4 ms·

I can see almost the same argument being made in 1780 in a French salon, after the cost of fielding armies had exploded in the seven year war.

• sigmoid10 2y ago
  Because it's literally the same basic concept. The fall of the French monarchy and the eventual rise of Napoleon followed the exact same principles: Rich people born into nobility using their military influence and public dissent to overthrow a government and establish themselves as new rulers. The biggest difference here is that Napoleon came from a more modest form of nobility by comparison and was an actual military genius who rose from a low-end officer all the way to the top because of his skills on the battlefield (at least until his success went to his head and he crowned himself emperor). But he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without his soldiers.
  • mihaic 2y ago
    > Rich people born into nobility using their military influence and public dissent to overthrow a government and establish themselves as new rulers. Just to be clear, are you saying that the French Revolution was done by the rich born into nobility (even if minor)? Even if the rich still had an advantage during the entire turmoil, I think it's hard to argue that for the decades after 1790 that there wasn't a huge boost to social mobility.