How the hell did France successfully repel so many foreign invasions while going through a fucking civil war?
>>918751
That's Map is written in Ukrainian, not Russian.
Conscription.
Motivation. (They used to fled at the first cavalry charge they encountered, but they were getting stronger and stronger with the time)
>>918751
Nothing consolidates a nation so much as good old foreign invasion.
Free men defeating armies of slaves.
>>918751
I can't that stupid map post it in a human langauge.
>>919431
>Free men defeating armies of slaves.
This desu.
>>918751
French troops were highly motivated and well-led while their opponents were having difficulty coordinating their efforts.
On top of that they were the preeminent land power in Europe even with the civil war and revolution, and had pioneered amazing techniques for levying huge amounts of troops at that time.
>>920023
>had pioneered amazing techniques for levying huge amounts of troops at that time
Like what?
>>918751
>levée
>en
>masse
>>919893
Fucking pleb
>>920039
Levée en masse
>>920061
Levee en masse is just levying one man every 138 citizens. What actually enabled them to conscript so much when other couldn't?
>>918767
Nobody fucking cares you autist.
>>920075
A bigger population.
Plus, her enemies could afford to lose the war. France losing the war would mean the destruction of the Republic and the restoration of the Bourbons.
>>920075
Different anon here, what made it different was simply that it existed. Other European powers weren't sending sans-culottes round the country side to either wrangle up some military aged males. There was no special technique about it, just the fact that there was a general practice. Conscription has a double purpose, it raises conscripts and incentivizes enlistment, the latter being the real meat of french conscription,
France was much more populated than other countries in europe
>>920075
>Levee en masse is just levying one man every 138 citizens.
No.
>From this moment until such time as its enemies shall have been driven from the soil of the Republic, all Frenchmen are in permanent requisition for the services of the armies. The young men shall fight; the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothes and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn old lint into linen; the old men shall betake themselves to the public squares in order to arouse the courage of the warriors and preach hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic.
>>920075
Civic ideology. Other conscripts were fulfilling centuries old obligations to their monarchies, not the most exciting thing ever by then, while the French were inundated with revolutionary fervor and indoctrinated with a new relationship between them and the state.
Also France just had a lot more people than its neighbors to begin with, and after decades of economic hardship (and continuing troubles) the army and civil service became that much more attractive.
>>918767
They are essentially the same thing
Can someone explain something for me?
The French Revolution seems like it was incredibly fanatical in its hatred of monarchies and support for republicanism, but then why did everyone support Napoleon in becoming an emperor and starting a whole new dynasty of monarchs almost immediately?
Like why didn't the Americans do the same and raise Washington or whoever to become Emperor of America, but the French didn't have much trouble replacing the Bourbons for the Bonapartes?
>>920111
>Other conscripts were fulfilling centuries old obligations to their monarchies,
Wrong on more than one level.
>>920127
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis
>>920127
>why didn't the Americans do the same and raise Washington or whoever to become Emperor of America
They suggested it. Washington refused.
>>920127
Until 1792, the French Revolution was largely supportive of constitutional monarchy. The extremely fanatical hatred didn't last too long, largely from 1792-93. That was the high point of Republicanism in France, when the Montagnards were in control and the word 'king' evoked a pathological hatred. After the Thermidorian reaction and the overthrow of Robespierre, the Republic mellowed out a little bit. Universal male suffrage and attempts at social leveling were abandoned in favor of a more conservative Republican government that catered to men of means. That was the Directory, but everyone hated the Directorial government because it was a corrupt shithole. So, when Napoleon and his buddies staged their coup people didn't really mind, because the Directory had been so unpopular. Napoleon made himself Consul, and so effectively dictator, and then just dropped the pretensions and made himself Emperor. But, even at his coronation, he swore that he ruled 'by the constitutions of the Republic". It was sort of a slow climb from the radical republicanism of 93-94 to the oligarchic rule of 95-98 to the one man rule of Bonaparte.
Anyway, the years during which the Jacobins were in control, and the years of the Directory had been so chaotic and filled with war, both civil and foreign, that people didn't care anywhere near as much about ideology as they did about finally having a little peace and order in the country, which Napoleon brought.
>>918751
Because republicanism makes the impossible possible
>>920154
They can't it stop Trump
>>920154
>tfwthe US indirectly aided the forces of monarchy rather than their Republican sister country
Will never not trigger me tbqh
>>920127
Cuz countries aren't monolithic, even in the best of circumstances. Mao, who ran what he called a people war, himself admitted (I paraphrase, of course) "You get maybe 10% with you, the rest are just sort of there."
Napoleon was a compromise that the major sections of french society were willing to accept, a monarch with all the royal trappings but in some sense "revolutionary".
>>920081
>A bigger population.
Than all the foe countries combined?
I dont think so
Just Austria + Russia were enough to outnumber the French pop by an important margin
>>920172
gathering conscripts in Russia was an administrative nightmare before railways, tho.
>>920168
I like to compare him to Stalin. He did away with a lot of the revolution's more progressive, radical reforms, purged much of the left opposition, and established cordial relations with other countries rather than waging an ideological war against them, yet still prevented the old order from returning, codified many of the revolution's more moderate gains, and painted himself as its incarnation and defender.
Just like most communists around the world supported Stalin despite his betrayal of many original revolutionary ideals, international republicans back in the day supported Napoleon.
>>920127
>>920142
Yeah, the reason Washington's such a great man is that all he wanted to do was go home. He just wanted to farm his land and pork his wife, which is truly inspirational as people were begging him to take up the role as Emperor of America. They even had a huge amount of trouble getting him to go for a second term.
>>920172
France had the home advantage on top of the levee en masse. If Austria and Russia combined dwarfed France, they were still not as coordinated fighting as allies than the French by themselves, and were limited by how many men they could gather for an army and then send them on an expedition to France.
>>918751
Levee en masse
>>920187
It is a flawed comparison though because there was not party Napoleon had to take over. Also Stalin did not purge the "left". For many people in the party he was the radical left. What he did was squelching the democratic voices.
>>920188
I imagine him idolizing Cincinnatus had something to do with it
France was a nation in arms. They actually armed their population. Other nations couldn't do this because their people might go all Robespierre on them. No such danger for the French- it was already happening.
I still find it unbelievable that France was the second most populous country in the world back then, even more populous than Russia or the Ottoman Empire
>>920225
When I was little I could never wrap my head around how a geographically small country could ever defeat one much larger by land area.
The idea that Germany ever attacked Russia seemed like sheer insanity because Russia was just so much bigger, how could they ever hope to win?
>>920228
Afraid of his Thermidor? Do you mean afraid of his Leipzig or something?
Thermidor happened long before Napoleon came to power.
>>920225
Is it that unbelievable? I mean both Russia and the Ottomans had maybe one or two major centers of very dense urbanization while the countryside was pretty sparse, while Western Europe had smaller but far more numerous densely populated urban centers and their countrysides were more populous.
>>920242
Of course if you observe the situation more closely and think more logically it IS logical, although Russia is huge and the ottoman empire possessed area's that once held populations that together could easily have outnumbered france's in 1789
>>920164
They made up for it in 1812
>>920188
I have never been sure about this. I've heard it proposed that if he had had a biological son he might have set up a monarchy. He was certainly more power-hungry than most people realize.
