Right, so next up will be the first two episodes on Napoleon's life. As ever, any questions, comments, criticisms, whatever, please share
@CMY187
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for making these videos. Now that I have finally finished your series on the Revolution and this 2-part mini-series on the Thermidorians, it’s time to start learning more about my favorite Corsican.
@dominicguye8058
Жыл бұрын
Why did the National Guard go along with this? I know Hanriot was deposed, but wasn't it still stuffed with sans-culottes?
@historicallyadequate2500
Жыл бұрын
A few defected to the Robespierreists or side with the sections, but when the coup occurred, most were convinced by Barras to side with the Thermidorians. To be fair though, few if any really understood what was even going on until it was over
@JonniePolyester
6 ай бұрын
Another superb video! So many histories of the FR seem to skate over this period ( probably because it is genuinely chaotic) which is why I think this format is great for the ‘generalist’ student. I wished these videos had been around 30 years ago when I was writing my undergraduate essays!
@historicallyadequate2500
6 ай бұрын
Thanks! The Thermidorian reaction is a tricky period to cover. Looking back on it now I'm actually not sure I did enough with just two episodes on it, could've done a lot more to really flesh things out since, as you say, it is often ignored or overlooked
@dominicguye8058
Жыл бұрын
Who were the leaders of the Thermidorians during this period? I heard some names but IDK how important they were.
@historicallyadequate2500
Жыл бұрын
Phillipe Merlin, Paul Barras, Joseph Fouché and Pierre Bentabole were the main ones, and well supported by Herbois and Billaud-Varenne
@5pancerny200
Жыл бұрын
I just ended up watching almost all of the videos that you produced on the subject of French Revolution (I didn't watch them in a chronological order, but basically all from Bastille to Thermidorian Reaction). I cannot find words to describe how magnificent this series was. I am generally a great history enthusiast, especially history of the world from second half of XVIII century which I think is crucial to understand modern world dynamics. In my opinion with some basic background about past ages, but really detailed study of history from that point we can pretty much understand what's going on and why world is what it is. But back to the point, I was never so much interested about French Revolution mainly due to how schools in my country portraied it - "French did not like king, destroyed Bastille, executed Capet, Robespierre started to guilotine people, he was guillotined, then Napoleon came, oh how awsome he is, we have him in our anthem, blah, blah, blah - The End". To be fair I got interested in the topic more after playing a game We The Revolution when you impersonate a Judge of Revolutionary Tribunal. Plot is not one to one factual representation of the flow of historical events, but there were many historical figures like Jacques Louis David, Danton, Herbert, Saint-Just, Tinville, Hanriot, Roux, Marat. I wanted to know what's the matter with those people and I read their biographies on the internet. Those lead me to articles about events and political movements. One day I wanted to find something more about hebertists movement and that is how I stumbled upon your channel. Things here are so clear, full of information, chronological and put to an interesting nuanced perspective where the viewer judges historical figures by his own standards. Thank you for the great amount of work and effort put to those videos, those are the best summaries of French Revolution I found. I recommend your channel for everyone that is even a bit interested to this topic. When I finish watching all about Revolution prelude I will sure as hell start your second series about Bonaparte. Thank you again for this series and good day to you @historicallyadequate2500
@historicallyadequate2500
Жыл бұрын
"We have him in our national anthem" Ah, tell me you're Polish without telling me you're Polish! I'm very glad you've stumbled upon the channel as I have a great respect for Poles and Poland and will discuss a good bit of Polish history with some of the Napoleon series. It's great that you've got this keen interest in history and the willingness to dig a bit deeper. Definitely check out some of books on the Revolution. Stuff you know about the 1800s will really start to click into place once you have a good grasp on the ideas at play in France and how they spread, especially stuff regarding Polish nationhood Thank you!
@dominicguye8058
Жыл бұрын
I heard that while the First White Terror was bad, trials were relatively fair and due process was respected more compared to the Reign of Terror. Is this true (after the Jacobin Prarial law was repealed)?
@historicallyadequate2500
Жыл бұрын
For all the terror of the Reign of Terror, it had its own internal logic and was, in the end, lawful. Rule of law, precedent, evidence, due process did mean a lot to the Jacobins et al, but when political motivations became paramount, these things were ignored. Arrests were common, so were trials, but executions were relatively few all things considered. Off the top of my head I can't remember exactly when (probably after the Law of Suspects), but at that stage the pace of executions ramps up massively, and it's that period that is most synonymous with the Terror. As for the White Terror, well in the weeks immediately after Thermidor, when judges were being replaced and the justice system stocked with Thermidorians, the imperative was to try and execute as many political enemies as possible; due process was all but thrown out the window, as the same-day executions of the Robespierres, Hanriot, Saint-Just, Couthon will attest. The re-emergent Girondins were the biggest proponents of this. Eventually things petered out, but the White Terror continued with a lot of extrajudicial killings and lynchings, especially out in the departments. So long story short, both Terrors obeyed the law, both terrors flaunted the law.
