Should be noted that while The Assembly was absolutly dominated by Ultra Conservatives , it didnt just vote for every thing Charles and Villèlle proposed , for example Charles give in 1926 Villèlle order to pass a law to re-establish male-only primogeniture for families paying over 300 francs in ta (so that old aristocratic inheritence was back ) and not only was this highly unpopular publicly but the Assambly actually voted it down so it never became a law , also when Charles forced Villèlle to propose the Anti-Sacrilege Act in 1825 ( wich punnished blasphemy and sacrilege , thus eroding secularism ) while it did pass , the vote was 210 votes against 95 in the assambly and 127 votes against 96 in the peeers
I just had an argument in the comments of his video where someone was upset about civalis saying the Algerian intervention was a mistake for the July monarchy and not selling it as some moral crusade against the Barbary pirates. Good to see an actual student taking this video seriously.
Usually even an inept and unpopular government can put down any insurrection easily, even when (like here) it is linked to a large popular political movement led by elected representatives, by relying on their (effective) monopoly on violent force. 1830 is the textbook example of how to screw up that last part. Not only did Charles not ingratiate himself with the common soldier to shield himself from the oppressed and hostile civilians (like all clever kings and roman emperos did) with his out of touch policies, but the ever-rebellious people of Paris, when egged on by the newspapers and (very, very hesistantly and reluctantly) by the liberal deputies to engage in a violent uprising against the goverment to seize control of the Capital and overthrow the king, had two elements bolstering their physical strength against the not-that-into-it army, one accidental and one brought about by massive stupidity. The accidental one was the fact that Marmont, the guy who Napoleon's veterans hated above all others, was by dumb luck in charge of the Paris garrison that week. They viewed him as the literal definition of treason for his actions in 1814, something akin to a "stabbed in the back myth" as he was the one who surrendered Paris to the allies and a few days later marched his army over to them when Napoleon tried to abdicate in favour of his son, rather than unconditionally, to fotce his old friend's hand. Fairly or not, those veterans viewed Marmont with more fury than American veterans viewed Benedict Arnold, and would have ripped him to pieces had he fallen into their hands in 1830. Those hopping-mad guys manning the barricades and directing the parisians was very very bad for the government, to put it lightly. The self-inflicted error was, wait for it, that when Charles disbanded the national guard (20k strong) he did not (repeat, he DID NOT) confiscate their guns and ammo when he declared them all unworthy of protecting his government and too liberal for his liking. Really, that decision will forever stand firm for me as the single most bone-headed move EVER made by a Bourbon, which is really saying something. It will not come as any surprise to learn that these guys swiftly re-formed themselves in the chaos of 1830, and very much joined the people to kick Charles of his throne and restore both their personal, and to them France's national honour, as the guard stll saw themselves as THE defenders of the gains made the revolution of 1789, and the pride and glory of "La Nation". So yeah, an unusually firm resistance backed by guys who knew how to fight and very eager to topple the king, against an out-of-touch moron whose own officers and men despised him and mass defected to the liberal opposition within three whole days, followed in the week that followed by the whole rest of France (HC didn't cover this, but basically not a single major french city tried to rally around Charles, and the few officals, commanders and mayors who tried where pretty much everywhere swept out of power without a shot being fired in anger). The result was probably the smoothest transfer of power out of any revolution, before or since. You reap what you sow.
