NationStates Jolt Archive

*bored*

Do you guys reckon it succeeded or failed?

Per capita cake consumption has increased significantly.

*bored*

Do you guys reckon it succeeded or failed?

To answer whether it succeeded or failed, you would have to address & define its aims.

It succeeded in removing the Bourbon monarchy. It failed to establish a stable, long lasting alternative form of government.

It can be argued however, that 1789 revolution was crucial in paving the way for the modern French republic, society, culture, etc that we see today.

*bored*

Do you guys reckon it succeeded or failed?

Which one?

Which one?

I'm assuming the OP meant the 1789 one.

the french are pretty revolting

Nah, all they did was loot a few buildings and burn a few cars and stuff... oh wait, we were talking about the 1789 one?

In that case, I think it did its job. You don't hear anybody in France claiming to have the Holy Grail now do you?

Anicenie regime terrmine, c'est la victoir, n'est pas?

excuse my poor spelling

Nah, all they did was loot a few buildings and burn a few cars and stuff... oh wait, we were talking about the 1789 one?

In that case, I think it did its job. You don't hear anybody in France claiming to have the Holy Grail now do you?

No, taught them a lesson, that did. I think Jesus has it now, or something.

To answer whether it succeeded or failed, you would have to address & define its aims.

It succeeded in removing the Bourbon monarchy. It failed to establish a stable, long lasting alternative form of government.

It can be argued however, that 1789 revolution was crucial in paving the way for the modern French republic, society, culture, etc that we see today.
It did indeed. Pity the original aim was to establish a constitutional monarchy...

It did indeed. Pity the original aim was to establish a constitutional monarchy...

Did it have an original aim? I thought it started out as riots for bread... I think they were successful with that.

Did it have an original aim? I thought it started out as riots for bread... I think they were successful with that.
Might have been riots for cheaper bread...I'm not sure. I meant the first political aims. They were annoyed with the level of power the monarchy had and that the king wasn't answerable to anyone, so they tried to force the king to accept a constitution. He didn't --> Robespierre came along --> the start of the Terror (and the fucking stupid decimal calendar).

Might have been riots for cheaper bread...I'm not sure. I meant the first political aims. They were annoyed with the level of power the monarchy had and that the king wasn't answerable to anyone, so they tried to force the king to accept a constitution. He didn't --> Robespierre came along --> the start of the Terror (and the fucking stupid decimal calendar).

Not cheaper bread, just bread, if I remember correctly.
Yep, in the end they got Napoleon. Don't know if you could call that sucsessful...

Let's not talk about the French Revolution. I'm doing an A-Level in it in a few days :eek:

Not cheaper bread, just bread, if I remember correctly.
Yep, in the end they got Napoleon. Don't know if you could call that sucsessful...

Well, considering that under Louis france was bankrupt, losing wars, and with a very unpopular government; and under Napoleon France was financially sound, master of Europe* and generally popular, i'd call it an improvement.

*Until we Brits got stuck in!

Did it have an original aim? I thought it started out as riots for bread... I think they were successful with that.

The Rev occured after the King accidentally gave liberal nobles and bourgeoisie an outlet for their greivances by calling the Estates General to resolves the economic crisis.

*bored*

Do you guys reckon it succeeded or failed?


I think it was GREAT!
Let's do it again. :D

Well, considering that under Louis france was bankrupt, losing wars, and with a very unpopular government; and under Napoleon France was financially sound, master of Europe* and generally popular, i'd call it an improvement.

It was an improvement, but it wasn't the Revolution's goal at all; they wanted become more liberal, not install a dictatorship.

And Louis XVI, for all his shortcomings, didn't become truly unpopular until he literally tried to run away from his problems.

It was an improvement, but it wasn't the Revolution's goal at all; they wanted become more liberal, not install a dictatorship.

And Louis XVI, for all his shortcomings, didn't become truly unpopular until he literally tried to run away from his problems.


A Faux Pas to Varennes :p

*Until we Brits got stuck in!

And after Napoleon overextended himself...

It was an improvement, but it wasn't the Revolution's goal at all; they wanted become more liberal, not install a dictatorship.

There was no cohesive revolution. There was no one goal. It was different factions fighting amoung themselves until Napoleon came along and restored stability.

And Louis XVI, for all his shortcomings, didn't become truly unpopular until he literally tried to run away from his problems.

