Hi I’m John Green and this is Crash Course
European History. It’s 1789 and Europe has been through an
endless number of wars. Territory has changed hands, hundreds of thousands
of people have died, and crop yields have been bad lately. War is bad for agriculture, for one thing,
but also the weather hasn’t been too cooperative. Reformers across the Dutch states and the
Habsburg Netherlands want to be more like the new United States, while Poles are demanding
that the partition of their country be undone. And one kingdom had emerged a hero from all
the overseas revolutions because of its support for the rebels in the thirteen North American
colonies. France has stood up for liberty and democracy
and fraternity–in North America, anyway. At home, it remained an absolute monarchy,
and was virtually bankrupt from all the warring. Its countryside was full of beggars–as was
much of the European countryside even as aristocrats grew ever wealthier. And the poor and middle-class paid virtually
all the tax collected to support these ceaseless wars. All of which is to say that in 1789, France–the
strongest and most populous country on the continent–was in crisis. [Intro]
In 1789 Louis XVI ruled France. He loved to hunt and tinker with mechanical
objects, especially locks. His wife Marie Antoinette was the daughter
of Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Empire and the sister of Joseph II, its current ruler. In a world where the marriage of two powerful
royal families had long been seen as key to stability and prosperity, what could go wrong? Marie Antoinette was a big spender who had
trouble relating to the poor of which France had many. As bad harvests made the price of bread soar,
more families couldn’t afford to eat, or else were eating bread that was cut with up
to 50% sawdust. In response to unaffordable bread, Marie-Antoinette
reportedly said, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche,” which is a great opportunity to trot out my
amazing French accent. And also, to talk about brioche, which is
in the center of the world today. IIn English, the line is usually translated
“let them eat cake,” but as you can see, brioche isn’t cake exactly. It’s just a different fancier more delicious
kind of bread. Mmm! It’s delicious. Fluffy, eggy, quite light. I don’t understand why the peasants couldn’t
just eat this stuff… Stan says I’m hopelessly out of touch, to
which I say, can I have some more of that brioche? At any rate, France as a whole was broke. Now, its reform-minded ministers tried to
revise the tax system so that the church and the aristocracy would have to pay at least
some taxes. But you’ll recall, there was a group of
appellate judges, the Parlement, who had to register royal decrees, and they refused to
register this one. Bankers, meanwhile, refused to provide the
Crown with additional loans. Which led to a proper financial crisis. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. 1. In response to this crisis, Louis XVI was
forced to summon the Estates-General 2. —that is, a group of representatives of
the clergy (the first estate), 3. the aristocracy (second estate), 4. and ordinary people (third estate). 5. In cities, towns, and villages across the
kingdom, people met to set out their grievances in cahiers or register books 6. for their representatives to take to this
historic meeting. 7. Meanwhile, discontent was rising as Marie-Antoinette
played at being a shepherdess 8. in a pretend farm that was built for her
on the grounds of Versailles 9. so she could imbibe the air of nature and
play at the work so many were forced to do. 10. On May 5, 1789 members of the Estates-General
paraded in great ceremony through Versailles to begin deliberations. 11. Louis XVI wrote of the events that day “Nothing
happened. Went hunting.” 12. Which just goes to show you that history is
about perspective. 13. Members of the Third Estate, meanwhile, immediately
protested that their one vote as a group would always be beaten by the two votes of the first
two estates. 14. So members of the third estate retreated to
a nearby tennis court, declaring themselves the National Assembly 15. and claiming to represent all French people
better than the Estates General did. 16. These representatives swore (in the so-called
Tennis Court Oath) that they would not disband until they had constructed a nation of individual
citizens instead of a kingdom of servile subjects. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, the National Assembly’s moves toward
enacting a reform program were backed by the muscle of ordinary people—many of them furious
about injustice and poverty. On July 14, the people of Paris seized the
Bastille fortress—a prison full of weapons and a symbol of the monarchy’s ability to
imprison anyone arbitrarily. And in the countryside peasants took over
chateaux and destroyed aristocratic titles to land and peasant services. Terrified aristocrats met on August 4, 1789,
and surrendered their privileges as feudal lords. The National Assembly then elaborated in a
