Video size: 1280 X 720853 X 480640 X 360
Show player controls
they should have seen 5Pointz
The most sad event in Western History which destroyed Western unity.
Yeah, because before that it was all harmony, peace and biscuits.
This documentary comes across as being written by Ric from the Young Ones.
If the royals of the country keep their people as a crowd not a nation thn this type of destruction will come.If we see the history of France common people of the country were the slaves of royals and church and that was the reaction of that cruelty.
I loved this video. It´s very exciting.
It wasn't the working class of Iraq or the Libyan proletariat that brought down the statues of Saddam and Quaddifi, but the U.I. imperialist army and armies of its British and French conquerors.
OK, but dear professor of art history: what would become of you, if "revolutionaries" succeeded in destroying all art ..?
@Sir Humphrey Appleby Thank you, very generous of you. I can't see the point of watching the whole documentary again to provide you with "timestamps", if you didn't understand his sympathies when you watched it the first time. Ever heard of the phrase "reading between the lines"? the professor is clearly not just "analyzing" or "re-telling" or whatever; he clearly has sympathies - which is OK, but they are not mine. And: Of course I understood the point of the documentary, even before your brillant lecture: he tells the story of the revolution through the destruction of art. But still it is so obvious that he is romanticizing "revolutionaries" and "rebels" now and then; he seems to gets a thrill from the concept of "creative destruction" (like many employed in Academia). I do not share that feeling.
@Lars Christiansen You can believe whatever you desire to, what I would be most grateful for is you providing the statements than you observed to form such a belief
Wonder what he might Think of the communards, Who set fire to the Louvre in 1871?
High Price i do believe that i got the point. It is obvious that he endotses the vandalism.
You didn't really get the point of his documentry did you? He was trying to examine the history of the french revolution through the actions of the iconoclasts at it's head - what they destroyed is just as important as what they erected to celebrate or promote the revolution. The whole point is that it wasn't an evisceration of all previous art and culture, but a refinement into a reflection of the society the leaders of the rebellion wanted to incentivise. That is art history. You also seem to pruport that he encourages vandalism and desecration - he doesn't - if he does please, reply to my comment with a few timestamps. I believe you may be confusing his analysis of actions with an endorsement of said actions.
Jesus Christ! When i saw the thumbnail I though simon reeves hadn’t gotten AIDS.
Vive le roi!
I disliked this video. Because he didnt mention that it was an atheistic revolution.They mocled Christians and they mocked their wordship places.
I don't care about you Richard and about your 'I' i care about the documentary so. Move on...
The English royalist fascists have no place at all in this documentary, as the English are lying fascist brainwashed dogs of the monarchy & also dumb cunts with a made up , very biased "English" view on history! British bullshit cooperation= lies lies and English propaganda! History has taught the world Never trust the English!
you jump a lot of detail of the revolution but your analyses on the art was very surprising and interesting
very interesting thank you mr richard clay
the bits where they just fucking walk around in circles actually makes me want to fuckin puke
His accent is painful to listen to here! Whatever happened to the plummy tones the Beeb used to conquer the English-speaking world?
Speaking of Vandalism! Pardon HIS French.
La révolution de 1789 d'origine maçonnique a détruit cette belle France pour des siècles et des siècles !
This man is a art historian. He looks at the world through its art. He also tries to be a historian.
The idea that the destruction of beautiful pieces of baroque and Rococo art and architecture could be a positive contribution to culture is utterly bizarre. It should be asked, if one were to carry the motif of destruction to it's logical conclusion, so that buildings, statues and monuments were fully destroyed, rather than just transformed, would this be considered such a positive contribution? What I mean to say is, the historian seems interested in the revolutionary transformation of the baroque era architecture of Paris. But the purpose of the revolutionaries was not to create art for the purposes of posterity; it was simply to destroy. That there is anything left to be admired is simply incidental. So from the perspective of an art historian, how can such a principle be considered positive? He appears to be cheering destruction, with no limits to the effects of that destruction on architecture.