HC makes some pretty strange errors in this video. - He has this obsession with claiming the Spanish liberals were upholding the constitution imposed on Spain by Napoleon but.... This just isn't true. The constitution the Spanish liberals were defending was the Constitution of 1812, the Cádiz Constitution. - France *was not* acting out of accord by invading Spain, this would not have sparked a conflict between Great Powers, or a "World War" as HC claimed, because the French invasion of Spain was sanctioned by the Great Powers at the Congress of Verona. - Following that, one of his most egregious portrayals is that of Villèle, who, despite what HC says, *did not* support intervention in Spain. How do you fuck up this bad? What are HC's sources? - HC also portrays Louis XVIII as an Ultra but this just isn't the case, Louis if anything managed to successfully play the different factions against each other. An issue some Ultras would frequently came up against was finding that they were more royalist than the King himself as the two clashed. Louis XVIII was *not* Charles X! - HC employs a number of anachronisms, one of the most glaring in my opinion is saying Charles X didn't care for "liberal democracy"... Which... like, no shit, not even the liberals would have understood what you meant by this phrase. One of the intellectual leaders of the July Monarchy, Guizot, considered representative government and democracy to be antonyms. Why import Cold War era Anglo-American terminology into the 19th century? @ Circa 1:45:10 I think a better starting point in America for the split you're talking about is even earlier, between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (perhaps even the Anti-Federalists). The Federalists were moderate, urbanite, pro-industry and skeptical of democracy, whereas the Democratic-Republicans were agrarian populists that idealized the plain folk and yeoman farmer and wanted these people engaged in politics. Jefferson in particular had some really radical ideas, his concept of a 'Ward republic' for instance puts him firmly within the far left were he in Europe. The Jacksonian Democrats carried on many of those ideals and that culminated with the expansion of White male suffrage. Hamilton on the other hand was probably the most right leaning founder being that he was okay with idea of the President serving for life (tho he never went as far as supporting hereditary monarchy) and his pro-industrial views (even his protectionism) would put him squarely as a moderate liberal again, were he in Europe. There probably should be more in-depth comparison done about this, there's quite a bit of overlap in the beliefs of the Federalists and the Doctrinaires during the July Monarchy. In fact, I know of at least one German liberal, Robert von Mohl, who would compare his own beliefs to the French center-left, the English Whigs, and the American Federalists, so this wasn't lost on the people of the time either.
Should be noted that while The Assembly was absolutly dominated by Ultra Conservatives , it didnt just vote for every thing Charles and Villèlle proposed , for example Charles give in 1926 Villèlle order to pass a law to re-establish male-only primogeniture for families paying over 300 francs in ta (so that old aristocratic inheritence was back ) and not only was this highly unpopular publicly but the Assambly actually voted it down so it never became a law , also when Charles forced Villèlle to propose the Anti-Sacrilege Act in 1825 ( wich punnished blasphemy and sacrilege , thus eroding secularism ) while it did pass , the vote was 210 votes against 95 in the assambly and 127 votes against 96 in the peeers
I just had an argument in the comments of his video where someone was upset about civalis saying the Algerian intervention was a mistake for the July monarchy and not selling it as some moral crusade against the Barbary pirates. Good to see an actual student taking this video seriously.
Usually even an inept and unpopular government can put down any insurrection easily, even when (like here) it is linked to a large popular political movement led by elected representatives, by relying on their (effective) monopoly on violent force. 1830 is the textbook example of how to screw up that last part. Not only did Charles not ingratiate himself with the common soldier to shield himself from the oppressed and hostile civilians (like all clever kings and roman emperos did) with his out of touch policies, but the ever-rebellious people of Paris, when egged on by the newspapers and (very, very hesistantly and reluctantly) by the liberal deputies to engage in a violent uprising against the goverment to seize control of the Capital and overthrow the king, had two elements bolstering their physical strength against the not-that-into-it army, one accidental and one brought about by massive stupidity.
The accidental one was the fact that Marmont, the guy who Napoleon's veterans hated above all others, was by dumb luck in charge of the Paris garrison that week. They viewed him as the literal definition of treason for his actions in 1814, something akin to a "stabbed in the back myth" as he was the one who surrendered Paris to the allies and a few days later marched his army over to them when Napoleon tried to abdicate in favour of his son, rather than unconditionally, to fotce his old friend's hand. Fairly or not, those veterans viewed Marmont with more fury than American veterans viewed Benedict Arnold, and would have ripped him to pieces had he fallen into their hands in 1830. Those hopping-mad guys manning the barricades and directing the parisians was very very bad for the government, to put it lightly.