series of decrees declaring feudal society had come to an end. That same month the Assembly passed the Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen—a document that protected property, ensured
trial by jury, and guaranteed free speech. It read, in part: “Men are born and remain
free and equal in rights.” And that included freedom of religion. It’s hard to overstate how radical a change
that was from a France in which, just months earlier, peasants were seen as neither free
nor equal, and Catholicism was the kingdom’s official religion. On October 5, market women from Paris marched
to Versailles in the so-called Women’s March to bring the king and royal family to Paris,
where they could be monitored by the people. Although the family was unharmed, some members
of the royal circle, including the queen’s best friend, were violated, murdered, and
mutilated. Their heads and genitals were displayed on
pikes. And aristocrats began fleeing the country. Critically, the Declaration of the Rights
of Man also stated that the power of the monarch flowed not from some divinity, but from the
nation. And to that end, the Assembly proceeded to
draw up a constitution, making the monarchy a constitutional one. then in 1790, they adopted the Civil Constitution
of the Clergy, ultimately confiscating church property and mandating the election of priests
by their parishioners. And then in 1791, the royal family was like,
“we should try to get out of here.” And they tried to flee but were caught. Meanwhile, war broke out between the revolutionary
government in France and Austria and Prussia, who were intent on crushing the revolution
and putting the royals back in full control. Partly because they, you know, had a vested
interest. Their relatives were on the French throne,
but also, as a general rule, monarchs like monarchy. As the republic began to take shape, so did
political parties. They arranged themselves in the assembly hall
so that republicans, who wanted to do away with monarchs entirely, sat on the left and
monarchists sat on the right. An array of others grouped themselves as parties
across the hall. And from this arrangement, we got the modern
idea of politicians’ ideas being left, center, or right. The Jacobin club, a rising political party,
was to the left. But it soon broke into several factions that
were on the center, left, and radical left of the political spectrum. Ah, politics, where the left has a right and
the right has a left and they both have centers that no one listens to. Amid these tremendous changes, women were
claiming their rightful place as citizens to match the official expressions of equality
and rights for all. In 1791, Olympe de Gouges, author and daughter
of a butcher, published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman, stating explicitly women’s
equality with men. Women participated in political clubs and
successfully pushed for laws that ended men’s power over the family and also ended the practice
of men getting a larger percentage of inheritances than women. As war advanced, women also lobbied for the
right to serve in the army. And was war ever advancing! In 1792 the Parisian masses, threatened by
the approach of foreign royal armies, took extreme action. They invaded the Parisian palace where the
royal family lived—and forced new elections for a National Convention. Then in the fall of 1792, further violence
produced the abolition of the French monarchy and a call for every other kingdom to do the
same: “All governments are our enemies, all people our friends,” the Edict of Fraternity
read. Once the Convention had declared France a
republic, in January 1793, Louis XVI was executed after a narrow vote. A new instrument of execution called the guillotine
carried out what would soon become a bloodbath against many supposed enemies of the people. Because it killed so swiftly and allegedly
painlessly, the guillotine was considered an enlightened form of execution. And that brings us to Maximilien Robespierre. With the king dead and the church legally
abandoned, the Jacobins under Robespierre’s leadership, committed the nation to a so-called
reign of virtue and complete obedience to Rousseau’s idea of the general will of the
people—despite all those freedoms agreed upon in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The Jacobins transformed culture: festivals
celebrated patriotic virtue; churches were turned into temples of reason; dishware carried
patriotic mottos; a new “rational” calendar was created; and clothing was in red, white,
and blue—the colors of the revolutionary flag. Meanwhile the Committee of Public Safety,
with its Orwellian name and Orwellian mission, presided over the “Terror” in which people
from all classes and walks of life—at least 40,000 of them—were executed in the name
of supporting the nation through purges of enemies of the general will. Among these in the autumn of 1793 were Queen
Marie-Antoinette, Olympe de Gouges, former mistresses of Louis XVI’s grandfather, and
other well-known women. Spies and traitors were said to be lurking