That was because he was seen as tacitly endorsing a move to a more constitutional monarchy.

The heir to the French Bourbon throne lives... ... more likely "lived", but I'm assuming the child reproduced at some point here.

It was the only 'war' the french won.

It was the only 'war' the french won.

Yes dear. It was.

Now, time to climb the wooden hill.

It was the only 'war' the french won.


War =/= Revolution

Besides I believe the French have won quite a few wars. The American War of Independence for one, considering only about 1 in 5 of the ranks that opposed the British were actually colonists, the French making up 4 in 5.

Also, the victory by the French fleet at the Battle of Chesapeake prevented the British Royal Navy from resupplying the forces of General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, and also prevented interference with the supply of troops and provisions from New York to the armies of George Washington through Chesapeake Bay. As a result, Cornwallis surrendered after the siege of Yorktown and Great Britain later recognized the independence of the United States of America.

So the American War of Independence was won by the French. That's another war they won.

War =/= Revolution

True, although the French did win the French Revolutionary War.

True, although the French did win the French Revolutionary War.

True.

It was the only 'war' the french won.

Fact: France has won easily more wars than Germany. Germany has only won, AFAIK, a pitiful victory in the Boxer Rebellion, and a superficial victory in the Balkans War.

Didn't the Germans take Alsace and Lorraine in a Franco-German war shortly after Germany was formed?

War =/= Revolution

Besides I believe the French have won quite a few wars. The American War of Independence for one, considering only about 1 in 5 of the ranks that opposed the British were actually colonists, the French making up 4 in 5.

Also, the victory by the French fleet at the Battle of Chesapeake prevented the British Royal Navy from resupplying the forces of General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, and also prevented interference with the supply of troops and provisions from New York to the armies of George Washington through Chesapeake Bay. As a result, Cornwallis surrendered after the siege of Yorktown and Great Britain later recognized the independence of the United States of America.

So the American War of Independence was won by the French. That's another war they won.

I make that one. I still think that if you're trying to claim France as a succesfful military power you've got along way to go before you convince anybody.

Fact: France has won easily more wars than Germany. Germany has only won, AFAIK, a pitiful victory in the Boxer Rebellion, and a superficial victory in the Balkans War.

What about the war of 1871 when they whipped the French and captured Paris?

Didn't the Germans take Alsace and Lorraine in a Franco-German war shortly after Germany was formed?

What about the war of 1871 when they whipped the French and captured Paris?

Technically, I'd call that a Prusso-German victory. The state of Germany didn't exist until the end of that war.

I make that one. I still think that if you're trying to claim France as a succesfful military power you've got along way to go before you convince anybody.

American War of Independence
French Rev War
WWI
WWII

Technically, I'd call that a Prusso-German victory. The state of Germany didn't exist until the end of that war.

The Germans are nothing if not technical!

American War of Independence
French Rev War
WWI
WWII

I've already granted you the 1st one.

Don't know about no.2

WWI & WWII certainly not

Actually France failed, they helped America in order to take the colonies themselves and they were told to eat their frog legs, along with Spain and the Dutch.

World War 1 - France won on the side of the allies.
World War 2 - France was defeated in 1940.

Only really successful leaders in all of France's history is a 16 year old girl and a midget.

France didn't win WWi it was just the venue. The British Empire won WWi

Actually France failed, they helped America in order to take the colonies themselves and they were told to eat their frog legs, along with Spain and the Dutch.


Actually the French simply sided with the colonies in order to deal a destructive blow against Britain. Not only was the Royal Navy defeated, a national embarassment in Britain, but the taxes and imports it acquired from the colonies became nil. The enemy of the traditional enemy of the French was their friend. The French never tried to take over the colonies. If it did the Americans would all be speaking French.

Only really successful leaders in all of France's history is a 16 year old girl and a midget.

Yeah. The midget Napolean, one of the greatest military minds of all time, and the Conqueror of Europe.

I think it started when they approved gay marriage. It was God's punishment.

I think it started when they approved gay marriage. It was God's punishment.

Very good, Pat Robertson. However can we actually stay on topic?

Yeah. The midget Napolean, one of the greatest military minds of all time, and the Conqueror of Europe.

Who lost in war to the British & Germans . . .twice

Well all good things must come to an end.

The French won quite a few wars, and they were really quite brilliant. Hell, I can go as far back as the early 700's! Charlemagne was huge, Charles Martel defeated a Muslim army 10 times his own, in 1490 the King of France invaded Italy successfully, only to have the next two kings ruin that (partially because they alienated the Spanish).

