Follow me on social media for a behind-the-scenes look at my learning journey: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT Also like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻
I remembered. Please watch the video "Khrushchev in the USA in 1959" or better "Khrushchev in Hollywood" - I liked it better. The fact is that Khrushchev visited Los Angeles in 1959 and performed in Hollywood - this is the very video that tells not about the enmity of the two superpowers, but about general trends, watch it for sure! I'm really looking forward to it. I personally will be the first to see your reaction to this video, as I am interested in how you will comment on this video. And if you're going to make a reaction, please make the video longer...
@@carlhartwell7978 not only the coin but now thinking of it probably the disguise itself was a sus. Like the checkpoint guy prob got confused why 2 servants would leave France as prob all servants and lower classes were too poor to travel and prob werent even allowed to do so
To some extent, he did support the revolution. Not in it's actual form, sure, but he was a reformist. The main problem came from the church and nobility, who were completely opposed to any attempts at a reformation. Louis' mistake was his lack of absolutism in the situation. It may sound weird, but he should have used absolute power to give freedom. The issue with that is that he was a genuinely nice dude and didn't like conflict. He wanted everyone to be pleased. And he completely hated his position as king. The guy liked nothing more than spending the day with scientists, blacksmiths, farmers... He even spent afternoons with roofers working on maintenance of the palace like a blue collar.
true. But to be fair, the French nobility was awful (as mentioned in the video). So the resentment for the Brits in the US was pale in comparison to the resentment the French peasantry felt about their nobility. And finally - without sounding like a snob - the American revolution was organized by the bourgeoisie of the country (albeit slave owners). Not by the bottom of society.
Napoleon led to some major events in world history including the formation of Germany, independence of the Spanish American colonies, independence of Brazil, the war of 1812 between America and Britain. And the spreading of enlightenment values all over Europe and even the finding of the Rosetta stone.
Yep, Napoleon I dissolved the HRE and fostered German nationalism. The north German confederation is then formed. A few wars and a speech by Bismarck later the German Empire formed and Napoleon III lost power after losing to Prussia therefore allowing Germany to form, staring a resentment that would help lead to the first world war.
It is also partly responsible, by the propagation of the Revolution, for the spring of the peoples and basically almost all the European revolutions of the 19th century.
Yeah, and it took us at least a century to figure out that we actually kinda like Republics to begin with: between 1789 and 1889 in France we have, after the 3+ political regimes of the Revolution: Napoleon's Consulate, 1st Empire, Borbon Restoration (constitutional monarchy), July Monarchy (constitutional monarchy 2.0), Second Republic, 2nd Empire (under Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte aka Napoleon the Third, nephew of the original), Third Republic (wich for 10 years looked like a provisional regime pending monarchical Restauration)... It was not before 1880's that we decided to finally stick with the Republic!
I feel like when comparing the French revolutions to the American one it's really important to note the serious distinctions. The colonies were not seeking to topple the monarchy and those who supported it in general, just separate themselves from it. With that, you still saw people go out of their way to imprison, torture, and even kill British loyalists. That being said, by virtue of the distance, and the fact that most colonists really didn't have any strong ties to Britain anymore, it was a lot easier to keep clean and avoid wanton death and human suffering. The French revolutionaries had a mountain of things stacked against them. Historically the monarchy held supreme power, and no one in Europe had come close to challenging that authority up to this point, no matter how unreasonable or unfair they had been treated. On top of that, as a result of the caste system, no one from the working class had experienced any sort of ruling power, and thus understandably didn't know how to manage it once they had it. Unfortunate as it is, it makes a lot of sense that the French revolutionary struggles were as bloody as they were.
Actually, the English civil war and the Dutch republic were examples where the lower classes had influence in governing the country, so the French revolutionaries had some nearby examples to inspire them (especially the moderates, who originally wanted a constitutional monarchy, similar to the British).
American revolutionary writing, like common sense, turned the American revolution from merely getting the king to lessen taxes to the idea that monarchy is inherently a terrible system of government. The federalists werent interested in getting involved in the french revolution, but Thomas Jefferson greatly supported the french revolution of the rise of the french revolution, but he was sidelined as John Adams and the federalists pursued neutrality, and by the time he was president Napoleon had already ended the republic.
5:44, King Louis was gradually losing control of the country, but was pretending to be ok with the revolution to not give his people the excuse to depose him. I had a chance to read up about this, ultimately he tried to leave because Louis felt his appeasement tactics were failing and if he could get military support from his allies like Austria, he could put down the revolution and get his power back. This is why his subjects were calling him a traitor when he got caught trying to flee.
@@Fordo007 To be very fair, there is a strand of political philosophy (and its often practical as well ) that Rulers only derive their 'right to rule' if they nourish and support their people. "Divine Right of Kings" was falling out of favor. Certainly at BEST, Lous was inept, at worst he was uncaring. In short, he failed his 'duties' as a King. And for a practical matter, so long as the common people's bellies are full and they are kept otherwise happy or busy the "King" (or whatever ruling class) can get away with alot, but the French people were tired of not only being oppressed but being oppressed and starved was the final straw and who could freaking blame them?
@@Fordo007 What else would you call someone fleeing to foreign lands in order to wage war on his own country and people ? Citizen Louis had a chance to remain in power , but he constantly vetoed every single piece of legislation , raising anger towards him
@@Fordo007 Im late to the party but the first reason he was called a traitor was because he wanted to go to Austria and organise a literal invasion of the country sided by a foreign power. And that is straight up treason.
Both the King and Marie were actually pretty chill about the whole thing and Marie had even tried to help the people, but just didn't have much influence in France to do a whole lot so her efforts were largely lost in all the bad publicity and propaganda. However there was also a massive scandal going on at the time, that the royal family had nothing to do with, but had been implicated in by a scam artist that massively soured the people's opinions of them.
The countries around France were all monarchies and the church played a political role. When such dramatic changes suddenly happen in France, the princes and kings are afraid that the same will happen in their countries. Napoloen then became an important factor for the surrounding countries. Watch out Napoloen!
France went through more of a revolution than the USA. The USA never had to overthrow and replace a government, they just had to fight a war against a foreign power. It’s more a war of independence. It’s different when your enemy lives on the other side of town compared to an ocean. France is closer to the pattern of actual revolutions than the Americans
Yup, hence the violence. France had to fight internal ennemies and political indecisiveness (after a milenia of a set system) on all sides and protect itself from some of the most powerful western countries of the time. Civil unrest being a bit more dangerous than a peaceful protest with the occasional birck in a window at the time, violence was a necessary evil for a gvt to preserve itself and the country.
Agreed. Civil war can be far more bitter and bloody than overthrowing a foreign occupation or a colonial master and tends to produce unrest that has effects for generations. The French revolution and Russian Revolution both had a number of stages with putches, counter movements and violent destructions of entire classes (nobility and church) and later purges of counter revolutionaries. Raising a mob and controlling it are two very different things a lot depends on how united the aims of the uprising are and on the quality of the new leaders that emerge. Rebels tend to agree only on what they are fighting against - rarely on what they are fighting for.
@@starrynight1657 true but not to the extent of what France went trough. Between 15 and 20% of "americans" were loyalists, but in the end they retained their rights post-war, and it was still a situation of being thousands of miles away from the power that should have held things together. The king was an idea more than an actual power. France had a more physical connection to a monarchic system. The political currents that emerge from that are wildly different.
4:06 the reason why they were recognized was because a former worker of the palace of Versailles lived in Varennes since a few years. He's the one who recognized them and confirmed their identity. There was also another anomaly : they were in a coach rather than a "malle poste" who was used by the common people ( like the ones they were pretending to be ). The first ID system was implemented later during the revolution, and its still in use as national identity card ( individuals are voters once they reach 18 years old, not when they can drive a car like in the US ).
King Louis wasn’t a bad person, he actually had some sympathy unlike his wife who spent her life in luxury, but he was out-of-touch with his subjects and easily swayed by his people, which ultimately made him look weak. If not for his own indecisiveness he would’ve perhaps escaped to the Austrian Netherlands..and potentially change history again if he was able to crush the rebellion from abroad and restore the Kingdom of France.
Marie Antoinette was actually in a similar position to her husband. Also her luxurious life isn't as fancy as people think, apparently she actually enjoyed wearing more common clothes which found her ridiculed by the upper-class, which forced her to wear more fancy clothing to appease them, however, it ended with her being ridiculed by the lower classes. The little village she had built was a little test of hers to understand how the lower-class lived. And she did try to push for some reforms, usually through her husband, but it all failed as the upper-class had a lot more influence. It also didn't help that she was young, female, and an Austrian. She did care, it's just that like her husband they couldn't truly understand the issue and even if they did they weren't prepared or even taught how to handle these situations, and the influence of the upper-classes were far too great for any significant change.
Thank you for this response. I admit I was biased towards Marie Antoinette and how she was publicity portrayed by her people, but it's true there is alot more to understand about her @@Saffi____
Before photography the monarch of a country would still have been quite recognisable. Their face was on all the coins. To this day in the uk the queens face is on every coin and banknote.
Although in the case of the UK they have not really been updated, I think. That's still a rather young Elizabeth looking back from coins and pound notes. :)
the French Revolution is basically THE blueprint of all the revolution... while the American revolution is the blueprint for all the independence wars...
And cities is where change happens partly because there are just more people but also more people are exposed to new ideas so tend to be more progressive. That may change with modern technology that can reach everyone regardless of location indeed the trend of ever greater concentration of people in cities may reverse. Time will tell.
Because people in rural areas are hard working people that have no time to ''invent'' new political and social structures. But people in cities have more time to think and get many good new ideas, but also some that look good at first glance, but really bad on a long run. I don't like revolutions because people who present themselves as saviors become something that is even worst than old regime. It's better to have many small steps and no bloodshed. Evolution, not revolution.
Yup, you're taking things Waaaay to seriously, there is such a thing in the UK called Gallows humour were things are so bad you cope with it with humour, it doesn't make the acts any less terrible.
Yeah i agree I'm French and I don't find it offensive. We are taught about the revolution in schools and the guillotine, the counter revolutionary uprisings and the atrocities committed against those who did not accept the new regime are not glossed over. However I think humour is one of the best answers to terror and fear. After the attacks on Paris one thing that made me feel better was watching John Oliver openly make fun of what had happened on HBO. Because to me it means life goes on no matter what happens. I can understand why one would feel that way though.
There are some people who have a different perspective, and that's totally okay... in fact, it probably lends to a better understanding of history if you treat terrible and violent periods with the weight and gravitas they observe. Obviously, Oversimplified isn't where you should be going if you have that in mind, but still.
I've been watching alot of Oversimplfied reaction videos lately to see how people from different cultures see the same events, and I have to say that you have the most thoughtful comments out of any of the reactors so far that I have seen. They are called "Oversimplified" for a reason though; its good for an introduction or review of the topic but hardly scratches the surface. Others have recommended the Revolutions podcast for a more in-depth coverage of the FR, and I concur. I'm currently on a re-listen and it really goes into what motivated all the different factions and individals, and the complexity of the conflict, as well as describing the various controveries over facts and interpritations of events in the centuries since.
