The History Channel: Pint Size History - French Revolution

[pritzi101]

Roussaeu was swiss, just saying.

[cultofmao]

Well spoken Citizen.

[StarQualityWins]

Louis XVI never declared war on Austria! Marie was expecting Austria to follow suit in embracing Democracy. Robespierre and a 20-year-old yet fiercely ambitious Napoleon, brainwashed the poor into believing that it was they who would make Constitutional changes akin to America, when in fact it was Louis and Marie who were doing so. Without utilizing the poor like an army in riots, swaying their beliefs whole-heartedly, Austria would have aided France, Making Napoleon's internal seige impossible.

[StarQualityWins]

The French "Revolution" was truly a revolt lead by mere men that betrayed France: Robespierre, Marat, Lafayette, Napoleon. They used the people to take France over. The work toward Consitutional Monarchy was already under way at the hand of the Sovereign. The Renegades incited all riots with tabloid lies and drawn out speeches preaching lack of hope. These renegades called themselves "Revolutionaries" and stole the Constitution from Louis XVI and all of his work resulting from America's victory.

[Perversus666]

@StarQualityWins You must be joking. There never was any plan for a constitutional monarchy before the riots started. The only aim of the french help in America was to counterbalance the loss of Canada and to weaken Great Britain. The concessions made by the monarchy during the Revolution were felt like an insult by the royal family. Louis XVI declared war on Austria in order to bring back absolutism. He hoped his own army would be crushed. THIS is betrayal.

[StarQualityWins]

@Perversus666 You're wrong. Constitutional Monarchy was the obvious direction after 12 years of working closely w/America. France went broke helping the Americans and wouldn't have risked this merely to piss off Britian! France owned the Louisiana Territories which were mapped as part of America, for France was going to abide by Constitutional Law sans slavery, in America. After the Battle of Yorktown, Jefferson proclaimed that Americans had 2 countries: USA and France.

[Perversus666]

@StarQualityWins Okay, so if the king really intended to make a constitutionnal monarchy, why didn't listen to the deputies he convoked in 1789 ??? He locked them outside the parliament, so they couldn't express their doleances. That's why they ran to the "jeu de paume" (kind of tennis court) and swore to build a constitution for France.The King had nothing to do with it's writing and accepted it only not to see full-armed peasants running through Versailles (like it happened later...).

[StarQualityWins]

@Perversus666 The Third Estate General Assembly was scheduled to occur. It was traditionally held as a "town hall" meeting with the people themselves present to voice their concerns and hear future plans and news. It was meant to help the decision making process. Robespierre and co. were about 12 people, not 500, and they elected themselves "National Assembly" stating that they would speak for the people. This means that they, and not the people, were the Third Estate, thus blocking the public.

[alanheath]

@Perversus666 Therefore getting involved with the revolt in the American colonies was an error. Of course France wanted revenge for the loss of the Seven Years War. Better not to get involved in overseas adventures and instead do something about the people at home to relieve their poverty.

[olivierjaquet]

@StarQualityWins Napoleon betrayed France ?? NO

[alanheath]

@StarQualityWins I think you are judging this too much by modern standards. The idea that a constitutional monarchy could come about by a revolution was unthought of in 1789 - in my opinion.

There are so many similarities between the French and Russian revolutions - how the revolutions were usurped by dictators. Robespierre - Stalin, Murat - Lenin, Trostsky - Danton.

[abitdodgie]

Everyone is born into slavery until you take back your freedom by filing a ucc-1 form and then and only then do you become a free man of the land exempt form all law except common law , exempt from taxes , and above all you really own what you think you own now.

[sparax88]

Interesting short synopsis of the French Revolution. It's also interesting how the ideas that fueled the French and American Revolutions still influence many nations throughout the world today.

[Unit06JAW]

wonderful video, thank you

[TheRealMichaelBaer]

"Respect the burden." -- Napoleon Bonaparte

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

-Denis Diderot

[DrCruel]

Napoleon also disposed of the old French revolutionaries in a coup, and disposed of even the farce of an elective process.

