The word bubbles often don't get the attention that they need but they are an integral part that require him to actually blow each bubble up manually for each frame.
Im shocked you did not include the story that after being pelted by rocks, the PM and minister of the navy ran to the sheriff of paris, and polignac told him that he should be ready to mobilize the army, to which the head of the navy turned to him and said "you haven't mobilized the army yet????!!!!"
Calling Marmont a “local military officer” and that he was out of line for directly contacting the King is quite misleading. He was a Marshal, and also a peer and member of many royalist orders, so it wasn’t as though he was a local militiaman. He also had been a close friend of Napoleon, and was also one of the driving forces behind the end of the Napoleonic Wars (prior to the hundred days, in which he stayed a bourbon loyalist). All in all he would have been quite well known and established as an influential figure, and would have been quite famous to both Parisians and the veterans of the wars who were protesting the ordinances.
You are complet right. I didint expect such a mistake in his videos. Marmount was also, as every Marshal in the Napoleonic era, a superstar. Famous worldwide and, despite some (tragic) mistakes, earned respect from the French people
The idea is to construct a fluid narrative that makes sense to the average modern consumer. Timing is important. One must make allowances and sacrifices when and where needed.
@@ErikHareI was just thinking “how old is this reference now?” And even the thing being referenced in the reference is obscure. This is such a great deep cut of an ongoing joke for a small community
@@art-games6230there’s a story about Caesar spending an amount of time being petty after getting slighted tribune Aquila by randomly in meetings going “oh but we better ask tribune Aquila first?!?!?” It was a story referenced in one of the older videos but I’m sure by the time I finish this comment someone else will have found it and explained it better.
I'd like to point that the intervention in Spain, though unpopular, was never close to trigger a war in Europe. Most of the great nations were ruled by other absolutist monarchs, the year prior Austria launched an invasion against Naples, and even Metternich encouraged France to send an army to Spain. The "Sainte-Alliance" was, in fact, intended to build a network between all those absolutist regimes and help each other just in case any revolution sparked
I actually have to disagree with his argument. He's very much ignoring the fact that piracy and slave raiding in north Africa had been rampant for quite some time, and it only fully stopped after France occupied Algerian ports. Invading Algeria was probably the only sensible idea that Jules de Polignac had.
@@darkfool2000 But how did it improve French situation ? Sure it may have helped stop slave trade in the long run but from realist standpoint it didn't help stabilise the nation or preserve continuity of power, and that was kind of Poignac's job, not stoping slave trade or piracy.
06:22 the Spanish constitution was not made by Napoleon, it was made by the Cortes of Cadiz who were oposed to Napeoleon but wanted to turn Spain into a constituional monarchy. Napoleon's "constitution" was never fully applied to the country since it was in open rebellion and granted much less rights than the Cadiz constitution.
I can’t understand how he hasn’t corrected this error; in the previous video he said the same thing among other inaccuracies about the Spanish situation those years
Very interesting; the whole video is full of smaller mistakes and logical fallacies, the man seems to be only good at quoting written down records. It's strange he made such a big mistake anyone with prior knowledge or information would not have
One thing to remember about Charles X is that he was convinced what led to the Revolution of 1789 was his older brother's Louis XVI's weakness. He wouldn't give up anything to a Parliament, which existence even annoyed him (he was born and raised under absolutist rule of his brother at a time a legislative Parliament seemed both unnecessary and even sacrilegious). The Revolution of 1789 and the two decades or war and instability that ensued were on everyone's mind at that time.
Not surprising for the Bourbons being so out of touch. In later decades, France was all but begging a Bourbon heir to take the crown. But he wanted to replace the French tricolor flag with the Bourbon’s white one. Ironically, it was one of the reasons the French Republic survived.
I find it also extremly ironic, as Charles himself was the prime reason the Revolution erupted. The last thing stopping popular Revolt was that Jaques Necker's Reforms would be pushed through, yet Charles engineered a Plot to dismiss him. Charles somehow managed to bring his dynasty down not once, but twice because of his Unwillingness to compromise even slightly with popular demand.
In fairness to Charles, a lot of historians still posite that theory, particularly military historians. Most of the genuine partisans of the revolution were urban middle-class lawyers and merchants. Whether the very large, mostly still paid French army could have put down the revolution is still a hotly debated question.
@@cartmann94 When you, and others, say "France", and "out of touch", you're really just saying Paris. Parisian elites had been running everything, and had toppled the government of France. The rest of the country followed. This is a lesson in the danger of centralizing power if anything. This July revolution was way more tame than what came before, and the royalists had given up without even a fight. As Cretan said, the actual army could have been pressed to put down the revolution and the French Kingdom would have been fully restored.
It's actually incredible how incompetent Charles X was. Most autocrats at least understand that they can't allow themselves to become *so* hated that the people's anger can overcome their fear of the autocrat. And he didn't even understand that he had to keep his soldiers happy
He was indeed incompetent but his only mistake was not make his soldiers happy. With military strength you can hold into power regardless, like north Korea for exemple.
Yeah, his idiocy was basically singlehandedly responsible for destroying the monarchy of France. If the monarchy of France had survived its reign, it’s very likely France would be a kingdom today
Funnily enough, Marmont was a Marshal of France under Napoleon. In 1814, Napoleon had entrusted him with the defence of the capital, but when coalition forces arrived, he elected to surrender rather than wait for Napoleon's army to come help him. This was in many ways the last straw that forced Napleon to abdicate and go into his first exile. When Marmont appealed to the King and Polignac, they insulted him to his face and asked if he intended to sell them out just like he did with Napoleon years earlier. To his death, Marmont was called the betrayer for his actions in 1814 and 1830.
He shoot at the people in 1830, never betrayed the King, that was his undoing, however his problem was siding with the monarchy, in 1814, Marmont surrender Paris but was recived with open arms by Napoleon, then he betrayed him again by surrendering VI corp in secret at Essone. The Liberals and everyone at the left of the king hated him for this reason
Amazing how Talleyrand was able to stick around. He served as ambassador the UK from 1830 to 1834, after the July Revolution. If Marmont had more sense, he could've betrayed the king at the right moment and maybe stayed in France.
Here’s the weird part about it when Marmont surrender Paris to coalition we don’t know why he did it as he didn’t give any reason why he decided to surrender the city
@@Randint73 It's interesting how every country has such figures who become synonymous with betrayal. In India, we have Jaichand and in Bangladesh/Bengal, you'll have Mir Jafar.
There are a few points to make about this. Marmont was designated a marshal because of his friendship with Napoleon as he was given his rank and baton along with MacDonald and Oudinot, and Napoleon told him he hadnt earned it yet. Marmont had been loyal up until the final year of the campaign. He had lost badly to Wellington at Salamanca and injured by a sheel burst. He also lost with heavy casualties in the Battle of Laon in 1814. He also gave the coalition a fight for Paris. But after a day, he realized it was a futile effort and surrendered the capital. Marmont was reportedly exhausted and dissolutioned with the prospect of continuing the war, hence why he abandoned Napoleon as he attempted to march back on Paris.
I’ve waited 2 months to watch this just so the wait time for the next one will be less. I love ur channel. I’m a history major about to graduate and I gotta say your channel has helped me thru some Roman and Greek history classes.
One of the biggest contributing factors to the July Revolution's success was Charles X and Polignac's utter lack of preparation. Outside of the men physically close to the King, nobody knew of the Four Ordinances until the newspaper announcing them arrived. This means potential allies were not primed to act on them, local police forces were at best sluggish about attempting to shut down the presses since this was the first they heard of all this, and the loyal soldiers not in Algeria were not moved into position to respond to a violent backlash, something even Louis XVI did in the days leading up to the storming of the Bastille. This allowed the backlash to spiral out of control and it very quickly was beyond military control. There's a great anecdote of Polignac and the Naval Minister, after escaping the angry crowds on the night of 26th of July, probing a local police chief about reinforcements, and Polignac declaring he should probably put the Royal Guard on alert. Naval Minister: "The Royal Guard aren't on alert already?!" Polignac: "You worry too much." No wonder every move was twelve hours too late to diffuse the situation.
In 45:37 you show Greece as one of the countries that have revolutionary outbreaks after the July revolution. However, what happened in Greek looks sort of the opposite: in 1831 the republican leader of the state was murdered, and 1832 the European powers (France, England, Russia) established the Bavarian Prince Otto as new King Otto I. of Greek. Otto was an autocrat, and only in 1844 he had to grant a constitution (following a popular uprising against him), and continued to try and break that constitution repeatedly until he was expelled from Greece in 1863.
To be fair, Kapodistrias was not politically liberal, despite the fact that he was not a king. From what I know he was quite absolutist. Of course he ruled for so little and in such circumstances that it is impossible to say what he would have done
Kappodistrias had the power to rule like an absolute monarch but didn't actually do that. He was by far the best in politics in Greece at the time, not belonging in one of the two fighting groups (we fought two civil wars during our revolution, stupid i know). He built the foundations of the state and even though we could never know, in a couple decades he would give the power back to the people (i say that because he made sure to educate the young generation, make a coin, built an officers cadet school, made laws and many more things), kinda like kemal ataturk did in turkey ruling as a dictactor until the end of the "30.
You know, it never ceases to catch me off-guard that the French _republicans_ in the 1820s revered the emperor Napoleon. It really feels like it should be a contradiction in terms, and yet there they were
15:28 in case anyone is curious about the justification, basically when the french revolution happened, the very broke revolutionary government took out a bunch of loans from all over the world, including Algeria. After the Bourbons were restored, they were required to pay those loans back. In the case of Algeria they argued that since the revolutionary government no longer existed, therefore the debts no longer existed. Algeria obviously disagreed, so Charles X decided to use that dispute as an excuse to invade in hopes of boosting his popularity ahead of the election. Once they'd captured the capital and secured victory they just... didn't leave. Thus dooming Algeria to 132 years of colonial rule.