Thanks so much, and I appreciate the suggestions. I do like Oversimplified, but it can also be a little frustrating if you’re wanting a bit more info, haha.
To address your confusion over King Louis XVI: he didn't want the revolution. He didn't want to lose all his power. But considering that angry mobs were raising heads on pikes, he decided to pretend to go along with it. When he got caught trying to flee for Austria, the people realized that he was just pretending to go along with the revolution, and they felt like he was a traitor for leaving the country just because he didn't like his loss of power.
@@christiandaugherty6339 No, not still a republic, they are on their 5th republic now, with some non-republics sprinkled inbetween. And even today there are still monarchists in France. Especially as the liberal order seems to fail and repeat the mistakes of the kings (just tax the poor)
Since the fall of the Old Regime in 1789, France had 3 monarchies (counting the Old Regime), 2 empires, 5 Republics, 2 Dictatorships, and a communist commune. Each with their own constitutions and political culture. The current regime of France is called the 5th Republic and is in place since 1958. History Matters has a pretty good and short video on that if you want to know the history of France's political system. The Revolution definitely didn't bring a stable democracy and it isn't even the only one we had.
I completely agree with your comments about Oversimplified's treatment of the Terror and the guillotine. Whoever to treat it with the gravity that they deserve would completely be at odds with the tone of the video.
To be fair to the Napoleon (if only he hadn't been so hell-bent on Empire), the common people of France had more liberties and the country was better run under Napoleon than under the proceeding three governments including the Monarchy. In short, he was a very competent ruler, whose legal doctrines still influence Europe (and parts of the US, mostly Louisiana which is the only state without a British "common law" background) to this day. He was very popular in France and had he cut his conquest short, or better yet, just stuck to governing France he almost certainly would have ruled to the end of his days and maybe set up some sort of political or family dynasty if he wanted such a thing -which he probably did since he gave his family control over some of the territories and countries he conquered.
They actually wanted everyone to be beheaded with a sword because that was the method of execution for kings and other nobility while hanging was a peasant's death, but the chief headman of Paris pointed out it was too skilled a profession to be operated on that scale (beheading by sword or axe is actually rather difficult and not something the average man was strong enough for). Hence the guillotine.
Having lost from India to Canada & all the ocean’s in between during the 7 year war. France policy re UK was revenge. This is why it helped US win its revolutionary war against UK. But unfortunately it’s officer’s now knew how overthrow a Monarchy. With heavy taxation to pay for that US assistance,people of France did just that.
One of the reasons it was such a mess was that people that had one declared goal had many different mindsets and interests, and also the king didn't necessarily have to be an awful guy in order to allow such awful conditions, he just needed to have his job and influence on his people out of mind, neglegion on its own right. Will also recommend reaction to "the fallen of WWII" by neal halloran. It is very well done!
Here are a few precisions and corrections about conclusions you had, that I thought good to add, as a french person myself :) 1. Actually, it's not right to make a parallel between royalist/revolutionary regions then and how today rural areas are more conservative, while urban areas are more progressive now. Back then, most of France was rural, only Paris and a few big cities really had a big enough urban area. So the separation between royalist and revolutionary regions was not depending on this. It depended more on how good the peasants had been treated by the church and the nobles in their regions, before the revolutions. Regions where taxes were not too high, and where church had good relations with peasants ended up having more of a anti-revolution feeling. While regions where peasants got overwhelmed by taxes ended up being more pro-revolution. 2. It's not that other countries around France went to war with us in order to support the counter revolutionaries. I mean, they ended up supporting them, because they had the same goal, but they would have gone to war anyway even without them, because they were pretty terrified of the revolution. Back then, ALL countries in europe (except a few small republics) were led by a king, and had a powerful noble and church classes. When US became an indpendant republic, it wasn't felt as as threatening, because it was a pretty distant country and it was not that much powerful, nor relevant, yet. However, when France, that was the one of the most powerful country in Europe (if not the most), "fell" to the revolution, the impact was major. The monarchies, nobility and clergy classes across Europe got scared shitless, that those ideas would spread to their countries, and their peasant population end up doing the same as the french (Actually, I think there was a failed revolution in Germany). So we suffered several coallition wars, each time against most of Europe, because all those countries wanted to defeat the revolution, put back a king on the throne, and restore the french nobility that had escaped. And eventually, after the 7th coallition war, when Napoleon was defeated for good, they did restore monarchy in France (and we ended up carrying yet another revolution against it, later in the 19th century). 3. It's pretty ironic how we went from the idealistic revolutionary ideas to the reign of tyrannic terror, and then back to have an emperor, yes. But, even though Napoleon was a de facto king-like ruler, the ideas of the revolution about ending the class inequality and nobility privileges were still kept. So, most french people nowadays don't perceive Napoleon becoming Emperor like a failure of revolution (even if it kinda is, in some way). He actually brought many legal and adminstrative changes, that had long lasting effects into shaping modern states. But initially, the napoleonic wars were wars to defend the revolution against the rest of Europe, but it became wars of conquest at some point. 4. In France, there is really good opinion about the french revolution (except for a few highly conservative royalist people). There was much violence during this period of time, and we do regard the Reign of Terror has a dark moment, but the global idea is that we feel proud about the sacrifice made by our ancestors to create and protect the republic. Only through such violence would such a huge change happen, we don't shy away from it (doesn't mean we're still the same bloodthirsty psychos tho). Also doesn't mean that we approve of all the unecessary killings and violence that happened., but we don't feel shocked by it, even if we're not proud of the darkest moments of the Revolution period. Globally, there is much pride about the Revolution, and are even kinda thrilled when we are kids in history class, and teachers talk about how we chopped off the head of our king ahahaha! Revolution is for us the time when the people raised against the bullshit, and this mindset has been transmitted to modern french mentality of always being so defiant toward authorities, and always going on strikes, protests, etc... Actually, foreigners probably never noticed, but our national anthem is about the revolution and is extremely violent, the first verse talks about fighting against tyranny, raising the bloody flag, about how the ennemy comes right to our home to slice the throat of our children and wives, calling to take up arms, and spilling the blood of the ennemy to fertilize our fields. Yet, we are not shocked about the lyrics ahahah Sorry for the long comment, hoping to have brought some interesting info :)
I'd add about the Marseillaise that it isn't only violent, but also compassionate to some extent. The line about the lowly ennemy foot soldiers is quite clear about that: "Français, en guerriers magnanimes, "Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors, Portez ou retenez vos coups ! Stay your hands! Épargnez ces tristes victimes, Spare these sad victims À regret s'armant contre nous." Arming themselves against us with regret". Foreign rulers were not only affraid of the ideas spreading by themselves, but of a country actively spreading those ideas, which the french wanted to do. All kings were truly considered tyrants, and their population poor slaves to be liberated.
Point me to an idealistic revolution that didn't end in a reign of terror... and i might think it is ironic. But as it stands, idealistic revolution=reign of terror. Whether the revolutionists win or lose.
King luis didn't really support the revolution he was just trying not to get on the revolutionaries bad side so he doesn't loose his head Also if you tought the french revolution was violent you should check the russian revolution as well its more similar to the french revolution than the american one (after you finish the napolionic wars serie ofc)
The Guillotine.Previous to the French Revolution, similar devices were in use in Scotland, England, and various other European countries, often for the execution of criminals of noble birth. In 1789 a French physician and member of the National Assembly named Joseph-Ignace Guillotin was instrumental in passing a law that required all sentences of death to be carried out by “means of a machine.” This was done so that the privilege of execution by decapitation would no longer be confined to the nobles and the process of execution would be as painless as possible. After the machine had been used in several satisfactory experiments on dead bodies in the hospital of Bicêtre, it was erected on the Place de Grève for the execution of a highwayman on April 25, 1792. At first the machine was called a louisette, or louison, after its inventor, French surgeon and physiologist Antoine Louis, but later it became known as la guillotine.
@@SoGal_YT Well, then...you probably would cringe even harder when you consider that in the 1500s, beheadings were commonly done via swords (or something similar). Which is problematic, considering it wouldn't always go through in one clean slice.
It might sound that the French Revolution went back to where it started but this was not quite the case. The nobles never got their old privileges back and the French subjects/citizens enjoyed certain rights and freedoms they were previously denied. Consequently, the French rose to a rebellion every time they felt these rights were threatened. So from a bastion of the absolute monarchy up to the 18th century, France became the hot spot of revolutionary movement. There are at least two smaller French Revolutions in 1830 and 1848 as well as a big uprising in 1871. The revolution in 1848 actually triggered a chain of revolutions in Europe. Funny thing about Napoleon. His mother tongues were Corsican and Italian. His birthplace was the island of Corsica which was annexed by the French in 1769. He learned French at school. It shows nationalities are quite a flexible thing.
I was out driving in france, didnt really know where i was, stopped at a small town to stretch my legs. Saw there was a big information sign by a bridge so walked over to read it... I was in Varennes... And as a history nerd i found it hilarious that i just happened to stop there.
Actually a little known fact the Marie-Antoinette's quote of , “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche” "Let them eat cake " is incorrect because there is no evidence of her saying this in response to the poor having no bread
Keep in mind, as always, that this is oversimplified. People often greatly exaggerate how much power Robespierre had as an individual. And you need to keep in mind that, for the revolutionaries, there was nothing more dreadful than the idea of an absolute monarchy being reinstalled, since that would mean repression, executions (and probably more cruel forms than the guillotine), and all kinds of other ugly things, as revenge for the revolution. It was believed the moderates were too soft to be able to repel the anti-revolutionaries, so that's why more radical ideas became more popular (and a lot of people supported them, not just Robespierre). And I'm still oversimplifying, here. By the way, interesting fact, Robespierre was against the death penalty. He just had to accept that it had become the capital punishment and rolled with it. Again, while he had some power, he didn't have that much power. The idea that pretty much everything was Robespierre's doing is a myth created by the Thermidorians (who actually weren't all moderates, some were even members of the Committee of Public Safety) so that they could be seen as clean from all the things that happened during the Great Terror (even though, again, some of them contributed to it as members of the Committee of Public Safety). Don't get me wrong, Robespierre was definitely a very influential figure of the Revolution, but as I said, people often exaggerate how much power he actually had as an individual. Plus, it's very easy to misinterpret their reasons, and we need to be mindful of hindsight bias.
There was a set of comedy films in the UK in the 1960s/1970s called Carry-On films. The casts were made up of famous British comedy actors of the time and covered various activities and periods in history. One of them was called Carry-On don't lose your head...based on the French revolution and the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Great fun .I hope it's available in the U.S.
Interesting fact the last use of the guillotine was in 1977 in France and was not outlawed until the 1980s. Currently several US states are looking at bringing it back due to a world wide shortage of chemicals for lethal injection and research papers suggesting that it is the quickest and most painless way of execution other than lethal injection. Currently some states have reintroduce firing squads and have started allowing death row inmates to choose there method of death.