The self-inflicted error was, wait for it, that when Charles disbanded the national guard (20k strong) he did not (repeat, he DID NOT) confiscate their guns and ammo when he declared them all unworthy of protecting his government and too liberal for his liking. Really, that decision will forever stand firm for me as the single most bone-headed move EVER made by a Bourbon, which is really saying something. It will not come as any surprise to learn that these guys swiftly re-formed themselves in the chaos of 1830, and very much joined the people to kick Charles of his throne and restore both their personal, and to them France's national honour, as the guard stll saw themselves as THE defenders of the gains made the revolution of 1789, and the pride and glory of "La Nation".
So yeah, an unusually firm resistance backed by guys who knew how to fight and very eager to topple the king, against an out-of-touch moron whose own officers and men despised him and mass defected to the liberal opposition within three whole days, followed in the week that followed by the whole rest of France (HC didn't cover this, but basically not a single major french city tried to rally around Charles, and the few officals, commanders and mayors who tried where pretty much everywhere swept out of power without a shot being fired in anger). The result was probably the smoothest transfer of power out of any revolution, before or since. You reap what you sow.
HC makes some pretty strange errors in this video.
- He has this obsession with claiming the Spanish liberals were upholding the constitution imposed on Spain by Napoleon but.... This just isn't true. The constitution the Spanish liberals were defending was the Constitution of 1812, the Cádiz Constitution.
- France *was not* acting out of accord by invading Spain, this would not have sparked a conflict between Great Powers, or a "World War" as HC claimed, because the French invasion of Spain was sanctioned by the Great Powers at the Congress of Verona.
- Following that, one of his most egregious portrayals is that of Villèle, who, despite what HC says, *did not* support intervention in Spain. How do you fuck up this bad? What are HC's sources?
- HC also portrays Louis XVIII as an Ultra but this just isn't the case, Louis if anything managed to successfully play the different factions against each other. An issue some Ultras would frequently came up against was finding that they were more royalist than the King himself as the two clashed. Louis XVIII was *not* Charles X!
- HC employs a number of anachronisms, one of the most glaring in my opinion is saying Charles X didn't care for "liberal democracy"... Which... like, no shit, not even the liberals would have understood what you meant by this phrase. One of the intellectual leaders of the July Monarchy, Guizot, considered representative government and democracy to be antonyms. Why import Cold War era Anglo-American terminology into the 19th century?
@ Circa 1:45:10 I think a better starting point in America for the split you're talking about is even earlier, between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (perhaps even the Anti-Federalists). The Federalists were moderate, urbanite, pro-industry and skeptical of democracy, whereas the Democratic-Republicans were agrarian populists that idealized the plain folk and yeoman farmer and wanted these people engaged in politics. Jefferson in particular had some really radical ideas, his concept of a 'Ward republic' for instance puts him firmly within the far left were he in Europe. The Jacksonian Democrats carried on many of those ideals and that culminated with the expansion of White male suffrage. Hamilton on the other hand was probably the most right leaning founder being that he was okay with idea of the President serving for life (tho he never went as far as supporting hereditary monarchy) and his pro-industrial views (even his protectionism) would put him squarely as a moderate liberal again, were he in Europe. There probably should be more in-depth comparison done about this, there's quite a bit of overlap in the beliefs of the Federalists and the Doctrinaires during the July Monarchy. In fact, I know of at least one German liberal, Robert von Mohl, who would compare his own beliefs to the French center-left, the English Whigs, and the American Federalists, so this wasn't lost on the people of the time either.
Love your channel man
2 Hour long video, let's fucking gooooo!
Recommend this tune in Discord, but yeah beat me to it
just a little Engagement for the Algorithm.
28:25
1:01:00
1:17:40
Could you also react to Genghis khan, Henry ford and spanish flu by extra history.
Bro ain’t even “historian reacts” i don’t even know if you’re doing a good job. 😭💀😭
hey man, lots of these UA-cam "historians" probably have less qualifications than I do lol
the original video has mistakes, it feels like it lacks research