Mob rule is never good. Its ugly and what they did was ugly.
Romanticising the French Revolution is insane. It was a Radical Revolution where no one was safe from being raped/ tortured/murdered. I thought this representation of the truth would be made thru artwork.
@SURREY CROSSING It is sad. It's sad when families are broken and culture is destroyed, which is a small price to pay to become a "global citizen." You know, I visit Paris because I want to experience Parisian culture? When I visit Germany it is to experience Bavarian culture. And, it has been a while, but, even when I used to visit San Francisco, I did it to experience the culture. Then the "progressives" moved in and started telling us about how we're all bigots and racists. And unless we succumb to the idea of equality, or equality of outcome, we'll always be bigoted and racist. Then they go and blame the rich, whom, by the way, create jobs for the poor. Yet, through propaganda, they make the poor angry at the rich. The rich only got rich because they "stole" from the poor. Then the poor demand wealth distribution/restitution etc., (the poor bastards do not know any better). The conflict is created and there is a group of people just waiting to fix the problem.History is repeating itself in a slightly different way. In our brave new world, we have un-elected people running the show. They use the credit of the poor to subsidize war. They promise the poor great things for their vote. The poor/common person gives up the vote and get nothing in return except having to flip the the cost through taxes. Lol. People are fed up with being told what to think, say, act, be. It's sick. These people are psychopaths. It'll get worse before it gets better. People are waking up though. The yellow jackets in France are a good start. Ironic, isn't it?
@Alex Arenas/// So true, and sad. Makes almost impossible tracing our French ancestors due to the vandalism, and destruction of documents, library books, and coat of arms. If the poor people were starving, where did they get the energyto fight? Which brings to mind what you indicated..." The Terror was Robespierre's tool to accomplish his overarching political agenda for democracy, however NOT "democracy for the poor people" the Jacobins and the Committee of Public Safety" hated everyone they couldn't control. Worse than the monarchy. Destroying people's roots and culture was a bad decision. Isn't always about power and money?
@Anya Briggs "Romancing the royals is insane?" I do not think fleetwoodray was trying to romance anybody. He said romanticizing the ideals of the French Revolution is insane and I agree with him. Your response was emotional and you do not even come close to making an argument. So, let me help "mansplain" to you the facts. First of all, If the revolutionaries had any regard for human life the "Reign of Terror" would not have happened. And to believe this had anything whatever to do with freedom, personal sovereignty, the abolition of slavery is foolhardy. The revolution was used as a mode to topple Louis XVI, destroy the Catholic church, and to murder their political opponents.This left a power vacuum with which members of The Jacobins and the Committee of Public Safety would swoop in and claim their power using the Declaration of the Rights of Man as justification for the bloodbaths that follow. The "revolutionaries" detested, damn near loathed the poor, slaves, and tramps. They hated the common citizen. They hated the vulnerable. But most of all they hated human rights. People can claim that they were responsible for the abolition of slavery or that they paved the way into modernity with their fancy Enlightenment philosophy but the fact remains that these psychos fomented the revolution in 1789 to attain power not freedom and by 1793, the Reign of Terror was in full force. The Committee of Public Safety passed the Law of 22 Prairial in 1794. This law permitted the execution of citizens thought to be counter-revolutionaries, even under simple suspicion, in three-days-or-less-trials and without any witnesses. Between 20,000 and 40,000 people were executed and more than 300,000 were beaten and arrested by the time the "Reign" was over in 1794. Disgusting.People like "l'Incorruptible" Maximilien Robespierre, being a major influence on the revolution from the start, pushed the "Reign of Terror" and subsequently, made it easier to crush dissent. His goal in the Terror was to use the guillotine to create what he called a "republic of virtue", wherein terror and virtue would be imposed at the same time. He argued, quote, "Terror is a speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [the 'fatherland']." The Terror was his tool to accomplish his overarching political agenda for democracy, a "democracy for the people, people who are intrinsically good and pure of heart." HA!In my estimation, the revolutionaries were far worse than any "royals," aristocracy, or monarchy and I am happy it all ended soon after the arrest and execution of Maximilien Robespierre. The irony is sad though. Robespierre guillotined by the very mechanism he helped create, broke the mechanism and, in turn, allowed Napoleon to stride into Paris and declare himself emperor. Down with the monarchy and up with the Monarch! Double HA!This is the epitome of an "EPIC FAIL."
