Was the French revolution a good thing?

>>2342129
Was I being born a good thing? There's your answer.

>>2342142
No

File: ourworldindata_percentage-of-years-in-which-the-great-powers-fought-one-another-1500–2000.png (302KB, 3000x2325px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 3000x2325px

The Terror was excessive and the ultimate restoration of the Bourbons made it a short-term failure, but the sloughing off of the old European order was necessary. In the long term, universal rights and the rule of law have led to the most peaceful (see image) and prosperous times in human history.

>>2342191
>but the sloughing off of the old European order was necessary
Why? That order lead to great success of many countries. Also a reminder the values of the French revolution hadn't effected parts of central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe as severely. Russia was arguably the same in tell the 1917.

>>2342191
The terror was absolutely necessary.

>>2342129
imo no

>>2342129
It was the greatest event in human history

>>2342299

Absolutely not. The most successful country of the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain, gradually adopted Enlightenment principles with relatively little violence (after Cromwell that is). Feudalism and absolutism benefited no one but the moribund aristocracy.

Russia wasn't "arguably the same until 1917" it had been undergoing massive industrialization for the past few decades and would have steamrolled Germany and Austria were the Great War a decade later, and serfdom ended, formally in 1867.

>>2342129
No

>>2342329
As far as adopting the values of the French revolution? No. Russia never did that, as I implied. Neither did Prussia to an extent.

As for the most successful country, you only prove my point. GB didn't sperg out like the French. The rest of Europe didn't gain much from having the Old order foisted away from them beyond their will.

>>2342129
The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few

>>2342337
>GB didn't sperg out like the French
They did, they just did so earlier. More than 100,000 people died in the English Civil Wars

>>2342337

The values of the Enlightenment are intertwined with the values of capitalism and meritocracy over aristocracy. Russia was the only major absolute monarchy left in Europe by 1914.

>>2342329
this, it was the Christian basis that led to a non-violent regime change.
>>2342191
*tips Communist Manifesto
>wonders at the use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

there's a certain degeneracy that accompanies atheism, materialism (economic) and blind progressivism (tradition should be spurned and burned mentality)
Sort yourself out,kid.

>>2342337
>Neither did Prussia to an extent
Prussia was one of the country's that most heavily borrowed from the French Revolution

>>2342129
Yes, the birth of nationalism and the death of a static aristocratic caste system was great for the vast majority of the population.

The tenets of the Revolution were betrayed though, as with time national interests slowly shifted to individual interests, which pretty much led to a new oligarchic system.

>>2342299
>Also a reminder the values of the French revolution hadn't effected parts of central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe as severely
They did eventually, and these are the shittiest parts of Europe, so I don't really see how that is an argument for the influence of the French Revolution being negative.

Not at all.
>>2342191
Why are those things good?

>>2342354
Not the values so much. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

>>2342365
They absolutely did though. Read up on the Prussian reform movement.

>>2342350

>everything i don't like is duhgenewacy

I think Bismark adopted the liberals demands into the government constitution in a realpoltick move to take the wind out of the reformers sails

Nothing french is ever good

>>2342129
No, it's immoral to rebel against your king. Also it led to atheism and moral decay.

>>2342364

>"Why are these things good?" he types from his computer (a product of technological progress, free communication guaranteed by the legal right to free speech) in his house (protected by a strict legal code and law enforcement which punishes crimes against person and property after a trial with due process), while living in a country not ravaged by war (product of diplomacy and globalization making great powers reliant on each other).

>>2342412
Not an argument.

>>2342350
>degeneracy
>>2342411
>moral decay

If you're using the conventional definitions of those terms, the Revolutionaries were surely less degenerate and immoral than their predecessors. The ancien regime privileged orders were deviant as fuck, while Robespierre and his crew were downright puritanical

>>2342411

>my family has to survive on one loaf of bread a month and i have no way to air my grievances other than through the effectively powerless third estate

>at least we're not degenerate atheists

>>2342447
But you see, it's better for most of the population to be miserable if it means they are forced to follow *my* wonderful special snowflake ideas about what is morally right

goat historical event tbqh

>>2342435
It's still immoral to rebel.

>>2342447
Louis XVI ended the state monopoly on grain and made bread cheaper, he was a good man and a good king and the people were wrong to betray him.

>>2342474
>It's still immoral to rebel.
Why?

