How come no one in Europe gave a fuck when the English king Charles 1st got executed? Nobody went to intervene in England.In comparison the execution of the French king later had very strong reactions.
Because you are comparing apples and based guillotines. Chuck the First got the chop in 1649. Europe was a fucking mess, everyone was busy with the 30 Years War and their own shit. He was also seen as a tyrant and loser who lost to his own people.Fast forward to Louis XVI. That was the divine right of kings getting publicly BTFO by the poors. That shit was contagious. They had to form a whole coalition to contain that revolutionary AIDS.
One was executed by nobles and the other by commoners. Can you spot the difference?
>>17994603France is at the centre of four major nations (England, Spain, Italy and Germany). What happens there is more important than what happens at the periphery.
>>17994763Not to mention that France was the largest country in Europe population wise. Only Russia could compare.
King of France was a relative to many other royals in Europe. Marie Antoinette was an Austrian princess, so putting her to death with her husband obviously pissed off the Austrian royal family in particular. There's also a massive difference in rhetoric. The English were simply tired of their abusive monarch's horseshit and eventually decided to try having a government without a monarch, but they did not try to execute the entire royal family just for being royal, they only executed Charles because he was specifically accused of treason. The English also did not express any desire to spread revolutionary ideology to the rest of Europe, whereas the revolutionary government in France was very vocal about the need to end monarchy everywhere, not just in France.
>>17994603Anglos ahead of the game, thank you ol Crommy for allowing America the beautiful to be born. Ill crack open a cold one for ya cunt.
>>17995554
Because despite /his/'s retarded historical revisionism painting him as some beloved witty genius for his spectacular legal argument of "uhh im the king so i can do whatever I want lol" he was recognized by all as an unbearable retarded manchild who was basically begging for rebellion his entire reign.If your normal neighbor got struck by lightning you'd be shocked and appalled. If you had a local lunatic who was constantly climbing the tallest trees he could find and waving a metal rod around every time there was a thunderstorm and he got struck you'd probably just shrug it off.
>>17994603Nobody would have intervened in France either if the revolutionaries had not declared war on everyone first.
>>17995579> Because despite /his/'s retarded historical revisionism painting him as some beloved witty genius for his spectacular legal argument of "uhh im the king so i can do whatever I want lol" It’s just a funny meme. Don’t take it seriously. Charlie I ranks as the worst English king on my book. Yes, he was worse than John.
>>17994603Unlike the Jacobins, the Puritans did not declare war on all of Europe or reject monarchy in principle
>>17994603The only countries with the power to intervene during the English Civil War, France and Spain, were stuck in their own war. France then got hid by the Fronde, its own civil war. Nobody else had the navy or material to even attempt an intervention on England.Meanwhile during the French Revolution, Louis XVI was actively colluding with the Austrians to gather a foreign army and re-establish himself on the throne. Then you got the Bourbons in Spain mad that their cousin Bourbon in France got 10 inches shorter. And Prussia and Russia were interested in getting more involved in big boy Western European affairs.
>>17994603Europeans both Protestant and Catholic were utterly shocked and disturbed by the execution of Charles
>Nobody cared Wrong
>>17995589France had war declared on it in the war of the first coalition, not the other way around. France's victory in that war was what stunned the world.
>>17996181Why are you lying? The war started April 20 1792 when France declared war on Austria, until then nobody had any plans to militarily intervene.
>>17994603Most of Europe was too buay recovering from the Thirty Years Old war
>>17994756This deserves to be repeated a lot more frequently. The English Civil War was two groups of noblemen fighting each other over which of them would get to be in charge (i.e. just another slow Tuesday morning for most of European history); it was not a revolution. Even the most radical parliamentarians that managed to gain power still made Cromwell a king in all but name.
Louis XVI’s execution was tied to the French Revolution’s explicit universal ideology of liberty, equality, fraternity, which proclaimed that kings and nobles everywhere were illegitimate. That terrified other monarchs.
>no more monarchies!>so anyway let's crown a new emperorMake it make sense