If an enlighteded despotry was the ultimate purpose of the French revolution, why bother with all the mass killings - most of the victims being peasants? Why not a simple coup - the process of leadership change popular in France for centuries? Instead the French would have to wait until the fall of Napoleon III before a republic could be formed - and a weak one at that.

[homeworkupload]

1. Napoleon used the "farce of an elective process" to be voted as an Emperor.

2. Look up Marat and Robespierre to answer your questions.

3. Enlightenment ideas branched off from Greek philosophies. Understand the Greek then you'll understand why they didn't simply just "coup"..

[DrCruel]

1. ...to legitimize his seizure of power. He only allowed an election once he was secure of winning one.

2. Marat and Robespierre were both homicidal maniacs. In practice, they were self-serving petty despots.

3. There's little continuity between Greek philosophy and the mass killings of the Reign of Terror, save some of Aristotle's warnings about tyrants. Or perhaps there is a missing "hidden chapter" to Plato's Republic that I've missed out on.

[stevenadler]

cheers mate, really great vid

[DrCruel]

Not at all - as there was a saner "rebellion" in the American colonies, one that did not involve killing a monarch or mass murder of thet colonial population. And indeed even that was unfortunate, as having a government more like Canada would not be so terrible in the US, and would likely have saved the Indians too.

The French revolutionaries can take credit for some things - socialist totalitarianism in the 20th century being their most lasting legacy. Democracy is not one of them.

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel sane no lame!

a real revolution shakes society to the bone! off with their heads!

[johnmichaelbaloch]

Well, As far as I can tell , the biggest causes of French revolution or readical movements were Western Philosophy ( Enlightment) and extra expenditure. The Prince Louis 16th had no leadership skills and qualities , he just got married with austrain young lady and always thought about food. In other words he totally ignored french people. Its really scared to say that, French Revolution born under Bloodshed and huge lost of human lives in European History.

[glazinq]

Wow, the conditions leading up to the French Revolution (corruption, nepotism, overspending, massive government debt, enormous expenditure on lost wars etc), reminds me of the situation in a certain country right now.

[Sh0nin]

Yeah, but you're forgetting the main ingredient, which is famine, which certainly isn't a problem in that country we're both thinking of. People were hungry and pissed off, but as long as people can remain fat they tend to be pretty selfish and complacent with what they have. As much as they could use a revolution I don't think they'll get it.

[glazinq]

You're quite right...as long as the sheep are fed they won't try to break out of their pen...

[DrCruel]

The French Revolution didn't bring democracy to France - it led to despotry and chaos, and eventually to an empire, almost perpetual war, and an eventual humiliating national defeat.

The collapse of Napoleon III's government led to a democracy in France, well after 1870. The French Revolution itself, 80 years before, was a national disaster and a tragedy for France.

[MaxRWF]

The Revolution did bring democracy, but the struggle between French patriots and French royalists + European monarchies led the governement to despostism. When a civil war and an international war occured in the same time, you need a strong governement. The perpetual war was caused by the warmongering kings of Europe who were afraid to lose their autocratic power. Napoléon didnt declare a single war, he just defended France and exported the ideals of Liberty. he may have lost but the ideals won

[DrCruel]

No, the government was run by despots from the start. Clearly mass killings of French civilians was not necessary for the defense of France, as Napoleon accomplished the task quite well enough without resorting to such actions.

In fact, if Napoleon disposed of any group, it was the revolutionaries. It was they who had broken the power of France, and only when their hold over power was broken did France begin to recover its former affluence and prestige.

[MaxRWF]

No, France was a constitutionnal monarchy from 1789 to 1791. Then the other european monarchies threatned France and Louis XVI betrayed the French, like those monarchists who opened the ports of France for the British navy. Betraying his country in wartime=deserving death. In 1798, France was a democratic Republic and Napoléon defended it against the warmongering kings. The mass killing responsibility goes to Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia. Napoléon didn't declared war, he just won them.

