you remember to include the work of the jacobins and the role of the illuminatti and jesuits in the collapse of france? just bypassing the foreign subversion is very poor of a historian. Honestly, what was Louis to do? round up all the jesutis and sabbatteans and done away with them?
This mischaracterize things. One of those stupid wars was funding the American Revolution. There would be no USA without French help. After the war America decided to not repay France and so France was left holding the debt.
So there's more inequality today than 250-300 years ago? There's corruption everywhere, give me a country that isn't at least a little corrupt. There are much less wars today than a few hundred years ago.
The King had the army, the King could have forced the nobles to pay up at the end of a bayonet even if that was illegal. So he should have selectively targeted certain nobles to weaken them and strengthen his hand while filling the coffers with money. However, he delayed and delayed until he had no power to use the army against the nobles and the masses.
Nah man, forcing the nobles to pay under threat of force was how the magna carta was born, trying to raise taxes without the consent of those paying them, is one of the reasons for the English civil war, and the American revolution. Louis's problem in the end, was misunderstanding the natural law that was realized by that document. The government (any government), may only govern, with the granted consent of the governed. It doesn't matter if it's billionaires, or peasants. It requires consent. Forcing consent has always led to dissent, as a matter of human natural law, and it always will. The narrator of this video was correct about his ineptitude, of being even a decent politician. That being said, all the things he could've done right, leading up to the point of the revolution, is hindsight.
Or just be deliberate in who you invite: you only need half of the assembly to vote "yes", and you could do that with favors, bribes, and coercion. I do think the bigger problem was the king needed to take ownership over the problems, and not defer the finances to a minister. Great leaders are able to get their hands dirty this way, but for the king he just didn't have the skills or desire.
I saw a documentary that said he may have done this because of the revolution in England- Charles attacked his own people and disregarded government- and he believed that’s why was overthrown. Of course the reality is people wanted equality and were being denied it and THATS why they revolted. But if you grow up believing God ordained an entire nation to you by birth right the idea that the every man can ask you for things? Nah
unfortunately that is not always the case. In several instances, people have ruled without consent. There really is no natural law that says you hae to give consent to be governed @@paulholman2841
The word stupid is so often misused nowadays. "Stupid is as stupid does," says the sage. As such, we are all stupid sometimes. None of us are stupid always.
Plenty of people are stupid all the time. By random chance, they might sometimes do something that doesn't appear completely stupid, but they still remain stupid inside.
Napoleon once said, with a few canons he could have finished the march of the parisian mob to Versailles immediately. I think, Napoleon would not have hesitated. Nor would have Robespierre. That's all what should be said about Louis XVI.
Except that Napoleon was very popular and Louis nowhere near as much. Neither was Robespierre. It's not enough to have the will ; you need people to follow you along. Louis was metaphorically like a heart that has never been exercised ; at the first strain it has an infarctus. Louis was raised isolated from the rel demands of power and governance ; his ineptitude was a sign of decadence after centuries of unshared privilege and it's a lesson. No matter what you have inherited, you will lose it if you don't deserve it.
The French Revolution was not a spontaneous event, any more than the COVID "vaccination" drive. Louis was not in control of the military by that stage.
Gathering the Etats-Généraux was actually a traditionnal way for kings to by-pass the conservative stance of the Parlements, particularly about changing the tax system. Louis XVI was, after Henri IV the Bourbon king who tried the most audacious policies, inspired by Turgot and Calonne. The king and all the royal family was still very popular particularly among the peasants. Revolution was at first a bourgeois thing : it was the ambitious parisian middle-class of clercs and lawyers that made it happen. In fact, the whole of western France resisted to the revolution and remained faithfull to the Crown despite the genocide that was carried away by the Convention in Brittany and Vendée. The fanatical attitude of the high aristocracy, and their crass incompétence did the rest.
the french revolution is a complex topic that goes way beyond being labeled "monarchist" or "democrat". On the matter of how popular/unpopular was Louis XVI, my opinion is based on the works of François Furet, Jacques Krynen and Jules Michelet. J.D. Bredin biography of Sieyès gives a good sample of the state of the public opinion of the years prior to 1793. Writers like Hugo (1793) and Stefan Zweig (in his biography of Marie-Antoinette) also lead to the same conclusion. Louis was a decent man, but he was completely unfit to rule, particularly around that time. If that makes me a "monarchist", well, I can live with that.@@roflomaozedong
We would not be very of the mark to say that the French revolution was more of a Parisian revolution. In fact the French had a saying in those days: "When Paris sneezes, France catches a cold."
