Libert

[Wolf]

That's actually quite a good question. I have no idea why archers weren't reintroduced.

[Vanguard3000]

I think probably one of the main reasons would be etiquette.  By this time, it was customary for officers to enjoy tea with eahc other, while their armies sat in formation shooting, reloading, and closing ranks until they got close enough to use fixed bayonets.  Archers and geurilla warfare may not have been considered proper in such a 'civilized' age of war.

[exatreide]

Indeed but the american revolution was not a proper war gurrila tactics and snipers shown in this conflict.

And the south could have used them extensivly in the civil war due to there suply issues...

[Caid Ivik]

While french revolution in 1789 brought the country to seven years of civil and then fourteen years of aggressive war, in nearly same time was empire of Habsburgs led by wise Maria Theresia and her son Joseph, making nearly whole population able to read (what cannot be said about ideals of French, whose revolt was led same by elitist, tough not aristocratic, influentals limited by king) and in USA (we can say by same caste as in France; but much more successful) was established first fully democratic order since renaissantic Florence. Libert

[nemafakei]

Regarding bows, I read an article the other week that suggested it was more a decision based on fear: The loud sounds intimidate and force the enemy to miss.

[Caid Ivik]

But for longer fight, there is nothing worse than silent deaths within the unit...

[Anathema]

The French revolution occured in a century where formerly absolute kings started becoming enlightened despots and where new theories on how to operate a country started being implemented all across Europe- except in France. The French kings were willing to join in this trend but were hampered by the influential nobility. The French revolution is the best example of what a revolution is about, from one extreme (an absolute monarchy) to another extreme (of all countries, imperial France implemented the most ideas of the illumination age).

Regarding the American revolution, the colonists would never have won the independence war without weapons and ammo manufactured in France.

[Edric O]

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.

Indeed. However, when given the choice, the people have always chosen more democracy, more powerful social communities, more freedom and more equality. A revolution that goes in this direction is usually called a successful revolution. A revolution that ends up going the opposite way, towards a fascistic dictatorship, is widely recognized as a failed revolution.

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.

Of course. The only reason we have our freedom and democracy today is because the rich and powerful FEAR the people, and they FEAR what the people might do if they try to oppress and exploit them too much. But if the people grow apathetic, if the rich and powerful no longer have any reason to fear us, they will slowly take back the concessions they've made over the past 200 years.

Every social and political victory for the people has been either the result of revolution, or the result of serious threats towards the rich and powerful ("give us more democracy, or we will overthrow you and take it for ourselves"; "give us decent wages and humane working conditions, or we will stop working en masse and ruin you", etc.). The people gain ground by applying serious pressure on the ruling class. Merely staying in place requires us to apply some pressure on the ruling class, so that they don't grow overconfident and start rolling back their concessions. The wealthy capitalists would LOVE to have the same wealth and power as the kings of old. They would love to be kings in everything except name. If we apply no pressure on them at all, they'll take that as a sign that they can go ahead and take what they want.

To sum up:

If the people do nothing, society moves backwards.

If the people do a little, society stays in place.

If the people do a lot, society moves forward.

The choice between going backwards or forwards, the choice between returning to the "kings of old" or giving more power to the people, is nothing new. And it's not unique to capitalism. It's a choice we'll have to keep making until we find a way to block the road behind us forever, and make it impossible to slide back into the age of the kings.

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.

Exactly! See above. We need to keep on applying the pressure to move forward. We need some of it just to stay in place, and we need even more of it if we want to actually move forward.

That's why it's so important to fight against apathy, and to convince people to stand up for their rights - or, even better, to stand up for more democracy and for socialism.

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...

Modern technology has raised the stakes to unprecedented levels. This time, we can't afford to slide back into the past. By concentrating more and more wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands, capitalism is leading us towards a situation very much like the one before the French Revolution. We are heading towards a world ruled by an aristocratic elite - or, to be more exact, a corporate elite. We've had such regressions before, but never on a world scale, and never at a level of technology so dangerous (in the wrong hands) as ours. That's what makes the struggle for socialism all the more important today than ever before. This century may well be our last chance.

