The real trouble began when on the first of October 1789 women gathered outside of Paris and began a march to Versailles to get the Royalty to come to Paris and effectively be under their control. The made it to Versailles and stormed the area killing all guards in their wake. Eventually Marie Antoinette and King Louis XIV were taken to Paris. At this time the people had a lot of power in what was done and it was this time that people started questioning social systems and brought out radical ideas. The power of the church was greatly diminished and power to the people was brought out. New legislations were being passed and King Louis XIV was literally signing away his power. Eventually the King and Queen attempted to flee France but were caught at Varennes and escorted back to Paris.

Due to the flight of the King and Queen, moral dropped low among the people. Despite all the power the people had there were still many things that weren’t well standing with them. It was on August 10th 1792 that when troops stormed the palace and murdered the guards to the King and Queen that the next phase of the revolution began. At this phase bloodied battles where held across France and it all ended with the ultimate execution of the King and Queen. This shows that France has completely abolished a Monarchy (both absolute and constitutional) and started a Republic.

So in conclusion, the reason the French Revolution was so Revolutionary was that in a small period of time so much of France’s Political and Social System changed that marked the beginning of a new era for France. From a Monarchy to a Republic, from a poor minority with no say in legislations to an equal say in all, from a greatly deprived constitution to one that promoted equality and from one National Ideal to a completely different one. These are what make the French Revolution so Revolutionary.

Maximilian Robespierre

They call him “The Incorruptible.” They said his wife and his one true love we none other than justice and virtue.
   Today, his name has become a synonym for extremism that is nearly impossible to think of it without conjuring the image of the guillotine’s bloody blade.
   Maximilian Robespierre was by far the most controversial figure ever to emerge from the French Revolution. He was a man of so many contradiction and conflicting ideologies that it is still difficult today to label him. Hero or tyrant? Savior or monster?
   His background certainly gives a hint of his future success. He came from a family of lawyers, and won a scholarship to study law at 8 years old. In law school, he became a devoted disciple of Rousseau, pure democracy and the “noble savage.”
   There is a famous story that when Louis XVI visited Robespierre’s law school, the teen was honored to deliver a welcome speech. But the king did not show up. Robespierre felt humiliated. Little did he know one day he would have his revenge.
   By 1789, Robespierre was a respected lawyer who shocked his colleagues by using Enlightenment ideas to defend the poor. He was a delegate at the Estates-General, swore the Tennis Court Oath and helped write the Constitution of 1791.
   In 1792, he joined the “Society of the Friends of the Revolution,” a radical group. Robespierre proved himself to be more extreme than the extremists. He even supported the right of Jews and an end to slavery in French colonies. He soon became leader of his radical group, they soon became known by a new name: Jacobins.
   That year, war was declared against Austria and Prussia. Robespierre wa against it because he thought war would lead to military dictatorship. It was highly ironic, for in less than a year he himself would be the complete dictator of France.
   “War, war!” cried the people. Soon, Paris was in a wild frenzy, as bread prices soared and rumors spread of traitors working against France. The first wave of senseless killing broke out- the September Massacres. Robespierre did not stop them.
   Robespierre, with his intelligence, writing talent, and amazing speaking skills, was now a major government leader. By now, his extremism was growing at a dangerously fast pace- yet, strangely, he also earned the nickname the “Incorruptible.” He did accept bribes or compromise his views. He lived a simple, modest life, without luxury or privileges. He was even- shockingly- faithful to his wife.
   The National Convention suspended the 1791 Constitution and ended the thousand-year French monarchy. When Louis XVI was on trial, Robespierre said: “Louis must die, so that the country may live.” Before that, he had been an opponent of te death penalty. Louis’ blood, he reasoned, was being shed for the greater good, just as Rousseau would have said. The security of the republic was his ultimate goal- no matter how many people died. From here in, that would always be his view.

It took place in ten years, from 1789 to 1799.

