Like he glossed over, Louis XVI was only deposed and executed at a narrow majority, his execution was carried with an only 1 vote difference. The Revolution being anti-monarchist is unfortunately a misconception that I'm disappointed wasn't debunked here. Only the most extremes of Jacobins initially wanted the Republic most people wanted to carry on with the Constitutional Monarchy, and peasants didn't even think possible a government without King. It's only through a succession of events that galvanized the populist factions (not quite unlike what is happening currently) did the atmosphere switch to more and more anti-monarchist. Ironically, the King, in wanting to flee, and the other Kings in wanting to save the French Monarchy led to the loss of trust into the King and his eventual downfall, but the Revolution never was from the start about wanting to end the Monarchy. That's why Napoléon was so quickly accepted, a lot of the reactionaries were tired and wanted peace back (like in 68 where it was the counter-protestation of the Right that ended the events of May).
Caramichael He goes into depth about that in his World History episode on the revolution. How it evolved and how it’s ideologies changed and how revolutionary it really was
Hi John. Frenchie here. It's well known that the famous "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" of Jean Jacques Rousseau's Confession is often attributed to be about Marie Antoinette. However most french do know that this was misattributed. There are no known records of Marie Antoinette saying those words. Most likely they are about Madame Victoire. The French wiki article is well documented on this topic. Regards,
French spotted... mind sharing how the French Revolution is taught in your education system? How is it different from this video? Is the French Revolution viewed very positively?
Danielle That could be a major reason it became so dang popular...bet one guy made a political joke that made people believe it happened only to cause such severe anxiety to the then pesentry that it proved a spark to the anger of the time...
@@arandomcomment1092 well the insight of this episode on the contrary suggest that the "I didn't tell them to eat cake" was more a reference on how Brioche is not really a cake, we just assumed he knew that she did say it.
Haven’t historians pretty much confirmed that Marie Antoinette didn’t say let them eat brioche? It was first written down while she was a child, and it is more likely that it was Marie-Therese or someone else entirely
It was “Theorized at the time” that she did... She probably didn’t actually say that, though it made the then grumbling pesentry become ever more militant/against the monarchy.... Proving that rumours, can be just as dangerious as truths...
I had read that Marie Antoinette did say something about sweet bread, but that was after a handmaid of hers let something slip about food and Antoinette insisted to know why she was so hungry. The woman explained and Antoinette stood up and said,"if they are hungry, then let them eat sweet bread" referring to her own stores of food from the royal palace. Antoinette continued donating food but at some point her generosity only made it clearer that no matter how much she gave something needed to change at the deepest levels of society. No nation can live on donations from a single person. Unfortunately, history only remembers her decadence, which she did not curtail. She didn't hand the food out personally so most people didn't know or care where it came from, they only cared that it still wasnt close to enough. It seemed a pittance, even to the starving. Yes she was disconnected and wasteful but to call her uncaring is wrong. When she was no longer sheltered from the truth she tried and gave mightily, it just wasnt ever going to be enough. She didn't have the power or the time to fix france, but she did something when many did nothing and that should count for something. Thanks for speaking up about her, too few do. Was she a hero? No. Did she deserve the blade? Also no.
To the best of my knowledge. She never did say “let them eat cake.” She might have said something that sounded similar but not that. However, this quote is a good way of showing how she saw the world and what she thought of those below her even if she didn’t actually say it
Yeah i agree from what i have seen she didn't say that our anything like that and instead it was just propaganda to demonize her so people would be more willing to chop off her head
Kim Jong-un K is for Korea just the north one. I is for the Internet you ban. M is for the millions who are missing. J is for the human tasting jam. O is for oh boy we love our leader. N is for the true Korea north. G is for geewhiz we love our leader. You for unification coming forth. And N is for the nation we adore.
I know you don't usually focus much on the military side, but the concept of changing France into a nation of citizens is a huge factor in France's military success both before and during Napoleon's reign. Other countries would field royal, professional armies, but France mobilised its people into huge armies that could more easily weather defeats or casualties compared to its rivals. So everyone looked at the French armies and said "Oh wow, they can just recruit anyone? We have to do that too!" and thus, by necessity, the other European countries at the time also had to change, arguably even democratise, their military mindset.
Loving this series! I used this channel as a student in school and university. Now I am a high school teacher recommending my students watch your videos! :)
um actually, napoleon was not a commoner. he come from an empovrished corsican noble family. he enjoyed expensive education and was a lieutenant when he joined the army.
Pretty big oversight from Crash Course. It's in the first sentence on his 'early life' on wikipedia even. The first chapters in any biography on him talk about his expensive education in a prestigious boarding school in France.
@@VashdaCrash Honestly my hope, they should scrap this episode entirely and go back to reading books on the subjects because this video is only spreading misconceptions and is really not on par with the others.
He envoyed a good French education but that didn't make a Artistocrat out of him. He ended up walking around in Paris, poor and alone during the revolution. He is a real man of the people especially when you know that he evolved in the military not by money but by his talent alone because in the begining he was only an artillery officer. That's why during the hundred days (when he came back from exile), no soldier nor people wanted to kill him but instead greet him as their true natural leader.
I just wanted to congratulate Crash Course History for evolving in the right direction regarding tempo and speed. There was too much action for most people to truly learn anything in the first seasons of Crash Course history. From an educational perspective, this series on European history is way better.
Proloza Loser seems fine to me lol. I’m glad it’s toned down a bit, it’s a lot easier for me to actually follow since he’s not just ripping through everything.
Your saying in comparison too his prior last video of this frence revolution topic. Yeah his tone has changed. When u see what has happened with today and socity polerising, it's gotten quite serious. U see that life and history is quite very much intertwine in itself. Perhaps it dosnt become history of it's own self period and today is better yes but our human condition hasn't changed as much. HIstory repeats itself, no matter how different. It's just a way of living and struggles on it. But this video sheds light on history. And I'm happy to watch them.
Indeed, and reading the wiki entry shows that Marie Antoinette was sympathetic to the peasants according to one letter she wrote to her family in Austria. "It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness. The King seems to understand this truth."
In fact there's pretty hefty counter evidence to her ever having said that, in that, there are records of that line, attributed to other people, from decades before she was even born!
She also supported many charities for the poor. It peeves me that history is still not kind to her just because she was on the losing side. While the monarchy was a huge problem, she was not the cause of Frances’ woes. She was the right queen at the wrong time.
@@Madhattersinjeans She was naive though because the king did not understand that truth he did things when she nagged him to do it, but always the bare minimum to get her to shut up.
@@YukiteruAmano92 Well tehcnically the first written source of it we have is after she was born, in one of Voltaire's books, (published when she was 3 years old) but he remarks on it as an old story.
10:57 One potentially important clarification. Napoleon wasn't a commoner, but by this point, most nobles had either renounced their titles of nobility or fled the country.
The “let them eat brioche” line almost certainly was not said by Marie Antoinette, if it was said by anyone at all, given that the line was first reported before Marie Antoinette was born
This is honestly garbled, some basic facts are wrong Napoleon was absolutely not a commoner, some fairly important details are omitted (civil constitution of the clergy and the Levee en Masse being the standouts) and the chronology is just confused the royalist uprising in the Vendée wasn’t a reaction against the terror the two events happened basically simultaneously.
He was not a commoner per say but he did rise thanks to the new dynamics in place. As for the royalist uprising, of course these were simultaneous but that doesn't mean it was not a reaction to it. He had to start from the Revolution to explain the counter-revolution.
Alexander Turnbull I assume he is saying that because of the short amount of time in the video, sacrificing accuracy for speed and truth for novelty for something more inspiring than the actual facts of his upbringing. He is taking the audience into account. This is RUclips where I assume the majority of the watchers are not as well informed as maybe those with formal higher education
Alexander Turnbull I would argue that Napoleon may not have been a commoner in his youth, but he was closer to a commoner by the time of the French Revolution
@@MortalWombat4480 I mean every one was a commoner they abolished feudalism it was kinda their jam. But his family were nobles minor provincial (near foreign) nobles, but nobles none the less.