everywhere, especially in women’s political clubs and anywhere women congregated. Women seen in public were said to be threats
to the revolution. But as French soldiers began to win their
wars abroad, people tired of revolutionary bloodshed and mounted an effective opposition. Counterrevolutionary uprisings in the Vendée
region of France and activism by moderates led to the overthrow and execution of Robespierre
and several of his closest allies. And by 1795 new factions headed a conservative
government called the Directory. It inspired the French army to spread revolution
to other parts of Europe. That army was enthusiastic for good reason:
the revolution’s anti-aristocratic spirit allowed for ordinary soldiers to become officers—positions
that were formerly allotted exclusively to noblemen. One such commoner was named Napoleon Bonaparte. He was extraordinarily charismatics, not particularly
short, and with other ambitious newcomers, took revolution across the low countries,
German states, and even into Italy. But even without French armies advancing it,revolution
was erupting. During the French Revolution, Poles had revised
their constitution, for instance, in 1791 and granted rights to urban people. But a far different outcome from that in France
awaited: while the French pursued revolution, the other continental powers–Russia, Austria,
and Prussia–finished divvying up Poland among themselves so that it no longer existed. But Enlightenment ideas of freedom continued
to spread. They spread in Spanish colonies in South America,
and also in the rich French sugar colony of St. Domingue. The French Revolution, or maybe more properly,
the French Revolutions helped people in Saint Domingue understand that they, too, could
seek freedom. And the ensuing Haitian Revolution inspired
slave activism in other places, which you can learn much more about in an episode of
Crash Course World History on that topic. So when we think about why The French Revolution
is so important, one of the big reasons is that it consolidated the idea that the nation
is composed of citizens. Mostly citizen men at first—a fraternity
or brotherhood that replace a kingdom in which a monarch ruled his subjects. And this was a huge change for Europe, and
eventually the world, because it helped usher in the idea of nation-states, and the idea
that the most important people within those nation-states are the citizens. And so enthusiasts for freedom flocked to
France from all corners of Europe—if not in person then at least in their imaginations. “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,”
wrote poet William Wordsworth. In contrast, opponents like the British statesman
and thinker Edmund Burke deplored the rapid change and attacks on traditional institutions
and the abandonment of accumulated wisdom from past ages. Burke’s theories launched conservative political
ideology in the revolution’s aftermath. And we should be clear that the revolution
was extremely violent, and in many cases replaced poverty with poverty, and injustice with injustice. History, again, is as much about where you
sit as it is about what happened. But for the moment, however, revolutionary
ferment remained alive, exemplified in the writings of English journalist Mary Wollstonecraft,
who witnessed the revolution first-hand by going to Paris. She defended the quote “rights of man”
in a 1791 book and in 1792 she published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. This enduring work compared the women of her
day to the aristocracy–little educated, simpering and ignorant. Lacking any rational, developed skills, women
in Wollstonecraft’s formulation were, like aristocrats, conniving and manipulative instead
of being forthright, skilled, and open like Emile in the eponymous Rousseau novel. To end this debased condition, women needed
education and legal protection of their person and their property. That is, legal equality. In the long run, the French Revolution had
many important outcomes; as we’ve discussed, a nation formed by consensus of legally equal
citizens came to replace a kingdom of subjects ruled by a king. The nation’s bedrock was a set of values
including the rule of law, the right of free speech, and the ownership of property. Rather than the nation’s bedrock being a
king, or a religion. This idea of individual rights, which would
later be called human rights, of course becomes extremely important in the 20th century and
beyond. Yet in the French Revolution and in many other
revolutions, as we’ll see, the nation in times of stress could jettison this consensus
about the rule of law and rights and become dictatorial, searching out enemies within
and relying on force instead of consensus building. After 1795, further big changes lay ahead
for France and Europe as Napoleon Bonaparte came to play an outsized role on the world
stage, and the new republic became a dictatorship once more. But we’ll get to that shortly. Thanks for watching. And yes, that was a Napoleon joke.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Dennis Veasley

