Wars and Conflicts permalink
French revolution
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
sparked by a message of Eric Lindsay in the American war of Independence, I wanted to state that he French revolution was a specific one and was only in a sideline connected to the American revolt. Some thoughts?
As usual for a quick start the omnipresent Wikipedia:
Read also something I just discovered on internet:
As I always seek for the sources. Especially on internet!
. Read about the 11 stages of the author:
Cass?
Regards, Paul. -
Message 2
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Paul
Much of the causes both for the American and French revolutions,are the seven year war 1756-1763 wich could have been named the first world war.
The war did change the power status in N America.
Both sides was financial exhausted so they had to raise taxes very high.
GB tried to take out some of it from the colonies wich was one of the main reasons for the American revolution.Another great reason was that when GB took over Canada did it leave the colonies whitout an outside threat who craved for protection from the mothercountry.
France crucial involment on the Americans side was the last straw that totally broke the back of French economy wich was one of the basic reasons for the French revolution.
So IMHO whitout the seven year war is it quite possible that their hadnt been any revolution neither in America or France.
Y friend
Hasse -
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
It’s also possible that the Americans themselves (as well as being generally influenced by the English revolution of the 1640s) were also influenced by the Corsican declaration of independence from Genoa and the Corsican Constitution in 1755.
The Corsican patriotic leader Pasquale Paoli later spent a good deal of time in London in exile in the 1770s including developing a close acquaintance/friendship with King George III. Corsica’s story became well known in British and Colonial circles.
Why was Paoli in exile in London in the early 1770s? Because, in a further twist to the story, the Corsican Republic had been extinguished by invading French forces in May 1769. This was just 3 months before the birth of the most famous Corsican of them all - Napoleon Buonaparte. -
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Re: message 2.
Hasse,
as usual it is very interesting what you have to say. Yes, you can be right that without the Seven Years war the other factors wouldn't have been strong enough to initiate both the War of Independence or the French Revolution.
As a matter of fact I read during my studies for the British-French rivalry about some "economical" hints, also if I recall it well in the above wikipedia and in the Larousse worldhistory. I think it was the Larousse, which said as you that both sides were financially exhausted, but here it comes:
England was by its commercial position and its worldwide London exchange market far better equipped to have access at new capitals and money generating by trade than the old-fashioned with the heriditary of Colbertism plagued France. Next Thursday I am back in the library and I will seek for the exact wording.
I am not completely subscribing the economical determinism (of Marxism?) (of the Annales school?) but studying the decline of the Spanish Empire and the competition between Britain and France I think the economical pattern has a lot to do with it. For instance Spain. Agreed for the "religion" they had send away the Mores (is there a parallel with the Hugenotes) and so lost a lot of specialized handycraftsmen. They also, as there weren't Spaniards anymore in Spain by their soldiers everywhere, had to ask for handycraft from the South of France. I read that on a certain moment there were more than 200,000 of them working in Spain, but they had to be paid, but they transferred all their money to their family in France. And also if there was a Spanish "entrepreneur" his chanches in the countries of the Spanish Empire were much higher than in the Mother country were there was a "leaden" cover of regulations and taxes. A bit the Colbertism of Spain.
How modern was Britain in comparison with France. No ruling by divine might king anymore. Even before the Dutch William III, Charles II had to recken with the Parliament. And I think that Parliament (and here I need the contribution of British board members) was "penetrated" by economic oriented people from the lower gentry? I read that the gentry middle-class (counts and all that?)was heavely involved in trade otherwise than the French gentry, who were more focused to earnings from land and land related business. About that "gentry" in Britain involved in "trade", it is not the first time that I read about it. Can one of the British contributors confirm that? Or was it during a later period after the Glorious Revolution?
Lev väl,
Paul. -
Message 5
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
Dear Paul
Yes GB where more comecial minded than France so they could pick up there loses faster.Another cause why GB had a stronger economy was the broader taxbase.An irony is that the broadening of that taxbase to force the collonies to pay for their own defence and trade centralisation to London was one of the sparks for the liberation war.
France taxbase was founded exlusive on the third estate,leaving the nobility and clergy free from tax,wich naturally did lead to less robust economic base.
An old system looking a bit like Indias caste system,failure of the crops a growing welleducated middleclass that did se that it was they who did pay but have nothing to say,topped with disastrous war and you have a ground for revolution.
Your comparison to the downfall of the Spanish empire are IMO, valid and very well put.