Also, Louis XIV was a poor commander, but France did quite well under his reign. Marshal de Saxe was a famed commander in the 7 Years War, Marquis de La Fayette helped the colonies gain independence, Napoleon Bonaparte whipped every enemy six ways to Sunday (Until Moscow...) and Petain was one of the best Marshals they had in the 'teens.

The French have won some big ones. Although they've never been the most militaristic around, focusing more on art and culture, they still held their own.

Oooh- I almost forgot Gaston de Foix. Wiki him, he was great.

The French won quite a few wars, and they were really quite brilliant. Hell, I can go as far back as the early 700's! Charlemagne was huge, Charles Martel defeated a Muslim army 10 times his own, in 1490 the King of France invaded Italy successfully, only to have the next two kings ruin that (partially because they alienated the Spanish).

Also, Louis XIV was a poor commander, but France did quite well under his reign. Marshal de Saxe was a famed commander in the 7 Years War, Marquis de La Fayette helped the colonies gain independence, Napoleon Bonaparte whipped every enemy six ways to Sunday (Until Moscow...) and Petain was one of the best Marshals they had in the 'teens.

The French have won some big ones. Although they've never been the most militaristic around, focusing more on art and culture, they still held their own.

Oooh- I almost forgot Gaston de Foix. Wiki him, he was great.


And there we are. The French aren't as bad in the art of war after all.

However can we actually stay on topic?

The topic had been derailed on page 2. Long before that post ;)

Yeah. Georgia kinda put a crowbar under the tracks...
Well basically, I think the revolution was pretty much a success. The End

The French won quite a few wars, and they were really quite brilliant. Hell, I can go as far back as the early 700's! Charlemagne was huge, Charles Martel defeated a Muslim army 10 times his own, in 1490 the King of France invaded Italy successfully, only to have the next two kings ruin that (partially because they alienated the Spanish).

I'm a sucker for technicality, and I'd call those Frankish. I generally take the Franks as Germanic. Hell, I still think that the French are just Germans in denial.

Hell, I still think that the French are just Germans in denial.

Some of them. Not all of them.

It's for me a proud to remind in this english forum that they won the one hundred year's war. Anyway, the revolution was a goal, it changes the entire world, opening the world to the modern political era. The US revolution was a first step but it was at the wrong side of the ocean to worth too much. Europe was the center of the world and keept being a century and a half more, that's why French revolution is a key moment in history.

By the way, I'm not french :p

The last time the Yanks were able to win over the UK was when...
the Yanks had a French bodyguard to do the fighting for 'em.

Meanwhile, I do believe our lads even took your White House during altercations, wot?

It's for me a proud to remind in this english forum that they won the one hundred year's war. Anyway, the revolution was a goal, it changes the entire world, opening the world to the modern political era. The US revolution was a first step but it was at the wrong side of the ocean to worth too much. Europe was the center of the world and keept being a century and a half more, that's why French revolution is a key moment in history.

By the way, I'm not french :p


BULLDUST.

It's just that us English types were busy with the War of the Roses - which can't be fought when the flower of England is busy with the tarts in Calais, wot?

BULLDUST.

It's just that us English types were busy with the War of the Roses - which can't be fought when the flower of England is busy with the tarts in Calais, wot?


Well, whatever the reasons you lost. That's a fact, any nationalist has always a reason to explain why his country it's not in the place it deserve. We can say also that you were winning until you arrive to build ..... France as a nation

Well, whatever the reasons you lost. That's a fact, any nationalist has always a reason to explain why his country it's not in the place it deserve. We can say also that you were winning until you arrive to build ..... France as a nation


I do hope you have taken my previous post into consideration as well.
:p

Some of them. Not all of them.

Yeah, all the white ones.

Yeah, all the white ones.

I'm sure the Bretons (for example) would beg to differ.

I make that one. I still think that if you're trying to claim France as a succesfful military power you've got along way to go before you convince anybody.

Between the Fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Soviet American face off France has consistantly been one of the world most powerful nations, often the dominat power in a non uni/bi polar world. France was also one of the first to form into what we would call today a nation state and in doing so it achieved an operational capacity not matched by its German, Spanish or British counterparts

I'm sure that in any given centuary (in that period) you will find France has had more military victories than the United states' entire history.

