[richter915]

In that case, can Napoleon be somewhat compared to George Washington? A figure who grew due to military prowess but also due to a solid understanding of the wants of the popular majority. The main difference being, like you guys have said, a lack of factions in America and thus a faster rise towards a stable national leader. Would the French revolution have been equally as successful if Napoleon rose to power earlier or did the French need the crap scared out of them via the reign of terror to realize what they needed? I'm leaning towards the latter but it's just amazing that, to me, the simple presence of an oppressive nobility necessitated such violence in the minds of the French. Philosophically, the French and the American revolutionaries seemed to want the same thing.

I'm hoping this does lead to some discussion of the Bolshevik revolution which seems akin to the French.

[saofan_315]

I think the amount of oppression dealt with by the colonists in America was nowhere near the amount laid out by both the French and Russian governments. The American colonists just had to deal with some unjust taxes and freaked the hell out- the French and the Russian people were literally starving and dying. I also believe that both the French and Russian revolutions were led by a small, powerful minority which made it easier to put some not so great and highly corruptable people in charge of each country's respective new governments... whereas the American, although not something that was supported by every colonist, had a majority support for one thing (independence) and for the same group.

I'd write more, but I have to leave for a 10 and a half hour work day.

[lockedheart]

Originally Posted by richter915

In that case, can Napoleon be somewhat compared to George Washington? A figure who grew due to military prowess but also due to a solid understanding of the wants of the popular majority. The main difference being, like you guys have said, a lack of factions in America and thus a faster rise towards a stable national leader. Would the French revolution have been equally as successful if Napoleon rose to power earlier or did the French need the crap scared out of them via the reign of terror to realize what they needed? I'm leaning towards the latter but it's just amazing that, to me, the simple presence of an oppressive nobility necessitated such violence in the minds of the French. Philosophically, the French and the American revolutionaries seemed to want the same thing.

I'm hoping this does lead to some discussion of the Bolshevik revolution which seems akin to the French.

I actually really hope to be able to write a book someday about the uncanny similarities between the French/Russian revs.

[lockedheart]

I refuse to allow this thread to die.
Here are my (simplified) similarities between the French and Russian Revolutions:

1. Lack of food: Think of the March for Bread in 1789 versus the Feb 23, 1917 chant "Feed our children!"
2. Ignorance on the part of monarchy. Louis XVI vs Tsar Nicholas II
3. Banquets!
4. New thought processes- Liberalism vs Marxist Intelligencia
5. Yielded an unexpected, irrelevant ruler: Napoleon, Stalin (not comparing the two in any way except that they were both different than what both revolutions inherently stood for)
6. Dissent and inefficiency among groups (Jacobins, Montangards, Girondins v Bolsheviks, Mensheviks)
7. Simultaneous wars- 30 years war, WWI
8. Execution of leaders (and attempts to escape): Flight to Variennes which led to the Guillotine, Bang bang to the Romanovs
9. Catchy 3-word slogans! Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite...Peace, Land, Bread!
10. Strong differences between urban/rural life
11.Terror plots: Reign of Terror under Robespierre, versus Stolypin's Red Terror
12. Secularization. Think of the drowning at Nantes, etc. versus how the Russian revolutionaries cut down and abhorred churches/religion, especially the traditional Russian Orthodox idols and practices.
13. Organization of after the revolutions: The Directory versus the Politburo.

GIVE ME YOUR THOUGHTS? obviously these are rough and short, copied directly from a notebook I scribbled on in class one insightful day during Soviet History.

[11:11]

Sorry I've been absent the past several days, no time. I shall try and remember to post my thoughts tomorrow

[lockedheart]

I'm sadly leaving the country for a week so no internet ;( but I look forward to a montage of intellectualism upon my return! xoxo

Feel free to change the subject, too! :) <3 bye fellow history nerds, I love you allllll

[Keri]

I'm going to have to read up on both revolutions, as I have little knowledge of the Russian just like the French. That outline is great though, good points for me to start with.

[lockedheart]

Originally Posted by Keri

I'm going to have to read up on both revolutions, as I have little knowledge of the Russian just like the French. That outline is great though, good points for me to start with.

DO IT :)

[Flaviaokb]

Originally Posted by theagentcoma

I graduated with a major in it

didn't do myself any favors there

I want to become a relationship and sex expert just like Laura Berman but I'm not sure what kind of education I'll need to become that.

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question...7020425AATEuH8

[lockedheart]

bump.

[lockedheart]

No me gusta spam :(

[saofan_315]

Om nom nom.

[saofan_315]

So I listened to a podcast on the drive home yesterday discussing the importance of the War of 1812. Basically, there are two important things we can take from it: Canada won (in the end if you think about it), and it's the reason the USA now has an enormous navy.

However, what I didn't know about the war was had it drawn on longer, a large group of northern businessmen would have pushed for succession from the USA because of the negative effects the war imposed on their trade with Europe. Basically, after the USA became a country, the states really didn't have a whole lot of economic interaction with one another. They viewed themselves more as independent entities and most of their trade was with European countries. When the war began and the ocean's routes to Europe became blocked off, the states were forced to begin trading more heavily with one another. The North took up the manufacturing responsibilities and the South took up the agricultural responsibilities.

[lockedheart]

Originally Posted by saofan_315

So I listened to a podcast on the drive home yesterday discussing the importance of the War of 1812. Basically, there are two important things we can take from it: Canada won (in the end if you think about it), and it's the reason the USA now has an enormous navy.

However, what I didn't know about the war was had it drawn on longer, a large group of northern businessmen would have pushed for succession from the USA because of the negative effects the war imposed on their trade with Europe. Basically, after the USA became a country, the states really didn't have a whole lot of economic interaction with one another. They viewed themselves more as independent entities and most of their trade was with European countries. When the war began and the ocean's routes to Europe became blocked off, the states were forced to begin trading more heavily with one another. The North took up the manufacturing responsibilities and the South took up the agricultural responsibilities.

I love the War of 1812, it's so overlooked and so interesting. I've been to Ft. Mchenry in Baltimore and seen where Fitzgerald composed the lyrics to the US nat'l anthem!
That bit of economics is so cool! I'd never heard that perspective before! And of course we had a civil war later because of that division of labour! (in part)
History flows, and I think your analysis provides great examples of that.

[saofan_315]

Well, here's the thing about the Star Spangled Banner- there are some lines that aren't too cool. Here's a few lines to show what I mean:

Quote:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Yeah. So Francis Scott Key was a bit racist and bragged about how the slaves who rebelled/ran away from their American owners and joined up with the British got slaughtered during the war. Obviously this isn't one of the lines we all sing, but it's in there. I'm not quite sure what to say about it.