>>2342474

They didn't; they rebelled against the lords. Louis would have been fine if he didn't try to escape to Austria.

>>2342474
>It's still immoral to rebel.
Even if your king is immoral?

>>2342474
When a monarch messes up, it is the peoples right to depose him.

>>2342474
>Louis XVI ended the state monopoly on grain and made bread cheaper, he was a good man and a good king
Is it weird if I actually agree with this, but still think the French Revolution was good? Like, Louis XVI seems like a nice guy and a decent, if indecisive, ruler, but nevertheless the form of government he represented was illegitimate and needed to be annihilated, and he just had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time

>>2342483
Christ told us to obey earthly authorities

>>2342486
Yes, Aquinas lays it out pretty well that you should practically never rebel

>>2342487
No

>>2342492
>unironically thinks the reign of terror regime was more illegitimate than the ancient regime of France.

>>2342495
But muh liberty, equality and fraternity...

>>2342498
I believe the exact of opposite of that, though. Monarchy is an inherently illegitimate form of government, and the Reign of Terror was based.

>>2342495

% chance that this anon refers to other people as "cucks"?

>>2342506
0%, not an alt-right weenie

>>2342495
Literal slave mentality

>>2342512
Paradoxically the less you care about being a slave the more free you will be

File: Charles_II_(1670-80).jpg (169KB, 674x880px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 674x880px

Remember, this literal downie had the right to govern as an absolute monarch because jeeeesus said so

>>2342495
>Christ told us to obey earthly authorities
and Moses led the exodus out of Egypt, where his people were treated unjustly, if that's not an act of rebellion I don't know what is

>>2342537
The difference being that Moses obeyed God whereas the revolutionaries murdered clergy.

>>2342506
% chance that this anon refers to other people as "nazis"?

>>2342543
clergy who were intertwined with the plutocracy that exploited god's suffering and poor people

>>2342543
That's a pretty walk back from your original position that rebellion is never justified, but anyway the clergy hardly spoke for God.

>>2342543
The revolutionaries were honestly more godly than the average ancien regime clergyman, and probably included a roughly similar proportion of atheists

>>2342558
There was no plutocracy

>>2342563
>That's a pretty walk back from your original position that rebellion is never justified

Thomas Aquinas does give us one condition where rebellion can be justified, but it was not the case with the French Revolution

>The revolutionaries were honestly more godly than the average ancien regime clergyman, and probably included a roughly similar proportion of atheists

No one who goes around murdering people and turning the country upside-down can be called "godly"

>>2342582
>No one who goes around murdering people and turning the country upside-down can be called "godly"
The ancien regime had been doing that for hundreds of years

>>2342585
Not really, no. Care to provide examples?

>>2342582
The clergy suffered the same fate the aristocracy, the divine thunderbolts of the peoples will,they were dropped back into the void for failing their duties

>>2342585

but that's okay because muh divine right

Surely if rebellion is never justified, then I guess the Terror was mostly okay, since they were mostly killing rebels

>>2342590
The ancien regime had capital punishment too, and executed plenty of people for a whole variety of reasons, including treason (which was what most people executed in the Terror were executed for). There had also been numerous civil wars in French history, mostly caused by the aristocracy.

>>2342611
There is nothing wrong (in principle) with capital punishment, but there is a lot wrong with overthrowing the government. With civil wars, while they may or may not be unjust, people are still required to obey authority except when they're told to do immoral things. Even then it's still wrong to overthrow the government.

>>2342635
Most of the people executed in Revolution were executed because they were trying to overthrow the government

>>2342643
There is nothing wrong with opposing a revolution

>>2342655
There is nothing wrong with executing the will of the people

>>2342669
Executing the will of the people isn't a legitimate reason to overthrow a government

>>2342672
More legitimate than opposing a just revolution

>>2342655
The monarchy originally came to power through overthrowing a previous government too, y'know. In that sense the revolutionaries were opposing a revolution

>>2342701
Revolutions are almost never just

>>2342704
The monarchy had been in power for nearly 1000 years and at the end of the day a Christian monarchy is still a Christian monarchy

>>2342129
>Was the single most destructive event in the entire history of humanity a good thing?
Gee I don't know.

>>2342711
Putting aside your religious bias, the King broke his contract with the people when he ruined the countries economy, causing starvation and hardship. The people have the right to remove an unjust ruler.