Simply put, the Revolution was the overthrow of France’s absolute monarchy by the middle and lower classes, which wanted more rights and equality for all Frenchmen.

The revolution was deeply inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment (natural rights, democracy, freedom of speech, rationality). The revolutionaries wanted to see them come to reality in France as they did in the United States.

However, in seeking to change France, the revolution turned bloody and violent as different groups argued and fought over their ideas.

The Rvolution can be divided into 3 phases:
a. The “middle-of-the-road” (or moderate) phase
b. The violent, extreme phase (where the guillotine was used)
c. The “calming” phase, where order was restored after terror

At its end, France ended up with the dictatorship of Napoleon, but nonetheless, many of the ideas of the Enlightenment were adopted permanently in France, and the tprest of Europe followed.

It is because of this that the Revolution is considered so important today- it is the Enligtenment come alive in both a positive and negative way.

Comment below: Would you like to read about the ‘ancien regime’?

The need of man to understand himself through his past, amply justifies the constant pursuit of the facts relevant to rebuild it, causes and factors that determined the steps, phases and rhythms that developed in human life.

However, the huge range of issues - temporal, spatial, anthropological, geographical, economic, political, social, etc. - that inform the past and the subjective situation of those who try to ordain them and expose them systematically creates difficulties sometimes insuperable.

Thus, pre-historic men, no writing, communicate orally only direct experience they need to survive and progress, when men of antiquity began to write, is still limited to the registration of facts deemed important by those who exert social influence absolute (princes and priests).

It is the era of chronic apologetic, when kings succeed and realize the facts of history, and mythology. This superficial view of history goes on during the Middle Ages with royal and ecclesiastical historiography.

The conditions for a critical position in relation to the past do not exist. However, since antiquity, some isolated individuals (Herodotus, Polybius, Pausanias) break the barrier of subjective bias and external data.

Study the geographical conditions that developed in the facts, seek political and social environment that determined by defining the former sources of history, geography, chronology, sociology (so embryonic Polybius).

Still do not understand the evolutionary process and the diversity of civilizations; America, Asia and Africa continents are largely unknown and historical frameworks are abstract and unilateral.

The  Middle  Ages  is  an  extension  of the ancient slave  society,  yet  understated. Only in the Renaissance, history reaches proportions objective, genealogy, numismatics, archeology and  linguistics  begin  to  be  considered  as  important  auxiliary. The combination of feelings, cultures and peoples through the discovery, commerce and science, help trace the historical process generally, the laws that govern it and the steps that form. Machiavelli, Vico and Montesquieu - albeit with a priori views - stand out among the great historians of the 15th century until the French Revolution.

The  great  social  changes,  political  and  scientific  of  the late  18th  and  19th  century,   foregrounds  historical  inquiry,  not  only as  knowledge  of  the  past,  but as attempt to  understand the future of  humanity  as  a  result  of  its  previous  history.

For the first time, we use objective sources, and with further study of the determinants of each process, overcome the old method of history horizontal (chronological listing military, political or diplomatic). The traditional division of history into ages (Antiquity, Middle, Modern and Contemporary) also entailed a large arbitrariness: emphasis on military events, the omission of historical changes that define   steps,  devaluation  of  the   influence  of  other  civilizations,  artificial separation  process  unit.

It covers a vertical history broader reality: economic history, social, cultural, etc.. The analysis, comparison and expertise are the reasons for large conceptions and historicalsummaries (Mommsen, Ranke). Born positivism (Comte) and materialism (Marx). In the 20th century, there are statistics, photography and audio-visual means. The great historical works of our time (L. Febvre, Toynbee, Bloch) are usually the result of teams of expertsunder the direction of a historian who summarizes and organizes the different elements.Today, the historical research is oriented in accordance with the philosophical currents that are discussed at the global level.

