The French Revolution was about more than anti monarchy, it was about human dignity and equality. Napoleon actually believed in the revolution, in the territories he conquered he replaced old institutions based on heritage.
The differenve is that Napoleon was competent and made sure to keep his subects well-fed
Also decades of chaos and terror helped his rise to power a lot
wrufus680 on
Took all of Europe to bring him down
But he planted the seeds to brings down the foundations they sought to preserve
Opulon_Nelva on
Even to this day, the french relationship to centralised power retains a spectacular amount of monarchic decorum and apparatus.
The french restorations and their subsequent overthrowing always paint a ‘strange’ perception of the french layman toward both the republican institutions, and the executive elected power.
‘ain’t it cool we can change king every 5 years ?’
BobWat99 on
tbf, it’s not like the san culottes or jacobins were huge fans of the Bonapartes.
Kabelus on
Totally different social classes. The 1789 revolutionaries were mostly upper burghers with their paid mobs.
Napoleonic followers and soldiers were working class.
Critical-Low8963 on
At first people wanted a constitional monarchy ; they wanted to keep the king until he betrayed the country ; I guess that Napoleon who didn’t asked anyone to invade France and to kill pesants was seen as alright.
Magic0pirate on
(One aspect of the Franch and even the Russian Revolution, were the fact that the ruling powers/institutions were inbred.
Bad things when the Elite won’t allow perfect capable new blood into the government, instead making political families and passing power through blood.
For example Lenin was a extremely intelligent and capable guy, If his brother wasn’t killed, or the Tsar less idiotic, His fate would have been different.
This is also why I kinda find the Ottoman, Roman and Chinese Imperial systems interesting.
SelfDistinction on
“nah fuck this royalty shit, no presents for you” – Beethoven
12 Comments
British lords slop
The French Revolution was about more than anti monarchy, it was about human dignity and equality. Napoleon actually believed in the revolution, in the territories he conquered he replaced old institutions based on heritage.
I WILL CONQER ALL
[1812](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/a7/c4/60a7c4caddaa537f60f7363501d89451.jpg).
The differenve is that Napoleon was competent and made sure to keep his subects well-fed
Also decades of chaos and terror helped his rise to power a lot
Took all of Europe to bring him down
But he planted the seeds to brings down the foundations they sought to preserve
Even to this day, the french relationship to centralised power retains a spectacular amount of monarchic decorum and apparatus.
The french restorations and their subsequent overthrowing always paint a ‘strange’ perception of the french layman toward both the republican institutions, and the executive elected power.
‘ain’t it cool we can change king every 5 years ?’
tbf, it’s not like the san culottes or jacobins were huge fans of the Bonapartes.
Totally different social classes. The 1789 revolutionaries were mostly upper burghers with their paid mobs.
Napoleonic followers and soldiers were working class.
At first people wanted a constitional monarchy ; they wanted to keep the king until he betrayed the country ; I guess that Napoleon who didn’t asked anyone to invade France and to kill pesants was seen as alright.
(One aspect of the Franch and even the Russian Revolution, were the fact that the ruling powers/institutions were inbred.
Bad things when the Elite won’t allow perfect capable new blood into the government, instead making political families and passing power through blood.
For example Lenin was a extremely intelligent and capable guy, If his brother wasn’t killed, or the Tsar less idiotic, His fate would have been different.
This is also why I kinda find the Ottoman, Roman and Chinese Imperial systems interesting.
“nah fuck this royalty shit, no presents for you” – Beethoven