during the first centuries didn't live in England but in South-West of France, they had to give up rights to keep their Crown. Not the case in France where the movement was the opposite: King got more and more power over the centuries.
This documentary is oversimplified. I want to know where is Desmoulins, Saint-Just, Mirabeau, Lafayette, Fouché, Tallien, Collot d'Herbois, etc. What happened with August 10? And I really want to know when did Robespierre said about the dead penalty that "times change", because I can't find that in any of my books. Also, what about the others members of the CSP? And the CSG? I need to read the bibliography of this documentary. Surely that "A Tale of two Cities" and Wadja's "Danton" are there.
Rospierre was always in league with Napoleon's "Army". He was the fall-guy. The true nature of their relationship is unclear. What truly happened as far as the violence and murder, isn't yet known. The dates of events leading to the removal of the Monarchy, are also unclear. In the chaos, Napoleon, the true leader of this event, could say whatever he wanted. Tyrants aren't good people. They're the types that burn childrens' toys in town square. How the majority of France viewed him, is unclear.
@StarQualityWins dude, are you fucking retarded? Louis and Marie WERE executed. Theres so much historical evidence to prove that. Theres no chance in hell that Napoleon could have covered it up, the outside world was fully aware of what was happening in France at that time. What are you gonna say next? that the Holocaust is a hoax? don't make me fucking laugh. Instead of making up half-assed, assinine theories which make you sound like a moron, go and study what REALLY happened.
@elo333333333 Hitler was able to cover up the holocaust until he was arrested. Napoleon did attempt to cover up his loss to Haiti, known fact. I's say, Sir, that there's a lack of concrete evidence to prove that Napoleon did what he claimed to have done. There was too much choatic war plus lack of major media for the world to truly know what was happening in France, worse so even, than the world's ability to know what Hitler was truly about.
@elo333333333 What makes you think Napoleon was so honest? Where is your documented proof? Recorded history in France went out the window after Robespierre chased the Monarchy out. After that, we had to take Napoleon's word for it. How is there a death certificate for Marie Antoinette in Austria in 1810? And her daughter lived longer than that, in the public eye? Napoleon was a liar. Face it.
@elo333333333 Marie Antoinette's daughter died in 1851 in Austria. From 1789 until 1851, there are varying versions of her life story; Some match up to what is purported by the Napoleonic version of History, and some that are entirely different, suggesting a normal life as a noble woman. The latter has far too much documented evidence to be denied. This alone is proof that Napoleon lied about his "capture" of the Royal family. Marie and daughter rejoined her family in Austria as did Louis & son
@StarQualityWins where the hell is your proof? you're just making up random stories out of your ass. I never said Napoleon was honest, buts theres no way he could've covered up an entire revolution unless America and Britian covered it with him. Hitler never denied the Holocaust, where'd you get that notion? He willingly admitted that Jews were being persecuted. He just covered up the extent of it. Don't you think the French would've abolished the Napoleonic version of history after he died?
@StarQualityWins and whats there to cover up? the French admit that they fucked up in the revolution, and that Napoleon came to power as a result of that. No solid evidence? look, people who were alive in that time period saw what really happened. Before Robespierre's Reign of Terror, Before Napoleon, and even before the Storming of the Bastille. They passed on their knowledge to their family's, relatives and peers who lived on after they did. Thats how we know History? use some common sense man
When the French Revolution led to war in 1793 between the United Kingdom (America's leading trading partner), and France (the old ally, with a treaty still in effect), Washington and his cabinet decided on a policy of neutrality. The Peace Treaty was one made and signed by Louis August XVI. The France of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette was "the old ally", not Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Louisiana territory was aquired by Louis. Washington was disturbed by the violence of the French Revolution.
Fun fact . You know why russians don't like the french ?
Because they copied the French Revolution .
vicenzo3000 1 week ago
@vicenzo3000 Interresting. Could you tell us as well why the whole world don't like the russians?
selecto16 1 week ago
@selecto16 Because they spread communism worldwide , including my own country
vicenzo3000 1 week ago
Thanks for uploading! My schoolwork focused more on Napoleon, but I was very interested in Robespierre. This really helped. (Plus it was awesome revision for upcoming tests. ;D )
BecauseJustBecause 2 weeks ago
Power corrupts absolute power corrups absolutely.
poodtang1 1 month ago
Some please tell me where I can find the music that was throughout this documentary? especially 4:09-4:56!
abcbdc 1 month ago
ooo common now
if the bloody teror of Robespier is democracy I w'd prefer monarshy
phisltube2000 1 month ago
@phisltube2000 Spell check dude!
abcbdc 1 month ago
@phisltube2000
so you prefer to be a slave. that is YOUR opinion.
rokko6fred 4 weeks ago
What go's around will comes back around.
dewerbylhserf 1 month ago
It is arguable that the american revolution's ideas could have sparked the french revolution and then the rest of the dominoes due to the ideas of Lafayette
xxCCBBxx 1 month ago
@xxCCBBxx
lafayette...have an idea...lol good jock!
rokko6fred 4 weeks ago
@xxCCBBxx Maybe but the french revolution was ONLY stupidity, unlike the American revolution, which was far more intelligent and noble!
RoelGeurtsen 3 weeks ago
@RoelGeurtsen
You're a dumb the American revolution was just a little colonial war of independance, while the French revolution changed the face of Europe.
Freez57fr 2 weeks ago
@Freez57fr For the worse!
