Important!!!!

[Hoichi]

Call out the instigators
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now

Lock up the streets and houses
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together now

Hand out the arms and ammo*
We're going to blast our way through here
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right

We have got to get it together
We have got to get it together

;D ;D ;D



P.S. Here is the great song by Thunderclap Newman (used in the brilliant film 'Strawberry Statement' and also 'The Magic Christian'): h1.ripway.com/Knut/ThunderclapNewman-Somethingintheair.mp3

* That's symbolic!

[Cornelia_Africana]

Symbolic??? Well, yes, today is the 217th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille in 1789, so perhaps it is!

[thascalos]

Something In The Air is one of my favourite sixties songs

[Hoichi]

meridiana said:

Symbolic??? Well, yes, today is the 217th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille in 1789, so perhaps it is!

And?

I didn't know! I do not agree with the French Revolution though (the Mexican Revolution I do though!).

Strange coincidence!

It is symbolism as the song is really about the 'Revolution' of the period!

[Hoichi]

thascalos said:

Something In The Air is one of my favourite sixties songs

Same. Brilliant song! Have you seen 'Strawberry Statement'? Sadly it doesn't seem to be on DVD........

'The Strawberry Statement ' also features 'Give Piece a Chance', another great song. Good film, bit odd but still good.

[Cornelia_Africana]

themaster said:

I didn't know! I do not agree with the French Revolution though

Just out of interest, what is it about the French Revolution you don't agree with (apart from the obvious - don't even start! ?

[Hoichi]

I don't agree with the murder of the aristocrates that was disgusting and wrong. I also don't like all of the Revolutionary's views......though I agree with some of them.

Non-violent revolution is my bag though I do sympathise with the Mexicans even if they used violence.

[Cornelia_Africana]

themaster said:

I don't agree with the murder of the aristocrates that was disgusting and wrong.

I also think that violence is wrong, and that non-violent change is always better. But the French revolution did not start off with violent intent. They spent over two years working out a constitution which made the King a constitutional monarch somewhat on the English lines. If he had been able to accept that, then maybe things would have worked out alright. But he didn't, and the King and Queen were actually secretly conspiring with foreign monarchs to invade and restore the old order. All the disasters sprang from that.

Of course, the Terror was disgusting and wrong, but maybe I could just explain the background to it, which might make it more understandable, if not more justifiable. By the middle of 1793 the country was at war with virtually the whole of Europe, effectively blockaded on all sides, with trade breaking down, and hardship giving rise to all sorts of social disorders. Civil war was breaking out and the economy was in meltdown. The army was hopeless,and the enemy were just waiting for their chance to invade and divide the spoils amongst themselves. So it was certainly a situation where something had to be done, to restore order out of chaos. It was actually directed against the government's own officials - a lot of whom were incompetent, lazy or just plain dishonest - and incompetent officers and mutinous troops, rather than the aristocracy. The aristocracy had been the class least able to accept the revolution, and from 1789 onwards a lot of them emigrated, even though there was no threat to their lives at that time, they just lost their titles and legal privileges. These emigrants played a major role in stirring up foreign powers, and were marching with foreign armies against their own people. So naturally, aristocrats did tend to come under suspicion rather more than other people. But it certainly wasn't the case that you would automatically be arrested and executed if you were an aristocrat, you wouldn't even necessarily come under suspicion (a lot of the aristocracy did support the French revolution, too).

Sorry if this is going on a bit, but there is this idea that it was all about class-based revenge, and this just isn't true. The ideals of the French Revolution were good, basically those of modern democracies, they just took a tragic turn under the pressure of war and crisis.

[Hoichi]

meridiana said:

I also think that violence is wrong, and that non-violent change is always better. But the French revolution did not start off with violent intent. They spent over two years working out a constitution which made the King a constitutional monarch somewhat on the English lines. If he had been able to accept that, then maybe things would have worked out alright. But he didn't, and the King and Queen were actually secretly conspiring with foreign monarchs to invade and restore the old order. All the disasters sprang from that.

Indeed (that idea I agree with) but the killing of all the aristocrats and non-aristocrats was not on. Still it was really like the Russian revolution were the people were betrayed by future tyrants and madmen (Lenin who conspired with the Nazis and Stalin who became one of the worst dictators the world has ever seen).

meridiana said:

Of course, the Terror was disgusting and wrong, but maybe I could just explain the background to it, which might make it more understandable, if not more justifiable. By the middle of 1793 the country was at war with virtually the whole of Europe, effectively blockaded on all sides, with trade breaking down, and hardship giving rise to all sorts of social disorders. Civil war was breaking out and the economy was in meltdown. The army was hopeless,and the enemy were just waiting for their chance to invade and divide the spoils amongst themselves. So it was certainly a situation where something had to be done, to restore order out of chaos. It was actually directed against the government's own officials - a lot of whom were incompetent, lazy or just plain dishonest - and incompetent officers and mutinous troops, rather than the aristocracy. The aristocracy had been the class least able to accept the revolution, and from 1789 onwards a lot of them emigrated, even though there was no threat to their lives at that time, they just lost their titles and legal privileges. These emigrants played a major role in stirring up foreign powers, and were marching with foreign armies against their own people. So naturally, aristocrats did tend to come under suspicion rather more than other people. But it certainly wasn't the case that you would automatically be arrested and executed if you were an aristocrat, you wouldn't even necessarily come under suspicion (a lot of the aristocracy did support the French revolution, too). [/qiote]

Don't worry I know about the background as I have been good with History since a boy.......I must admit that I am not really that interested in it as much now.