When the revolution tried to "rationalize" everything according to the decimal system (ten months, ten-day weeks, metric measurements), they ended up hurting the poor even more. The Catholic calendar had one rest day for six workdays, Sunday, while the new calendar had one rest day for nine workdays. A reminder that people in charge of the revolutionary government were never the poorest of the poor, but rather disgruntled middle-class idealists.
@@Leadbetter500 The fact that politics wasn't a personal matter to a *King,* who I remind you is supposed to be appointed by God specifically to rule his kingdom, means that something was broken.
Actually, if i remember correctly, he wrote "nothing today" in his hunting journal. Like, I couldn't catch anything today. So it's not as bad as it seems, but it's a good little story non the less.
@3:09 Fun fact: the etymology of the name sometimes used for the press, the Fourth Estate, comes from this organization of the French Estates General. One version attributes it to Edmund Burke, when he applied it to the press in England in 1787. Others, from the early 1800s in France.
France: Hey, America, can I copy your homework? America (writing the Declaration of Independence): Yeah, but just don't make it too obvious. France: Oh, don't worry. *It won't be.*
TheTacoMan. The American constitution is just English law and precepts written on one document. Except for slavery of course. In 1772 a judge ruled that slavery could not exist under ancient English law. From that moment slavery ended in England and a year later in Scotland. (It took longer to end slavery in the Carabbean because different laws applied, but it was ruled illegal in 1833.) I wonder what those freedom-loving slave owners Washington and Franklin thought about it. “Bring on the Revolution” I expect.
I'm not really sure if you're being antagonistic or agreeing with me in any way, but I was just making a joke on the fact that the French Revolution was partially inspired by the American one.
TheTacoMan. I think you completely misunderstand the situation. The American Revolution was specifically about becoming independent from Britain. Apart from thinking the “King” should be elected (but still essentially a king) that was just about it. You continued with most of English law and precepts. So unlike the French Revolution your revolution wasn’t particularly about a revolution of ideas because they were already in existence. American property owners had the vote, for instance. In modern times, all the great ideas about the government of the people were encapsulated in the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688/9. The Bill of Rights, elections every three years etc etc. Then in the 1690s limitations to free speech were removed. Things have moved on since then of course (votes for woman etc) but by 1776 the basic standards of modern democracy were already in place. So the American Revolution was a completely different thing and could not be an inspiration to the French at that time. Though later a particular French man, whose name I can’t spell, did use the word “exceptionalism” in reference to America. A word that went to the American head to bad effect (in my opinion).
Love your work John, and understand the difficulties of a 15 minute overview. But while things like whether Marie Antoinette made the brioche comment or whether the tennis court oath actually happened in a tennis court are sort of by the by, it would have been good to note that it was actually France that declared war on Austria in 1791. This is significant because, at the time, the French provisional government saw war as a means by which to both unite the French people at home and raise revolutionary fervor across Europe. It also would have been good to get a bit on the peasant uprisings in regional France, although understand 15 minutes is not a lot of time!
I’m disappointed in how they portrayed the women’s march. They made it sound like these women went to Versailles strictly to force the royal family to go to Paris. In actuality it started because of the scarcity of bread and these women were protesting mass starvation...
I think focussing on Robespierre as 'the' scapegoat for revolutionary violence is too simplistic since it ignores the dynamic of the girondin, center, mountain etc.. Most of the executions happenned when he was off committee, himself executed and afterward. Robespierre made lots of ennemies by being opposed to slavery, economic property as sacred, military interventions. He was a weird quasi-secular deist who wished to put on maximum on the price of bread and spread revolutionary ideals through missionaries not soldiers. His body was degraded with fire and lime, separated and buried at many sites to prevent cults and dissidents forming around his death. The advantages for the state of a 10 days a week calendar is also that people would then work 9/10 of the times instead of 6/7.
It's true the atrocities of the Committee of Public Safety can be blamed pretty evenly across the members and Robespierre himself was against the wholesale slaughter that was being committed out in the provinces but by the end he had completely abandoned his former ideals of religious tolerance and being against the death penalty. His "Republic of Virtue" speech was basically a call for the reign of terror to go on everywhere forever.
Robespierre was a great man of the revolution. Politicians of Thermidorian reaction naturally had to put blame on someone to keep power and they successfully placed it on Robespierre, Jacobin club and Sans-culottes.
I know that Crash Course has only 15 minutes to give a synopsis of broad events, the French Revolution being one of the most complicated historical events out there, but I feel that you have dropped the ball. Viewers already questioned 'let them eat cake', Napoleon being part of the minor nobility, making a scapegoat of Robespierre etc. You ignored how liberal nobles and clergy joined the third estate and supported them. You also ignored France's hatred of Austria, the Diamond Neckless affair, The September Massacres where thousands were killed as a radical journalist jean-Paul Marat incited panic and fear. Many people at the time had different opinions on was the Revolution was a success or not, some felt it went too far while others believed it didn't go far enough.
I agree, there is no way anyone can sum up the French Revolution to a high degree of accuracy in 15 minutes. The sources in the description only indicate Lynn Hunt was used. She's not a bad historian of the Revolution by any means, but by not even mentioning François Alphonse Aulard, François Furet, or Alexis de Tocqueville is just odd. Not to discredit Hunt, but the others were basically pioneers of the Revolution's historiography. The nobles and clergy of Blois were willing to sacrifice their tax exemption and supported some of the more liberal reforms. But that gets overlooked? It's also damning that there is no substantial pre-revolutionary discourse, which is extremely important to understanding the early phase of the Revolution.
@@vivianmax7422 This 100%. Hunt is not a bad historian, but she is in the wake of other revisionists that did just a good a job as her. It's especially strange that Tocqueville, one of the very first of the Revolution's historiography, isn't cited, given how omnipresent he is in every other major book on the Revolution. I get that he couldn't cover the very notable nobles and clergy of Blois and every cahier, but saying that the aristocracy was just there and was rich discredits their role in the revolution too much. For the pre-revolutionary discourse, yeah rising bread prices and such were important, but that and bankruptcy isn't why one of the most notable events in modern history happened John. I cannot and will not recommend this video to anyone. I simply can't in good faith have someone watch this.
Okay John. You have gotten this wrong on every French Revolution related history video, and I finally feel the need to correct you in comments. The most recent prior gathering of the Estates General had each estate casting a single vote as an order. However, in the lead up to the 1789 gathering, there was a popular call to "Double the Third and vote by head." The monarchy vacillated on this (putting out statements that the Estates General would follow its traditional rules), but eventually agreed to double the number of representatives for the Third Estate, but remained silent as to whether the votes would be taken by head or by order. When the Estates General convened, their first order of business was to take attendence, which was done by order. The Third Estate believed that this meant that all votes would be taken by order and refused to transact any official business as a separate order. The Tennis Court Oath came about when, during this whole deal, the Third Estate was locked out of its meeting room (possibly for non-political reasons like preparing it for another use), which the Third Estate took to mean that it was being disenfranchised because of their refusal to transact business.
While I am loving these massive overviews of European and world history, I think it would be really cool to also produce series with greater granularity. I'd like to know more about the Celts for example and the history of the British isles that seem to have changed hands so many times; I'm sure there are many more countries with fascinating histories that I don't even know about; and I'd really appreciate history of eastern countries like Japan or China since they both held entire empires, intricate social customs, inventions, art, redistributions of power etc. that we never learnt about in school.
France: No more absolute monarchs! Napoleon: Hold my croissant France: No more absolute monarchs! Napoleon 3: Hold my croissant France: No more more absolute monarchs! Napoleon 4: Hold my- France: Stop that!
For all of those who are quick to point out that Marie Antoinette never actually said “Let them eat cake/brioche” Two things. 1. He mentioned that she never actually said that in his World History episode on the subject and 2. Even though she never said that, that quote does a good job summarizing how she saw the world.
Dear John, I love your work and listen to your productions. This one is rife with inaccuaracies. Queen Marie Antoinette never said, 'let them eat cake'. that phrase was first recorded in 1761 when she was six. And there are a lot, lot more.