100 thoughts on “The French Revolution: Crash Course European History #21”

  1. Why does France or any country need a loan? Why not go make more currency. Go mine for gold or silver with slaves/criminals/ employees and then make coins…
    Why don't governments make their own money? What's up with this central banking sham?
    Hitler stood up to the central banks. Look what happened to him. He is vilified, and stories got worse and worse now people actually think he killed six million jews. Unreal.

  2. This video is obviously made for "Yank's" they are ignorant of world History, explain things and events in small words please. . .stick to cliches . . .and sound bites.

  3. I know that Crash Course has only 15 minutes to give a synopsis of broad events, the French Revolution being one of the most complicated historical events out there, but I feel that you have dropped the ball.

    Viewers already questioned 'let them eat cake', Napoleon being part of the minor nobility, making a scapegoat of Robespierre etc.

    You ignored how liberal nobles and clergy joined the third estate and supported them. You also ignored France's hatred of Austria, the Diamond Neckless affair, The September Massacres where thousands were killed as a radical journalist jean-Paul Marat incited panic and fear.

    Many people at the time had different opinions on was the Revolution was a success or not, some felt it went too far while others believed it didn't go far enough.

  4. I'm guessing you guys will cover this, or if not, it might be a little late to suggest, but it would be great if you had an episode on the Revolutions of 1848. A quick look at Wikipedia's introductory section indicates that it they seem to follow mostly from what you've introduced here. But oddly enough, I have seen very little talk of these in general.

  5. This is actually a really quite bad take on the French revolution, I sincerely recommend Schama's "Citizens" for anyone who wants to actually understand the period. This is not even passable as an overview

  6. I'm probably the only one who noticed but Joseph II of Austria (OK the Holy Roman Empire but whatever) died in 1796 not 1790. Great video otherwise! 🙂

  7. The French Revolution is kind of a John Green specialty after all these years, so I'm surprised that this seemed to fall so flat. Jam packed with textbook facts and poorly attributed rumour (Let them eat cake??? Really?????) but missing the heavy hitting ideas about why any of it mattered. Don't bother watching this episode, just go watch the same topic from the same channel from seven years ago- the World History version stands head and shoulders above this…

  8. There seem to be a LOT of "Oversimplified" history people over here. A lot of them are opinionated and loud. Be less loud, and be better listeners. When incongruities between two tellings of history appear, do your own research rather than regurgitate things you've heard on wikipedia or youtube. That's what being life learners is all about.

  9. Ok, Serious Question. Because I have had different History Teachers tell me different things. DID Maria ACTUALLY say that infamous "let them eat [cake/fancy bread]" line? Because I have had some teachers say she never actually said that, and others say that the quote is taken out of context……

  10. I’m disappointed in how they portrayed the women’s march. They made it sound like these women went to Versailles strictly to force the royal family to go to Paris. In actuality it started because of the scarcity of bread and these women were protesting mass starvation…

  11. I just wanted to congratulate Crash Course History for evolving in the right direction regarding tempo and speed. There was too much action for most people to truly learn anything in the first seasons of Crash Course history. From an educational perspective, this series on European history is way better.

  12. Sooo not mentioning Girondins, Directories, using fake Marie Antoinette quote, etc., but make plenty of time in episode for women who didn't do anything for the course of revolution?! Guess virtue-signaling is more important than history.

  13. The journal entry of King Louis XVI on July 14, 1789 was his hunting log, not even a journal, let alone his personal or political journal.

  14. I feel kind of disappointed that a show as good at highlighting women would still perpetuate the myth of Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake" when most of that (and a lot of the other stuff she was vilified for) was fabricated by people who saw her as an easy target because she was a foreign queen.

  15. Wow, you mixed things a little. The provincial opposition to the republicans in Paris didn't overthrow Robespierre, it actually helped bring him and the committee of public safety to power, by creating (together with the war) the atmosphere of emergency that led the assembly to give up on the advences in democratization that were made before, and led the people (especially in Paris but not just) to call for radical megers. The war in the Vendee, for example, started in March 93, while the coup that aousted Robespierre only occurred at the end of July 94, and after the revolts were pretty well crashed. The reason Robespierre fell wasn't an opposition to his ideology, but his inability to control the military political power structures in France, especially after the emergency of 1793 had passed. After that, the revolution started it's decline in ideological enthusiasm and rise in stabilization and dictatorial control of the country – first with the cynical Thermidorian Reaction, then the outright millitery dictatorship of Napoleon.

  16. "Its countryside was full of beggars… even as aristocrats grew ever wealthier, and the poor and middle class paid virtually ALL of the tax collected to support those ceaseless wars"

    Hmm….. Sounds vaguely familiar, almost as if history were, oh, I dont know, repeating itself?

  17. Although I appreciate a lot of your work, and I'm impressed by how well you managed to sum up such a complex period as the French Revolution, some elements do bother me:

    1/ It seems to me you're being too kind on Louis XVI. His treason, his fleeing to Varennes, his plotting with European monarchs, all led to the desacralization of the king and then his fall and execution. The situation was very different on July 14th, 1790 during the Fête de la Fédération (which was turned, not "Bastille Day", into our national holiday)

    2/ You're being too harsh on Robespierre, who was the first French representative to submit a law to ban capital execution, and to submit a law to abolish slavery. Since his law on capital execution didn't get the majority of votes, and since law at the time stated that suspects of treason could be sentenced to death, many were, not by his fault. If you want to put the blame mainly on one person in the Jacobins' group, Fouquier-Tainville may be the guy.