[DrCruel]

The AUstrians did not guillotine common French people in the thousands so as to spread mass terror. The British were not the ones to ruthlessly crush the Vendee. The Prussians were not the ones in France who were massacreing priests.

Robespierre and his ilk were mass killers. They did not serve the interests of France, but rather their own sick and twisted taste for power over others. The French Revolution was a terrible, miserable tragedy - and certainly not anything worth celebrating,

[MaxRWF]

France had a democratic régime from 1789 to 1792 and from 1794 to 1799.

The terror last only 2 years and can be explained by the civil war occuring between monarchists and patriots while Prussia and Austria were trying to invade France.

The French Revolution change the world for better : without it you'd be an uneducated peasant owned by aristocrats... Well, that's probably what you are... lol

[MrRedJackdaw]

Lulz if a teacher scrolls down to read that comment.

[dontrunjustd1e]

this video is fucking bullshit! i hate this and i think that this guys should just drink that fucking pint!

you know who you guys are!

[JcikeN]

think if the king and queen moved to austria earlier across the border, the history will be totally different. yet they are too pleasant and is indifferent with the signs of revolution like hunger and poverty.

[Frogstomp121]

They were very young when they were given power, in their late teens or early twenties. I can't remember. The system of aristocracy was so formal and out of touch with the common people that it needed to be changed.

The King and Queen however did not deserve the fates they were given. The people were just as naive and ignorant.

[hfoejgejperf]

mmm its debatable, I guess if you have been living the very poor conditions, you have no money and you are starving to death, you become fed up with the current system and you dont really care who who dies as long as something happens. To the peasants killing the king and queen probably provided relief and a sense of accomplishment. I think it symbolised a 'new turn' for the people too, so I dont really think you can call them naive and ignorant unless you experienced the conditions yourself.

[Frogstomp121]

Do you want your friends or loved ones to die because the people are "fed up"?

[hfoejgejperf]

"fed up" as in living in horrible conditions, living in a famine with no money?Chances are your friends and family are already close to death and I'm sure a considerable amount of these people would already be dead. Clearly you don't understand the situation and you need to research the matter before making less than intelligent comments.And by the way, I'm not saying there actions were warranted, but I can hardly blame them, people don't start a revolution because their glass of milk spilt over

[Frogstomp121]

I know what the people of France went through, and telling me how dumb I am doesn't actually make you any smarter, trust me.

Next time you're king and I can't find anything to eat, I'll remember these words. Apparently then I will have justified reasons to put you under the guillotine and verbally and psycologically harass you and your family. Or is this situation only alright so long as it's not you in that position?

[hfoejgejperf]

Look douchebag, if I were king I wouldnt consistently send my country into wars which we couldnt win, and by doing this costing my country billions of dollars, unlike the French who almost spent their entire economic balance on wars.The French were now not able to provide for its people. The role of any head of state is to provide and protect its people. This obviously lacked in France and the people had had enough. They didn't do their duty as head of the state and were punished accordingly.

[Frogstomp121]

I am not defending the system. It was wrong. I am defending two people who were both very young and who made mistakes. I am defending two people who had their character and integrity attacked and brutalized by people who were in no frame of mind to listen to unbiased reason. Once again and without avoiding me, how would you like to have your friends heads paraded on pikes in front of your window, or have your character attacked from people who don't know you?

[Frogstomp121]

And is it at all possible to answer me while leaving out the high school comebacks, or do you always get defensive and belligerent when someone disagrees with you?

[burdenuponsociety]

Anyways, it was the King and Queen's fault the people were in conditions such as that. Doesn't matter if they were young or not. You play King, you'd better be willing to pay the price if you fuck up. Louis fucked up hard.