It's a lot more complicated than that (and more complicated than Crash Course could ever cover). The wars started before Napoléon had any power and his reign inherited the repercussions of a French victory in the French Revolutionary Wars. Europe likewise very much wanted to make war on him. Britain explicitly said it would accept no lasting peace until France accepted pre-1789 borders. See also the instances where in 1806 Prussia single-handedly declared war on France, starting a pointless and suicidal war (Napoléon even said it was pointless when offering a cease-fire). And again in 1809 when Austria, without even a declaration of war, invaded French territory in hopes of a surprise attack, resulting in a highly destructive war. European coalitions formed to remove the French Republic, which preceded Napoléon, and were not going to accept the government that followed.
I hope you will cover the Greek War of Independence and its consequences. It's left out of european history books and courses too often because it's a revolution overshadowed by the French one and the Napoleonic Wars.
You clearly don't know anything about Robespierre. He advocated against the death penalty, freedom of religion and many other great causes. He was a good man. The French Revolution was told by anti Jacobin, who re wrote the history to match their political views. Recent studies show that Robespierre was far from the bloody and merciless man described. He was quite the opposite. By since historian have failed to set the record straight for 2 centuries, this false reputation sticks to him.
Hey, CC team, I have a HUGE ask: could you please cross reference (in the Doobley-Doo) ALL the CC episodes across ALL CC channels that are relevant or related to the current episode? I know that's insane. But it would be AWESOME. Especially for those of us who teach in extremely non-traditional education programs. ❤️❤️❤️
3:55 Ive read that when Louis wrote "nothing happened" in his diary he was referring to his hunting record, as in he hadn't bagged any animals. I don't think he would have missed vast crowds of peasants parading past
By the way, Marie Antoinette never said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" it was revolutionary propaganda like a lot of things we "know" about her and Louis. that saying, in particular, was used about other nobles up to 50 years BEFORE the Revolution. It was more of a coded slogan than anything.
Thanks, this was great. Very interesting and entertaining. I don't care who, if anyone, actually said the Let them eat cake thing. It's a funny story to help along the greater picture. Also brioche is effing delicious.
Marie Antoinette most likely never said 'let them eat cake'. Also, in her childhood, her mother made her children do charity work like handing out food to the poor. It is true that she was racking up a lot of debt (which her husband payed off), but I think that is rather the fault of the environment that Versailles created. The French public hated her, in part because of her spending, in part because she was Austrian.
c'mon guys this is meant to be a classy show ,everyone knows Marie Antoinette never said the bread thing .It was a popular joke long before she even came to power . Also Napoleon was above average height ffs this is meant to be a crash course video I expect a little more accuracy than r/todayilearned . I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!!!
That's why he said, when introducing Napoleon, "the not particularly short". They just couldn't help making a joke at the end, which is apparently something that Anglo-American culture values. :D
@@silvasilvasilva yes what he he said was not technically incorrect but the way john brought it up would definitely have made me think the wrong thing (if i wasnt a sad pedant who already knew this was untrue)
I love how the first episode shot in Jaden Smith's studio space is the episode on the French Revolution where those that benefited from generational wealth had their heads cut off.
Crash Course didn't do a very good job on this video. Some things were flat-out wrong, and other things were too simplified to be properly informative of the events of the French Revolution. But I'm particularly disappointed about the fact that John did not mention what lead up to the Tennis Court Oath taking place. Due to the opposition of the Third Estate when the Estates General met, King Louis XIV of France ordered the doors of the assembly hall locked and therefore literally locked the Third Estate out of the meeting and out from voting. It's a ridiculous and childish move, but it shows you how the elites felt that they could handle the situation initially: by ignoring the people and continuing with a system that would benefit themselves while not having the grievances and voices of the people involved or counted.
I disagree with the French Revolution being so revolutionary as they never really changed until way into the 19th century. It brought back monarchy and allowed someone like Napoleon to happen and the wars that followed. The American Revolution was way more important. It showed how a people came together and allowed the great experiment to flourish to this very day. France since the execution of Louis XVI has been a mass mob “republic”, dictatorship, monarchy, and multiple failed republics which ended with the occupation by Germany. The United States has been a republic and pretty much stayed the same as a government body. Yes some changes have happen and it almost came to a end during the civil war but our constitution and rights always prevailed. The French Revolution was what the founding fathers of the United States did not want “mob rule.”
The American revolution did not change anything at leat at the time. America was not some revolutionary system . It effectively adopted the British constitution of the time , codified it and replaced the king with the president. The only real change was the separation of power doctrine which was taken from the French. The French revolution had much more of a global impact .
Ivan Voronov your argument is invalid. Also my argument is that the French Revolution in no way had any lasting affect as it failed. The US changed into a constitutional republic and did not go back to monarchy. The French Republic resorted back to monarchy multiple times. Also it failed capitalize on the principals it began with. What we know of the French Republic did not see the ideals until the late 19th century. Already decades after the USA established itself as the pricier system of western ideals.
As others have noted, this one was a tough one for John and the team. In my History course at the College, even as a survey course, we have to slow down a ton here because of how convoluted this was. I think John should have made this at least two, if not three videos even before getting to Napoleon. Just the role of Paris operating as its own character in the story, often not directly aligned with the more official actions of the revolution demands more in order to understand, or even just get the overview well. The 1791 Constitution should have been the end of the Revolution, but of course was not due to multiple reasons which then led into further and new revolutions. The Paris Commune, the White Terror, the role of Abbe Sieyes, Danton, Marat, etc...are all vital, even in an overview.
Dear John Green, I've been a fan of yours as long as anybody, since back in the days of Brotherhood 2.0, and the vast majority of you work is amazing. Deeply thought provoking and nuanced. Your mantra "reality resists simplicity" is something I try to remind myself all the time. But every once in a while you say something the betrays that you yourself fail to live up to that mantra. Your quip at 7:26 "Politics, where the right has a left and the left has a right, and they both have centers that nobody listens to" is one of those moments. It's a bit of a self-centered quip, don't you think? Personally, I think the very idea of labeling something as a "centrist" is often used as a cudgel against the disenfranchised by those in a privileged position within a body politic. This quip is certainly funny and has a ring to it. But it's almost funnier when you realize that only someone who would self-identify as a centrist would make such a joke. From my perspective, if there is such a thing as a centrist, it *must* be someone who believes that their position within a political system makes them uniquely capable of understanding the virtue of compromise. But such a person must necessarily be someone who is privileged within the existing political structure. How can such a person have a meaningful claim to being ignored? Wouldn't such a person, by necessity, be someone whose political needs were already accounted for within the preexisting political system? Isn't it the case that they are only "not listened to" when the preexisting political system meets a situation which it cannot overcome? Doesn't this then imply that the real problem in such a situation where centrists can be identified is that within the preexisting politics, the centrists were listened to too much? But that assumes there is such a thing as a centrist. I'm not sure there is. How would be define centrism? Every definition I've heard seems to be founded on some constellation of ideas that, whether we are talking about "center-right" or "center-left" orbits around technocracy and incrementalism. And these constellations usually seem to be in service to some sort of aristocracy. You are an expert in the French Revolution and I am not. Perhaps you could demonstrate your interpretation of the idea of "centrist" in terms of the "center-left" factions of the Jacobin party that you refer to in this video? What made their ideas "center"? How were their ideas "between" others ideas? Would that classification of their ideas as "centrist" hold up to a skeptical criticism? Or was it just their self-perception that placed them in the "center"?
@@wasneeplus I didn't say that someone who sees the virtue of compromise must necessarily be privileged. I said that a centrist must necessarily be privileged if they exist. By framing it this way, you illustrate that you have a particular bias. One where you assume that the word "centrist" is equivalent to "sees virtue in compromise". However, lots of non-centrist identifying individuals (myself included) would interpret this as an insult. I see the virtue of compromise, and I am not a centrist. Why would you assume that "centrists" are the only people who see such a virtue?
@@rbarghouti "From my perspective, if there is such a thing as a centrist, it must be someone who believes that their position within a political system makes them uniquely capable of understanding the virtue of compromise. But such a person must necessarily be someone who is privileged within the existing political structure." Okay, someone who *believes* they can see the virtue of compromise, though i don't see why they also have to think they have to be uniquely positioned to do that. I consider myself a centrist, and while I agree that coming to an exact definition of centrism is very difficult if not impossible, one of the things that I think is an essential prerequisite to become a centrist is acknowledging that things often depend on one's perspective. So someone like that must be rather oblivious to think that their perspective is so much more privileged than any other. Another essential attribute is the realisation that both extremes make some valuable points, even if you do not agree with the majority of their arguments. These two taken together also lead to a third major attribute: a centrist does not believe that there is one single lens, or one single idea that is applicable to everything. For instance, you think the word centrist is used to bludgeon the underprivileged with, probably because you see the idea of class struggle in absolutely every aspect of society. In reality I use the word centrist to describe myself because I really cannot fully align myself with either the left or the right, both of which have central ideas that I see the value of sometimes, but not in every situation.
