Follow me on social media for a behind-the-scenes look at my learning journey: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT Also like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻
I remembered. Please watch the video "Khrushchev in the USA in 1959" or better "Khrushchev in Hollywood" - I liked it better. The fact is that Khrushchev visited Los Angeles in 1959 and performed in Hollywood - this is the very video that tells not about the enmity of the two superpowers, but about general trends, watch it for sure! I'm really looking forward to it. I personally will be the first to see your reaction to this video, as I am interested in how you will comment on this video. And if you're going to make a reaction, please make the video longer...
To some extent, he did support the revolution. Not in it's actual form, sure, but he was a reformist. The main problem came from the church and nobility, who were completely opposed to any attempts at a reformation. Louis' mistake was his lack of absolutism in the situation. It may sound weird, but he should have used absolute power to give freedom. The issue with that is that he was a genuinely nice dude and didn't like conflict. He wanted everyone to be pleased. And he completely hated his position as king. The guy liked nothing more than spending the day with scientists, blacksmiths, farmers... He even spent afternoons with roofers working on maintenance of the palace like a blue collar.
@@carlhartwell7978 not only the coin but now thinking of it probably the disguise itself was a sus. Like the checkpoint guy prob got confused why 2 servants would leave France as prob all servants and lower classes were too poor to travel and prob werent even allowed to do so
true. But to be fair, the French nobility was awful (as mentioned in the video). So the resentment for the Brits in the US was pale in comparison to the resentment the French peasantry felt about their nobility. And finally - without sounding like a snob - the American revolution was organized by the bourgeoisie of the country (albeit slave owners). Not by the bottom of society.
Napoleon led to some major events in world history including the formation of Germany, independence of the Spanish American colonies, independence of Brazil, the war of 1812 between America and Britain. And the spreading of enlightenment values all over Europe and even the finding of the Rosetta stone.
Yep, Napoleon I dissolved the HRE and fostered German nationalism. The north German confederation is then formed. A few wars and a speech by Bismarck later the German Empire formed and Napoleon III lost power after losing to Prussia therefore allowing Germany to form, staring a resentment that would help lead to the first world war.
It is also partly responsible, by the propagation of the Revolution, for the spring of the peoples and basically almost all the European revolutions of the 19th century.
5:44, King Louis was gradually losing control of the country, but was pretending to be ok with the revolution to not give his people the excuse to depose him. I had a chance to read up about this, ultimately he tried to leave because Louis felt his appeasement tactics were failing and if he could get military support from his allies like Austria, he could put down the revolution and get his power back. This is why his subjects were calling him a traitor when he got caught trying to flee.
@@Fordo007 To be very fair, there is a strand of political philosophy (and its often practical as well ) that Rulers only derive their 'right to rule' if they nourish and support their people. "Divine Right of Kings" was falling out of favor. Certainly at BEST, Lous was inept, at worst he was uncaring. In short, he failed his 'duties' as a King. And for a practical matter, so long as the common people's bellies are full and they are kept otherwise happy or busy the "King" (or whatever ruling class) can get away with alot, but the French people were tired of not only being oppressed but being oppressed and starved was the final straw and who could freaking blame them?
@@Fordo007 What else would you call someone fleeing to foreign lands in order to wage war on his own country and people ? Citizen Louis had a chance to remain in power , but he constantly vetoed every single piece of legislation , raising anger towards him
@@Fordo007 Im late to the party but the first reason he was called a traitor was because he wanted to go to Austria and organise a literal invasion of the country sided by a foreign power. And that is straight up treason.
Both the King and Marie were actually pretty chill about the whole thing and Marie had even tried to help the people, but just didn't have much influence in France to do a whole lot so her efforts were largely lost in all the bad publicity and propaganda. However there was also a massive scandal going on at the time, that the royal family had nothing to do with, but had been implicated in by a scam artist that massively soured the people's opinions of them.
France went through more of a revolution than the USA. The USA never had to overthrow and replace a government, they just had to fight a war against a foreign power. It’s more a war of independence. It’s different when your enemy lives on the other side of town compared to an ocean. France is closer to the pattern of actual revolutions than the Americans
Yup, hence the violence. France had to fight internal ennemies and political indecisiveness (after a milenia of a set system) on all sides and protect itself from some of the most powerful western countries of the time. Civil unrest being a bit more dangerous than a peaceful protest with the occasional birck in a window at the time, violence was a necessary evil for a gvt to preserve itself and the country.
Agreed. Civil war can be far more bitter and bloody than overthrowing a foreign occupation or a colonial master and tends to produce unrest that has effects for generations. The French revolution and Russian Revolution both had a number of stages with putches, counter movements and violent destructions of entire classes (nobility and church) and later purges of counter revolutionaries. Raising a mob and controlling it are two very different things a lot depends on how united the aims of the uprising are and on the quality of the new leaders that emerge. Rebels tend to agree only on what they are fighting against - rarely on what they are fighting for.
@@starrynight1657 true but not to the extent of what France went trough. Between 15 and 20% of "americans" were loyalists, but in the end they retained their rights post-war, and it was still a situation of being thousands of miles away from the power that should have held things together. The king was an idea more than an actual power. France had a more physical connection to a monarchic system. The political currents that emerge from that are wildly different.
Yup, you're taking things Waaaay to seriously, there is such a thing in the UK called Gallows humour were things are so bad you cope with it with humour, it doesn't make the acts any less terrible.
Yeah i agree I'm French and I don't find it offensive. We are taught about the revolution in schools and the guillotine, the counter revolutionary uprisings and the atrocities committed against those who did not accept the new regime are not glossed over. However I think humour is one of the best answers to terror and fear. After the attacks on Paris one thing that made me feel better was watching John Oliver openly make fun of what had happened on HBO. Because to me it means life goes on no matter what happens. I can understand why one would feel that way though.
There are some people who have a different perspective, and that's totally okay... in fact, it probably lends to a better understanding of history if you treat terrible and violent periods with the weight and gravitas they observe. Obviously, Oversimplified isn't where you should be going if you have that in mind, but still.
the French Revolution is basically THE blueprint of all the revolution... while the American revolution is the blueprint for all the independence wars...
To address your confusion over King Louis XVI: he didn't want the revolution. He didn't want to lose all his power. But considering that angry mobs were raising heads on pikes, he decided to pretend to go along with it. When he got caught trying to flee for Austria, the people realized that he was just pretending to go along with the revolution, and they felt like he was a traitor for leaving the country just because he didn't like his loss of power.
I was out driving in france, didnt really know where i was, stopped at a small town to stretch my legs. Saw there was a big information sign by a bridge so walked over to read it... I was in Varennes... And as a history nerd i found it hilarious that i just happened to stop there.
Brutus: wants to preserve rome as a republic and not as an empire by killing julius caesar (Accidentally ended the roman republic instead) Charlotte corday: wants to end the violence of the revolution and their hostility towards the church by killing marat (Accidentally makes the revolution became more violent and hostile towards the church instead) Lesson learn, don't kill someone thinking it would change something.
Actually a little known fact the Marie-Antoinette's quote of , “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche” "Let them eat cake " is incorrect because there is no evidence of her saying this in response to the poor having no bread
There was a set of comedy films in the UK in the 1960s/1970s called Carry-On films. The casts were made up of famous British comedy actors of the time and covered various activities and periods in history. One of them was called Carry-On don't lose your head...based on the French revolution and the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Great fun .I hope it's available in the U.S.