The capturing of Algeria actually helped everyone besides the Algerians. Algiers was a notorious hub for piracy just like Tripoli further East. For the past 300 or so years, loads of Europeans were taken from their coastal villages as slaves and sold in Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and etc. Thomas Jefferson had to send a fleet over to Tripoli to attack them because they kept attacking American ships and enslaving the seamen aboard. That's why no one cared that France yoinked Algeria. It'd be like if someone went and invaded Russia today and occupied them. One less thorn in everyone's sides.
and you know, the whole piracy and slavery thing that over the centuries sold around a million Europeans, if not more, into slavery, but as they are Europeans HC doesn't consider them to be worthy of being mentioned
Nope nope, not the French monarchy as a whole. Only Charles X, he was always an ultra-royalist fool even as the Count of Artois. Louis XVIII, while still having very conservative views, recognised the fact that the Ancien régime was a thing of the past, the guy dreaded dying because he knew that Charles would succeed him and get the Bourbons exiled again.
It is said that the Restored Bourbons learned nothing (about the causes, events, and effects) but remembered everything (all the privileges and power of the monarchy) about the French Revolution. It is very possible that King Charles X saw that Louis the 16th compromised and gave up royal power until the radical revolutionaries cut his head off, and was determined to not give an inch.
Okay, a quick note on why France invaded Algeria. I keep seeing people try to say that it was because France wanted to fix Barbary piracy: that was not the reason. The policy of France (and other European powers like the UK) against the pirates was simply to pay them off, which France was fine with. The Barbary pirates were a big problem for the US, who were not paying tribute, and who joined forces with other European countries to fight them off. Britain intervened in 1816, when the Napoleonic Wars were over and the Barbary states stopped being useful to them, and made Algeria commit to abolish slavery. The pirate problem wasn't fully over (Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Naples still paid annual tribute), but it definitely wasn't the scourge comments keep trying to say it was, and it most definitely wasn't a problem for France. If you want to look at the historical record, the pretext for the invasion was that France had negotiated with a wealthy Algerian family who sent a huge quantity of wheat to France during the revolutionary decade. Thirty years later, the wheat had still not been paid. The French consul, Pierre Deval, had a series of meetings with the Dey of Algiers that ended with the Dey hitting Deval with a fly-whisk. Charles X responded by blockading the port of Algiers for three years. The blockade was very bad news for French merchants; the Barbary pirates were kinda annoyed by it but went on with their day. As popular opinion kept turning against Charles X, the king thought, "hey, you know what would make people respect me? The glory of military victory! Let's avenge the "coup d'éventail"!" Hence, invasion. Sources: Benjamin Stora, Histoire de l'Algérie coloniale, Paris, La découverte, 2004 Hélène Blais, "Pourquoi la France a-t-elle conquis l'Algérie", in Bouchène & Peyroulou, Histoire de l'Algérie coloniale, La découverte, 2012
Idk why you’re asking you seem to know a lot on the topic. I would assume it was for why any other king invading something. Sometimes its not complicated and its just for land. France also made algeria a derict part of their country not a colony so who’s to say
@@SquidMonke4 I think you may have answered the wrong comment, but if you're wondering why Algeria was part of the country I can answer that! Part of the reason is that the French thought of colonization as an Ancient Régime thing, something irrevocably linked to the slave trade. That did not settle well with a country that desperately wanted to leave the Ancient Régime behind. It's not just random happenstance that Algeria became "French territory" during the Second Republic; they wanted to settle Algeria, but they didn't want the icky concept of "colony" to ruin their humanistic aspirations. Making Algeria part of France reinforced French control over the country, marked Algeria as irrevocably French in the eyes of the people (the French Republic is "une et indivisible" after all, so no such thing as secession or independence!), and made it seem as though Algeria and France were on the same level of importance rather than a settled state under the control of another country.
As long as Barbary piracy and slave trade continued, it was a problem for France and Europe. Dey of Algiers promised to end the Barbary slave trade after the bombardment of 1816 and he did not respect that promise, the French invasion was wholly justified and necessary. The only mistake made was trying to civilize Algeria by making it a part of France. And it was the leftist republicans who promoted that idea in the late 19 century.
Louis XVIII was not an Ultra-conservative. In fact, he was challenged many times by them and their political leader: the future Charles X, who was a political Ultra-conservative and masterminded the White Terror following Napoleon's downfall. Louis XVIII actually knew he couldn't rule like an absolute monarch like his predecessor or even Napoleon, so he abided to the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy and was favoured by the Liberals, of which many were former Napoleonic officers or supporters of a British-style system like Richelieu and Talleyrand.
To clarify, this video is not very correct concerning the French intervention in Spain. Is presented as if it was a reckless and nonsensical decission unilateraly taken by france but it was pretty much a result of the Congress of Troppau (1820) and the Congress of Verona (1822). In spite of opposition from the British and reluctance from Austria, France was backed by Prussia, Russia and Austria. In the early 20s Austria led the intervention in Italy against the revolutionaries in Naples too. Russia, Prussia and Austria were more afraid of a new revolution than of a new expansionist France. Spain was falling apart anyway.
Oh, so like a third of a down. Glad you cleared that up for me. What's with the rest of the world and their crazy units - why can't we all just measure things in *rational* units, like football fields?
@@rootbeerconnoisseur It is, indeed, all the French 's fault, who came up with stupid ideas like the metric system. 😁 - The revolution took things even further than they are now, though. Applying it , among others, even to clocks and calendars; all in the name of good ol' French "rationality" .
Fun Fact: This year (2024) in July, Bangladesh experienced a massive civil uprising which resulted in the ousting of a 15-year-long autocratic government. People have now dubbed that "July Revolution" too. (It started in mid July after police and government backed goons started violently suppressing university students who were protesting against the unfair quota system. The suppression were brutal, *Hundreds* died in July. July left such a bloodstain that even in 1st August, people wrote 32nd July. It went on till 36th July (or 5th August) when the PM (Dictator) finally resigned and fled the country. Sic Sempre Tyranis!)
@@mushfiqurrahman1107 Yeah, except the French didn't start to harass their minority like you folks did. They were not breaking temples and churches. Revolution, or just Islamists seizing power to make life hell for Hindu and Christian minorities?
In Brazil we had street protests in June during 2012-2014. We call it June's Journey. It turned into a colour revolution due to the US direct interference. So I would tell you to be careful with your expectations, we are still fucked by it 10 years later.
You probably won't read this comment because it's one among a thousand. But I just wanted to take a moment to say how much I genuinely appreciate your channel. I first found this channel while looking up information on how the different positions in the Roman cursus honorum worked and found your videos on it. Back then you didn't have very many videos, I think your latest was one of the "In His Year" videos. So I've been following this channel for so many years now and none of your videos has ever disappointed me. Always very well made, full of fascinating stuff and some laughs on top of that. You also cover a lot of the specifics and nuances that I feel like are often left out of videos like this and I very much appreciate that. I don't have the money to support your Patreon currently still, but I just wanted to say thank you for the great content. I always look forward to your videos. Some of the best on UA-cam, imo.
I’m not sure I agree they “almost took down the international system” France had an international mandate(including the other great powers) from the Congress of Verona to go into Spain and restore Ferdinand
Yeah, no idea where he got this from. France got approval from the rest of the Quintuple Alliance (barring a begrudging Britain) to intervene in Spain. The act was in line with Metternich's system of suppressing liberal revolution. In that sense it was a coup de grace for France, as this allowed them to both re-assert themselves as a great power, while also enforcing the international system. It was literally the opposite of taking down the international system.
He definitely portrayed that in a very hind sighted way at best and ignores the conditions that you pointed out and even the benefits it brought to France on the international stage. Though with the privilege of hind sight this "success" can be considered to have been counterproductive in the longer term because it emboldened the ultras to push for more reactionary policies and it did create a false sense of security about popular support for absolutist monarchy and also contributed to the overconfidence that would later lead to the July Ordinances and revolution. and I copied my comment in another thread and pasted it here just thought his take was interesting and probably could have just been better presented.
Also, the reason Britain "weathered the storm" is because they had it first. The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the Jacobite Rebellions had already settled the political order in Britain, and the prevailing faction was the Whigs.
More importantly, England/Britain had never held their Kings as high as other monarchies had. They were forced to accept a Parliament early on, and had most of the powers of taxation pulled away from them. While this would hamstring them at times, it ironically gave the Monarchy considerable stability. The one time this balance was shifted towards absolutism, the Civil *definitively* smacked it back down once and for all. As a result, the British monarchy was able to endure the 18th-20th centuries without much complaint. Bad decisions or disastrous blunders were the responsibility of Parliament, not the fault of the King.
Tbf, there was the instability of the Great Reform Bill. When the House of Lords rejected the Reform Bill and the King appointed Lord Wellington as Prime Minister, it did appear that Britain was on the verge of Revolution, until the House of Lords backed down and allowed the bill to pass through.
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 taxes (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
@@salamantics that was about the liberal assambly elected in 1827 , this video suggests that the conservative assembly 1821-1827 was nothing less than a rumber stump , witch is not true
Great video as always, my man. Revolutions are a truly incredible thing, because 99% of the time they lead to governments that end up more ineffectual than the previous one (at least for a short period of time), but what's fascinating about the July Revolution is just how civil the revolutionary leaders decided to be. Because they reached out to their enemies and made compromises with those who disagreed with them, they created an effective coalition government (rallied behind a liberal king) which jump-started France's re-ascension to Great Power status in the 19th century. It goes to show just how important compromise is to establishing a working government (a sentiment shared by our boy Cicero). Anyway, this was great stuff - can't wait 'till the next part comes out!
Love your videos! Just a small remark. The spanish liberal constitution (Cádiz one) can't be called a Napoleon invention, but it was indeed strongly influenced by the french and american revolutions. Also, another motivation for the french king to invade Spain was to put back the old spanish king which had strong ties with the french monarchy (same family).
Not only that, but he completely butchers the reaction to the French invasion. It did not spark some kind of July Crisis situation that could have escalated to a full-on European war. France consulted with the Quintuple Alliance (France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, UK) before invading, and each member gave them the go-ahead to do so (with the exception of Britain, who protested to no avail). There was not much indicating it was going to escalate further. The French intervention in Spain was France enforcing the Concert of Europe while also re-asserting its own power following its defeat in 1815. It wasn't France trying to overthrow the existing system.
You know, we were taught about the French Revolution, and everything that followed up to Napoleon becoming Emperor, but nothing after that. I learned about Napoleon's two periods of exile through completely different subjects, so didn't know the actual history and the politics behind it. I had no idea that the French Monarchy came back briefly, let alone being turfed out of power again!