RoelGeurtsen 2 weeks ago
@Freez57fr
You could also argue that the "little colonial war" changed the face of the world. A new nation was created that would become an important player in world politics.
Eternal1Truth 2 weeks ago
@Eternal1Truth Are you kidding me for most of its history the U.S was a back woods country with its most important act was inspiring France the worlds most powerful country at that time to change government it wasn't until the 1900's that the us started to matter in the world as an actual military power
Luis568369 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoelGeurtsen
Maybe but the french revolution was ONLY stupidity, unlike the American revolution, which was far more intelligent and noble!
Biased. Two revolutions, same roots : crowned heads greed. It was all about taxes in both cases. Then in one case it's stupid...and in the other it's noble. Obviously and tipically biased.
Robineux99 3 days ago
this is a really great documentary.
screwedupandawkward 2 months ago
an interesting documentary. thank you for sharing!
logjammin1987 2 months ago
God, do I hate those son-of-the-bitches.
Framuga111 2 months ago
@Framuga111 do you also hate the Romans, the Babylonians, the Pharaos, the Huns, the Germans, the Wisigoths, the Persians, the Greek...etc
Wake up, this is History!
And the son of the bitch can be sometimes seen in the mirror!
selecto16 2 months ago 28
yay!! im so happy robespierre died :D
cutie3piexoxo 2 months ago
What Robespierre had done is not revolution, its his own scheme to be king/god.
purelego 2 months ago
hey guys, dont take starqualitywin's comments seriously. hes just trolling.......
P.S louis and his wife marie did get executed.....
guardman12345 3 months ago
why did the documentary end with the death of Robespierre?
TheCNoom 3 months ago
nice movie
arsviatticae 3 months ago
At the end of the documentary, they say that the French Revolution inspired China, Russia, etc. Whats funny is that the American Revolution was the one that inspired the French Revolution. What were they thinking?!
YoshiSlinger 4 months ago
Comment removed
YoshiSlinger 4 months ago
"First and enduring model of a people taking destiny in their own hands." How can she make that claim without realizing that it was neither first nor sustained.
What so that whole business with Robespierre and Napoleon just doesn't count.
So the Roman Republic and America don't count?
So Athens doesn't count?
Ridiculous
suspicious35 4 months ago
France wasn't the only country that overthrew it's monarch with a bloody revolution. England did the same thing 150 years before with Oliver Cromwell leading the revolution against Charles I who was beheaded in 1649. In fact, Desmoulins was accused of being 'another Cromwell' by French nobles to objected to his radical ideas.
ProfessorSSJ 5 months ago
Thanks for uploading this
rq6715 5 months ago
(>'-')> i'm bored
araque202 6 months ago
France did help American win independence but Louis XVI was not a big proponent of the war. It was a French official who convinced Louis XVI to support America. France admired America but their motive was payback against Britain after France lost Seven Years War, not democracy. There's no evidence Louis XVI supported or believed in democracy for France.
AlternityGM 6 months ago
the concept of the revolution is that is how much violence is justified and do the people on a nation have the right to overthorw a government they see as unjust for the good of the nation or for power. Should empire rise once more to bring an end to violence within a nation and prevent anarchy from taking over.
TheHistorygenius 7 months ago
The Americans resorted to war, not barbaric violence. The only genuine revolt in France on behalf of the people, was against Robespierre's Terror. Otherwise nothing that you've described took place in France. On Mars, maybe, lol, it's an interesting point, but it was not what was truly happening in France. Riots were incited by 13 men who were clandestinely taking France over from the inside. Riots were incited to create the illusion of Revolution. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were innocent.
StarQualityWins 7 months ago 8
@StarQualityWins The Americans resorted to war, not barbaric violence
Get you're fucking fact straight.
How do you call people being tortured in baghram and guantanamo bay not barbaric violence?
Not all of them are actual terrorist, Omar Ahmed Khadr,He was captured by American forces at the age of 15.
He didnt had any trial, he was innocent and was tortured by some american bastard even if he was a kid.
Fuck you and fuck harper.
QCBEC 5 months ago
@QCBEC You keep evolving away from the truth, so that you can continue to err.
StarQualityWins 5 months ago 2
@StarQualityWins Tell me where i lied.
Please.
QCBEC 5 months ago
@QCBEC 2000 years ago Democracy was attempted in Syria, Vishali India, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and 100 A.D. London. What prevented people from embracing the positive ideas then? Feudalism lasting 1400 years unchallenged as it did is a sign of stagnant civilization. At Elizabeth I through George Washington, again positive ideas are being attempted. I agree the Americans weren't Saints. But in France Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI wanted to implement positive ideas but were halted and buried in lies.
StarQualityWins 5 months ago 5
@StarQualityWins what did i say?
I was talking about you guys using barbanic violence and you just start to talk about when democracy was invented?
I made my point america is not better then any country when you talk of barbanic violence.
QCBEC 5 months ago
Napoleon Bonaparte great man and leader yet very contriversial man.
TheHistorygenius 7 months ago
Robespierre himself was not the grand tyrant of legend. Many others especially St. Just were even more responsible for excesses of the Terror. Robespierre became a convenient scapegoat and was arrested July 27 (not June as in this film), and executed July 28, 1794 (10 Thermidor).
mrhalwes 7 months ago
hmmm, robbespierre is kind of similar to stalin... they BOTH killed most of the people on their cabinet, whom of which were the closest to them.
chloewalker8089 7 months ago
The way I would put it, is that it took the death of the king to make the birth of the republic, now it will take the death of a tyrant to secure the birth of peace..
