Why is common folk more revolutionary than revolutionaries?

[CAELISTIX]

Please explain. I don't get. I watched something from the game and there is people accused of counter-revolutionary treason ... but the revolutionaries are okay with prison and the common folk wants to have death sentece? What?

Please explain how these factions think or is it entirely random?!

[=CAW=aldarions-lament]

The revolutionaries are heavily mixed with Liberal, libertarian and republican idealists heavily influenced by the age of enlightenment philosophy (much as Americas founding fathers were). Its not until much later in the game that the revolution takes a more violent turn.

[=CAW=aldarions-lament]

Basically the revolutionaries only want people dead who they see as a danger to the revolution. at least early on.

[Taipan]

I have seen this game a bit and it seems to me that the so called revolutionaries in this game are some kind of monsters hell bent on wronging the world, while as a history passionate myself well they were quite the opposite, French revolution is the tipping point of our world, in real life.

In a very good way, best way possible.

The game looks like some kind of propaganda of somebody raised in a cell believing that the french revolution and people freedom is a very bad thing lol.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by Stefan:

I have seen this game a bit and it seems to me that the so called revolutionaries in this game are some kind of monsters hell bent on wronging the world, while as a history passionate myself well they were quite the opposite, French revolution is the tipping point of our world, in real life.

In a very good way, best way possible.

The game looks like some kind of propaganda of somebody raised in a cell believing that the french revolution and people freedom is a very bad thing lol.

Clearly not a very good history student then. The French revolution turned into something dreadful. People starved, they cut each other's heads off, genocide occurred, it started almost 20 years of non-stop war which would ruin France (French Revolutionary Wars/Napoleonic Wars) etc. You seem to have been fed on idealistic depictions of the revolution, like those found in Schama's "Citizens", which have increasingly been discredited and replaced by the darker views, such as those found in Andress' "The Terror".

[nachoolo]

Originally posted by acur1231:

Originally posted by Stefan:

I have seen this game a bit and it seems to me that the so called revolutionaries in this game are some kind of monsters hell bent on wronging the world, while as a history passionate myself well they were quite the opposite, French revolution is the tipping point of our world, in real life.

In a very good way, best way possible.

The game looks like some kind of propaganda of somebody raised in a cell believing that the french revolution and people freedom is a very bad thing lol.

Clearly not a very good history student then. The French revolution turned into something dreadful. People starved, they cut each other's heads off, genocide occurred, it started almost 20 years of non-stop war which would ruin France (French Revolutionary Wars/Napoleonic Wars) etc. You seem to have been fed on idealistic depictions of the revolution, like those found in Schama's "Citizens", which have increasingly been discredited and replaced by the darker views, such as those found in Andress' "The Terror".

The French Revolution as a violent event that brought more bad than good is as propagandistic as the idealistic takes on the French Revolution.

For starters, the starving that happened during the French Revolution was nothing but the continuation of the famine that already existed in France during the absolutist reign of Louis XVI. In fact, this Famine and the deep indebtedness of the state are considered by almost all historians (Andress included) to be the main reason why the Revolution happened (like, I haven't seen any historian that denies that). So you're putting the chick before the egg here.

We shouldn't forget that the only period that we can consider as overly violent is the Jacobine Government, where the vast VAST majority of execution happened (around 15.000). Even then, we still see some true positive reforms during this months-long goverment (like the universal suffrage, public education, or the abolition of slavery).


Before and after the Jacobin government, the Revolution was ruled by Moderates (alhtouhg the post-Jacobin Moderates were more oligarchs), with the pre-Jacobine Constitution being a Constitutional Monarchy. The problem is that the King (Louis XVI) did his best to harm his image, as he was allied with the Austrian and Prussian armies that were invading France at the moment. THIS was the main reason why he was executed. He wasn't an innocent fool.

Hell, the non-stopping wars that you mention, almost all of them were started by the counterrevolutionary armies of France's neightbours, not the Revolution government. Of course, this doesn't mean that the French were pacifist, the Girondins were fond of spreading the revolution by declaring war (they were as warmnorgering as the Revolution's enemies), but then we are only talking about one French revolutionary government of many, instead of all of the revolution.