[Caid Ivik]

Indeed. However, when given the choice, the people have always chosen more democracy, more powerful social communities, more freedom and more equality. A revolution that goes in this direction is usually called a successful revolution. A revolution that ends up going the opposite way, towards a fascistic dictatorship, is widely recognized as a failed revolution.

Revolution means overthrow. Successivity of it means whether government has been overthrewn or not. If you think it was led by some idealists, whose ideals have not been fulfilled, most possibly you did not understood them.

[Edric O]

Revolution means overthrow. Successivity of it means whether government has been overthrewn or not. If you think it was led by some idealists, whose ideals have not been fulfilled, most possibly you did not understood them.

You don't need to be an idealist to establish certain goals for your revolution. Usually, people have revolutions for a certain purpose, not because they woke up one day and felt like revolting.

If that purpose is achieved, the revolution has been a success. If not, it has been a failure.

And there is no such thing as a revolution whose only purpose is to overthrow the government. All revolutions aim to also put something else (such as a different type of government) in the place of the government they overthrew. So, you see, the overthrow of the old system is only half of a revolution.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that nothing could ever possibly go wrong, and that a revolution always has the exact results that its leaders intended? That is absurd. No one can predict the future, and a revolution can go wrong for a million reasons.

[Caid Ivik]

Exactly, but a person is not a solid rock. Leader may look like a friend of masses, who ie proposes equal rights or more personal freedom, but maybe his own motive can be personal revenge against dictator or even what we call "lust for power". Some people simply like when they have much in their hands. Even if these two motives, one popular and one hidden, are countering each other, one of them will be always fulfilled by simple fall of previous reign. It's only a task of the leader then, which one it will be.

[danielsh]

To sum up:

If the people do nothing, society moves backwards.

If the people do a little, society stays in place.

If the people do a lot, society moves forward.

See for comparison Howard Zinn's axiom: "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

[Dude_Doc]

Leader may look like a friend of masses, who ie proposes equal rights or more personal freedom, but maybe his own motive can be personal revenge against dictator or even what we call "lust for power".

This sounds like Cuba. Didn't Castro have some personal stuff to deal with Batista when he revolved? I mean, like he killed his family or something like that. Of course, Batista himself wasn't better than what Castro is today.

That is the problem with "leaders" or "directionaries" within a revolution. I just came back from China, where I spent my vacation, and I discoered, with my own eyes I might add, that China is not a communist nation (what a surprise). It is a fascistic capitalism. It is the worst system to live under. No democracy at all, guards are seen often (police-like, not the military types, although they were spotted during a trip to the great wall - if you're interested :) ). You can't imagine how many banks I spotted. My God. I have never seen so many banks in my entire life, I tell you that.

Anyway, back to the "leader". In China, I bought a book called "Quotes from Chairman Mao Zedong",  in which, of course, Mao's quotes are in. He writes about how socialism and Marxism should work, and all that, how China will look great in some decades and so on. This had not happened. When Mao died, his principles were abandoned and the government decided it's own ways.

Same with Cuba. When Castro dies, either his government will continue to dictate orders or the people will revolt. But as I said, the choice is with the people.

[TMA_1]

to be a revolutionary is to be an idealist in it's most paramount form. Show me one revolution that did not have idealist revolutionaries. You are right edric that almost all revolutions entail democratic ideals. The problem is they are almost always idealistic and because of this they go too many steps too far, and it usually turns almost to anarchy.

Also I dont consider things like the american revolution to be revolutions in the exact sense. It was a cession of government, which I give you is a form of revolution, but it isnt exactly that as it does not mean an overthrow of a government, but a seperation of it.

Revolutions seem to usually fail because people are usually unhappy for very good reasons, and the former government is usually currupt. But for some reason revolutionaries as a whole dont usually think in the long term, because it seems impossible to me to be a revolutionary and think in realistic and future-oriented goals that are as I just said realistic. It is because idealism and revolutionary philosophies almost always go hand in hand. that is my opinion though.

[Dude_Doc]

The problem is they are almost always idealistic and because of this they go too many steps too far, and it usually turns almost to anarchy.

Doesn't our society try to be idealistic?

Also I dont consider things like the american revolution to be revolutions in the exact sense. It was a cession of government, which I give you is a form of revolution, but it isnt exactly that as it does not mean an overthrow of a government, but a seperation of it.

