This one generally seems to be an extremely overlooked aspect of french and european history. What i also find intriguing are the obvious parallels between the war in the Vendée and the american civil war: In both cases you had a rural conservative farmer's population rising up against their liberal-leaning/enlightenment-type central government trying to impose its will and values on said rural population, as well as the aspect of the latter being dramatically outmanned and outgunned in every single aspect by their adversary, but yet fighting on out of idealistic motives. Even the scorched earth retributional tactics were pretty much the same in both of these domestic conflicts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZs1ihouDM
I don't really know enough about the specifics of the whole Vendée campaign in order to ascertain whether they actually had a realistic chance of thriumphing over the revolutionaries in Paris or not, but i find the thought experiment itself very interesting.
Would it be safe to say that, had they won the war in the Vendée, both liberalism/masonry and communism would have never been able to develop into fully-fledged political ideologies over the course of the 19th century?
I mean it's more than obvious that the french revolution itself was the "root cause" of these political doctrines so to speak. The soviets even still made flattering biopics about Napoleon and the french revolution even in the 1970's.
So what say you /his/? Did the Vendée rebels at any point have a realistic chance at some point of persisting against the central government, and how would history have played out if they actually did?
>>904972
>communism would have never been able to develop into fully-fledged political ideologies over the course of the 19th century?
That's a pretty big maybe. Disgruntled people like Marx would have arisen regardless, but the timeline might have been skewed. The effect in Russia, for example might well have been the same, due to the motivations of the revolutionaries.
>liberalism/masonry
Stop that silliness.
I'm just glad they were crushed as they were.
>In both cases you had a rural conservative farmer's population rising up against their liberal-leaning/enlightenment-type central government trying to impose its will and values on said rural population
I say this as a pretty big fan of the Jacobins;
There's a pretty big difference between rural peasants wanting to be left alone and wealthy slavers throwing a temper-tantrum about losing a democratic election fair and square, then proceeding to attack US government property, kickstart a massive war, and then whine for the next 150 years about MUH NORTHERN AGRESHUN and MUH STAETS RITES!
>>906375
>>906375
Why are you ignoring the fact that the "proclamation of the rights of man" which was a brainchild of said anti-monarchist revolutionaries literally had all those masonic emblems on top of it, like the all-seeing eye and masonic pyramid?
This is a basic fact. It's pretty obvious and many historians freely admit that the masons gave a lot of support to the french revolution in 1789
>>906375
>Stop that silliness.
Not OP, but are you implying that masonry isn't the father of modern west democracies? [spoiler] btw i've nothing against it [/spoiler]
France would still have a culture and not be a dump.
>>906430
pls madame de staël, you're dead
>>906430
Louis Alphonse pls go
>>906418
>masonic emblems on top of it, like the all-seeing eye and masonic pyramid?
The former isn't a "Masonic" emblem, it's a universal, mostly Christian/Catholic one. And the latter isn't Masonic at all. People just say it is.
>many historians freely admit that the masons gave a lot of support to the french revolution in 1789
One wrong man can always find a friend, because that ignores the actual make up of French Masonry at the time, and Freemasonry being a pro-monarchy institution. Pro-tip: the revolutionaries joining lodges and ruining them doesn't make Masonry a supporter of their ideals. This is why at the time many lodges broke off and formed other Grand Lodges to keep the traitors out.
>>906419
Yea, pretty much.
>>906398
That's your perspective, though. Yea, there were a lot of bastards wanting to make a profit, but how was it not tyranny from DC to declare that the Confederates could never have a say over them in their own land?
This is what a true leader looks like.
Fat stinky Corsicans aren't true leaders.
>>906494
>>906494
That's one very weird claim you made there friendo, because last time i took a look at masonic "enlightenment"-era ideals they explicitly called for "enlightened man" to tear off all the "shackles of monarchist tyranny and opressive reactionary tradition."
>>906521
Yea? Source?
>>906523
The burden of proof lies on the one making the accusation. You were the one calling the masons pro-monarchy, not me pal.
>>906494
>Yea, pretty much.
Are you denying the existence of "intellectual circles" and "salons" in countries/times when the majority of the citizens were illiterate and the world was completely analog?
c'mon man, just thing of people like mirabeau... masonry was a necessity.
>>906556
>because last time i took a look at masonic "enlightenment"-era ideals they explicitly called for
You're the one who seemed to have a source here and are making the accusation...
