3 ms·

This is a sweeping generalisation. While I'd agree that revolutions are often a bloody mess there are a number of examples in recent history where that is not

by sambeau 12y ago

This is a sweeping generalisation. While I'd agree that revolutions are often a bloody mess there are a number of examples in recent history where that is not the case. (e.g. The Velvet Revolution[1]) France, UK & the USA all also had bloody revolutions that resulted in democracy (or at least the widely understood view of what democracy is). [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

anigbrowl 12y ago
Ten years after the French revolution the country was governed by Napoleon, who seized power in a coup d'etat...although he turned out to be substantially more liberal than the revolutionists.
- pjc50 12y ago
  substantially more liberal than the revolutionists [citation needed] - or at least an explanation of what you mean by "liberal" here.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    I'm presuming that saying "a fig for the nation" wouldn't have necessarily sent you to the guillotine under Napoleon, as compared to the Jacobins shortly before him.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Abolished feudalism, supported religious liberty, established the Code Napoleon, promoting jury trials etc. He was dictatorial but in my view governed enormously more fairly than the Jacobin mob that took over France after the revolution and instituted the Terror.
  - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
    I'm not sure if [citation needed] is appropriate. This is kind of rudimentary history. It's a cute thing we do on HN but if we did this every post would be a Wikipedia article in itself
codeddesign 12y ago
yes, several hundred years ago when people had morals to build democradic societies with an obligation to the good of the people. now you just have money and weapons thrown around for the intention of power control.
pjc50 12y ago
Between "revolution" and "democracy" lies a lot more mess than people remember. There is quite frequently a counterrevolution or collapse followed by another revolution. The revolution necessarily interrupts services which may be keeping people alive. The UK's civil war established a theocratic military dictatorship. The 'glorious revolution' installed not a republic but a constitutional monarchy with a Protestant king subject to the rule of Parliament. Electoral democracy followed later, piecemeal. France and the US have more parallels: first revolution in late 1700s, delivering either incomplete or non-lasting freedom; eventually another revolution in the late 1800s, establishing more freedom; final formal abandonment of colonialism/slavery round about 1968. Hmm, that rather implies that the timetable for the next one is somewhere around 2070.
- arethuza 12y ago
  On the subject of revolutions I can strongly recommend that Revolutions podcast by the same chap who did The History of Rome: http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/
mpyne 12y ago
To be perfectly fair I think that, at least in the U.S., it's more fair to say that the "revolution" occurred even before the first British troops had landed, and was as nearly bloodless as it might be possible to be. The bloodshed came when British tried to regain control over a country already lost to the revolution.

by sambeau 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

Ten years after the French revolution the country was governed by Napoleon, who seized power in a coup d'etat...although he turned out to be substantially more liberal than the revolutionists.

pjc50 12y ago
substantially more liberal than the revolutionists [citation needed] - or at least an explanation of what you mean by "liberal" here.
- mpyne 12y ago
  I'm presuming that saying "a fig for the nation" wouldn't have necessarily sent you to the guillotine under Napoleon, as compared to the Jacobins shortly before him.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Abolished feudalism, supported religious liberty, established the Code Napoleon, promoting jury trials etc. He was dictatorial but in my view governed enormously more fairly than the Jacobin mob that took over France after the revolution and instituted the Terror.
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  I'm not sure if [citation needed] is appropriate. This is kind of rudimentary history. It's a cute thing we do on HN but if we did this every post would be a Wikipedia article in itself

codeddesign 12y ago

yes, several hundred years ago when people had morals to build democradic societies with an obligation to the good of the people. now you just have money and weapons thrown around for the intention of power control.

pjc50 12y ago

Between "revolution" and "democracy" lies a lot more mess than people remember. There is quite frequently a counterrevolution or collapse followed by another revolution. The revolution necessarily interrupts services which may be keeping people alive. The UK's civil war established a theocratic military dictatorship. The 'glorious revolution' installed not a republic but a constitutional monarchy with a Protestant king subject to the rule of Parliament. Electoral democracy followed later, piecemeal. France and the US have more parallels: first revolution in late 1700s, delivering either incomplete or non-lasting freedom; eventually another revolution in the late 1800s, establishing more freedom; final formal abandonment of colonialism/slavery round about 1968. Hmm, that rather implies that the timetable for the next one is somewhere around 2070.

arethuza 12y ago
On the subject of revolutions I can strongly recommend that Revolutions podcast by the same chap who did The History of Rome: http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/

mpyne 12y ago

To be perfectly fair I think that, at least in the U.S., it's more fair to say that the "revolution" occurred even before the first British troops had landed, and was as nearly bloodless as it might be possible to be. The bloodshed came when British tried to regain control over a country already lost to the revolution.