Leef wel
Hasse -
Message 6
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 5th February 2009
You two have petty well covered some of the causes of France's revolution, and one of the biggest was definitely financial. It would certainly be a powerful incentive to clamour for an alteration in government. But the Franco/British wars were not the only reason for France's financial woes. I think you're forgetting the people of France and what they had to put up with. Let's not forget that another major reason France was bankrupt was because Louis XVI was a profligate spendthrift, squandering money on whatever caught his fancy, and his queen was just as extravagant. The statement ''we have no bread, let them eat cake'' may be a fable, but it certainly expresses the sentiment of the royal court, and the nobility in general. The aristocracy had everything they could possibly want, including freedom from taxation. Consequently the nation's financial woes were impressed, not on the nobility who might have been able to ease them a little, but on the people who already had nothing.
The people of France starved, and the nobility danced and partied. Peasants who had the gall to appeal for relief or maybe for a bit of food for their children were flogged, and complaints led to the gallows or the Bastille. That's the kind of thing that galvanizes people to revolt more than an empty national treasury. I think a people can tolerate a bankrupt nation if they believe their leaders are doing all they can to help. Instead of helping, the leaders were shoving their country farther and farther down the financial hole, while simultaneously demanding more and more from their penniless populace.
As I noted earlier, it required a great deal less of a stimulus for the British to rise in revolt against an absolute ruler who believed himself to be king by divine right. And it was a successful revolution.
It's possible that fact may have had as much to boost the determination of the French people as the American Revolution. -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 16th February 2009
Re: Message 5.
Hasse,
as I just said to you in the München 1938 thread, I tried yesterday to "compose" a valid reply to you and Erik but the more I entered the question the more complicated it became.
Read again! this afternoon the Colbert of Inès Murat about the failures of the "mercantilism" selon Colbert, the "Colbertism" but nevertheless he has done "good" for France too.
BTW: Poldertijger, if you read this, there are no "holes" in your messages as Sir Gar says and I come to you as soon as I have a bit time. Especially on the French mercantilism...
Found in the "préface" of Ines Murat that she descends of the oldest daughter of Colbert, Jeanne-Marie-Thérèse Colbert, duchess de Chevreuse. And her family has the personal papers of Colbert. And the brother of Ines Murat seems to be Thomas de Luynes. And he helped her with the papers and the book.
But there seems also to be an English translation by Cook:
In another thread on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ I found out that she also worked for television and also made travel descriptions.
Intrigued by the name Murat and de Luynes de Chevreuse I did some research and came to:
And I learned that it are all princes, counts and barons in her family...my head dazzled...And internet, what a "machine" You find it all even the most "personal" things...
Inès d'Albert de Luynes born 28 July 1939 Paris. Married 1 June 1960 Paris Prince Napoléon Murat.
Hasse, you as a Baron can be proud on your descendency, as you read in the wikipedia that the famous Jochim Murat was the son of an innkeeper (in our Flemish dialect we say a bit denigrating: "cafébaas" (boss of a café (pub)).
And Napolèon, the emperor, was in that serious that he awarded those who had helped him, making him even a brother in law of him.
Hmm, as in Sweden, it is already half past midnight overhere...and I haven't yet bordered my reply...have it from my grandmother on father's side...
A cosy goodnight for you and your wife from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
Re: Message 5 and 6.
Hasse and Erik,
started already a reply but when looking to Google, as I always do while my text is on, now when returning to the "Type your message in the box below" my text was gone and the window blank. It is already some months since that happened. And excuses for the long delay before answering. It is due to a huge "workload"
I start again with my message:
As I read your two messages I think that they nearly say the same. Erik says: "the Franco-British wars were not the only reason for France's financial woes" Yes indeed they were only the last in a series of financial difficulties and as Erik says Louis XVI continued the old way.
In my thread "Why the British and not the French in the 16th, 17th century?" I mentioned already Louis XIV and Louis XV. But the reasons for that chronical shortage of money lay perhaps at the different approach and there Erik you mention:
As I noted earlier, it required a great deal less of a stimulus for the British to rise in revolt against an absolute ruler who believed himself to be king by divine right. And it was a successful revolutionÂ
But there is more that differ's. In fact they started both with the same mercantilist approach under Elisabeth I.
I mentioned already the differences in my thread: "Why the British and not the French in the 16th and 17th century?" And now I am reading again and more in depth Ines Murat's in her "Colbert" book I mentioned in the other message: Part III "The economic war" (1661-1672)chapter one: "The mercantilism and the war".