The guillotine wasn’t named after its inventor. Dr. Guillotine merely suggested it as a way to execute people humanely, since there had been many botched executions before. King Louis actually suggested the use of a slanted blade back when he was in charge… on his own head, as it were. But similar devices existed before, such as the Scottish Maiden
Fun fact, the Soviet Battleship Marat was named after the Frzench Revoultionary Marat... 1792 was a turning point, not only France was threatened by other Nations which wanted to restore Divine Rule but the Revolution actually became a civil war... Actually at this point French Revolution was closer to what the Russian Revolution was in 1917... In fact L16th last words were about his dear scientific expedition, Lapérouse expedition who left years earlier on a Worldwide trip through the oceans to copy Cook's for Circumnavigations in one, unfortunately, they had no news apart from De Lesseps report and samples (he came back from Siberia by himself on a cart pulled by dogs, his return trip lasted about a year... The rest of the Expedition went to Botany Bay (Sidney, Australia) and got lost in a storm, the two ships sank beside the island of Vanikoro in the South Pacific and remains were founds decades later and finally really analyed only a decade or two ago... We think some survivors made it to the island but there is no certainty on what they did after it, how long did they stay there? Were they eaten by the locals? Did they try to salvage part of their ships and build a raft to attempt a return trip to Australia? Unfortunately, in the 20th Century, the island was pretty much turned upside down by a woodchopping company with no regards for archeological remains... The only preserved archeological sites are the wrecks where a skeleton was found undr a piece of ships wreckage, protected by it for two centuries, the only body found there... they attempted a recreation of his face from anthropological data and his skull for identification but no certainty emerged from the operation, all that we can be sure of is that it couldn't be a crew member, he wasn't muscled enough for a trained sailor, he must have been a scientist or a surgeon given the toolbox found beside the remains. L16th last words were "and did we hear about Lapérouse lately?" His last ever words were not even for himself, God or his position of power, they were for his scientific expedition... Imagine President Nixon being executed on July 1969, asking if they had news from Armstrong and Apollo 11 mission before being executed... And as for the Guillotine, it was designed to chop cigares... but the design was enlarged for human necks. And ironically the brain remains concious for 20 to 30 seconds after the head if chopped off, that why the executed has his eyed covered so he or she doesn't see him or herself roll over... Every method of execution has a dark side to it. People living far away from decision centered have always been more independant in their decision making because being remote means the power doesn't have an interest in your vicinity so you must do with what you have and do it yourself. Conservatism often goes in pair with autodetermination. No wonder why Australia is so libertarian in there ways of thinking, they always have been the backwater world of the British Empire, first a gigantic goulag of sorts and then a pretty much abandoned part of the Empire, remote from main commercial routes and influence centers. The last big action they saw was WW2... The Terror period is not unlike the Stalinian Purge era, everyone denouncing his neighbour to avoid being sent to the Gulags... As for the financial state of the country, the Revolution created massive inflation with the first bank notes that valued nothing, and led the country into the first modern economic crisis. Napoleon re indexed the money on Gold and pillaged the neighbouring countries for Gold reserves... Gold reserves that were later sent to USA to protect them against the Nazis and the US never gave it back and as of now, don't have it anymore as a matter of fact, they sold it a long time ago. As for Robespierre, he really created a new religion on the Supreme Being cult and we don't really know if he thought of himself as a God or if it was the anti Robespierre propaganda who spread that idea. That being said, he thought of himself as higher than most, that's for sure. Robespierre tried to commit suicide with a gun, but he missed and only injured his neck near the ear instead. So it was an injured Robespierre who was executed. Nelson lost his arm in the Egypt naval battle of Aboukir near Alexandria in 1799. The French fleet was exhausted, half of the men were searching for food on land and the admiral wasn't able to go tow to tow against Nelson whose half squadron daringly went behind the French battleline where they didn't have guns ready to awnser. The battles culminated with the explosion of the French Flag Ship, the Orient, the biggest explosion ever seen or heard at the time when the powder magasines were hit by a raging fire on board. The explosion took one British ship down with it. Other ships were damaged by pieces of the wreckage sent upwards. The explosion was so massive that men were deafened for minutes and the battle stopped while the crews were stunned, it was heards about 20 miles away ! (Nelson thought he would die from his injury but no, he died 6 years later in the battle of Trafalgar, his ultimate triumph against the French Navy) Irony, one of the surviving and uncaptured French ships pursued and sunk the messenger ship sent by Nelson to report his victory to England. And I agree, the French never called their Revolution "The French Civil War" because it doesn't sound cool for the new comers at the powerhouse... But it turned into a civil war indeed. And civil wars are the most ugliest thing you can imagine for a country after a dictatorship and one usually goes with the other, most of the time.
Fun fact, the French revolution was the inspiration of the Communist revolution in Russia, the Bolcheviks sang the French national anthem before having their own and Stalin called himself Robespierre and Lenin Danton. :)
The french revolution was indeed brutal, but it's hard to imagine today how violent was the society back then. The old monarchy "ancient régime" as we call it could see anybody imprisoned without trial, the royal army would often raid the country to curb dissent in what we call "dragonades" (because it was performed by a cavalry corps called "dragons" ). The violence of the revolution is also to be put in context with the war on all fronts France was waging against all Europeans superpowers of the time. The fear of "internal ennemies" was bolstered by the fear of foreign invasion. Which was justified considering how horrified the ruling elites of Europe with this new king-less regime and how on some occasions rebel armies tried and succeeded to open the country for foreign invasion. Also the oversimplified kinda overshadows some more positive aspects of the revolution : chiefly, strict equality before the law. Some other measures for exemple the legalization of divorce and decriminilaziation of homosexuality were at the time hugely progressive. (especially when we see it's still an issue for some today). The jewish community in France was given citizenship and equal rights with all other citizens at a time when antisemmitism was a widespread norm uphold by the church. The regulation of prices for vital products on the market was a groundbreaking measure to try and insure everybody (almost) could afford to feed themselves (which was far from the norm before the revolution). Rather than being nominated by the king the bishops and judges were now elected by the people. The state seizing all the church and former aristocratic assets to turn them into national property can be seen as either a tragedy or a incredible step toward a more equal society depending on how we consider it, but in the long run it allowed the growth of a bigger middle class, with farmers owning their lands rather than paying rent and taxes to their lord and bishop for it. The anti-church sentiment that brewed during the revolution paved the way in France to the far more accepting secular society we enjoy today, teaching and education freed from religious beliefs greatly benefited science and social progress. Also slavery was briefly abolished which was as far as I know a first in the western world. (though it was shortly after re-instated by Napoléon) Economy wise, the ancient régime enforced harsh monopolies on some vital infrastructure. Things such as a bread ovens or windmills were the property of aristocrats, they taxed their usage and forbade anybody else from building their own. This system was extremely inneficcient since the aristocrats holding the monopoly had no reason to improve said infrastructures. The end of aristocratic priviledges meant that anybody who had the means could build their own. It's just an exemple but all the economy worked that way under an intricate web of aristocratic and clergy monopolies which left very little chance for the commoner to improve it's livelyhood or for technical progress to happen. The Revolution prompted both unprecedented levels of economic liberalism in old Europe and unprecedented levels of state intervention in the economy. It was the end of feudalism and paved the way to the mix we have in western Europe today, between economic liberalism and strong public policies.
The Duke of Brunswick, who warned the French, that they shouldn't kill their king, wasn't a prussian duke like it was said in the video. He was a german one, Brunswick (Braunschweig) being one of the little german countries. It was usually allied to Britain, since the British King was also the prince-elector (Kurfürst) (and duke) of Hannover - Brunswick's greater neighbour.
Dr Joseph Ignace Guillotin (not Guillotine) proposed the introduction of the machine that became known as the guillotine. He played no part in its invention. Louis16th (probably apocryphally) is said to have suggested a modification to the design of the blade.
"the French revolution should be called the five French revolutions" i mean 1848 and there is the fact that France has had 5 republics cause unlike the US when ever a republic is considred to have stopped functioning the republic is ended a new constitution drawn up and a new republic declared
1784: Adam Weishaupt issues his order for the French Revolution to be started by by Maximilien Robespierre in book form. This book was written by one of Weishaupt's associates, Xavier Zwack, and sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However en route there, the courier is struck by lightning, the book detailing this plan discovered by the police, and handed over to the Bavarian authorities. 1786: The Bavarian government publish the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, "The Original Writings of The Order and Sect of The Illuminati." They then send this document to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, but sadly their warning is ignored.
There were no passports at that time but people carried letters of introduction written by people in power of authority like the local mayor or governor of a region for businessmen or large land owners. Statues of monarchy would be in all major cities and on the coins used daily by the general population so everyone would know what the king or queen looked like!!
A fun fact. Beethoven's 3rd symphony was dedicated to Napoleon, Beethoven being a bit of a republican, when Napoleon declared himself emperor, Beethoven was so angry he scratched Napoleon name off the manuscript which can still be seen today.
Interesting that how you addressed people and the words that you used at that time could get you into serious trouble. I hope that never happens again. OH! wait a minute.
yup the french revolution was super violent the word "Terrorists" comes from here, the radicals usually called themselfs that and were proud of it. Fun fact: the terminologies of left and right on the political spectrum comes from here, where the people who wanted a constitutiunal mornachy sit on the right and the ones who wanted to remove the king sit on the left. Another fun fact: the last kill by guillotine was in 1977
i lived in france for a bit never knew all that happened only a few bits of there history,to busy working i was surprised how many counts ,vice counts or what ever they were called i met but that looks like what happens in a lot of african countries
So basically louis was an overall indecisive man, and because of that he tended to follow the last one who talked, a moment he was supportive, the next he was against the revolution altogether, this was compounded by the fact that he often relied on other for governing. But on a fundamental basis he was against it and did try to leave the country to raise an army to reconquer France later. So in short he's not our worse king(there's been so so much worse), but he's far from the best.