SirOttoVBismark 7 months ago
Robespierre couldn't hold his hand steady enough to write a constitution. Irrational thinking suggests a madman and his crew, including Lafayette who was but a skilled mercenery, could "care" enough to spread democracy via barbaric violence and murder, providing about 5% of what the Americans had achieved, just to give way to a new Emperor who'd conquer the world. Those men were selfish and blocked intelligent public involvement . Where's the EVIDENCE against Louis XVI embracing Constitution?
StarQualityWins 7 months ago 7
Wow. Judging by the confidence votes youtubers have read zero historical research. Starquality, have you read any books by a french historian? The dumbest two comments gets a thumbs up obviously by masturbating americans and some british. Losers, live in your BBC, History Channel propaganda about the Revolution, about who Napoleon was or what he really represented. Because masturbating is easy, your side wins all the time.
MrEmile24 7 months ago
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 7 months ago
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 7 months ago
It was actually July 27.
mrhalwes 7 months ago
Very informative documentary. Thank you.
AgApE010 8 months ago
* 200 or 300 years
lightnessss 8 months ago
only fools or non-french could think NB wasted France
200 or 300 of dynastic kings don't do anything from the modern France, 10 years of NB made the modern France !!
lightnessss 8 months ago
Watched the whole documentary...That was some epic shit
goldj007 8 months ago 2
THE GREAT LESSON HERE IS THAT HUMANS CAN GO VERY WRONG AND DO MUCH EVIL IN THE NAME OF DOING GOOD. WE MUST ALL GUARD OURSELVES FROM DOING SUCH THINGS WHEN STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.NEVER FORGET WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THE DEVIL WALKING UP AND DOWN THE EARTH SEEKING WHO HE MIGHT DESTROY. THE DEVIL IS IN ALL OF MANS BUSINESS, BOTH GOOD AND BAD, AND ALWAYS LOOKS TO SPOIL THE SOUP, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS EVENT.
1IIIIIIIIII1 9 months ago
@StarQualityWins Robespierre started out with good intentions like everyone else however he lost sight of who he was becoming along the way. I agree that Louis wasn't given a chance. It was unfair that they killed Marie too, it was't her fault. She didn't make the decisions and did'nt know what was happening. The people that were trying her were hipocrits. As if they wouldn't have spent the money if they thought that they could afford it . Don't judge unless you've been in the same predicament.
mubul09 9 months ago
@mubul09 You've misunderstood my entire point/argument: What's understood about this event is based on lies. Robespierre portrayed himself dishonestly and wasn't actually good at all. Marie Antoinette did not spend the French Treasury; This story was a lie invented by Robespierre, published by himself in cheap tabloids, as he was intending to incite anger toward her. Louis XVI and Marie were not executed, the story was another lie printed by Robespierre to frighten England. He lied passionately.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 14
all history books and videos stated dat they where executed....i do believe that sometimes history is full of lies...
if louis and marie were not executed,what happened to them?did they escaped? i truly believe that marie is not guilty,and there is a conspiracy during this event....@mubul09 could u please give me some info or resources that prove marie and louise were not executed..thanks...
cmg0429 9 months ago 2
@cmg0429 DUMBAASSS
UltraCriticguy 8 months ago
@UltraCriticguy
cmg0429 8 months ago
@UltraCriticguy hemorrhoidASSSS
cmg0429 8 months ago
@StarQualityWins wtf are you smoking man? Are you trolling or what? how can Louis the 16th not be EXECUTED? If he wasnt beheaded then what happened to him anyways if you think it was a lie?
guardman12345 3 months ago
@guardman12345 It's documented that France was fine until the crop failures. Taxes were raised when they helped the Americans, but it was do-able, and meant to be a temporary increase. In 1788, the crop failure hiked up the price of bread and grains. This made things tight. It's not true that people were suffering gravely for years. Louis XVI and family were chased out, not executed. The event that caused hardship for people was the reign of terror. Propaganda and tabloids dominated with lies.
StarQualityWins 3 months ago
@StarQualityWins, how was it a fact that Lousis and his family were chased out and survived? Record books from france itself as well as many paintings and murals depict Louis being beheaded and such. These are from the french historial books that state that Louis and his wife went towards the guillotine not walking away safely. Where is your source for this? How are YOU able to find the so called "REAL" documentation of these events that you speak of?
guardman12345 3 months ago
Have you seen those "records" for yourself? True Historians make the same discovery: Original records pre-dating 1789 are extremely rare to find in countries occupied by Napoleon. An educated guess would be that they were destroyed by Napoleon. Yerba Buena, now San Francisco, had complete Spanish Records that survived Napoleon. However, they were lost in the Earthquake of 1906. In private libraries, respectable newspaper articles written between 1776-1789, and pieces of evidence have survived.
StarQualityWins 3 months ago
@StarQualityWins "lie" is necessary for history or the development will be stopped by invariant world.Rights can only be gained through any kind of methods.
willowinsea 3 months ago
@StarQualityWins How did the royal family die?
memphisdarkwolf 3 months ago
@memphisdarkwolf There's a Death Certificate in Vienna, in Marie's birth maiden name, in 1810, natural causes. Louis XVI lived until 1815, but other than the fact that Versailles had a proper burial, and that he may have gone to Luxembourg with his son when he left France in 1790, it's very hard to find info/records.