    3/ During the "Terror", state violence was high but not much higher than before or after, or at the same time in some other European states where "patriots" were jailed and executed. Obviously, the role of the "sans-culottes" was crucial, but so was monarchists' violence. They plotted against the French revolutionary government, hunted French revolutionaries in some areas, and therefore were treated the same.

    4/ On slave abolition, you're going a little bit too fast, but I get that this may be a different topic in some ways.

    I'll still advise my students to watch your video to improve their English. Thanks a lot for all of your work, Mr. Green.

  18. Seventeen, seven-seven-seventeen, seven-seven-seventeen, seventeen eighty-nine
    How does the bastard, orphan, immigrant decorated war vet unite the Colonies through more debt?

  19. Thanks, this was great. Very interesting and entertaining. I don't care who, if anyone, actually said the Let them eat cake thing. It's a funny story to help along the greater picture. Also brioche is effing delicious.

  20. Willing to be proven wrong, but as far as I'm aware, Boris Johnson is as much a "commoner" as Napoleon, privately educated son of an aristocrat ( of a region looked down upon by France I'll grant )

  21. What blows my mind is that there was an anti-monarchy exile law that was still enforced up to 1950, when it was abolished… o__o My grand-parents, my dad and half of my aunts and uncles were born. Even my mom was almost born lol!

  22. You probably studied this event more than I but there are 2 little mistakes I'd like to point out:
    – In the thought bubble the Third Estate is represented by actual peasants. In reality their representatives were mostly "bourgeois", rich men.
    – When "left" and "right" were created it wasn't between republicans and monarchists but between supporters of a constitutional monarchy and supporters of an absolute monarchy. Republicans were a minority until the head thing happened pretty much.

  23. The “let them eat brioche” line almost certainly was not said by Marie Antoinette, if it was said by anyone at all, given that the line was first reported before Marie Antoinette was born

  24. Beggars spanning the countryside, an ever wealth gathering aristocratic class, and ceaseless wars funded by the poor and middle class… sounds vaguely familiar.

  25. Dear John Green,

    I've been a fan of yours as long as anybody, since back in the days of Brotherhood 2.0, and the vast majority of you work is amazing. Deeply thought provoking and nuanced. Your mantra "reality resists simplicity" is something I try to remind myself all the time.

    But every once in a while you say something the betrays that you yourself fail to live up to that mantra.

    Your quip at 7:26 "Politics, where the right has a left and the left has a right, and they both have centers that nobody listens to" is one of those moments.

    It's a bit of a self-centered quip, don't you think?

    Personally, I think the very idea of labeling something as a "centrist" is often used as a cudgel against the disenfranchised by those in a privileged position within a body politic.

    This quip is certainly funny and has a ring to it. But it's almost funnier when you realize that only someone who would self-identify as a centrist would make such a joke.

    From my perspective, if there is such a thing as a centrist, it must be someone who believes that their position within a political system makes them uniquely capable of understanding the virtue of compromise. But such a person must necessarily be someone who is privileged within the existing political structure. How can such a person have a meaningful claim to being ignored? Wouldn't such a person, by necessity, be someone whose political needs were already accounted for within the preexisting political system? Isn't it the case that they are only "not listened to" when the preexisting political system meets a situation which it cannot overcome?

    Doesn't this then imply that the real problem in such a situation where centrists can be identified is that within the preexisting politics, the centrists were listened to too much?

    But that assumes there is such a thing as a centrist. I'm not sure there is.

    How would be define centrism? Every definition I've heard seems to be founded on some constellation of ideas that, whether we are talking about "center-right" or "center-left" orbits around technocracy and incrementalism. And these constellations usually seem to be in service to some sort of aristocracy.

    You are an expert in the French Revolution and I am not. Perhaps you could demonstrate your interpretation of the idea of "centrist" in terms of the "center-left" factions of the Jacobin party that you refer to in this video? What made their ideas "center"? How were their ideas "between" others ideas? Would that classification of their ideas as "centrist" hold up to a skeptical criticism? Or was it just their self-perception that placed them in the "center"?

  26. I have got to say I know the French revolution is a complex topic but this video was all over the place and did a poor job at explaining it.

  27. While I am loving these massive overviews of European and world history, I think it would be really cool to also produce series with greater granularity. I'd like to know more about the Celts for example and the history of the British isles that seem to have changed hands so many times; I'm sure there are many more countries with fascinating histories that I don't even know about; and I'd really appreciate history of eastern countries like Japan or China since they both held entire empires, intricate social customs, inventions, art, redistributions of power etc. that we never learnt about in school.

