It's just as well that the Dictator Napoleon was defeated
in my opinion and those events shaped Europe & the modern world
so cheers to the heroes of the Royal Navy

MajorMitchell, I don't disagree with your opinion but want to pose you two questions:

1. Was Napoleon a bad dictator? He did afterall invent the Napoleonic code, and made many breakthroughs in civil organisation, as well as invented things like the telegraph.

2. Did the British defeat Napoleon? It was in Russia where he lost his Grande Armee.

1. The world was changed after the French Revolution but I'd argue more as a physical consequences of the wars following than through the ideas espoused (Both the English Civil War and the American Revolution together set the scene in terms of ideas).

2. Leading on from the point above, the ideas were probably not as revolutionary as is often claimed. In particular the anti-monarchist and 'citizen' based ideology was by no means unique. What was perhaps more unique was growth of rationalism and meritocracy, particularly in the Napoleonic army.

3. In terms of beneficial and detrimental - France before the revolution was not a pleasant place to live. France after the revolution was not a pleasant place to live. I suppose the most applicable idea here is the forest fire. Europe was engulfed by war for 20 years with mass conscription. Unpleasant in the short term but as pointed out the Code Napoleon and progressive spread of ideas will have altered Europe. Whether those ideas were beneficial depends on your view of them.

Sorry to double post:

Napoleon didn't invent the telegraph did he? It was simply invented while he was dictator. The burst of inventions and innovations started before he seized power and continued afterwards as far as I know?

The British didn't actually crack Napoleon but the effect of the Royal Navy cannot be underestimated. It effectively cut Europe off from the rest of the world and provided what were at one time the only victories against Napoleon's forces at Copenhagen, Trafalgar, Cape St Vincent and the Nile. Then, of course, it has to be remembered that the British were the core part of the army that defeated Napoleon at Waterloo to end it once and for all.

"Did the French revolution change the world in an irreversible way, ie. Was the world after the French revolution significantly changed?"

Along with the American revolution, I'd say yes--I consider the two revolutions two sides of the same Enlightenment coin...and as hesitant as I am to show a bit of overly-patriotic pride, while it doesn't boil down to a right and wrong way to express such feelings, I think most objective observers would prefer a revolution the way we Americans had one over the bloody, terror-laden way the French revolution proceeded.

I actually agree with Hereward to a great degree--

"Both the English Civil War and the American Revolution together set the scene in terms of ideas."

English CW/American Rev/French Rev--Acts 1, 2, and 3 of the same democratic ideal playing out on the stage of the Western world.

I think its changed the West forever; other regions of the world not so much...the Russian Revolution smacks of the French Revolution 2.0 to me (even more extreme, and despite potentially-good ideals and intentions at the beginning it led to even more terror and terrible leaders by the end...I'll take Napoleon emerging from the French Rev over Stalin's eventual arrival any day.)

Asia and much of Africa remains a mess, totalitarian, or both.

South America is...well, just look at Brazil...and the dictator-revolution-new dictator pattern that has characterized much of its history.

And as for the Middle East...well, the Enlightenment had to happen before their ideals could be acted upon in the West...and many Arab nations have actively shunned such an Enlightenment in favor of reaffirming Islamic radicalism.

But yes, in terms of the West, at least, the English, French, and American ideals and revolutions/civil wars have forever changed the way we view government, religion, mankind and the world on the whole.

"Was the French revolution “revolutionary” in ideas and scope, or was it just a cyclical expression of the transition of power in France?"

I think it truly was revolutionary...in its idealism. What actually HAPPENED, on the other hand...that was more cyclical.

"Comparisons between the old France and the new Republic, between Bonaparte and Louis. Was the revolution beneficial to France or detrimental? What about to the rest of the world and Europe?"

For France:
--In the immediate, it was beneficial.
--In the short term, it was a disaster.
--In the intermediate (ie, the Bonaparte years) it was very much peaks and valleys.
--In the long term, it was beneficial...but it also serves as a cautionary tale, both to rulers and would-be revolutionaries alike.

For Europe:
--It led to some great Romantic poetry in English (particularly by Byron and Blake) so I'm counting that as a plus... ;)
--The Leninists seemed to draw from the French Revolution...and while some might count that as a plus, I have to say, it didn't turn out that well at all...
--I think that's the template, really: in terms of ideals, art and poetry it had a positive influence...when people tried to act on those ideals, just like the actual French Revolution, the result was mixed at best, and maybe on the negative side.

I think Napoleon was a better leader than Louis XVI...by virtue of, well, actually BEING a leader...Louis really shouldn't have governed at all, he was forced into it and had no aptitude for statesmanship...and while Napoleon waxed and waned--hey, at least he waxed. (Pun not intended.)