StarQualityWins 3 months ago
@StarQualityWins Just how do you know all this???
memphisdarkwolf 2 months ago
this guy make the taliban look like lil kids
samantha34ize 9 months ago 4
well well well, it looks like Robespierre just ate cake...I mean a bullet
Agentseaturtle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tallien, Fouché, Billaud-Varenne, Collot d'Herbois, Barras and Fréron, were Napoleon's henchmen. Napoleon was a corrupt fascist with mafia-like undertakings.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
If this documentary is all you have, you still know nothing. Robespierre was brought down by the People to end the Terror. He was ever only a Terrorist.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 5
@StarQualityWins Robespierre was brought down by a group of people called "Thermidoriens". Their names were Tallien, Fouché, Billaud-Varenne, Collot d'Herbois, Barras and Fréron. They were all the so-called Terrorists and the purpose of their conspiracy was not to end the Terror but to save their asses because they had more blood on their hands than anyone else.
Jeanne189 9 months ago
@Jeanne189 The People themselves tried to end the Terror. Once people were in a state of recognizing that things were wrong, Napoleon did make Robespierre fall guy, then attempted to appease the people. But he too was a Terror, the biggest Terror of them all. Without the people's fight, the Terror would have continued and Robespierre would have remained Napoleon's right-hand man. Napoleon, of course, knew no loyalty as was wicked, but his whole regime needed to come down. We wait until Waterloo.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 9
Comment removed
StarQualityWins 9 months ago
@StarQualityWins and there goes another well-argumented comment! well done! oh btw, i'm not french but thank you for your compliments. i would be more than proud if i were french, especially if i were napoleon's descendant. oh, and did i tell you you're slightly insane? i guess i didn't, so there.
Jeanne189 9 months ago
What an inspirational story, before knowing nothing about the French Revolution I loved every second of it. I found it quite an ironic twist in the documentary that at the beginning Robespierre appears as someone who eventually became an oppressed martyr but in reality he wasn't killed by the enemies of the Revolution he was brought down by the revolution itself. That which he spent so long shaping, guiding and leading was in the end his final undoing.
darthkahn45 9 months ago
Thumbs up if you watched the whole ducumentary ;)
themrnebur91 10 months ago 4
great documentary :) this helps so much for my research paper
Itshardtopronuncius 10 months ago
@SYDarkBlaze history channel
Itshardtopronuncius 10 months ago
those who sow terror will reap terror
laics1984 10 months ago
sad, and scary history.
teenagerPoP 10 months ago
damn french.
WoWfreak091 10 months ago
The most glaring inaccuracy of all, is overlooking the fact that France, under Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, lent a large sum of money, troops, and spent so much time helping the Americans; Owned the Louisiana Territories in America; Had Benjamin Franklin, then Thomas Jefferson as Ambassadors to France. France helped win the American Revolution. George Washington's Democratic thinking was admired, the "Declaration of Independence" praised. How could Louis and Marie not embrace Democracy also?
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 40
@StarQualityWins because the only reason they helped was out of sheer hatred for the British. To beat them and prevent their further dominance
donorleone 11 months ago
@donorleone They gave everything, they wouldn't do that merely to anger the British; That is neither logically or financially sound. They put themselves at risk. They immediately drafted a Peace Treaty w/England after the war. They needed a far greater motive to get involved. This motive was genuine interest and support, They ended up losing everything!
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 8
@StarQualityWins They didn't help America out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because they were fighting a macro war with Great Britain. The United States did not help the Mujahideen out of a great love for Sharia or Islam but out of the desire to see the USSR lose in the long run.
Renderless1 10 months ago
@Renderless1 There was no other reason for Louis XVI and Marie Antonette to help George Washington and America outside of genuine support. Except that it was also a good investment and opportunity for growth. of course. Louis had to believe they'd win in order to justufy the financial risk. France had much to gain as a country, upon America's victory. Robespierre, Napoleon, and the other traitors in the 'Internal Seige', used these gains as cover for their tyrrany, take-over, and conquering.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 15
@StarQualityWins You seem to know much about what truly happened during the French Revolution. Can you recommend any good books on it? I would just read Edmund Burke but he is hard to read.
MAJ061785 10 months ago
@StarQualityWins They didn't overlook that. It was in video 1. Now you're just devouring yourself.
...ironic.
UmbreonMessiah 9 months ago
@StarQualityWins Because they werent fighting for democracy and liberty, They were fighting against Britain which was a common enemy with France and the American Revolutionaries. They wanted revenge for the loss of the seven years war against Britain.
josalazar18 8 months ago
@josalazar18 Revenge isn't enough motive to deplete the treasury via loans and expenses. Louis XVI had to perceive that he'd get repaid and regain his treasury. Going broke would only make France vulnerable, it wouldn't exact revenge. The cause the Americans were fighting for was one that France wasn't afraid to support. Democratic Independence was the idea that Britain didn't like. King George didn't want to lose the colonies. France was able to embrace the concept of a Constitutional Monarchy.
StarQualityWins 8 months ago 5
@StarQualityWins
You're paying absolutely no regard to the total difference between America and France of the time.
French society was feudal, it was always going to lavish the nobility and rich whilst the poor were left to pay high taxes and starve under a Constitutional monarchy.
America didn't have such classes, it was created of immigrants forming hardy colonies on the other side of the world from Europe.
'Democracy' as you put it, would be starkly different between the two.