@dominicguye8058
Жыл бұрын
this is so depressing 😞
@historicallyadequate2500
Жыл бұрын
I feel the same way. Reading and writing about this was not fun
@rafaelbogdan9307
9 ай бұрын
This is brilliant granular history! I barely knew/ remembered the cliffnotes of the French Revolution before the algorithm pointed me at your channel. Also, I can't put my finger on why but I get the feeling you don't like the Thermidorians anymore than I do😂
@historicallyadequate2500
9 ай бұрын
Many thanks! And no, not a Thermidorian fan. Very much in line with Albert Mathiez on this one
@ryanfrederick3376
11 ай бұрын
The French Revolution is just one episode of whiplash after the next.
@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield
5 ай бұрын
Can you do Stalin’s Thermidor against the Old Bolsheviks?
@historicallyadequate2500
5 ай бұрын
Not unless I ever did the Russian Revolution on this channel, which seems unlikely. Probably best left up to a more dedicated channel
@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield
5 ай бұрын
Yeah, I understand. I think it gives a lot more perspective though comparing the two events. From King Louis, to Robespierre, and then “back” to napoleon. And from Nicholas 2, to Lenin, then “back” again to Stalin. (Not trying to great man theory here but you get the point).
@tygetygetyge
Жыл бұрын
I like you and I like the way to present history! Still I am surprised that you after the mass murder of the Great Terror and the repeted violence of the Sans cullotes and the common people, with disdain in your voice you call the Thermidorians conservative reactionaries, who limit freedoms and only gain the rich. Who dont care about their country and have no "vision". Certaintly I am no fan of them, as with any group in the Revolution. However you have to recognize their attempts to restore a sort of Napoleonic order (of course they failed) And they wanted to stop the effects of populism in politics, which also is a way of creating order and safety. Is it democratic? No. Nor was Napoleon, but still he is praised. You have to wonder, is this because the Thermidorans were awful or simply because the harvest of 1795 was poor, thus creating an angry people. Praising Robespierre and the jacobins just because they had a "vision" would be excusing the mass murders of any militant utopian project. I find a state that is pragmatic and realistic more comfortable than an ideological crazed state - 72 % of the those who died under the purges were commoners, in a time where the constitution and their rights were repealed. Anyway, I understand these subjects demand much nuance and knowledge, so I am willing to alter my view. Thanks again for the great videos!
@historicallyadequate2500
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment! I really appreciate your thoughts, so thank you I'll offer a bit of a clarification of my thoughts. I'd stand by calling the Thermidorians reactionaries. All that united the initial Thermidorian coalition of Monarchists, Girondins and disgruntled Jacobins was a shared hatred of Robespierre's policies. They were formed and worked as an explicit reaction to Robespierre and populism. After that though the Thermidorians had no reason for being, and the conservative (Pro-republic, anti-monarchist) faction dominanted policy. I take your point that the stated aim of these policies was to clamp down on populism. Some policies like the Bicameral legislature are directly intended to do that, as were the purges of Jacobins. But were policies benefitting the wealthy, protecting grain traders, and enriching Thermidorians really meant to help stabilise France, or were they made to empower a new political elite? The anti-democratic policies are a case in point. Disenfranchising citizens of the vote did stop populists from gaining office, but again I don't believe that noble intentions are the reasons Thermidorians enacted these changes. Rather, they wanted to make politics the exclusive domain of them and their allies. We have to remember (and from memory I mention in the video?) that no one at the time had any notion that the Revolution was over. The Thermidorians weren't trying to be a stabilising, post-revolutionary government because they weren't even aware that France was in what historians would later identify was a post-Revolutionary phase. Mostly, the Thermidorians were grifters, hangers-on and opportunists. Some had genuine ideological differences with Robespierre and the Jacobins (most opposition tot he Cult of the Supreme Being) but most were just there for money and station. It's something of a miracle that the Republic survived from 1795 - 1799 amidst war and strife. Napoleon's famous whiff of grapeshot put down a nascent monarchist revolt. There were various plots from monarchists, neo-Jacobins and Girondins, more purges. The Constitution was a mess. You make mention of the poor harvests in 1795 and 1796. Certainly they contribute to the unpopularity of the Thermidorians, but they're not the only reasons people have to be pissed. By comparison, Napoleon does exactly what we've both identified as things done by the Thermidorians; anti-democratic policy and anti-populism. You're right that he's praised for these things, but not by me. When I get around to my thoughts on Napoleon at the end of the series I'll say as much. I'm critical of Robespierre too, especially his vision. It is as you say Utopian, and he was willing to use extreme meaasures to see it through. Neither of these things were the right call. But then again we have the luxury of judging all of these things, these people, these events with over 200 years of hindsight and historiography. Much of what I was trying to do in the later parts of the FR videos was try to give context to the Terror that is missing in most histories of the period. I suppose that makes me appear more sympathetic to Robespierre and the others than I actually am.
