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...