>>2342711

Jesus Christ, arguing with you is like a brick wall. "x is wrong because god and the king say it is wrong regardless of what's actually going on in the country at the time and because some undefinable degeneracy"

>>2342715

huwhat

>>2342711
>The monarchy had been in power for nearly 1000 years and at the end of the day a Christian monarchy is still a Christian monarchy
Very weak argument. What's the statute of limititations on revolution? How many years do you have to be in power before it's no longer okay to oppose you? The monarchy had definitely seen violent seizures of power more recently than 1000 years BTW

Why say you oppose all revolt when you clearly only oppose it when it is against governments you like, but are okay with it when its governments you don't? Your last statement admits as much.

>>2342715
>>2342728
My bad, second most destructive, the most destructive was the founding of the United States of America in 1776 (which directly inspired the French Revolution).

>>2342715
You miswrote "single most constructive event in the entire history of humanity"

>>2342721
>The people have the right to remove an unjust ruler

No they don't

>>2342729
Wars are going to happen, people seize power, etc. but replacing one Christian monarchy with another is not the same as turning the entire system around with something evil like with the French revolution. It isn't good to cause strife, but it's far worse to attack monarchy and Christianity itself.

>>2342743

lmao stay mad britbongs

Long live the United States, and long love our sister republic, our oldest ally, France!

>>2342748
So suddenly it's not that revolt is inherently bad, just that the revolt lead to something bad. That's called "shifting the goalposts"

>>2342129
Certainly. Without it we wouldn't have capitalism, and without capitalism we wouldn't have socialism in the coming decades.

>>2342752
Not British, just an European who can see the unrepairable damage done by liberalism and democracy, which also spawned socialism and communism.

>>2342760
Revolt is inherently bad, some revolts are worse than others.

>>2342764
>unrepairable damage done by liberalism and democracy
such as?

>>2342768
So, if all revolt is bad, and you admit that the monarchy was born of revolt, then surely it was illegitimate on that basis?

>>2342770

Massive advancements in technology, agriculture, and medicine, the end of wars between great powers, and peaceful transfer of power. The horror!

>>2342776
The Bourbon monarchy was not born out of revolt.

>>2342779
>we're witnessing the fall of Rome all over again.
t. hundreds of thousands of people at various points over the past 1500 years

>>2342779
>democracy and liberalism causing the fall of rome
Non sequitur

>>2342779
>we're witnessing the fall of Rome all over again.

Peaceful mode of production change? Where? Or do you mean "balkanization"? Where?

Also, the crisis we're currently in is the result of capitalism's structure, and has nothing to do with ideology.

>>2342770
Other than the aforementioned socialism and communism, we're witnessing the fall of Rome all over again. A long new Dark Age is awaiting us.

>>2342783
The French monarchy certainly was

>>2342791
>house of bourbon's reign in 1780s
>originated with revolt

Pick one

I wonder where all the Roman abstract art was during its fall.

>>2342794
The House of Bourbon was a branch of the House of Valois, which was a branch of the Capetians, which originated in revolt. The Capetians overthrew the Carolingians, who themselves had overthrown the Merovingians, who themselves had overthrown the Romans

>>2342805
>The Capetians overthrew the Carolingians

No, the Capetians were elected by the nobles after the Carolingians died out.

>>2342803
Most likely scattered across the floor of a banquet after an orgy.

>>2342524
>freedom is slavery

>>2342818
Not being so attached to the world and your status in it is freedom

>>2342811
Not originally. That is what happened in 987, but the first Capetian to sit in the throne of France was Odo who became King in 888 when the Carolingian Charles the Fat was deposed. It was through him that the later Capetian claim was based.

Either way, it all goes back to revolt at some point

>>2342823
That's apathy.

>>2342823
If you redefine words, they can mean anything you want.

>>2342824
If the Carolingians are all gone and Hugh Capet is elected king then you can hardly say the Bourbons were a result of revolt. There isn't really any alternative at that point but to accept the House of Capet.

>>2342829
No, not being too attached to the world doesn't mean you don't care about it at all.

>>2342851
It does when you're so detached you become okay with your own slavery.
That's the ultimate form of apathy.

