How did the French Revolution even succeed? And I'm not talking about the phase where they took on all of Europe, I'm talking about the phase where they took control of the entire French government in the first place. It wasn't exactly the romantic "starved peasants storming the Bastille" scenario as the grand majority of France remained royalists (hence later Vendée, Toulon and Lyon), the Revolution was mostly supported by the rather small middle class. So how did this small and mostly untrained middle class manage to take on one of the most professional armies in Europe, including Swiss mercenaries who had literally made it their profession to kill others?
And conversely, why did the Revolution manage to prevent Royalist take-overs, especially with the Royalists literally raising their own armies often with foreign funding?
>>1394442
It wasn't the middle class, but a group of Freemasons in positions of power within the court, and banking.
>>1394442
Paris was the only city that mattered. Every single civil authority had been centered there over the course of the past few centuries. When those authorities were converted to the use of the National Assembly, the whole rest of the country, including the army, had no option except to follow suit.
>>1394568
>Makes sense, but those authorities and institutions were still guarded by professionals.
The army didn't really have an obligation to guard anything. They served whoever was in command and was paying them. The Swiss Guard was getting payed by the king. The army was getting payed by the Assembly.
>>1394568
>Is this actually true or just some conspiracy theory?
Both
>>1394568
Many bourgeois and aristocrats were members of "secret" societies, including Freemasons, and happened to also be liberals and followers of enlightenement ideals, it wasn't exclusively a Freemason thing, nor a secret society thing, it just happened most members of these clubs were also pro-enlightenement, like the Illuminati in Bavaria. They weren't doing anything shady or bad though, but their opinions at that time were best kept to themselves or to salons.
Plus remember the first part of the Revolution (when it was still under aristocratic and bourgeois control) actually went pretty smoothely, the King was popular and the country switched without much bloodshed to a constitutional monarchy based on enlightenement values.
It all started going down the drain because of Louis and his advisors trying to reverse the situation or outright fucking up causing the Jacobins to slowly but surely rise to power.
>>1394479
Well there is the Vendée which rose into rebellion because royalism was very strong but otherwise it's true, France was very centralized and all the other cities obeyed to Paris
>>1394687
And the Catholic and Royal Army was composed almost entirely of zealous peasantry, and the regulars functioned more like local militias. They had no association with what was previously the royal army of the king and any civil services in the Vendée had to be re-established by the Royalists. It follows my model pretty well.
The Revolution happened in Paris. It didn't have to take on the army. There was no civil war in the early stages. The National Guard joined the recolutionaries, and the king gave way to the National Assembly's demands. There was a constitutional monarchy for two years and the army fell under the authority of parliament, while armed militias of revolutionaries (Sans-culottes) were also formed.
>>1394442
Because Louis XVI was a weak cuck, who didn't want to harm the plebs.
>>1394632
Louis XVI went to the same lodge as Marat.
>>1394687
The Vendée uprising began 4 years into the revolution.
>>1394442
Look, anon, any response to your query would take an entire book for a response.
None of the responses here are even close to reality.
Read the following books:
Peter McPhee "Liberty or Death:The French Revolution "
George Rude "The French Revolution "
George Lefebvre "The Coming of the French Revolution "
>How did the French Revolution even succeed? And I'm not talking about the phase where they took on all of Europe, I'm talking about the phase where they took control of the entire French government in the first place.
Louis XVI conceded to the National Assembly in spring 1789, which after the fall of the Bastille became the National Constituent Assembly and then the Legislative Assembly in 1791. He allowed for the National Constituent Assembly to integrate itself into the government, thereby giving it almost total power.
>So how did this small and mostly untrained middle class manage to take on one of the most professional armies in Europe, including Swiss mercenaries who had literally made it their profession to kill others?
The French Revolution was not "revolutionary army vs. royalist army." It wasn't even initially about overthrowing the monarchy, but establishing a government similar to England where the king worked with legislative bodies and a constitution rather than a (in theory) absolute monarchy. It wasn't until the flight to Varennes that the notion of abolishing the monarchy became serious, and it wasn't until the next year that things boiled over and resulted in the genuine establishment of the monarchy, which was easily done because you have tens of thousands of national guard + mob people vs. some swiss guards and old aristocrats at the Tuileries.
