How Could the French Revolution of 1789 Have Permanently Succeeded? (Washington, Chinese, events)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not consider it to have succeeded permanently due to the fact that Napoleon's dictatorship occurred afterwards, followed by a return of the Bourbon monarchy.
Even if the revolution had been better and Napoleon had not become Emperor would the results just been the same. The French Republic being forced to fight a series of wars against Pro-monarch European coalitions.
Even if the revolution had been better and Napoleon had not become Emperor would the results just been the same. The French Republic being forced to fight a series of wars against Pro-monarch European coalitions.
Keep in mind, though, that I think that there was actually peace between France and the other European powers in 1802-1803. While Napoleon let the Peace of Amiens collapse and thus let war resume, I am not entirely sure that a different French government would have done the same thing. After all, in the Peace of Amiens, France had already made relatively large territorial gains which might have very well made Louis XIV jump for joy (had he been able to make such territorial gains, that is).
Keep in mind, though, that I think that there was actually peace between France and the other European powers in 1802-1803. While Napoleon let the Peace of Amiens collapse and thus let war resume, I am not entirely sure that a different French government would have done the same thing. After all, in the Peace of Amiens, France had already made relatively large territorial gains which might have very well made Louis XIV jump for joy (had he been able to make such territorial gains, that is).
The peace of Amiens was just a farce, just a cease fire. Everyone knew that war would resume. But, likewise, the entire Napoleonic war period (including the French Revolution period - roughly 1793 to 1815) was full of starts and finishes. Austria would end up surrendering around 4 or 5 times, waiting a few years to build up its armies again, and join the next coalition. You had other nations - Russia/Spain - the would change sides every so often.
People are presenting the wars of this period as the other monarchies of Europe responding to the French Revolution, or France's desire to spread revolutionary ideals. Welllllllll...maybe at first. Some of these monarchies were seeing there relatives being put to death on the guillitione. But, England for instance, could care less about the Revolution or if a King or Council was in charge of France. The war for them was just a continuation of hostilities that began a 100 years earlier and that had been almost ceaseless. Likewise, for the rest of Europe, the war became more about maintaining the balance of power in Europe. Or it was for economic reasons (living under Napoleon's strict trade rules). For France also, it was a self-feeding state tool. The economy of France was in shambles - war produced income - booty, land, loot, tributes and also provided resources and manpower to continue even more expansion and wars. There would be alot of gold exchanged when one power surrendered to another. It also created nationalism which kept the state itself in line.
1. The peace of Amiens was just a farce, just a cease fire. Everyone knew that war would resume. But, likewise, the entire Napoleonic war period (including the French Revolution period - roughly 1793 to 1815) was full of starts and finishes. Austria would end up surrendering around 4 or 5 times, waiting a few years to build up its armies again, and join the next coalition. You had other nations - Russia/Spain - the would change sides every so often.
2. People are presenting the wars of this period as the other monarchies of Europe responding to the French Revolution, or France's desire to spread revolutionary ideals. Welllllllll...maybe at first. Some of these monarchies were seeing there relatives being put to death on the guillitione. But, England for instance, could care less about the Revolution or if a King or Council was in charge of France. The war for them was just a continuation of hostilities that began a 100 years earlier and that had been almost ceaseless. Likewise, for the rest of Europe, the war became more about maintaining the balance of power in Europe. Or it was for economic reasons (living under Napoleon's strict trade rules). For France also, it was a self-feeding state tool. The economy of France was in shambles - war produced income - booty, land, loot, tributes and also provided resources and manpower to continue even more expansion and wars. There would be alot of gold exchanged when one power surrendered to another. It also created nationalism which kept the state itself in line.
1. I need to do more research on this, but I am not sure that this was necessarily the case in regards to this specific peace. Also, it is worth nothing that Napoleon appeared to be hungry to acquire more and more territories--a different French government might have enough sense to stop at the Rhine and to be permanently done with territorial expansion in Europe afterwards.
2. I agree with your points here, but again, had France stopped at the Rhine, then it might have been perceived as less of a threat to the European balance of power than Napoleon was (and it could rightly justify its territorial gains up to the Rhine as being a self-defense response to attacks from other European countries). Also, if France had a better and more competent leadership, then perhaps it might have been able to improve the French economy without continuous war and plundering.
1. I need to do more research on this, but I am not sure that this was necessarily the case in regards to this specific peace. Also, it is worth nothing that Napoleon appeared to be hungry to acquire more and more territories--a different French government might have enough sense to stop at the Rhine and to be permanently done with territorial expansion in Europe afterwards.
2. I agree with your points here, but again, had France stopped at the Rhine, then it might have been perceived as less of a threat to the European balance of power than Napoleon was (and it could rightly justify its territorial gains up to the Rhine as being a self-defense response to attacks from other European countries). Also, if France had a better and more competent leadership, then perhaps it might have been able to improve the French economy without continuous war and plundering.
There were several other things going on here however, besides the geographical borders of The Rhine.
1.) Buffer states - All these little buffer states between Prussia and France helped keep the peace between these two nations. Napolean choose to overrun them or make them satellite states. You had two superpowers brushing up against each other and conflict was unavoidable.
2.) Spain - all the while, Napolean was embroiled in the Spain mess, with troops tied down. The rest of Europe of course wanted to take advantage of this (Austria did, didn't wait for Prussia or Russia, and got trounced once again).
3.) And most importantly - The Continental System imposed by Napoleon. This was the innefective European blockade of English goods. Ineffective in that it did not really impact England that much, hurt the other countries like Prussia and Russia much more, and actually resulted in bringing these countries closer to the next coalition against France.
But by all means research it yourself. There are other factors as well, too much to mention (like Russia's resistence to the France's support of a Polish nation). It was a fascinating time in history, and very complex politically.
This week marks the anniversary of M. Hollande making good his election promise and pushing through gay marriage in France. On that score it is proof enough that the ideals of the Revolution (all French are equal) and that the government has a legitimate role to play in seeing such ideals are carried out.
To be fair much of French society is still organized along the lines of the ancien regime (France is still a place where often who one knows or one's family determines much), but the main principles that one group be it royalty, religion or high birth are somehow above everyone else by natural right does not fly.
The peace of Amiens was just a farce, just a cease fire. Everyone knew that war would resume. But, likewise, the entire Napoleonic war period (including the French Revolution period - roughly 1793 to 1815) was full of starts and finishes. Austria would end up surrendering around 4 or 5 times, waiting a few years to build up its armies again, and join the next coalition. You had other nations - Russia/Spain - the would change sides every so often.
People are presenting the wars of this period as the other monarchies of Europe responding to the French Revolution, or France's desire to spread revolutionary ideals. Welllllllll...maybe at first. Some of these monarchies were seeing there relatives being put to death on the guillitione. But, England for instance, could care less about the Revolution or if a King or Council was in charge of France. The war for them was just a continuation of hostilities that began a 100 years earlier and that had been almost ceaseless. Likewise, for the rest of Europe, the war became more about maintaining the balance of power in Europe. Or it was for economic reasons (living under Napoleon's strict trade rules). For France also, it was a self-feeding state tool. The economy of France was in shambles - war produced income - booty, land, loot, tributes and also provided resources and manpower to continue even more expansion and wars. There would be alot of gold exchanged when one power surrendered to another. It also created nationalism which kept the state itself in line.
Actually according to the research one has read royalty and the aristocratic classes numbered very few out of the tens of thousands that were butchered during the French Revolution in particular the Rein of Terror.
IIRC the largest numbers came from the religious (Catholic priests, brothers, sisters, nuns, etc...) second but first were the lower classes who were hauled off to the guillotine, hacked and or beaten to death in fields (or where they stood), and other equally gruesome methods of murder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.