- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's indeed a partial success, Louis XVIII was wise enough not to reverse every act of the revolution. Unfortunately the various dictatorial regimes installed after the Thermidorean reaction had already reversed quite a few, most notably the abolition of slavery (1794-1802). The positives also have to be weighed against the negatives. I'm not sure if your defense of Robespierre from caricature means you think he is a more complex character that deserves proper evaluation or that you approve of the means he used; I agree on the former but I still count the Terror as a negative. I count the post-Thermidor regimes as mostly negative, certainly Napoleon's. And while the responsibility for 25 years of war across the entire continent of Europe, in Egypt, Palestine and the Caribbean must be divided between France and its opponents, the millions of deaths weigh heavily against it being called a success. Finally, perhaps because it affected my country, I count the destruction of the 3 existing republics in Europe against it.
Just to be clear, this is a reckoning of outcomes, not of intentions. I think I've made it clear before that I don't doubt the ideals of the revolution and am happy that most of them were implemented during the century that followed.
I believe I explained that quote and others, but I can repeat differently. I never said Robespierre or other revolutionaries didn't use the word "terror" in their vocabulary. I said that sense wasn't new and wasn't exclusive to them, and I explicitly differentiated using the word "terror" with both "The Terror" as a period, which was forged by opponents to Robespierre, and "terror on the order of the day", which was a demand which was rejected, "terror" was never instated as the order of the day. In the quote you cite, and Abdul was maybe referring to, "terror" is paired with "virtue", "justice" and "democracy". It certainly isn't on its own defended as a system of government, the quote makes it very clear that terror alone should not be the basis of popular government. Therefore that quote can certainly not be used to say it would have been Robespierre who would have himself instated "The Terror".
Indeed, and his brother Charles X failed when attempting to go back further. That shows that there was an irreversible break with the past, although naturally influenced by other countries and with its continuities with the Ancien Régime.
Yes, although after the Directory the regimes no longer defend the Republic as such, with the Empire the Revolution ends, even if the empire can be viewed as a synthesis between aspects of monarchy and aristocracy with the Revolution, especially with the already ongoing militarisation with the citizen in arms and increasing weight of generals.
A complex character that deserves proper evaluation was my point, as for what was coined by his opponents as "The Terror" I wouldn't use that qualification and that time period, and do not hold Robespierre personally responsible for anything, he is one amongst several. As everyone he made mistakes and errors, my point of view isn't that of approval or disapproval. The period of exceptional revolutionnary government was also a response to the popular movement wanting to do its own justice. To control the popular movement and avoid repeating events like the September Massacres, the rhythm of justice accelerated and the revolutionnary courts as well as the later law meant a centralisation in Paris. I can only condemn women's clubs being banned and closed down and sections no longer being permanent is also a move against direct democracy, if you absolutely want my personal opinion.
Egypt and Palestine are pretty much exclusively France's fault, I would be much more critical than you on the project of new colonisation (even if retrospectively it is rather interesting to read Bonaparte pandering to Muslims and defending Islam given who on the far-right hates Muslims and reveres Bonaparte, but this is deeply anachronistic
). On the Caribbean a mixed bag, the revolutionaries are guilty of having considered it still as colonies, emancipation with the abolition of slavery came only after the uprisings and military conflict. So there the promise of universal liberty, equality and fraternity was delivered only thanks to the struggle of the locals, whether slaves or free of colour. As for the war on Europe, there Robespierre had warned, so I wouldn't blame it on the Revolution itself but parts of the revolutionaries and of course Napoléon afterwards.The system of sister republics under the Directory is certainly something I'm very critical towards, because such puppet states are already a form of imperialism not that different from the absolute monarchies of Europe, with mini-Directories. The Directory might have been more democratic than absolute monarchies, but supporting local patriots is different from imposing a copy of your regime. At the same time, even though territories directly annexed were treated like any other, with no different statuses and equal citizen rights, the ambition of "France's natural borders" is also one of domination.
I don't think the ideals defended by the most advanced Montagnards were implemented unfortunately, if we look at the maximum and then even more advanced the equals with Babeuf who started questioning the right to property. Liberty, equality and fraternity are still something we have to build, and 1830, 1848, 1871, 1944, 1968, 2018 shows that...
Last edited:
- 1
Napoleon for a Dutchman is a mixed bag. Even his changing the Batavian Republic into the Kingdom of Holland, was relatively well received here. Lodewijk Napoleon was a popular king. We can never forget nor forgive his annexing us to the French Empire in 1810... Not to mention the desastrous continental system, which ruined the Dutch trade based economy.
A more general grievance of French vassal states, is all the men, which lost their lives for French/Napoleonic ambitions.
He did great things too, he exported a 'reasonable' version of the Revolution and his Code Napoleon had a lasting impact on Europe.
A more general grievance of French vassal states, is all the men, which lost their lives for French/Napoleonic ambitions.
He did great things too, he exported a 'reasonable' version of the Revolution and his Code Napoleon had a lasting impact on Europe.
- 1
Nobody loses their lives for french ambition if reactionary Europe, championed by Britain (that eternal champion of liberty for everyone who is rich and british), doesn't invade the new France in the first place. Blame for Napoléon falls on them.
- 5
Napoleon's ambition, resulting in in bloodshed from Lisbon to Moscow, is the fault of the Allies?
Sounds like an engineered answer.
The house of Bonaparte never takes power if four major monarchies and countless minor ones don't decide to invade France because Paris decided they may not want a king.
No faction of revolutionaries wanted to invade Britain or Germany or Russia.
- 3
It has nothing to do with the path he took to power, it has everything to do with what he does with it when he has absolute power in his grasp and the intentionally turns his back on his the Ideals that got him there.
Haven't you heard about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Coalition?
- 1
- 1
Haven't you heard about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Coalition?
Have I heard of them? Maybe.
2nd Coalition forms in response to Napoleon's move against Egypt.
3rd Coalition forms in response to Napoleon's move against Italy
4th Coalition forms in response to Napoleon's move against Prussia
The point remains
Is your point that repression and reaction are good, as long as they are directed against the vile Corsican ogre?
Only you.
The point is the evolution of the Imperial Apetite of said Corsican Ogre that left Europe bleeding in its wake from one end to the other, morphing from enlightened despot to bloody tyrant. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.