# Think Tank > History >  Was the French Revolution a good thing or a bad thing?

## Neil Desmond

I just finished listening to this video defending monarchies.




In it he refers to the French Revolusion as "filthy".  So, is he right?  Was it "filthy" or would it be more accurate to describe monarchies as filthy?

----------


## eduardo89

It was a good thing because it led to Napoleon's rise. Napoleon was one of the greatest men to have ever lived.

----------


## jj-

Bad. The American Revolution was good.

----------


## RJB

> It was a good thing because it led to Napoleon's rise. Napoleon was one of the greatest men to have ever lived.


I'm curious about your statement.

I've read two biographies on him years ago.  Both written by Brits.  Both portrayed him as a very corrupt, arrogant tyrant.  However, I know the British did not like him and it was biased.  Where did you get your info about Napoleon?

BTW his fiasco in Egypt bears strong resemblance to our middle east meddlings.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I'm curious about your statement.
> 
> I've read two biographies on him years ago.  Both written by Brits.  Both portrayed him as a very corrupt, arrogant tyrant.  However, I know the British did not like him and it was biased.  Where did you get your info about Napoleon?


Yeah I'm curious about that, too.  I'm familiar with Napoleon being portrayed in a negative fashion.  Even in a Bugs Bunny cartoon he's portrayed as this small, angry, megalomaniacal character.  If the Redcoats are responsible for Napoleon's negative portrayal, then to me that's a sign that he was probably actually a good guy.  The modern day French don't strike me as people who have an affinity for libertarianism, though.

----------


## Ronin Truth

It may depend on whether you were a French aristocrat or not.

----------


## Petar

Yeah, the French Revolution was basically a proto-Marxist phenomenon. You had starving people pissed off at a monarch who were being manipulated by a bunch of Freemasonic Jacobins who IMO were definitely being manipulated themselves by some other groups (Jesuits for example). The French Revolution redefined the concept of liberty to mean "government privileges", and what happened in The Terror speaks for itself. Then, you had the rise of Emperor Napoleon who could think of nothing better to do but raise mass armies of peasants who would then attack all their neighbors trying to "spread liberty". So thank Napoleon for the whole concept of modern mass warfare. Even from a Catholic world-view the guy was a real douche, considering the fact that he attacked the Papal States and abducted not one, but two Popes. It was this second Pope who ended up re-instituting the then banned Jesuits, and Napoleon's main military adviser was also Jesuit trained (Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès). He's also the guy who coined the term "sociology".

----------


## PierzStyx

> It was a good thing because it led to Napoleon's rise. Napoleon was one of the greatest men to have ever lived.


Did you just say that the guy who basically gave the Pope the finger in front of all of Europe is one of the best men who ever lived?

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm curious about your statement.
> 
> I've read two biographies on him years ago.  Both written by Brits.  Both portrayed him as a very corrupt, arrogant tyrant.  However, I know the British did not like him and it was biased.  Where did you get your info about Napoleon?
> 
> BTW his fiasco in Egypt bears strong resemblance to our middle east meddlings.





> Yeah I'm curious about that, too.  I'm familiar with Napoleon being portrayed in a negative fashion.  Even in a Bugs Bunny cartoon he's portrayed as this small, angry, megalomaniacal character.  If the Redcoats are responsible for Napoleon's negative portrayal, then to me that's a sign that he was probably actually a good guy.  The modern day French don't strike me as people who have an affinity for libertarianism, though.


The English think Napoleon is the Devil, mostly because he came within a hair's length of destroying the Empire. If he had won Trafalgar then the British would have been screwed. Unfortunately for Napoleon, the French Navy blew and he wasn't a good sea strategist. And we've absorbed the English view of him because of our shared language and culture.

I suggest "The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte" and "The Reign of Napoleon Bonaparte" both by Robert Asprey. They're pretty straight forward, clear, and concise about Napoleon's life, military campaigns, and politics. He remains as unbiased as possible and it really shows.

