I'm french, studying revolution since 30 years. I never saw, from an english speaking historian a so accurat narrative about the french revolution . Some points can be detailed or nuanced, but you have seized the main of a revolution in a foreign country. That's rare .
@@adeleg4759 ...better how? I'm American and I've never heard anyone say that when discussing the French revolution...which, honestly, doesn't happen all that often.
Ironically, the king wasn't tyrannical enough. He tried for 17 years to reform the broken French economy, but he kept implementing half measures to try not to anger the entrenched upper nobles and clergy - who wanted no change at all, or very, very limited change. By the time Louis started taking decisive action, it was too late - he was seen as weak, and any attempt he made to be strong just came off as perulance.
He wasn't just seen as weak. He was in fact appallingly weak in character. And also a terrible people person with little charisma. Had he been made of stronger stuff he could have strong armed the nobility and the upper clergy (also nobility) to pay taxes in exchange for consultative powers. He appointed a series of finance ministers (Calonne; Neckar) who all followed radically different policies and dismissed every one of them either because they failed or because they ran up against opposition from the nobility. Mostly defending their own privileges. He didn't see that every failed policy/dismissal drained his own authority. From 1788 onwards he suffered an effective mental breakdown which made things even worse. As his wife had to step in the fill the vacuum. She was way way worse in that all she understood was her own prerogative.
Yes - and the same can be said for the murder of Charles 1 and the Great Rebellion - I see the ideas of the English radicals leading to Cromwell as a parallel to the French radicals leading to Napoleon. If the English had not killed their king would the French have killed theirs?
@@fiachramaccana280 Yes, he was too weak. Too weak to even prevent the massacring of his royal guard. Even young Napoleon (who favoured the other side) was appalled.
Enlightenment, and here we are in 2023 with adout 2% of the population with 90% of the wealth. But we have no press any more and they give us just enough bread. And who pays all the taxes and who pays nil? We need a news system.
Two types of wealth inequality - income and asset . To rephrase Thomas Pikitty , Asset Growth > Income Growth . ruclips.net/video/JKsHhXwqDqM/видео.html .
I'd be interested to hear a historians opinion. But I think the UK monarchy lasted because of two big reasons. First it never fell into dire times like France did. Because of its trade and reach even when there were hard times it weathered them and over came them before they got out of control. Often at the expense of some of its subjects. Second is it slowly gave power to the parliament. It was slow progress and still has power on paper today. But it never went away and the power thier current king has is nothing compared to 200 years ago.
@@TheFilbert13 There were protests, but they never went very far. I think you're right, Britain slowly progressed to democracy. There was also the escape valves of North America and Australia.
Two words: Oliver Cromwell. England's time as a republic was so terrible that the country became very reluctant to try it again. The monarchy, rightly fearing a repeat, worked hard to keep Parliament onside, giving up power and wealth to survive. Compare this to the French and Russian monarchies, who flat out refused to do the same until it was far too late.
@@naelbi8870 It wasn't the only reason, but it played a big role in the French Revolution, the same way heavy UK taxes played a big role in the American Revolution.
I have truly enjoyed this amazing video dissertation on the French Revolution & Its Downfall. This has been eye-opening & insightful. Thank you for producing it. I cannot wait to watch more!
As an American I feel like this is where we are headed too now. A govt spending like crazy, taxing us to death, and rising prices have been our lives for years now.
Tax rates for average people have stayed basically the same since just after Great Depression. Tax rates for the wealthy and corporations have plummeted since then. They are at the lowest now that they’ve been since the depression. That’s why wealth is migrating to the few at the top and why they’re gaining more control over media, the political system, what you buy, and what you pay for it. It’s profiteers who have figured out how to flood the economy with tech gadgets you have to constantly replace, and ways to insure everything and keep them from being hacked- while growing functional monopolies so we have less and less choice as consumers or as workers so they can price gouge and exploit us more all the time. It’s not taxes that are draining us. After the Depression they figured out we needed to tax the rich heavily to prevent our own aristocracy and regulate industries, like finance, so they can’t ruin the economy for everyone. But over the last 50 years, rich people have convinced us that trickle down economics works and all of those protections have been slowly eroded. That’s why we’re moving towards all of the conditions he’s talking about in this video.
"The modern tradition is the tradition of revolt. The French Revolution is still our model today: history is violent change, and this change goes by the name of progress. I do not know whether these notions really apply to art." -- Octavio Paz
The peasants were still subject to the local nobility e.g. forced to work for them, to pay taxes to them as well as the government and tithes to the Church. This was a factor too. 500,000 in 1789 were still serfs before the Revolution, but millions more were de-facto serfs because of the Seigneurial System.
Fun fact: Napoleon did not manage victory in Egypt. He lied and used the propaganda to help him take over France, leaving the disaster in Egypt to a fall guy before it could be pinned on him. Extra History did a great series on it.