That's maybe because there were no major wars between 1814 and 1914, so it's kind of "easy" to skip forward. However there were many revolutions and counter-revolutions, it was a politically hot time in Europe... but relatively stable in terms of major wars.
@@d.c.8828 - Fair enough: the Crimean War was the biggest one but it was fought in a limited peripheral scenario, the Franco-Prussian war was short and only involved two powers, powers that came together once the communists took Paris in revolt, first determined to defend the city against Bismark, challenging Napoleon III's orders of surrendering the city. No "great war" happened as such in any case, although Crimea was sorta close. The most notable military developments in that period actually happened in Africa (colonial partition of the continent at the end of that century 1814-1914) but again major powers avoiding clashing with each other and the conquest of Africa was relatively bloodless, with all wars very localized in space and most just "diplomatic" takeover.
There is a secret letter held by Metternich that proves Louis Phillipe wanted to take up arms aggainst Napoleon, but was declined by General Mack and emperor Francis. Metternich wanted to use it if Louis ever stepped out of line.
One thing i like about Historia Civilis is that every time he makes a video i whatch it then completly forget that he even exist's and don't relise how much time pases bewen videos so i don't get mad when it takes him a lot amount of time to make a video.
The 1812 constitution being the creation of Napoleon is some beyond-my-mind bogus. It was the creation of spanish patriots, written against some Joseph who Napoleon tried to crown and proclaimed under fire from french guns
He's talking from the perspective of the French at the time. They saw Spain as the result of Napoleon, so they took personal offense to seeing it be threatened.
@@panzerofthelake506 He's a not-so-subtle Socialist/Communist. At the very least he's heavily anti-Capitalist. Still makes great videos, but it's clear he is heavily biased.
4:32 Villéle did not want to invade Spain. From Shannon Selin: " French ultra-royalists were pressuring King Louis XVIII to rescue his distant cousin (King Ferdinand). Louis, however, disapproved of Ferdinand’s brand of absolutism, and neither he nor Prime Minister Joseph Villèle favoured sending troops into Spain."
From Wikipedia: "The "Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis" was the popular name for a French army mobilized in 1823 by the Bourbon King of France, *Louis XVIII*, to help the Spanish Bourbon royalists restore King Ferdinand VII of Spain to the absolute power of which he had been deprived during the Liberal Triennium. Despite the name, the actual number of troops was between 60,000 and 90,000." (...) "The Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia) refused Ferdinand's request for help, but the Quintuple Alliance (Russia, Britain, France, Prussia and Austria) at the Congress of Verona in October 1822 gave France a mandate to intervene and restore the Spanish monarchy. Britain protested loudly but was outvoted. On 22 January 1823, a secret treaty, from which Britain was excluded, was signed at the Congress of Verona, allowing France to intervene in Spain to help restore Ferdinand VII as an absolute monarch. With the agreement from the Holy Alliance, on 28 January 1823 *Louis XVIII* announced that "a hundred thousand Frenchmen are ready to march, invoking the name of Saint Louis, to safeguard the throne of Spain for a grandson of Henry IV of France"." (...) "The new prime minister, Joseph de Villèle, intended to oppose the war. The operation's cost just for aide was excessive, the army's organisation was defective and the troops' loyalty was uncertain". (...)
Interestingly enough Charles X's grandson Henri would be offered the throne of France in 1870, but refused it after rejecting the tricolor as a national flag. Some think this decision silly, but the real reason was that he believed France just wasn't a country anymore where one could reign peacefully as a monarch.
Honestly a wise decision. Monarchies operate well when the society is full of illiterate, disconnected, uninformed peasants with static change. France of the 1870s was none of those things, and even if he was placed as the monarch, the best he could've hoped for was to be a meaningful, but fundamentally powerless figurehead like the British Royals were at the time.
A little nitpick but he was being an absolutist and the flag was one of many things he saw as giving in or a sign of weakness that would set the restoration of the monarchy off on the wrong foot. He seemed to believe France would eventually return to monarchy under his terms.
Polignac’s family had been raised from obscurity to great wealth and high rank by Marie Antionette, his mother Yolande Martine Gabrielle de Polastron being her favourite. Her husband was made a duke, from being a poor count. Which explains their fanatical loyalty to the Bourbons.
29:05 a quick notice; Marmont wasnt a major-general, he was a marshal of france given the title by napoleon himself in 1809. He was essentially despised at this point by many for his perceived backstabbing by surrendering his force to the allies, causing Napoleon to his first abdication in 1814.
Well we can't all be as politically savvy as Talleyrand, honestly as soon as the prime minister and the king failed to respond his requests to deal with the uprising, Marmont should've switched sides. Talleyrand was far more duplicitous and was still politically useful to the new King Louis-Phillipe to serve as ambassador to the UK from 1830 to 1834.
@@darkfool2000Talleyrand spent most of his time doing diplomatic works, and conducted himself as a self-interested, vain aristocrat. You don’t expect a man who owed most of his military career to another, famously being treated as a friend to the emperor; to betray him. Entirely different context, hence the jeer for one and not the other.
I laughed out loud at that like "up yours Canadian, I've seen you people mix metric and imperial in the same sentence, you haven't got a leg to stand on"
Pretty sure the Algeria move was also an attempt to get the army on his side by giving them some of the glory that they had been missing out on since Napoleon.
Invade one of Napoleon's few allies wasn't a good idea that fired up Napoleon's veterans, also the army of 1830 was pretty different in comosition that the armies of Napoleon.
I like Historia Civilis, but he's completely ignoring the issues of piracy and slave raiding that leaders in Algeria were undertaking. All of that only fully stopped after France invaded Algeria. Invading Algeria was the only sensible idea the Ultra-conservatives had.
@@omarbradley6807even the US sent its marines to defend US shipping from Algerian slaver pirates. This topic has been ignored a lot because it goes against some people's beliefs.
The pretext for the invasion of Algeria, was that Algeria's ruler slapped the french ambassador with a fan ˆˆ He was angry against France, because they fortified an island in Algiers harbour without authorization, and when asked to reimburse their loan in compensation they refused XD
I feel obligated to add a sidenote that Louis Philippe's wife, and even more so his sister played massive roles in pushing him to take the throne, as well as helping to organize his politics and factions.
@Historia Civilis Hey, I love your videos, but I do have some remarks on this one. Villèle had legitimate reasons to invade Spain besides getting rid of the Liberals there. It was also a means to safeguard French's southern flank with a Bourbon on the throne there, and no opponents of the Bourbon monarchy in France. The Quintuple Alliance was largely in favour of French intervention to keep a European status-quo, which was arguably more important for France than pleasing internal opponents. It showed France was willing to cooperate with the Conservative powers and did not oppose them, which these powers very much feared. France in the 1820's upto the fall of the Second Empire was generally seen with a large degree of suspicion, due to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War., which you know and allude to in the closing part of your video, but do not intertwine with the majority of your narrative. I think you fall into this trap partially because you focus too much on the internal factors leading up to the decision to invade, instead of looking to the geo-political reason, and thereby you cartoonise the ultra-conservatives (who are massive idiots, don't get me wrong) a bit too much. This bleeds into your juxtaposition on the sort of 'fake parliament' period of Charles X, where you criticise Villèle for being humiliated, but in fairness, Villèle had nearly everything he had strived for as parliament at this point was largely a useless political organ that exercised little actual power. The problem with that goal was that it was unrealistic to be kept for long, which, obviously, it did not, due to the internal forces you did highlight very well. In a way, this was already a 'soft coup', as it returned most decision-making and legitimacy of government from the parliament, to the king, growing ever closer to the Absolutism Charles X and Villèle were striving for. That these decisions would backfire in the long run is not something they had foreseen because they were largely too blind and arrogant to take the will of the electorate seriously. Let alone the will of the people in the street. But the way parliament was run was not seen as a humiliation by the king or Villèle probably.
Thanks for voicing the same criticisms I had! The idea that the Great Powers would punish France for invading Spain is ludicrous, when in fact they are the ones who tasked Louis XVIII with this mission! The rest of the video is very good, especially when he gets to Polignac, but I have problems with his depictions of Louis XVIII and Villèle, who were much more conscious of the delicate political balance France hung in than HC is portraying (despite the fact that they were regressive and deserved to be ousted).
Such quality content. This is why you are one of my favorites UA-camrs of all time. I didn’t even know I wanted to learn about the July revolution, but once I started watching I couldn’t stop I would be so interested to hear about your creative process and how you go about preparing videos and presenting the information in an engaging way
It really goes to show how good this channel is, that you can toss out a random topic few have heard about, and we'll still watch it and be entraced by the politicking of it all
The ending is brilliant. A masterclass at making something good, normal and morally right sound so ominous. I remember wishing you'd talk about Belgium while watching the previous video and I had that feeling again this time. It would be so comical to see little squares taking an opera performance way too far. The run up to that performance (and the revolution/insurrection) is also peak comedy at that, with the authorities being absolutely clueless as to why the liberals wanted to perform a very inciting opera in honour of the king's birthday. Just don't gloss over us until Leopold II, because I really have that feeling you're gonna go there with that ending and that bit about 'lesser men'.
CONGRATULATIONS FOR 1 MILLION SUBSCRIBERS! You’ve got some of the best videos here on this site, and it keeps me coming back yearning for more! I’m sure I’ll throughly enjoy this video, and be eager to watch the next :)
You've got to be kidding me. I literally just rewatched the previous parts because my brother was here yesterday and this period came up. And now this drops. Awesome work.
Very interesting as always but there is a serious error at the beginning when describing the Spanish Constitution as Napoleonic. It was not: it was in fact the countering of Bonapartism at the Cortes of Cádiz: the 1812 Constitution popularly known as "la Pepa". Napoleon and his brother Joseph did produce a Charter in 1808 at Bayonne (where the quarreling Spanish Bourbons were tricked into abdication by their strongman Godoy, all for the good of the continental blockade and the destruction of Portugal, a key British ally), that was the first constitution Spain ever had and the first legal Spain to ever exist (previously it was just "Castile") but Napoleon and Joseph comitted serious errors such as abolishing the Inquisition (what irked the ultra-conservatives) or massacring some rebels at Madrid, what got a growing number of Spaniards and Spanish Americans in rebellion against the new illustrated regime. Eventually these gathered at Cádiz, under British naval protection, and wrote down an alternative liberal constitution that clearly outshined the Bonapartist charter (and also used the term "Spain" for the second time in legal history). After Napoleon's defeat in 1814, Ferdinand VII (a Bourbon and relative of the French monarch) was restored and right away he obliterated the Constitution of 1812 and ruled in terms absolutistic until 1820 (this is known as the "absolutist six years"). As result the American juntas became secessionist and by 1821 Spain had lost most of its colonies (which made Britain very happy, as they could now meddle in more easily), meanwhile the Spaniards of Europe forced (via military coup) that the King had to accept the Constitution of 1812, producing the "liberal three years". Ferdinand was not happy and called for help from the French Bourbons, which he got ("the 100,000 sons of St. Louis", the largest invasion Spain ever suffered since the Muslims, although quite comparable to the 70,000 that Mussolini would send 117 years later to impose fascism).
