What do you think about American and French revolutions?

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Mar 2016, 1:25 am

The era of enlightenment has always been one of my favorite eras cover in particular American War of Independence, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars :-)

Now I play Assassin's Creed 3, which is set during the American Revolution, I remember once I played Sid Meier's Colonization, and I wondered why the hell programmers incorporation of the European flag in to the American Flag but i had 10 years old than :D



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

27 Mar 2016, 6:50 am

France lost their colony in eastern Canada to britain during what we call the 'French and Indian war'. When the American colonists revolted against the British a few years later, it was only natural for Louis XV to give material assistance to the Americans in order to snub the English for the loss of Quebec and Acadia. In doing so, he also bankrupted France.

In return the people of France decided that if Louis XV was going to support a new form of government that did away with kings, nobility and such, that this was a good thing, so they decided to remove him and the rest of their royalty. Vive le Guillotine!


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Mar 2016, 8:27 am

Fogman wrote:
France lost their colony in eastern Canada to britain during what we call the 'French and Indian war'. When the American colonists revolted against the British a few years later, it was only natural for Louis XV to give material assistance to the Americans in order to snub the English for the loss of Quebec and Acadia. In doing so, he also bankrupted France.

In return the people of France decided that if Louis XV was going to support a new form of government that did away with kings, nobility and such, that this was a good thing, so they decided to remove him and the rest of their royalty. Vive le Guillotine!

I other words "who digs a pit for somebody digs a pit himself" :D



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

27 Mar 2016, 9:05 am

pawelk1986 wrote:
Fogman wrote:
France lost their colony in eastern Canada to britain during what we call the 'French and Indian war'. When the American colonists revolted against the British a few years later, it was only natural for Louis XV to give material assistance to the Americans in order to snub the English for the loss of Quebec and Acadia. In doing so, he also bankrupted France.

In return the people of France decided that if Louis XV was going to support a new form of government that did away with kings, nobility and such, that this was a good thing, so they decided to remove him and the rest of their royalty. Vive le Guillotine!

I other words "who digs a pit for somebody digs a pit himself" :D


Never before heard that expression.

But I guess that's what the US did when the US supported the Afghan resistence to the Soviets that resulted in the creation of Al Queda and 9-11.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,863
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

27 Mar 2016, 9:47 am

The American Revolution was not a revolution. It was a successful bid to leave the British Empire through force of arms. Very similar to what happened in Rhodesia in the 60s in that it was led by settlers and descendants of settlers rather than "natives", but different in that the Rhodesian situation did not involve direct military encounters with the British (although my memory may be faulty on this score). In that regard, the "American Revolution" may be unique or nearly so, although lessons learned from it may have to some degree led to Canada, Australia, etc. (peacefully) achieving independence later on. In retrospect, I can't honestly say whether it should have happened or not, but those who committed to it were inarguably some of the bravest men in Western history (and they were almost all well-off, with much to lose!).

So having dismissed the American Revolution as such, I will say that otherwise that revolutions universally suck, there hasn't been a single one that justified the bloodshed, loss of property, and general economic ruin that always results. The French revolution was a good example of all revolutions that followed.

Although I find it amusing that the French to this day look to the revolution as some sort of patriotic event. In fact, they have held on to some legacy such as the division of France into exactly 100 "départements" plus of course the Marseillaise. OK, on second thought there has been some good - I would say that the modern French tendency to define their nation in terms of culture rather than ethnicity and the resulting unification of French culture should be admired (but isn't) by the rest of Europe. In particular language. Throughout France, everybody seems to speak a standard form of French, including areas that traditionally spoke other languages such as Alsatian, Provençal, Breton etc. Regionalism is really very weak there (compare to Spain and Belgium!). To the extent this developed out of the revolution, then I could say the French Revolution did some good.


_________________
My WP story


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

27 Mar 2016, 10:11 am

Two complex events, both are vast complex subjects. Both have a deep emotional meaning for the modern inhabitant of both respective countries. So its hard to respond to "what do you think about them?" (as if either was just a new pop song on the radio).

Will make a few random comments:

We Americans like to boast about how we succeeded in our Revolution, and how France got bathed in blood, and yet did not succeed in their Revolution.

But in the long run the French Revolution did succeed in producing democracy.

And in the long run we Americans had to face some unfinished business from our own revolution. The result was our Civil War which was easily comparable to the French Revolution in bloodshed and devastation ( in the first couple of battles of the Civil War more people died than died in the entire American Revolution).



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Mar 2016, 10:22 am

naturalplastic wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
Fogman wrote:
France lost their colony in eastern Canada to britain during what we call the 'French and Indian war'. When the American colonists revolted against the British a few years later, it was only natural for Louis XV to give material assistance to the Americans in order to snub the English for the loss of Quebec and Acadia. In doing so, he also bankrupted France.

In return the people of France decided that if Louis XV was going to support a new form of government that did away with kings, nobility and such, that this was a good thing, so they decided to remove him and the rest of their royalty. Vive le Guillotine!

I other words "who digs a pit for somebody digs a pit himself" :D


Never before heard that expression.

But I guess that's what the US did when the US supported the Afghan resistence to the Soviets that resulted in the creation of Al Queda and 9-11.