Tomohawwwk 8 months ago
@StarQualityWins You can't be serious... "Hey, they tried that thing over there that we helped them with, that democracy thing... Hey, let's try that, it can't do us any harm, we're king and queen, what've we got to lose?"
Seriously? They helped with the American Revolution because it weakened the British. Period. You're completely forgetting that aspect of the question...
lethe56 8 months ago
France wouldn't risk financial vulnerability to anger The U.K. The costs ensuring America's win combined with costs of the Seven Years' War (which involved Greater Europe and North America) are the sole depleters of Treasury. That Marie Antoinette was spending ANY of the Treasury was invented by tabloid lies and untrue. The French Court relaxed upon her arrival, as she was accustomed to the less formal Austrian Court, Royalty cut down on spending for luxuries, jewelry was cut out, amongst other.
StarQualityWins 8 months ago 6
@StarQualityWins Nothing to do with angering them, if they wanted to anger them they could've just said: "the King smells" or something. They wanted to WEAKEN them.
Oh, and how do you account for Marie Antoinette's lavish lifestyle in the Petit Trianon? The building of the Temple de l'Amour, of the "ideal hamlet", of the gardens, of the artificial lake? And I just mention those because they have survived,e.g. the jewelry cannot be accounted for, as it would have disappeared, if it ever existed.
lethe56 8 months ago
@lethe56 An exaggerated fued. Sure, losing the colonies makes England smaller, but in no way did they become weaker. England was instrumental in bringing Napoleon down at Waterloo. Marie Antoinette's dowry was $300,000 Austrian Crown in gold. Worth millions of USD today. Versailles already had The Petit Trianon, this wasn't new property. Marie Antoinette merely remodeled it and planted more trees on the property, before the grain shortage began. Technically, it was all still property of France.
StarQualityWins 8 months ago 6
Comment removed
lethe56 8 months ago
@StarQualityWins Because they were trying to make an ally. Not give up power.
sasdfrom 8 months ago
@StarQualityWins What on earth are you talking about? Louis used the American War of Independence as a kind of, 'fuck you!' to the British, after Britain had one the 7 year war. Louis didn't care what happened in America he just wanted to get back at the British. The only people influenced by the democracy in America were the soldiers sent to aid them.
ClutchingStr4ws 7 months ago 2
There's no proof of that. Rochembau was a Revolutionary, he won the deciding battle for the Americans, stayed true to Louis XVI yet was marked for guillotine by Robespierre. Thomas Jefferson was slandered in tabloids by Robespierre. Anyone who spoke against Robespierre, Marie Antoinette included, was brutalized via tabloid. Marie wanted Democracy. If I'm wrong and you're right, then 12 years of U.S. relations didn't inspire Louis XVI to write a Constitution, with support of true Revolutionaries.
StarQualityWins 7 months ago 7
@StarQualityWins I am not sure you would have had the same conciliant words to the french monarchy, had you lived in that era. And of course, not as a patrician but as a commoner ;)
selecto16 7 months ago 5
@selecto16 You'd be over 220 years old if you were there, and you weren't either. All we have are the words of Robespierre, his faux "national assembly", and Napoleon Bonaparte, creating the view, image, and portrait of conditions in France. Thus the source of all misconceptions, the words of 13 madmen. And it's a fact that original documentation prior to 1789 is scarce, almost impossible to find.
StarQualityWins 7 months ago 4
@StarQualityWins I am sure you beleive the bible words are authentique and genuine but not some texts dating back to late 18th century.
Napoleon has nothing to do with Robespierre. Robespierre and all the revolutionnaries were everyday people who wanted to get out of the tyranny of the monachrs. Some things went wrong, beacause nothing is perfekt.
The thousands who died should be seen as examples to mankink. Not kill them a second time today.
selecto16 7 months ago
@selecto16 Bible was written by humans w/many translations, revisions, interpretations. Highest Father in True Heaven is an energy so potently powerful, coming close enough to Earth to dictate text could create tidal waves and hurricanes everywhere. Irrational. Napoleon DID have something to do w/Robespierre. The 12 members of the faux "national assembly" were not just people trying to get a break from the castle on the hill. They were opportunist tyrant liars. People fought to end their Terror.
StarQualityWins 7 months ago 7
@StarQualityWins They almost tried to, but the people of France were just too enraged to care
SirOttoVBismark 7 months ago
@SirOttoVBismark The Sovereign WAS in the PROCESS of building a Modern Constitutional Monarchy. Louis XVI already HAD written the first French Constitution. 90% of the People's "rage" was unfounded, based not on truth, but on tabloid lies and Robespierre's speeches filled with only LIES. The Truth was concealed by Robespierre, because he and 12 other men, Napoleon included, wanted to take over France. Progress wasn't the issue with 13 tyrrinical, opportunist, evil men. All was for acquisition.
StarQualityWins 7 months ago 15
@StarQualityWins
Lol, you're actually defending the king! Haha, oh wow.
Onepretentiousdude 1 month ago
@StarQualityWins History is written by winners
casperblack30 2 weeks ago
@casperblack30 that's why everything is so skewed. Only the winners tell their tales. the losers don't tell the other half of the story.
ashnickel82 1 week ago
@StarQualityWins no contry aspiring or at least pretending to achieve true meritocracy needs a blood-line "nobility". that includes the royal family...
boss180888 1 week ago in playlist Mais vídeos de selecto16
Robineux99 4 days ago
@StarQualityWins The establishment of a new state is very different to the reformation of an existing state. The French monarchy supported the former (instrumentally more than anything else) but, in their own case, where fundamentally against the latter.