When he mentioned the split in Europe at the end, I started chanting 1848! 1848! That might be after an ep focusing on Britain's liberal period though I guess.
This revolution is the reason my ancestors came to America. Charles X was my seven greats grandfather, and we had to change our last name from Bourbon to Skinner (a maternal ancestor's name) to avoid potentially being deported for being illegal at the time
@AdamtheRed- and the funniest part about it is that I'm moving to France in a couple years, although I doubt my head would be on the chopping block. My ancestors were princes, but I'm relatively unheard of outside of a couple states and small countries where I have a following
@@AdamtheRed- Absolutely nothing will happen in the USA, its ridiculous to think it is anywhere close to the kind of crisis it'd need for a revolt of any form.
I'm only 7 mins in, and there are already many sloppy errors. Louis and Villèle were the only members of the Government to oppose the Spanish adventure. Louis was not an arch conservative. He was conservative and old fashion, to be sure, but he was conciliatory, pragmatic, and cautious by temperament. He did the opposite of the addage of "learning nothing and forgetting nothing." For example, Louis was willing to swing to the left in the 1810s, when it seemed like the ultras were the biggest threat to stability. When the Duc de Berry was assassianted, he swung to right, going along with a public mood that was sincerely sympathetic to the Ultras, as evidenced by the vast quantities of money donated to fund Berry's public mounument. the Duc de Berry was assassinated by Louis-Pierre Louvel, a Bonapartist, not a leftist. Edit: oh my gosh. 1824 reflected genuine public opinion. The public sympathised with Berry and his father, as evidenced by the fact mentioned above: 75% percent of the donation to Berry's monument were small donations of 10 francs or less. Villèle even proposed "rigging" the franchise by extending it to poor frenchmen; both the liberals and the conservatives believed the poor would vote royalist. The liberal proposals were just as "rigged" as the conservative ones. No genuine political force supported democracy
The problem with leftists is they always claim to be for the poor man when they’re always just middle class and counter elites. Poor people have and will always be right wing within the context of their nation. (If you import foreign poor people they will be left because they are outsiders to the nation, not part of it.)
It's unfourtunate but Historia Civilis' accuracy has declined in recent years. His Rome and Greece videos were better. Old Britannia is better for 18/19th century content.
I'm so happy to see you're still posting HC! Thank you so much for the countless excellent bedside listens to combat insomnia as well as many enjoyable fully-engrossed viewings. I wish you well. I've learned much and really appreciate the work you've done.
Obviously they made the repression forces work easier. I'm surprised we don't do that anymore (also three meter tall barricades, that's extremely impressive and hard to counter).
@@LuisAldamiz Napoleon III during his restructuration of Paris made sure barricades cannot be made again to avoid another insurrection. They were this efficient
Smashing all the street lights is the 1830s version of smashing surveillance cameras. It's more difficult for the soldiers to operate and recognize their opponents.
@@LuisAldamizbarricades are still sometimes constructed in urban warfare situations. I remember years ago seeing pictures of busses being toppled over to block streets in Syria.
This reminds me of the English civil wars. An absolutist king doesn’t realize the time of absolutism has passed and ends up losing his throne as a consequence. Though this was also a confirmation of a previous revolution like the 1688 glorious one and obviously was much less drastic
The parallels are in some ways intentional, the liberal press had actually become obsessed with the Glorious Revolution and wanted a similar course of action for France.
The sovereign is the executive body of the nation. All that happens in these cases are middle class minor nobility wanting that power for themselves and whipping people into a frenzy only to oppress them later. I’m sick of people pretending the french revolution was about elevating anyone, it wasn’t. It was an internal power struggle justified by a time of scarcity
@@thehighlander6770King Charles I had reigned as a tyrant for almost 11 years. He had had nobility arrested and tortured for refusing to loan him money. When he was forced to recall Parliament, they went after him. They instituted Haebus Corpus, and banned his other creative ways of raising money. When they attempted to seize control of foreign policy, the Kind attempted to have the most radical members arrested, but Parliament hid them. And so began the English Civil War.
I have followed many, many history channels... and I must say yours is among the best in style and presentation. It's through and detailed yet enjoyable and not too dry.. insert other compliments here. Keep it up! Can you kick off a 19th century France/ great powers series?
Best financial decision I ever made
I couldn’t agree more
The only content on this platform worth actual money
Can confirm
Agreed 💯
Just the emojis alone!
The reason it takes so long to make a Historia Civilia video is because it's 5% editing, and 95% picking the right colour square for each character
there is also 5 percent learn what the fuck was going on
I wonder which software he uses for his visuals.
.
Don't forget the spinning squares, that too is an art on itself, worthy of the time-investment.
The word bubbles often don't get the attention that they need but they are an integral part that require him to actually blow each bubble up manually for each frame.
Im shocked you did not include the story that after being pelted by rocks, the PM and minister of the navy ran to the sheriff of paris, and polignac told him that he should be ready to mobilize the army, to which the head of the navy turned to him and said "you haven't mobilized the army yet????!!!!"
“Well I would, but you sent it to Algeria, remember?” - the sheriff, probably
@@thevenator3955 something like that. Polignac is probably one of the most stupid characters in history honestly
@@thevenator3955 nobody asked tribune aquilla
Calling Marmont a “local military officer” and that he was out of line for directly contacting the King is quite misleading. He was a Marshal, and also a peer and member of many royalist orders, so it wasn’t as though he was a local militiaman. He also had been a close friend of Napoleon, and was also one of the driving forces behind the end of the Napoleonic Wars (prior to the hundred days, in which he stayed a bourbon loyalist). All in all he would have been quite well known and established as an influential figure, and would have been quite famous to both Parisians and the veterans of the wars who were protesting the ordinances.
major-general of the royal guard, yes
You are complet right. I didint expect such a mistake in his videos.
Marmount was also, as every Marshal in the Napoleonic era, a superstar. Famous worldwide and, despite some (tragic) mistakes, earned respect from the French people
The idea is to construct a fluid narrative that makes sense to the average modern consumer. Timing is important. One must make allowances and sacrifices when and where needed.
@@hermanoguimaraes6343 Marmont was one of the very few Marshals of France who does not have any street in Paris named after him.
Also, he had some experience leading troops in urban settings. If he told the king that the city was lost, then no one else would do any better.
Obviously the king forgot to ask Tribune Aquilla if he could stay in power
I think you win most obscure comment. But on this channel people will get it.
@@ErikHareI don’t, could you please explain it?
@@ErikHareI was just thinking “how old is this reference now?” And even the thing being referenced in the reference is obscure. This is such a great deep cut of an ongoing joke for a small community
@@art-games6230there’s a story about Caesar spending an amount of time being petty after getting slighted tribune Aquila by randomly in meetings going “oh but we better ask tribune Aquila first?!?!?” It was a story referenced in one of the older videos but I’m sure by the time I finish this comment someone else will have found it and explained it better.
@@sapaulgoogdmen9542I love that story. It shows how humans have always been people lol it’s so petty but funny.
Ultra conservatives: but my lord is that legal?
Charles X: I will make it legal
Charles X: this is my apprentice, Darth Villéille. He will find your lost absolute monarchy
You ever hear of the tragedy of Darth Robespierre the wise?
It's okay they asked Tribune Aquila first
A real-life "I AM the senate" moment
It’s treason then…
I'd like to point that the intervention in Spain, though unpopular, was never close to trigger a war in Europe. Most of the great nations were ruled by other absolutist monarchs, the year prior Austria launched an invasion against Naples, and even Metternich encouraged France to send an army to Spain. The "Sainte-Alliance" was, in fact, intended to build a network between all those absolutist regimes and help each other just in case any revolution sparked
"The point of colonies cannot be how they look on a map."
Every grand strategy player ever: But the bordergore! The map must be unicolour!
Few things in life are better than renaming Earth to "Wallachia"
@jeremiaas15 gfm monaco wc was the greatest moment of my life
I actually have to disagree with his argument. He's very much ignoring the fact that piracy and slave raiding in north Africa had been rampant for quite some time, and it only fully stopped after France occupied Algerian ports. Invading Algeria was probably the only sensible idea that Jules de Polignac had.
The map must follow natural borders, anything else is heresy
Grand strategy games that make provinces cross rivers are engaging in a cardinal sin
@@darkfool2000 But how did it improve French situation ? Sure it may have helped stop slave trade in the long run but from realist standpoint it didn't help stabilise the nation or preserve continuity of power, and that was kind of Poignac's job, not stoping slave trade or piracy.
06:22 the Spanish constitution was not made by Napoleon, it was made by the Cortes of Cadiz who were oposed to Napeoleon but wanted to turn Spain into a constituional monarchy. Napoleon's "constitution" was never fully applied to the country since it was in open rebellion and granted much less rights than the Cadiz constitution.
I can’t understand how he hasn’t corrected this error; in the previous video he said the same thing among other inaccuracies about the Spanish situation those years
Very interesting; the whole video is full of smaller mistakes and logical fallacies, the man seems to be only good at quoting written down records. It's strange he made such a big mistake anyone with prior knowledge or information would not have
@@derrickstorm6976 He really should stick to ancient history. He's clearly much more familiar with it
The Spanish constitution was a needle in between the absolutist king and the liberal Urquijo-Bonaparte government constitution
Actually it granted even more rights that the Cadiz constitution, that was practically Napoleon's one tuned down
Thank you. I love your videos so much! They bring me so much joy. You’re so talented.
