So my western civilization teacher just called Louis XVI a kek, do you think this is true?
I agree the guy was a bitch.
Worst king to ever live.
He was a decent king, to be honest. He was just there at the wrong time. Wealthy bourgeoisis just wanted to seize power.
Your teacher is an idiot, and so are you, otherwise you'd be studying something useful that would provide you with a job.
>>388628
We know for fact that Marie Antoinette had an affair with a Swedish officer, that started in the early 1780s. Whether she gave birth to him or not we can say for sure. Anyway, the Queen's sexual misbehavior was an incredibly popular meme in pre-Revolutionary France, so the notion that her children were bastards did fit into it very nicely.
>>388628
Kek wasn't censored in the title. Quick spread the word to all the boards.
>>388692
He may have been a decent king but he made a bad decision by supporting the American revolution, The American revolution is a major reason why France went into debt and the Americas adoption of a republic showed that the common man could have a voice.
>>388628
He wasn't ready to be a king, and he wasn't supposed to at first. Harsh to say but he was litteraly too kind for such a role.
Show some respect to him please, we shouldn't have killed him, he didn't deserve it.
>>388628
I feel sorry for him
He was a decent person who was at the wrong place in the wrong time - King of a nation with a huge debt and unrest.
He wasn't a particularly good king but he wasn't awful either. Nothing special.
It's that Louis XIV bastard's fault he got his head cut.
>>388830
>the Americas adoption of a republic showed that the common man could have a voice
It didn't show anything of the kind.
>>388699
>We know for fact that Marie Antoinette had an affair with a Swedish officer, that started in the early 1780s.
No, we don't. The affair was popularized in the early 20th century by biographers who had a vehement reaction to Marie Antoinette being painted as a marble saint by various memoirs and biographies.
The biographers became fixated on the idea of Marie Antoinette having an affair because it was a claim often refuted by those who wrote about the queen. These "have to prove the affair, by god!" biographers were working from selected collections of letters which were then sparked by a mysterious proclamation of love from the queen supposedly found in the Swedish officer's papers. Said note was "coincidentally" discovered by someone determined to prove the affair, wasn't in the officer's handwriting, or the queen's handwriting, and was on a random scrap of paper he just happened to find when given the opportunity to look through the papers alone. (Frustratingly, the newest research on the validity of the affair is the same: done by people who specifically want to prove she had an affair, use material that is absolutely questionable, and even in their own findings have so many contradictions it borders on nonsensical at times.)
It is extremely unlikely that Marie Antoinette ever had a physical affair, for logistical, personality and practical reasons. Could she have loved someone? Sure. But even then, the 'proof' of her love for the officer often touted, in the form of dramatic and romantic prose, can be found in her letters to her female friends, other male friends, and even her family. Yet I doubt you'd find many historians arguing that she had an affair with every one of these people.
sorry for the tl;dr I am frustrated by the lack of research that goes into 'Marie Antoinette had an affair' in pop culture
seriously the least French king of France
>>391080
too true
>doesn't take a mistress
>doesn't like to dress flashy or impress the court
>prefers to do manual labor like making locks or helping laborers
>hates cats
I mean, come on
>>388726
Whats the alternative to the great man theory?
Like, how can you not believe that the actions of certain individuals contribute significantly to history? I dont get it.
>>388830
>the American revolution is a major reason why France went into debt
France was already in massive debt from the 7 Years War + Louis XV's crazy overspending. Deciding to help the colonists (and consequently the American government's inability to make payments on what they owed) contributed to the inability to make any progress on the already substantial French debt.
>>391252
Class theory, i.e. Marxist critique.
was the french revolution an uprising against kekoldry?
>>391530
Yes
>>390843
You're basically accusing one or more professional historian of outright forgery.
>>391165
You forget
>doesn't get into wars
I can't believe this guys is fucking le Roi-Soleil's son.
>>392341
I mean, do you think because someone calls themselves a professional historian, they are infallible, without bias and without agenda?
>>392395
I can't believe it either...because he was his great great great grandson.
>>392419
No, it's not about that. It's more about the way that you're attributing a deeply ingrained historical factoid to just one individual pulling shit out of his ass a century or so post factum. And this is the last Queen of France mind you, not some undocumented Micronesian tribe. This is rather disparaging of the entire profession.
>>392432
Fuck.
My bad, I get them mixed up.
But anyway, military adventurism runs in the family. Until they crowned him.
>>392437
More like runs in the entire French history.
I remember one anon mentioned the other day that there was probably not a single decade since Vercingetorix up until 1870 that France was not involved in one military campaign or another. They're belligerent assholes.
>>388628
Didn't he have penis problems?
Like his foreskin was fused or somesuch so it hurt like a motherfucker whenever he got an erection?
>>392455
You have to remember he was like 13 when he married Marie Antoinette. At this age your body is still forming and weird as fuck. But he did manage to score in the end.
>>392455
He had a massive dick apparently.
>>392447
>since Vercingetorix
Well no, there was pax romana in between, not to mention no France.
>up until 1870
lel, you realise France has fought about half a dozen wars in this current decade alone, and we're only halfway through it.
