Louis' supposed last words are depressing honestly. "Gentlemen, I am innocent of everything of which I am accused. I hope that my blood may cement the good fortune of the French."
And I remember reading that Marie Antoinette's last words were when she ascended the stairs to the guillotine she stepped on the foot of her executioner and she said " Pardon me sir, I didn't mean to do it! "
The Guillotine was in fact a good thing. Before, the executions was painful (many time with torture) and the rich people was executed quickly but no the poor. With the Guillotine everyone was treated same, poor and rich. Until the abolition of the death penalty in France we used the Guillotine. (sorry for my english... I know is not great)
Well, no, a proper hanging is extremely fast (the noose breaks the neck rather than killing through asphyxiation), it was more a matter of wanting everyone to die by the "noble" method of being beheaded. However, one of the chief executioners pointed out that very few men were strong or precise enough to behead someone cleanly with a sword or axe, so a beheading machine was the solution.
After Revolution and First French Republic , it was never a stable going for France till mid 20th Century. First The Directory then Napoleon takes the power first Consul then as Emperor then Monarchy comes back in 1814 at the end of Napoleonic Wars then Napoleon overthrows it for a brief 100 days before he himself overthrown in Battle of Waterloo , Monarchy comes back which was overthrown for good in 1833 Revolution and decleration of Second Republic which itself was brought down by Napoleon III (nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte no I am not kidding !) who declared himself as Emperor just like his uncle then Napoleon III was taken out of power and deposed in Franco-Prussia War in 1870 when he was captured by Prussians in Sedan and as a result Third Republic was declared in France. All good things come in three right ? WRONG ! Third Republic ended and dissolved when France invaded and occupied Nazi Germany in 1940 and a good chunk of France was run by Vichy goverent , a French fascist collaborationist state which itsdelf was destroyed along with its parent state Nazi Germany after liberation of France in 1944-45. Fourth Republic declared which was declared null and void by new President Charles De Gaulle when he took power and wrote a new constitution in 1960...and my hands are tired... In 230 or so years French experienced five republics , two empires , two halves monarchy era oh and a fascist collaborationist state.
That's why after "arab spring" and now libya and others in trouble; i see this, as french, as normal... It took 200 y to stabilize France, Russia is only on the way, US still unstable North/South.
Don't forget that France has a long history and known history but if you focus on other regions i'm not sure they were more stable. Five republics sounds like a lot but when the first French Republic was established Germany and Italy didn't even exist....
@@shakya00 Remember that though German or Italian search for stability were shorter , had been more destructive for both themselves and other countries.
Napoleon was actually a very enlightened leader, he stabilized France, modernized it by keeping the good ideas from the revolution, and getting rid of the rest. In his mind, he kept the best of both worlds. Despite being a dictator, he spread the revolutionary ideas in Europe. It's more complicated than it seems. Anyway, you can hardly consider him a terrible leader. Sure late in the Napoleonic wars his ego caused his own downfall, but that's another story.
@@azertyqwerty8398 Yes but just because he did that doesn't mean you can ignore everything. Even though Washington was a slave owner he is still considered one of the best presidents in US history. You have to take into account that all this was also normal back then so its not fair to really compare stuff that was common to today's rules.
@@razier5299 I understand that. No one has been only doing good or bad in his life, but using the "you must take everything into account" can be fair or unfair for each people that has been important throughout the course of history. In that case, I don't think Napoléon was à horrible monster of an emperor, but saying that the hate he gets is undeserved is a little hard to hear. There's the slavery issue, but the people of the countries he conquered suffered a great deal from imperial armies occupation. People from Spain, for instance. Moreover, being a self-proclaimed emperor doesn't really convey the idea that you are in favor of the revolution. He may have been, but in my opinion, power changed him as it would change anyone. But that's just my opinion, which is open to new arguments. Have a good night, or whatever time it is where you are.
@@azertyqwerty8398 I understand what you say but It's easy to have a point of view on the moral of someone who lived in the past (an entirely different world back then) but it's also always unfair since we live in a comfortable and stable 21th century.