One thing to remember about Charles X is that he was convinced what led to the Revolution of 1789 was his older brother's Louis XVI's weakness. He wouldn't give up anything to a Parliament, which existence even annoyed him (he was born and raised under absolutist rule of his brother at a time a legislative Parliament seemed both unnecessary and even sacrilegious).
The Revolution of 1789 and the two decades or war and instability that ensued were on everyone's mind at that time.
It's such a frightfully myopic view of the situation by the guy whose neck was literally on the line
Not surprising for the Bourbons being so out of touch. In later decades, France was all but begging a Bourbon heir to take the crown. But he wanted to replace the French tricolor flag with the Bourbon’s white one. Ironically, it was one of the reasons the French Republic survived.
I find it also extremly ironic, as Charles himself was the prime reason the Revolution erupted. The last thing stopping popular Revolt was that Jaques Necker's Reforms would be pushed through, yet Charles engineered a Plot to dismiss him. Charles somehow managed to bring his dynasty down not once, but twice because of his Unwillingness to compromise even slightly with popular demand.
In fairness to Charles, a lot of historians still posite that theory, particularly military historians. Most of the genuine partisans of the revolution were urban middle-class lawyers and merchants. Whether the very large, mostly still paid French army could have put down the revolution is still a hotly debated question.
@@cartmann94 When you, and others, say "France", and "out of touch", you're really just saying Paris. Parisian elites had been running everything, and had toppled the government of France. The rest of the country followed. This is a lesson in the danger of centralizing power if anything. This July revolution was way more tame than what came before, and the royalists had given up without even a fight. As Cretan said, the actual army could have been pressed to put down the revolution and the French Kingdom would have been fully restored.
It's actually incredible how incompetent Charles X was. Most autocrats at least understand that they can't allow themselves to become *so* hated that the people's anger can overcome their fear of the autocrat. And he didn't even understand that he had to keep his soldiers happy
What surrounding yourself with nothing but yes-men does to your ol' thinking gland
He was indeed incompetent but his only mistake was not make his soldiers happy. With military strength you can hold into power regardless, like north Korea for exemple.
Charles X had a different vision for France which required radical actions, his only error was indeed not keeping the army on side.
Making All Gravely Antagonized?
Yeah, his idiocy was basically singlehandedly responsible for destroying the monarchy of France. If the monarchy of France had survived its reign, it’s very likely France would be a kingdom today
Your Caesar videos were what inspired my thesis. Great videos and great history work 👍👍
"The French Navy had somehow lost a battle on land. Truly they were not safe anywhere."
I'm dead. 😂
Notice how the carriage they get into is pulled by two pigs too lmao
@@alanmonteros6432 This is the most French thing I've ever hear in my life.
Not even safe on UA-cam nearly 200 years later.
Not just on land, but in their own capital
My dude remembers his password again.
He regained access to the old device with the login credentials still saved on disk. Truly marvelous.
He had to ask tribune Aquila for the password
This same tired "joke" over and over again when someone works on a big project for months is totally not unfunny and disrespectful.
@@JasonParmenter Correct. A bunch of mouth breathers moaning about the speed of delivery of free education.
@ you must be the one who needed an extra 8 months on a group project
I stood up and cheered at the Tallyrand cameo like it was a marvel movie
Funnily enough, Marmont was a Marshal of France under Napoleon. In 1814, Napoleon had entrusted him with the defence of the capital, but when coalition forces arrived, he elected to surrender rather than wait for Napoleon's army to come help him. This was in many ways the last straw that forced Napleon to abdicate and go into his first exile. When Marmont appealed to the King and Polignac, they insulted him to his face and asked if he intended to sell them out just like he did with Napoleon years earlier. To his death, Marmont was called the betrayer for his actions in 1814 and 1830.
He shoot at the people in 1830, never betrayed the King, that was his undoing, however his problem was siding with the monarchy, in 1814, Marmont surrender Paris but was recived with open arms by Napoleon, then he betrayed him again by surrendering VI corp in secret at Essone. The Liberals and everyone at the left of the king hated him for this reason
Amazing how Talleyrand was able to stick around. He served as ambassador the UK from 1830 to 1834, after the July Revolution. If Marmont had more sense, he could've betrayed the king at the right moment and maybe stayed in France.
Here’s the weird part about it when Marmont surrender Paris to coalition we don’t know why he did it as he didn’t give any reason why he decided to surrender the city
@@Randint73 It's interesting how every country has such figures who become synonymous with betrayal. In India, we have Jaichand and in Bangladesh/Bengal, you'll have Mir Jafar.
There are a few points to make about this. Marmont was designated a marshal because of his friendship with Napoleon as he was given his rank and baton along with MacDonald and Oudinot, and Napoleon told him he hadnt earned it yet. Marmont had been loyal up until the final year of the campaign. He had lost badly to Wellington at Salamanca and injured by a sheel burst. He also lost with heavy casualties in the Battle of Laon in 1814. He also gave the coalition a fight for Paris. But after a day, he realized it was a futile effort and surrendered the capital. Marmont was reportedly exhausted and dissolutioned with the prospect of continuing the war, hence why he abandoned Napoleon as he attempted to march back on Paris.
I’ve waited 2 months to watch this just so the wait time for the next one will be less. I love ur channel. I’m a history major about to graduate and I gotta say your channel has helped me thru some Roman and Greek history classes.
One of the biggest contributing factors to the July Revolution's success was Charles X and Polignac's utter lack of preparation. Outside of the men physically close to the King, nobody knew of the Four Ordinances until the newspaper announcing them arrived. This means potential allies were not primed to act on them, local police forces were at best sluggish about attempting to shut down the presses since this was the first they heard of all this, and the loyal soldiers not in Algeria were not moved into position to respond to a violent backlash, something even Louis XVI did in the days leading up to the storming of the Bastille. This allowed the backlash to spiral out of control and it very quickly was beyond military control.
There's a great anecdote of Polignac and the Naval Minister, after escaping the angry crowds on the night of 26th of July, probing a local police chief about reinforcements, and Polignac declaring he should probably put the Royal Guard on alert.
Naval Minister: "The Royal Guard aren't on alert already?!"
Polignac: "You worry too much."
No wonder every move was twelve hours too late to diffuse the situation.
Worth the subscription. Thanks for doing these videos
Bro you can’t put Brutus between Marc Anthony and Octavian like that. It’ll get violent.
He uploaded this 13 days ago for sponsors? Kekw
@@zoetje9817Nonsense. They'll have to ask Tribune Aquila first wether they're allowed to fight.
Bisexual squares
We need the Cicero green square emoji
In 45:37 you show Greece as one of the countries that have revolutionary outbreaks after the July revolution. However, what happened in Greek looks sort of the opposite: in 1831 the republican leader of the state was murdered, and 1832 the European powers (France, England, Russia) established the Bavarian Prince Otto as new King Otto I. of Greek. Otto was an autocrat, and only in 1844 he had to grant a constitution (following a popular uprising against him), and continued to try and break that constitution repeatedly until he was expelled from Greece in 1863.
To be fair, Kapodistrias was not politically liberal, despite the fact that he was not a king. From what I know he was quite absolutist. Of course he ruled for so little and in such circumstances that it is impossible to say what he would have done
Kappodistrias had the power to rule like an absolute monarch but didn't actually do that. He was by far the best in politics in Greece at the time, not belonging in one of the two fighting groups (we fought two civil wars during our revolution, stupid i know). He built the foundations of the state and even though we could never know, in a couple decades he would give the power back to the people (i say that because he made sure to educate the young generation, make a coin, built an officers cadet school, made laws and many more things), kinda like kemal ataturk did in turkey ruling as a dictactor until the end of the "30.
It took so long for this video to reach us common folk was because HC needed permission from Tribune Aquila
I love our free and fair elections today.
Finally, Tribune Aquila had let this video be uploaded
VETO 😈
You know, it never ceases to catch me off-guard that the French _republicans_ in the 1820s revered the emperor Napoleon. It really feels like it should be a contradiction in terms, and yet there they were
15:28 in case anyone is curious about the justification, basically when the french revolution happened, the very broke revolutionary government took out a bunch of loans from all over the world, including Algeria. After the Bourbons were restored, they were required to pay those loans back. In the case of Algeria they argued that since the revolutionary government no longer existed, therefore the debts no longer existed. Algeria obviously disagreed, so Charles X decided to use that dispute as an excuse to invade in hopes of boosting his popularity ahead of the election. Once they'd captured the capital and secured victory they just... didn't leave. Thus dooming Algeria to 132 years of colonial rule.
The capturing of Algeria actually helped everyone besides the Algerians. Algiers was a notorious hub for piracy just like Tripoli further East. For the past 300 or so years, loads of Europeans were taken from their coastal villages as slaves and sold in Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and etc. Thomas Jefferson had to send a fleet over to Tripoli to attack them because they kept attacking American ships and enslaving the seamen aboard.
That's why no one cared that France yoinked Algeria. It'd be like if someone went and invaded Russia today and occupied them. One less thorn in everyone's sides.
and you know, the whole piracy and slavery thing that over the centuries sold around a million Europeans, if not more, into slavery, but as they are Europeans HC doesn't consider them to be worthy of being mentioned
@@Skeloperch I mean the whole massive stockpile of nukes thing might make this analogy a little more suspect.
@@EnoshIII’m sorry, but did HC not mention slavery several times during his Rome/Alexander series’? Come on, now.
@@EnoshIIcheck out this culture warrior over here
Its honestly impressive how quickly the french monarchy forgot about the first french revolution
Nope nope, not the French monarchy as a whole. Only Charles X, he was always an ultra-royalist fool even as the Count of Artois. Louis XVIII, while still having very conservative views, recognised the fact that the Ancien régime was a thing of the past, the guy dreaded dying because he knew that Charles would succeed him and get the Bourbons exiled again.
But the Revolution did not forget about them, worry not.
It is said that the Restored Bourbons learned nothing (about the causes, events, and effects) but remembered everything (all the privileges and power of the monarchy) about the French Revolution. It is very possible that King Charles X saw that Louis the 16th compromised and gave up royal power until the radical revolutionaries cut his head off, and was determined to not give an inch.
And this is why it's laughable when people says we should reenact revolution in country. The chaos is guaranteed, the reform is totally not.
