Revolt from Above.

File: Military Uniforms, Boshin War.jpg (2MB, 6300x5308px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6300x5308px

>>1489713
The Meiji Restoration was one.

Literally Aristocrats VS. Aristocrats.

>>1489713
Most revolts were revolts by the aristoracy. Especially those before 1900.

The American Revolution.

The Civil War.

>>1489722
You mean the bourgeoisie

>>1489732
No, I mean the fucking aristocracy.

>>1489734
In that case you are completely, 100% wrong. Unless you use 1000 provisions like "minor aristocracy", "landless aristocracy" and you would still be wrong because they only participated, but never were the major forces behind any revolution. There are books that literally only deal with how the middle-class/bourgeoisie have been behind pretty much every major revolution in the world.

Here, I'm so nice I'll even give you a lecture where you can hear it for yourself.

https://youtu.be/zEk1JAkyvj4

>>1489713
The Amarna period in Egypt.

>>1489817
>critical theory proponent detected
Shoo

>>1489817
There were a ton of monarchical changes through the Middle Ages and even into the 19th Century that were driven by the aristocracy.

>>1489817

Are you retarded? Before you had the rise of secular education and a professional civil service, the usual alliance of society was that the monarch's biggest supporters were the minor nobility, while the greater nobility were usually opposed to things that monarchs liked to do, such as centralizing the state.

Just in European history alone, almost all major revolts and/or revolutions were enthusiastically participated in, hell, driven by the major nobility. Haven't' you ever heard of things like the War of the Roses?

>>1490203
They're completely trumped by revolutions or movements of the bourgeoisie.

>>1490192
How so?

File: Erik_XIV_(1533-1577)_Domenicus_Verwildt.jpg (96KB, 368x591px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 368x591px

Eric XIV of Sweden was mentally ill, and he was eventually disposed a year after after he stabbed a courtier to death, ordered some other nobles executed, and ran away and hid in the woods for a week, and then beat his secretary to death with a fire iron the next year. This resulted in a uprising of nobles who replaced him with his brother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Murders

>>1489732
>bourgeoise
Russia pre 1917

>>1489817
I think the problem is that you think 'revolution' has one fixed meaning, which is 'alteration in mode of production' or something like that.
You're fucking retarded if I'm right.

The American Revolution was a revolution led by wealthy aristocrats against a distant king wholly for the sake of lowering taxes.

>>1490269
>having money makes you an aristocrat

Top kek. The revolutionaries were plebeians.

>>1490300
>Colonial governors appointed by His Majesty
>plebeians
In what universe

>>1490305
>appointed non-hereditary offices
>aristocracy

In what universe?

>>1490224
>Thinks the War of the Roses was a revolution.
>Calls other people retarded.

>Thinks the middle-class is a creation of secular education and the civil service
>What is the merchant class (promoter of social and economic change since antiquity)
>What is the artisan class
>What are guilds

You are clueless my friend. We are talking about revolutions, about societal change, not about the minor nobility fighting the major nobility or Royal Houses fighting for the throne.

File: jeapardy.jpg (16KB, 300x210px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x210px

>what was the magna carta

>>1490246
Are you some kind of post-structuralist Derrida cunt who thinks words can have infinite different meanings? That's not a very classy way to win an argument you know.

>>1490313
Nobility and aristocracy aren't solely limited to hereditary offices. TMYK.

>>1490322
>revolutions
>Revolution
>A political upheaval in a government or nation state characterized by great change.
>The removal and replacement of a government.
>Rotation the turning of an object around an axis
What you described literally ticks two out of three of the boxes. Literally fuck off.

>>1490335
They aren't limited to offices period, but they have to be hereditary.

>>1490348
They do not.

>Aristocracy (n.)
>the highest class in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices
Especially here meaning NOT LIMITED TO. Again, fuck right off.

>>1490335
>>1490360
You talk like a retard.

>>1490374
Great argument. You can fuck off too.

>>1490335
>Considers the replacement of one Royal House by another "great change"

You are referring simply to the removal and replacement of a government by other powerful players. A coup basically.

A revolution is this:
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system.
"the country has had a socialist revolution"

Exactly what was the "new system" or the drastic societal change introduced by the War of the Roses fucktard? Compare that to actual revolutions/revolts such as the French and American one or the English Civil War, the creation of the Dutch Republic, the various Italian revolutions and wars of independence in Italy during the 19th century, the Greek war of independence, the early Communist movement and countless other examples.

They're all top-down revolutions but NOT by the aristocracy but by the Middle Class.

>>1489713
Most wars of religion?

>>1489713
Barons' Wars

>>1490409

>a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system.

Yes, and unless you're a coarse brained imbecile who thinks that just because a monarch is at the head of two different governments, circa ww1 England and Germany were the same, you'd realize that the examples cited DID create new systems. Do you really think that a feudal based monarchy and an absolute monarchy are the same thing? Do you think that the Fronde, and the Polish-Lithuanian magnate revolts, and the stuff against Corvinus, resulted in new boss, same as the old boss?

You, like most marxists, are extremely ignorant of actual history, resorting to asserting that YOUR categories matter but OTHER peoples don't. I don't know how you guys even manage to figure out how to breed.

>>1490531
The only example you have cited up until now is the War of the Roses!!! THE WAR OF THE FUCKING ROSES!