In about thirty pages (page 200 till 230) she gives a review of the differences between England, France and the Dutch Republic. And it confirms all what I said in my previous threads here on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ.
During these relatively quiet 12 years Colbert tried to fulfill the work that Richelieu already had started under the previous king. It was called Colbertism but in fact it was the same Mercantilism as it was invented and started in England under Elisabeth I in the middle of the XVI century with Burgley. And the practice was also adopted at the other side of the Channel by Henri IV. Laffemas introduced it in France and he was very vexed by the liberalism of the laissez faire of Lyon. Richelieu was not that severe, but neverteheless was also strict. In France the mercantilism was an affair of the state and not from one social class as a rich oligarchy in for instance the Dutch Republic. Note from me: One could also say that the "state" was also a rich oligarchy? From 1620 there was a lack of bullion and each nation tried to import by a positive trade balance as much bullion as possible. But Colbert thought that there was only a limited "amount" of trade possible and if one nation had a bigger part it was to the detriment of another nation's part. Note from me I gave in one of my threads an example from the Dutch economy why that was not true and I furtehr explain it in my paragraph on the Dutch economy. And the dirigism of the French state with all its regualtions was suffocating for the few entrepreneurs that wanted it to do the Dutch way. In fact by the involvement in "offices" the men, who owned money weren't that interested in risky trade and it was also much more easier and "salonfähig" to live from the "returns" of the land.
And now the mercantilism the English way: in fact it was the same mercantilism as on the other side of teh Channel. But the feodality in England was never been that rigid as on the continent and the nobility had never been ashamed to be involved in business. And the social class involved in trade and industry was much bigger than on the continent and more independent from the king than in France. Charles I wanted to rule as his French counterpart and applied the French mercantilism. Most of the merchant and industrial class didn't like that and as such supported the revolt from Cromwell and his Puritans. Note from me: What do especially the British readers think of that statement? It is new to me. Cromwell restored the inner economic liberty while at the same time he followed an exterior trade protectionism.
With Charles II the new Parliament was very strict in keeping the laws of commerce and industry in their own competence. Note from me: Charles II had to secretly lent some money from the French king Louis XIV. And there is already a big difference with France: In England it are the "businessmen" who are the engine of the national economy and not as in France the "State". In England contrary to the Colbertism the suffocating regulations are gradually fading as it brakes the "flexibility" of any commerce and manufacturing. But both England and France had the same rather obsession: the unbelievable economic success of the Dutch Republic.
What was now that Dutch wonder?
The Dutch were traders on commission. In fact they were the traders of the whole world of those days. They traded everywhere and only asked some loan for the risk and work to bring good X to port Y. Amsterdam was the "entrepôt" (the warehouse) of the world. In Bordeaux for example they took the "commerce" from the French, while these weren't entrepreneurial enough and had there a Dutch quarter: Les Chartrons. Even the Dutch sparked in Bordeaux the first industry and give work to the local population. And a part of the French colonial production lays on the waterfront of Amsterdam all to the rage of Colbert. And they had a stable money the Florin of Amsterdam supported by the bullion in the bank and at each time convertible for bullion to the merchants when ever! asked. And the Dutch government was always strict to keep a positive balance.
Tomorrow I am back to explain why by these huge capitals from trade and manufactering the Dutch Republic was able to resist at least for a time the two competitors France and Britain. And all that to explain why France was in continuous struggle for enough money risking many times bankruptcy. But I have still to answer to Erik's second paragraph.
Warm regards to both,
Paul. -
Message 9
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Re: Message 6.
Erik, I will come back on your second paragraph and also in general on your whole message...hmm...this evening...as it is already overhere past midnight...
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
poor or no poor, in anyway no leader of any revolution was ever dying of hunger... far from saying that the revolution in France had no basis, the truth is that as always happens in successful revolutions, it is again the upper classes that profited most...
-
Message 11
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
PaulRyckier,
... Jochim Murat was the son of an innkeeper (in our Flemish dialect we say a bit denigrating: "cafébaas" (boss of a café (pub)).
And Napolèon, the emperor, was in that serious that he awarded those who had helped him, making him even a brother in law of him.Â
Is there any truth behind the British legend that NB sneered the British were a "nation of shopkeepers"? -
Message 12
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Is there any truth behind the British legend that NB sneered the British were a "nation of shopkeepers"?Â
Upon further research and wiki-surfing, I must answer my own question with, "no, there's no truth to it."