The guillotine wasn’t named after its inventor. Dr. Guillotine merely suggested it as a way to execute people humanely, since there had been many botched executions before. King Louis actually suggested the use of a slanted blade back when he was in charge… on his own head, as it were. But similar devices existed before, such as the Scottish Maiden
Brutus: wants to preserve rome as a republic and not as an empire by killing julius caesar (Accidentally ended the roman republic instead) Charlotte corday: wants to end the violence of the revolution and their hostility towards the church by killing marat (Accidentally makes the revolution became more violent and hostile towards the church instead) Lesson learn, don't kill someone thinking it would change something.
'Qu'ils mangent de la brioche' -' let them eat cake' - the people were starving, Marie Antoinette probably never said this but its gone down in history.
Hello, I just discovered your channel, and I like that your facination with learning more about history is quite prevelant across all your videos. I hope that this channel continues to grow.
Fun fact, the French revolution was the inspiration of the Communist revolution in Russia, the Bolcheviks sang the French national anthem before having their own and Stalin called himself Robespierre and Lenin Danton. :)
Fun fact about guillotines; because it was decided in the constitution that all execution sentences would have to be carried out through guillotines, they stayed in use up until France banned death penalty. So the last such execution took place in... 1977! And last public execution via guillotine took place in 1939 (a recording had been made by somebody among spectactors, one of the reason why public executions had been banned after that; it's somewhere on youtube I'm sure)
King Louis was recognized by the portrait of him on the money. That recognition lead to close questioning and they were found out. The populous were also looking out for his attempted escape due to articles warning of the possibility. Also the Royals didn’t want to look suspicious by running too swiftly, but they may have been too slow also contributing to their capture.
An interesting fact Joseph Guillotin didn't invent the Guillotine in 1789. The British invented it first called the Halifax Gibbet in 1280 and a replica is still on display in the town of Halifax. Which it's named after and is said to be from which Joseph Guillotin copied his design from.
the one who recognized louis XVI was a postmaster at Sainte-Menehould, and was called Drouet. It's funny, because one of the leaders of the yellow vests (2018) was also called Drouet. Some did not fail to draw the parallel...
04:15 : the official Varennes' arrest is this one: the face of the fleeing king was recognized by the postmaster of sainte-menehoud when he compared it to the one printed on an assignat. then he leaded the revolutionnary troop to Varennes.
The french revolution was indeed brutal, but it's hard to imagine today how violent was the society back then. The old monarchy "ancient régime" as we call it could see anybody imprisoned without trial, the royal army would often raid the country to curb dissent in what we call "dragonades" (because it was performed by a cavalry corps called "dragons" ). The violence of the revolution is also to be put in context with the war on all fronts France was waging against all Europeans superpowers of the time. The fear of "internal ennemies" was bolstered by the fear of foreign invasion. Which was justified considering how horrified the ruling elites of Europe with this new king-less regime and how on some occasions rebel armies tried and succeeded to open the country for foreign invasion. Also the oversimplified kinda overshadows some more positive aspects of the revolution : chiefly, strict equality before the law. Some other measures for exemple the legalization of divorce and decriminilaziation of homosexuality were at the time hugely progressive. (especially when we see it's still an issue for some today). The jewish community in France was given citizenship and equal rights with all other citizens at a time when antisemmitism was a widespread norm uphold by the church. The regulation of prices for vital products on the market was a groundbreaking measure to try and insure everybody (almost) could afford to feed themselves (which was far from the norm before the revolution). Rather than being nominated by the king the bishops and judges were now elected by the people. The state seizing all the church and former aristocratic assets to turn them into national property can be seen as either a tragedy or a incredible step toward a more equal society depending on how we consider it, but in the long run it allowed the growth of a bigger middle class, with farmers owning their lands rather than paying rent and taxes to their lord and bishop for it. The anti-church sentiment that brewed during the revolution paved the way in France to the far more accepting secular society we enjoy today, teaching and education freed from religious beliefs greatly benefited science and social progress. Also slavery was briefly abolished which was as far as I know a first in the western world. (though it was shortly after re-instated by Napoléon) Economy wise, the ancient régime enforced harsh monopolies on some vital infrastructure. Things such as a bread ovens or windmills were the property of aristocrats, they taxed their usage and forbade anybody else from building their own. This system was extremely inneficcient since the aristocrats holding the monopoly had no reason to improve said infrastructures. The end of aristocratic priviledges meant that anybody who had the means could build their own. It's just an exemple but all the economy worked that way under an intricate web of aristocratic and clergy monopolies which left very little chance for the commoner to improve it's livelyhood or for technical progress to happen. The Revolution prompted both unprecedented levels of economic liberalism in old Europe and unprecedented levels of state intervention in the economy. It was the end of feudalism and paved the way to the mix we have in western Europe today, between economic liberalism and strong public policies.
4:32 the story goes that a postman recognized the king's face on a coin, then he jumped on a horse to Varennes ahead of them, and organized a blocade to stop the convoy and arrest him.
3:09 Oversimplified literally said that Louis was pretending to support the revolutionaries for his own safety that's why he also showed that photo of Louis' face with the bonnet.
After i saw your reaction to what happened i thought "She must watch Biographics video about Benjamin Franklin.". I think you'll find many surprises there. (At least i did)
Greetings from France ! (sorry I just saw your video) : so just a few points I wanna talk about. Obviously, it's Oversimplified, and it's already a tough task to sum up 10 years of revolution in 30 minutes. So : - The guillotine really was a revolutionary thing : before the revolution, only nobles could be beheaded. With the Guillotine, there's no longer torture (quick death, in a sort of humanist idea) and everybody is at the same scale in the execution (in the idea of the abolition of privileges) - About Robespierre, the debate is still going now. Some see him as a liberator, some see him as a tyran. The fact is that a lot of things Oversimplified told about Robespierre comes from anti-robespierists people, who, after the execution of Robespierre, started to spread propaganda against him. New research about Robespierre and the Terror show that : 1) The Reign of Terror wasn't really proclamed, it's just a random guy is the Convention that said something like this 2) Robespierre wasn't the only guy who had influence on the people : some guys like Hébert were trying to make the people kill more and more people. And so, Danton and Robespierre (and other guys) wanted to "give blood to the people" but just enough to calm them, so they don't want more 3) Robespierre, even if he had an influence, wasn't alone. When he was in the Comittee of Public Safety, he was with 11 other people that weren't all in favor of Robespierre. In fact, there also were moderates (yes, at the head of the state) with influence, even under Robespierre - Also, Oversimplied said that Louis XVI didn't wanted to rule France. In fact, that's false : he was educated in the ideas of monarchy and was absolutely ready and wanted to rule the country. It's an idea created by royalist and revolutionnaries : in the first case, they can say that the king was bad but that we just have to replace him, and in the other case, they can justify to abolish monarchy. There are a lot of things to correct in Oversimplified's videos about the French Revolution, but he quite did a great job to sum up. If you're interested in the French Revolution, the French historian Jean-Clément Martin did some books (I hope they're translated) about the Revolution, the Terror, and about some ideas on Robespierre. I hope I helped you !
The French Revolution is NOT comparable to the American Revolution. The French Revolution's aim is to become a republic, have more equality, and to radicals, remove the monarchy forever. This started due to heavy taxation and unfair laws especially with regards to taxation for the 3rd estate. The American Revolution is about the 13 colonies wanting to get away from the governance of Britain, become truly independent and to become a new nation. This started with the British taxation of teas. Although both were indeed a result of taxation where the populace did not agree, they are not very similar to me. If anything, the French Revolution is more similar to the Russian Revolution.
3:37 legend says that he recognised him on a coin. Thematically I kind of want to recommend "Myths you believe about Marie Antoinette" and "Maria Theresa" (her mom) by Biographics.
The Duke of Brunswick, who warned the French, that they shouldn't kill their king, wasn't a prussian duke like it was said in the video. He was a german one, Brunswick (Braunschweig) being one of the little german countries. It was usually allied to Britain, since the British King was also the prince-elector (Kurfürst) (and duke) of Hannover - Brunswick's greater neighbour.
There are 2 films I'd recommend for you to watch. The first is 'A Tale Of Two Cities' 1958 based on the book by Charles Dickens, a brilliant read. The second film is 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' 1938 version based on the book by Baroness Orczy, who also had a hand in the screenplay. Although both films and books are fictional accounts of Revolutionary France, they do convey a sense of time and place apart from being entertaining as well.
7:19 Contrary to popular belief Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin neither invented, nor was executed by the guillotine. It was named after him, however, as he proposed a less painful method for executions. The misconception likely stems from the fact that by sheer coincidence one J.M.V. Guillotin (who was also a doctor) was executed by the device. The French surgeon and physiologist Antoine Louis, together with German engineer Tobias Schmidt were the ones who built a prototype for the device. Additionally, according to the memoirs of the French executioner Charles-Henri Sanson, King Louis suggested the use of a straight, angled blade instead of a curved one.
Fun fact, the Soviet Battleship Marat was named after the Frzench Revoultionary Marat... 1792 was a turning point, not only France was threatened by other Nations which wanted to restore Divine Rule but the Revolution actually became a civil war... Actually at this point French Revolution was closer to what the Russian Revolution was in 1917... In fact L16th last words were about his dear scientific expedition, Lapérouse expedition who left years earlier on a Worldwide trip through the oceans to copy Cook's for Circumnavigations in one, unfortunately, they had no news apart from De Lesseps report and samples (he came back from Siberia by himself on a cart pulled by dogs, his return trip lasted about a year... The rest of the Expedition went to Botany Bay (Sidney, Australia) and got lost in a storm, the two ships sank beside the island of Vanikoro in the South Pacific and remains were founds decades later and finally really analyed only a decade or two ago... We think some survivors made it to the island but there is no certainty on what they did after it, how long did they stay there? Were they eaten by the locals? Did they try to salvage part of their ships and build a raft to attempt a return trip to Australia? Unfortunately, in the 20th Century, the island was pretty much turned upside down by a woodchopping company with no regards for archeological remains... The only preserved archeological sites are the wrecks where a skeleton was found undr a piece of ships wreckage, protected by it for two centuries, the only body found there... they attempted a recreation of his face from anthropological data and his skull for identification but no certainty emerged from the operation, all that we can be sure of is that it couldn't be a crew member, he wasn't muscled enough for a trained sailor, he must have been a scientist or a surgeon given the toolbox found beside the remains. L16th last words were "and did we hear about Lapérouse lately?" His last ever words were not even for himself, God or his position of power, they were for his scientific expedition... Imagine President Nixon being executed on July 1969, asking if they had news from Armstrong and Apollo 11 mission before being executed... And as for the Guillotine, it was designed to chop cigares... but the design was enlarged for human necks. And ironically the brain remains concious for 20 to 30 seconds after the head if chopped off, that why the executed has his eyed covered so he or she doesn't see him or herself roll over... Every method of execution has a dark side to it. People living far away from decision centered have always been more independant in their decision making because being remote means the power doesn't have an interest in your vicinity so you must do with what you have and do it yourself. Conservatism often goes in pair with autodetermination. No wonder why Australia is so libertarian in there ways of thinking, they always have been the backwater world of the British Empire, first a gigantic goulag of sorts and then a pretty much abandoned part of the Empire, remote from main commercial routes and influence centers. The last big action they saw was WW2... The Terror period is not unlike the Stalinian Purge era, everyone denouncing his neighbour to avoid being sent to the Gulags... As for the financial state of the country, the Revolution created massive inflation with the first bank notes that valued nothing, and led the country into the first modern economic crisis. Napoleon re indexed the money on Gold and pillaged the neighbouring countries for Gold reserves... Gold reserves that were later sent to USA to protect them against the Nazis and the US never gave it back and as of now, don't have it anymore as a matter of fact, they sold it a long time ago. As for Robespierre, he really created a new religion on the Supreme Being cult and we don't really know if he thought of himself as a God or if it was the anti Robespierre propaganda who spread that idea. That being said, he thought of himself as higher than most, that's for sure. Robespierre tried to commit suicide with a gun, but he missed and only injured his neck near the ear instead. So it was an injured Robespierre who was executed. Nelson lost his arm in the Egypt naval battle of Aboukir near Alexandria in 1799. The French fleet was exhausted, half of the men were searching for food on land and the admiral wasn't able to go tow to tow against Nelson whose half squadron daringly went behind the French battleline where they didn't have guns ready to awnser. The battles culminated with the explosion of the French Flag Ship, the Orient, the biggest explosion ever seen or heard at the time when the powder magasines were hit by a raging fire on board. The explosion took one British ship down with it. Other ships were damaged by pieces of the wreckage sent upwards. The explosion was so massive that men were deafened for minutes and the battle stopped while the crews were stunned, it was heards about 20 miles away ! (Nelson thought he would die from his injury but no, he died 6 years later in the battle of Trafalgar, his ultimate triumph against the French Navy) Irony, one of the surviving and uncaptured French ships pursued and sunk the messenger ship sent by Nelson to report his victory to England. And I agree, the French never called their Revolution "The French Civil War" because it doesn't sound cool for the new comers at the powerhouse... But it turned into a civil war indeed. And civil wars are the most ugliest thing you can imagine for a country after a dictatorship and one usually goes with the other, most of the time.
