More historical date

[buritobr]

Which date was more important?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As much as I do prefer the American Revolution to the French Revolution, the latter had an objectively larger impact on world history, due in part to geography and the fact that France in general had a far larger impact on the world in the 18th century than did America. It'd be interesting to evaluate 1789 against 1914 in terms of importance.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Both of the comparisons mentioned in this thread run into the obvious difficulty that one might not have happened without the other.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

The American Revolution is more important. The French Revolution would probably never have happened without the American Revolution because the former was greatly inspired by the latter. Also, the formation of a whole new country that has had a huge impact on world history and is one of the biggest superpowers in the world is very significant. In France, the government changed, but France was already one of the most powerful countries in the world before the Revolution and a new country wasn't formed. Also, the United States was one of the first democracies since the ancient Athenian democracy, which is a very important distinction. Without the American Revolution, democratization might've never happened in the countries that have now experienced it. The French Revolution, on the other hand, failed in its attempt to make France a democracy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Objectively, it's hard to imagine the American Revolution succeeding without setting into motion the causes of the French. Without French support, the Revolution would have collapsed by 1780, although the British would have gained little from it. Indeed, while there would have been some attempt at patching over the discontent, America would've remained a seething anthology, ready to bite the British lion at the least excuse. Had the French left us to fester, the British might well have never become masters of India and they certainly would not have been so interested in Australia.

Furthermore, without the strain on the royal fisc to little gain, Louis XVI certainly would not have called the Estates-General into session in 1789. There would have been no center of opposition to the crown as well as less of it. Even if one thinks a French Revolution inevitable, and frankly Louis XVI did much to make it so, it would've happened later had France not intervened in our tax revolt.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The American Revolution is more important. The French Revolution would probably never have happened without the American Revolution because the former was greatly inspired by the latter.

The problem I have with this argument is, that inasmuch as history can be understood as a series of reactions, it reduces the matter of historical significance to a question of chronology. By the same reasoning, one could proclaim the marriage of Nancy Hanks to Thomas Lincoln the most significant event of the American Civil War (for without their union, Abraham Lincoln would never have been born, his presidency would never have existed, and any number of futures supplanted our own). "I was first" cannot be the sum total of an argument for greater significance, because one can simply continue to turn back one more page ad infinitum.

Also, the formation of a whole new country that has had a huge impact on world history and is one of the biggest superpowers in the world is very significant. In France, the government changed, but France was already one of the most powerful countries in the world before the Revolution and a new country wasn't formed.

That's not really true, though. For one, the French Revolution definitely led to the creation of new countries in Europe (the Confederation of the Rhine says hello). More importantly, France's Revolutionary Wars effected the most dramatic political upheaval of European history arguably since the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire. States that had existed for centuries - the Holy Roman Empire* and the Dutch Republic to name a few - suddenly ceased to be, and the Napoleonic Code remains the foundation for much of continental law. I would be careful, too, to discount changes in government as less significant than the emergence of new states - after all, one could easily argue the American Revolution did little more than supplant de facto autonomy within the British Empire with de jure autonomy under the Constitution.

*Which, in fairness, was primarily decorative by the late eighteenth century

Also, the United States was one of the first democracies since the ancient Athenian democracy, which is a very important distinction. Without the American Revolution, democratization might've never happened in the countries that have now experienced it. The French Revolution, on the other hand, failed in its attempt to make France a democracy.

This is a fair argument, though of course France's revolution also played a large role in spreading democratic ideals throughout the West (even if it was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing democracy in France in 1789). I'm not sure there's a correct answer to this question, but it's certainly an interesting one.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

The American Revolution is more important. The French Revolution would probably never have happened without the American Revolution because the former was greatly inspired by the latter.

The problem I have with this argument is, that inasmuch as history can be understood as a series of reactions, it reduces the matter of historical significance to a question of chronology. By the same reasoning, one could proclaim the marriage of Nancy Hanks to Thomas Lincoln the most significant event of the American Civil War (for without their union, Abraham Lincoln would never have been born, his presidency would never have existed, and any number of futures supplanted our own). "I was first" cannot be the sum total of an argument for greater significance, because one can simply continue to turn back one more page ad infinitum.