@@lareponse4745 Of course it's easy and unfair, but acting like everything that happened a long time ago is meant to be forgotten is what makes us repeat the same mistakes over and over again. In my (biased) opinion, we must not excuse what we did in the past, no matter what it is, to keep on growing morally better and better. But that's just my views on the matter.
Good reaction.. More Oversimplified! French Revolution was insane. Used to think it was a bit like ours (overthrew bad guys then lived happily ever after)...nope. It did bring us Napoleon though... history's ultimate badass.
It's very, very, very simplified. But I think it's normal in such a short format. For example for Robespierre, he is represented as a heartless executioner: it is the circumstances which led him to have to do this. You should know that during the French revolution, with fear, there was also a beginning of anarchy where the people feared by the pressure of foreign countries became paranoid, saw traitors everywhere and executions were perpetrated without judgment. It was then that the National Assembly set up revolutionary tribunals to calm the people. For the part where Robespierre to threaten deputies of the nation, in fact it was against certain people who had perpetrated crimes in Vendées. Robespierre had his part in the Terror, but he was not the only one, but after that death, it was practical for his political opponents to designate him as a dictator and a butcher, while they themselves participated in it. Especially since Robespierre never had power and I do not see how a single deputy could have instigated alone the regime of terror. thanks google trad XD
@@uberblitzsche These are historical facts. If you have a mere bit of culture in that regard, you know and accept it. It doesn't depend on your political orientation... Les Insoumis ne sont pas les seuls à avoir du bon sens.
While it is easy to understand history videos like Oversimplified, it is better to read a book about it because there are things that are left out that are may or may not be important in videos and movies. Edit: You should watch Voice of the Past’s videos. They’re really good.
We still love Napoleon here in France. Anglo-Saxons like to disregard the good things that our Emperor did for us. Napoleon stabilized France, united our country, brought glory to our Nation, restored the Church and revolutionized warfare. Anglo-Saxons don’t really like our monarchs anyway, I usually don’t pay attention because we know wether they were great or not.
Napoleon was like Genghis or Suleiman. He wanted the best for his people. And he thought murdering and crushing their neighbors abusive leaders was the best for their people. Like they were butchers but they werent incompetent.
Yup, the Guillotine, although gruesome to behold, was considered very humane in its way of shortening someone’s… life expectancy. Gotta say, between being hanged, drawn and quartered, burned, or risk a botched decapitation by an axe, I’d have preferred the quick snap of a guillotine… And oh, the war with Austria was pretty certain from the get go, as Marie-Antoinette was now the wife of a deposed and imprisoned king ! Intolerable for the crown of Austria. Also, if an Austrian army were to invade France and reinstall the king on the throne of France, still terribly impoverished France would have to pay for that « service ». Therefore, the King&Queen were hostages that HAD to die in the end. Tragic, but that’s game of thrones IRL for ya. And finally, why the word « revolution » ? Because a revolution is not evolution. It’s 360 degrees. Such an ironic iconic word. From 1 absolute ruler to another. From ancient régime nobility to empire nobility…
15:44 avec mon faible niveau d'anglais j'arrive à comprendre qu'on fait forcément passer Robespierre pour une sorte de malade qui tuait à tour de bras, il est évident que c'est largement exagéré et que l'histoire est plus complexe que ça et que Robespierre n'était pas non plus le seul décideur à cette époque entre autres.
Robespierre actually wanted to end slavery, give women more rights, give poor people the right to vote, wanted to abolish wars of conquest and more, after his political rivals got him executed, they made him the scapegoat of all their crimes to save themselves, he wasn't that awful.
Crazy, huh? Can you imagine if a bu ch of people who just wanted equality started policing what we could say, and defined what we said based on their own feelings and fears? Heh, heh, heh... :looks around nervously: "Duuuoh noooo"
Yep. Cancel culture. I'm sitting here hoping and praying this doesn't literally lead to bloodshed. This crap is literally going to destroy our society.
And as a testimony of complexity and "greyish" aspect of mankind, the very same Convention that sent thousands of people to the meat-cleaver also abolished slavery, making France at that time on of the very first countries to do so.