-
Message 13
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 8th March 2009
Hehehe Hasse, you are quite right about the history of families. However do please note down that according to archives from old states like Britain and France (see in Greece due to our dificult history we have no memory longer than 150 years), show that there was extremely little social mobility in the two directions no matter what type of governance the countries had.
""So I go back to my studies are going to hold a seminar on the Macedonian armys logistic under Philip and Alexander.""
Wow, nice sbject there! Do not forget to ask them what type of language did the record-keepers write the material... cos that was to be read by Macedonian commoners!!!! Hehehe... If they cannot short that out certainly they are far from realising anything else in logistics or any other issue... -
Message 15
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 8th March 2009
Hi Guys,
During the reign of terror, why was Jean-Paul Marat so important and why was his assassination by Charlotte Corday so important that the Marquis de Sade was asked to write a eulogy to Marat, and Jacques- Louis David the famous painter of the period, as aked to oragnise his funeral and immortalized the assassination in his painting.
Who was this young woman, almost a girl, Charlotte Corday, who at age 25, single-handedly carried out the assassination.
She first went to the Assemble Nationale and learnt that he had been absent for quite a while, then to his house but was turned away. She went a second time, so determined was she to kill this 'prophet of the Terror.' He was in his bath-tub. She gave him the names of several Girondin who she told him were traitors. As he was writing their names, while in his bath tub, she took a kitchen knife and plunged it into his heart. She probably thought by his killing she was bringing the terror to a halt, but was herself guillotined.
A remarkably young woman!
"When she entered, he asked her to name (the) offending deputies, and after recording their names said "They shall all be guillotined." Corday then drew a knife, purchased earlier that day at a shop, and stabbed him in the chest. He called out, "À moi, ma chère amie!" ("Help me, my dear friend!"), and died."
Tas -
Message 16
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 9th March 2009
Dear Paul
Did ansver you in post 13,somehow did it break housrules.How that was don is outside my understanding.
In short have been away skiing and are busy with the logistic of the Macedonian army.
Yes the mercantilism or a fachsimile of it has run as a red thread thru French history from Philipe le Bel to Sarcozy.IMHO is this one of the main reasons why France mostly have been the runner up in the European powerhouse.
Its indeed funny that the time of the French revolution and Napoleonic era gave birth to more royalty and nobel houses than any era.
In my eyes arnt a family better because they can can count their title back for more as 600 years or resent coming from say an innkeeper.
Lefen wel
Hasse -
Message 17
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 9th March 2009
Nik
Yes most people do just see Alexander as a great fighting general,but one if his realy greatnes was in the logistic detail.This explain a lot the marching route and high speed that his army held.Calisthenes and Ptolemy are good sources the romans Arrian and Diodorus arnt bad either.A funny tidbit is that the military expeditions by mostly the britts in those areas from 17th to early 20th does fit very nicely in both topographic and rationvise with those more than 2000 years earlier notes.
Hasse -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
Re: Message 13.
I read this message from my friend Hasse two days ago and saw no cause for offense or breaking the house rules. There was even no foreign language in it, nor an URL in a foreign language. It remains a big mistery for me.
Warm regards to any reader,
Paul. -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
Re: Message 16.
Hasse,
I read the message immediatelly when I returned from my trip to the Netherlands. Excuses for the delay in replying. Did first the Albert Kahn Â鶹ԼÅÄ series thread. As said I too saw no any offense against the house rules in it.
As it is already past midnight overhere I will answer it the next day.
Warm regards from your friend Paul and "leef wel".
PS. I appreciate always very much your friendly replies and your statements as for instance the one of your last paragraph. -
Message 20
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 19th March 2009
Much of the causes both for the American and French revolutions,are the seven year war 1756-1763 wich could have been named the first world war.Â
Churchill so named it in Vol 3 of his "History of the English-Speaking Peoples".
Encountering this as a teenager, the chapter heading confused me until I worked out what he was driving at. -
Message 21
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 19th March 2009
Its indeed funny that the time of the French revolution and Napoleonic era gave birth to more royalty and nobel houses than any era.Â
Didn't someone say of him that he could have built a new world, but preferred to be the son-in-law of the old?
In my eyes arnt a family better because they can can count their title back for more as 600 years or resent coming from say an innkeeper.Â
Well, if you go back to 1066 and all that, you find they are just about all descended from a washerwoman in Falaise.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.