>>2342843
The Carolingians weren't actually all gone, Louis V (last Carolingian) had a still living uncle (Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine) who was passed over in favour of Hugh Capet, who then had to defeat Charles in battle. So it all comes down to force.

Actually, the reason Charles was passed over was the same reason Louis XVI was executed: consorting with foreign enemies (in this case, Otto of the HRE). So if the Capetian dynasty (and thus the Bourbons) are legitimate, then so too must the deposition of Louis XVI be legitimate

>>2342867
Yes yes everyone who doesn't agree with everything you say is a slave.

yet you call the people who suck your fat opinion dick "enlightened" without a real argument on your side.

I say you're a con artist and a charlatan.

>>2342882
Not an argument

>>2342882
That's not what he said at all you butthurt faggot

>>2342882
I'm neither of those things. Apathy is by no means freedom.

>>2342887
>>2342893
Con artists spotted. You live in the slavery of your own device and call yourself enriched.

>>2342905
Kek, what sort of "deep" nonsense is this. I bet you think you are so enlightened, rising about all the sheep. Why else would be so triggered by someone daring to disagree with you?

@2342905
Autism

>>2342905

literally FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

>>2342874
I might be inclined to even think about agreeing if Louis XVI were replaced with another Christian monarch rather than a shitshow

>>2342191
What finished off the Old European Order was nationalism. You can say that nationalism was something of a byproduct of the revolution, but saying revolution deposed it is nonsense.

>>2342981
Well, thank god he wasn't. Instead of another worthless "Christian monarch" (who are all scum and deserve exactly what Louis XVI got) we got a glorious Republic that represented the absolute pinnacle of human achievement

>>2342990
Nationalism was a lot more than a byproduct, it was a direct result of the Revolution. And liberalism, republicanism, and democracy, which all spread due to the Revolution also played a part

>>2342990

...what do you think kick started nationalism you dong? That's right, the French Revolution. Never before had as much nationalistic propaganda been used before. Never before had a war been fought mobilising the entire nation to fight and produce war goods.

The Revolution began nationalism when it made a rule of law to govern the entire land instead of contradicting jurisdictions governed by parochial lords.

The French Revolution is the birth place of nationalism.

>>2343008
>nationalism
>liberalism
>republicanism
>democracy

wtf i hate all those things

>>2343019
But the French revolution didn't depose shit, it actually put yet another monarch on the throne. The fact it eventually butterfly effected nationalism into the mainstream is irrelevant, you might as well claim Genghis Khan put a man on the moon by this logic.

File: image.jpg (84KB, 540x606px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 540x606px

>>2342129
>mfw monarcucks rebuttal are nothing but spooks
Daily reminder the Robesippre did nothing wrong

>>2343032
>he thinks that robespierre didn't believe in spooks

>>2343027
What are you talking about? Originally, the Revolution lead to a Republic. If the other monarch you refer to is Napoleon, he was a nationalist who played a major role in spreading French ideas of nationalism to the rest of Europe. The French Revolution was THE single most important event in the spread of nationalism

>>2343059
You can believe in spooks and still do nothing wrong

>>2343032
>liberty
>equality
>enlightement
>secular humanism
These are all textbook spooks

>>2343059
>implying I said that
Still did nothing wrong

>>2343027

Firstly, the Republic didn't put Napoleon onto his throne, Napoleon, Sieyes and the army saw to that.

I see you're a man who is unable to understand nuance but that's ok. What it did was streamline laws from parochial and localist powers (very monarchical) to a national, all encompassing jurisdiction found in the state. It brought down the idea that the monarch was untouchable and couldn't be put on trial (effectively meaning that the nation was above the state).

In terms of its relationship with the Church it made, yet again, the state come before the Pope and changed the very idea of how the church functions in a state.

Lastly it created an enormous bourgeois bureaucracy who kept their posts after the Bourbon Restoration and effectively ran the state.

The French experiment with Republicanism laid the groundwork for every modern state like it or not and you have no proof otherwise.

>>2343071
A spook is just something that prevents you from following your own self-interest. These things let Robespierre go from an obscure provincial lawyer to leader of a massive state and a figure of world-historical importance, so for him they were hardly spooks

>>2343091

>nation was above the state

*nation was above the King sorry.

>>2343060
Napoleon was basically yet another enlightened absolutist plus a populist.