Another fun fact : Napoléon in Egypt had a relation with the wife of one of his subordonates. He send him to France with an "urgent "mission. He was captured by Nelson on the way. Nelson, knowing the story, rendred the officer free on egyptian soil . On war evrything no detail must be neglected !
I can’t help but notice how the enlightenment made huge steps forward for humane society and that every year since, it seems, the 2% have been slowly acquiring & adjusting the new systems to work in their favor.🤭 Someday, things like intelligence will be understood to be something that isn’t purchased or inherited. Channels like this help prove that 🥰
@@str.77 I’m not sure you understand what I wrote. I said steps forward towards a more humane society, not that it was more humane. I’m horrible with grammar so I’m sure the fault is mine.
It is a great irony that the Rebellion of the British Colonies in North America should provide a model for the French Revolution. The so-called American Revolution left the class and social structure of the British Colonies unchanged. What it did do was to stop British taxation and political oversight of the Colonies. The American War of Independence was never about changing the social structure in the way that the French Revolution was.
during 1789 france was not the power house of europe nor did it have huge overseas empire. most of the empire was taken during the seven years war by britain and it was almost bankrupt after fighting in american revolutionary war.
the only part of the empire that counted were the sugar islands and they were not lost. Canada and India were financial black holes. Hence their loss saved money. Otherwise you are 100% correct.
A woman descended from an Irish family who fled to France to escape anti-Catholic persecution in Ireland wrote a very interesting autobiography. She lived through the monarchy, the revolution, Napoleon and the partial restoration. She recorded an extensive undermining of basic concepts and social organization and the accompanying distortion of the reporting of events prior to the revolution and the subsequent mass killing during the revolution, reaching a high point in Napoleon's wars. A similar pattern was followed in the Russian Revolution and may well be followed in the present day West.
The British monarchy were scared nearly to death after what they saw happen in France so they made sure no one starved in Britain. They did this by starving people in their dominions like Ireland, India and the then Bengal and shipping the food back home. Their actions caused a greater number of deaths than the Russian and Chinese famines combined. Queen Victoria is rumoured to have stopped some international assistance in Ireland because the amount offered was greater than the amount she personally offered and no one could do that. In any event she kept the crown and her head which was more than could be said of her grandchildren in Russia. It’s also a good idea to keep the commoners uneducated if you want to retain power as a King or Queen. Nothing says revolution like an educated peasant. Again, ask the Russians.
The Russians were led by an outside force and it was paid for by American Bankers! The Revolution wasn't Russian although they called it that! It was the cause of the 2nd World War!
I genuinely want to know why the King thought it was a good idea to support the American REVOLUTION of a fellow monarch. I understand that they wanted revenge on Britain but read the room😂
Because France was a country where the rich got richer each year and the poor poorer each year. Exactly like the UK has been this last 14 years under the Tories.
@@spm36 Yes in a word. Ive lived under multiple Tory and Labour Govts, the economy grows and people are not afraid to spend their earnings when Labour are in power. Tories are asset strippers, and milk the tax payer by giving contracts to their rich mates. They never take this country to better place, they are Dickensian
In France we have been ruling by left for 12 years and the poor are poorer each year ! left have ruined France and plenty of countries ! the best exemple is Sweden !
Both income and asset inequality started to become worse in Britain when Thatcher ushered out Keynesian Economics and brought in Neo Liberal " Economics . " She privatized assets that belonged to the British Public , deregulated the financial services sector , and brought in the great fraud of Trickle down economics .
Equating the Thai monarchy - even if technically correct - to the British and Danish monarchies at the end of cause 2, is a bit if a stretch... You could've gone with, for example, either the Dutch or the Spanish. Otherwise a very very good YT documentury on the topic. Well done. 👍
French revolution was the first cause that started declining French competition power confronted the British empire existence. French colonialism system was not sufficient talent to exploit its colonials, similar to its British competitor .British supported financial to French freemasonry.
The Laki volcanic in Iceland erupted. spewing lava and poisonous gases into the atmosphere. This volcano spewed out so much ash that the ash blocked the sunlight for the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere. In New York, New York, it snowed on July 4 due to lack of sun. This volcano caused crop failures. Because of the poor government of France, these hungry people revolted. When historian discuss the causes of the French Revolution, they focus on the poor financial health of the nation. But the spark was caused by food shortages, caused by climate changes caused by the volcano.
@abbofun9022 This is just a reminder that most of the French people at that time still had the supported the monarchy. It was only a vocal fringe that was the revolutionary.
A little overstated in places but accurate for what is called the French Revolution. This has become a prototype for all revolutions....even when they bear no resemble to it. The narrator made reference to Russia. The price of bread did have relation to that revolution, but if one factor should be emphasised is that it is selective urban elites and that change regimes not "the people ". Who very often are inactive or as in a lot of France and Russia were actively supportive of the monarchical systems or moderate versions of them. In France the bulk of the population favoured monarchy for a century after the 1789 revolution, and the monarchy was restored , but Paris often didn't share this sentiment. The Communist takeover in Russia was the seizure of power by a tiny well organised, highly motivated and armed political party It wasn't installed by "the people " or the broad electorate. . This episode also charts the frequent result of social upheaval ( revolution ) is followed by dictatorship. In England after the Civil War it was Cromwell, Napoleon in France and Lenin, Stalin etc in Russia, and Mao in China etc.
