Marie Antoinette Online Forum

the french revolution
Page 1 of 5

Author:  CrY [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  the french revolution

What do you think about the french revolution? Is it good or not?
Give your opinion!

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

For long, I hoped for a revolution, nowadays. Now, having compared french to russian revolutions, I do not any longer ! It's all with blood and slaughter.

I live in Belgium. In my country, decisions are made quietly. Surely, communities will soon separate, like in Yugoslavia. There's nothing to fight about, no need for wr nor blood. Changes may be done without bloodshed.

Author:  CrY [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

We have not to be afraid of the revolutions but of the revolutionaries!!

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

I hope you're right, dear CrY. But no "quiet" revolution occurs to my mind... do you have an example ?

Author:  CrY [ Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, an example is Gandhi: for me Gandhi has been a revolutionary but he didn't use any weapons and he has changed the indian society...revolution means changement , to overturn not blood. The revolutionaries adopt tha weapons! Isn't ??

Author:  Pimprenelle [ Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks, CrY ! Yes, there's Ghandi... and a light of hope... !

Author:  CrY [ Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

The meaning of the concept "revolution" has not a negative aspect: it means changement not blood! The negative aspect, indeed, grow up when we know why revolution has grew up, for an unjustice. If a revolution comes out is because there is an social unjustice and it is right to fight it.
You imagine if Marie Antoinette didn't die on the scaffold but he died naturally!! We won't have our devotion to her!
We can't make the process to the people which really died of hungry!!!!
It's my opinion! :D

Author:  Raquel [ Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Although this is an old topic, I like it and will put my two cents in.

Hindsight really means nothing. You can apply the rules of society today to whatever happened in the past and you can gawk and scratch you heads over how people were; it doesn't mean that the turnout should be any different.

You all are forgetting some important details from your analysis of the French Revolution: the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment had swept all over Europe, and wherever there was a European presence.

Three of the main thinkers of that time came from France: Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rosseau. The others being Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke.

Excluding Thomas Hobbes, their thoughts all combined equaled this: freedom of speech; everyone has natural rights; the government exists to protect the natural rights of it's citizens; if the government does not protect their natural rights then the people have the right to revolt, or over throw that government; the best government is a limited monarchy; people are naturally good (but society corrupts them); to protect the government from becoming corrupt the three systems of government (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative) should be separated, and should "check" each other; people ought to govern people, and everyone is equal.

Thomas Hobbes on the other hand thought that people were inherently bad, and if they were to govern themselves that all hell would break loose, and that in order to avoid that they formed a social contract with their government, trading some of their freedoms for an orderly society.
He believed that the best government for people, who were naturally brutish, was an absolute monarchy.

Although, all of these thinkers were dead by 1778 their ideas and words were remembered(except Thomas Hobbes) by the people of Europe.

In America they took the teachings of, of course, basically everyone but Thomas Hobbes, and based the Constitution and the Government off of these Enlightenment teachings.

And, as far as I was taught in school, the French Revolution was sparked by the American Revolution. And America went so far as to supporting the French, up until it became utterly bloody. Then they changed their minds.

But anyways, so think about what an impact this had on the Europeans: we don't have to accept our government as it is? We can REVOLT? We SHOULD revolt? Imean this was a sensational concept that was used all the way through the French Revolution.

What's funny to me is that they went off the concepts of Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rosseau, and then ended up becoming like the maniacs described by Hobbes. So, in the end who was right?

Just something to ponder when remembering the French Revolution.

Author:  CrY [ Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

Raquel...I don't want to became unpleasant but I have put a SIMPLE question only to see what people think abour french revolution. then I don't speak english very well..Adrienne helps me in the polls so I prefer talking simply!
I hope you can appreciate also this simple polls..

Author:  Louis-Antoinette [ Wed May 31, 2006 8:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

There never should be excuse for a bloodshed.

Author:  severina [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

hello everyone, i do think the revolution was inevitable (the shortage of grain, war, debt etc) BUT what i don't understand is how vicious the mob became, the reign of terror etc.

the way princess de lamballe was murdered just goes beyond all reasonable thought. the hatred shown during this revolution is just the worst case i have ever seen bar other more recent events eg the holocaust.

if anyone can enlighten me on the 'attitude' of the mob i'd be most interested.

bye bye for now.

Author:  Therese [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

The "mob" was deliberately stirred up from years of propaganda and especially pornographic pamphlets about the queen. Orleans also paid "rabble-rousers" to get the crowd enraged. Also, once the war started, and people had family members fighting the Austrians, they were enraged against anyone they thought was an "enemy" of France. Much of the grain shortage, BTW, was orchestrated on purpose by speculators who bought up the grain supply on purpose to keep it from the people of Paris. Some historians think the Duc d'Orleans was also involved in this.....

Author:  severina [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

yes but they seemed so fickle as to attach ALL the country's ills on one person but then they didn't have the kind of media we do now with every piece of information at our fingertips and the freedom to make up our own minds i suppose!

Author:  Therese [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree, but she was the obvious target and scapegoat, being a beautiful woman with rumors swirling around her, and a foreigner. It was a deliberate process of dehumanization. Simon Schama goes into details in his book "Citizens." A similar thing happened to Empress Alexandra in Russia....

Author:  Christophe [ Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:32 am ]
Post subject:  Revolution

The French Revolution was most definitely not a "good" event in human history. In fact, it was an utter failure in achieving any of its ambitions, and at the cost of many thousands of innocent lives. It began supposedly with the aim of bringing democracy to France, and yet after a decade of bloodshed and warfare, the revolution ended with???
Another monarchy!
In retrospect, if one delves into the aftermath of the Revolution both in France and throughout Europe, it caused much harm and brought little good to anyone, except perhaps Napoleon. Ironically, the French had more freedom and economic stability under the Bourbons than either during the Revolution or for many years after it. No, this excercise in political and social reform was a miserable failure.

Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group