In fact, Napoléon wasn't a dictator. He made many referenda during his reign and in the History, only De Gaulle will do the same thing. Moreover he were a fervent revolutionary and became Emperor of the French (not of France) after asked the people. And, despite the title of Emperor, the Republic kept : Article I of the 1804 Constitution "The integrity of the French Republic is guaranted by the Emperor himself". The Chant du Départ (another song written during the Revolution for the young French Republic as the Marseille by the way) was the anthem of France. When a country was conquered and he placed himself (without annex the country) or a member of his family to the throne , he wrote a Constitution for it, free and liberal laws. He became one of the symbols of the French Revolution and that's why all Europe declared war, they were afraid of the Revolutionary Republican Imperial France (and that today, the Anglo-Saxons (majority English (I don't speak about all British just English)) still consider he was a dictator). I add he declared an unique war (against Russia) Finally, I finish with the following question : if he was really a dictator, why is he in the actual Polish anthem ? Why Russians admirate him while their country was the one which had the most suffered between 1804 and 1814 ? Why Germans (he was Protector of the Rhine people and placed some brothers on some thrones, Italians (he was King of the Italians (in fact the Italian Kingdom was only Northern Italy), Latium was part of France and one of his brothers was King of the Sicilians ("former" Kingdom of the Two Sicilies)), even he don't admirate the Emperor, thanks him to have spread the ideas of the French Revolution ?
I am not sure but I don't think Loui 16th was of Capet dynasty, I think they just called him that because they wanted to showcase continuity of monarchy in France but he was of Bourbon dynasty. Am I wrong?
Not only did she follow him to the guillotine, his sister did also. Left behind in the Temple prison were the two remaining royal children (the other two, Louis Joseph and Sophie Beatrix, having died already of tuberculosis). Seperated forcibly from their mother, when she was executed they were seperated from each other, too. The young Louis Charles was given to the care of a horrible man, who severely abused and neglected him, forcing the ten year-old to sing revolutionary songs to entertain guests, and forcing beer down his throat. Just before his mother's execution, he was beaten horribly and threatened with worse if he did not do as they say and testify in court that she sexually abused him. He was forced to have sex with prostitutes in order to try and give him a venereal disease that would be seen as proof in court. When he did testify against her, it was the only time that she spoke up out of turn, asking how anyone could think a mother would do such a thing. Women in the crowd, on hearing her, cried out that this charge should be removed. These were women who read all the made up news about her, marched on Versailles and forced her and her family to Paris, and eventually to their deaths. They hated her. Yet her reaction moved them so much they demanded the charge of sexual abuse of her child be removed, which it was. Louis Charles died in the Temple prison of horrible neglect. His sister, Marie Thérèse, was eventually exiled to Austria. She returned at the restoration of the monarchy and married her cousin. She had no children.
The 1700's are not crazy. The Middle Ages were much worse. It was a time were religious obscurantism was at its peak. By the way, in the 1780's, in France, life expectancy for a man was 26. It will reach 36 around 1805 and then drop to 23 at the peak of the Napoleonian wars against Europe and Russia. That is not a lot. But it will drop again to 27 during WWI. 27 years old of life expectancy in the 20th century is not a lot. "The Reign of Terror" is quite literally exactly that. This video doesn't exaggerate. Actually, it makes things look nice instead. There are massive mass slaughters (like Lyon, where they thought the guillotine wasn't fast enough, and so, Fouché used canons on large groups instead). I am french, and i can't emphasize enough that acknowledging the good and the bad in one's country's history is necessary before anything. I am a proud french who knows full well that my country was never perfect. The 2nd and 3rd french Revolutions were much cleaner. I wonder about the 4th, when it will happen. Napoléon was and is still beloved in France. When he came back in 1815, he was celebrated and given back his throne by the people. Autocraty is not necessarily bad. The problem with autocraty is that when you get a bad dictator who only thinks of himself, things become terrible. But when you get one that actually think of the people and the country, this is not far from being the best form of government. Napoleon created everything that mattered, including free school for everyone, and our Civil Code. Actually, a ajpanese series of novels is based on this very idea, "The 12 Kingdoms". I guess that from the french perspective at the time, we were harassed by european monarchies that simply wanted the french monarchy back. Countries like Prussia/austria (the WWII Germany) and the UK had been our mortal ennemies for almost a milenia, so better die that let them have their way. Them, and the european monarchies. We will need the atrocious, unprecedented First World War, and the trauma of Verdun (although a french victory) to dream about peace more than revenge. What is more, morals has nothing to do with governing. The USA, for example is the least moral country i can think of nowadays, and since you are americans, you should understand that nothing is simply black or white.