Shnufkin 6 months ago
Writing a paper with this documentary as my main source. Hoping that it will stand up to my Prof.
mdubs2010 11 months ago
... i can comment angrily too. RAWWR
ElBananerzz 11 months ago
In 1789, Royalty was chased out by Robespierre's slander campagne and riots. Napoleon was 20 years old. Robespierre was 31. Napoleon was "old enough to do stuff". And in 5 years, he'd take it all over. You're crazy if you don't think that was the plan of Napoleon, all along. The Reign of Terror and Napoleon, screwed France over. 10 years were wasted. With patience, the work of the Monarchy would pay off, with far greater results, and no war. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette weren't given a chance.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 34
@StarQualityWins Dude. Seriously. You're about 200 years too late to be a monarchist. It just looks stupid.
It *is* stupid.
Amuoralzg 11 months ago
@Amuoralzg I'm NOT a monarchy supporter. You did not read my comments. A natural and obvious progression toward Democracy was already starting to take place for France before Robespierre's bullshit. He stole credit. He stole plans and ideas from Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and Parliament, in conjunction with America.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 3
@StarQualityWins That's not what I said and it wasn't what you were saying. Something about Napoleon rewriting history?
Anyway, I'm kidding. :D
Amuoralzg 11 months ago
@Amuoralzg I do believe that Napoleon enforced a historical account that supported how he wanted the world to view him, in addition to preventing the world from understanding his true motives. He needed the "Emperor" title, which is the same as King, except they rule more than one country. Where is the Democracy in that?
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 6
@StarQualityWins None... um, why do you think Napoleon did this?
Amuoralzg 11 months ago
@Amuoralzg Because he was a crooked liar dictator trying to take over the world under the guise of a "civil code" that he ripped off from the Americans. I doubt Hitler told the truth much, either. How is it such a surprise? For many, the idea of Napoleon being some sort of anti-christ is a given. I was surprised to see how many people feel the need to defend that man.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 3
@StarQualityWins I'm puzzled. You think change and democracy would have come eventually if France had been run by a monarch? French Revolution was a nessecity for the entire world and it was born of tyranny, ignorance and the decadence of the nobility and king. It was unavoidable. It's part of human cultural evolution.
The bloodshed of the French Revolution was the result of the inability of certain people to lead and to govern.
Berrylaff 10 months ago
@Berrylaff Consider the tyranny Robespierre used for his "Reign of Terror". ALL of Napoleon's opponents perceived him as a Tyrant. He became Emperor and installed his brother as King of Spain, other family members in other countries. He was not spreading civil code, he was invading and taking over Europe, trying to build an Empire. He had to be stopped. All of this is not very Deomcratic and infringes on Constitutional Rights. Humans aren't blind. Democracy was perceivable as obvious progress.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 14
@Berrylaff I'm suggesting that Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI both, were far more capable than credited and indeed, especially after so much close proximity with the Democratic ideas in America, could not help but to recognize and embrace the ideas themselves. They, with the REAL Parliament, were working on a Constitutional Monarchy. I believe that all of Europe would have eventually embraced the idea on their own and did not need Napoleon. The French people were betrayed and used by him.
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 23
@StarQualityWins I've read many of your comments with interest. I heard from one source that Napoleon's goal was to spread masonry; by the sword, albeit, but that was his purpose. Do you have an opinion on that?
countmein33 10 months ago
@countmein33 I've never heard of it. I do think historians have been too generous with their portrayal of Napoleon, as if he were righteously on a mission to do good. He got away with being a terror in the name of conquering for himself, simply by attesting to a bare bones "civil code" ripped off from The Declaration of Independence. His code simply stated that 'all humans are equal and have the right to live'. About 2% of what Americans were enforcing. He used it as a guise. But he was a tyrant
StarQualityWins 10 months ago 9
@StarQualityWins
"Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI both... with the REAL Parliament, were working on a Constitutional Monarchy."
Not true. Louis and Marie were like the Happy Prince in the Rudyard Kipling story. They lived their lives before 1789 insulated by their servants and ministers from the suffering beyond the gates of Versailles. They would have happily continued this way, blissfully ignorant in their dream world, to the end of their days, had the Revolution not occurred.
mosquitobight 4 months ago
@mosquitobight France would not have been one of the most powerful European Nations, one of the major seats of the Enlightenment which had begun several decades before 1789, nor would France have been capable of ensuring that the Americans won their Revolution, if your accusations were true. The fluff of junk propaganda and tabloid gluttony, gave birth to that false perception. The French "Revolution" needs to be the subject of expose.
StarQualityWins 4 months ago 2
@StarQualityWins
It's a testament to the natural strengths of France's position in the 18th century that she was able to be a major power and enlightenment beacon in spite of the crippling effects of the ancien regime. The reforms of the Revolution tapped such latent strengths and resources that Napoleon was able to briefly make France mistress of Europe, something that would have been quite impossible if France was still wearing the ancien regime's many straightjackets.
mosquitobight 4 months ago
@mosquitobight Agreed. the success of France philosophically and intellectually even before the crap hit the fan was not based on the monarchy's leadership, but other factors. It is hard to believe that the monarchy was as incompetent as they say, but the overall impotency of their rule may well have contributed to Enlightenment thinking in France.