It's called dark humor. Violence and bad things in general have happened throughout history and will continue to happen today. Being able to laugh and make light of such things does not take away the gravity of such events, but it does make it more palatable. So don't begrudge his making light of such situations and feel free to find the humor in it.
"the French revolution should be called the five French revolutions" i mean 1848 and there is the fact that France has had 5 republics cause unlike the US when ever a republic is considred to have stopped functioning the republic is ended a new constitution drawn up and a new republic declared
A fun fact. Beethoven's 3rd symphony was dedicated to Napoleon, Beethoven being a bit of a republican, when Napoleon declared himself emperor, Beethoven was so angry he scratched Napoleon name off the manuscript which can still be seen today.
Fun fact - chips (fries) were sold on the Pont Neuf (bridge) 1780 - Thomas Jefferson loved them so much he introduced them to the USA - ps I cant verify this but I had heard it before
Dr Joseph Ignace Guillotin (not Guillotine) proposed the introduction of the machine that became known as the guillotine. He played no part in its invention. Louis16th (probably apocryphally) is said to have suggested a modification to the design of the blade.
@3:15: Believe it or not, you might have seen the revolutionary bonnet in a popular Saturday morning cartoon of the 1980's. They're called "Phrygian caps", and they're the ones the Smurfs wear.
" I feel the American revolution and the french revolution are parting here" Americans never ask themselves what happened too all the Americans that supported British rule". Even American historians agree that they were a large percentage of the population. So what happened too them?
So basically louis was an overall indecisive man, and because of that he tended to follow the last one who talked, a moment he was supportive, the next he was against the revolution altogether, this was compounded by the fact that he often relied on other for governing. But on a fundamental basis he was against it and did try to leave the country to raise an army to reconquer France later. So in short he's not our worse king(there's been so so much worse), but he's far from the best.
A small aside on "La Guillotine" it was not invented by Joseph-Ignace Guillotine (he hated that it bore his name) he was a doctor and politician in 1789 he suggested to the National Assembly a new code of equality for punishments (same punishment for the same crime), Before aristocrats were beheaded but the poor were torn apart and their bodies hung up to rot. In 1791 the Procureur Général issued a tender for a method of efficient and humane execution, the executioner with an axe often took several attempts! Initially there was no interest but eventually a Prussian Monsieur Laquiante designed the guillotine and it was built by Tobias Schmidt, another Prussian, a harpsichord maker. The prototype was erected in La Place de la Grève and tested on sheep and bodies from the nearby old peoples home! In April 1792 Nicholas-Jacques Pelletier became the first to be guillotined. So the iconic French guillotine symbol of the revolution was in fact Prussian.
One thing I think it's rather important, is that the french revolution, or rather watching the french revolution was the inspiration for the British conservadorism which was all about being careful with change, change was needed but as one book I read once said(can't recall which book) "To fix a leak on your roof you shouldn't be setting your house on fire." Seeing how the revolution went that's understandable, no one want to deny Freedom, Equality or Fraternity, but without being extremely careful well...
There were no passports at that time but people carried letters of introduction written by people in power of authority like the local mayor or governor of a region for businessmen or large land owners. Statues of monarchy would be in all major cities and on the coins used daily by the general population so everyone would know what the king or queen looked like!!
1784: Adam Weishaupt issues his order for the French Revolution to be started by by Maximilien Robespierre in book form. This book was written by one of Weishaupt's associates, Xavier Zwack, and sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However en route there, the courier is struck by lightning, the book detailing this plan discovered by the police, and handed over to the Bavarian authorities. 1786: The Bavarian government publish the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, "The Original Writings of The Order and Sect of The Illuminati." They then send this document to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, but sadly their warning is ignored.
This is Barris has a great series on Maximilien Robespierre. It touches on a lot of the same things here but in greater depth and in a very dramatic way opposed to the more comedic tone of Oversimplified.
you have to consider where your points were valid that you seen similarities to the French revolution and the American revolution, the British(and Spanish and French and Dutch) had to sail across the Atlantic Ocean to supply and reinforce their troops back in the 1700s. when Americas revolution succeeded, they were the top superpower on the American continent rivaled only by Mexico and at the time British Canada. where as the French after their revolution succeeded were surrounded by established long reining monarchs who hated their ideology. that being said I think I could understand where the extremism comes from.(not that i agree with the terror. the terror was awful, and Robes. P. was a maniac.)
He did show up in toga to try to emulate Moses coming down from Mount Sinai. One person shouted "it was not enough for him to be master, he had to be God".
The King WAS recognised by a passer-by, but the whole escape-plan as a disaster. Louis was a weak king, who basically tried to keep everyone happy - as usually happens, this pleased no-one. Dr Guillotin (note, no E) was said to have been annoyed that his instrument was feminised. He invented it after seeing a beheading where the victim needed multiple strokes, and was in agony the whole time. It's ironic that a device intended to reduce suffering became a symbol of terror. Most European states at the time were monarchies, France had not only deposed (and killed) its King, but was telling everyone who'd listen (or couldn't get out of the way) that this was the way forward. Unsurprisingly, other monarchs found this a little upsetting. There's no way to sugar-coat the Reign of Terror, and your comparison with the Soviets and the Nazis are closer than you know. One Austrian General dismissed the French army in Italy as having, "No cavalry, no artillery, and no boots!" Two weeks later, they'd chased him to the gates of Vienna.
The act that of the king was executed is almost a perfect replica Normally the person that would get executed would be able to hold a speech and this was viewed as dishonnerable between the french peasants as some were afraid that the system would go back to the old ways , out of respect or just compassion towards the king (wich would be executed if you were talking about it) this was the reason why the queen was later executed
Recognising the king. Yes they had passports, really handwritten permissions rather than neat little books. The king was recognised by a postmaster's son, M. Drouet, a keen revolutionary, who thought he looked like the king's image from a banknote, while he was inspecting their papers. He let them go, then had second thoughts and rode off to organise a blockade at the next village. When they caught the party a judge was called who knew the king. This chap fell to his knees saying ' indeed sire, you are my king.' He probably said it in French. I suspect Louis was miffed.
Follow me on social media for a behind-the-scenes look at my learning journey:
Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
Also like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻
I remembered. Please watch the video "Khrushchev in the USA in 1959" or better "Khrushchev in Hollywood" - I liked it better.
The fact is that Khrushchev visited Los Angeles in 1959 and performed in Hollywood - this is the very video that tells not about the enmity of the two superpowers, but about general trends, watch it for sure!
I'm really looking forward to it. I personally will be the first to see your reaction to this video, as I am interested in how you will comment on this video.
And if you're going to make a reaction, please make the video longer...
The French revolution with the Russian revolution was very similar in terms of violence. and secondly yes it ends with a dictator
Most people knew how their monarchs look (kinda) because of coins.
That's right that's exactly how the king is said to have been recognized thanks to a gold coin called a "Louis d'or" with the king's face on it.
So basically his vanity was his downfall.
@@carlhartwell7978 At this point in history, coins with monarchs were used for so long, that i can't put that one on King Louis lol
@@Denis-Maldonado I guess you're right, and of course it's still the case! Still, I thought it was still funny, though pithy.
@@carlhartwell7978 not only the coin but now thinking of it probably the disguise itself was a sus. Like the checkpoint guy prob got confused why 2 servants would leave France as prob all servants and lower classes were too poor to travel and prob werent even allowed to do so
He didn't support the revolution. He supported not being executed.
Napoleon ? He actually did support it a lot, it’s what allowed him to rise as a general
@@fredbarker9201 I think he meant King Louis
@@bm9727 yeah that makes more sense😂
To some extent, he did support the revolution. Not in it's actual form, sure, but he was a reformist. The main problem came from the church and nobility, who were completely opposed to any attempts at a reformation. Louis' mistake was his lack of absolutism in the situation. It may sound weird, but he should have used absolute power to give freedom. The issue with that is that he was a genuinely nice dude and didn't like conflict. He wanted everyone to be pleased. And he completely hated his position as king. The guy liked nothing more than spending the day with scientists, blacksmiths, farmers... He even spent afternoons with roofers working on maintenance of the palace like a blue collar.
BTW, most common french people didn't want him to be executed. Only the far leftists leaders.
Passport were in the era of French Revolution. But the king of France get caught by a coin
not only the coin, Someone who lived at that time in Varennes worked years before in the Palace of Versailles, he confirmed the identity.
@@olivierdk2 Thank For The Details
well he was caught by a postmaster, maybe he recognised him from the stamps. yes its a joke i know the king wasn't on stamps at the time
"This isn't going the way I thought it would" French Revolution in one sentence.
true. But to be fair, the French nobility was awful (as mentioned in the video).
So the resentment for the Brits in the US was pale in comparison to the resentment the French peasantry felt about their nobility.
And finally - without sounding like a snob - the American revolution was organized by the bourgeoisie of the country (albeit slave owners). Not by the bottom of society.
Napoleon led to some major events in world history including the formation of Germany, independence of the Spanish American colonies, independence of Brazil, the war of 1812 between America and Britain. And the spreading of enlightenment values all over Europe and even the finding of the Rosetta stone.
Yeah. napoleon iii kind of just sat and let Germany form.