But monarchies aren't completely insane and inhumane. No monarch, including Louis XIV, ever tortured or starved or murdered anyone. Least of all the masses. The royals don't have psychosis, they actually are telling the truth when they say they have a "droit de Dieu", a literal "right of God" to rule over humanity. SMH. Romancing the royals is insane. Having regard for human autonomy and freedom of expression and speech is not. If the royals had any regard for human life, the French Revolution would not have happened.
I could not possible watch this documentary till the end as it is too superficial, one-sided and biased. This 'professor' is a leftist ideologist who is blind to the unnecessary suffering in making this 'better world'. Not much of a historian, I would say. God save us from such enlightened 'intellectuals' and their sick fantasies.
I'm so sorry that reality hurts you, you're one of those dreamy hippies who believe that the world can change without any kind of suffering. I regret to tell you that reality shows that each change is caused by a crisis, just as a new child is born, from the pain of the mother. It is in the nature of our language, as well as two antagonistic concepts are required for the generation of a new concept. It is not philosophy, it is not religion ... it is nature.
this is a video that I can watch this just for homework. but I like it I love France and french
If anyone knows where all these landmarks are, please let me know! Planning a trip in August and would love to go see these.
How much you wanna bet that he cries to this God that he thinks doesn’t exist or has been banished for salvation when he knows he’s dying or when a doctor tells him he’s got weeks or months to live? Same thing for the idiot who inscribed those sentiments on the inside of that former church. There really are no atheists it’s just that people who profess to be suppress the truth and want to replace the God that they know is there and responsible for their lives and everything in the universe, but who don’t want to be accountable to for their wretchedness and wickedness. There is nothing you can point to in the world that you can say evolved from scratch or didn’t have a designer or builder from your house to your clothes to your smart phone. Does anyone really think that if you wait millions of years your smartphone will evolve into a laptop?
Kids, the world does not deserve great art if it is to be paid for in blood.
Down with every church or Roman monument ever, I suppose.
The revolutionaries could have you imprisoned or worse for not being enthusiastic enough when cheering a man like Robespierre - I imagine the same thing could happen today in North Korea or did happen in Nazi Germany. Every time I hear their National Anthem I remember how drunken perverts forced Marie Antionette's young son to sing it - later killing him by child abuse and neglect. Bunch of perverts really.
This guy is such a fucking tourist it's like he has no real idea of what he's talking about.France didn't keep loosing wars France was bankrupted because of the American revolution and the huge expenses it created namely sending armies and fleets overseas and equipment to the American rebels, also the only reason the sso called "French-indian" war was lost was a lack of reinforcement and resources.
try watching "The French Revolution BBC documentary" and compare to this random bloke talking about stuff.. why are modern documentaries so ... so... "History for dummies"- like? please, stop, i'm not interested in watching 75% of the documentary a face of some random bloke talking to me, i want to see the actual thing! these documentaries are just not necessary, why do they keep making them?
King Charles of English summons the English parliament in the 1600s and ends up overthrown by the English revolution of the 1640s. France's King Louis XVI calls a meeting of the States-General, and is then toppled by the French Revolution of 1789.
And both get beheaded
when he saw the flea
Keeping your hair from covering your eyes would give you more credibility, sir.
I'm less than five minutes into this show and already I see the British bias and inaccuracy - the Three Estates are not The Monarchy, The Aristocracy, The "Everybody else", they are: The Clergy, The Nobility, The Commoners. France was not continually "losing wars", part of their debt stemmed from winning the American Revolution! I think I'll watch to the end to see how short Napoleon ends up being!
