Hello everyone, I was wondering: how would the First French Republic survive as a stable and democratic great power. If it could keep its borders after the war of the first coalition that would be best.
Scipio
Scipio
Hello everyone, I was wondering: how would the First French Republic survive as a stable and democratic great power. If it could keep its borders after the war of the first coalition that would be best.
Scipio
You are confusing republicanism with democracy.Instability was provoked by iacobins and lose of democracy by one person called Napoleon.
...Including the aristocracy or clergy is out of the question, since the initial point of the revolution was about how pissed everybody was with those two groups in particular.
The bourgeoise was less than a tenth of France's population-- giving them more power essentially means that the First French Republic becomes an oligarchy and is scarcely recognizable, assuming that they don't all rush to Jacobism.
The peasantry is hardly more likely to be a moderating force, what with the sans-culottes and all. So, how do you propose to remove some of the First Republic's radicalism?
But isn't it obvious that the factors at work went a lot deeper than this or that supposedly villainous individual, and that if you strike one down others will take their place, because both the radicals and the new breed of military reactionaries were representative of deep trends of modernity in France and Europe in general? "One person called Napoleon" indeed! Use your time machine to strangle him at birth, and some other general would clearly step in to his vacated place instead.Two factors made France fail to stay stable and democratic:
Instability was provoked by iacobins and lose of democracy by one person called Napoleon.
You cant contain the radicals taking over if u dont eliminate them from start.
Stability is more important than democracy on long term.{emphasis mine--Shev}
Lets say the king takes care to execute all the major Iacobin figures.
So when he is removed from power only the moderates still exist.
Or the king take the initiative and proclaim the Peoples Republic of Frace with him as leader and request public suport again nobles.
A multi party parliament exist but iacobins never take power and neighbours never atack France.
For this you need to eliminate the figure of the hated queen and give a stronger position to the king against both sides nobles and republicans(all factions)
Nobles reject to pay taxes as everyone else and republicans ask population to stop work and something like this....
King remains a strong balance factor in this story.
Finally we must make sure Napoleon is killed in Egypt.
So as my plan is ready i only need a time machine![]()
Slightly off topic but this may need a few caveats. It is or was true over a single generation but if the rich have more reproductive success, then over time their genes should dominate. An extreme example is the 11% prevalence of a Y chromosome in Central Asia probably deriving from Genghis Khan http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180246/?tool=pubmed.....
I guess it looks very different to others. I just wish more of us would remember, most of us are after all the children of peasants, not the nobles. However cool it seems to us today to imagine ourselves in the shoes of the higher orders moving the lowers around like pawns, chances are in such a world we would be the peons.
Slightly off topic but this may need a few caveats. It is or was true over a single generation but if the rich have more reproductive success, then over time their genes should dominate. An extreme example is the 11% prevalence of a Y chromosome in Central Asia probably deriving from Genghis Khan http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180246/?tool=pubmed.
I was simply arguing that we are genetically the children of the rich and powerful. Probably accounts for our aggressive characters.
I was simply arguing that we are genetically the children of the rich and powerful. Probably accounts for our aggressive characters.