The word revolution brings with it stereotypes. Depending on how you view revolutions, in particular or in general, you will see the people of the revolution as of certain character. These clichés can cloud the historical character of the real person, whether rank and file or a leader. If one is against revolution, which most Americans today are, they would see a revolutionist as a “seedy, wild-eyed, unshaven, loud-mouthed beatnik, given to soapbox oratory and plotting against the government, ready for, and yet afraid of, violence.” (Brinton 93) However, if one saw revolution as a positive thing and as my aunt says, “The only revolutionists left in America are college professors.” (She, herself, is a college teacher) They would see the revolutionists as “ a sturdy, broad-shouldered steel-worker, uncorrupted by the falsities the bourgeois call education, but well-versed in Marx and Lenin, strong, kindly, a warrior spirit with just a redeeming touch of Shelley about him.” (Brinton 93) Neither of these views are right, not the “scum of the earth” view or the “heroic” view.  The true nature of the revolutionist can not be stated in a generalizations above. For every person, these do not apply, and that is why these clichés most be ignored in the study of the revolutionists.

During a revolution, one set character of person does not carry through to all. One type does not exist for the rank and file, and the leaders, neither does it apply to just the rank and not just the leaders. In both, there are many different types of people; these types form what is called the revolutionists. In the case of the rank and file, or common people of the revolution, there was no set social class. In the French Revolution, “the Jacobin was neither a nobleman nor beggar, but almost anything in between. The Jacobins represent a complete cross-section of their communities.” (Briton 97) By this, the author means that the average revolutionist was not a wealth off noble or a peasant. Most of the French revolutionists were middle class, and a still some of the working class.  This is quite contradictory to the English Revolution. The English or Puritan Revolution saw only land owning gentry over throw the monarch. In fact, “ The English lower classes, (not of gentle birth) or at least the most proletarian and peasant elements as opposed to the independent artisans, on the whole stood aloof from the conflict” (Brinton 98)  Few of the revolutionists of  the Puritan revolution were of the working class.

The leaders of these revolutions, also, were of varying classes. “The leaders are substantially of the same social standing as the rank and file.” (Brinton 101) The leaders, especially in Russia’s case, seem to have been considered failures. They were not poor due to lack of ability, but lack of acceptance. They were artists and artisans whose works were ignored. By the time of revolution, these men are ready to destroy all of the established government and culture that rejected their works. In the English revolution, these men were noble, land owning gentlemen who were the “highest in the land.” Most of these leaders came from the Parliament’s House of Commons.  In France, the leaders were not of a different social class of the old regime, they were literate upper bourgeoisie. The leaders were intellectuals. Robespierre was a lawyer, Danton was a barrister and journalists like Marta. These intellectuals transferred their allegiance and became the voice of the revolution. 

Besides the class of the revolutionists, both economically and socially, the disposition of them was studied in this book. Brinton classifies them into five categories. The first being the gentlemen revolutionists. These were mostly in the English Revolution. The “ ‘misguided superior’ the man born on top, but perversely unwilling to stay there.” (Brinton 107) The English Revolutionist was most likely a member of Parliament, in somewhat a position of power. The gentleman revolutionist is not satisfied with his limited power, he “sees the possibilities of a better world.” (Brinton 108) The second category is the failure. Marat is a prime example of the failure who becomes a leader in the French Revolution.  A self-educated man, the  philosophers never accepted him, and, “rejected by these admired leaders opinion, was in 1789 full to the brim with envy and hatred of everything established and esteemed in France.” (Brinton 109)

Prior to the French Revolution, the French people were roughly divided into three different categories, called Estates.  The First Estate consisted of the clergy.  The Catholic Church was the largest landowner in France, it’s been estimated that they owned 10% of all the land.  The wealth and power of the church was strongly resented by some people.  The Second Estate consisted of the Nobility.  While all members of the Nobility weren’t wealthy, most of the wealthy people in France were members of the Nobility.  The Third Estate was the great catchall, all of the other people, basically the working people.

