Okay, I admit that this is a bit click bait-y as a title, and provokateur, but in essence, its true. So often we hear British historians regarding the revolution and the subsequent wars through a British lens, and deploring what happened in the revolution, and later with Napoleon. But actually we should be on the French side and recognise that the British were probably the bad guys in this conflict. Of course at that time the red coats had a very bad reputation around the world, in Ireland, in the US, in Spain and in the Caribbean, depending on which slave island you were working to death on.
So why do I posit this argument? For the following reasons:
1) The revolution was the birth of our modern world, of European democracy, of a state that guarantees rights, free speech, equality, separation of church and state and social justice. Yes of course, this was not worked out in fullness at the time and many of these values were sold out during the course of the revolution, even reneged on for periods of time (the terreur for example, and later under Napoleon in part). But this political lightening bolt and upheaval led to the eventual breakdown of feudalism and monarchy, which had governed Europe for over 1500 years. It was the moment when the thinking of the enlightenment took over in a government and a country, and this changed everything. As Mao himself said, when asked what he thought the impact of the French revolution to be, "its too early to tell". The shock waves are still being felt today and we live in a fundamentally better world because it took place, governed by ideals that no-one held to before except a group of bourgeois and intellectuals. Today these ideals are the foundation of our society, modern European democracies, the European Union itself and the USA in one way or another, however well or otherwise practiced. That makes the ideology of the revolution our own.
2) The powers that were fighting against this revolution were all monarchies, horrified at the idea that anyone could murder the king and up-end the power of feudalism and the inherited privileges of the aristocracy. In short they were fighting for (on the back of the very people whose freedom and wealth they usurped) the restoration of the old order in France - feudalism, divine rights of the monarchy and the old order of church and state. In short these powers were trying to reinstate a regressive, conservative and repressive social order.
Of course each European power, including Britain and later France under Napoleon, was jockeying for power and control over its neighbours. Britain wanted France to be under its control so that it did not pose any threat to its own imperialist impulses and ambitions. But even Russian troops who had occupied Paris wondered on their way home why French men had rights that they didn't. That's the irony of this conflict. France should have been allowed to work out its own internal affairs without interference from outside powers.
Once the Battle of Waterloo was won by the Prussians and the British, the king was indeed restored, followed by a "white terror" and the repression of freedom and whatever democratic and political rights still existed under Napoleon 1st. It took France two more revolutions to finally kick the monarchy out and become a republic again.
3) France was the victim of interference and aggression by these powers, and particularly Britain, who instigated many of these wars. How the French want to be governed is entirely an internal French matter, and part of their national sovereignty. The matter does not concern the other powers of Europe. But their threats and warnings of military invasion and occupation threatened the survival of the revolution, and made things far worse that they needed to be. The threat of foreign invasion grimly pushed the revolution towards firstly executing the king and later to suppressing opposition through the terror. The terror would probably not have happened without the threat of extinction by foreign invasion. It also galvanised the nation to defend itself.
Lets imagine what would have happened if the rest of Europe had reacted the same way in 1649 when England decapitated King Charles 1st and then descended in to a bloody chaotic civil war? England would have then been invaded by 5 coalitions of European powers intent on deciding what the government of England Wales and Northern Ireland should be, and would have eventually won and reinstated the king. What impact would this have had on the development of British representative democracy? yes of course the terror was awful, but if we are going to make comparisons, let's not overlook the appalling loss of life in the English civil war which was far worse than the French revolution - with some historians estimating that nearly as much as 5% of the population of England lost their lives and 15- 20% of the Irish, figures more than comparable to the population losses incurred in WW1.
To conclude, today Napoleon is regarded with some ambivalence in France, and there is still some regret that the king was killed. But actually la révolution Française itself is not regarded with ambivalence. It is regarded as the defining moment of the French nation and identity. Its values have been completely appropriated. It is a shame that France had to go through 20 plus years of war to define their own political identity.