Emancipating Jews from the ghettos (albeit not for the most altruistic of reasons), short-term victories for France, restoring order after The Reign of Terror, The Louisiana Purchase (hey, I'm American, I have to count that as a plus...for us anyway.)

On the flip side, eventually defeated, built up massive debt over the course of his wars, and of course civil liberties weren't exactly always encouraged--then again, given how many heads were being chopped off due to the age-old story of the liberators becoming the tyrants, it's debatable how well those liberties were working out at all--and at least Napoleon put an end to the state of terror and continuous guillotining of people.

I would say that I don't think that Louis and Marie were "bad" rulers in the sense that they weren't malicious, just very negligent, not at all up to the task, and (especially in Marie's case) very naive and with a penchant for doing exactly the wrong things at precisely the wrong time. The two were so sheltered and ill-equipped to rule--not to mention saddled with a heap of problems from the old regime--that they really needed a constitutional monarchy...and the Revolutionaries wanted that at first--but it never materialized. Marie was far too frivolous.

(I get the feeling a lot of right-wingers here in America view Michelle Obama as a Marie Antoinette figure, and while I think that view of Mrs. Obama is wholly justified, it does speak to just how notorious a figure Marie Antoinette has become, both in the public consciousness as well as the unconscious--even those who don't know who Marie Antoinette is can readily identify the archetype of the exorbitant, overly-extravagant queen figure which is largely the product of Marie's legacy and being.)

That being said, she shouldn't have died--it was completely disgraceful for the French to kill her the way they did, storming her bedroom (nearly catching her while she was still in it) and terrorizing her with the heads of friends of hers on pikes they carried before ultimately capturing and executing her. It was completely vindictive and cruel. She held no real power even when Louis was king, and she certainly held none after his fall...there was no reason to murder her like that, especially when she had kids, they could just as easily have just exiled her to some distant country and have been done with her.

So I do have a bit of sympathy for them there, especially Marie; controversial and ugly as it is, at least beheading a king makes a bit of political sense...it happened with Charles I, and it happened with Louis XVI...but there was no reason to behead her, again, especially when she had kids to look after and her only real crime was just being so sheltered and vain that she was a symbol of all the French had come to hate in their rulers.

But treating her as a symbol first and a person second dehumanized her so vulgarly I think it also dehumanized (and to an extent marred the respectability of) the Revolutionaries...it's pretty hard to claim yours is the movement for Liberty and Freedom when yours is also the movement comprised of bloodthirsty mobs and is in the business of murdering mothers out of pure spite.

"1. Was Napoleon a bad dictator? He did afterall invent the Napoleonic code, and made many breakthroughs in civil organisation, as well as invented things like the telegraph."

While I don't know how many dictators can actually be called "good" (especially in the Age of the Enlightenment and after...before that it was all kings and queens of course, with the odd exception of a figure like Cromwell--who turned out to be a dictator, so there we are--so I think we need to evaluate figures like Elizabeth and Caesar by different rules than we do modern dictators) I'd at least argue Napoleon "broke even," as it were, or maybe leaned towards being a good dictator on the whole, given that "good" comes with the caveat that that's on the whole and he still did some rather unsavory things that no modern ruler should do.

"2. Did the British defeat Napoleon? It was in Russia where he lost his Grande Armee."

Much as I don't think the comparison between the two fits nearly as often as people like to try and make it fit...and as afraid as I am of Godwinning the whole thread--

I think in this instance a Hitler comparison IS warranted in that both Russia AND the UK/US/Canda (all the bases covered? No one going to complain I left their nation out?) were primarily responsible for defeating Hitler alike.

The Russian Invasion and Trafalgar/Waterloo are as equal as Stalingrad/The Battle of Britain-to-D-Day in terms of contributing to the downfall of Napoleon/Hitler.

The French Revolution is one of those rare topics that actually make me explode from anger just when hearing its name. It was third most evil event in human history, and led us down the road for constant warfare since then.

Sbyvl36, I'd be interested to hear more. Do you mean in terms of nationalism, supremacy and conscripted armies? Or more the idea of ochlocracy which gave way to the Bolshevik revolution?

Or does Sbyvl just simply yearn for a time where the average person had basically no rights, and was subject to the divine right of kings and absolutism?