@@wasneeplus Ok, but you do the very thing I'm referring to in the above statement. You say """Another essential attribute is the realisation that both extremes make some valuable points, even if you do not agree with the majority of their arguments.""" But by framing it this way you describe yourself as _between extremes_ which is, in reality a matter of your perspective. You have declared that specific other opinions are the "extremes" and that your perspective is "between the extremes". This is exactly what I mean when I say you have declaring and perceiving yourself to have a perspective that is uniquely capable of identifying the compromise position. In your framing, there are 3 perspectives. (For the sake of argument I will use "left" "right" and "center" for this hypothetical. You are at the center, and there is one perspective to the left and one to the right. But it is just as possible to have 4 or 5 such perspectives. Ignoring the fact that I don't believe in such a left-right spectrum as being fundamental, but taking them for granted for a moment. Suppose that you can only see the perspective to your immediate right and left, and they, in turn can only see the perspectives to their immediate right and left. Then *everyone* sees themselves as the center. *everyone* thinks they are offering compromises. That's what I mean when I say that "centrists" are simply people who see themselves as uniquely capable of seeing the virtue of compromise. In reality, centrists are simply people who don't understand that the people they disagree with ALSO see themselves as engaged in compromise of some sort.
A more complete critique would be one where I deconstruct the very idea of "right" and "left" from the perspective of a centrist and argue that even to declare the number of sides or to place them on a spectrum is itself fundamentally a biased act.
One of the big players in the anti-royalist movement in France and one of Napoleons main men was Jean Baptiste Bernadotte. He wrote open letters to the major newspapers of Europe declaring "Being a republican both by principle and by conviction, I want to fight all royalists to my death.". He is later known as Charles XIV John (Karl XIV Johan) King of Sweden. Founder of the current royal family of Sweden, the Bernadottes.
There are multiple things in this video that are disappointing: 1: Marie Antoinette NEVER said "let them eat cake", that's stupid 2: You didn't go into very much detail about the actual causes of the revolution 3: Napoleon Bonaparte was NOT a common man, he was always wealthy 4:When you were talking about France's declaration of independence, you didn't say "sorry ladies" when it said that all men are created equal I must say, this video was kinda crappy, I love Crash Course, though, just do some better research k bye!
Cesar DaChimp Correction on your correction, while Napoleon was not a commoner, coming from small nobility in Corsica, he did spend the first few years of his military career impoverished, having to send almost all the money he earned back to his family, only eating a single meal per day, often given to him by his fellow officers for free, and living in a small apartment at a reduced rate (I forget the reason how he got it reduced, but there is a story there). This didn’t last super long, as he had his promotion fast tracked so that he could do some research into the ballistics of cannons for the kingdom (causing a bit of a scandal), but he did live in poverty for a time.
Naopleon was no commoner but he was from the small noble class in Corsica, which really equated to lower middle class on France. His military career never relied on his family name or connections; he promoted people on merit or preference.
I’m a consultant for the series. Lynn Hunt, a very well respected French Historian, said she “reportedly” said it, so we kept the reportedly. I think the propaganda about it was as important as whether she said it. Bonaparte was from an emoji rushed minor noble family, so he was comparatively common. There was nothing about his position that would have led to his meteoric rise
Wow, you mixed things a little. The provincial opposition to the republicans in Paris didn't overthrow Robespierre, it actually helped bring him and the committee of public safety to power, by creating (together with the war) the atmosphere of emergency that led the assembly to give up on the advences in democratization that were made before, and led the people (especially in Paris but not just) to call for radical megers. The war in the Vendee, for example, started in March 93, while the coup that aousted Robespierre only occurred at the end of July 94, and after the revolts were pretty well crashed. The reason Robespierre fell wasn't an opposition to his ideology, but his inability to control the military political power structures in France, especially after the emergency of 1793 had passed. After that, the revolution started it's decline in ideological enthusiasm and rise in stabilization and dictatorial control of the country - first with the cynical Thermidorian Reaction, then the outright millitery dictatorship of Napoleon.
History doesn't necessarily repeat itself, but it does rhyme from time to time.
A video about the French Revolution? Yeah, there’s a tax for that.
Ah, man of culture.
To the guillotine!
lol
@@ОлегКозлов-ю9т you have to pay the IRON PRICE for that joke to the guillotine.
OoooOoOoOhhhHhHh NnOoOo
You could make a religion out of...
*NO, DON'T*
Two years old and still going strong :-)
Ha!
"Let's overthrow the palace and cut all their heads off"
Death to democracy.
Eugenics now!
china is whole again.then it broke again
Clicked faster than a guillotine coming down on a noble
That's fast.
Why stop at nobles! - without pants club
Or Robespierre...
French citizens: we don’t want anymore monarchs!
Napoleon: hold my croissant
Like he glossed over, Louis XVI was only deposed and executed at a narrow majority, his execution was carried with an only 1 vote difference.
The Revolution being anti-monarchist is unfortunately a misconception that I'm disappointed wasn't debunked here. Only the most extremes of Jacobins initially wanted the Republic most people wanted to carry on with the Constitutional Monarchy, and peasants didn't even think possible a government without King.
It's only through a succession of events that galvanized the populist factions (not quite unlike what is happening currently) did the atmosphere switch to more and more anti-monarchist. Ironically, the King, in wanting to flee, and the other Kings in wanting to save the French Monarchy led to the loss of trust into the King and his eventual downfall, but the Revolution never was from the start about wanting to end the Monarchy. That's why Napoléon was so quickly accepted, a lot of the reactionaries were tired and wanted peace back (like in 68 where it was the counter-protestation of the Right that ended the events of May).
They got Napoleon the first Emperor of France still Absolute control until Waterloo when Napoleon was beaten by the coalitions.
Boring joke
They did have quite a few monarchs after the revolution
Caramichael He goes into depth about that in his World History episode on the revolution. How it evolved and how it’s ideologies changed and how revolutionary it really was
Hi John.
Frenchie here. It's well known that the famous "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" of Jean Jacques Rousseau's Confession is often attributed to be about Marie Antoinette.
However most french do know that this was misattributed. There are no known records of Marie Antoinette saying those words.
Most likely they are about Madame Victoire. The French wiki article is well documented on this topic.
Regards,
French spotted... mind sharing how the French Revolution is taught in your education system? How is it different from this video? Is the French Revolution viewed very positively?
Also, wasn't there was a lot of political satire printed during this time? Could it have just been from one of those?
Danielle
That could be a major reason it became so dang popular...bet one guy made a political joke that made people believe it happened only to cause such severe anxiety to the then pesentry that it proved a spark to the anger of the time...
I'm pretty sure that he knows. John said "reportedly", and in an earlier episode called her Marie "I didn't say let them eat cake" Antionette
@@arandomcomment1092 well the insight of this episode on the contrary suggest that the "I didn't tell them to eat cake" was more a reference on how Brioche is not really a cake, we just assumed he knew that she did say it.
Haven’t historians pretty much confirmed that Marie Antoinette didn’t say let them eat brioche? It was first written down while she was a child, and it is more likely that it was Marie-Therese or someone else entirely
It was “Theorized at the time” that she did...
She probably didn’t actually say that, though it made the then grumbling pesentry become ever more militant/against the monarchy....
Proving that rumours, can be just as dangerious as truths...