That i written above is an old polish proverb, that in fact is based on Bible, but i did not know which chapter of It, i tried to translate it as closed as possible :D



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Mar 2016, 10:29 am

MaxE wrote:
The American Revolution was not a revolution. It was a successful bid to leave the British Empire through force of arms. Very similar to what happened in Rhodesia in the 60s in that it was led by settlers and descendants of settlers rather than "natives", but different in that the Rhodesian situation did not involve direct military encounters with the British (although my memory may be faulty on this score). In that regard, the "American Revolution" may be unique or nearly so, although lessons learned from it may have to some degree led to Canada, Australia, etc. (peacefully) achieving independence later on. In retrospect, I can't honestly say whether it should have happened or not, but those who committed to it were inarguably some of the bravest men in Western history (and they were almost all well-off, with much to lose!).

So having dismissed the American Revolution as such, I will say that otherwise that revolutions universally suck, there hasn't been a single one that justified the bloodshed, loss of property, and general economic ruin that always results. The French revolution was a good example of all revolutions that followed.

Although I find it amusing that the French to this day look to the revolution as some sort of patriotic event. In fact, they have held on to some legacy such as the division of France into exactly 100 "départements" plus of course the Marseillaise. OK, on second thought there has been some good - I would say that the modern French tendency to define their nation in terms of culture rather than ethnicity and the resulting unification of French culture should be admired (but isn't) by the rest of Europe. In particular language. Throughout France, everybody seems to speak a standard form of French, including areas that traditionally spoke other languages such as Alsatian, Provençal, Breton etc. Regionalism is really very weak there (compare to Spain and Belgium!). To the extent this developed out of the revolution, then I could say the French Revolution did some good.


Canada and Australia are in fact semi-independent there are british Dominions and Governor's General which in fact are viceroys to Elizabeth II can sack local prime minister as it did in 1975 in Australia :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Aust ... nal_crisis



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,863
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

27 Mar 2016, 10:38 am

pawelk1986 wrote:
Canada and Australia are in fact semi-independent there are british Dominions and Governor's General which in fact are viceroys to Elizabeth II can sack local prime minister as it did in 1975 in Australia :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Aust ... nal_crisis
An interesting bit of history for which I was alive but not much aware of at the time (more preoccupied with my own sex life, I suppose). Quite a handy way to deal with a constitutional crisis. I suppose Canada may have also been at risk of a constitutional crisis in the early 70s, but nowadays I can't imagine the Old Girl trying to sack the Canadian PM.


_________________
My WP story


pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

27 Mar 2016, 10:57 am

MaxE wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
Canada and Australia are in fact semi-independent there are british Dominions and Governor's General which in fact are viceroys to Elizabeth II can sack local prime minister as it did in 1975 in Australia :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Aust ... nal_crisis
An interesting bit of history for which I was alive but not much aware of at the time (more preoccupied with my own sex life, I suppose). Quite a handy way to deal with a constitutional crisis. I suppose Canada may have also been at risk of a constitutional crisis in the early 70s, but nowadays I can't imagine the Old Girl trying to sack the Canadian PM.


Canada had Continual Crisis in Early 70's can you tell me more?
I'm interested in politics :)



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

27 Mar 2016, 11:16 am

pawelk1986 wrote:
Fogman wrote:
France lost their colony in eastern Canada to britain during what we call the 'French and Indian war'. When the American colonists revolted against the British a few years later, it was only natural for Louis XV to give material assistance to the Americans in order to snub the English for the loss of Quebec and Acadia. In doing so, he also bankrupted France.

In return the people of France decided that if Louis XV was going to support a new form of government that did away with kings, nobility and such, that this was a good thing, so they decided to remove him and the rest of their royalty. Vive le Guillotine!

I other words "who digs a pit for somebody digs a pit himself" :D


I've never heard that one before either, but essentially yes. While the war was essiantially a guerrilla action using hit and run tactics, the old paintings that you see of George Washington's Continental army weaing uniforms, the uniforms that they are wearing are the same as those used by the French army of the same era. Furthermore, guns, field artillery, and equipment used by the Americans which were not their own guns, or equipment captured from the British all came from France.

FWIW, many of the Bugle Signals calls still used by the US army to sound out times of the day are the same as used by the French army.

Furthermore, one of the things that sealed the fate of the French royals, was Marie Antoinette's alleged comment of the starving peasants, 'If they have no bread, let them leat brioche'.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

27 Mar 2016, 11:17 am

The American revolutionaries were devious traitors to Britain.

I think we forgive them, though, after all this time.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,863
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

27 Mar 2016, 11:41 am

pawelk1986 wrote:
Canada had Continual Crisis in Early 70's can you tell me more?
I'm interested in politics :)
Some elements in Quebec province made a serious attempt to secede from the rest of Canada; I don't know much about the Canadian constitution but am fairly certain that is a violation. There was some actual bloodshed and Quebec was under curfew for a while. Come to think of it, it's possible the Governor General did get involved, but there was no actual ousting that I can remember.

There are usually a fair number of Canadians on this forum, perhaps one can chime in with more detail?


_________________
My WP story


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,863
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

27 Mar 2016, 11:44 am

Tequila wrote:
The American revolutionaries were devious traitors to Britain.

I think we forgive them, though, after all this time.
The American "revolutionaries" did what they did essentially Because They Could. Which I'll admit I think set a dangerous precedent, although I can't quarrel with the outcome as I don't think the US would have established its own unique culture to the same extent had all this not happened.

BTW I don't trust your offer of forgiveness for one second.


_________________
My WP story


Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

27 Mar 2016, 11:59 am

Tequila wrote:
The American revolutionaries were devious traitors to Britain.

I think we forgive them, though, after all this time.


This is only proper as we saved you from a bad situation twice in the last century. --I think the last time you almost had English replaced by German as the official administrative language of the UK.

As to the war, the reason for it was that King George saw fit to tax us into oblivion without offering us parliamentary representation.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!