Yep, Napoleon I dissolved the HRE and fostered German nationalism. The north German confederation is then formed. A few wars and a speech by Bismarck later the German Empire formed and Napoleon III lost power after losing to Prussia therefore allowing Germany to form, staring a resentment that would help lead to the first world war.
@@chill-lady-brook At least Napoleon III gave us the Paris of today with its trademark houses giving Paris that feeling of, well Paris.
It is also partly responsible, by the propagation of the Revolution, for the spring of the peoples and basically almost all the European revolutions of the 19th century.
Word!
The current France is on it's Fifth Republic. History Matters has a funny short documentary on that.
Yeah, and it took us at least a century to figure out that we actually kinda like Republics to begin with: between 1789 and 1889 in France we have, after the 3+ political regimes of the Revolution: Napoleon's Consulate, 1st Empire, Borbon Restoration (constitutional monarchy), July Monarchy (constitutional monarchy 2.0), Second Republic, 2nd Empire (under Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte aka Napoleon the Third, nephew of the original), Third Republic (wich for 10 years looked like a provisional regime pending monarchical Restauration)... It was not before 1880's that we decided to finally stick with the Republic!
I feel like when comparing the French revolutions to the American one it's really important to note the serious distinctions. The colonies were not seeking to topple the monarchy and those who supported it in general, just separate themselves from it. With that, you still saw people go out of their way to imprison, torture, and even kill British loyalists. That being said, by virtue of the distance, and the fact that most colonists really didn't have any strong ties to Britain anymore, it was a lot easier to keep clean and avoid wanton death and human suffering. The French revolutionaries had a mountain of things stacked against them. Historically the monarchy held supreme power, and no one in Europe had come close to challenging that authority up to this point, no matter how unreasonable or unfair they had been treated. On top of that, as a result of the caste system, no one from the working class had experienced any sort of ruling power, and thus understandably didn't know how to manage it once they had it. Unfortunate as it is, it makes a lot of sense that the French revolutionary struggles were as bloody as they were.
Actually, the English civil war and the Dutch republic were examples where the lower classes had influence in governing the country, so the French revolutionaries had some nearby examples to inspire them (especially the moderates, who originally wanted a constitutional monarchy, similar to the British).
American revolutionary writing, like common sense, turned the American revolution from merely getting the king to lessen taxes to the idea that monarchy is inherently a terrible system of government. The federalists werent interested in getting involved in the french revolution, but Thomas Jefferson greatly supported the french revolution of the rise of the french revolution, but he was sidelined as John Adams and the federalists pursued neutrality, and by the time he was president Napoleon had already ended the republic.
@@Sabersquirl can’t blame John adams if they got involve it would have end it badly
5:44, King Louis was gradually losing control of the country, but was pretending to be ok with the revolution to not give his people the excuse to depose him. I had a chance to read up about this, ultimately he tried to leave because Louis felt his appeasement tactics were failing and if he could get military support from his allies like Austria, he could put down the revolution and get his power back. This is why his subjects were calling him a traitor when he got caught trying to flee.
Irony calling the king a traitor when they are the ones rebelling against their government... by Louis' standard they were the traitors.
@@Fordo007 To be very fair, there is a strand of political philosophy (and its often practical as well ) that Rulers only derive their 'right to rule' if they nourish and support their people. "Divine Right of Kings" was falling out of favor. Certainly at BEST, Lous was inept, at worst he was uncaring. In short, he failed his 'duties' as a King. And for a practical matter, so long as the common people's bellies are full and they are kept otherwise happy or busy the "King" (or whatever ruling class) can get away with alot, but the French people were tired of not only being oppressed but being oppressed and starved was the final straw and who could freaking blame them?
@@Fordo007 What else would you call someone fleeing to foreign lands in order to wage war on his own country and people ? Citizen Louis had a chance to remain in power , but he constantly vetoed every single piece of legislation , raising anger towards him
@@Fordo007 Im late to the party but the first reason he was called a traitor was because he wanted to go to Austria and organise a literal invasion of the country sided by a foreign power. And that is straight up treason.
The French Revolution is more similar to the Russian Revolution than the American one.
the people involved are really alike
Nicolas II: Louis 16
Alix: Marie-Antoinette
Alexis:louis 17
Lenine:Robespierre
Staline:Napeoleon
Trotski:Danton
@@mercored2000 One Difference: Lenin and Trotski were Friends for Life and Robbespierre hanged Danton
Couldn‘t agree more
@@bookhills2704 "Robbespierre hanged Danton" more like guillotined (dunno if it's a verb in english, though it is one in french ^^)
Vladimir Ilitch Lénine studied the revolution while staying in France in vendée
Both the King and Marie were actually pretty chill about the whole thing and Marie had even tried to help the people, but just didn't have much influence in France to do a whole lot so her efforts were largely lost in all the bad publicity and propaganda. However there was also a massive scandal going on at the time, that the royal family had nothing to do with, but had been implicated in by a scam artist that massively soured the people's opinions of them.
The countries around France were all monarchies and the church played a political role.
When such dramatic changes suddenly happen in France, the princes and kings are afraid that the same will happen in their countries. Napoloen then became an important factor for the surrounding countries. Watch out Napoloen!
France went through more of a revolution than the USA. The USA never had to overthrow and replace a government, they just had to fight a war against a foreign power. It’s more a war of independence. It’s different when your enemy lives on the other side of town compared to an ocean. France is closer to the pattern of actual revolutions than the Americans
Yup, hence the violence. France had to fight internal ennemies and political indecisiveness (after a milenia of a set system) on all sides and protect itself from some of the most powerful western countries of the time. Civil unrest being a bit more dangerous than a peaceful protest with the occasional birck in a window at the time, violence was a necessary evil for a gvt to preserve itself and the country.
Agreed. Civil war can be far more bitter and bloody than overthrowing a foreign occupation or a colonial master and tends to produce unrest that has effects for generations. The French revolution and Russian Revolution both had a number of stages with putches, counter movements and violent destructions of entire classes (nobility and church) and later purges of counter revolutionaries. Raising a mob and controlling it are two very different things a lot depends on how united the aims of the uprising are and on the quality of the new leaders that emerge. Rebels tend to agree only on what they are fighting against - rarely on what they are fighting for.
@@nicka3697 Extremely well put.
The American Revolution (or War of Independence, which many would say is more accurate) was also a civil war, it split 'Americans'.
@@starrynight1657 true but not to the extent of what France went trough. Between 15 and 20% of "americans" were loyalists, but in the end they retained their rights post-war, and it was still a situation of being thousands of miles away from the power that should have held things together. The king was an idea more than an actual power. France had a more physical connection to a monarchic system. The political currents that emerge from that are wildly different.
4:06 the reason why they were recognized was because a former worker of the palace of Versailles lived in Varennes since a few years. He's the one who recognized them and confirmed their identity. There was also another anomaly : they were in a coach rather than a "malle poste" who was used by the common people ( like the ones they were pretending to be ).
The first ID system was implemented later during the revolution, and its still in use as national identity card ( individuals are voters once they reach 18 years old, not when they can drive a car like in the US ).
King Louis wasn’t a bad person, he actually had some sympathy unlike his wife who spent her life in luxury, but he was out-of-touch with his subjects and easily swayed by his people, which ultimately made him look weak.
If not for his own indecisiveness he would’ve perhaps escaped to the Austrian Netherlands..and potentially change history again if he was able to crush the rebellion from abroad and restore the Kingdom of France.
Marie Antoinette was actually in a similar position to her husband. Also her luxurious life isn't as fancy as people think, apparently she actually enjoyed wearing more common clothes which found her ridiculed by the upper-class, which forced her to wear more fancy clothing to appease them, however, it ended with her being ridiculed by the lower classes.
The little village she had built was a little test of hers to understand how the lower-class lived. And she did try to push for some reforms, usually through her husband, but it all failed as the upper-class had a lot more influence. It also didn't help that she was young, female, and an Austrian.
She did care, it's just that like her husband they couldn't truly understand the issue and even if they did they weren't prepared or even taught how to handle these situations, and the influence of the upper-classes were far too great for any significant change.
Thank you for this response. I admit I was biased towards Marie Antoinette and how she was publicity portrayed by her people, but it's true there is alot more to understand about her @@Saffi____
Before photography the monarch of a country would still have been quite recognisable. Their face was on all the coins.
To this day in the uk the queens face is on every coin and banknote.
Although in the case of the UK they have not really been updated, I think. That's still a rather young Elizabeth looking back from coins and pound notes. :)
@@haraldschuster3067 to be fair nobody expected her to live for so F long
There is a reason why out of 5 Republics in France, the first one is referred to as the "fun" one
"This did not go the way i expected" famous last words of many revolutionaires!
The French Revolution & Russian Revolution had a lot in common.
the French Revolution is basically THE blueprint of all the revolution...
while the American revolution is the blueprint for all the independence wars...
Most countries have a rural/urban devide caused by the fact the two are so different in lifestyle
And cities is where change happens partly because there are just more people but also more people are exposed to new ideas so tend to be more progressive. That may change with modern technology that can reach everyone regardless of location indeed the trend of ever greater concentration of people in cities may reverse. Time will tell.
Because people in rural areas are hard working people that have no time to ''invent'' new political and social structures. But people in cities have more time to think and get many good new ideas, but also some that look good at first glance, but really bad on a long run.
I don't like revolutions because people who present themselves as saviors become something that is even worst than old regime. It's better to have many small steps and no bloodshed. Evolution, not revolution.
Different education too.
Yup, you're taking things Waaaay to seriously, there is such a thing in the UK called Gallows humour were things are so bad you cope with it with humour, it doesn't make the acts any less terrible.
Yeah i agree I'm French and I don't find it offensive. We are taught about the revolution in schools and the guillotine, the counter revolutionary uprisings and the atrocities committed against those who did not accept the new regime are not glossed over. However I think humour is one of the best answers to terror and fear. After the attacks on Paris one thing that made me feel better was watching John Oliver openly make fun of what had happened on HBO. Because to me it means life goes on no matter what happens. I can understand why one would feel that way though.
There are some people who have a different perspective, and that's totally okay... in fact, it probably lends to a better understanding of history if you treat terrible and violent periods with the weight and gravitas they observe. Obviously, Oversimplified isn't where you should be going if you have that in mind, but still.
As another French, I don't find anything funny about this part of our history.
My sense of humor has its limits.
I prefer Jim Carrey.
@@guiguijol While I agree that the terror is not funny neither is Jim Carrey
@@private9173 😂 I pick the only one I know...
"French can't figure this out" --> literally the best commentary on 200 years of French history.
I've been watching alot of Oversimplfied reaction videos lately to see how people from different cultures see the same events, and I have to say that you have the most thoughtful comments out of any of the reactors so far that I have seen. They are called "Oversimplified" for a reason though; its good for an introduction or review of the topic but hardly scratches the surface. Others have recommended the Revolutions podcast for a more in-depth coverage of the FR, and I concur. I'm currently on a re-listen and it really goes into what motivated all the different factions and individals, and the complexity of the conflict, as well as describing the various controveries over facts and interpritations of events in the centuries since.