The only soldiers who were genuinely loyal to the king were the Swiss soldiers. The bulk of the National Guard were loyal to the "nation," not the king or his family. By the time of the attack on the Tuileries in 1792, the king's "loyal army" consisted of the Swiss and a handful of noblemen who were easily slaughtered.
>>1394778
Yeah, and on paper he was supposed to be pretty liberal. doesn't mean he didn't fuck up everything.
>>1394442
>So how did this small and mostly untrained middle class manage to take on one of the most professional armies in Europe, including Swiss mercenaries who had literally made it their profession to kill others?
The bourgeois elites behind the revolution werent the ones doing the storming
Lower class did, after being brainwashed by bourgeois
>>1394941
/thread
You make the mistake of thinking the peasantry itself held any measure of love for either the monarchy or the Church. In most cases - save for the Vendee, which itself started out simply as a revolt due to the implementation of the draft -, people simply didn't care.
>>1394568
well, some freemasons are sure to have been involved in the french revolution considering their beliefs. would be very sceptical of the lodges themselves orchestrating the whole thing
>>1394941
>but establishing a government similar to England
To what degree is it even true? Wasn't such a government what they had before the Bastille, and what they wanted to get rid of because it unfairly favored the nobility and clergy? In my uneducated opinion it seems more that Louis XVI wanted an English system whereas the National Convention wanted to go one step beyond.
>>1396210
France was an absolute monarchie before the revolution.
>>1396247
The revolution festered in the first place because Louis XVI had called together the Assemblée Nationale (which hadn't been done in over a hundred years) for tax reforms. The National Convention formed due to a disagreement about how the votings were to take place: per estate or per head. Per estate would greatly disadvantage the numerically superior Third Estate.
Louis XVI had already stepped away from the absolutism of the Sun King.
>>1394568
1. It's true. Common fucking knowledge actually.
2. The fact that something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it is false. Do you even know what the term means? I don't think so.
>>1396210
>Wasn't such a government what they had before the Bastille, and what they wanted to get rid of because it unfairly favored the nobility and clergy?
They wanted to reform it because it unfairly favored nobility and clergy, but it wasn't like the English government. Before the fall of the Bastille, France had a theoretical absolute monarchy. Louis XVI could rule, if he wished, enforce absolute law: meaning what he said goes, no matter what, and he had no obligation to any other governing body.
However, right after his ascent, Louis XVI had recalled the banished Parlement (specifically the Parlement of Paris, because, Paris is basically what mattered) which was, in the simplest of terms, a governing body that in addition to other roles, was there to either agree or refuse to approve and enforce new laws, policies, reforms, that the king introduced. The people put a lot of stock in the Parlement, and believed it was there to represent their beliefs... the idea behind the Parlement was to prevent the king from being tyrannical, but because the Parlement was filled with nobility, what happened was the Parlement refused every reform that would have eased the burden of the poor while giving nobility slightly less advantages.
>In my uneducated opinion it seems more that Louis XVI wanted an English system whereas the National Convention wanted to go one step beyond.
Going by what Louis XVI wrote before the fall of the Bastille, what he wrote in his Manifesto before fleeing Varennes, and what his wife wrote abroad, Louis XVI wanted a constitutional monarchy but with the caveat that he would always be the supreme head of the government with the power to overrule any other assemblies and bodies if he felt that the nation needed it. However, he also wanted to do almost all the reforms that would be passed in 1789--tax reforms, many social reforms, etc.
French nobles basically caught prole fever and threw away all their special rights and privileges
France went to seed shortly thereafter, as is always the case with peasant revolts
>>1397542
Considering how the Royal Family and the noblesse lived, and how the pesants lived, I don't feel sorry at all for them.
>Sic semper parasiti
>>1397566
You've got it backwards. It's the peasants that were parasites.
>>1396257
Estates General. The National Assembly came later.
>>1397570
yet Louis was an absolute monarch who lived in the luxury while having his people starving to death.
There must be no mercy in these cases.
>>1397570
lol i'd like to see the nobility and middle class work all of that farmland by themselves
>>1397581
The people weren't starving to death.
>>1397581
That's a bit unfair. It's not his fault the country had a few bad harvests (it was his fault that they were bankrupt though).
He wasn't really malicious, just an idiot.
>>1397529
>but with the caveat that he would always be the supreme head of the government with the power to overrule any other assemblies and bodies if he felt that the nation needed it.
Then that is not a fucking constitutional monarchy now is it?