The key trigger was economics. Or quite literally a loss of confidence in the ability of the French monarchy to repay its debts. Due to the growing size of the debt and the inability of the government to raise new revenues in the form of taxes. This meant that any new debt raised carried very high interest rates to compensate for the high risk of default. This growing default risk which was exacerbated by the political crisis which hurt the economy and gave the impression of an out of control government led to a gradual shrinking of the pool of potential lenders to almost nothing. And the subsequent decline in the value of the already issued French government debt instruments known as assignats. Many middle class French owned these interest bearing instruments and their loss of value and the inability to borrow more was the immediate cause of the collapse. Add to that the ingrained arrogance of the monarchy and most of the aristocracy who were so ignorant of finance/economics they didn't even understand what was happening. The dismissal of the Swiss financier Neckar from the government caused a final collapse in investor/borrower confidence and tipped the balance towards revolution.
Except in Paris and in some large cities, in 1789 the France of the provinces was attached to the Monarchy. If Louis XVI had accepted the advice to move the regime towards a constitutional monarchy, royalty would still exist in France.
Yes, but I’m not sure it was Louis himself that was the problem, he could probably have been persuaded in the direction of constitutional monarchy without much difficulty - he had previously proved himself open to economic and social reform. The greatest barrier was the intransigence and complacency of much of the aristocracy - many of whom were less interested in the long term constitutional outcome and much more so in their own short term wealth and influence. The people advising him to change just weren’t powerful enough to convince or compel the others to do so.
They were weak and ineffective monarchs who presided over a bankrupted state. And failed to offer real reforms or solutions. Even in the 18th century monarchs were expected to be competent.
The "Bourbon" monarchy never was pronounced like a southern grain whiskey! Le Roi s'est moi ie absolute monarchy instead of a constitutional monarchy. Feudalism, destroyed in England by the shortage of labour after the Black death and formally abolished in 1660, was alive in France until 1789. France had a population of 28m against just over 10m in GB. However London was already significantly bigger than Paris, France's economy was stagnating and still mainly agrarian, GB had already benefitted enormously from the Huguenot expulsions of highly skilled refugee protestants. Its economy was based on trade and early signs of the coming industrial revolution. The British common law system, based on case law and precedent is found in some of the most successful economies today - the US, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Australia, NZ. France replaced its old courts with the Napoleonic civil law, while a common law systems evolve over time. British had riots about bread prices generally leading pragmatic action by the government to reduce hoarding or sometimes to subsidise wheat prices.
I don't think I've ever heard 'liberté, fraternité, egalité' pronounced worse in my entire life, and I'm in the US. Nevertheless, it's a fantastic video.
From the size of the French colonial empire in 1789 to the attribution to Napoleon of a famous quote by Mirabeau (although he actually probably didn't say it neither, but that's not the point) through a bloodthirsty Condorcet, there are a lot of inaccuracies here...
9:00 That's NOT the proper definition of a constitutional monarchy at all. In a constitutional monarchy the King is still in charge of the government but he has to follow the rules set out in a written constitution. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary monarchy in which parliament basically decides everything and determines the government. Thailand is not a good example for either as who know what will come tomorrow. Only a while ago, it was a military dictatorship with royal approval.
In relation to this, I have seen the Napoléon film and I absolutely loved it! Joaquim phoenix was a good choice! I am well aware less than 1/2 was accurate, but even so you wont regret it if you go and see it.... pssst ⬇️ Many dirty scenes! 😏
I am puzzled by "Let them eat cake" versus "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" which has different meanings between English and French. In French, Brioche is a fancy type of baked good more expensive than ordinary bread. Everything I have seen is that aristocrats of this era were not ignorant on this matter. Everything back then was about money. They knew how much each class of person was to be paid. In English is where this phrase becomes more interesting. Cake has more than one meaning. What does "caked on" mean? I saw one reference say that bakers used a thin layer of dough to line the baking sheet to keep the bread from sticking. This is suspicious because wheat/flour was a valued commodity not to be wasted. But if so, the caked layer would be scraped off afterwards, and that is what poor people would eat?
Yes lets not forget the civil wars in England in the mid 1600s which could have ended the monarchy in Britain very close to it due to the clash of the powers between Charles 1 and the Parliament disagreements of how things were run so charles ended up leaving England escaped To France i think The British monarchy was so close to being ended it would have been good if it had been abolished.
❗Jean Paul Marat's newspaper, and Societe' Populaire Nantes, Sans Culottes, Girandots, Jacobins, Society of Revolutionary Republican Women et al, all wildly fanned the public's flames.