Corruption in government was at epidemic proportions.  Ministers and others were often mere toadies to those above them.  The good of the country was largely immaterial to those self-serving sycophants; self-aggrandizement was the order of the day. 

The government’s finances were both antiquated and inefficient.  In many ways France was still a feudalistic country at the time.  Different regions had different taxes and tariffs were often placed on commerce in route from one region to another, even though it remained inside the borders of France.  Laws and justice varied from region to region also. 

The government was saddled with an extremely heavy debt prior to the revolution.  There were many reasons for the debt, one of the major reasons being the cost of several wars in the not too distant past; including the support France gave to the fledging United States in their revolution against Great Britain less than a decade earlier.

France had an extremely regressive tax system at the time.  The Third Estate was heavily taxed while the First and Second Estates enjoyed numerous tax exemptions.  Jacques Necker became the de facto finance minister in 1776.  He was opposed to further taxes on the Third Estate and he wanted to reduce the tax exemptions enjoyed by the First and Second Estates.  Ministers to King Louis XVI, and even the Queen, Marie Antoinette, became Necker’s enemies because of his policies.

The colder climate caused by the “Little Ice Age” and failed agriculture policies in France led to shortfalls in the harvest which caused food prices to rise.  This in turn led to malnutrition and starvation by some members of the Third Estate.

These problems and more were direct causes of the French Revolution.  On Jan. 21, 1793, Citizen Louis Capet, previously known as King Louis XVI, was beheaded by the guillotine.  On Oct. 16, 1793, Marie Antoinette met her death the same way.

Compare this bloody period in history to our current times, especially in the US. 

·         Is corruption in government epidemic?

·         Are politicians largely a bunch of self-serving sycophants with self-aggrandizement being the order of the day?

·         Are the government’s finances inefficient?

·         Is the government saddled with a huge debt, largely because of wars?

·         Do we have a regressive tax system, and do privileged classes enjoy numerous tax exemptions?

·         Does anyone trying to “promote the general Welfare,” as it’s expressed in the preamble to the Constitution, become the enemy of mainstream politicians?

·         Are food prices on the rise?

When you hear people talk about the sins of income redistribution think about the top 1% getting richer while everyone else is getting poorer.  When people talk about the unfairness of punishing those who create jobs with higher taxes are they setting the bar artificially low in order to favor the wealthiest?  Is that very argument meant to be a distraction to the fact that those at the top of the financial pyramid are becoming filthy rich at the expense of everyone else?  Does any politician stop and consider the consequences of their partisan politics by putting them in a historical context? 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Déjà vu.

As Napoleon I, he was miltary commander of the French from 1804 to 1815. People called him “the Emperor, superior to the admiral, superior to the king”. He was a real “Boss”.

He is remembered for his spectacular role in the wars led against France by a series of coalitions, the so-called Napoleonic Wars. He controlled over most of continental Europe and sought to spread the ideas of the French, while consolidating an imperial empire. Due to his success in these wars, often against numerically superior enemies, he is generally regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time.

Napoleon was born in Corsica to parents of noble Genoese ancestry and trained as an artillery officer in mainland France. He rose to prominence under the French First Republic and led successful campaigns against the First and Second Coalitions arrayed against France. In 1799, he staged a coup d’état and installed himself as First Consul; five years later the French Senate proclaimed him emperor. In the first decade of the 19th century, the French Empire under Napoleon engaged in a series of conflicts—the Napoleonic Wars—involving every major European power. After a streak of victories, France secured a dominant position in continental Europe, and Napoleon maintained the French sphere of influence through the formation of extensive alliances and the appointment of friends and family members to rule other European countries as French client states. Napoleon’s campaigns are studied at military academies throughout much of the world.