Well I didn't reply because simply first I didn't wish, second given the off topic, third I am busy working 6 days a week and not at the "35 heures" or in "grève", four, considering that is totally useless and having no taste to receive lessons from peremptory opinion on the web ignoring almost totally French culture society specificities and interpreting from a biased limited heavily anti-french culture black-and-white simplistic view
e.g. everyone knows in France that the French Protestants were precisely the greatest propagators vectors proponents and defenders of the laicity, in a country where they counted only 1% they represented until 20% of the Parlament under the IIIrd Republic and there was even one government who reached maybe 51% of them including the President of the Council/Prime Minister himself...
contrary that you wrote, I think I am well placed to know that, of course you can wear a cross, a star of David, a hand of Fatma and others religious symbols inside a French public school
now you come with the even more largely off topic, for a Napoleoinc forum, of the islam victim of the so-called worst dragonnades of the French administration and State, sorry for the politically correct à l'anglo-saxonne : islam doesn't belong to the French culture and to the 3 traditionnal French prior to 1905 religions,
I know certainly more muslims than you, if they are not pleased with French laws and culture, the fact that such country came from christian culture and keeping still a strong 2000-years jewish presence, especially this last point is the first for many of them, or has still an awful historically centralised jacobin state intervening in religious organization or Tom Cruise's Scientologits and others Raël's movement and etc, as France it is not exactly North Korea, the doors are fully opened
"curiously" the buddhism in the same historical status than the islam in France doesn't seem to suffer from that and complains much less or never, not causing problems, maybe there is not a political agenda and ulterior motives behind the Buddha's followers in France and Western Europe who knows...
more than matters of laicity it is a question of national culture and assimilation
France is not not an anglo-saxon country but built from roman and latin background and so...à Rome, fais comme les Romains ~ Do in Rome as the Romans do
it is not a surprise that the "burkini" came from an anglo-saxon country and their ethno-racially-obssesed "communautarist" culture
the so-called Napoleon's celebrated "victories" since the "maternelle" for me took place in Seconde, so Lycée, when you have 15 years old, this year you should have the Revolution and Napoleonic period together,
as 1789-1815 is a very dense period and as Napoléon came after the Revolution, the Napoleonic victories placed more at the end of the year than at its begining were quickly shipped...
the sad reality is Anglo-Saxon world did not understand anything about France, it don't understand nothing and will not understand her never never never
...except the French-Canadians of course...
I confirm you definitively that we don't live in the same planet
https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/analyse-pourquoi-les-medias-anglo-saxons-ne-comprendront-jamais-la-france
Loïc I still disagree. Yes of course there are other influences in the French identity, but the shadow of the French revolution is way bigger than Vercingétorix, or Clovis. There is no comparison. But perhaps I should have precisé that I meant the values of the revolution, rather than the revolution itself.
Laïcité is meant to represent freedom of religion and separation of state from religion. You cite examples as a Catholic, but you should really try being a Muslim or a protestant in France. The French state is hostile, and suspicious, and no that is not a French bashing statement - come and talk to the French protestants I know, and French Muslims I know. There is a law currently going through which brings protestant church under closer state control, including giving the state the right to scrutinise all the donations and finances. The Prefecture will be able to close the church down at anytime without giving a reason.
France also has a government department that monitors all religious groups, but especially the non Catholic ones. I've seen these guys talking on TV and they are suspicious of activity that would pass as perfectly normal faith based activity in any other part of the world, e; UK, USA, Australia, South Africa, Norway, Sweden etc. Some of the deputés in the Assemblé Nationale are so completely ignorant that they make utterly false statements about French protestants in public and do so on record and have not apologised, such as the ridiculous assertion that French evangelicals require virginity tests before marriage.
https://www.derives-sectes.gouv.fr/
You can't even help out on a school trip with your head covered in France if you are a Muslim, or wear a cross in a state run school. You are not allowed to wear a burquini on some beaches if the local Maire decides to ban it.
This is repression not defence of the rights of religious minorities. This isn't French bashing, its true. And maybe maternel was a bit of humor, but you can't deny that French history books at collège talk about "les victoires glorieuses de Napoléon". 😂
@ Loïc - I could not disagree with you more on both points. A huge amount of modern french national symbolism comes from the French revolution - la devise de la france, La Marseillaise, le tricolour, la laïcité, le 14 Juillet, etc etc. Even Napoleon's victories are celebrated in French history books at maternel and collège. The values of liberté d'expression, and égalité are fundamental to French culture and identity. I have never come across a French man or woman who wants to restore the monarchy, although I'm sure there must be some small group somewhere. The separation of the French state from religion is not only profound, it borders on hostility to faith. State education is practically atheistic. There is even a reform going through at the moment that will harden state surveillance and financial control over non Catholic churches, and they have imposed rules on Mosques. An arm of the state monitors religious groups to see whether they are considered to be cults, and have the right to close them down. The relationship between the state and the church is best described as suspicious. Laicité is a core political value in French society.