France didn't modernize its financial and tax systems. The Taille had viciously perverse effects on the agricultural economy. The tax punished, often with prison and torture, anyone who was good at farm or household management.
A lot of it had to do with the deal that Louis XIV made with the aristocracy; they would avoid taxes in return for a spot on the bloated monarchy payroll, his addiction to war and his failure to reform the monarchy. An absolute monarchy is on a shaky foundation when the people are starving.
Any rule, which governs far removed from it's common people, is bound to fail... The catastrophic failure of the French monarchy was the inability to listen to the needs of the many instead of the few. This unfortunately resulted in years of slaughter and anarchy, brought on by the rage of the people and would finally consume the three founding fathers of the revolution; Marat, Danton and Robespierre... Before Napoleon stepped on the stage
It should be said that overwhelmingly rural France was in support of the church and the king and were brutally, extremely brutally repressed. The main genocide was in Vendée where the entire region was exterminated, men, women, children and livestock. A lot of the protests were in support of the king to bring back the economic protection that they had enjoyed previously. The event at la Bastille were essentially paid thugs very similar to BLM and antifa. It’s not “the people”. The revolution is the birth of left wing ideology and it immediately lead to starvation, mass murder and chaos.
Yes and the irony is that it marks the birth of left wing ideology = liberalism = less/low intervention on the government in the economy. And it lead to famine and starvation (along with bad weather and lowest co2 content in atmosphere ever). A lot of the people protesting and marching was FOR the king and monarchy to restore the previous regime of regulation of trade.
I'm french, studying revolution since 30 years. I never saw, from an english speaking historian a so accurat narrative about the french revolution . Some points can be detailed or nuanced, but you have seized the main of a revolution in a foreign country. That's rare .
I am a Korean right-winger. The reason I hate the country called France is because they created a group called the left-wing.
Indeed, americains only narrative about it is how theirs is better...
We Turkish Kemalists love French revolution.
We all never know howwe enjoy a mythic revolution . The truth is sometimes dirty !
@@MerhabaMuhtesem
@@adeleg4759 ...better how? I'm American and I've never heard anyone say that when discussing the French revolution...which, honestly, doesn't happen all that often.
Ironically, the king wasn't tyrannical enough. He tried for 17 years to reform the broken French economy, but he kept implementing half measures to try not to anger the entrenched upper nobles and clergy - who wanted no change at all, or very, very limited change.
By the time Louis started taking decisive action, it was too late - he was seen as weak, and any attempt he made to be strong just came off as perulance.
He wasn't just seen as weak. He was in fact appallingly weak in character. And also a terrible people person with little charisma. Had he been made of stronger stuff he could have strong armed the nobility and the upper clergy (also nobility) to pay taxes in exchange for consultative powers.
He appointed a series of finance ministers (Calonne; Neckar) who all followed radically different policies and dismissed every one of them either because they failed or because they ran up against opposition from the nobility. Mostly defending their own privileges.
He didn't see that every failed policy/dismissal drained his own authority. From 1788 onwards he suffered an effective mental breakdown which made things even worse. As his wife had to step in the fill the vacuum. She was way way worse in that all she understood was her own prerogative.
Yes - and the same can be said for the murder of Charles 1 and the Great Rebellion - I see the ideas of the English radicals leading to Cromwell as a parallel to the French radicals leading to Napoleon. If the English had not killed their king would the French have killed theirs?
@@fiachramaccana280 Yes, he was too weak. Too weak to even prevent the massacring of his royal guard. Even young Napoleon (who favoured the other side) was appalled.
More than weak he was seen as a traitor...but it's a long story.
Enlightenment, and here we are in 2023 with adout 2% of the population with 90% of the wealth. But we have no press any more and they give us just enough bread. And who pays all the taxes and who pays nil? We need a news system.
Two types of wealth inequality - income and asset . To rephrase Thomas Pikitty , Asset Growth > Income Growth .
ruclips.net/video/JKsHhXwqDqM/видео.html
.
Buy Bitcoin!
The free press is news.
The real question is, how did the British monarchy survive?
They adopted a constitutional monarchy
I'd be interested to hear a historians opinion. But I think the UK monarchy lasted because of two big reasons.
First it never fell into dire times like France did. Because of its trade and reach even when there were hard times it weathered them and over came them before they got out of control. Often at the expense of some of its subjects.
Second is it slowly gave power to the parliament. It was slow progress and still has power on paper today. But it never went away and the power thier current king has is nothing compared to 200 years ago.
@@TheFilbert13 There were protests, but they never went very far. I think you're right, Britain slowly progressed to democracy. There was also the escape valves of North America and Australia.
Two words: Oliver Cromwell. England's time as a republic was so terrible that the country became very reluctant to try it again. The monarchy, rightly fearing a repeat, worked hard to keep Parliament onside, giving up power and wealth to survive. Compare this to the French and Russian monarchies, who flat out refused to do the same until it was far too late.