Thanks so much, and I appreciate the suggestions. I do like Oversimplified, but it can also be a little frustrating if you’re wanting a bit more info, haha.
Napoleon is still very popular here in France. I’m very proud that Napoleon was our Emperor !
basé le kaiser
Why? Killed millions of people across Europe.
To address your confusion over King Louis XVI: he didn't want the revolution. He didn't want to lose all his power. But considering that angry mobs were raising heads on pikes, he decided to pretend to go along with it. When he got caught trying to flee for Austria, the people realized that he was just pretending to go along with the revolution, and they felt like he was a traitor for leaving the country just because he didn't like his loss of power.
When you see protestors in the US with mock Guillotines:
'You do know how that ended right?'
France still guillotined people until the late 1970s. And France is still a republic, so I'd say it worked quite well.
@@christiandaugherty6339 No, not still a republic, they are on their 5th republic now, with some non-republics sprinkled inbetween. And even today there are still monarchists in France. Especially as the liberal order seems to fail and repeat the mistakes of the kings (just tax the poor)
Since the fall of the Old Regime in 1789, France had 3 monarchies (counting the Old Regime), 2 empires, 5 Republics, 2 Dictatorships, and a communist commune. Each with their own constitutions and political culture. The current regime of France is called the 5th Republic and is in place since 1958.
History Matters has a pretty good and short video on that if you want to know the history of France's political system. The Revolution definitely didn't bring a stable democracy and it isn't even the only one we had.
I completely agree with your comments about Oversimplified's treatment of the Terror and the guillotine. Whoever to treat it with the gravity that they deserve would completely be at odds with the tone of the video.
To be fair to the Napoleon (if only he hadn't been so hell-bent on Empire), the common people of France had more liberties and the country was better run under Napoleon than under the proceeding three governments including the Monarchy. In short, he was a very competent ruler, whose legal doctrines still influence Europe (and parts of the US, mostly Louisiana which is the only state without a British "common law" background) to this day. He was very popular in France and had he cut his conquest short, or better yet, just stuck to governing France he almost certainly would have ruled to the end of his days and maybe set up some sort of political or family dynasty if he wanted such a thing -which he probably did since he gave his family control over some of the territories and countries he conquered.
They actually wanted everyone to be beheaded with a sword because that was the method of execution for kings and other nobility while hanging was a peasant's death, but the chief headman of Paris pointed out it was too skilled a profession to be operated on that scale (beheading by sword or axe is actually rather difficult and not something the average man was strong enough for). Hence the guillotine.
Having lost from India to Canada & all the ocean’s in between during the 7 year war.
France policy re UK was revenge.
This is why it helped US win its revolutionary war against UK.
But unfortunately it’s officer’s now knew how overthrow a Monarchy.
With heavy taxation to pay for that US assistance,people of France did just that.
One of the reasons it was such a mess was that people that had one declared goal had many different mindsets and interests, and also the king didn't necessarily have to be an awful guy in order to allow such awful conditions, he just needed to have his job and influence on his people out of mind, neglegion on its own right.
Will also recommend reaction to "the fallen of WWII" by neal halloran. It is very well done!
Here are a few precisions and corrections about conclusions you had, that I thought good to add, as a french person myself :)
1. Actually, it's not right to make a parallel between royalist/revolutionary regions then and how today rural areas are more conservative, while urban areas are more progressive now. Back then, most of France was rural, only Paris and a few big cities really had a big enough urban area. So the separation between royalist and revolutionary regions was not depending on this. It depended more on how good the peasants had been treated by the church and the nobles in their regions, before the revolutions. Regions where taxes were not too high, and where church had good relations with peasants ended up having more of a anti-revolution feeling. While regions where peasants got overwhelmed by taxes ended up being more pro-revolution.
2. It's not that other countries around France went to war with us in order to support the counter revolutionaries. I mean, they ended up supporting them, because they had the same goal, but they would have gone to war anyway even without them, because they were pretty terrified of the revolution. Back then, ALL countries in europe (except a few small republics) were led by a king, and had a powerful noble and church classes. When US became an indpendant republic, it wasn't felt as as threatening, because it was a pretty distant country and it was not that much powerful, nor relevant, yet. However, when France, that was the one of the most powerful country in Europe (if not the most), "fell" to the revolution, the impact was major. The monarchies, nobility and clergy classes across Europe got scared shitless, that those ideas would spread to their countries, and their peasant population end up doing the same as the french (Actually, I think there was a failed revolution in Germany). So we suffered several coallition wars, each time against most of Europe, because all those countries wanted to defeat the revolution, put back a king on the throne, and restore the french nobility that had escaped. And eventually, after the 7th coallition war, when Napoleon was defeated for good, they did restore monarchy in France (and we ended up carrying yet another revolution against it, later in the 19th century).
3. It's pretty ironic how we went from the idealistic revolutionary ideas to the reign of tyrannic terror, and then back to have an emperor, yes. But, even though Napoleon was a de facto king-like ruler, the ideas of the revolution about ending the class inequality and nobility privileges were still kept. So, most french people nowadays don't perceive Napoleon becoming Emperor like a failure of revolution (even if it kinda is, in some way). He actually brought many legal and adminstrative changes, that had long lasting effects into shaping modern states. But initially, the napoleonic wars were wars to defend the revolution against the rest of Europe, but it became wars of conquest at some point.
4. In France, there is really good opinion about the french revolution (except for a few highly conservative royalist people). There was much violence during this period of time, and we do regard the Reign of Terror has a dark moment, but the global idea is that we feel proud about the sacrifice made by our ancestors to create and protect the republic. Only through such violence would such a huge change happen, we don't shy away from it (doesn't mean we're still the same bloodthirsty psychos tho). Also doesn't mean that we approve of all the unecessary killings and violence that happened., but we don't feel shocked by it, even if we're not proud of the darkest moments of the Revolution period. Globally, there is much pride about the Revolution, and are even kinda thrilled when we are kids in history class, and teachers talk about how we chopped off the head of our king ahahaha! Revolution is for us the time when the people raised against the bullshit, and this mindset has been transmitted to modern french mentality of always being so defiant toward authorities, and always going on strikes, protests, etc...
Actually, foreigners probably never noticed, but our national anthem is about the revolution and is extremely violent, the first verse talks about fighting against tyranny, raising the bloody flag, about how the ennemy comes right to our home to slice the throat of our children and wives, calling to take up arms, and spilling the blood of the ennemy to fertilize our fields. Yet, we are not shocked about the lyrics ahahah
Sorry for the long comment, hoping to have brought some interesting info :)
I'd add about the Marseillaise that it isn't only violent, but also compassionate to some extent. The line about the lowly ennemy foot soldiers is quite clear about that:
"Français, en guerriers magnanimes,
"Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors,
Portez ou retenez vos coups ! Stay your hands!
Épargnez ces tristes victimes, Spare these sad victims
À regret s'armant contre nous." Arming themselves against us with regret".
Foreign rulers were not only affraid of the ideas spreading by themselves, but of a country actively spreading those ideas, which the french wanted to do. All kings were truly considered tyrants, and their population poor slaves to be liberated.
Point me to an idealistic revolution that didn't end in a reign of terror... and i might think it is ironic. But as it stands, idealistic revolution=reign of terror. Whether the revolutionists win or lose.
King luis didn't really support the revolution he was just trying not to get on the revolutionaries bad side so he doesn't loose his head
Also if you tought the french revolution was violent you should check the russian revolution as well its more similar to the french revolution than the american one (after you finish the napolionic wars serie ofc)
Thanks for the heads up about the Russian Revolution! It's on my list of things to learn about.
The Guillotine.Previous to the French Revolution, similar devices were in use in Scotland, England, and various other European countries, often for the execution of criminals of noble birth. In 1789 a French physician and member of the National Assembly named Joseph-Ignace Guillotin was instrumental in passing a law that required all sentences of death to be carried out by “means of a machine.” This was done so that the privilege of execution by decapitation would no longer be confined to the nobles and the process of execution would be as painless as possible. After the machine had been used in several satisfactory experiments on dead bodies in the hospital of Bicêtre, it was erected on the Place de Grève for the execution of a highwayman on April 25, 1792. At first the machine was called a louisette, or louison, after its inventor, French surgeon and physiologist Antoine Louis, but later it became known as la guillotine.
Thanks for the info, but I almost gagged reading this. I don't handle this form of punishment too well 🥴
@@SoGal_YT - Well it was quite more humane than the other ways of execution and the last execution by guillotine in France was in 1977
@@SoGal_YT Well, then...you probably would cringe even harder when you consider that in the 1500s, beheadings were commonly done via swords (or something similar). Which is problematic, considering it wouldn't always go through in one clean slice.
There was a Yorkshire machine used in 1286 so beheading apparatus go back quite far.
It might sound that the French Revolution went back to where it started but this was not quite the case. The nobles never got their old privileges back and the French subjects/citizens enjoyed certain rights and freedoms they were previously denied. Consequently, the French rose to a rebellion every time they felt these rights were threatened. So from a bastion of the absolute monarchy up to the 18th century, France became the hot spot of revolutionary movement. There are at least two smaller French Revolutions in 1830 and 1848 as well as a big uprising in 1871. The revolution in 1848 actually triggered a chain of revolutions in Europe.
Funny thing about Napoleon. His mother tongues were Corsican and Italian. His birthplace was the island of Corsica which was annexed by the French in 1769. He learned French at school. It shows nationalities are quite a flexible thing.
I was out driving in france, didnt really know where i was, stopped at a small town to stretch my legs. Saw there was a big information sign by a bridge so walked over to read it... I was in Varennes... And as a history nerd i found it hilarious that i just happened to stop there.
Very excited for you to continue Epic History’s Napoleon series. Some of the best historical videos I’ve ever seen on here.
Actually a little known fact the Marie-Antoinette's quote of , “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche” "Let them eat cake " is incorrect because there is no evidence of her saying this in response to the poor having no bread
Keep in mind, as always, that this is oversimplified. People often greatly exaggerate how much power Robespierre had as an individual. And you need to keep in mind that, for the revolutionaries, there was nothing more dreadful than the idea of an absolute monarchy being reinstalled, since that would mean repression, executions (and probably more cruel forms than the guillotine), and all kinds of other ugly things, as revenge for the revolution. It was believed the moderates were too soft to be able to repel the anti-revolutionaries, so that's why more radical ideas became more popular (and a lot of people supported them, not just Robespierre). And I'm still oversimplifying, here.
By the way, interesting fact, Robespierre was against the death penalty. He just had to accept that it had become the capital punishment and rolled with it. Again, while he had some power, he didn't have that much power.
The idea that pretty much everything was Robespierre's doing is a myth created by the Thermidorians (who actually weren't all moderates, some were even members of the Committee of Public Safety) so that they could be seen as clean from all the things that happened during the Great Terror (even though, again, some of them contributed to it as members of the Committee of Public Safety).
Don't get me wrong, Robespierre was definitely a very influential figure of the Revolution, but as I said, people often exaggerate how much power he actually had as an individual. Plus, it's very easy to misinterpret their reasons, and we need to be mindful of hindsight bias.
