What the FUCK was their problem? Was the French aristocracy really that rotten as a whole or was this just peasants jealously chimping out? Not even baiting, I don't know enough about the Revolution to bait like that.
the Revolution was lead by bourgeois merchants and less privileged nobles who were just as literate (and far more motivated to use it) as the upper nobility
>>17435856Any time any group goes against the catholic church the consequences are disastrous
>>17435869mute point, the leaders of every movement are going to be literate and moderately competent (especially those of successful ones)the reality is that violent revolutions that eliminate the previous elite in its entirety still make the country worse by making the country suffer tremendous brain-drain and loss of human capital. this is why the french and russian revolutions were failures and why something like west Germany was not, a smart person realizes that there are only so many competent cadres in a given society, so re-using them for their own ideology like liberals did with nazis is going to be more successful than making them disappear like commies and jacobites did with the monarchists
>>17435856Maria Antonia didn't have much of an education beyond court etiquette.
>>17435891It only takes one generation to make a new intelligentsia that's ideaologically in line. Look at China.
>>17435891But 19th century France completely mogs 20th century Germany
>>1743593819th century france was mogged by 19th century germany, let alone 20th century germany
>>17435928chinese intelligentsia never managed to properly form before communism
>>17435928>look at ChinaAbsolutely shit example. The bugmen never had any aristocracy in the same vein as the West and even now are just bugmen doing bugmen shit while 98% of their population lives as peasants. A better example would be the US, unironically, where Jefferson's Jacobins managed to buck-break the Federalists into a solid party of "Democratic-Republicans" long enough for a solid sense of nationalism to form in the War of 1812 before Jackson started doing populism in the '30's and forced another frontier-peasants vs. the old-Federalist nationalists divide to form.
>>17436041Jackson isn't liked by historians precisely because he buckbroke the federalists that were just larping as democrat republicans. Jackson was a second revolution and started the doomsday clock when the catholic illegal immigrant importing north came into conflict with the slaving south
>>17436077>isn't liked by historians>historians >likedYou're retarded. Opinion trashed. They didn't larp you faggot, they were actually trying to build up the nation and help the common man instead of just grifting him while underselling his labor value by breeding niggers.
>>17435856>the most learned classThat's a funny euphemism for the jews.
>>17435856It wasn't a peasant rebellion. It was mainly the urban middle-class. Large parts of the nobility were also revolutionaries (perhaps more so than any other class, in proportional terms). The non-landed peasantry were mostly neutral or slightly anti-revolution (on average).
>>17435890Disastrously glorious. It's this way that we got the greatest like Napoleon and Hitler and less pedo jew worshipping priests.
>>17436752>ughhhh we went wild and had some years of dominance, end up getting btfo and back to square 1Real glory last generations. Next time learn from anglos.
>>17435891The flip-side of that is that any ossified social structure will limit competent people in favor of nepo babies. Napoleon was appointed general-in-chief of the Army of Italy at the age of 26, in the old system he'd have been lucky to max out as a colonel at the end of his career. So it's not as one-sided a loss of human capital as you characterize it.
>>17435856It's less that the aristocracy was rotten (well, no more than usual at any rate) and more that the economy was in fucking shambles to the point that the situation resembled a dry forest being drenched in gasoline. It doesn't take many lit matches for things to get nuts, y'know?
>>17436825Damn if only the landed aristocracy had been willing to give literally one (1) single concession to the king on tax reform. As usual they were short sighted spiritual nīggers who needed to be buck broken regularly. But yeah if Louis had been an adept politician up to the task of buck breaking like his great grandfather, or the economy had been in exponential growth mode, the revolution would never have precipitated.
>>17435890This. Protestant Reformation was a disaster for humanity.