First off, I'm French, so I understand this shit better than you. Why else would we celebrate Bastille Day? The King and Queen's overthrow was a blessing, and personally, most of us Frenchmen don't give a shit what you think.

[Frogstomp121]

In America they celebrate Columbus Day, not taking into consideration the fact that he enslaved and massaced the indigenous peoples of the Latin American and the Caribbean islands, taking away their gold, silver, and other raw materials so greedy Europeans could prosper at the expense and lives of others. Anyways, you're right. They made mistakes, being forced into a role they were not comfortable with and being too young to take on such enormous responsibility. They didn't deserve to die for it

[burdenuponsociety]

To be honest, if you were in the shoes of the French people, you'd be pretty pissed off too. Louis the 14th was an idiot who dragged France into countless pointless wars that didn't benefit France at all. He allowed the church to have total control of the Finances of the people through taxation, while he and the rest of the nobles lived happily and peacefully. They didn't deserve to be killed, but they do deserve to be called idiots who dug their own grave.

[hfoejgejperf]

look Ive had enough of you, you clearly have no idea why the people revolted, to bad if they are young, life isn't fair, they didnt complete their duty of care as the ruling monarch and got just actions

[Frogstomp121]

The people revolted because they were dirt poor, hungry, and couldn't get anyone to listen to them. You have no trouble seeing one side of the picture but you ignore the rest. The king and queen were kids when they were forced onto the throne, and neither had the personality to handle it. They didn't sign up for the job. Also the situation was bad before they assumed the throne. Emotional people have no time for rational or reasoning. Those are the same kind who lynched Fersen.

[burdenuponsociety]

Yes, the people of France shouldn't have killed the King and Queen, but the Revolution was necessary (in my opinion) to bring democracy and peace to France. hfoejgejperf is right in some ways, just because you're young doesn't mean you can drag thousands of people into wars they don't care about, let half of them die, and not have any negative consequences. I don't believe in the death penalty, but other than their executions, the King and Queen got what they deserve.

[Dean0000007]

They had to kill the King and Queen, foriegn armies were marching toward France to rescue them.

[DrCruel]

Robespierre and his goons could have simply released the king and queen. They could also, being so-called "democrats", have held an election to choose new leaders rather than impose their dictatorial leadership through terror and mass killings.

But then, they would not thusly have been able to appoint themselves as the new absolute monarchs of France - which, apparently, was their intention all along.

The revolutionaries were a disaster for France. Nothing good came of it.

[Dean0000007]

France changed the world with their revolution. It changed living standards in most of Europe. I'm sure many monarchs, lords, and dukes where wondering..... are we next? Maybe we should stop impoverishing the people?

[DrCruel]

It was actually technological innovation, capitalism and consumerism that changed the world for the better. Instead, the French Revolution would lead to secular despotries, and ultimately to the totalitarian Leftist regimes of the Nazis, Bolsheviks and Maoists.

The French Revolution certainly did "change" living standards in France - mainly by impoverishing the country. It would take EMperor Napoleon over ten years to unscrew the mess the Jacobins made of the country.

[Dean0000007]

Actually your mistaken about the Nazis, they started out being the "workers" party then turned to corporation and business for funding and cooperation.

Communism sure is hurting the Chinese right now, all that innovatiion, capitalism, and consumerism sure has gotten the US into a good fix at the moment.

That's alright though alot of right winger capitalists don't understand how things went so terribly wrong with a big tax break to the rich under bush, and a hands off business approach.

[DrCruel]

The form of Leftist socialist fascism pioneered by the Nazis is what the Maoists of the PRC have adopted. And yes, it is quite an efficient system - if enslaving the proletariat and using them as a cash cow for the Party elite is the ultimate goal of Marxism. Certainly the Nazi version of collectivist socialism is superior in efficiency to Bolshevism, and generates comparable living standards for the population so afflicted.