Also, the formation of a whole new country that has had a huge impact on world history and is one of the biggest superpowers in the world is very significant. In France, the government changed, but France was already one of the most powerful countries in the world before the Revolution and a new country wasn't formed.

That's not really true, though. For one, the French Revolution definitely led to the creation of new countries in Europe (the Confederation of the Rhine says hello). More importantly, France's Revolutionary Wars effected the most dramatic political upheaval of European history arguably since the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire. States that had existed for centuries - the Holy Roman Empire* and the Dutch Republic to name a few - suddenly ceased to be, and the Napoleonic Code remains the foundation for much of continental law. I would be careful, too, to discount changes in government as less significant than the emergence of new states - after all, one could easily argue the American Revolution did little more than supplant de facto autonomy within the British Empire with de jure autonomy under the Constitution.

*Which, in fairness, was primarily decorative by the late eighteenth century

Also, the United States was one of the first democracies since the ancient Athenian democracy, which is a very important distinction. Without the American Revolution, democratization might've never happened in the countries that have now experienced it. The French Revolution, on the other hand, failed in its attempt to make France a democracy.

This is a fair argument, though of course France's revolution also played a large role in spreading democratic ideals throughout the West (even if it was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing democracy in France in 1789). I'm not sure there's a correct answer to this question, but it's certainly an interesting one.

I can see the problem with the argument, but I also think that it is in fact important to look at the effects a historical event had on future events. I do agree that it would be ridiculous to argue that because the Stamp Act caused the American Revolution, which in turn caused the French Revolution, the Stamp Act is therefore more significant than both events because neither event would have happened without it. However, I believe that this argument is ridiculous because it analyzes indirect effects, such as a causing b causing c. It would be ridiculous to claim that the Stamp Act caused the French Revolution. I believe that if you only look at direct events, such as a causing b, then the argument works. And I'm not saying that a is automatically more significant than b. The Stamp Act is clearly less significant than the American Revolution. I'm just saying that one must take the fact that the Stamp Act caused the American Revolution into consideration when analyzing the significance of the Stamp Act. And it is true that there is an argument that the French Revolution was inevitable; that the disastrous state of France's finances and Louis' XVI misrule would have eventually caused the Revolution without the American Revolution. But I still find it hard to believe that the French Revolution wasn't inspired by the American Revolution and that it wouldn't have happened without it when several of the main figures from the American Revolution, such as the Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Paine, also had major roles in the French Revolution. And this argument is made even less believable when it is noted that The Declaration of the Rights of Man was greatly inspired by The Declaration of Independence.

While the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars may have led to the collapse of several long-lived states, the resulting states usually just became client states of France. I think it is fair to say that the United States had a bigger impact on world history than any and all of these client states. And when a state becomes independent from another state, I would call that the formation of a new state, not a change in government. It's not like the Americans overthrew the British government in Britain and created a new government there.

While the French Revolution definitely spread democratic ideals throughout Europe through documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, it also did some of the opposite by fueling reactionary movements who were revolted by the violence and bloodshed of the Revolution and the subversion of royal authority. With regards to the American Revolution, it isn't clear that reactionary movements were fueled to the same extent as they were with the French Revolution. And I would argue that democratization is more historically significant than the formation of reactionary movements because such movements have existed all throughout history, while very little democracies existed in the world up to the point of the American Revolution. And while it is impossible to know which revolution had a greater effect on world democratization, I would argue that the revolution that actually succeeded in bringing about a democracy probably had a greater effect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While the French Revolution definitely spread democratic ideals throughout Europe through documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, it also did some of the opposite by fueling reactionary movements who were revolted by the violence and bloodshed of the Revolution and the subversion of royal authority. With regards to the American Revolution, it isn't clear that reactionary movements were fueled to the same extent as they were with the French Revolution. And I would argue that democratization is more historically significant than the formation of reactionary movements because such movements have existed all throughout history, while very little democracies existed in the world up to the point of the American Revolution. And while it is impossible to know which revolution had a greater effect on world democratization, I would argue that the revolution that actually succeeded in bringing about a democracy probably had a greater effect.