And, true, the Revolution ended with Napoleon becoming Emperor (and starting the Napoleonic Wars). I'm a Spaniard, I know the damage that Napoleon did to Europe, the Peninsular War is the bloodiest conflict on Spanish soil alongside the Civil War. But I cannot deny that the French Revolution is one of the main reason why Europe (and Spain) is democratic. Acepting the good from he Revolution without ignoring the political stife and the violence of it is esencial. An you do this by not vilifying nor glorying it.

Hell. I don't even know from where did you get this idea, as all that I've read (and watch) about David Andress doesn't add up with your conservative interpretation of the Revolution, as his take of it seems to be more sympathetic (although not completely sympathetic) than yours. He doesn't expand the Terror to all of the Revolution, and--although he does pint out that violence was part of the Revolution since the begining, he does point out that we're not talking about the violence that we will see with the Jacobin.

History Respawned historical review of AC: Unity is a great abriged take on the Revolution, specially because Andress (the historian that you use to validate your take ont he Revolution) is part of this review, if not the main "reviewer".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r47yZIYBUzc

[acur1231]

How do you explain the genocide in the Vendee then? Or the fact that Louis XVI had tried to reform the monarchy and modernise it, and remained fairly popular after 1789. Note the Royalist white on the French tricolour. For about three years he was a constitutional monarch. The French state was in a bad way before 1789, but the revolution probably harmed more than it helped. The three estates being convened in 1789 could have been the start of a truly democratic, fair series of reforms, but they were hijacked by the Parisan mob.

Now, I don't hold a radically anti-revolution view. I concede that many important reforms occurred, freedoms were granted etc, some of which survived through Napoleon's reforms. However, the same could be said of the first 20 years of Bolshevik rule in Russia, and yet no one denies that with great modernisation and advancement came widespread death and suffering.

[nachoolo]

Originally posted by acur1231:

How do you explain the genocide in the Vendee then? Or the fact that Louis XVI had tried to reform the monarchy and modernise it, and remained fairly popular after 1789. Note the Royalist white on the French tricolour. For about three years he was a constitutional monarch. The French state was in a bad way before 1789, but the revolution probably harmed more than it helped. The three estates being convened in 1789 could have been the start of a truly democratic, fair series of reforms, but they were hijacked by the Parisan mob.

Now, I don't hold a radically anti-revolution view. I concede that many important reforms occurred, freedoms were granted etc, some of which survived through Napoleon's reforms. However, the same could be said of the first 20 years of Bolshevik rule in Russia, and yet no one denies that with great modernisation and advancement came widespread death and suffering.

The number of historians who think that Vendee was a genocide is very miniscule. You can count on one hand the historians outside the anglosphere that believe that, and even in England and the US they are a really small minority. War Crimes happened in Vendee (it was a really brutal war), nobody denies that. But if War Crimes are genocide, then the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Irak War was a genocide. Seriously, the “Vendee genocide” is a conspiracy theory.

And, yes, Louis XVI was decently popular in 89 (although, even then, he was more tolerated than liked), that's why the first constitution wanted a constitutional monarchy. But between 89 and 92 he did his best to be hated by the Revolutionary government by conspiring with the Austrians and Prussians to destroy them. He wasn't killed because the Jacobins were jerks. He was killed because he actively worked against the Revolution. Of course, another 15.000 people followed him afterwards–their death being more because of political reasons rather than them being counterrevolutionaries–but that doesn't mean that the king was innocent. That means that the Jacobin goverment that followed was brutal (although it didn't lack good points).

When it comes to reforms, that's what we call "Enlightened Despotism" or "for the people, without the people". This weren't made because the monarchs wanted to create a democratic state. Enlightened kings exited before, during, and after Louis XVI reign, and none of them were looking to create a constitutional monarchy. They were looking to create a modern state, a state that would take power out of the aristocrats and give it to the King. Of course, many Enlightened thinkers wanted to create a more democratic government, but they weren't all of them nor was that the reason why the reforms happened. Again, you're just taking the conservative interpretation of the Revolution (interpretation that, btw, Andress doesn't follow) and deciding that this is the non-propagandistic take on it.

Also. I quite like how you paraphrase Pierre Chaunu. Comparing the French Revolution to the October Revolution does help me a lot to see that your take is nothing more than the conservative interpretation of the event.