Thanks to crass incompétence of the high aristocracy then, french don't have to see their papers full of stupid news about the little princess shit here, the big burp of the little prince there, unlike others. So big praise to the french aristocracy of 1789 :)
I second this…I recognize some of the clips being from “Marie Antoinette” (2006). In one of the older clips I saw the late Peter Ustinov. Am going to do a search of his roles in film and try to find it that way.
Yeah, he tried everything he knew, like frequent extremely expensive fireworks displays because ya now; it's Tuesday. Buying up as many of the largest gems he could find to add to the royal jewels, paying 20 years wages for a worker for one of his wife's hats for her to wear once, solid gold everything, purchase and upkeep of 100 of the best horses in the world in a huge stable palace of their own, etc...
He also hired ministers and fired them quickly, he then looks indecisive, incompetent and unwilling to stick the course - even when he makes the right decision it’s still wrong
You know, all of that luxury actually peanuts compared to how many bucks he wasted just for pissing off the Brits in America. Helping America have no benefit for France.
Louis XVI was probably of about average intellegence. The Austrian alliance was established to be a counter to England and Prussia by Louis XV and his diplomats. Louis XVI was married to Marie Antonette as part of this. France probably had little choice about the military alliance. The 7 years war was lost due to the death of the tsarina Elizabeth, an event not under French control. The American revolution did weaken England. Louis XVI did bluff too often. He was too willing to threaten to use his power as an absolute monarch and not willing enough to follow through. In short he was well meaning but weak.
Louis XVI was a decent man. At the origin, the French revolution was not against the monarchy. Louis could have peacefully become a constitutional monarch, which was the original intent, and France, one century after the UK would have done its "glorious revolution ". But due to many factors, including the king's own attitude, this did not happen. And the king's attempted flight did not help
Parallels to King Charles I (England). While he was in jail the parliamentarians tried negotiating with him, offered him the constitutional monarchy, but he refused. Charles doubled down on treasoning when he was in jail, became too dangerous and had to be whacked.
The desire to cling to great power has cost many monarchs their heads, when a bit of compromise could’ve had them living lives of leisure, though with much less actual power.
Excellent video....only concern is you forgot to mention Marie Antoinette's influence over her husband (and she despised any hint of surrendering royal authority) and Louis' terrible education that made no effort to appreciate other forms of government. Would love to know where some of the film excerpts are from. I recognized two sources being the 1989 mini-series on the french revolution and the Sophia Coppola film on Marie Antoinette. but the others?? Your next video should be: How Stupid was Nicholas II before the Russian Revolution?? Another monarch with sh*t for brains who made mistake after mistake and lost his life (along with his entire family).
Then it should be mentioned that Marie Antoinette was at least as bad as her husband in jugding how the population saw her. She was widely unpopular in France even before the debt crisis. Obviously she did not inherit the political skills of her mother Maria Theresia of Austria.
Rather superficial old fashioned pre 1990 thinking. Yes anybody ending up with family in basement being slaughtered can't be said to be successful , but how getting there another story. But a person as Nicholas speaking three languages fluently ,English and German and french plus his native tongue,can't be flippantly called stupid. And he was well educated . And the fall of USSR , Gorbachev,etc , has allowed us to understand far more. Read Dominic Lieven's magisterial Nicholas ii.
From Kentucky USA...American Exceptionalism is largely misunderstood. It is simply that America in its constitutional construct was and is an exception to the heretofore rule of monarchy granting privileges as opposed to inherent God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of liberty.