Keep in mind that by 1815, the Reactionary Powers (Prussia, Russia and Austria) in alliance with Britain (ever keen to be the world's policeman and arbiter of the balance of power), had snuffed out the French Revolution to the point of placing the Bourbons back on the throne in France, Naples, and Spain, and also created a Dutch Kingdom with the Orange-Nassau dynasty, which had served as leader of the Dutch Republic for much of its existence.

There were lasting imprints left on the continent, including of course stirring the raging torrent of nationalism that would eventually unite both Germany and Italy, but the continent was still largely ruled by Monarchs and landed aristocracy, as it had been prior to 1789. Whats more, Russia began to meddle in European Politics, propping up reactionary and far right governments (wait are we still talking about the 19th century here?)...

The United States though, showed an example of a stable, democratic government that was not rocked by extremes of anarchy and chaos, followed by a repressive reaction. The American Revolution was never as extreme as the French one and was followed up with a rather conservative constitution as its governing document that was just as keen on reigning in the anarchy of the multitude as it was the arbitrary governance of the ruler. It took 80 years and a division amongst the monarchist majority to make France a Republic permanently.


Absent the American Revolution, the world would likely be dominated by Monarchies, with many looking to Britain as the model for a stable representative democracy, instead of the United States. People crave both freedom and stability, the former without the latter is not sustainable.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I can understand why Americans would say their revolution, but really, the more important one was the French. It's not even a contest.

Modern democratic politics itself is a legacy of the French Revolution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can understand why Americans would say their revolution, but really, the more important one was the French. It's not even a contest.

Modern democratic politics itself is a legacy of the French Revolution.

To say that modern democratic politics is a legacy of the French Revolution is not just an overstatement, but it is flat out wrong. At best, one can say that it served as a catalyst that caused a number of trends in European politics to proceed explosively but those trends had been evident well before the Revolution and considering the counterrevolutionary trends that happened in reaction, in the long term, it's doubtful the French Revolution had any long term impact save one, the Code Napoléon, and that more because it became the primary example of codified civil law rather than it being the inspiration for it.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I can understand why Americans would say their revolution, but really, the more important one was the French. It's not even a contest.

Modern democratic politics itself is a legacy of the French Revolution.

To say that modern democratic politics is a legacy of the French Revolution is not just an overstatement, but it is flat out wrong. At best, one can say that it served as a catalyst that caused a number of trends in European politics to proceed explosively but those trends had been evident well before the Revolution and considering the counterrevolutionary trends that happened in reaction, in the long term, it's doubtful the French Revolution had any long term impact save one, the Code Napoléon, and that more because it became the primary example of codified civil law rather than it being the inspiration for it.

Please read a book about modern European history before making these posts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can understand why Americans would say their revolution, but really, the more important one was the French. It's not even a contest.

Modern democratic politics itself is a legacy of the French Revolution.

To say that modern democratic politics is a legacy of the French Revolution is not just an overstatement, but it is flat out wrong. At best, one can say that it served as a catalyst that caused a number of trends in European politics to proceed explosively but those trends had been evident well before the Revolution and considering the counterrevolutionary trends that happened in reaction, in the long term, it's doubtful the French Revolution had any long term impact save one, the Code Napoléon, and that more because it became the primary example of codified civil law rather than it being the inspiration for it.

Please read a book about modern European history before making these posts.

Actually, I'm in the middle of re-reading a history of the Holy Roman Empire, Heart of Europe,  right now. While the Enlightenment which precipitated the French Revolution had a major impact on the development of European politics, to ascribe those developments to the French Revolution itself is to mistake the symptom for the cause.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can understand why Americans would say their revolution, but really, the more important one was the French. It's not even a contest.

Modern democratic politics itself is a legacy of the French Revolution.