“For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle - not just.” Thomas Payne
Okay, a quick note on why France invaded Algeria. I keep seeing people try to say that it was because France wanted to fix Barbary piracy: that was not the reason. The policy of France (and other European powers like the UK) against the pirates was simply to pay them off, which France was fine with. The Barbary pirates were a big problem for the US, who were not paying tribute, and who joined forces with other European countries to fight them off. Britain intervened in 1816, when the Napoleonic Wars were over and the Barbary states stopped being useful to them, and made Algeria commit to abolish slavery. The pirate problem wasn't fully over (Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Naples still paid annual tribute), but it definitely wasn't the scourge comments keep trying to say it was, and it most definitely wasn't a problem for France.
If you want to look at the historical record, the pretext for the invasion was that France had negotiated with a wealthy Algerian family who sent a huge quantity of wheat to France during the revolutionary decade. Thirty years later, the wheat had still not been paid. The French consul, Pierre Deval, had a series of meetings with the Dey of Algiers that ended with the Dey hitting Deval with a fly-whisk. Charles X responded by blockading the port of Algiers for three years. The blockade was very bad news for French merchants; the Barbary pirates were kinda annoyed by it but went on with their day. As popular opinion kept turning against Charles X, the king thought, "hey, you know what would make people respect me? The glory of military victory! Let's avenge the "coup d'éventail"!" Hence, invasion.
Sources:
Benjamin Stora, Histoire de l'Algérie coloniale, Paris, La découverte, 2004
Hélène Blais, "Pourquoi la France a-t-elle conquis l'Algérie", in Bouchène & Peyroulou, Histoire de l'Algérie coloniale, La découverte, 2012
Idk why you’re asking you seem to know a lot on the topic. I would assume it was for why any other king invading something. Sometimes its not complicated and its just for land. France also made algeria a derict part of their country not a colony so who’s to say
@@SquidMonke4 I think you may have answered the wrong comment, but if you're wondering why Algeria was part of the country I can answer that!
Part of the reason is that the French thought of colonization as an Ancient Régime thing, something irrevocably linked to the slave trade. That did not settle well with a country that desperately wanted to leave the Ancient Régime behind. It's not just random happenstance that Algeria became "French territory" during the Second Republic; they wanted to settle Algeria, but they didn't want the icky concept of "colony" to ruin their humanistic aspirations. Making Algeria part of France reinforced French control over the country, marked Algeria as irrevocably French in the eyes of the people (the French Republic is "une et indivisible" after all, so no such thing as secession or independence!), and made it seem as though Algeria and France were on the same level of importance rather than a settled state under the control of another country.
@@jlkjlkjkljklj9162 mb i misread your starting question as “quick note: why did france invade Algeria?”
I've never seen citations on a youtube comment before, you have earned my respect.
As long as Barbary piracy and slave trade continued, it was a problem for France and Europe. Dey of Algiers promised to end the Barbary slave trade after the bombardment of 1816 and he did not respect that promise, the French invasion was wholly justified and necessary.
The only mistake made was trying to civilize Algeria by making it a part of France. And it was the leftist republicans who promoted that idea in the late 19 century.
Louis XVIII was not an Ultra-conservative. In fact, he was challenged many times by them and their political leader: the future Charles X, who was a political Ultra-conservative and masterminded the White Terror following Napoleon's downfall.
Louis XVIII actually knew he couldn't rule like an absolute monarch like his predecessor or even Napoleon, so he abided to the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy and was favoured by the Liberals, of which many were former Napoleonic officers or supporters of a British-style system like Richelieu and Talleyrand.
The first thing he did was pardon Napoleon's marshalls and disolve a ultra-royalist parliament in favour of a much more balanced parliament
I was literally thinking yesterday, Historia Civilis hasn’t uploaded in a while
Same! But the quality makes up for the wait times. It’s like seasons of a tv show
He uploads on average I’ve noticed every 3 months if that helps!
I'm thinking that every day
same here!
He finally remembered to ask Tribune Aquila if he could publish a new video
To clarify, this video is not very correct concerning the French intervention in Spain. Is presented as if it was a reckless and nonsensical decission unilateraly taken by france but it was pretty much a result of the Congress of Troppau (1820) and the Congress of Verona (1822). In spite of opposition from the British and reluctance from Austria, France was backed by Prussia, Russia and Austria. In the early 20s Austria led the intervention in Italy against the revolutionaries in Naples too.
Russia, Prussia and Austria were more afraid of a new revolution than of a new expansionist France. Spain was falling apart anyway.
True. But historia covilis is used to telling only half the story.
To all my fellow Americans, three meters is approximately 3% of a football field.
Oh, so like a third of a down. Glad you cleared that up for me. What's with the rest of the world and their crazy units - why can't we all just measure things in *rational* units, like football fields?
@@rootbeerconnoisseur It is, indeed, all the French 's fault, who came up with stupid ideas like the metric system. 😁 - The revolution took things even further than they are now, though. Applying it , among others, even to clocks and calendars; all in the name of good ol' French "rationality" .
Or in human scales, around twice as tall as the average women
A meter is about a yard or a little over 3 feet
3 meters is roughly around 10feet
Or about 30 burgers
Fun Fact: This year (2024) in July, Bangladesh experienced a massive civil uprising which resulted in the ousting of a 15-year-long autocratic government.
People have now dubbed that "July Revolution" too.
(It started in mid July after police and government backed goons started violently suppressing university students who were protesting against the unfair quota system. The suppression were brutal, *Hundreds* died in July. July left such a bloodstain that even in 1st August, people wrote 32nd July. It went on till 36th July (or 5th August) when the PM (Dictator) finally resigned and fled the country. Sic Sempre Tyranis!)
@@mushfiqurrahman1107 Yeah, except the French didn't start to harass their minority like you folks did. They were not breaking temples and churches. Revolution, or just Islamists seizing power to make life hell for Hindu and Christian minorities?
Man are you using 46 BC calendary?
@@luizguilhermeassis1614 The protesters used that.
@@LunaExpiX based
In Brazil we had street protests in June during 2012-2014. We call it June's Journey. It turned into a colour revolution due to the US direct interference. So I would tell you to be careful with your expectations, we are still fucked by it 10 years later.
You probably won't read this comment because it's one among a thousand. But I just wanted to take a moment to say how much I genuinely appreciate your channel. I first found this channel while looking up information on how the different positions in the Roman cursus honorum worked and found your videos on it. Back then you didn't have very many videos, I think your latest was one of the "In His Year" videos. So I've been following this channel for so many years now and none of your videos has ever disappointed me. Always very well made, full of fascinating stuff and some laughs on top of that. You also cover a lot of the specifics and nuances that I feel like are often left out of videos like this and I very much appreciate that. I don't have the money to support your Patreon currently still, but I just wanted to say thank you for the great content. I always look forward to your videos. Some of the best on UA-cam, imo.
I’m not sure I agree they “almost took down the international system” France had an international mandate(including the other great powers) from the Congress of Verona to go into Spain and restore Ferdinand
Yeah, no idea where he got this from. France got approval from the rest of the Quintuple Alliance (barring a begrudging Britain) to intervene in Spain. The act was in line with Metternich's system of suppressing liberal revolution. In that sense it was a coup de grace for France, as this allowed them to both re-assert themselves as a great power, while also enforcing the international system. It was literally the opposite of taking down the international system.
He definitely portrayed that in a very hind sighted way at best and ignores the conditions that you pointed out and even the benefits it brought to France on the international stage. Though with the privilege of hind sight this "success" can be considered to have been counterproductive in the longer term because it emboldened the ultras to push for more reactionary policies and it did create a false sense of security about popular support for absolutist monarchy and also contributed to the overconfidence that would later lead to the July Ordinances and revolution.
and I copied my comment in another thread and pasted it here just thought his take was interesting and probably could have just been better presented.
Also, the reason Britain "weathered the storm" is because they had it first. The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the Jacobite Rebellions had already settled the political order in Britain, and the prevailing faction was the Whigs.
More importantly, England/Britain had never held their Kings as high as other monarchies had. They were forced to accept a Parliament early on, and had most of the powers of taxation pulled away from them. While this would hamstring them at times, it ironically gave the Monarchy considerable stability. The one time this balance was shifted towards absolutism, the Civil *definitively* smacked it back down once and for all.
As a result, the British monarchy was able to endure the 18th-20th centuries without much complaint. Bad decisions or disastrous blunders were the responsibility of Parliament, not the fault of the King.
Tbf, there was the instability of the Great Reform Bill. When the House of Lords rejected the Reform Bill and the King appointed Lord Wellington as Prime Minister, it did appear that Britain was on the verge of Revolution, until the House of Lords backed down and allowed the bill to pass through.
How many coloured squares in this video?
Yes
HC: I’ll take your entire stock (with Tribune Aquila’s approval)
Danke!
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 taxes (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
Historia already touched on that when they were discussing the kings comments about not standing in his way.
@@salamantics that was about the liberal assambly elected in 1827 , this video suggests that the conservative assembly 1821-1827 was nothing less than a rumber stump , witch is not true
babe wake up. New HistoriaCivilis is dropping in 2 hours
Your babe woke up yet?
You're single don't lie
Babe...? ... BAAABE...!?!?!?
People say this a lot about many channels but honestly this is my favourite channel of all time.
Great video as always, my man. Revolutions are a truly incredible thing, because 99% of the time they lead to governments that end up more ineffectual than the previous one (at least for a short period of time), but what's fascinating about the July Revolution is just how civil the revolutionary leaders decided to be. Because they reached out to their enemies and made compromises with those who disagreed with them, they created an effective coalition government (rallied behind a liberal king) which jump-started France's re-ascension to Great Power status in the 19th century. It goes to show just how important compromise is to establishing a working government (a sentiment shared by our boy Cicero). Anyway, this was great stuff - can't wait 'till the next part comes out!
Love your videos! Just a small remark. The spanish liberal constitution (Cádiz one) can't be called a Napoleon invention, but it was indeed strongly influenced by the french and american revolutions. Also, another motivation for the french king to invade Spain was to put back the old spanish king which had strong ties with the french monarchy (same family).
America is the goat
France is the goat
Nah america is little bro
Not only that, but he completely butchers the reaction to the French invasion. It did not spark some kind of July Crisis situation that could have escalated to a full-on European war. France consulted with the Quintuple Alliance (France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, UK) before invading, and each member gave them the go-ahead to do so (with the exception of Britain, who protested to no avail). There was not much indicating it was going to escalate further.
