As a French, it's funny seeing references to the French revolution as some kind of rebellion against the rich.
Most people don't realize that the revolution was led by the nouvelle bourgeoisie ( new nobles) who were tired of paying taxes to the royals. They sacrificed thousands of commoners to reach their goals akin to how Russia is sending in soldiers into the meat grinder, and France was a much worse place afterwards for everyone.
The turning point was when Napoleon took over as a military dictator and ruled with an iron fist until the royalty took back the country yet again.
Merci d'avoir écouté un peu d'histoire Française, mes amis.
Most people think of Napoleon as a military genius.
But damn, he had a hand (not always positively supporting but often) in many elements of a modern developed nation. Things like standardised measures - metric system - science, education, nation level finances, military logistics and so much more. I'd argue that his greatest achievements was non-military administration.
Throw in the military stuff too and historically he seems like the kind of person that FAANG founders look at and say "Damn, what am I doing with my life?"
> As a French, it's funny seeing references to the French revolution as some kind of rebellion against the rich
As an American with basic history knowledge I find it funny as well.
The internet angry mob ideal of the French Revolution has become a meme in itself. It’s not actually about improving conditions or raising wages, it’s just an outlet for impotent internet rage.
Or maybe you misunderstood.. It is a warning to people like those on this site (demographics wise) not to create the necessary powder keg by raising inequality. Whether an angry civil war works out in the end doesn't mean much to those killed at the beginning.
For modern society the question of whether there are any regrets in living in a world entirely restructured by the French Revolution is maybe also interesting, but I think people should be a little selfish about having a reasonable present.
Yes, but this is the nature of heroic figures in politics: “I’m from the elite and I’m here to save you from these other elites.” Who gets to determine whether it’s called a “revolution” versus a “civil war”? Is it based on whether there’s a concerted effort of manipulation? Even the popular figures who we think of as grassroots leaders are elite in some sense.
