Why do some reject the French Revolution?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
You suggest he execute large numbers of people to enforce absolute rule. Would that have gone over well with the powers that installed him? This is what was done by the Jacobins, and within a few years they were also all guillotined. It might have worked, but constituttional monarchy was a more prudent course, and that might have lasted if his successors had followed the same approach.

There wasn't a clear legitimate government at that point, which is why there were multiple monarchies and republics. It was a difficult situation for Louis XVIII, but his approach was probably the best under the circumstances.
Exactly... that´s what I say... Executions supported by the French legitimism and the Russian-Prussian-Austrian Bayonets.... why not? They were the winners.. they ruled!!! But I think Louis XVIII was too much "soft" to be a champion in the Absolutism Cause... He was not our Charles V!!! the Champion of Absolutism!!!

I agree with you about he decided by the more prudent course..intelligence or cowardice? We will never know
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
This is so ridiculous. You are comparing rulers and state of societies from different eras. This shows historical ignorance. Charles V, really ? Don't make me laugh.

Nicholas II inherited problems from Alexander III. They were not resolved and possibility of Revolution became more real. Which is why situation exploded in 1905. First Russian Revolution begun. Romanovs of 19th century didn't resolve problems that Russia struggled with and became more and more serious as time passed. That's why there were attempts at liberal reforms during Alexander I and why there were series of reforms during Alexander II. However, they weren't implemented that well.

Absolutism would never return to France after 1789. No matter how brutal possible King would be in trying to make it happen. Revolution won and changed French society. Can't even believe things like that need explaining.
Not at all... Russia was a post feudal society and china was a feudal society..in fact... Kazan in 1914 was more feudalism than Paris in 1788....
Alexander III died on his bed.. because he was hard... not at his father or his son.... Alexander II and Nicholas II were too much soft.. too much good people...and they were killed because they were nice...Nor Alexander III nor Stalin I nor Ivan Grozný nor Peter I were killed... they were too much feared to be killed!

Revolution didn´t win... I am sure you never study the military campaigns in 1814 and 1815. the ABSOLUTISM WON THE WAR,, so easy and so simple...and the winner imposes its conditions ... it is easy to be understood...

France today it is not matched to 1789 but to Third Republic. Revolution didn´t win

To refresh your memory



Yes, AUSTRIAN-PRUSSIAN-RUSSIANS in Paris! and French Legitism!!! So... can you prove the revolution won the War? The Revolution was crushed, annihilated... but Louis XVIII didn´t want to clean the kingdom! he was not a Charles V or an Alexander III.

And yes, my noble and red friend... Charles V was a Champion of Absolutism! The symbol of legitimism. yOu can laught what you want.. but Charles V was a symbol of the legitism and the defense of the Altar and the Throne...

For your enlightenment...-CHARLES´V soldiers!



So. yes you are wrong... Louis XVIII was not a Charles V!!! he was not a real hero of absolutism ... of the heroic defense of the Altar and the Throne. Charles V and Alexander III YES.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,702
Absolutism had to be defeated. And it was eventually. In the mean time the world after the French Revolution was different from the world before it. So much so that already the first generation after it tended to struggle to even understand how the Ancien régime used to work.
 
Likes: Gvelion

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
Absolutism had to be defeated. And it was eventually. In the mean time the world after the French Revolution was differentL from the world before it. So much so that already the first generation after it tended to struggle to even understand how the Ancien régime used to work.
Dear Larrey,

Why did absolutism have to be defeated? Maybe is It because you think the Revolutionary people were thougher and courage than the defenders o Altar and Throne?

Not absolutism hadn´t to be defeated.. it was defeated because evolution under the Industrial Revolution.... still. the the heroes of the white cause (Altar and Throne) ... the admired defenders of absolutism won the war in 1939... as in Hungary, Poland, Finland etc.... Still, 2018, they are people defend the absolutism in Spain (and in other European countries I guess)... in any case.. the Absolutism DIDN´T LOST the war.. they Won in 1814 and 1815... they won in 1820, 1830....
Absolutism was not defeated in War (save in Russia in 1917-1922)... I think it was a combination between Industrial Revolution and Soft kings! but not because 1789...Stiil Saudi Arabia and lot of arab countries are the union between the King and the Altar!!

So.. Not Mr Larrey... the French REvolutionary weren´t God... it was only question to kill them all... they were bourgeois minority...Don´t you think So?
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,183
Sydney
The French Revolution and its bastard child the Empire ,had shattered absolutism beyond repair .
Europe was not going back ,
Germany did not return to pre-conquest political situation
the Holy Roman Empire was dead and buried .
Russia was the exception but even there the shock waves were felt
Louis XVIII would probably have wanted to return to "the good old days " but that was impossible
he granted a charter for a representative government
this would be the form for the continent henceforth
France was racked by republican insurrections for the rest of the century , 1848 saw revolutions through Europe
times had changed
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,621
Yes, there are a few absolute monarchies left in Arabia, which are somewhat similar to 17th century Spain, France, and Russia with close ties of religion to the state.

Even in earlier times, there were some countries which were never absolute monarchies, where the aristocracy always had power, such as England and even Iran and Afghanistan with warlords or whatever. Also, the HRE, and republics such as Venice and Poland.