Also, the British monarchy is a German monarchy.
The problem was taxing the people but not the nobility.
The problem was taxes.
Taxation. Definitely a system that needs some revamping in most modern day countries 💯
People were heavily taxed in UK too and other countries, not quite the real main reaso for this revolution
@@naelbi8870 It wasn't the only reason, but it played a big role in the French Revolution, the same way heavy UK taxes played a big role in the American Revolution.
The king tried during the États Généraux but the nobility and the clergy said no and the king wasn’t “powerful” enough to force them
Remarkable similarities to the UK today.
Well compiled, presented and edited. I enjoyed this. Nice one Luke and team! ⭐👍
I am a Korean right-winger. The reason I hate the country called France is because they created a group called the left-wing.
I have truly enjoyed this amazing video dissertation on the French Revolution & Its Downfall. This has been eye-opening & insightful. Thank you for producing it. I cannot wait to watch more!
Im gonna love this! 😮
Im always an egghead for History and this channel!
🇫🇷 Vive la france!
As an American I feel like this is where we are headed too now. A govt spending like crazy, taxing us to death, and rising prices have been our lives for years now.
Tax rates for average people have stayed basically the same since just after Great Depression. Tax rates for the wealthy and corporations have plummeted since then. They are at the lowest now that they’ve been since the depression. That’s why wealth is migrating to the few at the top and why they’re gaining more control over media, the political system, what you buy, and what you pay for it. It’s profiteers who have figured out how to flood the economy with tech gadgets you have to constantly replace, and ways to insure everything and keep them from being hacked- while growing functional monopolies so we have less and less choice as consumers or as workers so they can price gouge and exploit us more all the time. It’s not taxes that are draining us. After the Depression they figured out we needed to tax the rich heavily to prevent our own aristocracy and regulate industries, like finance, so they can’t ruin the economy for everyone. But over the last 50 years, rich people have convinced us that trickle down economics works and all of those protections have been slowly eroded. That’s why we’re moving towards all of the conditions he’s talking about in this video.
I was just thinking that
Same here in UK
No way.
Starvation is very low in developed countries like USA.
Libertay, Egalitay, Fraternitay
"The modern tradition is the tradition of revolt. The French Revolution is still our model today: history is violent change, and this change goes by the name of progress. I do not know whether these notions really apply to art." -- Octavio Paz
I do not think the Chinese or Russian revolutions did them any favours as they were immediately taken over by despots.
Nothing really changes that much does it?
exactly
Are we running out of carbs? Global poverty and hunger is a small fraction of what it was. Degeneracy is a common theme though
The peasants were still subject to the local nobility e.g. forced to work for them, to pay taxes to them as well as the government and tithes to the Church. This was a factor too. 500,000 in 1789 were still serfs before the Revolution, but millions more were de-facto serfs because of the Seigneurial System.
Fun fact: Napoleon did not manage victory in Egypt. He lied and used the propaganda to help him take over France, leaving the disaster in Egypt to a fall guy before it could be pinned on him. Extra History did a great series on it.
Another fun fact : Napoléon in Egypt had a relation with the wife of one of his subordonates. He send him to France with an "urgent "mission. He was captured by Nelson on the way. Nelson, knowing the story, rendred the officer free on egyptian soil . On war evrything no detail must be neglected !
I can’t help but notice how the enlightenment made huge steps forward for humane society and that every year since, it seems, the 2% have been slowly acquiring & adjusting the new systems to work in their favor.🤭
Someday, things like intelligence will be understood to be something that isn’t purchased or inherited. Channels like this help prove that 🥰
The EnglightenmentTM did not make the world "more humane" at all. Just watch the video.
@@str.77 I’m not sure you understand what I wrote. I said steps forward towards a more humane society, not that it was more humane. I’m horrible with grammar so I’m sure the fault is mine.
@@kariannecrysler640 No, your grammar is fine. I was just railing the pretensions of EnlightenmentTM a bit.
@@str.77 No worries.
I became very fond of this era after experiencing the manga/anime, The Rose of Versailles🌹
It is a great irony that the Rebellion of the British Colonies in North America should provide a model for the French Revolution. The so-called American Revolution left the class and social structure of the British Colonies unchanged. What it did do was to stop British taxation and political oversight of the Colonies. The American War of Independence was never about changing the social structure in the way that the French Revolution was.
True, the US revolutionaries were looking backwards to Rome for inspiration. The French just tore up the rulebook.
Which led to the reign of terror in France. While people from the working poor class could build fortunes in the states.
@@llhll8264 To be fair it led to a reign of terror for the Native Americans.
@@CB-fz3li lol because native Americans lived in peace with each other lol.
@@CB-fz3li indeed. And loyalists. Not that I care about the latter
Thank you!
Another great video. Well worth watching. Thank goodness it does not have the ridiclous bomerang effect with a wosh when changing between cuts.