The French intervention in Spain was France enforcing the Concert of Europe while also re-asserting its own power following its defeat in 1815. It wasn't France trying to overthrow the existing system.
@@marvelfannumber1 That's a pretty huge problem considering that's a key moment in this whole narrative.
You know, we were taught about the French Revolution, and everything that followed up to Napoleon becoming Emperor, but nothing after that. I learned about Napoleon's two periods of exile through completely different subjects, so didn't know the actual history and the politics behind it. I had no idea that the French Monarchy came back briefly, let alone being turfed out of power again!
just wait until 1848 and 1870-1871
Oh, well yes. We've had 5 Republics after all. We're professionals in this field 😂
That's maybe because there were no major wars between 1814 and 1914, so it's kind of "easy" to skip forward. However there were many revolutions and counter-revolutions, it was a politically hot time in Europe... but relatively stable in terms of major wars.
@@LuisAldamiz Erm...except for wars fought in Russia/Eurasia, and, erm--the Franco-Prussian War.
That's kind of a big one.
@@d.c.8828 - Fair enough: the Crimean War was the biggest one but it was fought in a limited peripheral scenario, the Franco-Prussian war was short and only involved two powers, powers that came together once the communists took Paris in revolt, first determined to defend the city against Bismark, challenging Napoleon III's orders of surrendering the city. No "great war" happened as such in any case, although Crimea was sorta close.
The most notable military developments in that period actually happened in Africa (colonial partition of the continent at the end of that century 1814-1914) but again major powers avoiding clashing with each other and the conquest of Africa was relatively bloodless, with all wars very localized in space and most just "diplomatic" takeover.
There is a secret letter held by Metternich that proves Louis Phillipe wanted to take up arms aggainst Napoleon, but was declined by General Mack and emperor Francis. Metternich wanted to use it if Louis ever stepped out of line.
Thanks!
One thing i like about Historia Civilis is that every time he makes a video i whatch it then completly forget that he even exist's and don't relise how much time pases bewen videos so i don't get mad when it takes him a lot amount of time to make a video.
"Oh yeah! Historia Civilis!!"
@@CODDE117Pretty much like that
Same
I love how you're slowly but surely fleshing out the entire 19th century with each video, keep it up!
The 1812 constitution being the creation of Napoleon is some beyond-my-mind bogus. It was the creation of spanish patriots, written against some Joseph who Napoleon tried to crown and proclaimed under fire from french guns
This guy has some bias towards napoleon
He's confused on that one.
@@panzerofthelake506 Nah, in another video he was praising George Canning
He's talking from the perspective of the French at the time. They saw Spain as the result of Napoleon, so they took personal offense to seeing it be threatened.
@@panzerofthelake506 He's a not-so-subtle Socialist/Communist. At the very least he's heavily anti-Capitalist. Still makes great videos, but it's clear he is heavily biased.
4:32 Villéle did not want to invade Spain.
From Shannon Selin:
" French ultra-royalists were pressuring King Louis XVIII to rescue his distant cousin (King Ferdinand). Louis, however, disapproved of Ferdinand’s brand of absolutism, and neither he nor Prime Minister Joseph Villèle favoured sending troops into Spain."
so why were there French troops in Spain then ?
From Wikipedia: "The "Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis" was the popular name for a French army mobilized in 1823 by the Bourbon King of France, *Louis XVIII*, to help the Spanish Bourbon royalists restore King Ferdinand VII of Spain to the absolute power of which he had been deprived during the Liberal Triennium. Despite the name, the actual number of troops was between 60,000 and 90,000." (...)
"The Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia) refused Ferdinand's request for help, but the Quintuple Alliance (Russia, Britain, France, Prussia and Austria) at the Congress of Verona in October 1822 gave France a mandate to intervene and restore the Spanish monarchy. Britain protested loudly but was outvoted. On 22 January 1823, a secret treaty, from which Britain was excluded, was signed at the Congress of Verona, allowing France to intervene in Spain to help restore Ferdinand VII as an absolute monarch. With the agreement from the Holy Alliance, on 28 January 1823 *Louis XVIII* announced that "a hundred thousand Frenchmen are ready to march, invoking the name of Saint Louis, to safeguard the throne of Spain for a grandson of Henry IV of France"." (...)
"The new prime minister, Joseph de Villèle, intended to oppose the war. The operation's cost just for aide was excessive, the army's organisation was defective and the troops' loyalty was uncertain". (...)
@@niccolorichter1488 It wasn't an invasion it was a, uh... "special military operation". Yeah. Let's go with that.
My favourite channel uploated!!! Finally!!!
Only channel I became a member for early access, I didn’t even need to second-guess myself about it
Interestingly enough Charles X's grandson Henri would be offered the throne of France in 1870, but refused it after rejecting the tricolor as a national flag. Some think this decision silly, but the real reason was that he believed France just wasn't a country anymore where one could reign peacefully as a monarch.
Honestly a wise decision. Monarchies operate well when the society is full of illiterate, disconnected, uninformed peasants with static change. France of the 1870s was none of those things, and even if he was placed as the monarch, the best he could've hoped for was to be a meaningful, but fundamentally powerless figurehead like the British Royals were at the time.
A little nitpick but he was being an absolutist and the flag was one of many things he saw as giving in or a sign of weakness that would set the restoration of the monarchy off on the wrong foot. He seemed to believe France would eventually return to monarchy under his terms.
I saw your video on my Feed and I just want to say that this was an amazing documentary. Earnt yourself a new Subscriber 🙏
Polignac’s family had been raised from obscurity to great wealth and high rank by Marie Antionette, his mother Yolande Martine Gabrielle de Polastron being her favourite.
Her husband was made a duke, from being a poor count. Which explains their fanatical loyalty to the Bourbons.
29:05 a quick notice; Marmont wasnt a major-general, he was a marshal of france given the title by napoleon himself in 1809. He was essentially despised at this point by many for his perceived backstabbing by surrendering his force to the allies, causing Napoleon to his first abdication in 1814.
Well we can't all be as politically savvy as Talleyrand, honestly as soon as the prime minister and the king failed to respond his requests to deal with the uprising, Marmont should've switched sides. Talleyrand was far more duplicitous and was still politically useful to the new King Louis-Phillipe to serve as ambassador to the UK from 1830 to 1834.
@@darkfool2000Talleyrand spent most of his time doing diplomatic works, and conducted himself as a self-interested, vain aristocrat. You don’t expect a man who owed most of his military career to another, famously being treated as a friend to the emperor; to betray him. Entirely different context, hence the jeer for one and not the other.
This channel brings me deep and long lasting joy, amusement and satisfaction. Please, go on!!!!
It seems French newspapers printed dune years before Herbert did
As someone who's ready the first 4 dune books, I'm not sure what you are referring to
26:35 the tiny text on the pages is an excerpt from Dune.
When I thought it wasn't possible for me to admire Historia Civilis more... Love it.
"Learn how long a meter is" shall be my new favourite unit of measurement.
most americans think a meter is 3 feet which isn't correct but its not that far off
I laughed out loud at that like "up yours Canadian, I've seen you people mix metric and imperial in the same sentence, you haven't got a leg to stand on"
Splendid to see you and your team to upload. Always love your content
I was literally looking at the channel yesterday wondering when a new video would drop. This is good
same
Pretty sure the Algeria move was also an attempt to get the army on his side by giving them some of the glory that they had been missing out on since Napoleon.
Invade one of Napoleon's few allies wasn't a good idea that fired up Napoleon's veterans, also the army of 1830 was pretty different in comosition that the armies of Napoleon.
I like Historia Civilis, but he's completely ignoring the issues of piracy and slave raiding that leaders in Algeria were undertaking. All of that only fully stopped after France invaded Algeria. Invading Algeria was the only sensible idea the Ultra-conservatives had.
@@darkfool2000 the piratery had already ended by 1819
@@omarbradley6807 No, it didn't. Algeria was the holdout, even after Piracy from Morocco, Tunisia, Libya had ceased. That didn't end until 1830.
@@omarbradley6807even the US sent its marines to defend US shipping from Algerian slaver pirates. This topic has been ignored a lot because it goes against some people's beliefs.
The pretext for the invasion of Algeria, was that Algeria's ruler slapped the french ambassador with a fan ˆˆ
He was angry against France, because they fortified an island in Algiers harbour without authorization, and when asked to reimburse their loan in compensation they refused XD
He was also angry that they wouldn't let hin act like a pirate and anymore
I feel obligated to add a sidenote that Louis Philippe's wife, and even more so his sister played massive roles in pushing him to take the throne, as well as helping to organize his politics and factions.
@Historia Civilis
Hey, I love your videos, but I do have some remarks on this one. Villèle had legitimate reasons to invade Spain besides getting rid of the Liberals
there. It was also a means to safeguard French's southern flank with a Bourbon on the throne there, and no opponents of the Bourbon monarchy in France.
The Quintuple Alliance was largely in favour of French intervention to keep a European status-quo, which was arguably more important for France than pleasing internal opponents. It showed France was willing to cooperate with the Conservative powers and did not oppose them, which these powers very much feared. France in the 1820's upto the fall of the Second Empire was generally seen with a large degree of suspicion, due to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War., which you know and allude to in the closing part of your video, but do not intertwine with the majority of your narrative.
I think you fall into this trap partially because you focus too much on the internal factors leading up to the decision to invade, instead of looking to the geo-political reason, and thereby you cartoonise the ultra-conservatives (who are massive idiots, don't get me wrong) a bit too much.
This bleeds into your juxtaposition on the sort of 'fake parliament' period of Charles X, where you criticise Villèle for being humiliated, but in fairness, Villèle had nearly everything he had strived for as parliament at this point was largely a useless political organ that exercised little actual power. The problem with that goal was that it was unrealistic to be kept for long, which, obviously, it did not, due to the internal forces you did highlight very well. In a way, this was already a 'soft coup', as it returned most decision-making and legitimacy of government from the parliament, to the king, growing ever closer to the Absolutism Charles X and Villèle were striving for. That these decisions would backfire in the long run is not something they had foreseen because they were largely too blind and arrogant to take the will of the electorate seriously. Let alone the will of the people in the street. But the way parliament was run was not seen as a humiliation by the king or Villèle probably.