>>392472
Well, French people do have the largest penises in Europe and some of the biggest in the world, statistically speaking (ibn4 >BIG >GALLIC).
Btw, from an evolutionary perspective, penis size in a given society correlates with female polyandry.
>>392435
>It's more about the way that you're attributing a deeply ingrained historical factoid to just one individual pulling shit out of his ass a century or so post factum
Er, because something is a 'deeply ingrained historical factoid' it must be true? Did she also say let them eat cake? Did she also spend France into ruin? etc. Deeply ingrained =/= true.
I also didn't attribute it to one individual. I said that it was popularized by biographers (plural), meaning it was brought from something a small circle of people (for various reasons) believed into something more mainstream.
I mentioned the note because that note was the spark that lit the flame for the biographies that were published in earlier part of the 20th century, despite its lack of authenticity. And despite the fact that the note is so dubious, it's still used as evidence in published findings which claim to prove the affair happened.
>And this is the last Queen of France mind you, not some undocumented Micronesian tribe. This is rather disparaging of the entire profession.
Yes, this is the last Queen of France. Who was so spied upon, watched and scrutinized from the moment she arrived in France until the moment her head was lopped off, whose correspondence we have in (relative) abundance, who was the subject of endless personal accounts and memoirs during her life and afterward, whose personal life was dragged into international reports and gossip rags for the 20-odd years she lived in France. Yet there is still no documentation, despite all that, that shows the affair was a fact. There is a lot of conjecture, a lot of "okay if we twist this around and change this bit, it works," but nowhere near the evidence to make a claim that it's a fact.
Just because a historian says something doesn't make it true. Where did they get their argument from? Why did they make it? A huge part of understanding history is researching sources. When you research the "proof" of the affair, it falls apart.
>>392486
By historians in the early 20th century do you mean Stefan Zweig?
>>392455
That's one theory. At one point Marie Antoinette and her ambassador wrote to Maria Theresa that Louis XV was going to order his physicians to examine Louis to make sure everything was all right down there. Maria Theresa had her personal physician go to Versailles and do the same thing. At one point, surgery was discussed. But then Marie Antoinette wrote that the surgeons decided it wasn't necessary, and there is also no gap at all in his hunting during the time that some historians claim he had surgery and if you had penis surgery in the 18th century, you could bet your ass you wouldn't be hunting for a while.
Unless there was a cover up! A penis surgery cover up.
>>392505
Maybe he was circumcised? It's a pretty simple operation.
>>392495
Zweig, Heidenstam, Söderhjelm, a string of other historians whose names I'd have to look up.
Kind of off topic, but why didn't the hre retaliate when they lopped off Marie's head?
>>392505
Jesus Christ I can only imagine 18th century French tabloids raving about the king's dick.
>>392512
OY VEY THE GOYIM KNOWS
SHUT IT DOWN
>>392515
You mean the Hapsburgs? They declared war negro
>>392519
They wrote extensively about how much of a slut Marie Antoniette was
>>392515
Because
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>>392524
>Hapsburgs
You got some big inbred lips there m8
>>390843
>Yet I doubt you'd find many historians arguing that she had an affair with every one of these people.
You haven't been reading enough revolutionary pamphlets.
>>392524
No, I mean the Hfapthzburgth
>>392543
>King of the French
>Citizen-King
>King of France
Pick one and only one
Unless you mean Carla Bruni or something.
>>392512
No. In France at that time period, circumcision was not considered a medical procedure, but a religious one, so it wouldn't have been considered for phimosis. If he had it, anyway
>>392519
They were not kind to his oui-oui.
>>392536
>You haven't been reading enough revolutionary pamphlets.
>Yet I doubt you'd find many historians arguing that she had an affair with every one of these people.
>historians
>>392543
Actually, she was. She stopped being Queen of France in 1789, when she and Louis' titles were restyled "of the French." "__ of France" was never reinstated.
>>392557
>when she and Louis' titles were restyled "of the French." "__ of France" was never reinstated.
JUST
>>392483
>gauled
By the way, did you know that in french, gaule is a familiar term for erection ? And gaulé means hung.
It doesn't come from the name of the celtic country though, but from a germanic word for stick that became a specific name for a long pole used to whack down fruits from a tree.
>>392574
Yes, I always felt like this was what doomed French monarchy even before the guillotine. Calling your monarch "X of the countrymen" instead of "X of the country" makes him not much more than a privileged usurper. Even strictly constitutional monarchies in modern Europe don't go that far usually, not to mention that Elizabeth isn't "Queen of the Britons".
>>392589
From 1544 to 1973 the king of Sweden was "King of the Swedes, the Goths(Geats) and the Wends"
>>392551
Louis had a hard life.
>>392435
>It's more about the way that you're attributing a deeply ingrained historical factoid
>This is rather disparaging of the entire profession
It is not disparaging to question historians, nor to examine their sources. Far too many "historians" get away with promoting absolutely ridiculous 'facts' as history.
>>393232
>literally a kekold
>>392607
fun fact: The last Queen of the French (and last queen in France) was Marie Antoinette's niece.
>>395617