This isn't right about Robespierre, he was n't better or bad than others, he could'nt do not many things against the "terreur", because all population would to have "blood", and many confusion in the républic with différent movments. Sorry for my english.
When it comes to power hungry, mass murdering, dictators with delusions of grandeur, we usually think of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot but Robespierre belongs on that list as well.
Louis' supposed last words are depressing honestly.
"Gentlemen, I am innocent of everything of which I am accused. I hope that my blood may cement the good fortune of the French."
And I remember reading that Marie Antoinette's last words were when she ascended the stairs to the guillotine she stepped on the foot of her executioner and she said " Pardon me sir, I didn't mean to do it! "
Famous last words... literally.
I was born the second year of the 10,000 Day War. My father served 3 times and I served once.
The Guillotine was in fact a good thing. Before, the executions was painful (many time with torture) and the rich people was executed quickly but no the poor. With the Guillotine everyone was treated same, poor and rich.
Until the abolition of the death penalty in France we used the Guillotine.
(sorry for my english... I know is not great)
Well, no, a proper hanging is extremely fast (the noose breaks the neck rather than killing through asphyxiation), it was more a matter of wanting everyone to die by the "noble" method of being beheaded. However, one of the chief executioners pointed out that very few men were strong or precise enough to behead someone cleanly with a sword or axe, so a beheading machine was the solution.
After Revolution and First French Republic , it was never a stable going for France till mid 20th Century. First The Directory then Napoleon takes the power first Consul then as Emperor then Monarchy comes back in 1814 at the end of Napoleonic Wars then Napoleon overthrows it for a brief 100 days before he himself overthrown in Battle of Waterloo , Monarchy comes back which was overthrown for good in 1833 Revolution and decleration of Second Republic which itself was brought down by Napoleon III (nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte no I am not kidding !) who declared himself as Emperor just like his uncle then Napoleon III was taken out of power and deposed in Franco-Prussia War in 1870 when he was captured by Prussians in Sedan and as a result Third Republic was declared in France. All good things come in three right ? WRONG ! Third Republic ended and dissolved when France invaded and occupied Nazi Germany in 1940 and a good chunk of France was run by Vichy goverent , a French fascist collaborationist state which itsdelf was destroyed along with its parent state Nazi Germany after liberation of France in 1944-45. Fourth Republic declared which was declared null and void by new President Charles De Gaulle when he took power and wrote a new constitution in 1960...and my hands are tired...
In 230 or so years French experienced five republics , two empires , two halves monarchy era oh and a fascist collaborationist state.
Mexico has had pretty much the same problem.
That's why after "arab spring" and now libya and others in trouble; i see this, as french, as normal... It took 200 y to stabilize France, Russia is only on the way, US still unstable North/South.
Don't forget that France has a long history and known history but if you focus on other regions i'm not sure they were more stable. Five republics sounds like a lot but when the first French Republic was established Germany and Italy didn't even exist....
@@shakya00 Remember that though German or Italian search for stability were shorter , had been more destructive for both themselves and other countries.
Napoleon was actually a very enlightened leader, he stabilized France, modernized it by keeping the good ideas from the revolution, and getting rid of the rest. In his mind, he kept the best of both worlds. Despite being a dictator, he spread the revolutionary ideas in Europe. It's more complicated than it seems.
Anyway, you can hardly consider him a terrible leader. Sure late in the Napoleonic wars his ego caused his own downfall, but that's another story.
Well he still re-established slavery in the colonies...
@@azertyqwerty8398 Yes but just because he did that doesn't mean you can ignore everything. Even though Washington was a slave owner he is still considered one of the best presidents in US history. You have to take into account that all this was also normal back then so its not fair to really compare stuff that was common to today's rules.
