Why is he barely talked about when he seems like one of the most

Barely talked about where? In general? In general the only two figures in France from that period who are talked about are Napoleon and possibly Robespierre.

>>2670379
Thats exactly what Im talking about, its all about Napoleon and Robespierre around here when I think hes up there in terms of influence,

>>2670394
Where/what is 'around here'?

Napoleon and Robespierre are popular figures because there's a great deal of popular controversy surrounding them which Sieyes(though he may be a controversial figure) lacked.

>>2670368
I talked about him in history class. /his/ is a stupid memehole that doesn't talk about lots of important things so don't worry about it.

Sieyes might have seemed right in terms of addressing how unfair the current order was but I think that he made a mistake by publishing 'What is the Third Estate?' He should have known that by writing something so volatile he was laying the seeds for much more than just a bit of tax reform. And we know he wasn't a full-blooded Sans-cullotte because he opposed the abolition of the fucking tithe. If he wanted the peasants to keep acting like peasants he shouldn't have told them that they were anything but shitkicking nobodies.
>YOU, THE WORKERS AND FARMERS ARE THE REAL FORCE BEHIND FRANCE
>cool, we're going to make the church and nobility fuck off forever
>oh shit no don't do that Napoleon pls help

>>2670406
Let's get controversy happening. Sieyes contributed to the collapse of the Catholic world by undermining its own authority. The lower classes didn't realize how important they were until Sieyes went and cut through the spooks that propped up the Old Regime with his manifesto.

>>2670379
Marat is also talked about quite a bit

>>2671861
Marat a shit

File: Saint-Just-French_anon-MBA_Lyon_1955-2-IMG_0450[1].jpg (1MB, 3212x4387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3212x4387px

Why is he barely talked about when he seems like one of the most important figures of the French Revolution?

>>2670368
he was basically irrelevant outside of his pamphlet "what is the third estate?". he participated in all the revolution but he was a minor player in the french revolution

>>2670412
some other pamphleteer would have taken his place. his work was simply the spark that set off the explosion. any other pamphleteer could have taken his place.

>>2673185
fuck i repeated myself

File: cache-13cc90c9-2bc6-49dc-c99e-ee8e81af947b.jpg (106KB, 668x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 668x960px

>>2673116
I want to know that too. He's my historical husbando and way cooler and better than Robespierre.

>>2673185
I think that Sieyes gave the movement a lot more legitimacy than anybody else could have. He wasn't another resentful wagecuck mad about taxes, he was an abbe. The clergy probably could have kept the country in line if they backed the king 100%. Of course Louis' awful leadership is more to blame than anything else but if a clergyman really wanted to take initiative and save France he should have pressured Louis, not the third estate. If somebody had just lit a fire under his ass and forced him to make the obvious changes everything could have probably worked out fine.

>>2673219
that isn''t how the church worked though. Yes sieyes was clergy and so qualified as the first estate, but the catholic church itself was rigidly hierarchical, with nobility having a monopoly on all of the highest posts, and commoners having the whatever was left; most usually scraping a living as parish priests living on a meagre stipend provided by the church. Sieyes was a commoner himself and so was always serving the nobles and quite clearly seeing their abuse of power. He was totally obscure before he published his pamphlet (which by the way, was one among hundreds that proliferated after Louis XVI had announced that he had to call the estates general, which had no met since 1614. Since there had been no estates general in living memory, the pamphlets debated the nature and form that the upcoming assembly should take).