A revolution is exactly when people break away from the old system to create a new one. Taiwan, for example, is a kind of beginning to a revolution. Separatism, though, don't necessarily overthrow the old system, but rather, divides it into two or more parts. Though, separatism may very well lead to revolutions (if Taiwan can do it, why not Chechnya, Northern Ireland, Texas etc?).

[thomas]

Regarding the American revolution, the colonists would never have won the independence war without weapons and ammo manufactured in France.

that was monarch france though

[Edric O]

to be a revolutionary is to be an idealist in it's most paramount form.

How do you define "idealist"?

Show me one revolution that did not have idealist revolutionaries.

Again, it's not clear what you mean by "idealist". However, people like Lenin (for example) were definitely not "idealists", under any meaning of the word.

In fact, few revolutions have idealist leaders. Usually, the idealists are the rank-and-file revolutionaries.

You are right edric that almost all revolutions entail democratic ideals. The problem is they are almost always idealistic and because of this they go too many steps too far, and it usually turns almost to anarchy.

Actually, the "anarchy" you're talking about comes from the chaotic nature of the fighting, and order is re-established once the fighting is over.

Revolutions seem to usually fail because people are usually unhappy for very good reasons, and the former government is usually currupt. But for some reason revolutionaries as a whole dont usually think in the long term, because it seems impossible to me to be a revolutionary and think in realistic and future-oriented goals that are as I just said realistic. It is because idealism and revolutionary philosophies almost always go hand in hand. that is my opinion though.

Revolutions don't usually fail; the vast majority of revolutions end in a compromise between the people and the old ruling class, with the ruling class agreeing to some of the people's demands and initiating some reforms. Very few revolutions actually get to the point where the government is violently overthrown.

[Edric O]

This sounds like Cuba. Didn't Castro have some personal stuff to deal with Batista when he revolved? I mean, like he killed his family or something like that. Of course, Batista himself wasn't better than what Castro is today.

Actually, Batista was far worse. That's why most of the old Cubans who can remember Batista are strong supporters of Fidel Castro.

That is the problem with "leaders" or "directionaries" within a revolution. I just came back from China, where I spent my vacation, and I discoered, with my own eyes I might add, that China is not a communist nation (what a surprise). It is a fascistic capitalism. It is the worst system to live under. No democracy at all, guards are seen often (police-like, not the military types, although they were spotted during a trip to the great wall - if you're interested :) ). You can't imagine how many banks I spotted. My God. I have never seen so many banks in my entire life, I tell you that.

Well, I've been telling you that China is a fascist/capitalist dictatorship, but you didn't believe me. Now you saw it with your own eyes...

Same with Cuba. When Castro dies, either his government will continue to dictate orders or the people will revolt. But as I said, the choice is with the people.

The only thing wrong with Cuba right now is that the government isn't democratic. I certainly hope Castro's death will result in the creation of a socialist democracy (in other words, a real socialist system) in Cuba, but I'm afraid it's far more likely to result in an American invasion...

[thomas]

why celebrate france's revolution?

the American revolution was successful and sparked the creation of one of the greatest nations in history

the french revolution: sparked the creation of one of the worst governments in history (the great terror?). . .

[otheymzefedaykin]

dis moi Edric : tu fais ca tous les ans ? ;) ! :P

[Caid Ivik]

why celebrate france's revolution?

the American revolution was successful and sparked the creation of one of the greatest nations in history

the french revolution: sparked the creation of one of the worst governments in history (the great terror?). . .

Could not be better said!  ;D

[Dude_Doc]

the french revolution: sparked the creation of one of the worst governments in history (the great terror?). . .

I'm not following you. What's so bad about France's government?

[Caid Ivik]

I would say he ment this.

[Anathema]

They celebrate the revolution because it was for the French the first time the people had themselves heard, and even though the aftermath of the revolution was pretty screwed up, it's still a profound thing.

[HasimirFenring]

Why celebrate Bastille Day?  All they did was free fewer than a dozen political prisoners.  But it is still an important day becuase it comemorates the beginning of French resistance to the monarchy.  It was the beginning of democratic stirrings in France (and for that matter on continental Europe).