  28. Origin of the metric system: Abuses of measurement were among the causes of the French Revolution, so the French Republicans addressed the problem of standardizing measurement early in setting up the new government.

  29. You're right. The French revolution DID replace injustice with injustice and poverty with poverty… because it replaced feudalism with capitalism.

  30. Love your work John, and understand the difficulties of a 15 minute overview. But while things like whether Marie Antoinette made the brioche comment or whether the tennis court oath actually happened in a tennis court are sort of by the by, it would have been good to note that it was actually France that declared war on Austria in 1791. This is significant because, at the time, the French provisional government saw war as a means by which to both unite the French people at home and raise revolutionary fervor across Europe. It also would have been good to get a bit on the peasant uprisings in regional France, although understand 15 minutes is not a lot of time!

  31. Thank you so much! I literally have a midterm on the French revolution this Saturday so this great overview really saves me!

  32. Today the NBA, Blizzard Inc., Apple, etc. celebrate the values of freedom and democracy by doing whatever the Chinese government tells them to

  33. Care to explain WHY the French were winning their wars abroad? Hint: it had to do with the social changes brought on by the revolution. How a country organizes itself socially DICTATES how it is able to organize itself militarily AND vice versa. Can't change one without changing the other. The only way the Prussians could product a French style army in 1813 was by having a "revolution" by royal degree between 1806 and 1813. That is the most important thing you should have gotten from the French Revolution. All the rest of this stuff is just a Trivial Pursuit.

  34. The center all to frequently assumes both sides have valid ideas. This being absolute nonsense, they're not worth listening to, john. I know you're a pretty well-to-do guy and aren't aware that liberal capitalism is literally killing people and even if you do, you only read about it and experience it in the abstract, probably quietly rationalizing the suffering wrought by callous neoliberal economic policy as something deserved or not your problem, but it isn't, and it is.

    Screw the center, and screw anyone who thinks it's a valid position.

  35. You overlooked a lot of the important class conflict within the third estate. The people making the tennis court oath were the bourgeoisie, while the petite bourgeoisie were the ones sacking the Bastille. These groups were not acting together, and the petit bourgeoisie was, in fact, a massive thorn in the side of the bourgeoisie. While the bourgeoisie was demanding changes that were restricted by their own self-interest and their desire to work with, rather than against, existing power structures, the petit bourgeoisie was taking actions that were not as restrained and which often made it difficult for the bourgoisie to negotiate with those in power. Discussion of the French revolution requires a discussion of liberalism, because it was ultimately a liberal revolution, but discussion of liberalism demands critique of liberalism.

  36. French man here. Very disappointing video for once. People not knowing much about the subject will come after, knowing not much and possibly even wrong things. Pity.

  37. 3:55 Ive read that when Louis wrote "nothing happened" in his diary he was referring to his hunting record, as in he hadn't bagged any animals. I don't think he would have missed vast crowds of peasants parading past

  38. As others have noted, this one was a tough one for John and the team. In my History course at the College, even as a survey course, we have to slow down a ton here because of how convoluted this was. I think John should have made this at least two, if not three videos even before getting to Napoleon. Just the role of Paris operating as its own character in the story, often not directly aligned with the more official actions of the revolution demands more in order to understand, or even just get the overview well. The 1791 Constitution should have been the end of the Revolution, but of course was not due to multiple reasons which then led into further and new revolutions. The Paris Commune, the White Terror, the role of Abbe Sieyes, Danton, Marat, etc…are all vital, even in an overview.

  39. Wow you guys need a lot better fact checking:
    Marie Antoinet never said that;
    Napolean was born of a noble family;
    The jacobins were a lot less anti woman that what you say;
    Robbespier was not that radical in the jacobins club.
    The representatives of the people were not commoners, most were rich buissnes owners and educated sons off rich commoners;
    Most monarchs in Europe didn't care about the revolution, if France got weaker, better for the other monarchs, they could attack or get stuff out of France;
    The revolutionary wars were started by France;

  40. Crash Course is the best creator for insightful educational content. I actually created my own channel ViralEd to show even MORE educational content – Come check it out and I will return the favour

  41. Mao Zedong's right-hand man, Zhou Enlai, was reportedly asked whether the French Revolution had been a good thing.  "It's too soon to say", he replied.

  42. FYI Marie Antoinette's best friend, the Princesse de Lambelle, was killed in 1972 during the September Massacres. Not during the Womens March in 1789. Though it's true she was brutally killed and possibly violated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *