Libert

[Edric O]

Today is the 215th anniverssary of the dawn of the modern world. 215 years since the fall of the Bastille, the start of the French Revolution, and the beginning of the end for absolute monarchy.

The French Revolution was, first and foremost, an ideological victory. It spread democratic and republican ideals throughout France and across Europe - despite the fact that the Revolution itself was hijacked by Napoleon, and eventually crushed by monarchist forces in 1815. For many years after 1815, the Holy Alliance (a pact mainly between Prussia, Austria and Russia - Europe's conservative empires - whose purpose was to ensure the preservation of the old order) ruled supreme and unchallenged. Democracy was thought to have been crushed. But the ideals of the French Revolution endured, and they later sparked more revolutions and social movements, which were in the end victorious. Absolute monarchies fell one by one, and the old aristocratic order was swept from Europe forever.

The French Revolution was perhaps the most important single event since the fall of Rome or the discovery of America. And it should also be an inspiration for the future; Our work is not yet done. Humanity has made enourmous leaps forward since 1789, but if we grow complacent in the belief that the world we have is "good enough" - despite all the poverty, the hunger and the suffering - then we won't just remain where we are now; we'll be slowly pulled backwards. Merely staying on the spot requires a good deal of forward pressure, to balance out the backward pressure applied by the rich and powerful who dream of a time when they were richer and more powerful.

If we actually wish to move forward, as we should, towards a better world, then we need to apply A LOT of forward pressure.

As for the "better world" itself, it seems that human beings have a remarkably coherent vision of what such a world would look like. In all ages, all revolutions have been fought for practically the same ideals:

Libert

[Edric O]

And while we're on the subject, I'd also like to post the first few verses of the Marseillaise - just because I really love revolutionary songs. ;)

Allons enfants de la Patrie

Le jour de gloire est arriv

[Dante]

You just keep rubbing it in, don't you?  :P

How many were freed from the Bastille anyway, seven, wasn't it? One of them a madman?

[TMA_1]

beh, the french revolutions were generally pretty dirty. They screwed up on so many levels and in so many different ways that I just dont share the same love that you do about it edric.lol

[Edric O]

You just keep rubbing it in, don't you? :P

Of course I do. ;)

How many were freed from the Bastille anyway, seven, wasn't it? One of them a madman?

It's true that the Bastille actually had more guards than prisoners when it was taken - there were only 7 prisoners, as you said - but nobody claimed this to be some sort of great victory. The Bastille was more of a symbol than anything else, and its fall was only the beginning of the revolution.

Oh, and I don't know anything about whether or not there was a madman too... But I don't think there was. The Bastille was for political prisoners, after all.

[ordos45]

If you mean by dirty, the guilotine being used so freely...yeah.  (Though Hitler killed more Jews with the guilotine than the French killed their own people.)  And that things got violent and unorganized.  Yep dirty indeed.

Anyhow *raises glass of water* to the French people of 215 years past.  Their revolt against the Monarchy, after the monarchy ironically helped the Americans gain independence, was a turning point of history.

[Edric O]

If you mean by dirty, the guilotine being used so freely...yeah.  (Though Hitler killed more Jews with the guilotine than the French killed their own people.)  And that things got violent and unorganized.  Yep dirty indeed.

That is very true. But on the other hand, any sort of revolution/civil war/popular overthrow of government is bound to get dirty if things don't settle down and the fighting continues for too long.

Anyhow *raises glass of water* to the French people of 215 years past.  Their revolt against the Monarchy, after the monarchy ironically helped the Americans gain independence, was a turning point of history.

Heh, well, the French monarchy helped the Americans in order to piss off the British monarchy and deprive them of their colonies. :)

[TMA_1]

that is the problem, revolutions are inherently evil. of course we cant agree on that edric. ;) hehe

and it was dirty, and not only in the killings, but in the attitude of complete secularism, and even weird forms of peganism to spite christianity. There is a lot more than that, but I have to go mow the lawn, yuck!

[Edric O]

that is the problem, revolutions are inherently evil. of course we cant agree on that edric. ;) hehe

A revolution is never more evil than the regime it overthrows.

Essentially, revolutions are the ultimate form of democratic expression: When all other ways of trying to make the government hear the will of the people fail, the people have no choice but to take up arms.

[ordos45]

Heh, well, the French monarchy helped the Americans in order to piss off the British monarchy and deprive them of their colonies.  :)

True, and it worked.  It just backfired into inspiring their own citizens to rise up in revolt against them.  :) 

Essentially, revolutions are the ultimate form of democratic expression: When all other ways of trying to make the government hear the will of the people fail, the people have no choice but to take up arms.

that is the problem, revolutions are inherently evil.

Hmm, I can't decide on where Revolutions stand morally.  Sometimes, even if evil, they're necessary...but.  *shrugs*

[TMA_1]

yeah that is a pretty tough situation. It is also one that is docternally hazy in many ways. Hazy in a sense that it is hard to come to a hard and fast rule biblically oni t. at least to me that is.