Spurion 3 months ago
@StarQualityWins Oh yeah, because I'm totally supposed to believe the uncited opinions of some guy on YouTube over academic historians.
tenthousandsuns 3 months ago
@StarQualityWins I don't agree with you on the fact that the royal family weren't given a chance. I'm sorry but the King was warned. He just ignored every letter that he got about the bad economic situation and wasted his time eating and hunting. Marie Antoinette had the intelligence of a little girl. She couldn't even speak German.
Despite that I agree, 10 years were wasted because of la Terreur and Napoleon!
hoiiooiiooiiooiiooii 9 months ago
@hoiiooiiooiiooiiooii What letters are these? There were no letters. France knew of its financial state, which resulted from a recognizable investment that was scheduled to pay off. There was further land acquisition in the Louisiana Territories and a repayment schedule w/ the U.S. Treasury. The French Treasury was lowered solely because of the American Revolution, but it was a temporary state. The tabloids painted an aloof portrayal of Louis XVI that wasn't true. And Marie was very intelligent.
StarQualityWins 9 months ago 13
@StarQualityWins
Napoleon, a teenager in the ranks of the French military engineered the Revolution??? WELL HOW ABOUT THAT. Louis XVI ruled the country for 20 odd years and ruined the country, there is no conspiracy, the royals lavished ENORMOUS amounts of wealth on themselves with no thought of the people. You're arguing with your imagination and aristocratic fawning, not historical fact.
We saw Louis XVI's idea of Democracy when the commoners were locked out of the national assembly.
Tomohawwwk 8 months ago
@Tomohawwwk Your belief is based on a slanted view of things. Many variables have to be perceived a particular way in order to support your version of history. This is called a 'set up'. If you choose to call false accounts of history 'conspiracies', then there is definitely a conspiracy concealing the truth of what occurred in 1789 France. Missing chunks of information aren't explained. Where are the records of French negotiations and close relations with the USA that lasted from 1777-1789?
StarQualityWins 8 months ago 6
@StarQualityWins
I'm sorry but if you've ever studied the subject of history you'll know you can't argue off the back of conspiracy with absolutely no evidence to back it up as you are. This 'version' of history is the accepted history by the vast majority of people and historians. You can't fabricate such events in 1789.
France gained nothing from American independence but debt, your idea of Democratic inspiration is a fairytale. Any relations were on the subject of Britain in Canada.
Tomohawwwk 8 months ago
@Tomohawwwk I've fabricated nothing.
StarQualityWins 8 months ago
@StarQualityWins
It'd be nice if you presented a shred of evidence, otherwise yes you are lying and fabricating. Pathetic response.
Tomohawwwk 8 months ago
@Tomohawwwk Your an idiot.
Trollingwithmyhomies 7 months ago
@Trollingwithmyhomies
Here come's an expert?
Tomohawwwk 7 months ago
I don't know what really happened and what did not but watching this documentary I felt a serious deficit. In the starting parts there is so much about the economy and the economical state of france but as it reaches the later half they don't talk about economy anymore. Its all about bread isn't it? Did the people get that or not? Its all they were doing it for.
drayaz47 11 months ago
@marieantoinetteist they should have taxed the rich so that way the economy would go back to normal
hope1447 11 months ago
+well its safe to say revolutions are bloody
Mcleod0000 11 months ago
and i doubt they told people the Napoleonic version of the Revolution. You're right, tyrants lie, but after they die, their legacy dies along with them. The French HATED Napoleon, you don't need any "evidence" to figure that out for fucks sake. People don't like being oppressed, plain and simple. Im done arguing with you now, because i know you're just some retarded conspiracy theorist who believes anything he sees on the web without any reliable source or evidence. And stop liking your own post
elo333333333 11 months ago
@elo333333333 True stories passed down by those who didn't "sell out" to the hysteria, only support what I'm saying. Napoleon had the conspiracies, not the true story beneath. You're the type that believes what's been dictated to believe, not me. And how official documents become "unreliable sources" is peculiar. Believe it or not, I'm not the only one who agrees with me.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 3
@StarQualityWins PROOF, PROOF, PROOF. What official documents? from what year? define your definition of "selling out". Whatever your arguements are, you can't disprove the fact that people witnessed the executions firsthand. Its unrealistic that Napoleon could've seduced all of them. If i believed everything i read i would've bought in to your bullshit, just like 23 other people did. So don't even try to accuse me.
elo333333333 11 months ago
@elo333333333 What proof have you offered? You can look some of it up on wiki, although they favor Napoleon, and I already mentioned the "Freedom of Information Act" w/the US Government. America did not support Napoleon at all. There are journals, memoirs, it's out there, but apparently, it's not what you're looking for. There were no witnesses to any executions. Magazine articles claimed Louis was executed before a demanding mob. However, this whole thing was orchestrated with tabloid lies.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 3
@StarQualityWins The sad reality, is that once the people screwed up, passing France over to Robespierre, they had to deal with the consequences. When Napoleon emerged, Robespierre became the fall-guy, and those who would recognize the error, could blame him. Otherwise Napoleon covered for the people, and gave them credit for overthrowing the Monarchy; He did this to cover himself. At this point, those who participated in the riots had no choice but to believe and play along. He used the people.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 3
@StarQualityWins Ok...dude, im not trying to argue with you anymore. Im just saying that unless you can't give me a link to some sort of evidence to your claims, then i simply won't acknowledge them. And im not the only one who agrees with that either.
elo333333333 11 months ago
England was once ruled by monarchic and feudal system...how did these mofo achieve that transition to a fundamentally democratic republic without the violent upheaval of the French revolution, the chaos of which lead, not to democracy, but rather a military dictatorship in the form of Napoleon. Who held sway over the military seems critical in determining the outcome of any political upheaval. In America, the civilian control the military and the presidency is constrained by constitutional
Houseofthe7gayboys 1 year ago
@Houseofthe7gayboys limits. If I wanna be a dictator and supreme maximum leader of the Americans, what does history suggests as regards a blueprint to achieve this...suggestions welcomed.