To say that modern democratic politics is a legacy of the French Revolution is not just an overstatement, but it is flat out wrong. At best, one can say that it served as a catalyst that caused a number of trends in European politics to proceed explosively but those trends had been evident well before the Revolution and considering the counterrevolutionary trends that happened in reaction, in the long term, it's doubtful the French Revolution had any long term impact save one, the Code Napoléon, and that more because it became the primary example of codified civil law rather than it being the inspiration for it.

Please read a book about modern European history before making these posts.

What do you presume he is ignorant of?  True Federalist is one of the smartest people on this forum.

One other impact that the French Revolution did have was the influence on the ideological and philosophical works that underpinned both Marxism and Non-Marxist Socialism in the mid 19th century. In terms of class struggle and class revolution, yes there is no denying that the French Revolution had a greater impact, precisely because it was a radical revolution that completely upturned the previous social order.

That circumstance though is precisely why the American Revolution has had a more lasting and positive impact. The American and British system for that matter, are built on slow change and improvement over time, which history has shown the best and most positive breeding ground for liberty and freedom to flourish.

The massive upheavals of the French and Russian Revolutions led to repressive regimes being instituted either in the name of said Revolution (Napoleon and the USSR) or as a reaction to them (The Bourbon Restoration). The stability and persistence of The US and British systems, remained a lasting example for how "it could be". Were it only the chaos and repression, and cyclical anarchy of the French Revolution as a guide, the world would be dominated by authoritarians cycled out in the next Revolution for another.

Basically the kind of Revolution panned in the movie Fistful of Dynamite, after Sergio Leone replaced idealism with cynicism as his guiding principle. "The poor people make the change...then the people who read the books sit around the big polished table and talk and talk and talk, and eat and eat and eat, and what has happened to the poor people? They're dead, That's your Revolution....Then the same...thing happens all over again".

[Statilius the Epicurean]

That's a caricatural view of the French Revolution.

Look, as I said above: the idea that the people should rule found its first political expression in the French Revolution. I don't think you grasp how important that paradigm shift was for humanity. Suddenly, the lowest people had an interest in politics. Every single politician: Trump, Merkel, Putin, Corbyn, Abe, Modi, Xi all have to pay lip service to liberté égalité fraternité in their own way. Yes, Ernest might say "but the Enlightenment came up with the idea", but 1) this is an apples-to-oranges comparison of an a intellectual movement with a political event, 2) its implementation in actual politics is different by an order of magnitude, and 3) one can just as easily say the same thing about the American Revolution, the ideas of which were all developed in the Enlightenment too.

As to examples of its impact, the French Revolution was the catalyst for the emergence of party politics, including a popular party, in America itself, against the express wishes of the framers of the US constitution; and I could go into the French Revolution in Haiti and the impact that had on slaveholders in the American South, leading to civil war. In Britain it created the radical reform movement that roiled British politics for decades, threatening revolution several times (including an actual one in Ireland) before eventually winning in 1832. British politics, the "British system", would be unimaginable without the French revolution; there would be no Thomas Paine's Rights of Man for God's sake. Would Latin America have won its independence? Would we have German or Italian nationalism? Would we even have had the Romantic movement in the arts? Imagine how different western culture would be without Romanticism...

Yes, it's quite possible that all of the things above would have happened without the French Revolution, but form they would have taken would be completely different.

For a taste of the shock the revolution had across Europe and the Americas, Robert Burns says something of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was the impact of the French Revolution.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I mean, there's a reason why 1789 is considered by historians to be the start date of modern European history, and it's not because of the Napoleonic Code.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's a caricatural view of the French Revolution.

Look, as I said above: the idea that the people should rule found its first political expression in the French Revolution. I don't think you grasp how important that paradigm shift was for humanity. Suddenly, the lowest people had an interest in politics. Every single politician: Trump, Merkel, Putin, Corbyn, Abe, Modi, Xi all have to pay lip service to liberté égalité fraternité in their own way. Yes, Ernest might say "but the Enlightenment came up with the idea", but 1) this is an apples-to-oranges comparison of an a intellectual movement with a political event, 2) its implementation in actual politics is different by an order of magnitude, and 3) one can just as easily say the same thing about the American Revolution, the ideas of which were all developed in the Enlightenment too.