@@razier5299 I understand that.
No one has been only doing good or bad in his life, but using the "you must take everything into account" can be fair or unfair for each people that has been important throughout the course of history.
In that case, I don't think Napoléon was à horrible monster of an emperor, but saying that the hate he gets is undeserved is a little hard to hear.
There's the slavery issue, but the people of the countries he conquered suffered a great deal from imperial armies occupation. People from Spain, for instance. Moreover, being a self-proclaimed emperor doesn't really convey the idea that you are in favor of the revolution. He may have been, but in my opinion, power changed him as it would change anyone.
But that's just my opinion, which is open to new arguments. Have a good night, or whatever time it is where you are.
@@azertyqwerty8398 I understand what you say but It's easy to have a point of view on the moral of someone who lived in the past (an entirely different world back then) but it's also always unfair since we live in a comfortable and stable 21th century.
@@lareponse4745 Of course it's easy and unfair, but acting like everything that happened a long time ago is meant to be forgotten is what makes us repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
In my (biased) opinion, we must not excuse what we did in the past, no matter what it is, to keep on growing morally better and better.
But that's just my views on the matter.
More oversimplified stuff pls and great reaction
Good reaction.. More Oversimplified! French Revolution was insane. Used to think it was a bit like ours (overthrew bad guys then lived happily ever after)...nope. It did bring us Napoleon though... history's ultimate badass.
Well it wasn't close to be finished AFTER Napoleon's rule
It's very, very, very simplified. But I think it's normal in such a short format. For example for Robespierre, he is represented as a heartless executioner: it is the circumstances which led him to have to do this. You should know that during the French revolution, with fear, there was also a beginning of anarchy where the people feared by the pressure of foreign countries became paranoid, saw traitors everywhere and executions were perpetrated without judgment. It was then that the National Assembly set up revolutionary tribunals to calm the people. For the part where Robespierre to threaten deputies of the nation, in fact it was against certain people who had perpetrated crimes in Vendées. Robespierre had his part in the Terror, but he was not the only one, but after that death, it was practical for his political opponents to designate him as a dictator and a butcher, while they themselves participated in it. Especially since Robespierre never had power and I do not see how a single deputy could have instigated alone the regime of terror.
thanks google trad XD
I was sure to find insoumis around here x)
@@uberblitzsche These are historical facts. If you have a mere bit of culture in that regard, you know and accept it. It doesn't depend on your political orientation... Les Insoumis ne sont pas les seuls à avoir du bon sens.
@@singingcat02 Well, he is, he litteraly has a phi on his picture ^^
You guys should react to epic history tv napoleonic wars series
While it is easy to understand history videos like Oversimplified, it is better to read a book about it because there are things that are left out that are may or may not be important in videos and movies.
Edit: You should watch Voice of the Past’s videos. They’re really good.
My first research paper was on the French Revolution...it was a bloody mess, but also a lot of innocent people were killed.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!
React to the Russian revolution by oversimplified
We still love Napoleon here in France. Anglo-Saxons like to disregard the good things that our Emperor did for us. Napoleon stabilized France, united our country, brought glory to our Nation, restored the Church and revolutionized warfare. Anglo-Saxons don’t really like our monarchs anyway, I usually don’t pay attention because we know wether they were great or not.
Well, they got rid of the calendar, but metric measurement is now the world standard.
Napoleon was like Genghis or Suleiman. He wanted the best for his people. And he thought murdering and crushing their neighbors abusive leaders was the best for their people.
Like they were butchers but they werent incompetent.
Very funny and informative. Thank you!
please react to oversimplified "prohibition". she will laugh so hard XD much love from germany^^
Yeah, I think this would be a good one, especially since they're from Chicago
This video is so wrong at so many levels... It's so funny :D I love it! OverSimplified FTW!
23:45 Calling Marat "Mallort" is the most Chicago thing I've ever heard lol
Yup, the Guillotine, although gruesome to behold, was considered very humane in its way of shortening someone’s… life expectancy.