One thing I think it's rather important, is that the french revolution, or rather watching the french revolution was the inspiration for the British conservadorism which was all about being careful with change, change was needed but as one book I read once said(can't recall which book) "To fix a leak on your roof you shouldn't be setting your house on fire." Seeing how the revolution went that's understandable, no one want to deny Freedom, Equality or Fraternity, but without being extremely careful well...
He did show up in toga to try to emulate Moses coming down from Mount Sinai. One person shouted "it was not enough for him to be master, he had to be God".
Napoleon created the French legal system. If I am correct, There is a major difference between US/UK system and the French. In the US/UK system you can legally do just about anything that isn't limited by law. The French system you cannot do anything unless permitted.
it's interesting to hear the opinion of Americans about the French revolution. France effect if not caused the Americans to succeed in their independence war.
There's a second french revolution in 1830 and a third one in 1848, which ends up with Napoleon III becoming president then emperor. But both those revolutions were not as bad the first one.
I just see youre eastfront video's and if you want more information about the battle of Stalingrad you can wacht the very good made serie from Tik: battlestorm Stalingrad he is making about it, its already 10/11 hours long and the battle is now going to start in the city itself. But you can see that the germans already lost the battle for one part and that is before the street fighting. Its very in depth, very nice made maps and he explainse everything very good
the thing with these revolution is they happen against weak monarchs who typically are too lenient with the revolutionaries and end up getting killed due to it. Stronger monarchs would've nipped those revolutions in the bud. The narrative people think is revolutions happen against tyrants... but generally a tyrant could crush a revolution... instead they happen against weak leaders who generally don't go far enough in being authoritarian or being a reformer. Staying wishy-washy in the middle rarely works out.
@@melkor3496 nah she actually put effort and try to learn from the videos. Most people who react to videos just react to the videos and then forget about it a few days later. But I can tell that she actually want to learn something and is interesting in the topic. Which is what make the reaction good
Interesting (maybe) anecdote about the guillotine, in the town of Halifax (my home town) we have a replica of a similar device that we were using over a hundred years before the French revolution, there was some claim that the guillotine was modelled on it although this article en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Gibbet seems to disagree.
If you want a more sober summary, I really rate this documentary: th-cam.com/video/5pXxoyk5wOo/w-d-xo.html As for books, it's surprisingly difficult to find anything comprehensive. There's biographies (mostly of people on the privileged side) but not a 'history of the revolution'. I first got interested after reading the novel "A Place of Greater Safety" and that covers everything from the time of Robespierre's birth up to Danton's execution (it's a long book) and it's from the perspective of the revolutionaries, mostly. The best non-fiction I've found so far is "Liberty: The Lives and Times of Six Women in Revolutionary France". It's kinda biography but it is looking at the events of the revolution through the perspective of the woman most closely associated with that event. And several of the women included are working-class.
Passports have been around a long time they were simple letters from the countries government or the monarch requesting the country they were visiting to allow passage and offer aid in needed
Actually there would be even more revolutions. After Napoleon you have the royal restauration followed by the 1830 revolution leading to an other king, followed by the 1848 revolution leading to the 2nd Republic (Louis-Napoleon => 1st president then emperor aka Napoleon the 3rd) eventually followed by the Franco-prussian war leading to the 1871 revolution!!!! Comparatively the USA system is much more stable as it has been roughly the same for the last 230 years.
The world was a lot smaller back then human wise. Dont see why a peasant wouldn't recognize the figure heads that were literally posted everywhere at the time frame.
The chosen video is not only very simple but it takes the black legend made by the conservatives against the revolution that marked the beginning of the end of feudalism in Europe. For the record, it is not a criticism against you, but against the chosen video
Napoleons a fascinating and complex figure but watching videos on the Napoleonic wars wont teach you about his greatest achievement which is the civil code, used by up to 40 countries worldwide he empowered millions of people. However (even tho the wars were more often not his fault than his fault) he is still responsible for a large amount of suffering. But what’s remarkable is that In ten years he achieved more for law and social reform than other dynasties in Europe did over centuries of rule
@@SoGal_YT that’s brilliant that you want to learn more, may i ask is the author of the book you bought Andrew Roberts or Adam Zamoyski? Roberts is quite pro Napoleon, zamoyski being more anti. Tho both I’m sure are great historians, if you bought the zamoyski one maybe at some point check Roberts “Napoleon the Great.” If you bought the Roberts “Napoleon a life” then it is the same book as Napoleon the Great (just a different title) so don’t buy the same book twice ! An interesting fact is Napoleon has more books written about him than anyone else in history (except maybe religious prophets Christ and Mohammed) There is an estimated 300,000-400,000 books on Napoleon which means there has been more books written on him than DAYS since he died. (which this year will be 200 years ago!) Take care
It's the Roberts book. I did some research and tried to find one as unbiased as possible, and people said that Roberts was as close as they found to that. But after your comment, I'm not so sure anymore :) I've been out of the loop on Napoleon. Had no idea he was such a popular figure. He just doesn't get hardly any attention here in the States.
14:37 In Short: yes. In long: there is a general tendencies for the cities and the "land" to be divided through mankind history. Its not uncommon for Europe history in the 18th and 19th century, that the cities were pro democracy while the land was loyal to the monarchy. You can see this in many occasions: the french revolution, the Argument about Prussians military reform in the 1860s and that Marxist where constantly arguing whenever the peasant where to be convinced to the revolution or if they were inherently counter revolutionary.
Once you have reacted to the Otto von Bismarck series by extra credits I really suggest reacting to this series right after as a follow up. It has 4 parts here is the first. th-cam.com/video/S-wSL4WqUws/w-d-xo.html seminal tragedy. By extra credits It’s about what lead to ww1. If you wanna do everything in order than next thing to watch is Otto von Bismarck 6 part series by extra credits and then this one extra credits seminal tragedy which I now recommended and then go into epic history ww1 series but that’s just if you wanna do it in order.
I think you'd enjoy reacting to the Unfinished London series by Jay Foreman. It would great insight into what the UK's actually like after your reaction to CGP Grey's UK, Britain and England explained video.
The French Revolution really got more and more out of control as time went on. This unfortunately tends to happen with a lot of revolutions. They start off fighting for understandable and even noble goals the make the peoples lives better but quickly spin out of control into and orgy of blood and violence with the factions fighting more concerned with power and control then with helping the people.
Most revolutions start with good intentions of and for the general population but sadly end usually with a dictatorship in place of a monarchy of elected government.
@@taijohatsumoto394 seeing as its physically impossible to cut through thr human neck in one clean sweep. No your family member was not performing the quickest form of execution that has never once single time failed.
after the head is cut off, the king stays alive for a few seconds. The executioner takes the head out of the basket where it rolled, and shows it to the happy public. So the king can see how much his death is appreciated by his people. And this is his last sight...
Hi Melkor, right now I don't have a set schedule, but I try to post at least 3 videos a week, every 2-3 days. Posting every day isn't possible with my personal schedule, but I may try to stick to releasing videos certain days of the week. This whole TH-cam thing is pretty new to me, so I've been experimenting to see what I'm able to do. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
It's a very very biased view of the french revolution. There is too much inaccuracy to correct all of them but for example he makes sound the condamnation of the king a Robespierre caprice but the king was indeed guilty of helping the foreign country to invade France. Also the situation was a lot more complicate than that and all the violences weren't on RObespierre and the Jacobin. In fact the hardest time of the Terror were the act of so called "moderate" who later took down Robespierre. Danton was also guilty (trahison) and in no way a moderate as it his shown also he was beheaded months before the battle of Fleurus... All the part on Robespierre is nonsense in fact. Well as I said too many errors...
Compare the reign of fear to the McCarthy era or how free speach is being threatened now in many countries... That slippery slope is coming into focus isn't it?
There was a passport in 1791 which had a wax seal and was issued by the National Assembly in France. They are putting a lot of absolute rubbish in the video. There is a tv series starring Richard E Grant as Sir Percy Blakney The Scarlet Pimpernel which covers The French Revolution. Also there is Carry On Don’t Lose Your Head a comedy film about The French Revolution starring Sid James, Jim Dale, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey, Joan Sims and Peter Butterworth (actor David Niven’s superior officer during WW2). Robspiere was executed by Guillotine
About Louis: he didn't support the revolution. As far as he was concerned, his right to rule was given by God. Period. The problem was, that he was overly firm when he should have been relaxed, and he relaxed when he should have been firm. For instance, at one point he disbanded the Estates General, but the third estate said: "We're not leaving until we get an answer to our problems." Louis shrugged and let them stay, which led to them getting more independent. Later on, when he should have worked with them to solve France's debts, he turned autocrat and had them kicked out, which led to the Tennis Court Oath. He wasn't a bad person, but he was the kind of person who you can count on to make the wrong decision every single time in a moment of crisis.