There was a set of comedy films in the UK in the 1960s/1970s called Carry-On films. The casts were made up of famous British comedy actors of the time and covered various activities and periods in history. One of them was called Carry-On don't lose your head...based on the French revolution and the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Great fun .I hope it's available in the U.S.
sadly, britians brief experiment wit a `republic` ended in tears too , when cromwell became a dictator. As am sure the irish will remind you....
The Irish will remind you of everything - except taking lands from American Indians.
@@zaftra And shitting on Black people to appear "White"
@Weebo DX That's actually true, I've seen the comments.
@Weebo DX
Those types will also have no grasp that there is any difference between "historical evidence" and "stuff that was in Braveheart."
The Republic ended in a constitutional monarchy that's lasted for centuries, rather better than the mess left for so long in France.
Interesting fact the last use of the guillotine was in 1977 in France and was not outlawed until the 1980s. Currently several US states are looking at bringing it back due to a world wide shortage of chemicals for lethal injection and research papers suggesting that it is the quickest and most painless way of execution other than lethal injection.
Currently some states have reintroduce firing squads and have started allowing death row inmates to choose there method of death.
The guillotine wasn’t named after its inventor. Dr. Guillotine merely suggested it as a way to execute people humanely, since there had been many botched executions before. King Louis actually suggested the use of a slanted blade back when he was in charge… on his own head, as it were.
But similar devices existed before, such as the Scottish Maiden
Brutus: wants to preserve rome as a republic and not as an empire by killing julius caesar
(Accidentally ended the roman republic instead)
Charlotte corday: wants to end the violence of the revolution and their hostility towards the church by killing marat
(Accidentally makes the revolution became more violent and hostile towards the church instead)
Lesson learn, don't kill someone thinking it would change something.
'Qu'ils mangent de la brioche' -' let them eat cake' - the people were starving, Marie Antoinette probably never said this but its gone down in history.
25:32 Your reaction is just priceless right here. Simply priceless. XD
Oversimplified Henry the 8th is my absolute favourite. You should watch that next
While I appreciate this episode as much as you do, I suspect she'd just gag even harder at the wife beheadings.
Oh come on there were only two. And no animal cruelty. :)
The French Revolutionary Calander, when France tried to measure *everything* with the metric system
I think we should bring back that calendar.
Hello, I just discovered your channel, and I like that your facination with learning more about history is quite prevelant across all your videos. I hope that this channel continues to grow.
Thanks, Tomas! That was the entire reason for me starting this channel - to learn :)
American author Caroline Weber's book - Queen of Fashion - what Marie Antoinette wore to the revolution, is a good read.
I like that you had "This Joint is Jumpin'" playing in the background during your intro.
If you listen to podcasts, Revolutions is one of the best. Highly recommend it. It has a good section on the French Revolution.
Fun fact, the French revolution was the inspiration of the Communist revolution in Russia, the Bolcheviks sang the French national anthem before having their own and Stalin called himself Robespierre and Lenin Danton. :)
Fun fact about guillotines; because it was decided in the constitution that all execution sentences would have to be carried out through guillotines, they stayed in use up until France banned death penalty. So the last such execution took place in... 1977! And last public execution via guillotine took place in 1939 (a recording had been made by somebody among spectactors, one of the reason why public executions had been banned after that; it's somewhere on youtube I'm sure)
King Louis was recognized by the portrait of him on the money. That recognition lead to close questioning and they were found out. The populous were also looking out for his attempted escape due to articles warning of the possibility. Also the Royals didn’t want to look suspicious by running too swiftly, but they may have been too slow also contributing to their capture.
An interesting fact Joseph Guillotin didn't invent the Guillotine in 1789. The British invented it first called the Halifax Gibbet in 1280 and a replica is still on display in the town of Halifax. Which it's named after and is said to be from which Joseph Guillotin copied his design from.
the one who recognized louis XVI was a postmaster at Sainte-Menehould, and was called Drouet. It's funny, because one of the leaders of the yellow vests (2018) was also called Drouet. Some did not fail to draw the parallel...
04:15 : the official Varennes' arrest is this one:
the face of the fleeing king was recognized by the postmaster of sainte-menehoud when he compared it to the one printed on an assignat.
then he leaded the revolutionnary troop to Varennes.
The french revolution was indeed brutal, but it's hard to imagine today how violent was the society back then.
The old monarchy "ancient régime" as we call it could see anybody imprisoned without trial, the royal army would often raid the country to curb dissent in what we call "dragonades" (because it was performed by a cavalry corps called "dragons" ). The violence of the revolution is also to be put in context with the war on all fronts France was waging against all Europeans superpowers of the time. The fear of "internal ennemies" was bolstered by the fear of foreign invasion. Which was justified considering how horrified the ruling elites of Europe with this new king-less regime and how on some occasions rebel armies tried and succeeded to open the country for foreign invasion.
Also the oversimplified kinda overshadows some more positive aspects of the revolution : chiefly, strict equality before the law. Some other measures for exemple the legalization of divorce and decriminilaziation of homosexuality were at the time hugely progressive. (especially when we see it's still an issue for some today). The jewish community in France was given citizenship and equal rights with all other citizens at a time when antisemmitism was a widespread norm uphold by the church.
The regulation of prices for vital products on the market was a groundbreaking measure to try and insure everybody (almost) could afford to feed themselves (which was far from the norm before the revolution).
Rather than being nominated by the king the bishops and judges were now elected by the people.
The state seizing all the church and former aristocratic assets to turn them into national property can be seen as either a tragedy or a incredible step toward a more equal society depending on how we consider it, but in the long run it allowed the growth of a bigger middle class, with farmers owning their lands rather than paying rent and taxes to their lord and bishop for it. The anti-church sentiment that brewed during the revolution paved the way in France to the far more accepting secular society we enjoy today, teaching and education freed from religious beliefs greatly benefited science and social progress.
Also slavery was briefly abolished which was as far as I know a first in the western world. (though it was shortly after re-instated by Napoléon)
Economy wise, the ancient régime enforced harsh monopolies on some vital infrastructure. Things such as a bread ovens or windmills were the property of aristocrats, they taxed their usage and forbade anybody else from building their own. This system was extremely inneficcient since the aristocrats holding the monopoly had no reason to improve said infrastructures. The end of aristocratic priviledges meant that anybody who had the means could build their own. It's just an exemple but all the economy worked that way under an intricate web of aristocratic and clergy monopolies which left very little chance for the commoner to improve it's livelyhood or for technical progress to happen.
The Revolution prompted both unprecedented levels of economic liberalism in old Europe and unprecedented levels of state intervention in the economy. It was the end of feudalism and paved the way to the mix we have in western Europe today, between economic liberalism and strong public policies.
4:32 the story goes that a postman recognized the king's face on a coin, then he jumped on a horse to Varennes ahead of them, and organized a blocade to stop the convoy and arrest him.
3:09 Oversimplified literally said that Louis was pretending to support the revolutionaries for his own safety that's why he also showed that photo of Louis' face with the bonnet.
After i saw your reaction to what happened i thought "She must watch Biographics video about Benjamin Franklin.". I think you'll find many surprises there. (At least i did)
Greetings from France ! (sorry I just saw your video) : so just a few points I wanna talk about. Obviously, it's Oversimplified, and it's already a tough task to sum up 10 years of revolution in 30 minutes. So :
- The guillotine really was a revolutionary thing : before the revolution, only nobles could be beheaded. With the Guillotine, there's no longer torture (quick death, in a sort of humanist idea) and everybody is at the same scale in the execution (in the idea of the abolition of privileges)
- About Robespierre, the debate is still going now. Some see him as a liberator, some see him as a tyran. The fact is that a lot of things Oversimplified told about Robespierre comes from anti-robespierists people, who, after the execution of Robespierre, started to spread propaganda against him. New research about Robespierre and the Terror show that :
1) The Reign of Terror wasn't really proclamed, it's just a random guy is the Convention that said something like this
2) Robespierre wasn't the only guy who had influence on the people : some guys like Hébert were trying to make the people kill more and more people. And so, Danton and Robespierre (and other guys) wanted to "give blood to the people" but just enough to calm them, so they don't want more
3) Robespierre, even if he had an influence, wasn't alone. When he was in the Comittee of Public Safety, he was with 11 other people that weren't all in favor of Robespierre. In fact, there also were moderates (yes, at the head of the state) with influence, even under Robespierre
- Also, Oversimplied said that Louis XVI didn't wanted to rule France. In fact, that's false : he was educated in the ideas of monarchy and was absolutely ready and wanted to rule the country. It's an idea created by royalist and revolutionnaries : in the first case, they can say that the king was bad but that we just have to replace him, and in the other case, they can justify to abolish monarchy.
There are a lot of things to correct in Oversimplified's videos about the French Revolution, but he quite did a great job to sum up. If you're interested in the French Revolution, the French historian Jean-Clément Martin did some books (I hope they're translated) about the Revolution, the Terror, and about some ideas on Robespierre. I hope I helped you !
The French Revolution is NOT comparable to the American Revolution. The French Revolution's aim is to become a republic, have more equality, and to radicals, remove the monarchy forever. This started due to heavy taxation and unfair laws especially with regards to taxation for the 3rd estate. The American Revolution is about the 13 colonies wanting to get away from the governance of Britain, become truly independent and to become a new nation. This started with the British taxation of teas.
Although both were indeed a result of taxation where the populace did not agree, they are not very similar to me. If anything, the French Revolution is more similar to the Russian Revolution.
3:37 legend says that he recognised him on a coin. Thematically I kind of want to recommend "Myths you believe about Marie Antoinette" and "Maria Theresa" (her mom) by Biographics.
If you think the french revolution was bad, just watch the russian revolution oversimplified
The Duke of Brunswick, who warned the French, that they shouldn't kill their king, wasn't a prussian duke like it was said in the video. He was a german one, Brunswick (Braunschweig) being one of the little german countries. It was usually allied to Britain, since the British King was also the prince-elector (Kurfürst) (and duke) of Hannover - Brunswick's greater neighbour.
There are 2 films I'd recommend for you to watch. The first is 'A Tale Of Two Cities' 1958 based on the book by Charles Dickens, a brilliant read. The second film is 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' 1938 version based on the book by Baroness Orczy, who also had a hand in the screenplay. Although both films and books are fictional accounts of Revolutionary France, they do convey a sense of time and place apart from being entertaining as well.
7:19 Contrary to popular belief Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin neither invented, nor was executed by the guillotine. It was named after him, however, as he proposed a less painful method for executions. The misconception likely stems from the fact that by sheer coincidence one J.M.V. Guillotin (who was also a doctor) was executed by the device. The French surgeon and physiologist Antoine Louis, together with German engineer Tobias Schmidt were the ones who built a prototype for the device. Additionally, according to the memoirs of the French executioner Charles-Henri Sanson, King Louis suggested the use of a straight, angled blade instead of a curved one.
Fun fact, the Soviet Battleship Marat was named after the Frzench Revoultionary Marat...
1792 was a turning point, not only France was threatened by other Nations which wanted to restore Divine Rule but the Revolution actually became a civil war...
Actually at this point French Revolution was closer to what the Russian Revolution was in 1917...