>>2343105
That may or may not be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with his and the Revolution's role in spreading nationalism

File: 1480128060828.jpg (58KB, 500x530px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x530px

>>2342412

>>2342360
Nationalism was a bad thing, globalism is the best thing

>>2342129
no, it was too quick and brutal. It also killed our navy, preventing us to finally get rid of the Eternal Anglo which would have been a great thing for the world.

File: 1456510421026.jpg (85KB, 680x458px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 680x458px

>>2343950
Sorry Froggie

>>2343182
How does that comic refute his point? Sounds like some butthurt commie got BTFo and decided to cry about it online.

>>2343182
>He post while being a fucking reactionary.

>>2342525
Reminder that his reign was a good one and helped revitalize the shitty Spanish economy

>>2342485
He didn't try to escape to Austria. He was trying to flee to a stronghold with royalist guards so that he wasn't under the physical threat of the mobs of Paris anymore. One of the reasons the flight to Montmedy was a total shitshow was that he refused to take the quickest route which would have taken them over the Austrian border for a short time, because he didn't want to appear to be fleeing the country itself.

>>2343899
Sure, if you look at absolute numbers.

Globalism creates wealth inequality, and further disempowers inhabitants of the hypothetical globalized country as its fate is now determined more by the country's reliance and optimized outside trade than on the wishes and needs of its population.

>>2344600
Accept the reason Montmedy was selected was because it was close to the frontier with the Austrian Netherlands, and Marie Antoinette had been writing to her brother the Emperor asking him to intervene to help them. Basically as clear a case of treason as you can find.

File: Robespierre.jpg (16KB, 353x347px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 353x347px

>2017
>actually arguing in favor of the divine right to rule

I don't think that head of yours is doing you any favors. Would you mind if I helped you with that?

It began the tide of anti-monarch opinions in Europe with WWI finishing what it started.

>>2344600
Was he a good boy too?

>>2342129
No because it gave road to L'ogre de Corse

>>2342789
Yes, the long dark age of people not being literal serfs and living with two loaves of bread a month.

File: herri.jpg (148KB, 1280x891px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1280x891px

>>2344879
>treason
>the king betrayed himself

>>2344879
>Accept the reason Montmedy was selected was because it was close to the frontier with the Austrian Netherlands

And? The reason it was selected was that it was close enough to the frontier that Austrian troops could rescue them if it came to that. At this point the lives of the royal family--including the children--had been threatened time and time again in Paris without an ounce of consequence from the Parisian government. Mob rule was king, no pun intended.

It was also the marquis de Bouillé who suggested Montmedy in the first place because it was extremely well fortified compared to the other potential destinations and because the local people and soldiers in that area were loyal to the king.

>Marie Antoinette had been writing to her brother the Emperor asking him to intervene to help them

Neither Marie Antoinette or Louis XVI suggested armed intervention until the summer of 1792, which was before the flight. One of the reasons that Axel Fersen became so pissy with the pair of them was that they repeatedly rejected the idea of sending armed troops, foreign or emigre, into the country to put down the revolution. In February 1791, Marie Antoinette wrote to the comte d'Artois to "sacrifice all ideas of counterrevolution" due to his attempts to raise an army. Louis XVI, after the other brother fled across the border, later wrote to them both reaming them out for threatening to invade France with their armies.

Marie Antoinette wrote to the Austrian ambassador 2 months before the flight asking that if they called for help, could they count on it? But "To explain myself still more clearly, we ask no Power to send troops into this country." and that they wanted to be sure that if their lives were in danger, they could easily flee to safety on the frontier.

But, again, as my comment said: he didn't try to flee to Austria. He never planned on fleeing to Austria. One of the major reasons why the flight failed was because he wouldn't leave the country.

>>2345175

The king betrayed the State. Was it not Cardinal Richelieu who said that while man is immortal, the state is not. Therefore man must sacrifice for the state. Louis was a man, he was not the state, he had nothing to lose for his soul was eternal, but for the nation of France there was a real danger of Austrian domination, look at the poor inheritance left by the Habsburg's rule of Spain; real life is not a game of chess - sacrificing the king is sometimes necessary.

>>2345193
King is the state.

>>2343899
>>2344851
>GDP is God
wew. In people's day to day life, whether poor, working class or middle class, GDP is not something they care about.

>>2345193
>the King betrayed the State

The state betrayed the King.