06:20 Really? Puts me more in mind of Fort Sumter or what was the spark to the US Civil War. 11:57 How did you think Napoleon came to power? 14:42 That could account for the variations in the strength of the socialist movements in different countries before 1917. 22:22 Exactly. If you look hard enough there were totalitarian regimes before the invention of radio.
People stating that Louis XVI was a bad king... Are neither wrong neither right, he got cought up in a mess he wasn't prepared for, same story with Tsar Nicholas II Romanov and the Russian revolution, both tried reforms but the people were sick and tired of starving and a single man ruling over them, noone can say if they were a bad or a good ruler since they haven't rule for long, and not to their own fault, sure both mostly tried to save their own skin, but can you really blame them? When Something around 90% of the nation wants you dead, even tho most of the shite happening ain't your fault, what ya gon' do? (in my opinion they were victims of their times, if anything)
hes trying to get young people interested in history so i think thats why he tries to make it less grotesque. also it is called "oversimplified" for a reason lol
Yeah, and it took us at least a century to figure out that we actually kinda like Republics to begin with: between 1789 and 1889 in France we have, after the 3+ political regimes of the Revolution: Napoleon's Consulate, 1st Empire, Borbon Restoration (constitutional monarchy), July Monarchy (constitutional monarchy 2.0), Second Republic, 2nd Empire (under Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte aka Napoleon the Third, nephew of the original), Third Republic (wich for 10 years looked like a provisional regime pending monarchical Restauration)... It was not before 1880's that we decided to finally stick with the Republic!
I feel like when comparing the French revolutions to the American one it's really important to note the serious distinctions. The colonies were not seeking to topple the monarchy and those who supported it in general, just separate themselves from it. With that, you still saw people go out of their way to imprison, torture, and even kill British loyalists. That being said, by virtue of the distance, and the fact that most colonists really didn't have any strong ties to Britain anymore, it was a lot easier to keep clean and avoid wanton death and human suffering. The French revolutionaries had a mountain of things stacked against them. Historically the monarchy held supreme power, and no one in Europe had come close to challenging that authority up to this point, no matter how unreasonable or unfair they had been treated. On top of that, as a result of the caste system, no one from the working class had experienced any sort of ruling power, and thus understandably didn't know how to manage it once they had it. Unfortunate as it is, it makes a lot of sense that the French revolutionary struggles were as bloody as they were.
Actually, the English civil war and the Dutch republic were examples where the lower classes had influence in governing the country, so the French revolutionaries had some nearby examples to inspire them (especially the moderates, who originally wanted a constitutional monarchy, similar to the British).
American revolutionary writing, like common sense, turned the American revolution from merely getting the king to lessen taxes to the idea that monarchy is inherently a terrible system of government. The federalists werent interested in getting involved in the french revolution, but Thomas Jefferson greatly supported the french revolution of the rise of the french revolution, but he was sidelined as John Adams and the federalists pursued neutrality, and by the time he was president Napoleon had already ended the republic.
The countries around France were all monarchies and the church played a political role. When such dramatic changes suddenly happen in France, the princes and kings are afraid that the same will happen in their countries. Napoloen then became an important factor for the surrounding countries. Watch out Napoloen!
King Louis wasn’t a bad person, he actually had some sympathy unlike his wife who spent her life in luxury, but he was out-of-touch with his subjects and easily swayed by his people, which ultimately made him look weak. If not for his own indecisiveness he would’ve perhaps escaped to the Austrian Netherlands..and potentially change history again if he was able to crush the rebellion from abroad and restore the Kingdom of France.
Marie Antoinette was actually in a similar position to her husband. Also her luxurious life isn't as fancy as people think, apparently she actually enjoyed wearing more common clothes which found her ridiculed by the upper-class, which forced her to wear more fancy clothing to appease them, however, it ended with her being ridiculed by the lower classes. The little village she had built was a little test of hers to understand how the lower-class lived. And she did try to push for some reforms, usually through her husband, but it all failed as the upper-class had a lot more influence. It also didn't help that she was young, female, and an Austrian. She did care, it's just that like her husband they couldn't truly understand the issue and even if they did they weren't prepared or even taught how to handle these situations, and the influence of the upper-classes were far too great for any significant change.
Thank you for this response. I admit I was biased towards Marie Antoinette and how she was publicity portrayed by her people, but it's true there is alot more to understand about her @@Saffi____
Before photography the monarch of a country would still have been quite recognisable. Their face was on all the coins. To this day in the uk the queens face is on every coin and banknote.
Although in the case of the UK they have not really been updated, I think. That's still a rather young Elizabeth looking back from coins and pound notes. :)
And cities is where change happens partly because there are just more people but also more people are exposed to new ideas so tend to be more progressive. That may change with modern technology that can reach everyone regardless of location indeed the trend of ever greater concentration of people in cities may reverse. Time will tell.
Because people in rural areas are hard working people that have no time to ''invent'' new political and social structures. But people in cities have more time to think and get many good new ideas, but also some that look good at first glance, but really bad on a long run. I don't like revolutions because people who present themselves as saviors become something that is even worst than old regime. It's better to have many small steps and no bloodshed. Evolution, not revolution.
Having lost from India to Canada & all the ocean’s in between during the 7 year war. France policy re UK was revenge. This is why it helped US win its revolutionary war against UK. But unfortunately it’s officer’s now knew how overthrow a Monarchy. With heavy taxation to pay for that US assistance,people of France did just that.
@@christiandaugherty6339 No, not still a republic, they are on their 5th republic now, with some non-republics sprinkled inbetween. And even today there are still monarchists in France. Especially as the liberal order seems to fail and repeat the mistakes of the kings (just tax the poor)
Follow me on social media for a behind-the-scenes look at my learning journey:
Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
Also like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻
I remembered. Please watch the video "Khrushchev in the USA in 1959" or better "Khrushchev in Hollywood" - I liked it better.
The fact is that Khrushchev visited Los Angeles in 1959 and performed in Hollywood - this is the very video that tells not about the enmity of the two superpowers, but about general trends, watch it for sure!
I'm really looking forward to it. I personally will be the first to see your reaction to this video, as I am interested in how you will comment on this video.
And if you're going to make a reaction, please make the video longer...
The French revolution with the Russian revolution was very similar in terms of violence. and secondly yes it ends with a dictator
He didn't support the revolution. He supported not being executed.
Napoleon ? He actually did support it a lot, it’s what allowed him to rise as a general
@@fredbarker9201 I think he meant King Louis
@@bm9727 yeah that makes more sense😂
To some extent, he did support the revolution. Not in it's actual form, sure, but he was a reformist. The main problem came from the church and nobility, who were completely opposed to any attempts at a reformation. Louis' mistake was his lack of absolutism in the situation. It may sound weird, but he should have used absolute power to give freedom. The issue with that is that he was a genuinely nice dude and didn't like conflict. He wanted everyone to be pleased. And he completely hated his position as king. The guy liked nothing more than spending the day with scientists, blacksmiths, farmers... He even spent afternoons with roofers working on maintenance of the palace like a blue collar.
BTW, most common french people didn't want him to be executed. Only the far leftists leaders.
Most people knew how their monarchs look (kinda) because of coins.
That's right that's exactly how the king is said to have been recognized thanks to a gold coin called a "Louis d'or" with the king's face on it.
So basically his vanity was his downfall.
@@carlhartwell7978 At this point in history, coins with monarchs were used for so long, that i can't put that one on King Louis lol
@@Denis-Maldonado I guess you're right, and of course it's still the case! Still, I thought it was still funny, though pithy.
@@carlhartwell7978 not only the coin but now thinking of it probably the disguise itself was a sus. Like the checkpoint guy prob got confused why 2 servants would leave France as prob all servants and lower classes were too poor to travel and prob werent even allowed to do so
"This isn't going the way I thought it would" French Revolution in one sentence.
true. But to be fair, the French nobility was awful (as mentioned in the video).
So the resentment for the Brits in the US was pale in comparison to the resentment the French peasantry felt about their nobility.
And finally - without sounding like a snob - the American revolution was organized by the bourgeoisie of the country (albeit slave owners). Not by the bottom of society.
Napoleon led to some major events in world history including the formation of Germany, independence of the Spanish American colonies, independence of Brazil, the war of 1812 between America and Britain. And the spreading of enlightenment values all over Europe and even the finding of the Rosetta stone.
Yeah. napoleon iii kind of just sat and let Germany form.
Yep, Napoleon I dissolved the HRE and fostered German nationalism. The north German confederation is then formed. A few wars and a speech by Bismarck later the German Empire formed and Napoleon III lost power after losing to Prussia therefore allowing Germany to form, staring a resentment that would help lead to the first world war.
@@chill-lady-brook At least Napoleon III gave us the Paris of today with its trademark houses giving Paris that feeling of, well Paris.
It is also partly responsible, by the propagation of the Revolution, for the spring of the peoples and basically almost all the European revolutions of the 19th century.