@@kyokyoniizukyo7171 unfortunately propaganda was flooding France at the time and led to a lot more bloodshed
I had read that Marie Antoinette did say something about sweet bread, but that was after a handmaid of hers let something slip about food and Antoinette insisted to know why she was so hungry. The woman explained and Antoinette stood up and said,"if they are hungry, then let them eat sweet bread" referring to her own stores of food from the royal palace. Antoinette continued donating food but at some point her generosity only made it clearer that no matter how much she gave something needed to change at the deepest levels of society. No nation can live on donations from a single person. Unfortunately, history only remembers her decadence, which she did not curtail. She didn't hand the food out personally so most people didn't know or care where it came from, they only cared that it still wasnt close to enough. It seemed a pittance, even to the starving. Yes she was disconnected and wasteful but to call her uncaring is wrong. When she was no longer sheltered from the truth she tried and gave mightily, it just wasnt ever going to be enough. She didn't have the power or the time to fix france, but she did something when many did nothing and that should count for something. Thanks for speaking up about her, too few do. Was she a hero? No. Did she deserve the blade? Also no.
To the best of my knowledge. She never did say “let them eat cake.” She might have said something that sounded similar but not that. However, this quote is a good way of showing how she saw the world and what she thought of those below her even if she didn’t actually say it
Yeah i agree from what i have seen she didn't say that our anything like that and instead it was just propaganda to demonize her so people would be more willing to chop off her head
Crash Course European videos are what I turn to when I'm feeling down and out
Did somebody say *revolution*
Sit down, Kim, you are 60 years out of touch.
Kim Jong-un
K is for Korea just the north one.
I is for the Internet you ban.
M is for the millions who are missing.
J is for the human tasting jam.
O is for oh boy we love our leader.
N is for the true Korea north.
G is for geewhiz we love our leader.
You for unification coming forth.
And N is for the nation we adore.
Yes your grandfather did.
piss off, kimmy
@Christian Mullis no, he is te great leader of true Korea. Grandson of the founder of Korea
I know you don't usually focus much on the military side, but the concept of changing France into a nation of citizens is a huge factor in France's military success both before and during Napoleon's reign. Other countries would field royal, professional armies, but France mobilised its people into huge armies that could more easily weather defeats or casualties compared to its rivals. So everyone looked at the French armies and said "Oh wow, they can just recruit anyone? We have to do that too!" and thus, by necessity, the other European countries at the time also had to change, arguably even democratise, their military mindset.
Loving this series! I used this channel as a student in school and university. Now I am a high school teacher recommending my students watch your videos! :)
um actually, napoleon was not a commoner. he come from an empovrished corsican noble family. he enjoyed expensive education and was a lieutenant when he joined the army.
Pretty big oversight from Crash Course. It's in the first sentence on his 'early life' on wikipedia even.
The first chapters in any biography on him talk about his expensive education in a prestigious boarding school in France.
@@MrArthurvonGhent There are a lot of oversight, oversimplification, and overall misconceptions that are carried on, really sad.
@@LadCarmichael Maybe they'll have to rectify that stuff, and even make another video if it's that bad.
@@VashdaCrash Honestly my hope, they should scrap this episode entirely and go back to reading books on the subjects because this video is only spreading misconceptions and is really not on par with the others.
He envoyed a good French education but that didn't make a Artistocrat out of him. He ended up walking around in Paris, poor and alone during the revolution. He is a real man of the people especially when you know that he evolved in the military not by money but by his talent alone because in the begining he was only an artillery officer. That's why during the hundred days (when he came back from exile), no soldier nor people wanted to kill him but instead greet him as their true natural leader.
My high school history class lives off of these videos! Thanks so much for what you do
OMU!! There is more CC videos then there are galaxies in the observable universe. Just whatever I'm in the mood for. So great.
Thank you so much! I literally have a midterm on the French revolution this Saturday so this great overview really saves me!
I just wanted to congratulate Crash Course History for evolving in the right direction regarding tempo and speed. There was too much action for most people to truly learn anything in the first seasons of Crash Course history. From an educational perspective, this series on European history is way better.
i hope everything is okay, your energy seems different.
This needs to be answered
Proloza Loser seems fine to me lol. I’m glad it’s toned down a bit, it’s a lot easier for me to actually follow since he’s not just ripping through everything.
Duly noted. White hair + lower energy. We get old after all.
Your saying in comparison too his prior last video of this frence revolution topic. Yeah his tone has changed. When u see what has happened with today and socity polerising, it's gotten quite serious. U see that life and history is quite very much intertwine in itself. Perhaps it dosnt become history of it's own self period and today is better yes but our human condition hasn't changed as much. HIstory repeats itself, no matter how different. It's just a way of living and struggles on it. But this video sheds light on history. And I'm happy to watch them.
As a teacher who sometimes assigns his videos, I think he may have intentionally slowed down to increase comprehension. I, for one, appreciate it.
"Let them eat cake" was said long before Marie Antoinette, there's no proof she said it
Indeed, and reading the wiki entry shows that Marie Antoinette was sympathetic to the peasants according to one letter she wrote to her family in Austria.
"It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness. The King seems to understand this truth."
In fact there's pretty hefty counter evidence to her ever having said that, in that, there are records of that line, attributed to other people, from decades before she was even born!
She also supported many charities for the poor. It peeves me that history is still not kind to her just because she was on the losing side. While the monarchy was a huge problem, she was not the cause of Frances’ woes. She was the right queen at the wrong time.
@@Madhattersinjeans She was naive though because the king did not understand that truth he did things when she nagged him to do it, but always the bare minimum to get her to shut up.
@@YukiteruAmano92 Well tehcnically the first written source of it we have is after she was born, in one of Voltaire's books, (published when she was 3 years old) but he remarks on it as an old story.
10:57 One potentially important clarification. Napoleon wasn't a commoner, but by this point, most nobles had either renounced their titles of nobility or fled the country.
"Say 'brioche'."
"Briogge."
"Aha. Aren't you going to France soon?"
"Oui!"
Maybe he'll visit the Jah Coban Club (it's Jacob-in, and yes, I know it's his thing).
Bon appetite my bros
@@crissycrossgaming ok but would you die for Claire tho?
This video is lousy with historical inaccuracies and I'm glad the comments are pointing them out.
Do you guys have any idea how much you help us.... A LOT
The “let them eat brioche” line almost certainly was not said by Marie Antoinette, if it was said by anyone at all, given that the line was first reported before Marie Antoinette was born
i miss thé “MR GREEN MR GREEN”
This is honestly garbled, some basic facts are wrong Napoleon was absolutely not a commoner, some fairly important details are omitted (civil constitution of the clergy and the Levee en Masse being the standouts) and the chronology is just confused the royalist uprising in the Vendée wasn’t a reaction against the terror the two events happened basically simultaneously.
He was not a commoner per say but he did rise thanks to the new dynamics in place. As for the royalist uprising, of course these were simultaneous but that doesn't mean it was not a reaction to it. He had to start from the Revolution to explain the counter-revolution.
Alexander Turnbull I assume he is saying that because of the short amount of time in the video, sacrificing accuracy for speed and truth for novelty for something more inspiring than the actual facts of his upbringing. He is taking the audience into account. This is RUclips where I assume the majority of the watchers are not as well informed as maybe those with formal higher education
Alexander Turnbull I would argue that Napoleon may not have been a commoner in his youth, but he was closer to a commoner by the time of the French Revolution
@@MortalWombat4480 I mean every one was a commoner they abolished feudalism it was kinda their jam. But his family were nobles minor provincial (near foreign) nobles, but nobles none the less.
When the revolution tried to "rationalize" everything according to the decimal system (ten months, ten-day weeks, metric measurements), they ended up hurting the poor even more. The Catholic calendar had one rest day for six workdays, Sunday, while the new calendar had one rest day for nine workdays. A reminder that people in charge of the revolutionary government were never the poorest of the poor, but rather disgruntled middle-class idealists.
good luck fellow exam takers!
Im about to die on this exam, I wonder if there’s a support group for the euro test lmao
@@bowmaster8848 ikr i need a therapist for my ap euro exam PTSD
I have my AP European History Exam in 3 hours, hope it goes well!
Two Crash Courses about the French Revolution by the same presenter 7 years apart and holy! things have changed
Louis XVI only wrote about personal events in his journal, he never wrote about politics.
Exactly!! Just because he didn't write them in his journal doesn't mean he was unaware!
@@Leadbetter500 The fact that politics wasn't a personal matter to a *King,* who I remind you is supposed to be appointed by God specifically to rule his kingdom, means that something was broken.
@@Arrakiz666 Actually more along the line that he had ministers appointed to do that.
When you "are the state" nothing is more personal than politics.
