Why do some reject the French Revolution?

Sep 2018
11
Spain
#1
Nowadays, it's easy to find people, specially on the Internet, who brag about being ''traditionalists'' and ''revolutionaries against the revolution'', believing in the archaic model of Monarchism and ''natural hierarchy''.

They think of the French Revolution as one of the most vile historical events ever. The same Revolution that brought up and spreaded (even if they were made ''lighter'' by Napoléon) the ideals of equality before the law, separation of church and state and overall the end of Feudalism. Yet some claim those aren't reasons for celebration.

Why is that? Why do some want to go back to the Ancien Régime at this point? I mean, I could understand from a historical and dialectical perspective how the ideas of the FR could find opposition during the 18th and 19th century (most notably in Spain with the Carlist Wars or during the Revolution itself with the War in the Vendée). But the counterrevolutionaries eventually lost, both in the battlefields and in the actual political discussions.

Are they just some individuals trying to look edgy by ''reviving'' anachronistic ways of thought, or is there something more complex beyond it?
 
Sep 2018
11
Spain
#3
Probably the mass slaughter and butchery for little purpose other than spite and cruelty.
Little purpose? The Nobility and the Clergy were clearly not going to give up their privileges without a fight. The aristocrats were parasites to the people and deserved their fate. I agree ''some'' innocent individuals died as a consequence, but it's a Revolution after all, and in all revolutions people die (duh!). But the end by far justified the means.
 
Likes: SgtSchultz

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,520
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#4
They probably don't realise they'd most probably be part of the third estate. Life can be somewhat less fun sometimes when you're part of the third estate.
 
Likes: Frog33inUK

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,801
#6
Little purpose? The Nobility and the Clergy were clearly not going to give up their privileges without a fight. The aristocrats were parasites to the people and deserved their fate. I agree ''some'' innocent individuals died as a consequence, but it's a Revolution after all, and in all revolutions people die (duh!). But the end by far justified the means.
Well the reforms before the revolution were pretty fundamental, much of the Nobility were often willing to give up much of their privileges without a fight, many of those advocating change were Nobles. Guilds were abolished before the revolution. There were concrete well supported proposals to introduce taxation that abolished Noble privilege that were highly likely to come if the revolution had not happened.
 
May 2017
850
France
#8
In fact,the biggest responsability of the Revolution is carried by Louis XIV.No reforms,bloody repression (Bretagne,Languedoc) monopole of the catholic church,war each year,and the must, an irresistible passion for the fastuous life:the price of the money, and the price of the life,hundreds of soldiers died for the construction of Versailles….
The responsability final is the negative answer of the aristocracy to the demands of crédits by Louis XVI.The financial problems of the king were enormous:war of America,way of life of the cour,and of course the interminable fantaisies of Marie Antoinette.
Today,the monarchism is a snobist attitude for people of the TV and cinema;perhaps because they don t know how their ancesters live.
 
Feb 2016
4,300
Japan
#9
Little purpose? The Nobility and the Clergy were clearly not going to give up their privileges without a fight. The aristocrats were parasites to the people and deserved their fate. I agree ''some'' innocent individuals died as a consequence, but it's a Revolution after all, and in all revolutions people die (duh!). But the end by far justified the means.
If they had only executed the nobility and clergymen who fought. You’d have a point. But they didn’t.
They slaughtered EVERYONE and everything. Mostly out of spite and vindictiveness. Noble women and children no threat. But fact is peasants and middle classes were butchered at a far higher rate... what was the end that was justified by this bloodshed?

The removal of monarchy... how long did that last before an Emperor held court again, bestowing titles and lands to aristocrats?
The revolution gained little, but led to catastrophic loss of life ....

Vendeean resistance cost 200 000 (minimum)
Guiloteening Folk 30 000.
Wars of Revolution 100 000 (military)
Napoleonic Wars 600 000 deaths (military.

And that doesn’t include the dead from other countries. So what did the revolution achieve that cost France alone at LEAST a million lives?
 
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
#10
If they had only executed the nobility and clergymen who fought. You’d have a point. But they didn’t.
They slaughtered EVERYONE and everything. Mostly out of spite and vindictiveness. Noble women and children no threat. But fact is peasants and middle classes were butchered at a far higher rate... what was the end that was justified by this bloodshed?

The removal of monarchy... how long did that last before an Emperor held court again, bestowing titles and lands to aristocrats?
The revolution gained little, but led to catastrophic loss of life ....

Vendeean resistance cost 200 000 (minimum)
Guiloteening Folk 30 000.
Wars of Revolution 100 000 (military)
Napoleonic Wars 600 000 deaths (military.

And that doesn’t include the dead from other countries. So what did the revolution achieve that cost France alone at LEAST a million lives?
A democratic republic that doesn't place neither the church nor an aristocratic class over the common man? A concept of human rights that's at the core of almost every republic, federation, or democracy in the developed and developing world?

Granted, it took about three republics and two empires to get there, but France as is now in terms of political stability and quality of life is worlds apart from pre-Revolutionary France.