A war LITERALLY between two branches of the SAME royal house! Where is the change in social order in that? Are you really this dense?

All this started when you claimed that:
>Most revolts were revolts by the aristocracy

Which is flat-out wrong! There may have been some examples like the ones you only just brought up (quite unremarkable in comparison to the ones I brought up), but they were certainly not the majority.

Then to make up for your idiotic argument you resort to ad hominem, calling me a Marxist. Who the fuck said I'm a Marxist? Everyone who you disagree with is a Marxist? Choke on a bag of dicks you dense fuck.

I bet you're the guy who claimed the Conservatives are socialist in that other thread.

>>1490409
>>1490409
Do you really think that nothing changed between two houses, two lines or even between king and heir? Look at Spain for fucks sake. There's a reason there are these things called "The Bourbon Reforms" and not the fucking Habsburg reforms and that was a (for the sake of our argument) peaceful transition to a lawful heir. There are HUGE changes even within a single fucking line (Alexander II to Alexander III in Russia for example). You are fucking stupid.

>>1490593
Of course things changed, but they weren't the sort of changes that constitute a revolution. Otherwise they would be fucking called revolutions.

>>1490566

>The only example you have cited up until now is the War of the Roses!!! THE WAR OF THE FUCKING ROSES!

Yes, a revolt instigated by the UPPER NOBILITY YOU IDIOT.

>Most revolts were revolts by the aristocracy


They were. You then tried to escape out of the dilemma by separating "revolt" from "Revolution" with a ridiculously hamfisted definition, which doesn't even suit your purposes.

>Which is flat-out wrong!

It isn't.

>There may have been some examples like the ones you only just brought up (quite unremarkable in comparison to the ones I brought up), but they were certainly not the majority.


They were. Every revolt in Europe from the 13th to 17th centuries, regardless of what the ultimate cause of revolt was, had at least one major aristocratic backer, BECUASE GUESS WHAT RETARD? THEY HAD THE MONEY AND TROOPS AND BACKING TO GET INTO THE GAME.

> Who the fuck said I'm a Marxist? Everyone who you disagree with is a Marxist? Choke on a bag of dicks you dense fuck.

You did, assbaby, by defining revolutions distinctly from revolts and only "Counting" when they "change the social order in favor of a new system", and disregarding all completely politically inclined revolts. That's usually a marxist line, so when you parroted it, I assumed you were a Marxist. I suppose you could be part of some sort of equally stupid ideological group, but there aren't so many of those and I'm not as familiar with their idiot terminology.

>>1489713
errr... all of them?

you really think the prototeriate could organise and educate itself into a constructive driven masses to overthrow its own entrapment of a social substrata systema?

>>1490631
They were called revolutions, colloquially and in name many times.

>>1489713
The Fronde

>>1489713
Are you kidding? Nobles throughout every goddamn civilization in history have backstabbed each other all the fucking time, often with entire armies.

>>1489713
every successful revolt?
there has never been a successful plebeian revolt

the American revolution is a big one, same with the Spanish colonial revolutions, french revolution, glorious revolution

File: charliechoochoo.jpg (66KB, 752x1159px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 752x1159px

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)

?????????

>>1489713
Name a successful revolution that wasn't?

You have to have money to support a revolution

>>1489817

What? Are you a troll?

What happened in the Barons' War? They were middle class?

>>1489722

Revolts yes, revolutions no.

Where's the line? Well I think of revolts as people that essentially abide by the established order revolting in order to get a bigger feudal clay or money or privileges from the king and etc, whereas a revolution implies a fundamental and radical alteration of the established order and of the ruling elites, not merely a substitution of count x for count y.

why revolt when they have the means to stage a coup

>>1493091
>arguing lines of semantics because you're fucking wrong as wrong can be
Just shut the fuck up already. OP even includes revolts, so take it to the fucking cleaners or some shit. No one cares. You've already been BTFO.

>>1489817
kill urself my man

File: 1462750347518.gif (413KB, 410x320px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 410x320px

>>1489713
Those are called coups d'état.

-The Barons War
-The Glorious Revolution
-The Fronde

The English Civil War.

Look at this wiki list of prominent Roundheads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roundheads

Notice how theres quite a few Earls, Baronets and even Dukes in there?

>>1489713
Murder of Caesar was committed by aristocrats.

>>1494320

And, for that matter, Caesar himself was very much born at the top of the social heap of his society.

>>1489713
American revolution

>>1490225
>completely trumped by revolutions or movements of bourgeoisie

but that wasnt the question in the OP, dipshit

>>1489713
>>1489730
This the American Revolution.

It was carried out by the colonial Elites and oligarchs.

File: 1465139968497.jpg (125KB, 960x810px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 960x810px

>>1489713
The early democracies in Greece and Italy chasing outhe the kings.

>>1489713
"Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450.[2][3] Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. The process was termed "The Glorious Revolution".[4]

King James's policies of religious tolerance after 1685 met with increasing opposition by members of leading political circles, who were troubled by the king's Catholicism and his close ties with France. [...]
William's successful invasion of England with a Dutch fleet and army led to his ascending of the English throne as William III of England

>>1494784
Or republics, rather. It took several civil wars to turn the Roman Republic into something resembling a democracy.

>>1489713
who is this nutsplat aristocrat