[DrCruel]

As for "what went wrong" about massive government spending, a steady deterioration of the economic base (especially in regards manufacturing), and subsequent declines in tax revenues, that's an easy one. Manipulation of the housing market by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and deregulation of the banking industry by the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations (including the repeal of Glass-Steagall), as well as machinations by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, didn't help matters either.

[Dean0000007]

Do you work at Goldman Sacs??? LOL

If I was to grade your reply you get 10%.

If you think for a minute that banks and corporations themselves don't design legislation due to corporate lobbyists in Washington you're way off base. Corruption belongs to both private industry and government. Corruption in every aspect of corporate business and government is the problem. Illegal immigration, unchecked manipulation of market, accounting practice of the banks along with derivative trading.

[DrCruel]

You can grade me any way you like. The facts remain as they are.

Illegal immigration isn't the problem, but the welfare industry that exploits them is. Market speculation isn't the problem, but state-sanctioned speculation by quasi-private/public firms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is.

Government corruption is indeed a problem - much of it driven by the Left. Industry isn't the problem, but its decline in the US is.

Mockery won't change these facts. So "lol" all you like.

[Dean0000007]

So reading your comment I'm assuming that you think unemployment is not a problem, otherwise you would see that adding millions of illegal workers to the workforce would be a problem. The problem with illegals is that somehow they think they are "entitled" to work in a country other than their own. That kind of logic is the type of entitlement that the 1% have owning more than the bottom 95%, then people wonder why people borrow so much money to make ends meet. The capitals clogged at the top

[DrCruel]

Immigrants here illegally so that they can add to our GDP is not a problem. What is a problem, and a big one, is a welfare bureaucracy that has turned a hard-working labour force into an increasingly dependant drain on the national economy. It's this bureaucracy that entices people to come to the US illegally - not to work, but to get onto the welfare rosters.

Remember, of course, that the overwhelming majority of money assigned to the welfare bureaucracy goes to payroll and pensions...

[Dean0000007]

Wow are you misinformed. Illegal immigrants flood to sanctuary cities to get licences and then aquire other forms of ID so they can get on welfare, and can get more than 1 claim going. They're also a drain on the health system. You so called increase in GDP, is the problem in the economy because they only make beds and pick potatoes. The real GDP in the US is from derivatives, payday loans, and other unproductive services. It's little wonder we're in this mess people share your view.

[DrCruel]

Actually I'm quite well informed, and know that this sort of argument against immigrants has been used in the past. The fact is that we are a country of immigrants - that clearly isn't our problem.

If there were no welfare system, there would be nothing to exploit. And I might add, that the worst exploiters of the system are not the people that are meant to be served by it (and frequently aren't) but rather the people who run it.

Your personal insults don't change the facts.

[Dean0000007]

Tea parties are a bit confused....

They protest in Washington whereas they should be on Wallstreet where the real decisions are made politically and economically.  The citizens lost their influence on government a long time ago. Put the fear of God into bankers and monopolies that rule government, that is when real change will occur.

Government simply institutes what the lobbyists want.

Lobbying needs to be made a felony, minimum 10 year sentence due to national interests and security.

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel Robespierre was the shit

i would have helped him bathe those streets in blood i do beleive i did

i think i was there with the incorruptable

if you want to make an omelet you have to beak eggs they had to defend themselves from rectionaries who literally were crucifying republicans

[DrCruel]

The problem being that, at some point, once you've gotten rid of the idea of law and order you end up with your own head on the block. And an ungovernable mess thereafter.

There's much to be said for the idea that the Duvaliers of Haiti were the ideological descendants of the "Mountain" and Robespierre's style of governance. They also were keen to decapitate their political opponents, and for similar reasons.

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel in the early 1800s

France was really not ready for real democracy the majority was iliterate

it did however benifit from "democratic" principles.

[DrCruel]

People are always rady to have their opinions heard. They never are ready to have their heads lopped off for political dissent.

Readiness is hardly the issue here.