Word!
5:44, King Louis was gradually losing control of the country, but was pretending to be ok with the revolution to not give his people the excuse to depose him. I had a chance to read up about this, ultimately he tried to leave because Louis felt his appeasement tactics were failing and if he could get military support from his allies like Austria, he could put down the revolution and get his power back. This is why his subjects were calling him a traitor when he got caught trying to flee.
Irony calling the king a traitor when they are the ones rebelling against their government... by Louis' standard they were the traitors.
@@Fordo007 To be very fair, there is a strand of political philosophy (and its often practical as well ) that Rulers only derive their 'right to rule' if they nourish and support their people. "Divine Right of Kings" was falling out of favor. Certainly at BEST, Lous was inept, at worst he was uncaring. In short, he failed his 'duties' as a King. And for a practical matter, so long as the common people's bellies are full and they are kept otherwise happy or busy the "King" (or whatever ruling class) can get away with alot, but the French people were tired of not only being oppressed but being oppressed and starved was the final straw and who could freaking blame them?
@@Fordo007 What else would you call someone fleeing to foreign lands in order to wage war on his own country and people ? Citizen Louis had a chance to remain in power , but he constantly vetoed every single piece of legislation , raising anger towards him
@@Fordo007 Im late to the party but the first reason he was called a traitor was because he wanted to go to Austria and organise a literal invasion of the country sided by a foreign power. And that is straight up treason.
The French Revolution is more similar to the Russian Revolution than the American one.
the people involved are really alike
Nicolas II: Louis 16
Alix: Marie-Antoinette
Alexis:louis 17
Lenine:Robespierre
Staline:Napeoleon
Trotski:Danton
@@mercored2000 One Difference: Lenin and Trotski were Friends for Life and Robbespierre hanged Danton
Couldn‘t agree more
@@bookhills2704 "Robbespierre hanged Danton" more like guillotined (dunno if it's a verb in english, though it is one in french ^^)
Vladimir Ilitch Lénine studied the revolution while staying in France in vendée
Both the King and Marie were actually pretty chill about the whole thing and Marie had even tried to help the people, but just didn't have much influence in France to do a whole lot so her efforts were largely lost in all the bad publicity and propaganda. However there was also a massive scandal going on at the time, that the royal family had nothing to do with, but had been implicated in by a scam artist that massively soured the people's opinions of them.
France went through more of a revolution than the USA. The USA never had to overthrow and replace a government, they just had to fight a war against a foreign power. It’s more a war of independence. It’s different when your enemy lives on the other side of town compared to an ocean. France is closer to the pattern of actual revolutions than the Americans
Yup, hence the violence. France had to fight internal ennemies and political indecisiveness (after a milenia of a set system) on all sides and protect itself from some of the most powerful western countries of the time. Civil unrest being a bit more dangerous than a peaceful protest with the occasional birck in a window at the time, violence was a necessary evil for a gvt to preserve itself and the country.
Agreed. Civil war can be far more bitter and bloody than overthrowing a foreign occupation or a colonial master and tends to produce unrest that has effects for generations. The French revolution and Russian Revolution both had a number of stages with putches, counter movements and violent destructions of entire classes (nobility and church) and later purges of counter revolutionaries. Raising a mob and controlling it are two very different things a lot depends on how united the aims of the uprising are and on the quality of the new leaders that emerge. Rebels tend to agree only on what they are fighting against - rarely on what they are fighting for.
@@nicka3697 Extremely well put.
The American Revolution (or War of Independence, which many would say is more accurate) was also a civil war, it split 'Americans'.
@@starrynight1657 true but not to the extent of what France went trough. Between 15 and 20% of "americans" were loyalists, but in the end they retained their rights post-war, and it was still a situation of being thousands of miles away from the power that should have held things together. The king was an idea more than an actual power. France had a more physical connection to a monarchic system. The political currents that emerge from that are wildly different.
Yup, you're taking things Waaaay to seriously, there is such a thing in the UK called Gallows humour were things are so bad you cope with it with humour, it doesn't make the acts any less terrible.
Yeah i agree I'm French and I don't find it offensive. We are taught about the revolution in schools and the guillotine, the counter revolutionary uprisings and the atrocities committed against those who did not accept the new regime are not glossed over. However I think humour is one of the best answers to terror and fear. After the attacks on Paris one thing that made me feel better was watching John Oliver openly make fun of what had happened on HBO. Because to me it means life goes on no matter what happens. I can understand why one would feel that way though.
There are some people who have a different perspective, and that's totally okay... in fact, it probably lends to a better understanding of history if you treat terrible and violent periods with the weight and gravitas they observe. Obviously, Oversimplified isn't where you should be going if you have that in mind, but still.
As another French, I don't find anything funny about this part of our history.
My sense of humor has its limits.
I prefer Jim Carrey.
@@guiguijol While I agree that the terror is not funny neither is Jim Carrey
@@private9173 😂 I pick the only one I know...
The French Revolution & Russian Revolution had a lot in common.
the French Revolution is basically THE blueprint of all the revolution...
while the American revolution is the blueprint for all the independence wars...
"This did not go the way i expected" famous last words of many revolutionaires!
"French can't figure this out" --> literally the best commentary on 200 years of French history.
To address your confusion over King Louis XVI: he didn't want the revolution. He didn't want to lose all his power. But considering that angry mobs were raising heads on pikes, he decided to pretend to go along with it. When he got caught trying to flee for Austria, the people realized that he was just pretending to go along with the revolution, and they felt like he was a traitor for leaving the country just because he didn't like his loss of power.
Napoleon is still very popular here in France. I’m very proud that Napoleon was our Emperor !
basé le kaiser
Why? Killed millions of people across Europe.
I was out driving in france, didnt really know where i was, stopped at a small town to stretch my legs. Saw there was a big information sign by a bridge so walked over to read it... I was in Varennes... And as a history nerd i found it hilarious that i just happened to stop there.
Very excited for you to continue Epic History’s Napoleon series. Some of the best historical videos I’ve ever seen on here.
Brutus: wants to preserve rome as a republic and not as an empire by killing julius caesar
(Accidentally ended the roman republic instead)
Charlotte corday: wants to end the violence of the revolution and their hostility towards the church by killing marat
(Accidentally makes the revolution became more violent and hostile towards the church instead)
Lesson learn, don't kill someone thinking it would change something.
Actually a little known fact the Marie-Antoinette's quote of , “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche” "Let them eat cake " is incorrect because there is no evidence of her saying this in response to the poor having no bread
If you listen to podcasts, Revolutions is one of the best. Highly recommend it. It has a good section on the French Revolution.
There was a set of comedy films in the UK in the 1960s/1970s called Carry-On films. The casts were made up of famous British comedy actors of the time and covered various activities and periods in history. One of them was called Carry-On don't lose your head...based on the French revolution and the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Great fun .I hope it's available in the U.S.
The guillotine wasn’t named after its inventor. Dr. Guillotine merely suggested it as a way to execute people humanely, since there had been many botched executions before. King Louis actually suggested the use of a slanted blade back when he was in charge… on his own head, as it were.
But similar devices existed before, such as the Scottish Maiden
Fun fact, the Soviet Battleship Marat was named after the Frzench Revoultionary Marat...
1792 was a turning point, not only France was threatened by other Nations which wanted to restore Divine Rule but the Revolution actually became a civil war...
Actually at this point French Revolution was closer to what the Russian Revolution was in 1917...
In fact L16th last words were about his dear scientific expedition, Lapérouse expedition who left years earlier on a Worldwide trip through the oceans to copy Cook's for Circumnavigations in one, unfortunately, they had no news apart from De Lesseps report and samples (he came back from Siberia by himself on a cart pulled by dogs, his return trip lasted about a year... The rest of the Expedition went to Botany Bay (Sidney, Australia) and got lost in a storm, the two ships sank beside the island of Vanikoro in the South Pacific and remains were founds decades later and finally really analyed only a decade or two ago... We think some survivors made it to the island but there is no certainty on what they did after it, how long did they stay there? Were they eaten by the locals? Did they try to salvage part of their ships and build a raft to attempt a return trip to Australia? Unfortunately, in the 20th Century, the island was pretty much turned upside down by a woodchopping company with no regards for archeological remains... The only preserved archeological sites are the wrecks where a skeleton was found undr a piece of ships wreckage, protected by it for two centuries, the only body found there... they attempted a recreation of his face from anthropological data and his skull for identification but no certainty emerged from the operation, all that we can be sure of is that it couldn't be a crew member, he wasn't muscled enough for a trained sailor, he must have been a scientist or a surgeon given the toolbox found beside the remains.