The American Goverment is based on Enlands Common Law and John Lock´s Treaty of Goverment where by a Constitution is formed that protects the individuals rights. France was still in the stage of Serfdom were the 3rd. class had no rights.
@@markwarnberg9504 Of course there was thinking by The Founders based on English Common Law, but that does not diminish what I said about American Exceptionalism. The proof of that is these hundreds of years later wherein Britain has lost many of the fundamental rights which we here in America take for granted. Your English Common Law does not hold up very well against the pressure of elapsed time and the lack of a real Constitution, safeguarded by requirements based on severe conditions which require passage by 2/3 of the US states.
@@markwarnberg9504 Now we're getting into semantics. Let's try the right bear arms. Are you going to tell me that the Brits have not lost this? How about free speech? I see news articles all the time from England about how people are being arrested and prosecuted for saying the "wrong" things.
This is interesting. I have not heard that term said by a lot of people very often. I never really looked into it. I had the impression that the people who said it, meant there was something special about the United States that entitles the usa to have influence over other countries
In fairness Louis 15th started none of his wars. Nor did he want war. It was others; namely Prussia and Britain who were the recurring aggressors during the 18th century. France's problem was protecting a long and not very defensible border whilst keeping a navy to challenge the British Royal Navy. This cost a fortune and they couldnt afford to do both. The biggest mistake they made was a failure to set up a central bank early in the 18th century after a brief experiment and failure in the 1720's. The English did in 1694 and this centralized management of finances gave them a reputation for financial probity and stability. Which translated into persistently lower interest rates on government debt throughout the entire century and into modern times. Translate that advantage over 100 years and it becomes huge. The French meanwhile had the most corrupt and unwieldy treasury system which relied on the personal connections of the finance minister of the day to raise money based on his personal reputation. As the monarchy had steadily lost its reputation for financial management. And as for tax collection; a class of tax farmers managed it and pocketed 30% of the tax take. Meanwhile every post in government was bought and sold so almost nobody could be fired for incompetence or corruption. Office was thus inherited. This mess was inherited by Louis 16th and he had neither the wit or the intellect to change it.
France was technologically behind. Had a massive poor population and a king who didn't seem bothered enough that his coffers were empty. This was a recipe for disaster from the start. Then joining a war like the US war of independence at your own peril is lunacy. King Louis was unfit. But there were no checks and balances on what he did. Until it was too late. And it cost him his head. Litterally.
Funny how the Americans (who love to hate/mock the French) in reality should be thankful for the support in the French support for their independence. (Something, that according with this video, triggered the French Revolution and cost Louis his head...) And then Napoleon followed, starting wars all over Europe, kickstarting a chain of events that led to the independence movements in the Spanish and Portuguese territories in the Americas... Sometimes, History seems like the "falling of a house of cards" (or Domino pieces falling one after each other)...
You omit some important context. The system that Louis XVI inherited was not ancient. It was designed by Louis XIV (yes, only 2 numbers lower). Louis XIV was a very talented man with an enormous energy. The system was tailored to his person and put all power and all responsibility on the shoulders of one person, the King. This worked for someone as capable as Louis XIV, but failed in the hands of lesser men. The French dynasty had been super-stable and very successful for many centuries. The dynasty traced back all the way to Hugh Capet, who became King when the Carolingians died out in France. That's a pretty spectacular run. It all functioned and was in a generally upward trend under very capable, mediocre as well as incompetent kings. Things started to fall apart when Louis XIV seized absolute power and laid the bar far too high for his successors. The financial situation was bad, but that would not necessarily be catastrophic. Spain bankrupted multiple times and their kings were not spectacularly competent. But no revolution there. Yes, Spanish power waned, but the King remained firmly in charge until Napoleon invaded. Also important is that Louis XVI came to the throne by accident. Louis XV was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he regarded XVI as incompetent and refused to prepare him for any kind of political career. XVI only came to the throne because the intended heir apparent died unexpectedly. He was totally unprepared for ruling. Also, he was married to Marie Antoinette, who was a minor Austrian princess who was also not expected to come anywhere near a throne in her life and who was also unprepared for the responsibility. Marie Antoinette has a bad press, but often in times of crisis, she was the only one who kept her cool. Louis would go catatonic and lock himself in a room and as a result find himself in a fait accompli over and over again. Also, enlightenment ideas had become popular, not only with the third estate, but also in circles of the aristocracy and the clergy. They had begun to question their own privilege. Many of the early events were possible because elements of the first and second estates sympathised with the third estate. When the privileged are not convinced of their right to privilege anymore, the door to revolution is opened. A whole lot of trouble could probably also be avoided if the first and second estates would have agreed to some kind of tax reform early on that would have alleviated the financial crisis. But can you really expect that if they all know that the government is lying about the reality of the situation? It's like writing a blank cheque. Whether Louis could have prevented the revolution in the end will always be speculation. But he certainly could have done a whole lot more, and at least he could have sold his hide a whole lot dearer, if only he had been at least moderately competent and prepared. It's a close parallel to Nicholas II of Russia. He too came to the throne by accident, completely unprepared. He too was not very intelligent (someone said that if he would put a good effort inro it, he could have made a pretty good mailman) and messed up almosed everything he did. He too started out almost all-powerful at the head of an ancient and very prestigious dynasty and managed to throw it all away.