I'm not shocked, mind you. His entire outlook can be summed up with two words: "Violently reactionary"

"It was third most evil event in human history"

1. Probably the Holocaust or something
2. FDR's presidency
3. French Revolution
4. 9/11
5. Pearl Harbor
6. Soviet genocide
7. Killing fields
8. Canceling "Firefly"

obiwan: The omission from that list that immediately comes to mind is the Australians and New Zealanders. Not to mention the Indians. The French and the Dutch probably deserve a nod of acknowledgement too. And that's just in the Western theatre. :P

On topic...
From a European historiographical perspective, the importance of the French Revolution compared to the American Revolution and the English Civil War tends to be emphasised, and I think that's fair.
The English Civil War (my period of interest) was radical and reforming, yes, and its long-term impacts provided for the development of the first capitalist economy in Europe (the Dutch might argue, but not very convincingly) and the development of parliamentary democracy as a power in its own right rather than merely a check on monarchy. But in a very real way it was a failure, and that was certainly how it was perceived for the following century; as a golden what-if by its sympathisers and a cautionary tale by its detractors.

The American Revolution came a lot closer to marking a decisive change in the world, simply because it was successful, and because of the spread and usage of ideology; the pamphlet literature of the ECW was replaced by tracts of monumental significance in the AR, such as Paine's work. However, it was insigificant to its contemporaries because of one simple fact; isolation. The impact of America's radical change was muted by the thousands of miles that separated it from Europe, commoner and elite alike.

So I think the French Revolution was the one that really brought those ideas to the fore in Europe, and one can make a convincing argument that the citadels of Europe were more-or-less equivalent to 'the world' then.

I also find it significant that when we talk of the French Revoution, we often stray into another topic; Napoleon. The two are inextricably linked, of course, the one facilitated the other, but they're entirely different historical processes and I'm not sure how useful it is to treat them as one event.

"It was third most evil event in human history"

With the first being the Holocaust and the second being Stalingrad, I fail to see how the French Revolution can constitute the third. Killing fields have already been mentioned, Liberian Civil War? The Black Death? Ghengis Khan?

I forgot Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

^Oh, fun, The Atrocity-Ranking Game, I wanna play (and contribute to a needless ranking of horrific tragedies!)

Hmmm...

Well, there's the Holocaust, of course...gotta hand it to a classic, those Nazis worked damn hard to nearly annihilate an entire people and culture, and having to deal with pesky Denmark and Norway trying to protect their Jewish citizens-but let's be fair here, the Nazis DID get a bit of an assist from the French there (I mean, surrender-happy to begin with, and then, well, a Catholic nation? When the Inquisition and other Catholic, anti-Jewish actions were arguably the biggest cause of Jewish deaths over the centuries? Pfff...they weren't letting that crown go to Hitler without their contribution!)

And then there's the Armenian Genocide, of course, always a classic...complete destruction of a people's homeland in a crime SOME Western nations refuse to formally acknowledge because, hey, we need those airbases in Turkey, and Germany could own up to the Holocaust but the Turks can't admit to the Armenian Genocide (though in fairness, maybe it's because they're embarrassed? I mean, losing is one thing, but getting beaten 6 million-Jews-dead to 1 million-Armenians-dead? That's just so lopsided, a loss in the Genocide Game well, no wonder they don't like to talk about it!)

And then of course you have Cambodia's Killing Fields...1.5 to 2 million estimated dead...now, that's a tricky one, as while Ol' Pol Pot didn't come close to killing as many in HIS genocide as did Hitler, hey, as Eddie Izzard reminds us, Hitler shot himself, took cyanide and had his corpse burned in the end, whereas Pol Pot got to stick it out in a comfy little house arrest situation (sort of like Room Service for, to borrow the Izzardian term, "Mass Murdering Fuckheads!) so well done there...points for THAT, better ending than Hitler OR the ex-Ottoman Empire...

And then there's the Rwandan Genocide, but who are we kidding, this is AFRICA we're talking about, that's not sexy or hip with a Western audience, except for Bono's crowd and folks who, well, read newspapers (both a dwindling cross-section of our world) so between that and the fact the average person on the street would think you were telling them a terrible joke about a certain chocolate-toffee-candy-type-thing if you told them somewhere between half a million and a million Tutsis died...alas...

And then of course there's the Case of the Vanishing Native Americans...
Where did they go?
How many died?
Who cares! THIS IS MURICAH! Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, and our bloated bellies and wallets filled with Andrew Jackson $20 bills says so! (Also, our guns. And Bibles. Nothing bad ever happened mixing guns and Bibles. Jeezus was all about guns and Bibles, donchaknow...)

But, I think we can all agree, the WORST genocide of all-time was...