The fight against the guerilla in Spain and 1812 French invasion of Russia marked turning points in Napoleon’s fortunes. His Grande Armée was badly damaged in the campaign and never fully recovered. In 1813, the Sixth Coalition defeated his forces at Leipzig; the following year the Coalition invaded France, forced Napoleon to abdicate and exiled him to the island of Elba. Less than a year later, he escaped Elba and returned to power, but was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. Napoleon spent the last six years of his life in confinement by the British on the island of Saint Helena. An autopsy concluded he died bravely, during an outbreak on Saint-Helena. He was shot twice in the stomach, and then he said “Honour the Boss…”. After that, he closed his eyes, forever…

Watch here an exclusive vid, about him, the boss himself: CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO.

As Napoleon I, he was miltary commander of the French from 1804 to 1815. People called him “the Emperor, superior to the admiral, superior to the king”. He was a real “Boss”. 

He is remembered for his spectacular role in the wars led against France by a series of coalitions, the so-called Napoleonic Wars. He controlled over most of continental Europe and sought to spread the ideas of the French, while consolidating an imperial empire. Due to his success in these wars, often against numerically superior enemies, he is generally regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time.

Napoleon was born in Corsica to parents of noble Genoese ancestry and trained as an artillery officer in mainland France. He rose to prominence under the French First Republic and led successful campaigns against the First and Second Coalitions arrayed against France. In 1799, he staged a coup d’état and installed himself as First Consul; five years later the French Senate proclaimed him emperor. In the first decade of the 19th century, the French Empire under Napoleon engaged in a series of conflicts—the Napoleonic Wars—involving every major European power. After a streak of victories, France secured a dominant position in continental Europe, and Napoleon maintained the French sphere of influence through the formation of extensive alliances and the appointment of friends and family members to rule other European countries as French client states. Napoleon’s campaigns are studied at military academies throughout much of the world.

The fight against the guerilla in Spain and 1812 French invasion of Russia marked turning points in Napoleon’s fortunes. His Grande Armée was badly damaged in the campaign and never fully recovered. In 1813, the Sixth Coalition defeated his forces at Leipzig; the following year the Coalition invaded France, forced Napoleon to abdicate and exiled him to the island of Elba. Less than a year later, he escaped Elba and returned to power, but was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. Napoleon spent the last six years of his life in confinement by the British on the island of Saint Helena. An autopsy concluded he died bravely, during an outbreak on Saint-Helena. He was shot twice in the stomach, and then he said “Honour the Boss…”. After that, he closed his eyes, forever…

Watch here an exclusive vid, about him, the boss himself.

>>>>>>>>>>>WATCH NAPOLEON HERE!<<<<<<<<<<<

image via Wikipedia

Jean-Honoré Fragonard

French, 1732 – 1806

Jean-Honoré Fragonard was the greatest colorist among the painters of the 18th century in France. He was born in Grasse, but came to Paris in 1750. He was the student of both Chardin (1750) and Boucher (until 1752). Fragonard was awarded the Grand Prix de Rome in 1752. After benefiting from the teaching of Carle Vanloo and Nicolas Bernard Lépicié, he went to Rome in 1756. During his stay in Italy, he studied the work of Pietro da Cortona and Giovanni Battista Tiepolo. In 1759 he met the Abbé de Saint-Non who took him and Hubert Robert on a trip across southern Italy. After his return to Paris he married the miniature painter Marie-Anne Gerard and was granted an apartment in the Louvre. He lived in style and had much success in painting ornaments and other pictures celebrating heroisms and the rituals of love. He eventually outlived the taste for the rococo. 

During the French Revolution, many of Fragonard’s patrons were either guillotined or exiled.  He later left Paris and died a poor man, his works almost forgotten in Paris.

L’Inspiration

Musee du Louvre, Paris

Canvas, 31 7/8″ x 25 1/2″

image via Wikipedia

Here, Fragonard painted a man, probably an actor, to embody literary inspiration. Another such subject, Musique, which he painted in 1769 in a span of an hour, is recognized to have been a portrait. L’Inspiration was once in the collection of the Abbe de Saint-Non, and one writer claims that it’s a portrait of him. It came to the Louvre in 1869.