[Dude_Doc]

Revolutions, like Yin and Yang, is both evil and good of the same coin, or the same base, whatever you can call it. Any revolution overthrows the previous political system, and replaces it with a new one. This new system will either be directed towards a fascistic dictatorship, or towards democracy, social communities and public freedom. People have their choice once a revolution is inevitable and near happening.

Which is the case with the now and the future. During my, exploration, of different political directions, I have now come to believe that we are, mostly unknown, trapped in another invisible battle. The system today is more of a "center", from which we can choose to either make better, or don't do anything at all. Capitalism, as I understand it, is not an end. It is a system which tries to establish the old monarchy system, bring back the kings. This "event" isn't just one day or one week, it has been here since the Frensh Revolution.

We have taken a great step towards freedom and justice, but that is only one step. If we don't take another, bigger step (as Edric talked about), this leap will shrink until power and control can be retaken and we all will be under one or another dictatorship.

In ecense, sooner or later, each person will have to make only one choice. That choice will be to make the world better, or to make it the way it was before the French Revolution. And if that power comes back, I think it will be far more difficult to even think of any revolution at all...

[thomas]

this is not right the french revolution did nothing.

the french deserve not praise for there many many revolution that failed. Now the United states, they got it right ;D

[exatreide]

The second one will begin if they postpon the elections, I already have "assoiates" in the michigan state milita, ;)

Then you can praise us Edric  ;)

[danielsh]

Essentially, revolutions are the ultimate form of democratic expression: When all other ways of trying to make the government hear the will of the people fail, the people have no choice but to take up arms.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

[Wolf]

I think the birth of the modern world began with the Industrial Revolutions, rather than democratic ones. Democracy and revolution have existed since ancient times. In our modern world, commercialism, economic pressure, and a mass-market seems to be the defining element. If by modern, you mean, the-way-things-should-be, well, I have to think about that. Revolutions tend to be bloody, you can't totally fix a problem if that fix includes a kill-count.

[Dante]

this is not right the french revolution did nothing.

the french deserve not praise for there many many revolution that failed. Now the United states, they got it right ;D

The French Revolution made France more democratic, and the ideals of the Revolution were then spread across Europe by Napoleon's armies, indirectly leading to the creation of a united Germany, among other things. As a net result it is also more or less responsible for both World Wars, and a lot of modern politics. This is slightly oversimplified, but you get the idea. The French Revolution was not just a historical blip; we're still feeling the ripples.

[Wolf]

I'm not so sure about that... in terms of revolutions, I suppose the American one has more effect on events of the modern era. I mean, look at the history if the last century. Where is the US not involved? Also, how did Napoleon spread the ideal of democracy when he declared himself Emperor for life? I agree that the French revolution seriously redefined the political atmosphere of Europe and altered the balance of power, but it was World War I that caused the rise of Hitler, not a response to the French revolution. I think, after 1919, the French revolution's effects were diluted by other events; namely, the First World War.

[nemafakei]

In terms of the American/French revolution, I think that the French was far more important. If the Americans had stayed under British rule, the only real difference in more recent times would be that the country would have its influence under a different name.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Americans wouldn't have revolted (certainly not in the way they did) without the French.

[Wolf]

I disagree. Under British rule, the Americans were denyed key components of advanced society. We were allowed to produce raw materials for Britain, but we were not provided with the expertise or equipment to forge for oursevles any real industry. Only after the end of colonial rule were the Americans finally able to pursue industry of their own. Had Britain still controlled American in the 21st century, I doubt it would have received as much immigration as the United States. A British America also would not be of the same size or scale as the Untied States; as it was the US that purchased Lousiania from France. To put it simply, I am not sure that a British America would be a two-ocean power, as Britain would never have been allowed to purchase Lousiania from France, a rival, and, thus, America would never have expanded to the power that the United States came to possess.

[nemafakei]

I can't really dispute: I haven't got enough knowledge of your history, nor a vast amount of detailed European history at that time (European history 2000 years ago, now that's a different matter). We really need someone who has studied both continents critically.

[Wolf]

I know American history pretty well, and I'm brushing up on European history for those 230 years, as well. If anyone wants a brief history of the United States, I can try to whip one up for you.

[exatreide]

In terms of the American/French revolution, I think that the French was far more important. If the Americans had stayed under British rule, the only real difference in more recent times would be that the country would have its influence under a different name.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Americans wouldn't have revolted (certainly not in the way they did) without the French.

French suport didnt show up till the last 70's

Our farmers faught off proffesional british troops for quite some time with out them  ;)

[Wolf]

The Americans also lost quite a few battles. From what I remember, they were chased all the way from Massachussetts down to the Delaware.

[exatreide]

This sort of has to do with the topic.

During the 3 hundred years between the first firearms and the first repeating rifles...Why didn't archers play a major role in warfare?

Archers lost there effectivness when Armor became to think for their bolts to pierce. But when the gun became the major weapon in Europe and armor was discarded..Why didn't the archers come back?

The Armies of the time lined up there infantry and stood there while they shot. Wouldnt a core of archers be devestating to such infantry? Place them behind the infantry and fire in a arch? They can fire much faster then a musketer can reload...It would have been devestating...

Well?