Thank you. After reviewing the comments we decided to make a revised version without those effects.
during 1789 france was not the power house of europe nor did it have huge overseas empire. most of the empire was taken during the seven years war by britain and it was almost bankrupt after fighting in american revolutionary war.
Except for the King and his sycophants.
I pee pee on you 😂😂😂😂
the only part of the empire that counted were the sugar islands and they were not lost. Canada and India were financial black holes. Hence their loss saved money. Otherwise you are 100% correct.
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
A woman descended from an Irish family who fled to France to escape anti-Catholic persecution in Ireland wrote a very interesting autobiography. She lived through the monarchy, the revolution, Napoleon and the partial restoration.
She recorded an extensive undermining of basic concepts and social organization and the accompanying distortion of the reporting of events prior to the revolution and the subsequent mass killing during the revolution, reaching a high point in Napoleon's wars.
A similar pattern was followed in the Russian Revolution and may well be followed in the present day West.
Well Documented And Narrated
Fantastic.!! Bless 👏👏
does this remind you of anything? whos for a revolution?
The British monarchy were scared nearly to death after what they saw happen in France so they made sure no one starved in Britain. They did this by starving people in their dominions like Ireland, India and the then Bengal and shipping the food back home. Their actions caused a greater number of deaths than the Russian and Chinese famines combined. Queen Victoria is rumoured to have stopped some international assistance in Ireland because the amount offered was greater than the amount she personally offered and no one could do that. In any event she kept the crown and her head which was more than could be said of her grandchildren in Russia. It’s also a good idea to keep the commoners uneducated if you want to retain power as a King or Queen. Nothing says revolution like an educated peasant. Again, ask the Russians.
The Russians were led by an outside force and it was paid for by American Bankers! The Revolution wasn't Russian although they called it that! It was the cause of the 2nd World War!
Very interesting
Totally
The French monarchy also had horrible advisors who flat out lied to those on the throne.
France is africa today.
I genuinely want to know why the King thought it was a good idea to support the American REVOLUTION of a fellow monarch. I understand that they wanted revenge on Britain but read the room😂
Because France was a country where the rich got richer each year and the poor poorer each year. Exactly like the UK has been this last 14 years under the Tories.
So simple and true!
Was it better under labour ? 😂 2 cheeks
@@spm36 Yes in a word. Ive lived under multiple Tory and Labour Govts, the economy grows and people are not afraid to spend their earnings when Labour are in power. Tories are asset strippers, and milk the tax payer by giving contracts to their rich mates. They never take this country to better place, they are Dickensian
In France we have been ruling by left for 12 years and the poor are poorer each year ! left have ruined France and plenty of countries ! the best exemple is Sweden !
Both income and asset inequality started to become worse in Britain when Thatcher ushered out Keynesian Economics and brought in Neo Liberal " Economics . " She privatized assets that belonged to the British Public , deregulated the financial services sector , and brought in the great fraud of Trickle down economics .
Equating the Thai monarchy - even if technically correct - to the British and Danish monarchies at the end of cause 2, is a bit if a stretch... You could've gone with, for example, either the Dutch or the Spanish. Otherwise a very very good YT documentury on the topic. Well done. 👍
French revolution was the first cause that started declining French competition power confronted the British empire existence. French colonialism system was not sufficient talent to exploit its colonials, similar to its British competitor .British supported financial to French freemasonry.
Franc maconnerie in french
Were you trying to say something coherent?
If so, massive fail.
Learning English could help you.
The Laki volcanic in Iceland erupted. spewing lava and poisonous gases into the atmosphere. This volcano spewed out so much ash that the ash blocked the sunlight for the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere.
In New York, New York, it snowed on July 4 due to lack of sun. This volcano caused crop failures. Because of the poor government of France, these hungry people revolted. When historian discuss the causes of the French Revolution, they focus on the poor financial health of the nation. But the spark was caused by food shortages, caused by climate changes caused by the volcano.
Ridiculous prices and an unaffordable cost of living are usually the things that causes revolutions, not wars, plagues or tyranny
The stated reasons of regime change are eerily similar to conditions of current iran, which is about to explode.
Funny how its the exact same thing now food prices way through the roof and using land holdings and water holdings.
The worst part is there are powerful groups currently who are itching for this terror of a history to repeat worldwide.
The king and queen were out of touch with the reality in France.
That's also not true, either. The king was very much in touch and tried to liberalise many aspects to help the people, but they never got to do that.
@@krishkrish8213mwah, he did a tiny little bit for show that was, of course, not effective at all.
It is true, though.
@@krishkrish8213
They certainly were!
@abbofun9022 This is just a reminder that most of the French people at that time still had the supported the monarchy. It was only a vocal fringe that was the revolutionary.
Fun fact I am already teaching this at a school.
Brilliant and very thorough. I'm doing a history PGCE and History Hit is invaluable! Bravo 👏 😊
Because the had sense!
