Any French people here? Can you guys elaborate on how history is taught in your country?
France is pretty unique in the fact that it was a monarchy for most of its history, yet was perhaps the only country in Europe that willingly overthrew their own monarch (most monarchies in Europe either faded into some symbolic asset or were ended after the world wars), so that has to be reflected in the way history is taught, right? Does the French education system conform to Whig histiography and depict the monarchs as evil tyrants who needed to be eventually be overthrown and then everything was peaches and cream? Are the great kings of France respected and honored? What about Napoleon? Do French public schools describe him as a hero of the revolution or literally Hitler? I do know for example that Napoleon III is very hated in France mostly because Victor Hugo and his "muh republic" hated his guts.
So my question is, in short, how much republicanism (and perhaps multi-culti bullshit as well) has colored the French view of their own history, and especially the non-Republican stages of French history.
>>1208692
Very very short answer: the mainstream national narrative is one of continuity from Vercingetorix to François Hollande. Plenty of variations exist, obviously, but still the 'official' story is that each period and regime put something new into the big edifice that was France. Even Louis Bonaparte is remembered for his important economic reforms and the way he reconstructed Paris and other major cities and all that.
If anything, the narrative is harsh on losers: Louis XVI, Robespierre, Charles X... all get a fairly cold treatment not because of their respective agenda but rather because they failed in what they were trying to achieve (if they have had such goals). I think it goes to show that what the French worship more than anything is grandeur nationale.
![1425084704629[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vNcfkAO.jpg "1425084704629[1].jpg")
>>1208789
>Very very short answer: the mainstream national narrative is one of continuity from Vercingetorix to François Hollande.
Somehow I find this relieving. Part of me feared French attempts to erase their own history. Vercingetorix being included is pretty weird though, didn't the French traditionally consider Clovis their first king?
>France is only country to overthrow monarchy
You speak English but you don't even know English history, get back in your mine pleb
>>1208815
The monarchy, not the monarch. Monarchs were overthrown left and right in history, at least as far back as the Romans and their downright pathological need to assassinate emperors.
To paraphrase Kantorowicz the English decapitated a monarch while the French decapitated the institution of monarchy.
>>1208826
No, I was referring to the part in English history where the monarch was executed and then monarchy was written out of law and a commonwealth was established, where a lord protector, modern day president, and 2 houses decreed the laws
>>1208811
Clovis first monarch, Vercingetorix early mythical leader. It's like the French Moses or Remus and Romulus or something (even if he happened to exist).
>>1208692
>yet was perhaps the only country in Europe that willingly overthrew their own monarch
yo, not true
>>1208839
Also Nicholas II
>>1208826
>what is the commonwealth
its funny how the french keep claiming the laurels of liberal tradition, when they actually just hold everything wrong and bad about liberalism
>>1208830
>implying Cromwell represented the people
>>1208843
They had everything right, down to the letter, in theory. They just disregarded it entirely in practice.
>>1208855
>They just disregarded it entirely in practice.
Probably because the republican regime was allowed literally one year of not being at peace with literally everyone worth mentioning.
>>1208862
Maybe so, but the early US was in perpetual war too. And besides there wasn't an war to speak of in 1848-1850.
It's undeniable that France had (arguably still has) a very different political tradition than Anglo Saxon countries. Even its attempts in constitutional monarchy were very unlike the English model.
>>1208855
>They had everything right, down to the letter, in theory
Rousseaus "theory" is goddamn awful
Locke, Mill and Hobbes are the serious theorists of liberalism
>>1208878
>but the early US was in perpetual war too
That is in no way comparable, considering they went to war against one enemy that in the later stages of the war could barely get new troops to the New World because the two other big Old World powers sided with America. And even then the Thirteen Colonies had their fair share of fuck-ups described in the Federalist Papers.
Keep in mind that the United States was only created in 1783, and has from its creation been at peace until 1812. Firing a few rounds at axe waving indians is not comparble to all of Europe uniting with the sole mission to destroy your regime as well as actively financing internal dissent.
I want this "the American revolution was the good one" meme to end.
>>1208884
A lot of people have a very superficial understanding of Rousseau, a caricature of the "general will" as tyrannical and absolute plebiscitary rule. Rousseau in fact can be read as advocating something like the rule of law in a popular republic, moderated and scrutinized by public opinion.
Regardless, French political thought also has figures like Montesquieu, Diderot and so on. It's not all about Jean-Jacques (who was a Swiss anyhow).