In fact L16th last words were about his dear scientific expedition, Lapérouse expedition who left years earlier on a Worldwide trip through the oceans to copy Cook's for Circumnavigations in one, unfortunately, they had no news apart from De Lesseps report and samples (he came back from Siberia by himself on a cart pulled by dogs, his return trip lasted about a year... The rest of the Expedition went to Botany Bay (Sidney, Australia) and got lost in a storm, the two ships sank beside the island of Vanikoro in the South Pacific and remains were founds decades later and finally really analyed only a decade or two ago... We think some survivors made it to the island but there is no certainty on what they did after it, how long did they stay there? Were they eaten by the locals? Did they try to salvage part of their ships and build a raft to attempt a return trip to Australia? Unfortunately, in the 20th Century, the island was pretty much turned upside down by a woodchopping company with no regards for archeological remains... The only preserved archeological sites are the wrecks where a skeleton was found undr a piece of ships wreckage, protected by it for two centuries, the only body found there... they attempted a recreation of his face from anthropological data and his skull for identification but no certainty emerged from the operation, all that we can be sure of is that it couldn't be a crew member, he wasn't muscled enough for a trained sailor, he must have been a scientist or a surgeon given the toolbox found beside the remains.
L16th last words were "and did we hear about Lapérouse lately?" His last ever words were not even for himself, God or his position of power, they were for his scientific expedition... Imagine President Nixon being executed on July 1969, asking if they had news from Armstrong and Apollo 11 mission before being executed...
And as for the Guillotine, it was designed to chop cigares... but the design was enlarged for human necks. And ironically the brain remains concious for 20 to 30 seconds after the head if chopped off, that why the executed has his eyed covered so he or she doesn't see him or herself roll over...
Every method of execution has a dark side to it.
People living far away from decision centered have always been more independant in their decision making because being remote means the power doesn't have an interest in your vicinity so you must do with what you have and do it yourself. Conservatism often goes in pair with autodetermination. No wonder why Australia is so libertarian in there ways of thinking, they always have been the backwater world of the British Empire, first a gigantic goulag of sorts and then a pretty much abandoned part of the Empire, remote from main commercial routes and influence centers. The last big action they saw was WW2...
The Terror period is not unlike the Stalinian Purge era, everyone denouncing his neighbour to avoid being sent to the Gulags...
As for the financial state of the country, the Revolution created massive inflation with the first bank notes that valued nothing, and led the country into the first modern economic crisis. Napoleon re indexed the money on Gold and pillaged the neighbouring countries for Gold reserves... Gold reserves that were later sent to USA to protect them against the Nazis and the US never gave it back and as of now, don't have it anymore as a matter of fact, they sold it a long time ago.
As for Robespierre, he really created a new religion on the Supreme Being cult and we don't really know if he thought of himself as a God or if it was the anti Robespierre propaganda who spread that idea. That being said, he thought of himself as higher than most, that's for sure.
Robespierre tried to commit suicide with a gun, but he missed and only injured his neck near the ear instead. So it was an injured Robespierre who was executed.
Nelson lost his arm in the Egypt naval battle of Aboukir near Alexandria in 1799. The French fleet was exhausted, half of the men were searching for food on land and the admiral wasn't able to go tow to tow against Nelson whose half squadron daringly went behind the French battleline where they didn't have guns ready to awnser. The battles culminated with the explosion of the French Flag Ship, the Orient, the biggest explosion ever seen or heard at the time when the powder magasines were hit by a raging fire on board. The explosion took one British ship down with it. Other ships were damaged by pieces of the wreckage sent upwards. The explosion was so massive that men were deafened for minutes and the battle stopped while the crews were stunned, it was heards about 20 miles away ! (Nelson thought he would die from his injury but no, he died 6 years later in the battle of Trafalgar, his ultimate triumph against the French Navy)
Irony, one of the surviving and uncaptured French ships pursued and sunk the messenger ship sent by Nelson to report his victory to England.
And I agree, the French never called their Revolution "The French Civil War" because it doesn't sound cool for the new comers at the powerhouse... But it turned into a civil war indeed. And civil wars are the most ugliest thing you can imagine for a country after a dictatorship and one usually goes with the other, most of the time.
It's called dark humor.
Violence and bad things in general have happened throughout history and will continue to happen today. Being able to laugh and make light of such things does not take away the gravity of such events, but it does make it more palatable. So don't begrudge his making light of such situations and feel free to find the humor in it.
"the French revolution should be called the five French revolutions" i mean 1848 and there is the fact that France has had 5 republics cause unlike the US when ever a republic is considred to have stopped functioning the republic is ended a new constitution drawn up and a new republic declared
According to some accounts Louis 16th was recognised at Varennes from his image on a coin.
A fun fact. Beethoven's 3rd symphony was dedicated to Napoleon, Beethoven being a bit of a republican, when Napoleon declared himself emperor, Beethoven was so angry he scratched Napoleon name off the manuscript which can still be seen today.
Fun fact - chips (fries) were sold on the Pont Neuf (bridge) 1780 - Thomas Jefferson loved them so much he introduced them to the USA - ps I cant verify this but I had heard it before
Yes, it was confirmed by a culinary historian from Belgium.
@@Thunderworks No wonder we are all fat!!
yeah I'm pretty sure there were paintings but even so these panting probably made king louris look strong and somewhat different
Dr Joseph Ignace Guillotin (not Guillotine) proposed the introduction of the machine that became known as the guillotine. He played no part in its invention. Louis16th (probably apocryphally) is said to have suggested a modification to the design of the blade.
@3:15: Believe it or not, you might have seen the revolutionary bonnet in a popular Saturday morning cartoon of the 1980's. They're called "Phrygian caps", and they're the ones the Smurfs wear.
" I feel the American revolution and the french revolution are parting here" Americans never ask themselves what happened too all the Americans that supported British rule". Even American historians agree that they were a large percentage of the population. So what happened too them?
So basically louis was an overall indecisive man, and because of that he tended to follow the last one who talked, a moment he was supportive, the next he was against the revolution altogether, this was compounded by the fact that he often relied on other for governing.
But on a fundamental basis he was against it and did try to leave the country to raise an army to reconquer France later.
So in short he's not our worse king(there's been so so much worse), but he's far from the best.
A small aside on "La Guillotine" it was not invented by Joseph-Ignace Guillotine (he hated that it bore his name) he was a doctor and politician in 1789 he suggested to the National Assembly a new code of equality for punishments (same punishment for the same crime), Before aristocrats were beheaded but the poor were torn apart and their bodies hung up to rot. In 1791 the Procureur Général issued a tender for a method of efficient and humane execution, the executioner with an axe often took several attempts! Initially there was no interest but eventually a Prussian Monsieur Laquiante designed the guillotine and it was built by Tobias Schmidt, another Prussian, a harpsichord maker. The prototype was erected in La Place de la Grève and tested on sheep and bodies from the nearby old peoples home! In April 1792 Nicholas-Jacques Pelletier became the first to be guillotined. So the iconic French guillotine symbol of the revolution was in fact Prussian.
I'm just 'gon say I'm glad I found your channel before you hit 100k,
I'll stick around,
I really like your vibe,
cheers from Poland
One thing I think it's rather important, is that the french revolution, or rather watching the french revolution was the inspiration for the British conservadorism which was all about being careful with change, change was needed but as one book I read once said(can't recall which book) "To fix a leak on your roof you shouldn't be setting your house on fire."
Seeing how the revolution went that's understandable, no one want to deny Freedom, Equality or Fraternity, but without being extremely careful well...
22:40 he's not making about it.. he's just giving the viewers a proper and simple idea on how it works
Since money was invented, citizens have been seeing portraits of their rulers.
There were no passports at that time but people carried letters of introduction written by people in power of authority like the local mayor or governor of a region for businessmen or large land owners. Statues of monarchy would be in all major cities and on the coins used daily by the general population so everyone would know what the king or queen looked like!!
I don't know if it's true but as a French I was told they could recognize the king at Varennes because his face was on coins
1784: Adam Weishaupt issues his order for the French Revolution to be started by by Maximilien Robespierre in book form. This book was written by one of Weishaupt's associates, Xavier Zwack, and sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However en route there, the courier is struck by lightning, the book detailing this plan discovered by the police, and handed over to the Bavarian authorities. 1786: The Bavarian government publish the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, "The Original Writings of The Order and Sect of The Illuminati." They then send this document to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, but sadly their warning is ignored.
This is Barris has a great series on Maximilien Robespierre. It touches on a lot of the same things here but in greater depth and in a very dramatic way opposed to the more comedic tone of Oversimplified.
you have to consider where your points were valid that you seen similarities to the French revolution and the American revolution, the British(and Spanish and French and Dutch) had to sail across the Atlantic Ocean to supply and reinforce their troops back in the 1700s. when Americas revolution succeeded, they were the top superpower on the American continent rivaled only by Mexico and at the time British Canada. where as the French after their revolution succeeded were surrounded by established long reining monarchs who hated their ideology. that being said I think I could understand where the extremism comes from.(not that i agree with the terror. the terror was awful, and Robes. P. was a maniac.)
He is a guard, not just some man out in France
By the way, the King being recognise when escaping is as a very important point in the FR just look up 'flight to Varennes'
He did show up in toga to try to emulate Moses coming down from Mount Sinai. One person shouted "it was not enough for him to be master, he had to be God".
The King WAS recognised by a passer-by, but the whole escape-plan as a disaster. Louis was a weak king, who basically tried to keep everyone happy - as usually happens, this pleased no-one.
Dr Guillotin (note, no E) was said to have been annoyed that his instrument was feminised. He invented it after seeing a beheading where the victim needed multiple strokes, and was in agony the whole time.
It's ironic that a device intended to reduce suffering became a symbol of terror.
Most European states at the time were monarchies, France had not only deposed (and killed) its King, but was telling everyone who'd listen (or couldn't get out of the way) that this was the way forward. Unsurprisingly, other monarchs found this a little upsetting. There's no way to sugar-coat the Reign of Terror, and your comparison with the Soviets and the Nazis are closer than you know.
One Austrian General dismissed the French army in Italy as having, "No cavalry, no artillery, and no boots!" Two weeks later, they'd chased him to the gates of Vienna.
The act that of the king was executed is almost a perfect replica
Normally the person that would get executed would be able to hold a speech and this was viewed as dishonnerable between the french peasants as some were afraid that the system would go back to the old ways , out of respect or just compassion towards the king (wich would be executed if you were talking about it) this was the reason why the queen was later executed
When he fled to varennes he was recognized because of his face on the coin (kings made the currency in their image).
“... the five French Revolutions” Oh there are more.
Knowing your love of musical theater, you should watch the movie "Les Miserables" you will love it
Recognising the king.
Yes they had passports, really handwritten permissions rather than neat little books.
The king was recognised by a postmaster's son, M. Drouet, a keen revolutionary, who thought he looked like the king's image from a banknote, while he was inspecting their papers. He let them go, then had second thoughts and rode off to organise a blockade at the next village. When they caught the party a judge was called who knew the king. This chap fell to his knees saying ' indeed sire, you are my king.' He probably said it in French. I suspect Louis was miffed.