The speaker always looks like there is a big wind behind him...but he does a good job here.
what a poncethese thief's create nothing but squalor and all that is ugly
This guy's a real A-hole. In the Revolution they didn't have much knowledge of consequences but in 2014 there's no excuse!!! This guy stands guilty before the testament of the 120 million dead because of Bolshevik Revolutions alone. His promotion of resistant culture is grossly irresponsible!!!!!
@Anya Briggs It was not just the king and queen that drove France into massive debt. There were a lot of factors that led to the point of no return. But when people are starving and they listen to the bourgeois politicians (Robespierre) and journalists (Marat) espousing toxic ideologies driven by blame and resentment then violence is bound to ensue. The people committing the violence feel justified because they have been led to believe that they are not responsible for their actions or station in life. It just leads to socialism and that leads to communism and we know how badly that has turned out. By the way, France had been secretly aiding the American Colonies since 1776, because they were angry at Britain over the loss of Colonial territory in the French and Indian War. I must agree with you about the American revolution. It was the best thing for our country. But there is a glaring difference between the two revolutions: The American Colonies were forced to revolt and fight to break the bonds that British imperialism had on this country. And for a while, nobody thought the Americans could come up on top. But they did and we get to enjoy the freedoms won through revolution. The French revolution may have started as a virtuous idea but that quickly fell by the wayside and violence escalated rapidly and the mob started murdering everybody. Granted they executed the monarch and slaughtered the Catholics but the revolution was a failure. Like I said before; the mechanism that destroyed the French monarchy ended up eating itself like the Uroboros and shitting itself out. And when it was all over everybody snapped out of their ravenous rage only to find themselves under the rule of a self imposed monarch/emperor and those killed died in vain. And the things that lead up to the French Revolution are parallel to what is going on here in America today. Look at black lives matter and hands up don't shoot. Two movements based on lies It never makes a difference if those people are presented with facts because they have already made up their minds to become violent. And facts are violence. What about the horde of thousands coming to America from Latin America. Should we let them in and see how it goes? You said it yourself, if we don't take care of our own first, bad things happen. I agree. The problem, in my opinion, is that people that subscribe to ideas like white privilege = bad, patriarchy = worse, white people, especially straight white males = racist/bigot, have been conditioned to believe that they are perpetual victims, that systemic racism is the cause for their lack of progress in life. They are the ones that end up enslaved, married to a welfare state and walk around with an heir of entitlement. Questioning this triggers these people instantly. That makes for a weak state with weak men. Why would anybody want to live like that? And Antifa are just a bunch of university students that hate themselves and believe everything their Marxist social justice warrior professors "teach" them. So, what do we do? Do we execute those that do not toe the party line? The leftists dream of murdering their detractors because they truly believe they have the moral high ground. The resentment comes from lack of agency and the inability to take responsibility for their own lives. The idea that everything is relative and equal because of fairness is a false dichotomy. There are absolutes in this world and not everything is relative. Oh and I am purposefully and deliberately not responding to your straw men arguments. Nice try though. You made some good points though but I still stick to the idea that the French Revolution was used to satisfy a nation's blood lust and was an utter failure. No equality of outcome for the French. C'est la vie.
