[joyeuse6701]

Can’t replay the counter factual, but for those that lived it, there were regrets… and most reasoned there was a better way about the changing of power.

Also, it’s not like it was all happy republicanism after the terror, there was a new elite replacing the old (Napoleons) and he was a petty noble anyway, plenty of the aristocracy stuck around, and said emperor did his best to marry into Europe’s aristocracy. Seems a bit like musical chairs, don’t you think? Plenty of France was still royalist too anyway after it all. I don’t think the narrative is so clear, except everyone realized you can’t beat down your peasants too hard.

Even Peter the Great, traveling through France in the 1700s, wondered how long the wealth disparity could last, having seen Versailles and the peasants from the road.

[throaway54]

The problem with the French revolution was that the radicals moved too far, too fast, in the social reform. Their economics werent the issue, it was the total disregard for any religious or traditional culture and the factionalism that doomed the revolutionaries.

[ashoeafoot]

peter the great gave a shit about the peasants , like all Russian zhars, russians had cholera as main source of death till the communists did take over. thats drink from the place you shit in savagery ,those aristocrats did less then nothing and deserved to be purged for dysfunctionality alone . You can not romanticize backwardness just because the front fell of the anti democratic progressive priest caste in the west. Those guys didn't built a thing either besides a caste system .