But there are several points, such as the Senior Warden charge of the 1st degree (Em.Rit.) which calls for "never losing sight of that loyalty owed to the monarch of your native land", the obligations having members swearing fealty to the monarch, and so on.
>>906572
>masonry was a necessity.
I disagree. People like that would have gathered anyway. Masonry however, spoke against such things, and supports natural hierarchy such as monarchy.
>...As hierarchy is necessary to preserve order, some must be allowed to govern where some must by necessity serve...
It does talk of equality of contribution, but not the liberal idea of everyone being 100% equal like clones.
>>906556
sounds to me like both of you made a claim
>>906594
>Masonry however, spoke against such things, and supports natural hierarchy such as monarchy.
"natural" hierarchy means everything and nothing, also remember that at the beginning (almost everywhere) the right to vote was linked to ability to pay tax, according to the principle that you can politically contribute to the the rule of your country only if you do it financially at first.
>It does talk of equality of contribution, but not the liberal idea of everyone being 100% equal like clones.
Be masons doesn't mean to be part of an omniscient, immortal, elite that controls the world while drinks champagne and laughs of the plebs.
My next sentence will be wrong in various ways but; you've to think to masonry as something needed as sort of "political parties" in a pre ideological and democratic world.
>>906768
>"natural" hierarchy means everything and nothing
Sure, but that's just being pedantic, given the context.
>also remember that at the beginning (almost everywhere) the right to vote was linked to ability to pay tax, according to the principle that you can politically contribute to the the rule of your country only if you do it financially at first.
Sure, but i don't see your point.
>Be masons doesn't mean to be part of an omniscient, immortal, elite that controls the world while drinks champagne and laughs of the plebs.
Uh, agreed?
>you've to think to masonry as something needed as sort of "political parties" in a pre ideological and democratic world.
It looks that way now, through a modern lens, but back in the day, it was far closer to a college of science, or more specifically, The Royal Society (obviously).
>>904972
I actually know nothing about this topic. What were they fighting for? Restoration of the monarchy?
>>906885
They were very hostile to the de-christianizing tendencies of the revolutionaries in Paris. The Convention also equalized taxes across the country, which, while it meant that many had their burden lightened, others had it increased. And, yes, royalist sentiment.
>>906885
The initial revolts in the Vendee were about religion, not about the monarchy. The new Republican government instated laws which were somewhat similar to what happened in England during the reign of Henry VIII--Church property and goods were seized, nuns and priests were ordered to take an oath that would be considered blasphemous, church orders and organizations were shut down, various practices considered essential to practicing religion were banned (everything from banning nuns wearing habits to banning crosses at grave sites) and some revolutionaries took to harassing and beating up priests, nuns and church-goers who didn't follow the rules. Nuns in particular were subject to being dragged in public, stripped, and beaten.
Then there was a really big draft/conscription that pissed the region off due to the sheer size of required conscriptees in each region. Instead of joining the national army, they formed their own "Catholic Army," which later became known as the Royal Catholic Army.
The royalist aspect didn't come into play until later, and even then it wasn't significant. It was mostly the religious laws and conscription that started and moved the revolt. Which makes it more depressing to me--they weren't even trying to get a royal back on the throne, they were fighting against what they perceived as persecution of their religion (which went against the principles of the 1789 revolution) and the forced conscription that was more like something the ancien regime would do.
>>906375
Marx was incredibly influenced by the french revolution and its successors. I'm willing to bet he would have been a no-name liberal aristocrat otherwise
>>906895
this
>>907345
>they weren't even trying to get a royal back on the throne
in a way it was like they went - so you killed the king, fine, now god is our king, screw you, your laws, your conscription and your taxes
as in, if the monarchy was 'the state', the revolution ended that, and the position of authority has been emptied, but there was no basis on which some other entity could claim that authority and expect everyone in france to just accept it and obey, other than calling upon universalities and abstract absolutes, same way the monarchy ultimately called upon divine mandate for legitimation
>>907345
So they lost the all-out power struggle during the revolution, as participants?
>>904972
This guy slaps your gf's ass and says "redeem thyself, whore"
what do
>>907345
Good post, but I will point to you that catholicism and royalism were bound together, the mentality was "best form of government has to resemble the hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven, aka royalism"
>The royalist aspect didn't come into play until later, and even then it wasn't significant.
But also remember that their generals were nobles.