----------


## green73

> I'm curious about your statement.
> 
> I've read two biographies on him years ago.  Both written by Brits.  Both portrayed him as a very corrupt, arrogant tyrant.  However, I know the British did not like him and it was biased.  Where did you get your info about Napoleon?
> 
> BTW his fiasco in Egypt bears strong resemblance to our middle east meddlings.


All he does is troll here, unless it's about Catholicism.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I just finished listening to this video defending monarchies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In it he refers to the French Revolusion as "filthy".  So, is he right?  Was it "filthy" or would it be more accurate to describe monarchies as filthy?



"Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings....I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you....Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!" - Mosiah 29:13-17, The Book of Mormon.

Monarchy like all governments are only as good as the people that are a part of them. Monarchies grow corrupt when the people become corrupt. They allow wicked rulers who abuse their power, corrupt the people further, and are hard to remove without bloodshed and destruction, something else Mosiah warns about. (Mosiah 29: 21-23) Its why the "Glorious Revolution" is such a singular moment in history.

And to be clear, historically, the French Monarchy was just as bad as the Reign of Terror. It starved the populace, imprisoned the innocent, allowed the guilty to go free, and murdered whoever it pleased under whatever trumped up charges it saw fit to invent. The irony is that the Emperor Napoleon brought more freedoms to the people than the former monarchy or the revolution did.

----------


## eduardo89

> All he does is troll here, unless it's about Catholicism.


That's pretty harsh. You seem to have a very low opinion of me lately. Did I do something to hurt your feelings?

----------


## KCIndy

> Was the French Revolution a good thing or a bad thing?



Depends on whether or not your name is Marie Antoinette.  The whole thing pretty well sucked for her and her hubby.

----------


## green73

> That's pretty harsh. You seem to have a very low opinion of me lately. Did I do something to hurt your feelings?


I thought you were a proud troller. Did I miss something?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> It may depend on whether you were a French aristocrat or not.


Which, I think, was replaced with the French bureaucrat.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That's pretty harsh. You seem to have a very low opinion of me lately. Did I do something to hurt your feelings?


What I want to know is: Did the wedding happen yet?  Are you now happily married?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Which, I think, was replaced with the French bearocrat.


Are those the ones wearing the funny little hats and riding bicycles in the circus?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> I just finished listening to this video defending monarchies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In it he refers to the French Revolusion as "filthy".  So, is he right?  Was it "filthy" or would it be more accurate to describe monarchies as filthy?


Just finished watching the video. I take every opportunity to criticize democracy and promote the individual, having typed that, the guy in the video has some real twisted logic, which result in absurd conclusions.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Are those the ones wearing the funny little hats and riding bicycles in the circus?


Yes, thats right. I hate this tablet.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes, thats right. I hate this tablet.


 Well at least it's seems to be a pretty good source of amusement.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Well at least it's seems to be a pretty good source of amusement.


Always happy to entertain.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

I created a thread touching on this topic, but a certain mod who is no longer with us, froze the thread and gave me warning.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> I created a thread touching on this topic, but a certain mod who is no longer with us, froze the thread and gave me warning.


Link?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Depends on whether or not your name is Marie  Antoinette.  The whole thing pretty well sucked for her and her  hubby.


Robespierre, too, in the end. (The guillotine cuts both ways ...)




> I created a thread touching on this topic, but a certain mod who is no longer with us, froze the thread and gave me warning.


Your thread wasn't about whether the French Revolution was "good" or "bad" (whatever that might mean).
You used the FR as a provocatively divisive metaphor in order to fan the flames of our internecine squabbles.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> French Revolution..."good" or "bad" (whatever that might mean).


Good or bad in relation to how the guy in the video is portraying it, its effect or impact on liberty (did it help or hurt it?), and maybe even the relevance of the American Revolution itself as an event that separated the original 13 colonies from a monarchy.

----------