@@LucMtl1getting a competent leader from a hereditary monarchy has always been a crap shoot and therefore has always been stupid. But people do love their kings.
You have read a lot and your comment is worthwhile. People today would be very glad to be ruled by a king if they thought that king intelligent, wise and in sympathy with them. And why not? They have seen what governments of retail politicians have made of the Western world.
Ok, You passed aside the war Louis pushed in april 1792, the abusive use of veto to paralyse the mobilisation, and the "Brunswick manifest". He died because of that, more than the "Varenne's flee". To simplify, he was considered as a traitor, who played the defeat of his own country in order to recover his power. An other wrong decision . He was'nt stupid, he just had the wrong "logicial", he was thinking with the principle of absolute monarchy . The other wrong decision was to open the "market of flour". The exportation of flour to other countries rarified it in France, and pushed the prices upward . It is the cause of many revolts including the "flour war" and created a suspicion of speculation on grain that will empoison the situation all along th Revolution. The french revolution did'nt happen because the "french are the french", it's a good idea to "enlighten" our english speaking friends. A very good video .
@@adrianmad3207 i found it too. Thanks I saw it several years ago on You Tube. Then when i wanted to watch it again, it was gone, and not on any other free streaming channel either. I bought a dvd of it, but it was such horrible quality of picture and sound both. It must have been pirated, and not very well. I am glad it is back on You Tube. Just finished Part One. It is a great movie!!! 🙂
@@adrianmad3207 i sent a reply to you and it seems to have disappeared! Thank you again. I found the movie. I had seen it on You Tube a few years ago. When I wanted to watch it again, it was gone. I bought a dvd of it, but the sound and picture were of such poor quality, i wondered if it was pirated. I am glad it is on You Tube again. Thanks again.
0:10 As one of the King's advisors told him in Mel Brooks' History Of The World Part 1, "Sire! The peasants are revolting!" and Louis XVI replied, "I know! They NEVER take baths."
To bring all this to the present day, here in the US we have: 1. A debt of $34.5 Trillion, increasing by more than $2 Trillion per year. 2. Defeat in the endless wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, which cost us thousands of troops and $6 Trillion and achieved fuckall. 3. We’re backing two countries in their own disastrous wars: Ukraine which is losing its war against Russia, and Israel which is committing a genocide with our bombs. And we’ve spent over $100 Billion supporting these two losers. 4. Everything costs double what it did just a few years ago, but wages certainly haven’t kept up, unless you’re in politics or you’re an AI programmer. 5. A president who should be in a retirement home and whose advisors hide him from any serious questions. Yeah, real confidence inspiring!
Don't forget a planet on the verge of ecological breakdown and a would-be dictator determined to destroy whatever pitiful pretense of democracy we've ever had.
That's what the bankers behind the french revolution were shooting for, endless debt and impotent leadership that does as told, and everyone else a corporate wage slave. Now we have it almost worldwide.