Gotta say, between being hanged, drawn and quartered, burned, or risk a botched decapitation by an axe, I’d have preferred the quick snap of a guillotine…
And oh, the war with Austria was pretty certain from the get go, as Marie-Antoinette was now the wife of a deposed and imprisoned king ! Intolerable for the crown of Austria.
Also, if an Austrian army were to invade France and reinstall the king on the throne of France, still terribly impoverished France would have to pay for that « service ». Therefore, the King&Queen were hostages that HAD to die in the end. Tragic, but that’s game of thrones IRL for ya.
And finally, why the word « revolution » ? Because a revolution is not evolution. It’s 360 degrees. Such an ironic iconic word. From 1 absolute ruler to another. From ancient régime nobility to empire nobility…
15:44 avec mon faible niveau d'anglais j'arrive à comprendre qu'on fait forcément passer Robespierre pour une sorte de malade qui tuait à tour de bras, il est évident que c'est largement exagéré et que l'histoire est plus complexe que ça et que Robespierre n'était pas non plus le seul décideur à cette époque entre autres.
As someone looking at America from the outside in Canada. Your country could easily go down the path that France did the politics are eerily similar.
It will be harder to chop off our heads if we can stay armed... but yeah I thought the same thing.
Napoleon: "Le hooray!" ahahahaha
Robespierre actually wanted to end slavery, give women more rights, give poor people the right to vote, wanted to abolish wars of conquest and more, after his political rivals got him executed, they made him the scapegoat of all their crimes to save themselves, he wasn't that awful.
Crazy, huh?
Can you imagine if a bu ch of people who just wanted equality started policing what we could say, and defined what we said based on their own feelings and fears?
Heh, heh, heh...
:looks around nervously:
"Duuuoh noooo"
Yep. Cancel culture. I'm sitting here hoping and praying this doesn't literally lead to bloodshed. This crap is literally going to destroy our society.
And as a testimony of complexity and "greyish" aspect of mankind, the very same Convention that sent thousands of people to the meat-cleaver also abolished slavery, making France at that time on of the very first countries to do so.
In fact, Napoléon wasn't a dictator. He made many referenda during his reign and in the History, only De Gaulle will do the same thing.
Moreover he were a fervent revolutionary and became Emperor of the French (not of France) after asked the people. And, despite the title of Emperor, the Republic kept : Article I of the 1804 Constitution "The integrity of the French Republic is guaranted by the Emperor himself". The Chant du Départ (another song written during the Revolution for the young French Republic as the Marseille by the way) was the anthem of France.
When a country was conquered and he placed himself (without annex the country) or a member of his family to the throne , he wrote a Constitution for it, free and liberal laws. He became one of the symbols of the French Revolution and that's why all Europe declared war, they were afraid of the Revolutionary Republican Imperial France (and that today, the Anglo-Saxons (majority English (I don't speak about all British just English)) still consider he was a dictator).
I add he declared an unique war (against Russia)
Finally, I finish with the following question : if he was really a dictator, why is he in the actual Polish anthem ? Why Russians admirate him while their country was the one which had the most suffered between 1804 and 1814 ? Why Germans (he was Protector of the Rhine people and placed some brothers on some thrones, Italians (he was King of the Italians (in fact the Italian Kingdom was only Northern Italy), Latium was part of France and one of his brothers was King of the Sicilians ("former" Kingdom of the Two Sicilies)), even he don't admirate the Emperor, thanks him to have spread the ideas of the French Revolution ?
*Napoleon could have created the EU a century earlier! No WWI or WWII: he was a genius!*
I am not sure but I don't think Loui 16th was of Capet dynasty, I think they just called him that because they wanted to showcase continuity of monarchy in France but he was of Bourbon dynasty. Am I wrong?
Valois & Bourbon are branches of capetian dynasty. All of them were bloody linked to Hugues Capet who became king of France in 987.