L16th last words were "and did we hear about Lapérouse lately?" His last ever words were not even for himself, God or his position of power, they were for his scientific expedition... Imagine President Nixon being executed on July 1969, asking if they had news from Armstrong and Apollo 11 mission before being executed...
And as for the Guillotine, it was designed to chop cigares... but the design was enlarged for human necks. And ironically the brain remains concious for 20 to 30 seconds after the head if chopped off, that why the executed has his eyed covered so he or she doesn't see him or herself roll over...
Every method of execution has a dark side to it.
People living far away from decision centered have always been more independant in their decision making because being remote means the power doesn't have an interest in your vicinity so you must do with what you have and do it yourself. Conservatism often goes in pair with autodetermination. No wonder why Australia is so libertarian in there ways of thinking, they always have been the backwater world of the British Empire, first a gigantic goulag of sorts and then a pretty much abandoned part of the Empire, remote from main commercial routes and influence centers. The last big action they saw was WW2...
The Terror period is not unlike the Stalinian Purge era, everyone denouncing his neighbour to avoid being sent to the Gulags...
As for the financial state of the country, the Revolution created massive inflation with the first bank notes that valued nothing, and led the country into the first modern economic crisis. Napoleon re indexed the money on Gold and pillaged the neighbouring countries for Gold reserves... Gold reserves that were later sent to USA to protect them against the Nazis and the US never gave it back and as of now, don't have it anymore as a matter of fact, they sold it a long time ago.
As for Robespierre, he really created a new religion on the Supreme Being cult and we don't really know if he thought of himself as a God or if it was the anti Robespierre propaganda who spread that idea. That being said, he thought of himself as higher than most, that's for sure.
Robespierre tried to commit suicide with a gun, but he missed and only injured his neck near the ear instead. So it was an injured Robespierre who was executed.
Nelson lost his arm in the Egypt naval battle of Aboukir near Alexandria in 1799. The French fleet was exhausted, half of the men were searching for food on land and the admiral wasn't able to go tow to tow against Nelson whose half squadron daringly went behind the French battleline where they didn't have guns ready to awnser. The battles culminated with the explosion of the French Flag Ship, the Orient, the biggest explosion ever seen or heard at the time when the powder magasines were hit by a raging fire on board. The explosion took one British ship down with it. Other ships were damaged by pieces of the wreckage sent upwards. The explosion was so massive that men were deafened for minutes and the battle stopped while the crews were stunned, it was heards about 20 miles away ! (Nelson thought he would die from his injury but no, he died 6 years later in the battle of Trafalgar, his ultimate triumph against the French Navy)
Irony, one of the surviving and uncaptured French ships pursued and sunk the messenger ship sent by Nelson to report his victory to England.
And I agree, the French never called their Revolution "The French Civil War" because it doesn't sound cool for the new comers at the powerhouse... But it turned into a civil war indeed. And civil wars are the most ugliest thing you can imagine for a country after a dictatorship and one usually goes with the other, most of the time.
Fun fact, the French revolution was the inspiration of the Communist revolution in Russia, the Bolcheviks sang the French national anthem before having their own and Stalin called himself Robespierre and Lenin Danton. :)
The french revolution was indeed brutal, but it's hard to imagine today how violent was the society back then.
The old monarchy "ancient régime" as we call it could see anybody imprisoned without trial, the royal army would often raid the country to curb dissent in what we call "dragonades" (because it was performed by a cavalry corps called "dragons" ). The violence of the revolution is also to be put in context with the war on all fronts France was waging against all Europeans superpowers of the time. The fear of "internal ennemies" was bolstered by the fear of foreign invasion. Which was justified considering how horrified the ruling elites of Europe with this new king-less regime and how on some occasions rebel armies tried and succeeded to open the country for foreign invasion.
Also the oversimplified kinda overshadows some more positive aspects of the revolution : chiefly, strict equality before the law. Some other measures for exemple the legalization of divorce and decriminilaziation of homosexuality were at the time hugely progressive. (especially when we see it's still an issue for some today). The jewish community in France was given citizenship and equal rights with all other citizens at a time when antisemmitism was a widespread norm uphold by the church.
The regulation of prices for vital products on the market was a groundbreaking measure to try and insure everybody (almost) could afford to feed themselves (which was far from the norm before the revolution).
Rather than being nominated by the king the bishops and judges were now elected by the people.
The state seizing all the church and former aristocratic assets to turn them into national property can be seen as either a tragedy or a incredible step toward a more equal society depending on how we consider it, but in the long run it allowed the growth of a bigger middle class, with farmers owning their lands rather than paying rent and taxes to their lord and bishop for it. The anti-church sentiment that brewed during the revolution paved the way in France to the far more accepting secular society we enjoy today, teaching and education freed from religious beliefs greatly benefited science and social progress.
Also slavery was briefly abolished which was as far as I know a first in the western world. (though it was shortly after re-instated by Napoléon)
Economy wise, the ancient régime enforced harsh monopolies on some vital infrastructure. Things such as a bread ovens or windmills were the property of aristocrats, they taxed their usage and forbade anybody else from building their own. This system was extremely inneficcient since the aristocrats holding the monopoly had no reason to improve said infrastructures. The end of aristocratic priviledges meant that anybody who had the means could build their own. It's just an exemple but all the economy worked that way under an intricate web of aristocratic and clergy monopolies which left very little chance for the commoner to improve it's livelyhood or for technical progress to happen.
The Revolution prompted both unprecedented levels of economic liberalism in old Europe and unprecedented levels of state intervention in the economy. It was the end of feudalism and paved the way to the mix we have in western Europe today, between economic liberalism and strong public policies.
The Duke of Brunswick, who warned the French, that they shouldn't kill their king, wasn't a prussian duke like it was said in the video. He was a german one, Brunswick (Braunschweig) being one of the little german countries. It was usually allied to Britain, since the British King was also the prince-elector (Kurfürst) (and duke) of Hannover - Brunswick's greater neighbour.
American author Caroline Weber's book - Queen of Fashion - what Marie Antoinette wore to the revolution, is a good read.
Dr Joseph Ignace Guillotin (not Guillotine) proposed the introduction of the machine that became known as the guillotine. He played no part in its invention. Louis16th (probably apocryphally) is said to have suggested a modification to the design of the blade.
Knowing your love of musical theater, you should watch the movie "Les Miserables" you will love it
"the French revolution should be called the five French revolutions" i mean 1848 and there is the fact that France has had 5 republics cause unlike the US when ever a republic is considred to have stopped functioning the republic is ended a new constitution drawn up and a new republic declared
1784: Adam Weishaupt issues his order for the French Revolution to be started by by Maximilien Robespierre in book form. This book was written by one of Weishaupt's associates, Xavier Zwack, and sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However en route there, the courier is struck by lightning, the book detailing this plan discovered by the police, and handed over to the Bavarian authorities. 1786: The Bavarian government publish the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, "The Original Writings of The Order and Sect of The Illuminati." They then send this document to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, but sadly their warning is ignored.
There were no passports at that time but people carried letters of introduction written by people in power of authority like the local mayor or governor of a region for businessmen or large land owners. Statues of monarchy would be in all major cities and on the coins used daily by the general population so everyone would know what the king or queen looked like!!
yeah I'm pretty sure there were paintings but even so these panting probably made king louris look strong and somewhat different
A fun fact. Beethoven's 3rd symphony was dedicated to Napoleon, Beethoven being a bit of a republican, when Napoleon declared himself emperor, Beethoven was so angry he scratched Napoleon name off the manuscript which can still be seen today.
Asterix and Obelix was the start of France I’m led to believe.🤪
Interesting that how you addressed people and the words that you used at that time could get you into serious trouble. I hope that never happens again. OH! wait a minute.
yup the french revolution was super violent the word "Terrorists" comes from here, the radicals usually called themselfs that and were proud of it.
Fun fact: the terminologies of left and right on the political spectrum comes from here, where the people who wanted a constitutiunal mornachy sit on the right and the ones who wanted to remove the king sit on the left.
Another fun fact: the last kill by guillotine was in 1977
“This is not what I thought was going to happen” …. Oh boy.. just wait. 😮
i lived in france for a bit never knew all that happened only a few bits of there history,to busy working i was surprised how many counts ,vice counts or what ever they were called i met but that looks like what happens in a lot of african countries
So basically louis was an overall indecisive man, and because of that he tended to follow the last one who talked, a moment he was supportive, the next he was against the revolution altogether, this was compounded by the fact that he often relied on other for governing.
But on a fundamental basis he was against it and did try to leave the country to raise an army to reconquer France later.
So in short he's not our worse king(there's been so so much worse), but he's far from the best.
One thing I think it's rather important, is that the french revolution, or rather watching the french revolution was the inspiration for the British conservadorism which was all about being careful with change, change was needed but as one book I read once said(can't recall which book) "To fix a leak on your roof you shouldn't be setting your house on fire."