Actually, if i remember correctly, he wrote "nothing today" in his hunting journal. Like, I couldn't catch anything today. So it's not as bad as it seems, but it's a good little story non the less.
@3:09 Fun fact: the etymology of the name sometimes used for the press, the Fourth Estate, comes from this organization of the French Estates General. One version attributes it to Edmund Burke, when he applied it to the press in England in 1787. Others, from the early 1800s in France.
It gets weird in the Nordic countries where there were always 4 wastes, Nobles Priests Burgers and Peasants
It's certainly a fact - I wouldn't describe it as fun though.
John Green should get an honorary masters degree or a PhD on the French revolution at this stage
France: Hey, America, can I copy your homework?
America (writing the Declaration of Independence): Yeah, but just don't make it too obvious.
France: Oh, don't worry.
*It won't be.*
Americas is still awful, unlike the french one.
Ehm.. The US still had slaves when the French constitution was written.
TheTacoMan. The American constitution is just English law and precepts written on one document. Except for slavery of course.
In 1772 a judge ruled that slavery could not exist under ancient English law. From that moment slavery ended in England and a year later in Scotland. (It took longer to end slavery in the Carabbean because different laws applied, but it was ruled illegal in 1833.)
I wonder what those freedom-loving slave owners Washington and Franklin thought about it. “Bring on the Revolution” I expect.
I'm not really sure if you're being antagonistic or agreeing with me in any way, but I was just making a joke on the fact that the French Revolution was partially inspired by the American one.
TheTacoMan. I think you completely misunderstand the situation. The American Revolution was specifically about becoming independent from Britain. Apart from thinking the “King” should be elected (but still essentially a king) that was just about it. You continued with most of English law and precepts.
So unlike the French Revolution your revolution wasn’t particularly about a revolution of ideas because they were already in existence. American property owners had the vote, for instance.
In modern times, all the great ideas about the government of the people were encapsulated in the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688/9. The Bill of Rights, elections every three years etc etc. Then in the 1690s limitations to free speech were removed. Things have moved on since then of course (votes for woman etc) but by 1776 the basic standards of modern democracy were already in place.
So the American Revolution was a completely different thing and could not be an inspiration to the French at that time. Though later a particular French man, whose name I can’t spell, did use the word “exceptionalism” in reference to America. A word that went to the American head to bad effect (in my opinion).
Love your work John, and understand the difficulties of a 15 minute overview. But while things like whether Marie Antoinette made the brioche comment or whether the tennis court oath actually happened in a tennis court are sort of by the by, it would have been good to note that it was actually France that declared war on Austria in 1791. This is significant because, at the time, the French provisional government saw war as a means by which to both unite the French people at home and raise revolutionary fervor across Europe. It also would have been good to get a bit on the peasant uprisings in regional France, although understand 15 minutes is not a lot of time!
I’m disappointed in how they portrayed the women’s march. They made it sound like these women went to Versailles strictly to force the royal family to go to Paris. In actuality it started because of the scarcity of bread and these women were protesting mass starvation...
I think focussing on Robespierre as 'the' scapegoat for revolutionary violence is too simplistic since it ignores the dynamic of the girondin, center, mountain etc.. Most of the executions happenned when he was off committee, himself executed and afterward. Robespierre made lots of ennemies by being opposed to slavery, economic property as sacred, military interventions. He was a weird quasi-secular deist who wished to put on maximum on the price of bread and spread revolutionary ideals through missionaries not soldiers. His body was degraded with fire and lime, separated and buried at many sites to prevent cults and dissidents forming around his death. The advantages for the state of a 10 days a week calendar is also that people would then work 9/10 of the times instead of 6/7.
It's true the atrocities of the Committee of Public Safety can be blamed pretty evenly across the members and Robespierre himself was against the wholesale slaughter that was being committed out in the provinces but by the end he had completely abandoned his former ideals of religious tolerance and being against the death penalty. His "Republic of Virtue" speech was basically a call for the reign of terror to go on everywhere forever.
Cultists, finding robespierre's body: you could make a religion out of thi-
Committee of public safety: no don't
Vive Robespierre!!!
Robespierre was a great man of the revolution. Politicians of Thermidorian reaction naturally had to put blame on someone to keep power and they successfully placed it on Robespierre, Jacobin club and Sans-culottes.
Monsieur, are you perhaps missing the point of 'Crash Course' History?
10 MILLION COMING SOON Crash Course💪
I know that Crash Course has only 15 minutes to give a synopsis of broad events, the French Revolution being one of the most complicated historical events out there, but I feel that you have dropped the ball.
Viewers already questioned 'let them eat cake', Napoleon being part of the minor nobility, making a scapegoat of Robespierre etc.
You ignored how liberal nobles and clergy joined the third estate and supported them. You also ignored France's hatred of Austria, the Diamond Neckless affair, The September Massacres where thousands were killed as a radical journalist jean-Paul Marat incited panic and fear.
Many people at the time had different opinions on was the Revolution was a success or not, some felt it went too far while others believed it didn't go far enough.
I agree, there is no way anyone can sum up the French Revolution to a high degree of accuracy in 15 minutes. The sources in the description only indicate Lynn Hunt was used. She's not a bad historian of the Revolution by any means, but by not even mentioning François Alphonse Aulard, François Furet, or Alexis de Tocqueville is just odd. Not to discredit Hunt, but the others were basically pioneers of the Revolution's historiography. The nobles and clergy of Blois were willing to sacrifice their tax exemption and supported some of the more liberal reforms. But that gets overlooked? It's also damning that there is no substantial pre-revolutionary discourse, which is extremely important to understanding the early phase of the Revolution.
@@vivianmax7422 This 100%. Hunt is not a bad historian, but she is in the wake of other revisionists that did just a good a job as her. It's especially strange that Tocqueville, one of the very first of the Revolution's historiography, isn't cited, given how omnipresent he is in every other major book on the Revolution. I get that he couldn't cover the very notable nobles and clergy of Blois and every cahier, but saying that the aristocracy was just there and was rich discredits their role in the revolution too much.
For the pre-revolutionary discourse, yeah rising bread prices and such were important, but that and bankruptcy isn't why one of the most notable events in modern history happened John.
I cannot and will not recommend this video to anyone. I simply can't in good faith have someone watch this.
Narrative of blaming Marat for the revolutionary violence needs to stop.
MrDraconder you should watch oversimplified French Revolution
Okay John. You have gotten this wrong on every French Revolution related history video, and I finally feel the need to correct you in comments. The most recent prior gathering of the Estates General had each estate casting a single vote as an order. However, in the lead up to the 1789 gathering, there was a popular call to "Double the Third and vote by head." The monarchy vacillated on this (putting out statements that the Estates General would follow its traditional rules), but eventually agreed to double the number of representatives for the Third Estate, but remained silent as to whether the votes would be taken by head or by order. When the Estates General convened, their first order of business was to take attendence, which was done by order. The Third Estate believed that this meant that all votes would be taken by order and refused to transact any official business as a separate order. The Tennis Court Oath came about when, during this whole deal, the Third Estate was locked out of its meeting room (possibly for non-political reasons like preparing it for another use), which the Third Estate took to mean that it was being disenfranchised because of their refusal to transact business.
While I am loving these massive overviews of European and world history, I think it would be really cool to also produce series with greater granularity. I'd like to know more about the Celts for example and the history of the British isles that seem to have changed hands so many times; I'm sure there are many more countries with fascinating histories that I don't even know about; and I'd really appreciate history of eastern countries like Japan or China since they both held entire empires, intricate social customs, inventions, art, redistributions of power etc. that we never learnt about in school.
I WOULD LOVEEEE IT IF CRASH COURSE HAD AN ACCOUNTING COURSE!!❤️️.
very good sessions , making history more apparent , concise . Compliments au chefs ! :D
Wait I didn’t think Marie Antoinette said “let them eat cake or sweet bread” that was from a satirical work by Rousseau.
I think Voltaire, at any rate the book it's from came out long before Marie Antoinette was queen of france, she was 3 years old at the time.
She didn’t say it.
Been waiting for this .Can't wait
where's "me from the past"? I miss that dude
Great video! History is so important. Gotta know where you’ve been to better yourself for the future!
this is now school, since my teacher is too busy getting married and doing exams during a pandemic
France: No more absolute monarchs!