The fact remains that a lot of aristocrats were killed by the Jacobin 'Revolutionaries' under Maximilien Robespierre who actually met the guillotine himself! He also killed non-aristocrats though. He killed anyone claiming that they were counter-revolutionaries.

Also a lot of Priest were cruely butchered. Yes the Catholic Church of France was originally too powerful but murdering Priests who don't use weapons or fight back very well is rather sick.

I must also point out that Louis XVI didn't conspire with other monarchs as he knew that he would be in their pockets when they beat the Revolutionaries. A few other monarchs of Europe did rally to the defence of France (including the Austrian Emperor and the King of Prussia).

The Reign of Terror (Robespierre's Reign) was one of Europe's bloodiest periods.

meridiana said:

Sorry if this is going on a bit, but there is this idea that it was all about class-based revenge, and this just isn't true. The ideals of the French Revolution were good, basically those of modern democracies, they just took a tragic turn under the pressure of war and crisis.

It was good to start with but we must remember that the people that started it were not the same as the people that reigned the longest. The ones who started it wanted the monarchy. Sadly they were overthrown, as it were, by Robspierre's mob.

Oddly enough this revolution would lead to an Empire under Emperor Napolean.........

Napoleon was not really a tyrant, he just became a bit greedy (though his motives of conquest was reasonable.....he did spread tolerance throughout Europe). He abolished the laws that forced the Jews to live in ghettos and preached equality and fairness. Makes me proud to be part Italian.

[Cornelia_Africana]

Well...er... actually... the treasonable activities of the King and Queen are amongst the best attested events of the French Revolution. No genuine history of the period actually doubts it. And foreign powers were certainly not coming to the "defence" of France, but to the defence of an old order that was already out of date (and had disappeared from England a hundred years before). It's true that in 1789 almost everyone in the original National Assembly was a constitutional monarchist, including Robespierre. So the question has to be asked, what made them change their minds? Incidentally, Robespierre wasn't an evil bloodthirsty villain either. He had good intentions, basically the same things we take for granted today, but made the mistake of accepting the view that the end justifies the means, only to find out what usually happens in such cases - the means end up determining what ends you can reach. He accepted the Terror legislation reluctantly, for the reasons I've mentioned above,because he couldn't see any other way. It's possible he actually underwent some sort of mental breakdown during the course of the Terror, at any rate was certainly conscience-stricken and guilt ridden during the period. This is all very different from the popular myth.

Now, I think it's also untrue that the Terror was one of the bloodiest periods in European history. It was like a tea party in comparison to some events (e.g thirty years war, German peasant's revolt). The number of death sentences passed by revolutionary tribunals was about 16,500 (over 16 months). Perhaps 10,000 died in prison. How many captive rebel soldiers were executed without trial isn't known, but it would probably bring the total to about 35,000. Perhaps 40,000 died as a result of political violence in the entire French revolution. Over half of the victims were rebel soldiers captured in arms. They could have expected a death sentence in any country of that time, whatever we may think of it. 8.9% of the victims were aristocrats, 6% Catholic clergy (this was certainly one of its least justifiable aspects). In 16 months, the Paris tribunal passed 2,968 death sentences - less than died in Paris in the St Bartholomew's day massacre in a single day. In fact, to put the Terror in proportion, the death toll is approximately the number of African slaves who died every year during the 18th century on the voyage across the Atlantic alone. It's odd, here you have people dealing in death and misery on a massive scale, yet they don't seem to come in for as much vilification as the French revolutionaries. They weren't acting in a blind panic out of self-defence, they didn't even have the excuse of being mentally deranged, they were dealing in death in a completely cold-blooded, clear-eyed way - but it seems to bother people less.

Sorry again if this is going on, but I've been fascinated by the FR since childhood, so I feel I have an obligation to put right all the myths! I assure you, everything I say is based on genuine authorities, and is not my own opinion. It's difficult in talking about the Terror, because it sounds like you're justifying mass murder, which is certainly not the intent. The Terror was a thing that ultimately could only be destructive of what it was trying to support. But unfortunately, it's all to easy to understand, in the brutalised world of the 18th century, where so many people would have taken violence for granted. It was a world people desperately needed to get away from.

[Hoichi]

The Reign of Terror was ONE of the bloodiest events in European History outside of the Middle-Ages. I shall say no more as I don't want an arguement and I don't really like French History of that period.......though the reign of Napoleon is rather interesting.

Anyway I think we all agree that peaceful Revolutions are the best. Which reminds me.............

[Cornelia_Africana]

themaster said:

Anyway I think we all agree that peaceful Revolutions are the best. Which reminds me.............

Yes, we can all agree on that!

[Hoichi]

All we are saying is give peace a chance...............

[Slagathor]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant "give peas a chance". ;D

[Hoichi]

slag said:

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant "give peas a chance". ;D

;D ;D ;D