Seeing how the revolution went that's understandable, no one want to deny Freedom, Equality or Fraternity, but without being extremely careful well...
He did show up in toga to try to emulate Moses coming down from Mount Sinai. One person shouted "it was not enough for him to be master, he had to be God".
There's something about beheading that irks you? Wow! I can't imagine what it would be.
Napoleon created the French legal system. If I am correct, There is a major difference between US/UK system and the French. In the US/UK system you can legally do just about anything that isn't limited by law. The French system you cannot do anything unless permitted.
it's interesting to hear the opinion of Americans about the French revolution. France effect if not caused the Americans to succeed in their independence war.
“... the five French Revolutions” Oh there are more.
Okay wait a minute why would France declare war on an allied nation? The relationship of France with Austria was cemented through Marie Antoinette.
There's a second french revolution in 1830 and a third one in 1848, which ends up with Napoleon III becoming president then emperor. But both those revolutions were not as bad the first one.
what a bloody history
14:30 its a thing everywhere
I just see youre eastfront video's and if you want more information about the battle of Stalingrad you can wacht the very good made serie from Tik: battlestorm Stalingrad he is making about it, its already 10/11 hours long and the battle is now going to start in the city itself. But you can see that the germans already lost the battle for one part and that is before the street fighting.
Its very in depth, very nice made maps and he explainse everything very good
the thing with these revolution is they happen against weak monarchs who typically are too lenient with the revolutionaries and end up getting killed due to it. Stronger monarchs would've nipped those revolutions in the bud. The narrative people think is revolutions happen against tyrants... but generally a tyrant could crush a revolution... instead they happen against weak leaders who generally don't go far enough in being authoritarian or being a reformer. Staying wishy-washy in the middle rarely works out.
You will reach 100k by the end of the year 💪
I don’t think so 😂 but we can wish.
@@melkor3496 nah she actually put effort and try to learn from the videos. Most people who react to videos just react to the videos and then forget about it a few days later. But I can tell that she actually want to learn something and is interesting in the topic. Which is what make the reaction good
@@Longey9000 True that’s why I’m subscribed to her but her reaching that amount of subscribers is def not happening sadly.
Not sure how realistic that is, but I appreciate the support! Ya never know about these things...
Interesting (maybe) anecdote about the guillotine, in the town of Halifax (my home town) we have a replica of a similar device that we were using over a hundred years before the French revolution, there was some claim that the guillotine was modelled on it although this article en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Gibbet seems to disagree.
If you want a more sober summary, I really rate this documentary:
th-cam.com/video/5pXxoyk5wOo/w-d-xo.html
As for books, it's surprisingly difficult to find anything comprehensive. There's biographies (mostly of people on the privileged side) but not a 'history of the revolution'.
I first got interested after reading the novel "A Place of Greater Safety" and that covers everything from the time of Robespierre's birth up to Danton's execution (it's a long book) and it's from the perspective of the revolutionaries, mostly.
The best non-fiction I've found so far is "Liberty: The Lives and Times of Six Women in Revolutionary France". It's kinda biography but it is looking at the events of the revolution through the perspective of the woman most closely associated with that event. And several of the women included are working-class.
What are you talking about? There's tonnes of 'histories of the revolution', even in English. Peter McPhee's Liberty or Death being a good recent one.
The guy from Oversimplified never said that Louis supported the revolution
Reaction to ww1 by oversimplified please Or History of napoleon smashes Prussia that by epic History it's more serious like you say 🥳🥳🥳🎉👍
I'm getting back to the Napoleonic Wars by Epic History TV next :)
Passports have been around a long time they were simple letters from the countries government or the monarch requesting the country they were visiting to allow passage and offer aid in needed
Actually there would be even more revolutions. After Napoleon you have the royal restauration followed by the 1830 revolution leading to an other king, followed by the 1848 revolution leading to the 2nd Republic (Louis-Napoleon => 1st president then emperor aka Napoleon the 3rd) eventually followed by the Franco-prussian war leading to the 1871 revolution!!!! Comparatively the USA system is much more stable as it has been roughly the same for the last 230 years.
If you think the french revolution was bad, just watch the russian revolution oversimplified
The world was a lot smaller back then human wise. Dont see why a peasant wouldn't recognize the figure heads that were literally posted everywhere at the time frame.
The chosen video is not only very simple but it takes the black legend made by the conservatives against the revolution that marked the beginning of the end of feudalism in Europe.
For the record, it is not a criticism against you, but against the chosen video
Napoleons a fascinating and complex figure but watching videos on the Napoleonic wars wont teach you about his greatest achievement which is the civil code, used by up to 40 countries worldwide he empowered millions of people.
However (even tho the wars were more often not his fault than his fault) he is still responsible for a large amount of suffering.
But what’s remarkable is that In ten years he achieved more for law and social reform than other dynasties in Europe did over centuries of rule
Thanks for the heads up. I bought a book called "Napoleon: A Life" a few days ago, so maybe that will touch on the civil code stuff.
@@SoGal_YT that’s brilliant that you want to learn more, may i ask is the author of the book you bought Andrew Roberts or Adam Zamoyski? Roberts is quite pro Napoleon, zamoyski being more anti. Tho both I’m sure are great historians, if you bought the zamoyski one maybe at some point check Roberts “Napoleon the Great.” If you bought the Roberts “Napoleon a life” then it is the same book as Napoleon the Great (just a different title) so don’t buy the same book twice !
An interesting fact is Napoleon has more books written about him than anyone else in history (except maybe religious prophets Christ and Mohammed)
There is an estimated 300,000-400,000 books on Napoleon which means there has been more books written on him than DAYS since he died. (which this year will be 200 years ago!)
Take care
It's the Roberts book. I did some research and tried to find one as unbiased as possible, and people said that Roberts was as close as they found to that. But after your comment, I'm not so sure anymore :) I've been out of the loop on Napoleon. Had no idea he was such a popular figure. He just doesn't get hardly any attention here in the States.
There was so many beheadings. Taking it seriously would turn your stomach.
14:37
In Short: yes.
In long: there is a general tendencies for the cities and the "land" to be divided through mankind history.
Its not uncommon for Europe history in the 18th and 19th century, that the cities were pro democracy while the land was loyal to the monarchy.
You can see this in many occasions:
the french revolution, the Argument about Prussians military reform in the 1860s and that Marxist where constantly arguing whenever the peasant where to be convinced to the revolution or if they were inherently counter revolutionary.
Once you have reacted to the Otto von Bismarck series by extra credits I really suggest reacting to this series right after as a follow up. It has 4 parts here is the first. th-cam.com/video/S-wSL4WqUws/w-d-xo.html
seminal tragedy. By extra credits
It’s about what lead to ww1.
If you wanna do everything in order than next thing to watch is Otto von Bismarck 6 part series by extra credits and then this one extra credits seminal tragedy which I now recommended and then go into epic history ww1 series but that’s just if you wanna do it in order.
There's so much to learn about, it's crazy. I'll see where this Napoleon series takes me next.
@@SoGal_YT 👍
I think you'd enjoy reacting to the Unfinished London series by Jay Foreman. It would great insight into what the UK's actually like after your reaction to CGP Grey's UK, Britain and England explained video.
The French Revolution really got more and more out of control as time went on. This unfortunately tends to happen with a lot of revolutions. They start off fighting for understandable and even noble goals the make the peoples lives better but quickly spin out of control into and orgy of blood and violence with the factions fighting more concerned with power and control then with helping the people.
Fun fact the guillotine was still used in 1977 for the last execution of a criminal in France.
Most revolutions start with good intentions of and for the general population but sadly end usually with a dictatorship in place of a monarchy of elected government.
The gulliatine was and remains the MOST humane and painless way to execute someone.
So when my great grandfather was killing Americans with his sword, I guess it wasn't that bad.
@@taijohatsumoto394 seeing as its physically impossible to cut through thr human neck in one clean sweep. No your family member was not performing the quickest form of execution that has never once single time failed.
@@FrisbeeFriday Perhaps I should have noted my sarcasm in the previous comment lol.
after the head is cut off, the king stays alive for a few seconds. The executioner takes the head out of the basket where it rolled, and shows it to the happy public. So the king can see how much his death is appreciated by his people. And this is his last sight...
The queens family ruled half of Europe and the rest were either friendly or fearful of the same thing happening domestically
chop chop chop chop ... is the fast main plan in French Revolution ! =D
pause at 17:12
Long have i waited finally. :)
Do you have an upload schedule or is it random?
She's my mom it's random you welcome :)
@@Longey9000 wtf 😂
Hi Melkor, right now I don't have a set schedule, but I try to post at least 3 videos a week, every 2-3 days. Posting every day isn't possible with my personal schedule, but I may try to stick to releasing videos certain days of the week. This whole TH-cam thing is pretty new to me, so I've been experimenting to see what I'm able to do. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
@@SoGal_YT okay thx for the reply.