Napoleon: Hold my croissant
France: No more absolute monarchs!
Napoleon 3: Hold my croissant
France: No more more absolute monarchs!
Napoleon 4: Hold my-
France: Stop that!
thank yall for everything u do
For all of those who are quick to point out that Marie Antoinette never actually said “Let them eat cake/brioche” Two things. 1. He mentioned that she never actually said that in his World History episode on the subject and 2. Even though she never said that, that quote does a good job summarizing how she saw the world.
Robespierre pulling that guillotine lever like he's at a Vegas slot machine
He released this just after my test 😭😭😭
Je suis français 🇨🇵 très bonne vidéo 👍
i have exactly 15mins left to study so thank you😂😂
Dear John, I love your work and listen to your productions. This one is rife with inaccuaracies. Queen Marie Antoinette never said, 'let them eat cake'. that phrase was first recorded in 1761 when she was six. And there are a lot, lot more.
Hey! My mom is an English 3 teacher and she uses your lessons!
Jayden Smith bought you guys a studio, or paid for upgrades on one, so you can keep giving out knowledge for free? That’s pretty awesome.
I have an exam tomorrow. Thank you
I like how he remade hie video on the french revolution this is really well made
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 15:05
This is what I’m learning next.
Thank you for explaining why Napoleon went to war with the rest of Europe after coming to power. I never quite understood that.
It's a lot more complicated than that (and more complicated than Crash Course could ever cover). The wars started before Napoléon had any power and his reign inherited the repercussions of a French victory in the French Revolutionary Wars. Europe likewise very much wanted to make war on him. Britain explicitly said it would accept no lasting peace until France accepted pre-1789 borders. See also the instances where in 1806 Prussia single-handedly declared war on France, starting a pointless and suicidal war (Napoléon even said it was pointless when offering a cease-fire). And again in 1809 when Austria, without even a declaration of war, invaded French territory in hopes of a surprise attack, resulting in a highly destructive war. European coalitions formed to remove the French Republic, which preceded Napoléon, and were not going to accept the government that followed.
Mr. Green, we Love you
”Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive; but to be young was very heaven.”
This brings me back
Thank you John Green. Very Cool.
I hope you will cover the Greek War of Independence and its consequences. It's left out of european history books and courses too often because it's a revolution overshadowed by the French one and the Napoleonic Wars.
The comments here are pointing out other inaccuracies of this video
Next Robespierre will be shouting “War is peace”, “Freedom is slavery”, and “Ignorance is strength”
That sounds like Trump!
You clearly don't know anything about Robespierre. He advocated against the death penalty, freedom of religion and many other great causes. He was a good man.
The French Revolution was told by anti Jacobin, who re wrote the history to match their political views. Recent studies show that Robespierre was far from the bloody and merciless man described. He was quite the opposite. By since historian have failed to set the record straight for 2 centuries, this false reputation sticks to him.
I love this site
This video is currently missing from the European History playlist.
it's been seven years since your last french revolution ... you seem to be more composed and relaxed now... regards
Gotta put this in the european history playlist
Hey, CC team, I have a HUGE ask: could you please cross reference (in the Doobley-Doo) ALL the CC episodes across ALL CC channels that are relevant or related to the current episode? I know that's insane. But it would be AWESOME. Especially for those of us who teach in extremely non-traditional education programs. ❤️❤️❤️
3:55 Ive read that when Louis wrote "nothing happened" in his diary he was referring to his hunting record, as in he hadn't bagged any animals. I don't think he would have missed vast crowds of peasants parading past
By the way, Marie Antoinette never said "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" it was revolutionary propaganda like a lot of things we "know" about her and Louis. that saying, in particular, was used about other nobles up to 50 years BEFORE the Revolution. It was more of a coded slogan than anything.
Thanks, this was great. Very interesting and entertaining. I don't care who, if anyone, actually said the Let them eat cake thing. It's a funny story to help along the greater picture. Also brioche is effing delicious.
Marie Antoinette most likely never said 'let them eat cake'. Also, in her childhood, her mother made her children do charity work like handing out food to the poor. It is true that she was racking up a lot of debt (which her husband payed off), but I think that is rather the fault of the environment that Versailles created. The French public hated her, in part because of her spending, in part because she was Austrian.
Please add this to the European History playlist...
Really appreciate your input John Green
c'mon guys this is meant to be a classy show ,everyone knows Marie Antoinette never said the bread thing .It was a popular joke long before she even came to power . Also Napoleon was above average height ffs this is meant to be a crash course video I expect a little more accuracy than r/todayilearned . I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!!!
That's why he said, when introducing Napoleon, "the not particularly short". They just couldn't help making a joke at the end, which is apparently something that Anglo-American culture values. :D
@@varana yeah il admit i missed that first time around but in my defence the comment section is no place for nuance
And about Marie Antoinette, he said the phrase was "attributed" to her, not that she said it.
@@silvasilvasilva yes what he he said was not technically incorrect but the way john brought it up would definitely have made me think the wrong thing (if i wasnt a sad pedant who already knew this was untrue)
Fun fact: the Jaden Smith Studio is actually named after _that_ Jaden Smith, who is apparently a fan of Crash Course.
I love how the first episode shot in Jaden Smith's studio space is the episode on the French Revolution where those that benefited from generational wealth had their heads cut off.
Crash Course didn't do a very good job on this video. Some things were flat-out wrong, and other things were too simplified to be properly informative of the events of the French Revolution.
But I'm particularly disappointed about the fact that John did not mention what lead up to the Tennis Court Oath taking place. Due to the opposition of the Third Estate when the Estates General met, King Louis XIV of France ordered the doors of the assembly hall locked and therefore literally locked the Third Estate out of the meeting and out from voting.
It's a ridiculous and childish move, but it shows you how the elites felt that they could handle the situation initially: by ignoring the people and continuing with a system that would benefit themselves while not having the grievances and voices of the people involved or counted.
I disagree with the French Revolution being so revolutionary as they never really changed until way into the 19th century. It brought back monarchy and allowed someone like Napoleon to happen and the wars that followed. The American Revolution was way more important. It showed how a people came together and allowed the great experiment to flourish to this very day. France since the execution of Louis XVI has been a mass mob “republic”, dictatorship, monarchy, and multiple failed republics which ended with the occupation by Germany. The United States has been a republic and pretty much stayed the same as a government body. Yes some changes have happen and it almost came to a end during the civil war but our constitution and rights always prevailed. The French Revolution was what the founding fathers of the United States did not want “mob rule.”
The American revolution did not change anything at leat at the time. America was not some revolutionary system . It effectively adopted the British constitution of the time , codified it and replaced the king with the president. The only real change was the separation of power doctrine which was taken from the French. The French revolution had much more of a global impact .
Ivan Voronov your argument is invalid. Also my argument is that the French Revolution in no way had any lasting affect as it failed. The US changed into a constitutional republic and did not go back to monarchy. The French Republic resorted back to monarchy multiple times. Also it failed capitalize on the principals it began with. What we know of the French Republic did not see the ideals until the late 19th century. Already decades after the USA established itself as the pricier system of western ideals.
I love history. ❤❤❤❤❤
Why is this episode not part of the European history playlist?
Awesome and cool! ^_^
I'm a fan of John's shirts. I need that cool dad look.
We're learning this right now... just started today... creepy
which are the best history channels on youtube? with accurate information? thanks
well... there's a wonderful little channel called CrashCourse
@@ScareSans i said with accurate information
@@PasoleroBFH oh, yes, my bad. In that case, there's this lovely little channel called CrashCourse
@@ScareSans You must have more important things to do than attempting to troll
@@PasoleroBFH who said I was trolling? I'm serious when I say CrashCourse is your best bet.
As others have noted, this one was a tough one for John and the team. In my History course at the College, even as a survey course, we have to slow down a ton here because of how convoluted this was. I think John should have made this at least two, if not three videos even before getting to Napoleon. Just the role of Paris operating as its own character in the story, often not directly aligned with the more official actions of the revolution demands more in order to understand, or even just get the overview well. The 1791 Constitution should have been the end of the Revolution, but of course was not due to multiple reasons which then led into further and new revolutions. The Paris Commune, the White Terror, the role of Abbe Sieyes, Danton, Marat, etc...are all vital, even in an overview.