Between the Fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Soviet American face off France has consistantly been one of the world most powerful nations, often the dominat power in a non uni/bi polar world. France was also one of the first to form into what we would call today a nation state and in doing so it achieved an operational capacity not matched by its German, Spanish or British counterparts

I'm sure that in any given centuary (in that period) you will find France has had more military victories than the United states' entire history.

maybe it would help us if you listed a few of them. Until then I will think of my fellow memebers of the aul alliance as chees eating surrender-monkeys

I'm sure the Bretons (for example) would beg to differ.

Yes, ok, the Celts, fine.

France was also one of the first to form into what we would call today a nation state and in doing so it achieved an operational capacity not matched by its German, Spanish or British counterparts

Yes, unfortunately the Germans figured it out eventually. Fucking Prussians.

oh you mean the lot that were destroyed by Julius Caesar?

oh you mean the lot that were destroyed by Julius Caesar?

What the heck are we talking about now?

Sorry i thought we were talking about French miliatry successes when they were a loose federation of celtic tribes in a place the Romans called gaul.

maybe it would help us if you listed a few of them. Until then I will think of my fellow memebers of the aul alliance as chees eating surrender-monkeys

I'm not going to sit here and spew out lists of battles and victories. Use some common bloody sense my good man:

France, before the second world war had the second largest empire in the world, aquired how? Napoleon's Imperial France had to be destroyed by the pooled military might of all of europe's powers, why? Agingcourt is such a spectacular, and unexpected victory for the English, why? Must have been the French inate ability to aquire treasure and lands by running away with their tails between their legs! The anglo-saxon disdain for France is often justified by the view that France surrendered to the Nazis and were ungrateful when they were liberated because they kicked out the Americans... well, the Nazi's marched all over Europe and had Britain or the US been linked by land to the third Rietch then they too would have fallen to Hilter and quicker I feel - soft underbellies I feel. France ejected the Americans and need not worry that the American's are eavesdropping on their telecommunications, We British, the Germans and many others have no such confeidance. You, a fellow celt (Scottish you claim) support the racist nonsense espoused by Americans because the French ruling eleit rememberd Algeria and knew the US didn't stand a chance, I, an anglo-saxon who has seen the wake of war in Africa, do no let right wing non sense get in the way of reality. Why should I list battles and wars when you probably haven't the good sense to do some reading yourself - buy a book or two and then make comments.

Sorry i thought we were talking about French miliatry successes when they were a loose federation of celtic tribes in a place the Romans called gaul.

I don't think there are many European tribes that could claim to have been successful against the Romans.

No i think you're right. Do the Parthians count?

I'm not going to sit here and spew out lists of battles and victories. Use some common bloody sense my good man:

France, before the second world war had the second largest empire in the world, aquired how? Napoleon's Imperial France had to be destroyed by the pooled military might of all of europe's powers, why? Agingcourt is such a spectacular, and unexpected victory for the English, why? Must have been the French inate ability to aquire treasure and lands by running away with their tails between their legs! The anglo-saxon disdain for France is often justified by the view that France surrendered to the Nazis and were ungrateful when they were liberated because they kicked out the Americans... well, the Nazi's marched all over Europe and had Britain or the US been linked by land to the third Rietch then they too would have fallen to Hilter and quicker I feel - soft underbellies I feel. France ejected the Americans and need not worry that the American's are eavesdropping on their telecommunications, We British, the Germans and many others have no such confeidance. You, a fellow celt (Scottish you claim) support the racist nonsense espoused by Americans because the French ruling eleit rememberd Algeria and knew the US didn't stand a chance, I, an anglo-saxon who has seen the wake of war in Africa, do no let right wing non sense get in the way of reality. Why should I list battles and wars when you probably haven't the good sense to do some reading yourself - buy a book or two and then make comments.

Where do I begin with this drivelling rant?