>>17435856>peasants jealously chimping out?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e> Initially, the revolt was similar to the 14th-century Jacquerie peasant uprising, but the Vendée quickly became counter-revolutionary and Royalist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_and_Royal_Armies>lthough two-thirds of the insurgents (Against the French) were peasants, they only represented half of the men in these units, the rest being artisans and shopkeepers.That said, the revolution eventually won over peasants by getting rid of the fucking MEDIEVAL levels of corvee and taxation. Lemme know when you're okay being forced to give up a tithe to your local church and synagogue and being made to volunteer to help clear brush from Late senator Feinstein's country estate because this is the kind of demented nonsense the ancien regime had going on
>>17435856Listen, Europe is culturally actually very simple, and follows the same cultural dynamic as the Middle East did it before it. In this case, there is a clear first mover when it comes to culture, followed by a second mover who desperately tries to claim he's the actual first mover, while trying to get rid of the first mover and always failing miserably to do so. In the end, it all boils down to this simple schema:>Middle East>first mover: Judaism>second mover who tries to get rid of the first mover: Christianity>third mover pretending to be the first mover but no one buys it: Islam>Europe>first mover: polytheism>second mover who tries to get rid of the first mover: enlightenment>third mover pretending to be the first mover but no one buys it: communismEt voila
>>17436482So the same as the US Revolution. Why did France's go so bad? Neighboring countries trying to re-install the Bourbons?
>>17437276US Revolution wasn't all that revolutionary. They weren't creating a radical new vision of society, but having a regional independence struggle with the idea of developing upon already existing ideas and practices in British politics.>nu-uh! It was about overthrowing the king and inventing freedom and...Britain had already been a republic in all but name since 1688.American independentists were a mix of urban middle-class types, but also numerous yeomen, and, while the US didn't have actual nobility, the large estate owners were in effect almost the same thing (principally in the south).
>>17437290>>17437276(ps,I didn't mean to implicate you with that greentext. that's just some rando interjecting)
>>17435949Nah, Napoleonic France was the absolute pinnacle of French, nay, western history. Nothing Germany has ever accomplished comes even close, especially not the fucking BRD
>>17437290Bad wording on my part. What I meant was - why did it turn into such a bloodbath of infighting with everyone guillotining each other? The Loyalists in the colonies didn't face outright death as much as their French counterparts so much as they faced extradition and loss of property.
>>17437411Fucking comment limit >US Revolution wasn't all that revolutionary.You're half-right. They were creating something new, but this process was carried out over a solid century (at the very least if we start with Penn's colony, and more than a century if you take it all the way back to Jamestown when Edwin Sandys planted the seed of democracy in Virginia under Charles I's nose through their charter) and across numerous states separated by countless miles. The Frog Chimpout of '89 happened in a comparably tiny section of the country. Likewise, as you mentioned with the lack of a *true* Nobility in the colonies, there was no massive push back against them like in France. In reality, most of the old English Nobility that had transplanted themselves directly or had jettisoned sons across the ocean in seek of their own fortunes had already been assimilated into the colonies - they weren't set apart from the whole the way the Old French nobility was. Land barons in the South like the Byrds, Carters and Lee's were families that arose from middling men during the early 1700's under Spotswood's governorship, and by the time of Revolution were either defunct (Byrds) or themselves various shades of Revolutionaries (the Lee's and Carter). The North's middling men-turned-nobility were also more fully assimilated and split along Federalist (William Cooper) and Republican (Governor George Clinton) lines in a way that doesn't even fit our modern notions of parties today. The US essentially had a series of "mini-revolutions" from the English Civil War, to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, to the 1689 aftershocks of the Glorious Revolution, to the Governor-Generals that were placed in power after Queen Anne's War (Spotswood, Robert Hunter), to Virginia's War (forgotten name for the early conflicts of the Seven Years), to the backlash in '65 toward the Stamp Act, and then, finally, the US equivalent of the Storming of the Bastille and the Revolution proper.tl;dr - Burke was right
>>17435856If they are so learned why are they in that situation in the first place?
>>17435856Weed decriminalization
>>17435856>peasants jealously chimping outmost peasants supported the monarchy
>>17435856It's what happens when you reject Christ.Demons rule you instead.
>>17436771>Real glory last generations.The values of Napoleon and the Revolution are still alive today without their state having survived. You are an uneducated normie, and there was more glory in those few decades than in the entire Anglo history.