Beautiful video. History hit is getting better lol
A little overstated in places but accurate for what is called the French Revolution. This has become a prototype for all revolutions....even when they bear no resemble to it. The narrator made reference to Russia. The price of bread did have relation to that revolution, but if one factor should be emphasised is that it is selective urban elites and that change regimes not "the people ". Who very often are inactive or as in a lot of France and Russia were actively supportive of the monarchical systems or moderate versions of them. In France the bulk of the population favoured monarchy for a century after the 1789 revolution, and the monarchy was restored , but Paris often didn't share this sentiment. The Communist takeover in Russia was the seizure of power by a tiny well organised, highly motivated and armed political party It wasn't installed by "the people " or the broad electorate. .
This episode also charts the frequent result of social upheaval ( revolution ) is followed by dictatorship. In England after the Civil War it was Cromwell, Napoleon in France and Lenin, Stalin etc in Russia, and Mao in China etc.
Are you sure this isn't current American history... well done thank you.
This sounds like americas problem
The key trigger was economics. Or quite literally a loss of confidence in the ability of the French monarchy to repay its debts. Due to the growing size of the debt and the inability of the government to raise new revenues in the form of taxes. This meant that any new debt raised carried very high interest rates to compensate for the high risk of default.
This growing default risk which was exacerbated by the political crisis which hurt the economy and gave the impression of an out of control government led to a gradual shrinking of the pool of potential lenders to almost nothing. And the subsequent decline in the value of the already issued French government debt instruments known as assignats. Many middle class French owned these interest bearing instruments and their loss of value and the inability to borrow more was the immediate cause of the collapse.
Add to that the ingrained arrogance of the monarchy and most of the aristocracy who were so ignorant of finance/economics they didn't even understand what was happening. The dismissal of the Swiss financier Neckar from the government caused a final collapse in investor/borrower confidence and tipped the balance towards revolution.
never, absolutely never, increase the price of bread or rice
France didn’t overthrow the Monarchy, the Paris mob did, with the help of the aristocracy.
Was it my ears or did he talk for 30 min and not mention Jacobin one time?
Except in Paris and in some large cities, in 1789 the France of the provinces was attached to the Monarchy. If Louis XVI had accepted the advice to move the regime towards a constitutional monarchy, royalty would still exist in France.
Yes, but I’m not sure it was Louis himself that was the problem, he could probably have been persuaded in the direction of constitutional monarchy without much difficulty - he had previously proved himself open to economic and social reform. The greatest barrier was the intransigence and complacency of much of the aristocracy - many of whom were less interested in the long term constitutional outcome and much more so in their own short term wealth and influence. The people advising him to change just weren’t powerful enough to convince or compel the others to do so.
Well done France! Wonderful!
I feel a bit heartbroken & sorry for King Louis & Queen Marie Antoinette.
💐💔😞😢😔🙏⛪✝️➕⚰️⚰️
Their 4 year old son Louis was treated even badly. It's terrifying.
Dear me
How many children died daily in 18th century in gruesome circumstances never known life without hunger or despair
I'm not
They were weak and ineffective monarchs who presided over a bankrupted state. And failed to offer real reforms or solutions. Even in the 18th century monarchs were expected to be competent.
The "Bourbon" monarchy never was pronounced like a southern grain whiskey! Le Roi s'est moi ie absolute monarchy instead of a constitutional monarchy. Feudalism, destroyed in England by the shortage of labour after the Black death and formally abolished in 1660, was alive in France until 1789. France had a population of 28m against just over 10m in GB. However London was already significantly bigger than Paris, France's economy was stagnating and still mainly agrarian, GB had already benefitted enormously from the Huguenot expulsions of highly skilled refugee protestants. Its economy was based on trade and early signs of the coming industrial revolution. The British common law system, based on case law and precedent is found in some of the most successful economies today - the US, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Australia, NZ. France replaced its old courts with the Napoleonic civil law, while a common law systems evolve over time.
British had riots about bread prices generally leading pragmatic action by the government to reduce hoarding or sometimes to subsidise wheat prices.
Ironically the French supported a revolution in America and revolution came to them. You reap what you sow.
French female aristocrats used to wear US revolutionary symbols in their wigs. I imagine they never thought it would come back to bite them.
But not the same reasons.
I don't think I've ever heard 'liberté, fraternité, egalité' pronounced worse in my entire life, and I'm in the US. Nevertheless, it's a fantastic video.
Shadows of the world we have today. We need to be aware how easily a version of this could happen again (in the UK).
Our did they... (looking at you Bourbon Restoration).
As a person that love eating breads,
No doubt, I am definitely on every protest in that time.
The power of PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION..
Who's Here from Plumstead High 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥(Tash)
From the size of the French colonial empire in 1789 to the attribution to Napoleon of a famous quote by Mirabeau (although he actually probably didn't say it neither, but that's not the point) through a bloodthirsty Condorcet, there are a lot of inaccuracies here...