@Alex Arenas You're making a false equivocation in order to justify your point of view, which is a weak argument- one is not necessarily BETTER than the other, NEITHER situation is good, okay? But you are also a rabid monarchist who thinks revolution of any kind is bad, which is also a weak and false statement. The reason they were executed primarily is that they WERE spending themselves, and the country into debt, which then more than provided the keys to their own irrelevancy. They created this. They put the government into debt with their lavish lifestyle and excessive spending. Ironically in part for the revolution in America. But hey, what are you gonna do? If you don't take care of your own first, bad things happen. It's the rule of karma. It's called resentment. It's called unjust taxes to provide an exhorbitant lifestyle for a few while many starve. It's basic, it's not hard to get. And I doubt sincerely you would have been a member of the court, an insider who provided so much for the country of France. If you had been alive at that time, you probably would have been an underfed serf yourself, slaving away for pennies while the royals partied. Do you think you would have benefitted from France under their rule? Please. If you don't think something is wrong with giving the responsibility of the crown to a (let's use Louis XIV as an example) FOUR YEAR OLD, there's something wrong with you. You don't see how that could be rife with opportunity for corruption and abuse of power and exploitation and harming vast amounts of people? It's a weak situation when only one person is the ultimate ruler. It creates a weak state and weak people. It is not a good form of governance. Look at North Korea. That's not dissimilar to the conditions you want. One does not equate the other, however, but both are weak systems that can easily be corrupted from within. And as for successful revolutions, I happen to think the one we experienced here in America in the 1760s and 70s was pretty good. It turned out to work out pretty well, don't you think? Instead of standing in court watching a monarch shit? I will take revolution any day. Provided it is a just and sound one. I don't bend my knee to any court or King.
@Anya Briggs So, Louis XIV believing he's "god" is worse than the than the 20 million of people that have died at the hands of socialist/totalitarian/communist/fascist regimes? You keep saying the "royals were/are insane." That is an opinion, not fact. Besides, there is not one person on this Earth that could corroborate or validate your claim. Let me tell you what is insane, crazy, daft, mad. When political factions/regimes/ etc. wage war on the innocent and leave millions of dead in their wake, then turn around and claim that the violence perpetrated benefits the innocent, vulnerable, poor people is absolutely insane. And worse yet are the people who will fight to the death to defend these psychos and their post-modern-Marxist-nihilistic ideologies. You worry about whether King Louis the XIV believed he was "god" or that his entire court watched him defecate? You are more upset about hairdos and balls at Versailles? I'm sure Louis the XIV had his share of balls but It was Louis the XVI and his young bride, Marie Antoinette, who were famous for their extravagant, ostentatious spending, (mainly on Marie Antoinette's part). Remember, Marie Antoinette was a child of 15 when she arrived to Versailles from Austria, LXVI was 16. LXVI was crowned king when he was 23. She was 22. Ugh. And, FYI, they didn't spend themselves into irrelevancy. They were EXECUTED! Big difference. Yet, you are crying because they spent money on parties and hairdos? You've got an empty plate, kid. You've got a lot to sort out. Your socialist/communist/fascist/totalitarian slip is showing. Not a good look!
And your promotion of gross negligence and profligracy within the court is disgusting and totally irresponsbile. Louis XIV also had his entire court watch him take a shit every morning. He was literally raised to believe that he was a God. The royals were and are completely insane and repugnant and irrelevant. They spent themselves into irrelevancy. "Droit de Dieu"??? Are you kidding? You think that's what makes civilization great? The looting and pilaging of the masses via taxes so it can be spent on balls and hairdos and large gambling debts while the people starve? You've got a lot on your plate, kid. You've got a lot to sort out. Your love of authoritarianism is showing. Not a good lewque.
You really think that? What do the numbers show? Are rulers more accountable now or even more aloof than ever? King Luis the XIV held an open court where any Frenchman could approach him, even fully armed, you think any leader in their right mind would do that now?The French may not have liked the setup with the monarchy but there wasn't the same level of prosperity ever again in France after the blood bath of the Revolution. France went from unprecedented dominance over Europe to being a second rate country at best. China went from centuries of relative peace to decades of butchery after their revolution. Cuba had an economy higher than the US, similar to Switzerland before the dirty Bolshevik idea's snaked their way in, and now it's a third world country. The people in the middle east have always borne chips on their shoulders but the Ottoman Empire kept relative peace compared to the BS after the Zionist Terrorists revolution in Palestine. At least under apartheid there was far less crime and more wealth being generated from the ground up, literally.So in short, yes, history consistently shows that revolution nearly always makes things worse therefore leaving things as they are is best. Or if things are so totally unbearable ( like current South Africa for Boers ) moving away is better than revolution.