The French revolution with the Russian revolution was very similar in terms of violence. and secondly yes it ends with a dictator
Not only did she follow him to the guillotine, his sister did also. Left behind in the Temple prison were the two remaining royal children (the other two, Louis Joseph and Sophie Beatrix, having died already of tuberculosis). Seperated forcibly from their mother, when she was executed they were seperated from each other, too. The young Louis Charles was given to the care of a horrible man, who severely abused and neglected him, forcing the ten year-old to sing revolutionary songs to entertain guests, and forcing beer down his throat. Just before his mother's execution, he was beaten horribly and threatened with worse if he did not do as they say and testify in court that she sexually abused him. He was forced to have sex with prostitutes in order to try and give him a venereal disease that would be seen as proof in court. When he did testify against her, it was the only time that she spoke up out of turn, asking how anyone could think a mother would do such a thing. Women in the crowd, on hearing her, cried out that this charge should be removed. These were women who read all the made up news about her, marched on Versailles and forced her and her family to Paris, and eventually to their deaths. They hated her. Yet her reaction moved them so much they demanded the charge of sexual abuse of her child be removed, which it was.
Louis Charles died in the Temple prison of horrible neglect. His sister, Marie Thérèse, was eventually exiled to Austria. She returned at the restoration of the monarchy and married her cousin. She had no children.
The 1700's are not crazy. The Middle Ages were much worse. It was a time were religious obscurantism was at its peak. By the way, in the 1780's, in France, life expectancy for a man was 26. It will reach 36 around 1805 and then drop to 23 at the peak of the Napoleonian wars against Europe and Russia. That is not a lot. But it will drop again to 27 during WWI. 27 years old of life expectancy in the 20th century is not a lot.
"The Reign of Terror" is quite literally exactly that. This video doesn't exaggerate. Actually, it makes things look nice instead. There are massive mass slaughters (like Lyon, where they thought the guillotine wasn't fast enough, and so, Fouché used canons on large groups instead). I am french, and i can't emphasize enough that acknowledging the good and the bad in one's country's history is necessary before anything. I am a proud french who knows full well that my country was never perfect. The 2nd and 3rd french Revolutions were much cleaner. I wonder about the 4th, when it will happen.
Napoléon was and is still beloved in France. When he came back in 1815, he was celebrated and given back his throne by the people. Autocraty is not necessarily bad. The problem with autocraty is that when you get a bad dictator who only thinks of himself, things become terrible. But when you get one that actually think of the people and the country, this is not far from being the best form of government. Napoleon created everything that mattered, including free school for everyone, and our Civil Code. Actually, a ajpanese series of novels is based on this very idea, "The 12 Kingdoms". I guess that from the french perspective at the time, we were harassed by european monarchies that simply wanted the french monarchy back. Countries like Prussia/austria (the WWII Germany) and the UK had been our mortal ennemies for almost a milenia, so better die that let them have their way. Them, and the european monarchies. We will need the atrocious, unprecedented First World War, and the trauma of Verdun (although a french victory) to dream about peace more than revenge. What is more, morals has nothing to do with governing. The USA, for example is the least moral country i can think of nowadays, and since you are americans, you should understand that nothing is simply black or white.
What until you react to the 10,000 Day War
Did you two just say “not Louis”? You know what that means
Do oversimplified ww2
if we trace it all down, feels like the British is the root of it all (for better or worse). XD
Why, because we defended our colony?
if most country today can be call democraty is because we cut some head
It's easier ...sure but a lot of things are wrong. That's the problem with oversimplification.
This isn't right about Robespierre, he was n't better or bad than others, he could'nt do not many things against the "terreur", because all population would to have "blood", and many confusion in the républic with différent movments. Sorry for my english.
The past was the worst
When it comes to power hungry, mass murdering, dictators with delusions of grandeur, we usually think of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot but Robespierre belongs on that list as well.
You should watch 'History of the World i guess'
Forgive me for sounding rude, but why put youtubers react in the title? This.. this is youtube. What else would you be lol
Love the video though.
The people reacting also run a RUclips channel.
3:45
I didn't know France financed United States independance ?
financed and helped militarily
What you can't read a book ?
you have those negatives sights on it mostly because of the english doing really hard to spread their view on history as ennemies of France.
Man these two are so bad. No commentary, no insight. They just stole his video
Most college kids don't talk during the lecture. It looks like they are trying to learn.