The Alderaanian Genocide, YES, a genocide so bad it's biggest tangible effect was to give Alec Guiness a headache for a moment, give sci-fi nerds a line to parody over and over (until they were suddenly silenced!) and, of course, inspire J.J. Abrams to tell an emo Eric Bana to essentially recreate the scene and destroy Vulcan years later.

Remember the fallen, people. Remember the fallen.

WARNING: THE PRECEDING WAS UTTERLY STUPID (JUST LIKE ANY ATTEMPT TO TRY AND RANK ATROCITIES--AND ESPECIALLY IN RANKING A REVOLUTION THE THIRD WORST EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY AND PRESUMABLY PLACING *ANY* OF THESE GENOCIDES *BELOW* THE FRENCH REVOLUTION) AND SHOULD BE MET WITH DERISION, DISDAIN AND UTTER CONTEMPT (JUST LIKE ANY ATTEMPT TO RANK SUFFERING--AND ESPECIALLY RANK POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS AS BEING WORSE THAN THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS AND THE NEAR-DESTRUCTION OF AN ENTIRE CULTURE FOREVER.)

"The omission from that list that immediately comes to mind is the Australians and New Zealanders. Not to mention the Indians. The French and the Dutch probably deserve a nod of acknowledgement too. And that's just in the Western theatre. :P"

Oh damn...I was going to include the Aussies, and then I thought to myself "If you include them, they'll just find another power you forgot to list"... :p

Yes, yes, suffice it to say MANY nations kicked the Hitler's Hotsy-Totsy-Nazi arsch, yes?

:p

(Although, fairly or not, I give the French PARTIAL credit--that is, yes, The Resistance did all they could and put up a noble fight, but that being said...the Vichy French were still rather nasty and collaborative--to put it mildly--and whereas other countries such as Denmark and Sweden really did work hard to protect their Jews, France...not so much...one of many reasons my Jewish grandfather who served in the artillery at the time later told me he and his regiment weren't very fond or trusting of the French, and that's the only "Allied" people he ever spoke badly of, period, everyone else he was fine with and his usual good-natured self about...the French, not so much.)

"From a European historiographical perspective, the importance of the French Revolution compared to the American Revolution and the English Civil War tends to be emphasised, and I think that's fair."

I would agree in the same way that (maybe an odd analogy?) "The Return of the King" won Best Picture and got the most accolades of the LOTR movies...

But it never could have achieved what it did without the first two movies being so brilliant and laying such a great foundation for this climactic finale.

Similarly, the French Revolution probably had the biggest impact of the three, but likewise never could have happened without the others laying the foundation (in an ideological sense the American Revolution may be said to have made the French Revolution more likely, but in an economic sense, the war debt France faced after helping the Americans in their Revolution led to the economic strife which in turn led to their own Revolution) and giving precedent (decapitating/rejecting a king, forming a non-monarchical government, embracing the ideals of the Enlightenment over older European ideas of royalty and divine right of rule, etc.)

Reportedly Mao Zedong, when asked what he thought of the french revolution, said "its too early to tell" - or something to that effect, this being in the 1970s. (i suspect the point is, China is playing the long game)

I think it's too early to tell what the point of Mao's response was
harharhar

@ Synapse
Napoleon perfected the "police state" with Fouche as his head of secret police
and his use of propoganda exemplifies the way totalitarian dictatorships have to control and manipulate the "truth" for their own purposes.
( Fouche is one of the great survivors, he switched his loyalty to the revived monarchy after Napoleon's fall from power )
Napoleon also exemplifies the "cult of worship for the leader"
yes there were reforms under his rule, but it could be argued that many of those reforms might have occured under better and more representative government.
Also the way Napoleon used to have his armies "rape & pillage" the rural farmers & communities of the countries he invaded was a disgrace.

Was Napoleon's Grand Armee defeated by the Russians, or by Napoleon's incompetence at logistics ( supplying his army with adequate food, clothing & shelter )
in combination with an appalingly cold Russian winter ???

"Also the way Napoleon used to have his armies "rape & pillage" the rural farmers & communities of the countries he invaded was a disgrace."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that standard practice for armies of the time? Obviously degrees could differ (the French in Spain as an example) but most armies looted and pillaged to some degree did they not?

"most armies looted and pillaged to some degree did they not?"

In fact it was deemed necessary to a good campaign.

"Was Napoleon's Grand Armee defeated by the Russians, or by Napoleon's incompetence at logistics ( supplying his army with adequate food, clothing & shelter )
in combination with an appalingly cold Russian winter ???"

The Russians raided their supply wagons AFAIK. And waged geurilla war etc. Anyway minus the Russians they would have conquered all of Russia despite the winter. Minus the winter, they may not have defeated the Russians.