You worship bobbles. EQUALITY!!!!BLAH HA HA HA!
your ignorance is amusing, it's equality before the law.
Europeans are bizarre and anathema to my perception of what defines a human being.
This guy would be on the losing end of a guillotine if he were in this era!! These people were murders, and this guy seems to justify and romanticize their actions
Dreadfully boring and partly historically inaccurate. This chap is really in love with his self and just trying a bit to hard in pushing his avantgarde theses.
Very nice! If interested in the actual size of the destroyed Bastille, check out : tvclip.biz/video/cxCsXgF2GSk/video.htmlREPLY
France is a waste of time. The French revolution is probably the stupidest moment in history.
says the guy who liked his own comment.
this is not amazing
Renaud Escande - "Le livre noir de la Révolution française"
I wonder how the guy makes such an interesting topic so boring.
the best thing from the French revolution was the guillotine, something we need to bring back.
No idea how on earth one could tie Graffiti artists in to the French Revolution- not at all plausible. Also the whole Prelude to french revolution is not included - ie factors leading up to it - droughts and skyrocketing bread prices heavy taxation .some of this is not accurate like the entire march up Versailles and storming of Versailles..how that happened/ what happened is not at all like what is suggested here.
Cut those bangs emo boy
Art History is such a lot of pretentious, boring crap
Richard Clay has a lot of growing up to do. His thinking is weak - not a well-read mature adult. France has been a second-rate country ever since its monarchy was eliminated. The flaws of the monarchy, and they were serious, could have been redressed without the excessive savagery of the barbarian mobs of vandals. I prefer Edmund Burke to Richard Clay.
Of course you do. That weak-minded prince of sentimentality always appeals to people of your calibre. The monarchy was toppled because it violently contradicted the march of historical progress, which, owing to the social transformations fomenting during the 18th Century (and, indeed, even earlier,) demanded violent reform of the existing order. It was the decadence of monarchy itself, and the monstrous oppression it represented, that provoked the violence of the Revolution. Those "barbarian mobs" are the people, who will always, and rightly, rebel against the usurpation of their sovereignty perpetrated by kings and their acolytes. I will agree, though, that Richard Clay is hardly the most erudite of historians.
5:02 misic "Symphony of sorrowful songs"
This kind gentleman, if he actually believes what he espouses, proves he has a great imagination or a ridiculous view of history....
Hmmm... and I think that this is declaration of knowlega. Is sounds like there was one true view on history and others were ridiculous.
wejder12345 Yes! I would be pleased to provide you with the premise for my comment. Please afford me some time to review the presentation again as my comment was regestired several weeks ago. Ps: I do not "pretend to know history" . Furthermore, I don't typically post a comment unless something strikes me as "off". That is defined as an "opinion...." not a proclamation of knowledge....
Could you elaborate "why" and give some contr arguments? Or you just pretend to know history?
The eternal battle between those who worship Jesus Christ and those who rebell and hate Christ. That is the story that has gone on since the day Christ was born, and still is the worlds greatest story, still the worlds major thing taking place.
jerry henrie with modern science the whole basis of christianity, salvation of man, has been completely destroyed, christianity is dying, at this point we are just waiting for a new Constantine thar will usher in a new religion, ideology.
The stone masons had a plan? That is all masons do is plan how to subvert and destroy anything that is of Jesus Christ. That is what the high level masons do to this veryday. History can never be understood until we understand the anal control freaks in power, those with a revolutionary spirit to bring in communism/new world order.
jerry henrie haha I was reading the comments and thinking about when will I fall a dumb fuckwit conspiracy idiot's commentary.
Kind of ironic that this guy is fascinated by great works of art, yet there seems to be an underlying dislike of the nobility about him. If it wasn't for the nobility and their money to commission these works of art, he wouldn't have any art to admire !
He's an art historian, not an art appreciation expert. He looks at it through the prism of time and circumstance. It's not quite the same thing as an art appreciation class.