I think his fundamental problem was that in his mind he wasn't a politician -- he was king. He was raised to believe in the divine right of kings and not to "get his hands dirty" with making policy. He only yielded when forced to, and as his feeble escape attempt showed, he never truly believed he could be deposed.
Yes but his great-great-great grandfather, Louis XIV, also had the same view of the divine right of kings. Yet, Louis XIV was able to strengthen the power of the French throne. Louis XVI, OTOH, seemed ill-equipped and even disinterested in ruling. He wasn't as bad as King Charles VI but his ineptitude ended the French monarchy.
Not a lot has changed. I regarded Nicky the second of Russia also as stupid. Good natured well meaning except that he was insulated from the real world and only came out for ceremony. He regarded the duma as a threat and would not allow change.. until it was too late.
Every single cause of the French Revolution has a direct parallel to the United States in the 2020s. Even the agricultural techniques as we've allowed Monsanto to become a global food monopoly by allowing them to sell us foods that can't seed. All that needs to happen is for one man to decide who gets to eat and who doesn't.
Louis the 14th, known as "The Sun King", said "I am the state' and bankrupted France. Most peasants survived on 2 loaves of bread daily, and they could earn the money with one day's work. At the time of the revolution, it took 2 day's work to buy one loaf of bread.
Louis XIVth DIDNT bankrupt France, he strained the economy to its limit but France was not bankrupt yet. It happened all across the XVIIIth which Louis XIV only started, but at the time of the revolution the price was also so high due to 2 terrible years without much food production which would make any economy kneel, the fact that a part of the population kept most of the riches (including the "Bourgeoisie" btw since there were opportunities to become Nobility for them and they made some hella rich using this system dynasties of ministers and all), the fact that the US didnt pay back the money spent for their indepandance (i mean they were a weak economy, a few people ruling themselves in the new world isnt that profitable but still), the fact that France had been in terrible wars for centuries now, the outdated bureaucracy etc...
He was, of course, a child of his time. I´ve recently read a book about Louis XVI in which he was called "the most liberal of the Bourbon Kings - but he could not master all the problems France ran into ..." (after going broke thanks to supporting the traitor Washington). That war ruined France. and of course, they imported some revolutionary ideas through the men who served in the troops under Rochambeau or the Admirals François Joseph Paul, Comte de Grasse, Marquis of Grasse-Tilly and Louis-Antoine, Comte de Bougainville
I definitely saw the late, great Peter Ustinov among the players in this video, which means it must be many years old. Can you disclose its origin? Was it a movie or a lavish TV series or a montage of many...? Many thanks for sharing...
I'm fairly sure the scenes were from the 1989 two-parter "La Révolution française", an international collaboration starring Klaus Maria Brandauer as Danton and Peter Ustinov as the Count of Mirabeau.
I noticed Peter Ustinov as well…thank you for the title! In addition, many of the clips featuring a young Louis XVI were from “Marie Antoinette” (2006).
Louis XVI didn't look like the actor in this movie, not the same eye color, and not the same size either, in fact the real king was pretty tall. He is often depicted as a small man in French movies, but he was not.
@@omahanprabla3058 Realy? How?Kingdom was wrecked and bankrupt.To improve system ,that was abused by all previous kings and nobility, it was necesary genious revolutionary king , load of money ,team of specialists and will to do this.
I like how with that movie "La revolution francaise/the french revolution" that they made an English language and a French language version. Regarding Louis XVIs mistakes. He was young (about 19) when he became King, but his grandfather Louis XV was 5 yrs of age when he came to the throne. But Louis XV had a competent regent, Philippe II, Duc d'Orleans until 1722, and afterwards for a long time appointed Prime Ministers to run things like Cardinal Fleury and Cardinal Dubois. He wasnt really actually running things much until the 1740s.. Louis should have appointed a Prime Minister until he was educated enough on government and economics.