??!! hostily to faith, atheistic, what a bizarre negative description, it will be probably one of worst french-bashing sentence I would have read in my life and I had a lot, I have the feeling to read a tourist describing some bolshevick soviet republic for the very first time,
atheism is a political anti-religious way of thinking so fully contrary to laicity,
second in the relation with the churches such description is totally ignoring that France have been historically an interventionnist centralised state who would like to control everywhere and for all, more gallican than ultramontain, so the interventions in this kind of matters everyone would say that is precisely contrary to the laicity because it indicates there isn't a clear separation between both, the same when the French Republic is the last in the world keeping the right to appoint catholic bishops
so contrary that you wrote there isn't at all a clear and unambiguous separation with the Catholic Church, I precised you others reasons why is wrong or more complicated than your simplistic black-and-white view and gave you dailylife examples as well as institutionnal
I forgot to precise that the French Republic not ony finances the whole Catholic education but it is very well known that the oldest French TV show on a State public channel is the Sunday Mass... Same TV shows were added for all the others religions on the same State public channel
... I have also to confess I followed the catechism inside my own public school with the local chaplain...and among the first people who received me the first day inside an Army Barracks was a chaplain
Writing that France celebrates "the napoleonic victories" since the "maternelle" is just a touch of humor I hope (?!) don't write that in any french-speaking forum
France's date of birth is all but 1789, Vercingétorix, Clovis's baptism, Saint Louis are also part the national French culture and identity and others chapters seen more positively than the years of Revolutionnary Terror and civil wars you imagined not perceveid with "ambivalence", and such word is light or soft at best, one of the worst black chapter of the French History symbolised by the still hated Robespierre
as many foreigners you don't understand really French culture and society
If you didn't meet someone who would like "to restore the monarchy"it is probably because there are everywhere, it is very well known the last true monarchists of Europe as described by real connoisseurs are the cryptomonarchists French and their beloved monarchist 5th Republic
if you would like to see a country where the Church and State are really and totally separated, go rather to México
0
A small point perhaps, but the execution of Charles I was the conclusion of the "bloody chaotic civil war" in England, not its cause.
Comments about objectivity and romantic views of national history might have some validity if we could not only establish that 'Americans' or 'The French' , for example, didn't themselves have subjective views of their own national history, ( As the term 'Chauvinism' neatly illustrates) but also that such generalisations contribute in any real way to a sensible discussion.
Yes, I am.
I think @tomholmberg you will find the Irish Question was (and still remains) a much more complicated and nuanced one. If you have any glib or short solution to that, I’m sure both the modern Taoiseach and UK Prime Minister would be delighted to hear about it. Or as we used to put it, the combat indicator that someone knew nothing was them saying they understood NI. An enigma wrapped in a conundrum.
To conclude, today Napoleon is regarded with some ambivalence in France, and there is still some regret that the king was killed. But actually la Révolution Française itself is not regarded with ambivalence.
hi Hans, yes in France there is a clear and unambiguous separation of church and state. I assume in many other European countries too, but I don’t know the detail.
not really
first the French Revolution is not regarded as a consensual moment for the French nation and identify because it is also associated mostly with the division and one of the worst civil war in the French History with the Wars of Relgion 1562-1598
second, the ChurchES are not clearly and unambiguously separated from the French State, Alsace and the dept. of Moselle are still under the Napoleonic Concordat of 1801, others Overseas depts can have the Catholic faith as only official recognized religion, outside Alsace and Moselle the French State or the towns are still also owners of cathedrals (and not the Vatican as imagined Trump for Notre Dame) and churches and finances them as well as all the private religious, mainly catholic, schools, the chaplains have been reintroduced by the French 3rd Republic in the Army's units, Air Bases and Navy's ships as well in others public buildings such as non-religious schools colleges universities, hospitals and jails,
even if it is only symbolic and honorific there is still a title for the president of French Republic recognized as premier et unique chanoine honoraire de Saint-Jean-de-Latran at the Vatican
>"I think this argument loses its credence post 1807. I think you'd have had a tough time telling the Portuguese, the Spanish, or the Russians that they were better off under French control."<
The habitable portions of the globe extends is approx. 52, 677,000 sq. miles, at its height the British Empire comprised 14,157,000 sq. miles, much of this territory was acquired during the years 1789-1815. I don't think many of the people already living in those regions felt they were better off under British control.
