Which Was More Influencial, The French Revolution or the American Revolution?

Which Revolution Was More Influential?

  • The French Revolution

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • The American Revolution

    Votes: 64 43.2%
  • The Thande Revolution (or, the "I Can't Decide" Option)

    Votes: 10 6.8%

  • Total voters
    148
I say the French Revolution simply because it was more radical and introduced ideas that helped shake up the entire European continent. Of course it might have been different without the American Revolution, but it's roots go back to the earliest parts of the 18th century, with the birth of the Enlightenment, not to mention all those bankrupting wars (remember, France nearly went bankrupt after the War of the Spanish Succession) that served to help undermine the monarchy.

The American Revolution in contrast seems much more moderate. Created a new country yes, with a Republican model, but that was about it. The French Revolution was very anti-monarchial, anti-clerical, and much more radical for it's time.
 

Deleted member 5719

The French revolution, because it formalised the idea of "The State" which is in use in most of the World today. The US didn't fully develop this model until the 1860's.
 
The French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, and I consider it to be somewhat of a failure. They overthrew a monarchy only to be taken over by a military dictator who crowned himself emperor.
 
American Revolution wins out because it lasted longer (1770-1865) whereas the French Revolution only lasted a fraction of the time (1789-1815).
Although by this long count, the French Revolution arguably lasted until 1871, when the last hope for a restored monarchy died. :rolleyes:
I have never seen it argued anywhere ever in any historical work that the American Revolution lasted beyond the Treaty of Paris, let alone another century.

Though we must also look to the fact that one reason the French monarchy and state at the time were in such financial troubles was partly due to France's involvement in the American Revolution. So by effect, we could say that without the American Revolution, financial troubles would probably not have been as stressed as they were in OTL history and the monarchy could probably hold onto power for a while longer.
French finances were in... less than ideal shape before intervening in the American Revolutionary War. While this involvement did hurt finances even more, it is quite possible that the French monarchy could have survived if the 1780s had gone a bit better for them.


...and unable to just stop, but no one had the necessary political will to break the nobility interest's power and reform the opaque finances: the king would appoint ambitious reformers from outside the nobility like Necker, but wasn't actually going to do anything to put their plans into action.
You don't know how glad I am to see mention of Necker on this board - in my extensive research into this era, I have come to the conclusion that he was one of the few men with the will, political clout, and actual financial capability to enact real reform. While arguably his over reliance on loans was one of the causes of the eventual financial meltdown, from what I understand Necker was just borrowing to retain solvency until he could reform the financial system so it could stand up on its own. He came pretty close to success, too- his one mistake was resigning before the death of Maurepas. If Necker had managed to outlast his only major political opponent, he could have cemented his office and continued to overhaul the French monarchy's financial system.

You certainly could avoid the revolution, but you'd really want a frugal, practical, decisive man in Versailles, a William IV or Louis XVIII. With Louis XIV, I can't see anything being achieved before the money runs out.
Do you mean Louis XVI? He wanted reform as well, more than anyone else in France. And reform did come, but the way it was handled was disastrous. A line can be traced from the "May edicts" disbanding the Parlements to the Estates-General, and from there to the more radical revolution.
 
Seeing as you left the question open ended..........

The American. Since both revolutions are still influencing the world today, and that for the last hundred years the US has been grossly influencing world events all out of proportion to anything realistic prior to that hundred years (the BE comes close), I have to go with the American. Militarily, Economically and Culturally no corner of the world today has not felt the influence of the US in a far greater measure then France has. Personally, I feel that is France's major beef with the US. An upstart bastard child surpassing moi? It just sticks in their craw.
 
You don't know how glad I am to see mention of Necker on this board - in my extensive research into this era, I have come to the conclusion that he was one of the few men with the will, political clout, and actual financial capability to enact real reform. While arguably his over reliance on loans was one of the causes of the eventual financial meltdown, from what I understand Necker was just borrowing to retain solvency until he could reform the financial system so it could stand up on its own. He came pretty close to success, too- his one mistake was resigning before the death of Maurepas. If Necker had managed to outlast his only major political opponent, he could have cemented his office and continued to overhaul the French monarchy's financial system.

I too am glad to have found another Neckerite! I share this analysis.

Do you mean Louis XVI?

Stupid roman numerals. What do we even have them for? :mad::p

He wanted reform as well, more than anyone else in France. And reform did come, but the way it was handled was disastrous. A line can be traced from the "May edicts" disbanding the Parlements to the Estates-General, and from there to the more radical revolution.

Absolutely. It think it's clear that Louis wasn't some oblivious reactionary: he was trying to use the Third Estate to reign in the Second and make his kingdom solvent and functional, but he was too indecisive, panicky, and ineffective a man to do it under the circumstances. but even with him on the throne, the fall of the monarchy was certainly not inevitable.
 
I say the French Revolution simply because it was more radical and introduced ideas that helped shake up the entire European continent. Of course it might have been different without the American Revolution, but it's roots go back to the earliest parts of the 18th century, with the birth of the Enlightenment, not to mention all those bankrupting wars (remember, France nearly went bankrupt after the War of the Spanish Succession) that served to help undermine the monarchy.

The American Revolution in contrast seems much more moderate. Created a new country yes, with a Republican model, but that was about it. The French Revolution was very anti-monarchial, anti-clerical, and much more radical for it's time.
My thoughts exactly. The French revolution was just as much a social revolution as much as it was a political one. The American revolution, in contrast, changed very little already extant in the long run, and had little effect outside the sphere of North America (after all, the U.S. was a backwater nation in global politics for quite sometime). Much of the early American republic was based on the Dutch model, and, IMO, there was little real "revolutionary" concept introduced, seeing as it was a landowner dominated, limited franchise republic, with some Enlightenment tweaking. Especially considering nothing really changed much, other than the elimination of a foreign ruler.

The FRW was far more radical, and was the font of a lot of modern concepts, such as the state and liberal democracy. It also completely revolutionized the socio-economic system in place throughout Europe--the effects of which would reverberate back to America itself. The aggressive policies of Napoleon brought republicanism to an entire continent and abolished legal inequality.

In short: I see far less being butterflied away without an AMR up to 1914, as opposed to a scenario with no FRW. I would even go so far as to say that I see a world without an AMR as far more recognizable today than one in which no FRW took place.
 
The american revolution's effects was limited to the americas in many ways, the french revolution had more global effects...
 
I put the French Revolution, because we're studying it at school.

And the American one was influential in the long, very long term, but the French Revolution caused the Revolutionary Wars, the rise of Napoleon, and the spread of liberal ideas. There was also a mass of later dictatorships who followed Robespierre's ideas to a degree. Whereas the Americans got angry about not being as well represented as the British aristocracy, and then rebelled. It hurt the British Empire, but the British Empire recovered due to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars leaving Britain as the world's Imperial superpower, with much expansion ahead of it...
 
The French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, and I consider it to be somewhat of a failure. They overthrew a monarchy only to be taken over by a military dictator who crowned himself emperor.
agreed but im american so im biased
 
Top