Talking about this so called revolution without mentionning the huge part the free-massons played.... Btw... Louis XVI was NOT supposed to become King, so he wasn't raised as one... For the real origins of the French "Revolution" (a Bourgeois Coup in fact) : 1) 1717, Scottish Ritual... 2) 1765 : the weat becomes a liberal product... Physiocrats... 3) 1776 : yeah... Obvious... Take a good look at the map of Washington DC... It has NEVER been a revolution. And absolutely NOT a popular one.
Nope. Even if he was a smart guy, the situation before the Revolution was precarious, and he might have been executed anyways. The conflict between the estates was dead-locked, the overbuilding of the nobles and the church was such that they consumed all surplus, and France was almost bankrupt. There was no room for improving productivity without abolishing the nobility and the priesthood, and that would probably have resulted in a coup, that could not be handled without help from the third estate. In such a situation it doesn't matter what minister of finance you appoint or if you do it yourself. Your only chance as a king is to prepare secretly and then trigger the revolution by yourself. That's not generally what kings did those days. And no: he couldn't magically suddenly increase his charisma and take all matters in his own hands, he was just a normal dude that had inherited a throne in a badly tended kingdom, he wasn't a founder of a dynasty.
There is a type of people that are oblivious to reading the room. Or dare I say wilfully negligent. They are called narcissistic sociopaths. It comes across as dumb, but they actually believe in themselves so much that they overlook their own shortcomings. Which ofc, is dumb.
Louis 16 could have survived by abdicating before the Revolution degenerated, electing himself as a temporary president for the Revolution and then abolished the nobility and the priesthood with the help of the revolutionaries, and then left the power and fled to USA. But that would have required a providence that not even prophets have. (Since true prophecies almost always postdate the events prophesied).
This was one of the best expositions on the fall of the Bourbon Monachy ive seen on YT.--- clear and to the point . Often the role of the King is downplayed for the reputation of the Queen : Your analytical approach has inspired , and improved my understanding of this subject . Bravo and thank you !
I think these is what await to all ruler, that rule for the elite, rich, and who is more worry to mantain a status q that is obvious that doesnt work, when the sistem is obvious that is no longer working and clearly helping the people, who in esscence is what make a nation what it is, and who are those who at the end allow you to conserve the crown, or the keys to rule, if you only care for those who, are on the top and leave the rest to rot sooner or later, be because revolt or be because colapse, you will loose power
Loius XV was not Lious XVI father but a grandfather. Quite an error to make in a history video. Anyway would have Napoleon feared better were he in Lious XVI shoes? Yes, because for all his flaws, Napoleon was a very competent guy and was able to take quick and decisive actions. Louis XVI like Nicholas II was decent person but very poor ruler.
Like any rich person, who just thinks his life is super special, and its not part of the rest of the "simple humans" around him/her/them whatever pronoun makes you feel good. That is the problem with rich people. This Upper class was just stupid to see the consequences of their acts. Like any rich person today thinking that they are above the law. In one word: DIVINE lol And the worst part, is that simple people believe them, and defend them. These French royals were too far deep in their belief of being of Divine blood. So far in touch with their own people. Just look at the British Family in England, they keep acting like they are of a divine bloodline. A family that is a symbol of destruction, genocide, oppression, and lots of stolen goods from their colonies.
A ruler attracts his or her own downfall and there is nothing more it can bring down a king, queen, emperor, empress, president, or dictator other than his or her own errors.
The whole situation goes beyond Louis XVI. Louis XIV set up a system that had no hope of functioning if the king wasn't as exceptional as he was and XV only kicked the can down the road. XVI was an ordinary, if weak-willed man left alone to face 2 generations of mounting incompetence.
It kind of seems like L16 was not dumb but was not brutal. The nobles in the Parlements screwed him over. He tried. Had he cracked down history may well consider him a brutal tyrant. You can't condemn him either way...
This reminds me of a quote from GoT where it says power resides where men think it does. Monarchy has power simply because they said it did, but they were only ever men. Once the common people realized Louis had no power he lost it. If he had given into the concessions it would’ve seemed like he was conceding rather than being defeated, and if they don’t need you to get equality… what do they need you for?