Dear John Green,
I've been a fan of yours as long as anybody, since back in the days of Brotherhood 2.0, and the vast majority of you work is amazing. Deeply thought provoking and nuanced. Your mantra "reality resists simplicity" is something I try to remind myself all the time.
But every once in a while you say something the betrays that you yourself fail to live up to that mantra.
Your quip at 7:26 "Politics, where the right has a left and the left has a right, and they both have centers that nobody listens to" is one of those moments.
It's a bit of a self-centered quip, don't you think?
Personally, I think the very idea of labeling something as a "centrist" is often used as a cudgel against the disenfranchised by those in a privileged position within a body politic.
This quip is certainly funny and has a ring to it. But it's almost funnier when you realize that only someone who would self-identify as a centrist would make such a joke.
From my perspective, if there is such a thing as a centrist, it *must* be someone who believes that their position within a political system makes them uniquely capable of understanding the virtue of compromise. But such a person must necessarily be someone who is privileged within the existing political structure. How can such a person have a meaningful claim to being ignored? Wouldn't such a person, by necessity, be someone whose political needs were already accounted for within the preexisting political system? Isn't it the case that they are only "not listened to" when the preexisting political system meets a situation which it cannot overcome?
Doesn't this then imply that the real problem in such a situation where centrists can be identified is that within the preexisting politics, the centrists were listened to too much?
But that assumes there is such a thing as a centrist. I'm not sure there is.
How would be define centrism? Every definition I've heard seems to be founded on some constellation of ideas that, whether we are talking about "center-right" or "center-left" orbits around technocracy and incrementalism. And these constellations usually seem to be in service to some sort of aristocracy.
You are an expert in the French Revolution and I am not. Perhaps you could demonstrate your interpretation of the idea of "centrist" in terms of the "center-left" factions of the Jacobin party that you refer to in this video? What made their ideas "center"? How were their ideas "between" others ideas? Would that classification of their ideas as "centrist" hold up to a skeptical criticism? Or was it just their self-perception that placed them in the "center"?
Why must someone who sees the virtue of compromise be necessarily privileged? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
@@wasneeplus
I didn't say that someone who sees the virtue of compromise must necessarily be privileged. I said that a centrist must necessarily be privileged if they exist.
By framing it this way, you illustrate that you have a particular bias. One where you assume that the word "centrist" is equivalent to "sees virtue in compromise".
However, lots of non-centrist identifying individuals (myself included) would interpret this as an insult. I see the virtue of compromise, and I am not a centrist.
Why would you assume that "centrists" are the only people who see such a virtue?
@@rbarghouti "From my perspective, if there is such a thing as a centrist, it must be someone who believes that their position within a political system makes them uniquely capable of understanding the virtue of compromise. But such a person must necessarily be someone who is privileged within the existing political structure."
Okay, someone who *believes* they can see the virtue of compromise, though i don't see why they also have to think they have to be uniquely positioned to do that.
I consider myself a centrist, and while I agree that coming to an exact definition of centrism is very difficult if not impossible, one of the things that I think is an essential prerequisite to become a centrist is acknowledging that things often depend on one's perspective. So someone like that must be rather oblivious to think that their perspective is so much more privileged than any other.
Another essential attribute is the realisation that both extremes make some valuable points, even if you do not agree with the majority of their arguments.
These two taken together also lead to a third major attribute: a centrist does not believe that there is one single lens, or one single idea that is applicable to everything. For instance, you think the word centrist is used to bludgeon the underprivileged with, probably because you see the idea of class struggle in absolutely every aspect of society. In reality I use the word centrist to describe myself because I really cannot fully align myself with either the left or the right, both of which have central ideas that I see the value of sometimes, but not in every situation.
@@wasneeplus
Ok, but you do the very thing I'm referring to in the above statement.
You say
"""Another essential attribute is the realisation that both extremes make some valuable points, even if you do not agree with the majority of their arguments."""
But by framing it this way you describe yourself as _between extremes_ which is, in reality a matter of your perspective. You have declared that specific other opinions are the "extremes" and that your perspective is "between the extremes".
This is exactly what I mean when I say you have declaring and perceiving yourself to have a perspective that is uniquely capable of identifying the compromise position.
In your framing, there are 3 perspectives. (For the sake of argument I will use "left" "right" and "center" for this hypothetical.
You are at the center, and there is one perspective to the left and one to the right.
But it is just as possible to have 4 or 5 such perspectives. Ignoring the fact that I don't believe in such a left-right spectrum as being fundamental, but taking them for granted for a moment.
Suppose that you can only see the perspective to your immediate right and left, and they, in turn can only see the perspectives to their immediate right and left. Then *everyone* sees themselves as the center. *everyone* thinks they are offering compromises.
That's what I mean when I say that "centrists" are simply people who see themselves as uniquely capable of seeing the virtue of compromise.
In reality, centrists are simply people who don't understand that the people they disagree with ALSO see themselves as engaged in compromise of some sort.
A more complete critique would be one where I deconstruct the very idea of "right" and "left" from the perspective of a centrist and argue that even to declare the number of sides or to place them on a spectrum is itself fundamentally a biased act.
What happened to John green he used to be so much more energetic now he seems depressed
One of the big players in the anti-royalist movement in France and one of Napoleons main men was Jean Baptiste Bernadotte. He wrote open letters to the major newspapers of Europe declaring "Being a republican both by principle and by conviction, I want to fight all royalists to my death.".
He is later known as Charles XIV John (Karl XIV Johan) King of Sweden. Founder of the current royal family of Sweden, the Bernadottes.
There are multiple things in this video that are disappointing:
1: Marie Antoinette NEVER said "let them eat cake", that's stupid
2: You didn't go into very much detail about the actual causes of the revolution
3: Napoleon Bonaparte was NOT a common man, he was always wealthy
4:When you were talking about France's declaration of independence, you didn't say "sorry ladies" when it said that all men are created equal
I must say, this video was kinda crappy, I love Crash Course, though, just do some better research
k bye!
Cesar DaChimp Correction on your correction, while Napoleon was not a commoner, coming from small nobility in Corsica, he did spend the first few years of his military career impoverished, having to send almost all the money he earned back to his family, only eating a single meal per day, often given to him by his fellow officers for free, and living in a small apartment at a reduced rate (I forget the reason how he got it reduced, but there is a story there). This didn’t last super long, as he had his promotion fast tracked so that he could do some research into the ballistics of cannons for the kingdom (causing a bit of a scandal), but he did live in poverty for a time.
Naopleon was no commoner but he was from the small noble class in Corsica, which really equated to lower middle class on France. His military career never relied on his family name or connections; he promoted people on merit or preference.
@@grahamrich9956 true, but he still really wasn't a commoner
Cesar DaChimp Though he certainly wasn’t always wealthy.
I’m a consultant for the series. Lynn Hunt, a very well respected French Historian, said she “reportedly” said it, so we kept the reportedly. I think the propaganda about it was as important as whether she said it.
Bonaparte was from an emoji rushed minor noble family, so he was comparatively common. There was nothing about his position that would have led to his meteoric rise
You better cover next the Greek revolution and the rest of the Balkan countries about their fight for freedom against the ottomans.
Wow, you mixed things a little. The provincial opposition to the republicans in Paris didn't overthrow Robespierre, it actually helped bring him and the committee of public safety to power, by creating (together with the war) the atmosphere of emergency that led the assembly to give up on the advences in democratization that were made before, and led the people (especially in Paris but not just) to call for radical megers. The war in the Vendee, for example, started in March 93, while the coup that aousted Robespierre only occurred at the end of July 94, and after the revolts were pretty well crashed. The reason Robespierre fell wasn't an opposition to his ideology, but his inability to control the military political power structures in France, especially after the emergency of 1793 had passed. After that, the revolution started it's decline in ideological enthusiasm and rise in stabilization and dictatorial control of the country - first with the cynical Thermidorian Reaction, then the outright millitery dictatorship of Napoleon.
Thank you, John Green. Thank you.
It is kind of sad(?) to see John Green being very energetic back in US History and very calm now. Oh what can time do to ppl.
Finally! :D