>" Its worth remembering Napoleon's arrogance in seeking to dictate the economic policy of the whole European continent post-Tilsit, his refusal to accept that an independent country like Portugal might wish to decide its own policy on exports..."<
It might be worth noting that all the nations whose trade was affected by British policies probably weren't very happy either.
I could go on...
Yes good pointa, but I’m not really arguing for Revolution over evolution. I’m saying that in this specific context the war was about suppressing democratic rights and freedoms and Revolutionart ideals. Clearly the situation on the ground evolved and the ideals became quite compromised. But the alternative on offer wasn’t really very progressive. I think we are all children of the enlightenment now and the values of the revolution are our own - unless you are a royalist by nature I guess. But even today royalists have become democrats.
I don’t know where you come from @deanejay but archaic (particularly when paired with anachronistic) pretty much sums us up. You shouldn’t confuse separation of church and state with tolerance and equality. It’s a common error for those with a written constitution to believe that structures lead to behaviour. They don’t. Tolerance, equality and fairness are values. In fact, not only is the executive and church tied together in the person of the monarch. The Church of England bishops sit in the second legislative chamber (the House of Lord) as the Lords Spiritual As the French discovered, lopping the head off your monarch does not cure you. If you have a strong man culture you just end up with another. Whether it be Lord Protector or Emperor is immaterial. It is a common misconception that republics born of revolution are progressive. But if we take a UK/US comparison, Abolition of slavery, same sex relationships etc the constitutional monarchy outstripped the republic. Two female leaders too. Evolution not revolution has proved to be as effective as trajectories. The premise simply does not hold water republics or republicanism is somehow superior.
I assume you are referring to this extract from your link?
"Many social and political historians, including the late Eric Hobsbawm and more recently Adam Zamoyski, have a very different take.[13] For them, the post-Napoleonic settlement represents above all the triumph of coordinated reaction. In country after country, monarchs who were determined to prevent anything like the French Revolution from ever happening again cooperated with each other to suppress moves towards liberal democracy. The years after 1815 were the years of the Peterloo Massacre in Britain, of the violent suppression of liberal revolution in southern Europe, of resurgent autocracy in Russia, of reactionary “ultra-royalism” in Restoration France. The resulting buildup of pressure would lead to the great explosion of revolutionary energy across the continent that occurred in 1848."
A minor point, but I still live in a country which is perfectly democratic yet has still not separated church and state. Personally, I’m quite in favour of keeping Her Majesty as defender of the faith if it protects us from the range of fundamentalist nut jobs other countries appear to be plagued with.
I cannot at all agree with your assumptions at all, the story is much much more complex to be painted as black and white as you do. The Allies did not re wind the clock at all in 1815 - and there wasn't an absolute monarchy re established in France (Boney's regime of terror was much more absolutistic as those of the Bourbons - who were under Allied control for several years, this I realized when reading the book of Beatrice de Graaf on that subject).
The right of man, and others were not the fruit of the French Revolution but already established by enlightenment well before the Revolution. Up to 1792 - the French Kingsdom (and it sill was then up to September 1792) - wasn't a target of any non French states. And despite a first coalition was founded (where Britian was only a small part and couldn't field any land force of substance) - most European states joined and one has to ask - why? Was it the fear the liberal ideas spread through Europe (which I don't think because they were already there - and also in effect - see Bavaria for example and the reforms of Montgelas) or how the French state started to develop - war mongering to invade foreign countries and grab them for France.
I cannot see that France as per se was a victim of aggression from the first coalition, which had at the best very vague war aims and weren't united at all in the realizing them, otherwise the French Republic would not have survived.
As the the bad guys, why did the peace of Amiens fail, you seemingly turn a blind eye to Boney's politics during those short period of peace as well as the himself regarded any peace period or armistice only as preperation for war.
The Russians, and we hardly know any other memoires than those of officers were quite appaled who poor the living conditions in France were, compared to Germany where they had fought in 1813 and who poorly the country was run down by war monger Nabulieone himself.
There is a good podcast about all this -
which I can recommend to all of those interested in this period and which had prompted myself to change my percetion of that historical period more often than once.