I'm not going to sit here and spew out lists of battles and victories. Use some common bloody sense my good man:

France, before the second world war had the second largest empire in the world, aquired how? Napoleon's Imperial France had to be destroyed by the pooled military might of all of europe's powers, why? Agingcourt is such a spectacular, and unexpected victory for the English, why? Must have been the French inate ability to aquire treasure and lands by running away with their tails between their legs! The anglo-saxon disdain for France is often justified by the view that France surrendered to the Nazis and were ungrateful when they were liberated because they kicked out the Americans... well, the Nazi's marched all over Europe and had Britain or the US been linked by land to the third Rietch then they too would have fallen to Hilter and quicker I feel - soft underbellies I feel. France ejected the Americans and need not worry that the American's are eavesdropping on their telecommunications, We British, the Germans and many others have no such confeidance. You, a fellow celt (Scottish you claim) support the racist nonsense espoused by Americans because the French ruling eleit rememberd Algeria and knew the US didn't stand a chance, I, an anglo-saxon who has seen the wake of war in Africa, do no let right wing non sense get in the way of reality. Why should I list battles and wars when you probably haven't the good sense to do some reading yourself - buy a book or two and then make comments.

France, an industrial nation used its technological superiority to conquer chunks of Afria and SE Asia. Hardly fair fights.

Napoleonic France (like Nazi-Germany later) was intent on expansion by conquest and was initially defeated by a British lead coalition (inc Portugese and Spanish) that drove it out of the Iberian peninsular and finally defeated it near Toulouse.

Agincourt is considered a spectacular victory because of the scale of the slaughter, the fact that the army was in very poor condition through sickness and was outnumbered.

I agree that the French collaboration is a European disgrace only equalled by the lengths the French have gone to in trying to cover it up.

The French anti-american attitude bothers me not one whit.

I stand by my claim to being a Scot and I think you should be very careful before you even insinuate that someone might be racist.

Why should you list evidence for your claims? Well, without evidence upon which to base our arguments they are simply assertions.

Also a word of advice do not make personal attacks on people you have never met and know little about. It Is not pleasant, clever or civilised.
:mad:

Where do I begin with this drivelling rant?

The beginning is usually a good start :)

I'm not going to sit here and spew out lists of battles and victories. Use some common bloody sense my good man:

France, before the second world war had the second largest empire in the world, aquired how? Napoleon's Imperial France had to be destroyed by the pooled military might of all of europe's powers, why? Agingcourt is such a spectacular, and unexpected victory for the English, why? Must have been the French inate ability to aquire treasure and lands by running away with their tails between their legs! The anglo-saxon disdain for France is often justified by the view that France surrendered to the Nazis and were ungrateful when they were liberated because they kicked out the Americans... well, the Nazi's marched all over Europe and had Britain or the US been linked by land to the third Rietch then they too would have fallen to Hilter and quicker I feel - soft underbellies I feel. France ejected the Americans and need not worry that the American's are eavesdropping on their telecommunications, We British, the Germans and many others have no such confeidance. You, a fellow celt (Scottish you claim) support the racist nonsense espoused by Americans because the French ruling eleit rememberd Algeria and knew the US didn't stand a chance, I, an anglo-saxon who has seen the wake of war in Africa, do no let right wing non sense get in the way of reality. Why should I list battles and wars when you probably haven't the good sense to do some reading yourself - buy a book or two and then make comments.


If Napolean was such a dope why do we spend so much time in war college studying his type of warfare and why ? BTW its called " How to win at war " ...not "how to lose " ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Just because the French..mostly from exhaustion...learned the art of surrender and cooperation ...after...WW I doesnt account for the fact that the " free FRENCH " formed part of the army that conquered Europe back from the Nazi's and resited the germans herocialy ....

If you must detest the French ...do it for a good reason ..there are much better reasons than the military ones .;)

I know the French aren't exactly everyone's flavour of the month at the moment but anyone who doesn't face up to the reality that from about 1650-1815 the French were a military force to be reckoned with is just plain barmy. Napoleon totally revolutionised modern warfare and waged hugely successful military campaigns against a whole host of nations despite often facing a number of enemies at the same time on different fronts. Under the Louis dynasty (especially Louis XIV) the size of the French army was by far the largest in Europe and probably the first one that was controlled solely by the state and not the nobility - a giant leap forward in modernity.

If Napolean was such a dope why do we spend so much time in war college studying his type of warfare and why ? BTW its called " How to win at war " ...not "how to lose " ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Just because the French..mostly from exhaustion...learned the art of surrender and cooperation ...after...WW I doesnt account for the fact that the " free FRENCH " formed part of the army that conquered Europe back from the Nazi's and resited the germans herocialy ....