@alexanderserebriannikov3716
Жыл бұрын
I say this with enjoyment and respect to the content. Why are you hating on the "capitalists" / "liberals"? You mark them as having the worst qualities of men, yet they were significally better than the radicals and their bloodthirsty mob. Motives matter little, especially since they can only be trully known by those who profess them. Do you think that the murdered masses of civilians, the innocent, the unindifferent and more would actually care? If everything you do especially regarding mandated state violence runs counter to your ideal utopia than the idea of revolution is just societal poison that brings out the worst in a people. The educated elite was in my opinion by far the better option. Didn't the english revolution and their olligarchic class of aristocracy show a better way? They brought throughout time actual freedom, democracy, and prosperity to its people and would make Great Britain for centuries a hegemon. You can criticize the British model all you want because nothing is really perfect compared to an unachievable idea in your head. In a contest of who rules better, the moderates "reactionaries" will always rule better than the revolutionaries. Problems are complex, the revolution is straight forward... usually towards the guilliotine.
@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield
5 ай бұрын
Idk if this is supposed to be a moral argument but “moderates” are just as violent as the far left if history hasn’t already made that clear. Violence is a necessary tool for maintaining or creating any state power, hence why a revolution to change the present state of things is always violent by necessity. And no doubt the moderates of both the English Civil War and the French Revolution were historically progressive, reforming and abolishing the old regimes wherever necessary, but in both of these cases, it is the far left that aim to achieve the interests of the sans culotte or the working class, which will always be a more progressive movement until class is abolished.
@alexanderserebriannikov3716
5 ай бұрын
@@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield Every unbiased knowledgeble person would rather live in England than France during the French Revolutions governments, yet these systems are apparently just as violent to the normal person. So how did it work out for your "far left", the "sans culottes or the working class"? Did material conditions improve in any meaningful way for peasents? Did the sans cullotte get actual democracy? Did the working class get new freedoms? The supposed progess of the French Revolution after the pleb takeover within was only nominal, everything really just got worse
@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield
5 ай бұрын
@@alexanderserebriannikov3716 uhhhhh this is tragic
@ed11689
3 ай бұрын
The radicals ruled well. In 1793 the Montagnards had to deal with rampant inflation, invading foreign armies from Europe's major powers, a two-fronted civil war and rebuilding the French fleet. They achieved all of this with radical measures such as levy in mass, the maximum, grain requisition and unprecedented state economic interventionism. Their successes paved the way for the modern French state. By contrast, their predecessors, the moderate Girondins, were completely overwhelmed by the same problems. Being excessively concerned about liberal property rights, they would have never implemented these radical measures to save France.
@ed11689
3 ай бұрын
The 'pleb takeover' was inevitable because the moderates did what moderates always do: baulk at necessary political reform because it threatened their wealth and income. As a result, they were unable to meet the challenges that faced France, losing political power. You claim that the French Revolution would have been less violent and more prosperous had moderates stayed in power. But this is a historical impossibility. Moderation and half-hearted policies are precisely what gave rise to the frustration that unleashed the 'pleb takeover'. It was the moderates that created the violent mob through the crises of their inaction.
@rackbites
6 ай бұрын
I am pretty sure I am hearing you say "Golden Youth" in these two videos ... a most interesting group ... very Clockwork Orange. In searching online I find them referred to as Gilded Youth or Muscadin with their 'Constitutions' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscadin Is Gilded and Golden the same from a French->English translation perspective?
@historicallyadequate2500
6 ай бұрын
Yes 'golden youth', 'jeuneusse dorée.' I'm not sure if there's much of a difference between Gilded and Golden, they're probably largely interchangeable like in English. Dorée (doré m.) is literally 'gold-ed' if translated literally
Пікірлер: 36