The problem is the theocratic absolute monarchies work in medieval societies, but not modern ones with manufacturing, a large educated middle class etc. That is why in the 19th and 20th centuries there were mostly constitutional monarchies, elected governments, and dictatorships.

As you know, you are one of my favorite posters, but sometimes you seem like Don Quixote thinking it is still the middle ages. You also remind me of the joke, "how many Virginians does it take to change a light bulb", "four, one to change it and three to sit around talking about how great the old lightbulb was".
 
Likes: Gvelion
Nov 2010
1,251
Bordeaux
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?
There is probably some nostalgia involved for some people, some rejection of the democratic or parliamentary system, or of the modern progressive values and secularism.

While one could claim that counter-revolutionaries eventually lost, they haven't necessarilly disappeared.

Some right-wing traditionnalist monarchist factions have been re-emerging in France since the 90s : the Camelots du Roi or Action Française for example.

Their common characteristic is the hatred of parliamentary institutions, liberal values, secularism and socialism in general.

Consequently, some of them are nostalfic of people such as Pétain, Franco, Mussolini etc, and of their regimes.
 
Likes: Gvelion

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,702
There is probably some nostalgia involved for some people, some rejection of the democratic or parliamentary system, or of the modern progressive values and secularism.

While one could claim that counter-revolutionaries eventually lost, they haven't necessarilly disappeared.

Some right-wing traditionnalist monarchist factions have been re-emerging in France since the 90s : the Camelots du Roi or Action Française for example.

Their common characteristic is the hatred of parliamentary institutions, liberal values, secularism and socialism in general.
That's of course all true. In fact, drumming up nostalgia for what is most of all an imaginary past is actually simplified by the fact that all modern societies have all been so thoroughly remade so as to remove all trace of the former societies. They are free to make stuff up about how good it all was because there's nothing remaining from the actual historic situations.
 
Likes: Gvelion
Sep 2016
561
Georgia
Not at all... Russia was a post feudal society and china was a feudal society..in fact... Kazan in 1914 was more feudalism than Paris in 1788....
Alexander III died on his bed.. because he was hard... not at his father or his son.... Alexander II and Nicholas II were too much soft.. too much good people...and they were killed because they were nice...Nor Alexander III nor Stalin I nor Ivan Grozný nor Peter I were killed... they were too much feared to be killed!

Revolution didn´t win... I am sure you never study the military campaigns in 1814 and 1815. the ABSOLUTISM WON THE WAR,, so easy and so simple...and the winner imposes its conditions ... it is easy to be understood...

France today it is not matched to 1789 but to Third Republic. Revolution didn´t win

To refresh your memory



Yes, AUSTRIAN-PRUSSIAN-RUSSIANS in Paris! and French Legitism!!! So... can you prove the revolution won the War? The Revolution was crushed, annihilated... but Louis XVIII didn´t want to clean the kingdom! he was not a Charles V or an Alexander III.

And yes, my noble and red friend... Charles V was a Champion of Absolutism! The symbol of legitimism. yOu can laught what you want.. but Charles V was a symbol of the legitism and the defense of the Altar and the Throne...

For your enlightenment...-CHARLES´V soldiers!



So. yes you are wrong... Louis XVIII was not a Charles V!!! he was not a real hero of absolutism ... of the heroic defense of the Altar and the Throne. Charles V and Alexander III YES.
I did not study 1814 and 1815 campaigns ? Hahahahah. I studied them more than you, that's for sure. Absolutism didn't win. Why than other countries didn't force Louis XVIII to impose Absolutism in France again ? War was presented as the one against Napoleon, not against French people.

Alexander I was smart in presenting his war as conflict against Napoleon and only Napoleon. France and French people are not the enemy, but Napoleon.

Charles V lived in different times and he still had plenty of problems. He eventually abdicated from all his positions and divided his Empire.

I laughed so hard about comparing Nicholas II situation to Ivan Grozny or Peter I. HAHAHAHAAAH.

Russian Revolution would've happened. It already happened in 1905 - 1907, before 1917. You can't possible compare Russia of 1547 to Russia of 1913. That's just plain ignorance of Russian history and historical process.

You don't know anything about Russian history ?

Alexander III not wanting to continue reforms, made Russian Revolution even more real. By the way, Russia by 20th century had elements of Capitalism already.

Please, study history of 1905 - 1907 Revolution in detail. February Revolution of 1917 as well. Read academic works by specialists on Russian history and particularly of Russia in XX century.

Third Republic wouldn't exist if not for Revolution in 1789. How hard is it to understand or study the historical process ?

I'm pretty sure you would be one of those supporters of Mussolini in Italy or Stalin in USSR. Since you seem to love when all the power is concentrated in hands of strong ruler. Probably would help Stalin in 1937 Repressions.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2010
1,251
Bordeaux
That's of course all true. In fact, drumming up nostalgia for what is most of all an imaginary past is actually simplified by the fact that all modern societies have all been so thoroughly remade so as to remove all trace of the former societies. They are free to make stuff up about how good it all was because there's nothing remaining from the actual historic situations.
Are you absolutely sure? Seems to me that, in the case of France for example, the Republic has never really got rid of symbols and customs of the monarchy in the way the state is run.
 

Similar History Discussions