• PugJesusOP
    link
    fedilink
    84 months ago

    Yes, Revolutionary France very ineffective, First Coalition won that war, right? Or the Royalists in the Vendee?

    • @yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      -14 months ago

      Which Revolutionary France? The one conquered by Napoleon, or the one conquered by Napoleon III. Just because a revolution kills a bunch of people and then gets conquered by a dictator does not classify it as a success.

      • @FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        04 months ago

        It was a success. It is the spark that was necessary to rid France of monarchy. Emperors governed for a short bit, all things considered, but France would still have kings and queens if it wasn’t for the revolution.

        • @yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          -34 months ago

          They replaced the king with an emperor, and if it wasn’t for the efforts of other kings it would have stayed that way. In all reality France would have gone the English route with the monarchy as a figurehead, or have been conquered by the Nazis.

          • @FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            In more than 300 years, France has had emperors for only 30ish years at most. Get your facts straight. It was a success insofar as it helped establish long-lasting republics. It wouldn’t have happened without that initial spark.

            France sees it as a success, and teaches it as such in its schools. And they’re better placed than a Wikipedia warrior to decide.

            I don’t see what nazis have to do with 17-19th century France. You’re confused.