9:00 That's NOT the proper definition of a constitutional monarchy at all. In a constitutional monarchy the King is still in charge of the government but he has to follow the rules set out in a written constitution.
The United Kingdom is a parliamentary monarchy in which parliament basically decides everything and determines the government.
Thailand is not a good example for either as who know what will come tomorrow. Only a while ago, it was a military dictatorship with royal approval.
The gates of the Elysée Palace nowadays are the new gates of Versailles.
I'm not sure that I got seven here. It segued into Napoleon, after the Revolution was over, n'est pas ?
Interesting
In relation to this, I have seen the Napoléon film and I absolutely loved it! Joaquim phoenix was a good choice!
I am well aware less than 1/2 was accurate, but even so you wont regret it if you go and see it.... pssst ⬇️
Many dirty scenes! 😏
" less than 1/2 was accurate, " Why do script writer do this ? Movies are far more powerful when you know they are historically accurate .
.
Her name is Marie Antoinette not Mary Antoinette. 😂
They couldn't rein in their own economic elites
If only the UK had knobbled the aristocracy. The sad state of the nation can be laid at the door of the class system.
I am puzzled by "Let them eat cake" versus "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" which has different meanings between English and French. In French, Brioche is a fancy type of baked good more expensive than ordinary bread. Everything I have seen is that aristocrats of this era were not ignorant on this matter. Everything back then was about money. They knew how much each class of person was to be paid.
In English is where this phrase becomes more interesting. Cake has more than one meaning. What does "caked on" mean?
I saw one reference say that bakers used a thin layer of dough to line the baking sheet to keep the bread from sticking.
This is suspicious because wheat/flour was a valued commodity not to be wasted.
But if so, the caked layer would be scraped off afterwards, and that is what poor people would eat?
The Petit Trianon sure didn't help matters
Yes lets not forget the civil wars in England in the mid 1600s which could have ended the monarchy in Britain very close to it due to the clash of the powers between Charles 1 and the Parliament disagreements of how things were run so charles ended up leaving England escaped
To France i think
The British monarchy was so close to being ended it would have been good if it had been abolished.
No it wouldn't
What a time, people had balls in those days.
❗Jean Paul Marat's newspaper, and Societe' Populaire Nantes, Sans Culottes, Girandots, Jacobins, Society of Revolutionary Republican Women et al, all wildly fanned the public's flames.
The French always had balls today's American is too subdued and defeated by cable "news"
Wow, sounds like many countries in 2024.
Amazingly stupid misrepresentation of how these events played out.
France didn't modernize its financial and tax systems. The Taille had viciously perverse effects on the agricultural economy. The tax punished, often with prison and torture, anyone who was good at farm or household management.
Which one?
A lot of it had to do with the deal that Louis XIV made with the aristocracy; they would avoid taxes in return for a spot on the bloated monarchy payroll, his addiction to war and his failure to reform the monarchy. An absolute monarchy is on a shaky foundation when the people are starving.
Wait.....why does this all sound so familiar?
Downvoting because of the Ridley Scott movie thumbnail. That's not what that scene looked like.
Seems like history repeating itself
"Piss boy, come here!"
Any rule, which governs far removed from it's common people, is bound to fail...
The catastrophic failure of the French monarchy was the inability to listen to the needs of the many instead of the few.
This unfortunately resulted in years of slaughter and anarchy, brought on by the rage of the people and would finally consume the three founding fathers of the revolution; Marat, Danton and Robespierre... Before Napoleon stepped on the stage
Since there were such financial problems in France who funded Napoleon’s wars?
Just a note, for fun. It's pronounced chateau de saint "cloo". ;-)
ahhhhh…. Luke. mon amour! l'homme le plus magnifique de tous les temps!
It should be said that overwhelmingly rural France was in support of the church and the king and were brutally, extremely brutally repressed. The main genocide was in Vendée where the entire region was exterminated, men, women, children and livestock.
A lot of the protests were in support of the king to bring back the economic protection that they had enjoyed previously.
The event at la Bastille were essentially paid thugs very similar to BLM and antifa. It’s not “the people”.
The revolution is the birth of left wing ideology and it immediately lead to starvation, mass murder and chaos.
They didn’t like cake. 😂
5:15 sounds like America today ngl
Who would have thought that deregulation and unfettered free trade might actually be a bad thing for maintaining a country's stability? 😅
Yes and the irony is that it marks the birth of left wing ideology = liberalism = less/low intervention on the government in the economy. And it lead to famine and starvation (along with bad weather and lowest co2 content in atmosphere ever). A lot of the people protesting and marching was FOR the king and monarchy to restore the previous regime of regulation of trade.
Bro you are describing modern day america
Fentanyl was the main cause of it.
Gee this is a hard one. Masonry, masonry, masonry, masonry, masonry, masonry, and masonry.
Liberté, égalité, Beyoncé!
Your sound is low.
The sound is perfectly fine.
Learn how to set up your device properly and stop spamming.
What about the Russian revolution?