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel Napoleon's own opinion of his career is best stated in the following quotation:

I closed the gulf of anarchy and brought order out of chaos. I rewarded merit regardless of birth or wealth, wherever I found it. I abolished feudalism and restored equality to all regardless of religion and before the law. I fought the decrepit monarchies of the Old Regime because the alternative was the destruction of all this. I purified the Revolution.

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel Even though the Napoleonic code was not the first legal code to be established in a European country with a civil legal system ,  it is considered the first successful codification[citation needed] and strongly influenced the law of many other countries. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing the rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which have influenced the whole world

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel He stated that, "I will never accept any proposals that will obligate the Jewish people to leave France, because to me the Jews are the same as any other citizen in our country. It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them."He was seen as so favourable to the Jews that the Russian Orthodox Church formally condemned him as "Antichrist and the Enemy of God

Nap was da sh*t AND the French created

the modern world hats off to the frenchies

[archiebunkerville]

@archiebunkerville Napoleon emancipated Jews from laws which restricted them to ghettos, and expanded their rights to property, worship, and careers. Despite the anti-semitic reaction to Napoleon's policies from foreign governments and within France, he believed emancipation would benefit France by attracting Jews to the country given the restrictions they faced elsewhere.

[archiebunkerville]

@DrCruel The Napoleonic Code — or Code Napoléon (originally, the Code civil des Français) — is the French civil code, established under Napoléon I in 1804. The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified. It was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on March 21, 1804.

[gimlithepimp88]

sweet thanks

[LobsterHammerFoot]

French Revolution and Chinese Revolution of 1960... the Chinese had a better one I say. Loss of life same. too bad Napoleon had to ruin the french revoltuion.

[mazhas08]

Really thanks,

I prefer to watch a video than read. :)

[cutively]

it has a lot of information, but the part of being in a bar, that does not goes with what he is explaining. He could've been in Versailles, and he could explain more and more.

[lahire081]

"Men born and remain free and equal in rights"

France - 1789

[Fridomfry]

The French and the American insurgents won the war against England. Later, the US esteem for France was diminished by events which we ignore completely in France, like the "XYZ affair" (another dirty scheme of the corrupt Directoire, which nearly got into a naval war against the US!). And Napoleon III's intervention in Mexico, then his disastrous war against Prussia.

[Fridomfry]

France did not gain only "200 years of American insults", but also American volunteers in 1914, then a massive and very welcome US intervention in 1918. They let us down in the 1930s, but still we were glad to see them arrive in 1944, along with the British and the Free French.

[glory2win]

the french revalution wouldnt of happend if the bastile guards ressited the crowds and if the guards never backed up the people. and the king was stupid enough to try and tun away from the people to austria this made him a caward the the fench people.

[TobiramaSenju]

Louis 16 was a coward

[gia27]

Louis XVI was not a coward. He was indecisive and faced with a situation far beyond his control and experience.

[BloodyMasque]

Thanks for the information.

[alifshinobi]

Thank you.

[castroherman]

Oi!! Nice job, if I could have conversations like that at the pub I'd have a great excuse for drinking more often! Cheers!

[Fridomfry]

The main cause of the French state's financial crisis was the war to support American independance against England — not exactly a lost war!

This crisis couldn't be solved, because Louis 16 was a weak man — a nice, big, sporty boy who came ***th in the succession to the throne, and had not been educated to be a king. He had sound ideas about reforms, but was unable fo force them upon the privileged. His wife was a brainless fashion victim. The only thing they did right was to die with courage.

[sdotkip]

But you can't say that the French 'won' the war of American independence! What did they get for all their help? 200 years of American insults, and not a lot else. Britain wasn't really weakened by the loss of the American colonies, as France had hoped. Britain got to enjoy all the benefits of trade, but with none of the burden of defence, so you could even argue she gained from US independence.

[333amigops]

Why does he say "God forbid" in the Beginning?

[jorgejmejia]

well said.

[matteo263]

Nice Information Thank You

[matteo263]

Nice Information Thank You