There were Dukes in the Medici family. Dukes are considered Nobility. They didn't start out as a Nobile family, but became one.
Well the poor certainly couldn't afford to commission works of art. I'm not saying an artistic eye only exists because of the rich, but it's the wealthy that bought these pieces to light, and commissioned the artists.
The Medici commissioned some of the greatest art ever made, and yet there were not part of nobility.
"Why doesn't he strike me down with a bolt of thunder?" Because thunder is _sound_, genius. _Lighting_ is the electrical flash that strikes the ground or a person.
Can't resist this .... The French are Revolting !! X-)Nothing about my alto ego The Black fingernail either :-(Its good to be the king
seems fantastic wonderful shadow n star dusts 125000000000000
remember Kids V FOR VANDAL (Viva La Revolution)
Why the US revolution has lasted and the French failed, btw the French beat the English in the US struggle but then went bankrupt
Anti-authoritarian, left-wing views from the BBC here. No surprise.
@charles I hate the left. Don't you?
Ronnie Balls So you’re admitting that you’re a pro-authoritarian shithead?
typical left-wing pommy poofter
knee - jerk reaction
A well done, thought provoking documentary, but I picked out a couple of inaccuracies which are surprising given that this is a BBC production. The painting of Diana is not of the goddess taking a bath--Boucher did, in fact, paint such a scene. This painting is titled Diana's Return from the Hunt. The detail about Acteon is interesting, though misleading because it's the wrong painting. Legend has it that Actaeon stumbles upon Diana by chance during a hunt, and not as a "peeping Tom." The other inaccuracy is when Richard Clay says that Louis XVI and his family were, "captured at the Austrian border." They were captured in Varennes-en-Argonne which is 30 miles from the border of (what was then) the Austrian Netherlands, not Austria.
At the end of the day, the nobles brought this on themselves. I don't condone mob violence, or the September Massacres, but all this bloodshed could have been lessened, if not outright avoided, had the nobles simply accepted reality: the upper class merchants could not cover the kingdom's massive debts, so they should have. It wasn't like they couldn't afford it.
actually, the govt was pretty broke and it started with Louis XIV's excessive spending on the palais de versailles and Louis XV's extravagence and the military cost of decades of war against austria/prussia/england plus the 7 year war decimated the french economy. Louis XVI actually inherited (at age 18?) a mess of bankruptcy that was none of his doing and his advisors only made it worse by encouraging french military participation in the american revolution which further impoverished the french economy. There are many things that went wrong in the french govt over centuries, and feudalism cannot work, but putting all the blame on the shoulders of Louis XVI is wrong and unfair. I have always thought that if the kings had at least handed out seeds for fruit and vegetables annually to their peasants, that French history would be less violent.
Still not quite sure why everybody praises French revolution. Maybe I'm not enlightened yet. And maybe that 'yet' is just a fiction.40.000 people dead for some rational uprising, leading to death of one of their founders, namely Robespierre. Let's not take that as a good way of solving deeper economical and moral issues. Europe can do better than that.
I'm so sorry that reality hurts you, you're one of those dreamy hippies who believe that the world can change without any kind of suffering. I regret to tell you that reality shows that each change is caused by a crisis, just as a new child is born, from the pain of the mother. It is in the nature of our language, as well as two antagonistic concepts are required for the generation of a new concept. It is not philosophy, it is not religion ... it is nature.Do not cry, it is not about what was better, the revolution or the monarchy, or about what underlies each of them, what matters is the constant change that has always existed in the history of humanity, that constant change product of a confrontation of opposites, represents heterogeneity.What you propose is the permanent unchangeable and pacific state, an unchangeable, pro-peace, pro-conservative state, which is nothing more than the representation of homogeneity and therefore of the feminization of humanity.
Fran Reizl Just by the fact that you are saying that most of the dead people are due to Robespierre goes to show that you didn't study to profoundly the French Revolution.
painting name at 11:07?