It's a very very biased view of the french revolution. There is too much inaccuracy to correct all of them but for example he makes sound the condamnation of the king a Robespierre caprice but the king was indeed guilty of helping the foreign country to invade France. Also the situation was a lot more complicate than that and all the violences weren't on RObespierre and the Jacobin. In fact the hardest time of the Terror were the act of so called "moderate" who later took down Robespierre. Danton was also guilty (trahison) and in no way a moderate as it his shown also he was beheaded months before the battle of Fleurus... All the part on Robespierre is nonsense in fact. Well as I said too many errors...
Compare the reign of fear to the McCarthy era or how free speach is being threatened now in many countries... That slippery slope is coming into focus isn't it?
Thanks a million for your help Adrien-problem solved!
There was a passport in 1791 which had a wax seal and was issued by the National Assembly in France. They are putting a lot of absolute rubbish in the video. There is a tv series starring Richard E Grant as Sir Percy Blakney The Scarlet Pimpernel which covers The French Revolution. Also there is Carry On Don’t Lose Your Head a comedy film about The French Revolution starring Sid James, Jim Dale, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey, Joan Sims and Peter Butterworth (actor David Niven’s superior officer during WW2). Robspiere was executed by Guillotine
About Louis: he didn't support the revolution. As far as he was concerned, his right to rule was given by God. Period. The problem was, that he was overly firm when he should have been relaxed, and he relaxed when he should have been firm. For instance, at one point he disbanded the Estates General, but the third estate said: "We're not leaving until we get an answer to our problems." Louis shrugged and let them stay, which led to them getting more independent. Later on, when he should have worked with them to solve France's debts, he turned autocrat and had them kicked out, which led to the Tennis Court Oath.
He wasn't a bad person, but he was the kind of person who you can count on to make the wrong decision every single time in a moment of crisis.
06:20 Really? Puts me more in mind of Fort Sumter or what was the spark to the US Civil War.
11:57 How did you think Napoleon came to power?
14:42 That could account for the variations in the strength of the socialist movements in different countries before 1917.
22:22 Exactly. If you look hard enough there were totalitarian regimes before the invention of radio.
The french people be like: 19:00
People stating that Louis XVI was a bad king...
Are neither wrong neither right,
he got cought up in a mess he wasn't prepared for,
same story with Tsar Nicholas II Romanov and the Russian revolution,
both tried reforms but the people were sick and tired of starving and a single man ruling over them,
noone can say if they were a bad or a good ruler since they haven't rule for long,
and not to their own fault, sure both mostly tried to save their own skin,
but can you really blame them?
When Something around 90% of the nation wants you dead,
even tho most of the shite happening ain't your fault,
what ya gon' do?
(in my opinion they were victims of their times, if anything)
Thanks
they recognised the king from a coin XD
"The French Shitshow"
Loved it.
English Civil War Video Potentially?
Absolutely :) I intend to get into British/English history.
how do you know hes a king? he hasnt got sh*t all over him lol
hes trying to get young people interested in history so i think thats why he tries to make it less grotesque. also it is called "oversimplified" for a reason lol
You should watch: The 7 Years War, By The Armchair Historian
Passport were in the era of French Revolution. But the king of France get caught by a coin
not only the coin, Someone who lived at that time in Varennes worked years before in the Palace of Versailles, he confirmed the identity.
@@olivierdk2 Thank For The Details
well he was caught by a postmaster, maybe he recognised him from the stamps. yes its a joke i know the king wasn't on stamps at the time
The current France is on it's Fifth Republic. History Matters has a funny short documentary on that.
Yeah, and it took us at least a century to figure out that we actually kinda like Republics to begin with: between 1789 and 1889 in France we have, after the 3+ political regimes of the Revolution: Napoleon's Consulate, 1st Empire, Borbon Restoration (constitutional monarchy), July Monarchy (constitutional monarchy 2.0), Second Republic, 2nd Empire (under Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte aka Napoleon the Third, nephew of the original), Third Republic (wich for 10 years looked like a provisional regime pending monarchical Restauration)... It was not before 1880's that we decided to finally stick with the Republic!
I feel like when comparing the French revolutions to the American one it's really important to note the serious distinctions. The colonies were not seeking to topple the monarchy and those who supported it in general, just separate themselves from it. With that, you still saw people go out of their way to imprison, torture, and even kill British loyalists. That being said, by virtue of the distance, and the fact that most colonists really didn't have any strong ties to Britain anymore, it was a lot easier to keep clean and avoid wanton death and human suffering. The French revolutionaries had a mountain of things stacked against them. Historically the monarchy held supreme power, and no one in Europe had come close to challenging that authority up to this point, no matter how unreasonable or unfair they had been treated. On top of that, as a result of the caste system, no one from the working class had experienced any sort of ruling power, and thus understandably didn't know how to manage it once they had it. Unfortunate as it is, it makes a lot of sense that the French revolutionary struggles were as bloody as they were.
Actually, the English civil war and the Dutch republic were examples where the lower classes had influence in governing the country, so the French revolutionaries had some nearby examples to inspire them (especially the moderates, who originally wanted a constitutional monarchy, similar to the British).
American revolutionary writing, like common sense, turned the American revolution from merely getting the king to lessen taxes to the idea that monarchy is inherently a terrible system of government. The federalists werent interested in getting involved in the french revolution, but Thomas Jefferson greatly supported the french revolution of the rise of the french revolution, but he was sidelined as John Adams and the federalists pursued neutrality, and by the time he was president Napoleon had already ended the republic.
@@Sabersquirl can’t blame John adams if they got involve it would have end it badly
The countries around France were all monarchies and the church played a political role.
When such dramatic changes suddenly happen in France, the princes and kings are afraid that the same will happen in their countries. Napoloen then became an important factor for the surrounding countries. Watch out Napoloen!
King Louis wasn’t a bad person, he actually had some sympathy unlike his wife who spent her life in luxury, but he was out-of-touch with his subjects and easily swayed by his people, which ultimately made him look weak.
If not for his own indecisiveness he would’ve perhaps escaped to the Austrian Netherlands..and potentially change history again if he was able to crush the rebellion from abroad and restore the Kingdom of France.
Marie Antoinette was actually in a similar position to her husband. Also her luxurious life isn't as fancy as people think, apparently she actually enjoyed wearing more common clothes which found her ridiculed by the upper-class, which forced her to wear more fancy clothing to appease them, however, it ended with her being ridiculed by the lower classes.
The little village she had built was a little test of hers to understand how the lower-class lived. And she did try to push for some reforms, usually through her husband, but it all failed as the upper-class had a lot more influence. It also didn't help that she was young, female, and an Austrian.
She did care, it's just that like her husband they couldn't truly understand the issue and even if they did they weren't prepared or even taught how to handle these situations, and the influence of the upper-classes were far too great for any significant change.
Thank you for this response. I admit I was biased towards Marie Antoinette and how she was publicity portrayed by her people, but it's true there is alot more to understand about her @@Saffi____
Before photography the monarch of a country would still have been quite recognisable. Their face was on all the coins.
To this day in the uk the queens face is on every coin and banknote.
Although in the case of the UK they have not really been updated, I think. That's still a rather young Elizabeth looking back from coins and pound notes. :)
@@haraldschuster3067 to be fair nobody expected her to live for so F long
Most countries have a rural/urban devide caused by the fact the two are so different in lifestyle
And cities is where change happens partly because there are just more people but also more people are exposed to new ideas so tend to be more progressive. That may change with modern technology that can reach everyone regardless of location indeed the trend of ever greater concentration of people in cities may reverse. Time will tell.
Because people in rural areas are hard working people that have no time to ''invent'' new political and social structures. But people in cities have more time to think and get many good new ideas, but also some that look good at first glance, but really bad on a long run.
I don't like revolutions because people who present themselves as saviors become something that is even worst than old regime. It's better to have many small steps and no bloodshed. Evolution, not revolution.
Different education too.
Having lost from India to Canada & all the ocean’s in between during the 7 year war.
France policy re UK was revenge.
This is why it helped US win its revolutionary war against UK.
But unfortunately it’s officer’s now knew how overthrow a Monarchy.
With heavy taxation to pay for that US assistance,people of France did just that.
When you see protestors in the US with mock Guillotines:
'You do know how that ended right?'
France still guillotined people until the late 1970s. And France is still a republic, so I'd say it worked quite well.
@@christiandaugherty6339 No, not still a republic, they are on their 5th republic now, with some non-republics sprinkled inbetween. And even today there are still monarchists in France. Especially as the liberal order seems to fail and repeat the mistakes of the kings (just tax the poor)