Hi Zack, we can quibble about wording on starting wars, but Britain was certainly war mongering and scheming at every opportunity aggressively. After Amiens it tilted the continent back to war. Not terribly virtuous in my view, but hey. I'm no fan of 18th century Britain. It was cruel, and brutal and entirely self interested.
I think you might be missing the point though in citing Napoleon's failures in democracy, ( points which I don't disagree with btw). But the coalition was entirely intent on extinguishing whatever democracy existed in France and any semblance of a state of rights, to restore the rule of the king and aristocracy. After 1815 that's what they did and the only people able to vote after that were the wealthiest 2% of the population. Even wearing a tricolor in public was a serious criminal offence as was voicing any support for Napoleon publically. Political retribution became the order of the day.
I'm not really sure why anyone needs to factor in the terror "more". The European powers were not coming to liberate anyone, they were coming to reimpose a form of slavery on the nation, kill the revolution, and its leaders and subjugate France. The terror probably wouldn't have happened anyway if Europe kept out of things. It was only when the leaders of the day had their back against the wall with enemies without and within and armies massing at the borders that the terror kicked off.
I would probably go with you on the Portuguese point. But, we see Britain using Portugal as a port for operations against France, and it was an old British ally against France. I'm not sure that Britain can really complain if it find its allies being drawn into conflict - especially one that it started and executed with vigour. But I'd agree that this was an example of Napoleonic overreach, as was Egypt and Russia. I don't think Napoleon ever intended to occupy Russia though, he wanted to force the Czar into a corner and to finally get a peace treaty out of him. We are here talking about exceptions of course to the overall course of the wars. Whereas I'd say that all Britain's actions were a form of imperialist interference and aggression, no?
I think this argument loses its credence post 1807. I think you'd have had a tough time telling the Portuguese, the Spanish, or the Russians that they were better off under French control. Its worth remembering Napoleon's arrogance in seeking to dictate the economic policy of the whole European continent post-Tilsit, his refusal to accept that an independent country like Portugal might wish to decide its own policy on exports, the invasion of the country in 1807, despite the Portuguese acquiescing to French demands, the summary toppling of the Spanish monarchy (his ally) because it suited him. Should we be on the side of a dictator who has no respect for the integrity of an independent state? I would suggest not.
I'm also always sceptical of democracy arguments. Britain was far from being a democratic nation - rotten boroughs, suffrage based on wealth, and huge resistance to reform. Yet Napoleon was no paragon of democracy - research has shown that his plebscites were hugely biased - inflated returns, all those in the army assumed to have voted in favour, people being encouraged to change their minds - is a rigged democracy fundamentally any better than the sham democracy that existed in Britain? Probably not in my opinion, and as such, the two nations were as bad as each other. There is also the open question of what Napoleon would have done if the plebiscites had not gone the way he wanted.
I'd also suggest that there is a need to factor the terror into this far more - the revolution certainly brought many developments and rights which we rightly cherish today, but those running the regime were no angels, and the revolution was a bloody affair.
But if you are looking at what was achieved pre-terror, then I'd be inclined to agree with you, yet we are at risk of teleology here. We look back now and know that these ideals were to the betterment of society. That wasn't particularly obvious to many in 1791, as this represented a fundamental destablising of the established order. You can make a similar argument about Marxism - as an ideal, the basic concept is a utopian stroke of genius. The efforts to implement it, however, have resulted in a grotesque mimicry of the core idea, and communist regimes have been characterised by corruption and suppression of rights and liberties.
A couple of side points: you mention that redcoats had a poor reputation - yes, they absolutely did, but so did all soldiers. Being a member of the rank and file was not regarded as a respectable profession. The British at least had the chance to choose whether or not to serve in 1791 (provided they evaded the navy press gangs). French civilians did not. And on your point about Britain starting these wars, I'd disagree with the phrasing - Britain joins the war in 1792, remains at war until conlcuding peace at Amiens, restarts the war in 1803, and remainsat war until 1814. Of course in 1815, they redeclare war but specifically on Napoleon, and do so alongside the other European powers - we could have the discussion all day about whether resumption of hostilities in 1815 is Napoleon's fault (my views on the matter are no secret). 😂 Britian unquestionably encouraged and bankrolled other nations, but you can't start a war with a nation if you're already at war with them.