Lol Svybl, probably thinks Louis XIV was a communist.

well Wellington in the Spanish campaign insisted on paying for supplies and ensured that the "locals" saw a real difference between the way they were treated by the two "foreign" army's in their country. Wellington also insisted on "proper" supplies for his army. I won't claim that the behaviour of his troops was always perfect, but he did realise the importance of maintaining support from local populations, whereas by comparison, Napoleon was indifferent to the suffering caused to populations of regions where his armies operated

One of the most important people in the Spanish campaign was George Scovell, and the lack of recognition that he gets for his role in that campaign saddens me.

The French revolution was pretty fucking cool, I don't care how many aristocrats lost their heads, it is impossible to compare that to the innumerable number of peasants who died directly from the feudal mode of production. Sure, some of the minutiae was horrible (such as accusing Marie Antoinette of incest, as I think they did), but all in all good.

And Wellington had to insist on proper supplies, the Spanish rank and file were given very little training and had very low morale, and the leadership was largely corrupt/incompetent.

Napoleon is a weird fellow. He brought back slavery, heavily attacked the rights of women and children and was generally a bit of an autocrat, but his conquests did spread many of the ideas of the Revolution and Enlightenment, the enforcement of the Napoleonic Code led to some long term changes, even if the reforms were rolled back after 1814/15, and the nationalism it inspired among some of the European ethnic groups had long term progressive consequences. Overall, after his rampage, the genie of capitalism could now certainly not be put back in the bottle.

Also it is hilarious that Svybl blames the French Revolution for unending warfare considering that before there were very few years in Europe where at least one country wasn't at war, and that at any one point in time a monarch would probably have to be dealing with at least one peasant uprising.

"I won't claim that the behaviour of his troops was always perfect, but he did realise the importance of maintaining support from local populations, whereas by comparison, Napoleon was indifferent to the suffering caused to populations of regions where his armies operated"

Very good point. I'm glad you allowed for exceptions - Badajoz being the primary example.

"Overall, after his rampage, the genie of capitalism could now certainly not be put back in the bottle."

I would argue that modern capitalism began more in 17th century England and the Dutch Republic, with honourable mention going to Spain, Portugal and Venice. It pre-dates the Napoleonic Wars.

Speaking of French regimes in peril:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=120040#gamePanel

France has left, it's a 9-power center and we're at a vital juncture...not too big a bet to join, so anyone care to take up the challenge?

Replace Italy with Austria and you actually have a very rough approximation of Napoleonic Europe.

Disclaimer: a VERY rough approximation...

I'm glad Spain was brought up, but you're all forgetting the fight that Austria and Prussia had against France. Very long and very bloody....with a bad ending for Austria, Prussia, and the Russian Expeditionary force lol.

I don't have much to say about the French Revolution, since I'm not comfortable with my level of knowledge on it. I would say Napoleon's reign was a net positive though. In each of the occupied areas he set up a government based upon the Napoleonic Code. It was this occupation and forced diffusion of ideas that really set the stage for the revolutions of 1848 (there were others in the 1830s I believe?...my European history is slipping)

"I would argue that modern capitalism began more in 17th century England and the Dutch Republic, with honourable mention going to Spain, Portugal and Venice. It pre-dates the Napoleonic Wars. "

Oh certainly, I would argue that the origins of capitalism go back as far as the 16h century with the conquest of the Aztec and the Inca and the start of the slave trade. And there is evidence of strikes and rudimentary unions occurring in 14th century Europe, mostly north-east Germany and Italy. I guess what I meant was that it was the final death knell for many of the absolutist feudal regimes, many of them had to change, even if they managed to keep their autocratic control.

"(there were others in the 1830s I believe?...my European history is slipping) "

There were revolts in France in 1830 and 1832. One of them (1832 IIRC) removed the Bourbons for a second time.

"I would argue that the origins of capitalism go back as far as the 16h century with the conquest of the Aztec and the Inca and the start of the slave trade."

I think here we're missing the distinction between mercantilism and capitalism, and should clarify the differences between the two before moving on.

Not that capitalism existed then, but the rise of the capitalist mode of production has its roots there. The amount of gold and silver the Spanish were able to ship back to Europe led to a drop in wages and meant there was an abundance of capital available for those willing to invest in early industralisation, banking, etc.

But I would argue that mercantilism is a form of capitalism, the basic structures are generally there, though there are key differences compared to modern laissez-faire/welfare state capitalism.

"I think here we're missing the distinction between mercantilism and capitalism, and should clarify the differences between the two before moving on."

That's why I was leaning more towards the 17th century and the Dutch Republic. The first real joint stock companies being formed etc.