Houseofthe7gayboys 1 year ago
@Houseofthe7gayboys In England the Kings were limited in their power by the nobles since centuries and so Kings had to give up more and more rights over the centuries. Because the first kings of England were French (Guillaume 1066), didn't speak any English and during the first centuries didn't live in England but in South-West of France, they had to give up rights to keep their Crown. Not the case in France where the movement was the opposite: King got more and more power over the centuries.
TheDGP17 1 year ago
@TheDGP17 Makes perfect sense, thanks for the insight my brother.
Houseofthe7gayboys 1 year ago
2:07 Pyramid.. Eye of Providence.. iIlluminati.. I knew those fuckers were behind it.
MrNePiS 1 year ago
@MrNePiS hahahahahahah
kojimapie 1 year ago
This documentary is oversimplified. I want to know where is Desmoulins, Saint-Just, Mirabeau, Lafayette, Fouché, Tallien, Collot d'Herbois, etc. What happened with August 10? And I really want to know when did Robespierre said about the dead penalty that "times change", because I can't find that in any of my books. Also, what about the others members of the CSP? And the CSG? I need to read the bibliography of this documentary. Surely that "A Tale of two Cities" and Wadja's "Danton" are there.
MilchundSchokolade13 1 year ago
The guy who jumped out the window was his brother
dominantgazelle 1 year ago
@dominantgazelle surely. Augustin Robespierre. I don't know why they didn't say that interesting fact :\
MilchundSchokolade13 1 year ago
Rospierre was always in league with Napoleon's "Army". He was the fall-guy. The true nature of their relationship is unclear. What truly happened as far as the violence and murder, isn't yet known. The dates of events leading to the removal of the Monarchy, are also unclear. In the chaos, Napoleon, the true leader of this event, could say whatever he wanted. Tyrants aren't good people. They're the types that burn childrens' toys in town square. How the majority of France viewed him, is unclear.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 2
@StarQualityWins dude, are you fucking retarded? Louis and Marie WERE executed. Theres so much historical evidence to prove that. Theres no chance in hell that Napoleon could have covered it up, the outside world was fully aware of what was happening in France at that time. What are you gonna say next? that the Holocaust is a hoax? don't make me fucking laugh. Instead of making up half-assed, assinine theories which make you sound like a moron, go and study what REALLY happened.
elo333333333 1 year ago
@elo333333333 Hitler was able to cover up the holocaust until he was arrested. Napoleon did attempt to cover up his loss to Haiti, known fact. I's say, Sir, that there's a lack of concrete evidence to prove that Napoleon did what he claimed to have done. There was too much choatic war plus lack of major media for the world to truly know what was happening in France, worse so even, than the world's ability to know what Hitler was truly about.
GirlTalkStation 11 months ago 4
@elo333333333 What makes you think Napoleon was so honest? Where is your documented proof? Recorded history in France went out the window after Robespierre chased the Monarchy out. After that, we had to take Napoleon's word for it. How is there a death certificate for Marie Antoinette in Austria in 1810? And her daughter lived longer than that, in the public eye? Napoleon was a liar. Face it.
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 5
@elo333333333 Marie Antoinette's daughter died in 1851 in Austria. From 1789 until 1851, there are varying versions of her life story; Some match up to what is purported by the Napoleonic version of History, and some that are entirely different, suggesting a normal life as a noble woman. The latter has far too much documented evidence to be denied. This alone is proof that Napoleon lied about his "capture" of the Royal family. Marie and daughter rejoined her family in Austria as did Louis & son
StarQualityWins 11 months ago 4
@StarQualityWins where the hell is your proof? you're just making up random stories out of your ass. I never said Napoleon was honest, buts theres no way he could've covered up an entire revolution unless America and Britian covered it with him. Hitler never denied the Holocaust, where'd you get that notion? He willingly admitted that Jews were being persecuted. He just covered up the extent of it. Don't you think the French would've abolished the Napoleonic version of history after he died?
elo333333333 11 months ago
@StarQualityWins and whats there to cover up? the French admit that they fucked up in the revolution, and that Napoleon came to power as a result of that. No solid evidence? look, people who were alive in that time period saw what really happened. Before Robespierre's Reign of Terror, Before Napoleon, and even before the Storming of the Bastille. They passed on their knowledge to their family's, relatives and peers who lived on after they did. Thats how we know History? use some common sense man
elo333333333 11 months ago
When the French Revolution led to war in 1793 between the United Kingdom (America's leading trading partner), and France (the old ally, with a treaty still in effect), Washington and his cabinet decided on a policy of neutrality. The Peace Treaty was one made and signed by Louis August XVI. The France of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette was "the old ally", not Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Louisiana territory was aquired by Louis. Washington was disturbed by the violence of the French Revolution.
StarQualityWins 1 year ago 3