Louis XVI was not a genius for sure but to his defense he inherited a mess created by his predecessors (XV and let us not forget XIV). He was not capable to carry those necessary reforms which in turn could have ensured the support of the bourgeoisie which in turn would have split the 3rd estate. His doom was sealed when he refused to make certain concessions. He was not helped by the fact that he married an Austrian Queen (that fact alone was very unpopular) who in fact was not even close to the intelligence of her brothers (especially Leopold) who were some of the most enlightened rulers of the time.
The privileged clergy and the landed nobility in France were completely out of touch with reality in the 1780's. The peasants were massively overtaxed with high food prices facing famine. The French monarchy was already in a death spiral caused by the loss of colonies, wealth and prestige from the disastrous Seven Years War. The decision of Louis the XVIth to support the American Revolution led directly to the national debt crisis cascading into Revolution in 1789. Louis the XVIth needed to establish a constitutional monarchy with a strong permanent parliament in the middle 1780's. Nearly all of the fuedal privileges of the clergy and nobility had to be stripped away including tax exemptions on their properties. France's antiquated agricultural methods needed immediate replacement with more sustainable scientific industrial methods with market reforms. Laborers on farms needed to be able to earn more income from land reform. Improvements in the welfare of the general living standards of the people needed to take place. Modern industrialization and capitalist reforms needed to be experimented with as well to do away with the shackles of fuedalism. I think it would have been nearly impossible for a mediocre man like Louis the XVIth to accomplish all the reforms necessary to turn France into a constitutional monarchy. The French Revolution was almost guaranteed to happen after the disastrous Seven Years War. My viewpoint is the guillotine was a cleansing machine that had to cut the heads off of the vile clergy and nobility stuck in fuedalism if France was ever to become a modern industrialized Republic. The only way to destroy fuedalism was to take off the heads en mass of the greedy clergy and nobilty in France. These French nobles and clergy richly deserved their fate under the guillotine blade. No other way existed to cleanse France from fuedalism's inequality, corruption, injustice and endless terrible wars but to let the blade fall upon those who were the root of most of French society's problems. The French Revolution caused the rise of Napoleon with nearly 20 years of warfare. Out of Revolution and warfare a modern capitalist industrialized series of French Republics were created changing Europe forever. The American Civil War cleansed the Southern society of a black chattel slavery agricultural system into a more industrialized corporate capitalist democratic society. The First World War, Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War led to the end of Tsarist feudal agricultural society into a more industrialized society. The Second World War caused the Chinese Civil War and Chinese Revolution from a peasant based agricultural society run by regional strongmen into an industrialized state. World wars, civil wars and revolutions all seem to work together to fundamentally change human societies rapidly by destroying old antiquated institutions and replacing them with newer institutions at tremendous cost in human suffering and lives.
He naively made a general census which gave the opportunity for all citizens to voice their opinions. Once people realised in what deep .... they live there was no turning back. Humans don't rebel until they see possibility they will be better off when fighting.
One point never mentioned, he was BORN into the position not selected or elected, so whether he was competent or not it didn't matter, and that's the problem with royalty and hereditary dictators (think DPRK) ....
Louis #16 lost his head because he did not crack down on day one. In dealing with rioting the first rule is to restore order, even if hundreds get killed. After getting order, then research the causes and negotiate better conditions to prevent a recurrence.
Intervening in American revolution might have been a bad idea for Louis XVI, but it doesn't seem to have been a bad idea for France. I don't think any french resent him for that. On the contrary.
He was beheaded because the aristocracy and clergy [the oligarchs] of the time had all the money and power, while the populace was poor and often going hungry.
So the time it takes for u to download equal to the time it takes for him to wait and actually buy the game only his download then will only take a few hours
The ministers the generals where a part of it in every countries cause the ministers abolished kings and change its name to democracy and they became politicians.
Modern Americans: “We hate politicians they aren’t to be trusted!” Also Americans: “This King was incompetent because he didn’t act like a politician 🤓”.
You make great content. Buy a better mic if you can, it will make all the difference. Audio is muddy and noisy and it takes away from what would otherwise be a well produced video. Also try a bit of background music. Something period appropriate usually works.