As to examples of its impact, the French Revolution was the catalyst for the emergence of party politics, including a popular party, in America itself, against the express wishes of the framers of the US constitution; and I could go into the French Revolution in Haiti and the impact that had on slaveholders in the American South, leading to civil war. In Britain it created the radical reform movement that roiled British politics for decades, threatening revolution several times (including an actual one in Ireland) before eventually winning in 1832. British politics, the "British system", would be unimaginable without the French revolution; there would be no Thomas Paine's Rights of Man for God's sake. Would Latin America have won its independence? Would we have German or Italian nationalism? Would we even have had the Romantic movement in the arts? Imagine how different western culture would be without Romanticism...

Yes, it's quite possible that all of the things above would have happened without the French Revolution, but form they would have taken would be completely different.

For a taste of the shock the revolution had across Europe and the Americas, Robert Burns says something of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was the impact of the French Revolution.

No one has said that the French Revolution was not important. The thread puts it up against the American Revolution and says "which was more important to history".

Yes, practical application of "the people should rule" is another matter from theorizing. The American Revolution managed to control its excesses and produced a result that was stable and slowly incorporated reforms over time. Having that example did far more to make feasible the cries for freedom across Europe.

The French Revolution did not do that. It yielded at its end the right for all men to vote, on whether or not to make Napoleon Emperor. The Soviet Union paid lip service to freedom and popular will, in an Orwellian means of distracting from the fact it had neither. People paying lip service to the notion is worthless if it is so done to facilitate a dictatorship or a Totalitarian state. It actually has to mean something. If the French Revolution was the only lesson to draw from, yes you would have many people people lip service to liberté égalité fraternité, but few that actually lived it.

And I am not usually in the business of arguing about one's own country with someone, but from my interpretation, "The British System" came to exist as a transition that began in 1689, not 1832 or 1789. It absorbed reform movements and evolved over time in reaction to demands for change. But the fundamental system was not changed, and there was no great singular social and class upheaval that sent all the British ruling classes to the block, except of course the English Civil War in the 1640's and 1650's.

Which also had the same pattern, an elected dictator followed by a restoration of the old ruling system with little or no serious change. What made the Glorious Revolution so glorious was a change so minimal as to undermine it even being called a revolution because it practically was just a procedural concession. Regular parliamentary elections and a fixed time limit on appropriations. Napoleon and Napoleon III had universal suffrage for lower house that was powerless. As the franchise was expanded in Britain, it had a real impact, because nothing could be done in Britain without the Commons going along with it.

The same is true for the United States. The House is elected by the people and all appropriations must arise from that chamber. As the franchise was expanded for both the House and President, it had a real noticeable effect.

Bottom line it wasn't just votes being cast for a meaningless election for a single candidate race pre-determined by the Communist Party, or a vote for a Napoleonic Legislature that had no power to do anything substantial or materially effect government policy. It also wasn't a vote to elect a despot with the full power to subjugate the people in name of "The Revolution". '

The pressure for liberalization, the pressure for democractization in both Britain and the UK would have been present, because these values did originate with the enlightenment. The Federalists would not have remained in power and if anything, the French Revolution prolonged their stay in office because of fear of chaos and anarchy. If anything, America would have been far less conservative as they pulled away from the chaos of the 1780's, were it not for the French Revolution. The French Revolution did not create the party system on its own, it merely served as one of many factors that put Hamilton and Jefferson at odds with one another.

This also can be observed in Britain. There were reform clubs in the 1780's and discussions which William Pitt the Younger participated in and supported. In the 1790's, he repressed them as seditious in the face of the enemy, Revolutionary France.

The French Revolution hindered Liberalism, and gave birth to Modern Conservatism, in both America and Britain in the 1790's.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, we would have had German and Italian nationalism without the French Revolution. Napoleon's ability to tap into the already existing desires of the people is one reason he had the successes he did. 1789 was when the fuse was lit, but its spark would have been for naught if there had been no powder keg to blow. So it boils down to what's more important, the spark or the bomb. The American Revolution provided the final leavening of saltpeter without which the French Revolution would have been only a flash in a pan instead of an explosion.