>>1397529
>>1399162
The caveat wasn't that he would always be supreme head and should be able to overrule anything. He didn't even introduce the concept of wanting a veto--it was given to him by the Constitution, but then he was attacked and threatened anytime he used the very thing the new government gave him permission to do.
The only thing he specifically said that he should be allowed to immediately borrow up to 100 million livres in case of the country going into war without needing the sanction of the Assembly.
He also wanted to be actively involved in the creating and making of new laws, instead of being shut out of the Assembly and treated like a figurehead that was just supposed to pass all laws the Assembly wanted, smile and wave at parades, and shut up.
Most of Louis XVI's problems were with the laws that disrespected religion, property, freedom, and didn't actually address the problems that lead to the '89 revolution in the first place.
>>1397581
>yet Louis was an absolute monarch who lived in the luxury while having his people starving to death.
France didn't experience any famines during his reign. People were not starving to death anymore than they did during any other time in a European country with a wide gap between the rich and the poor. There were 2 bread shortages caused by bad harvests, which were not something he could control. During both bread shortages (one of which corresponded with a terrible winter) he opened up the kitchens of Versailles to the poor, during the terrible winter he opened up the warming houses as well, drastically cut back on royal spending, and gave immensely to charities to help out as much as he could.
Louis XVI was the mildest king France ever had. He was the only king who actively tried to reform the social and legal institutions in France that burdened the poor. One of his ministers wrote to another while Louis XVI was drafting reforms for prisons, that they should "never allow the king to visit the prisons, because then there will be no more prisons." Hell, he was initially all for the Third Estate having double representation because they represented the bulk of the kingdom--he only changed his mind after the declining health of his son caused him to become secluded with the extremist Polignac party, who vehemently opposed everything the Third Estate wanted..
>>1401255
Then all that proves was that the constitutional monarchy was doomed to fail from the start if the king was already spamming the granted power to veto like it ain't no thing, undermining the Parliament. This and the caveat makes him look like a kid who would flip the tabble if the game was not going his way(looking at you too Obama)
>>1401904
>if the king was already spamming the granted power to veto like it ain't no thing,
He wasn't "spamming the granted power to veto." He approved measures which he personally disagreed with time and time again, because he believed it was what the people wanted and believed that it was better to let things work themselves out--or not work out--organically than to force it. Aka, "Well, I don't think this is going to work--but you want to do it, so let's find out." He vetoed a handful of measures--such as a measure that imposed the death penalty on emigres who assembled outside of France, and measures which imposed on religious freedom, specifically the measure that would require all clergy and people in religious offices who hadn't sworn a Civil Oath to the Constitution (something specifically deemed unacceptable and blasphemous by the Pope) would be arrested and have their properties confiscated by the state.
There was no Parliament in France, but an Assembly.
>This and the caveat makes him look like a kid who would flip the tabble if the game was not going his way(looking at you too Obama)
How is "hey, I want to be able to take out emergency funds right away in case of war which immediately threatens our country" like "flipping the tabble[sic] if the game was not going his way"?
>>1401921
I love that you used sic on 4chan
>>1401921
What I meant was using the veto weakens whatever consitutional monarchy France had at the day, since it showed the king can ignore whatever the Assembly wanted whenever he wanted to. It should not have been in the constitution in the first place. One veto is one time too many.
The table thing is for the veto. But
>hey guys we are going to war so let me have all these war
>yea... Can we discuss the amount? Remember the last time France went to war, it broke us financially?
>Nah senpai! I am the king!
>>1401973
>hey guys we are going to war so let me have all these money
>>1394711
Exactly. A precise strike on a focal point at the right time changed history. It's the only way things ever change without generations of effort.
>>1401973
>>yea... Can we discuss the amount? Remember the last time France went to war, it broke us financially?
He specified the amount. It also wasn't in case "we are going to war," but if someone declared war on France first or attacked France first. If France declared war on someone first, the immediate loan provision would not have gone into affect.
>>1401973
>What I meant was using the veto weakens whatever consitutional monarchy France had at the day
Vetos are pretty standard for leaders, even in democratic countries.
>>1402140
Don't get me wrong I understand the need for emergency powers but the fact that the amount is not up for negotiation is worrying
Yea but republics had checks and balances to circumvent tyrants with veto being one of them. The same can't be said for Constitutional monarchy