>>2345192

Leaving the capital during a time of disorder is a cardinal sin and is an irrevocable sign that one is unfit to rule.

When Darius III fled he lost his empire. When Charles I fled London he lost the kingdom.

Had Justinian fled the capital during the riots, the empire would no longer be his. Even Hitler knew his history, he refused to abandon Berlin, knowing that the moment he did so, his power would evaporate.

File: 220px-Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg (12KB, 220x267px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x267px

>>2345203
That is an opinion,a blade to the neck is a fact

File: mei changsu.png (230KB, 640x357px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 640x357px

>>2345220
>>2345203

Nice try Hugh Capet.

是天下人的天下!

>>2345233
>Leaving the capital during a time of disorder is a cardinal sin and is an irrevocable sign that one is unfit to rule.

He left the capital so that he could actually speak his mind and rule. Any attempt he made to exercise his rights--given to him by the Constitution he was not allowed to participate in forging--was met with mob violence.

>>2345261
>Hugh instead of Hugues
Whether we're monarchists or republicans at least we should all agree that all Anglos should be gassed.

File: nuffinwrong.png (489KB, 1100x837px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1100x837px

>>2344916

>>2345283

He was unwilling to even entertain the thought of danger when poor men die on the front lines every day.

>He left the capital so that he could actually speak his mind and rule. Any attempt he made to exercise his rights--given to him by the Constitution he was not allowed to participate in forging--was met with mob violence.

You realize that none of this logically contradicts the statement that leaving the capital is proof of the fall of the regime. In fact it only serves to underscore it. Do you get it now? Do I have to meme it for you?

>Do you feel in charge? -t. bane
>No man who has to say "I AM THE KING" truly rules -.t lannister

A king with no power is no king.

>>2345290
Zhukov?
why not Mosley, Martin Luther or someone similarly meme-worthy

>>2345286
You'll have to get across the channel first.

It would be a shame if a coalition were to form and attack you while you were trying.

>>2342412

>he types from his computer

Wow, it's so good that I have a computer, my life would be so empty without it!

>free speech

Doesn't exist in europe.

>protected by a strict legal code and law enforcement which punishes crimes against person and property after a trial with due process

The idea that aristocrats went around seizing lands left and right from peasants is literally made up shit by the "enlightenment" people.

>product of diplomacy and globalization making great powers reliant on each other

Nah, it's just a product of wars being so bloody at this point that nobody wants to fight in them. Countries were reliant on each other in the past too.

>>2345299
>He was unwilling to even entertain the thought of danger when poor men die on the front lines every day.

Because the danger was not just to him, but to his wife, sister, and children. He said in the summer of 1792 that, if he did not have his family's safety to consider, he would show them that he was not who he thought they was.

>You realize that none of this logically contradicts the statement that leaving the capital is proof of the fall of the regime

You don't seem to have an understanding of 18th century France or the French Revolution, to be honest. Paris was the "capital" in name, not in practice, until 1789. Louis XVI did not reside in Paris until 1789.

>A king with no power is no king.

Which is why he wanted to get to a stronghold where he could have power again.

>>2344472
>A Inbred who can barely speak can run Spain better then modern day Spanish

Feels bad man

File: flees capital monarchically.png (213KB, 643x558px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 643x558px

>>2345541

All beating a dead horse. Any king worth his salt wouldn't have lost control of the country in the first place.

The people became king by right of conquest. As their ancestors won the land from the Romans.

>muh sacred kingship

i bet you would have even supported the merovingians over Charles Martel, show what you know of historical necessity.

>>2342337
>implying the Russian revolution wasn't inspired by the French Revolution
>implying the socialist principles proposed by radical revolutionaries im the french revolution weren't the basis for marx, lenin, and communism
>implying socialism wasn't born in France

you might be retarded

File: 1435844781004.png (9KB, 264x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 264x400px

>>2345463
Edgy.

>>2345582
>moving the goalposts

Oh, you're done. ;)

File: Merovingian_Persephone_Leaves.png (341KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1366x768px

>>2345979

Looks like I hit a sore spot there merv. How's the palace treatin ya? When was the last time they let you outside?

Oh btw, that cute servant girl Brunhilda is carrying my child. I fucked every maid in your castle. No one will care when you die.

>>2344916
>Murdering people for "not supporting" the revolution was a good thing