If you must detest the French ...do it for a good reason ..there are much better reasons than the military ones .;)

Ah now I wouldn't go as far as indulging the De Gaullist fantasy that France liberated itself. I think that whilst doubtless there was a great deal of courage on behalf of many portions of French society in resisting the Germans the whole thing is dramatically overstated as a means of washing from the national conscience the ugly realities of collaboration and the history of Vichy.

Ah now I wouldn't go as far as indulging the De Gaullist fantasy that France liberated itself. I think that whilst doubtless there was a great deal of courage on behalf of many portions of French society in resisting the Germans the whole thing is dramatically overstated as a means of washing from the national conscience the ugly realities of collaboration and the history of Vichy.

A ...your singing to the converted


B....you cant condemn the whole nation based on the actions of the few.


C..I said " part of " .....;)

Ah now I wouldn't go as far as indulging the De Gaullist fantasy that France liberated itself. I think that whilst doubtless there was a great deal of courage on behalf of many portions of French society in resisting the Germans the whole thing is dramatically overstated as a means of washing from the national conscience the ugly realities of collaboration and the history of Vichy.

A ...your singing to the converted


B....you cant condemn the whole nation based on the actions of the few.


C..I said " part of " .....;)


d...the British ..Thanks to Chamberlain and there other leaders are just as responsible for the french collapse as the Germans ...if you are willing to do a little digging ...As " allies "...if you are to be fair ...the Brits of the pre war period were not worth much...ask the Checzs ...and the Austrians and the Poles ... for that matter read Churchills own biography....:)

Which one?
lmao...It enabled Napoleon to take power...damn Wellesley

A ...your singing to the converted


B....you cant condemn the whole nation based on the actions of the few.


C..I said " part of " .....;)


d...the British ..Thanks to Chamberlain and there other leaders are just as responsible for the french collapse as the Germans ...if you are willing to do a little digging ...As " allies "...if you are to be fair ...the Brits of the pre war period were not worth much...ask the Checzs ...and the Austrians and the Poles ... for that matter read Churchills own biography....:)

I agree, I have no doubts whatsoever that were Britain not an island then we too, would have gone under in the face of the Nazi assault. Thank goodness for those 21 miles of sea - it's amazing to think how such a small stretch of water has done so much to shape history in this instance and others.

It's ridiculous prattle to argue that the French have sucked, do suck, and always will suck because they got smashed in World War II and now Jacques Chirac has the average American (AVERAGE) pissed off at him.

Any fool with fingers can drag up wikipedia, read about any war, and find out what exactly went wrong to cause that outcome. The Germans, British, Russians, French, Americans, and every single other nation that has ever had an army, empire, state, or war has, in some way, screwed up. Pasting the "Loser" label on one nation for the rest of their days is completely idiotic, because it begins with the assmption that that group of people is somehow cursed.

The REASON the French lost World War II was because they expected trench warfare, and Adolf wasn't going to play along. They stuck all their men in one long line along the border, and when the panzers busted through and caught Pierre with his pants down, the French surrendered rather than commit what would amount to mass suicide.

Every failure in war can be traced to something. The French are not bad generals, just the same as the Russians are not all communists and the British do not all have bad teeth.


And as long as I'm ranting, I'll rant about the original topic! The Revolution was a bloody failure. They've gone through 4 republics, two empires, two kingdoms, and one commune. If it weren't for Louis XVII's Privy Council, the Etat-Generaux wouldn't have turned so sour, and he wouldn't have lost his head. Ltierally, within 5 years of successful republican revolution, the Republic was over and three governments had fallen.

So, the Revolution was a failure in terms of building a nation. But, in terms of creating a completely new mindset and finally washing away the remains of th e feudal world, it succeeded.

/rant over

Robspiere or however you spell his name tried to commit suicide but shot himself in the jaw missing his brian. That's the extent of my knowledge. His aim sucks.

wow robspierre sux...lol, anyways, I do believe that it comes down to Napoleon, because of the Napoleonic wars the Ideals of the revolution spread everywhere and changed warefare entirely. It changed all of Europe, for the better, It put it on a road away from aristochracies, But no, the revolution did not make an effective government.

what republic are they up to now anyway ?

Robspiere or however you spell his name tried to commit suicide but shot himself in the jaw missing his brian. That's the extent of my knowledge. His aim sucks.

It's unknown whether he tried to commit suicide or whether he was shot during the struggle of his arrest. Either way, he spent a whole day with his jaw hanging off his face by a strip of skin before he was guillotined. Painful.

what republic are they up to now anyway ?

Fifth.