He’s a huge leftist nerd. He didn’t even speak the Algerian slave trade. Just trying to lie about history to push a narrative
Thanks for voicing the same criticisms I had! The idea that the Great Powers would punish France for invading Spain is ludicrous, when in fact they are the ones who tasked Louis XVIII with this mission! The rest of the video is very good, especially when he gets to Polignac, but I have problems with his depictions of Louis XVIII and Villèle, who were much more conscious of the delicate political balance France hung in than HC is portraying (despite the fact that they were regressive and deserved to be ousted).
Such quality content. This is why you are one of my favorites UA-camrs of all time. I didn’t even know I wanted to learn about the July revolution, but once I started watching I couldn’t stop
I would be so interested to hear about your creative process and how you go about preparing videos and presenting the information in an engaging way
It really goes to show how good this channel is, that you can toss out a random topic few have heard about, and we'll still watch it and be entraced by the politicking of it all
Your videos are maybe my favorite rare treat on UA-cam, thanks for all the effort you put into them.
Peak UA-cam content, thank you dude.
Your uploads are a blessing for humanity.
Absolute banger of a video yet again, man never stops dropping the best content
I appreciate the consistency in quality.
The ending is brilliant. A masterclass at making something good, normal and morally right sound so ominous.
I remember wishing you'd talk about Belgium while watching the previous video and I had that feeling again this time. It would be so comical to see little squares taking an opera performance way too far. The run up to that performance (and the revolution/insurrection) is also peak comedy at that, with the authorities being absolutely clueless as to why the liberals wanted to perform a very inciting opera in honour of the king's birthday.
Just don't gloss over us until Leopold II, because I really have that feeling you're gonna go there with that ending and that bit about 'lesser men'.
CONGRATULATIONS FOR 1 MILLION SUBSCRIBERS!
You’ve got some of the best videos here on this site, and it keeps me coming back yearning for more! I’m sure I’ll throughly enjoy this video, and be eager to watch the next :)
Still less subscribers than murdered algerian civilians by france!
I love your channel, you manage to make niche history subjects so captivating and instructive and yet very accessible
16:12
As an avid map painter (eu4, hoi4, vic3...) I feel called out.
You've got to be kidding me. I literally just rewatched the previous parts because my brother was here yesterday and this period came up. And now this drops. Awesome work.
i really love these videos clear and informative, as an italian i can't wait to see you cover the risorgimento!
your videos are so good I had massive shivers and cried
Nothing makes me happier then when i see one of your videos. Nothing been then spacing out and hearing history!
Amazing fantastic storytelling! I especially like your sarcasm and the use of squares for people.
Very interesting as always but there is a serious error at the beginning when describing the Spanish Constitution as Napoleonic. It was not: it was in fact the countering of Bonapartism at the Cortes of Cádiz: the 1812 Constitution popularly known as "la Pepa".
Napoleon and his brother Joseph did produce a Charter in 1808 at Bayonne (where the quarreling Spanish Bourbons were tricked into abdication by their strongman Godoy, all for the good of the continental blockade and the destruction of Portugal, a key British ally), that was the first constitution Spain ever had and the first legal Spain to ever exist (previously it was just "Castile") but Napoleon and Joseph comitted serious errors such as abolishing the Inquisition (what irked the ultra-conservatives) or massacring some rebels at Madrid, what got a growing number of Spaniards and Spanish Americans in rebellion against the new illustrated regime. Eventually these gathered at Cádiz, under British naval protection, and wrote down an alternative liberal constitution that clearly outshined the Bonapartist charter (and also used the term "Spain" for the second time in legal history).
After Napoleon's defeat in 1814, Ferdinand VII (a Bourbon and relative of the French monarch) was restored and right away he obliterated the Constitution of 1812 and ruled in terms absolutistic until 1820 (this is known as the "absolutist six years"). As result the American juntas became secessionist and by 1821 Spain had lost most of its colonies (which made Britain very happy, as they could now meddle in more easily), meanwhile the Spaniards of Europe forced (via military coup) that the King had to accept the Constitution of 1812, producing the "liberal three years". Ferdinand was not happy and called for help from the French Bourbons, which he got ("the 100,000 sons of St. Louis", the largest invasion Spain ever suffered since the Muslims, although quite comparable to the 70,000 that Mussolini would send 117 years later to impose fascism).
Another incredible video and perspective. I eagerly await to see you talk about the Springtime of Nations and the 1840s.
When he mentioned the split in Europe at the end, I started chanting 1848! 1848!
That might be after an ep focusing on Britain's liberal period though I guess.
I love the content. Thanks for the upload.
This revolution is the reason my ancestors came to America. Charles X was my seven greats grandfather, and we had to change our last name from Bourbon to Skinner (a maternal ancestor's name) to avoid potentially being deported for being illegal at the time
History is about to repeat itself in America. So there's that.
@@AdamtheRed- lol no
@AdamtheRed- and the funniest part about it is that I'm moving to France in a couple years, although I doubt my head would be on the chopping block. My ancestors were princes, but I'm relatively unheard of outside of a couple states and small countries where I have a following
@@necromater6656 Yes. Put down the kool-aid and get an education.
@@AdamtheRed- Absolutely nothing will happen in the USA, its ridiculous to think it is anywhere close to the kind of crisis it'd need for a revolt of any form.
A correction: the Spanish constitution of 1812 was not the work of Napoleon but of his Spanish opponents.
Been watching this channel for years and so glad to see you still around and moving squares on maps.
I'm only 7 mins in, and there are already many sloppy errors.
Louis and Villèle were the only members of the Government to oppose the Spanish adventure.
Louis was not an arch conservative. He was conservative and old fashion, to be sure, but he was conciliatory, pragmatic, and cautious by temperament. He did the opposite of the addage of "learning nothing and forgetting nothing." For example, Louis was willing to swing to the left in the 1810s, when it seemed like the ultras were the biggest threat to stability. When the Duc de Berry was assassianted, he swung to right, going along with a public mood that was sincerely sympathetic to the Ultras, as evidenced by the vast quantities of money donated to fund Berry's public mounument.
the Duc de Berry was assassinated by Louis-Pierre Louvel, a Bonapartist, not a leftist.
Edit: oh my gosh. 1824 reflected genuine public opinion. The public sympathised with Berry and his father, as evidenced by the fact mentioned above: 75% percent of the donation to Berry's monument were small donations of 10 francs or less. Villèle even proposed "rigging" the franchise by extending it to poor frenchmen; both the liberals and the conservatives believed the poor would vote royalist. The liberal proposals were just as "rigged" as the conservative ones. No genuine political force supported democracy
Underrated comment
The problem with leftists is they always claim to be for the poor man when they’re always just middle class and counter elites. Poor people have and will always be right wing within the context of their nation. (If you import foreign poor people they will be left because they are outsiders to the nation, not part of it.)
It's unfourtunate but Historia Civilis' accuracy has declined in recent years. His Rome and Greece videos were better. Old Britannia is better for 18/19th century content.
Greece casually popping up on the map. Sneaky! It is crazy how much was going on in the first half of the 19th c. in the world.
I'm so happy to see you're still posting HC! Thank you so much for the countless excellent bedside listens to combat insomnia as well as many enjoyable fully-engrossed viewings. I wish you well. I've learned much and really appreciate the work you've done.
Historia, when will we get a continuation of the Roman series? We all LOVE that series!
octavian won and they all lived happily ever after
@@breaddboy .... Lies detected.
i assume he got burnt out with roman history
speak for yourself
@@dftp Nah, i will speak for the majority. Thx. :)
Poor street lamps! What did they do wrong?!
What I want to know also.
Obviously they made the repression forces work easier. I'm surprised we don't do that anymore (also three meter tall barricades, that's extremely impressive and hard to counter).
@@LuisAldamiz Napoleon III during his restructuration of Paris made sure barricades cannot be made again to avoid another insurrection. They were this efficient
Smashing all the street lights is the 1830s version of smashing surveillance cameras. It's more difficult for the soldiers to operate and recognize their opponents.
@@LuisAldamizbarricades are still sometimes constructed in urban warfare situations. I remember years ago seeing pictures of busses being toppled over to block streets in Syria.
Happy to see you upload again!
6:22 You got this wrong again, the spanish constitution was elaborated by the cadiz courts during the civil war.
If you ever feel that you’re stupid just remember your name isn’t Vilele.
Villèle
Nice! Been a while. Hope Oversimplified would also post soon
Funny how I just listened to Mike Duncan's recounting of these events just last week. Now I can put a square to the names.
This reminds me of the English civil wars. An absolutist king doesn’t realize the time of absolutism has passed and ends up losing his throne as a consequence. Though this was also a confirmation of a previous revolution like the 1688 glorious one and obviously was much less drastic
The parallels are in some ways intentional, the liberal press had actually become obsessed with the Glorious Revolution and wanted a similar course of action for France.
The sovereign is the executive body of the nation. All that happens in these cases are middle class minor nobility wanting that power for themselves and whipping people into a frenzy only to oppress them later. I’m sick of people pretending the french revolution was about elevating anyone, it wasn’t. It was an internal power struggle justified by a time of scarcity
The English Civil Wars had really nothing to do with absolutism and everything to do with religion.
@@thehighlander6770King Charles I had reigned as a tyrant for almost 11 years. He had had nobility arrested and tortured for refusing to loan him money. When he was forced to recall Parliament, they went after him. They instituted Haebus Corpus, and banned his other creative ways of raising money. When they attempted to seize control of foreign policy, the Kind attempted to have the most radical members arrested, but Parliament hid them. And so began the English Civil War.
@@Nimish204 I would argue Parliament was more concerned with his Laudian religious policies. Other issues were of secondary importance.
I have followed your channel for a long time, but your most recent upload might be my favorite. Please keep up the good work.
23:26 there’s an accidental optical illusion here with the black dots moving among the crowd
it's all over the video
Its in all Videos
I'm a french history professor and I can say that this video is very accurate about the revolution. Great research
There’s a lot of factual errors made in this video. Check other comments for sources and details.
Professor, you sure you watched it?
@@PRubin-rh4sr I'm not a professor, I made it up
@javierjp8549 me when I lie 😍😍😍
@@javierjp8549 You're not from France, you made France up.
I have followed many, many history channels... and I must say yours is among the best in style and presentation. It's through and detailed yet enjoyable and not too dry.. insert other compliments here.
Keep it up! Can you kick off a 19th century France/ great powers series?