French Revolution

[silverstar]

The Bastille was stormed in summer of 1789 and perhaps
that event was the first signal that the days of the
French Monarchy and aristocratic rule were numbered.


The French King had supported the revolutionaries in America
with finance and arms.
The French were taking quiet satisfaction in seeing those
upstart colonists putting the British nose out of joint.


Perhaps the French did nt realise that those revolutionary ideas
would soon cross the Atlantic and threaten their own society.

That the very same King who had given aid and comfort to the rebels would one day climb the scaffold to face the guillotine and the humiliation of a public execution.

(Perhaps the British took quiet satisfaction at seeing that ? )

[clackers]

It was complicated for the British, Silverstar.

It's true the French had financed the American Revolution (according to Bicheno's Rebels and Redcoats, a lump sum of four million livres in January 1777, equal to the average yearly income of 42,000 families, and two million livres annually after that), supplied the standard musket of the Continental Army, and made defeat of Lord Cornwallis possible with the only French victory over the Royal Navy since 1690. Most of the troops at Yorktown were Frogs, too ... not just the one comic relief character you see in Mel Gibson's The Patriot! :)

This had cost so much the French economy was in fact suffering, and the people were ripe for rebellion.

So the British naturally had no fondness for the royal Bourbon family, and initially stayed out of warring with the new Assembly.

But when the Assembly actually executed Louis XVI, they got alarmed ... it's dangerous for monarchies when one of their own, even an enemy, is killed by commoners ... their own population might violently review the idea that some people are born to rule, others are born to be ruled.

Britain ended up joining a coalition of monarchies in 1793 and didn't stop fighting and financing until 1815 ...

[glyn]

It was complicated for the British, Silverstar.

It's true the French had financed the American Revolution (according to Bicheno's Rebels and Redcoats, a lump sum of four million livres in January 1777, equal to the average yearly income of 42,000 families, and two million livres annually after that), supplied the standard musket of the Continental Army, and made defeat of Lord Cornwallis possible with the only French victory over the Royal Navy since 1690. Most of the troops at Yorktown were Frogs, too ... not just the one comic relief character you see in Mel Gibson's The Patriot! :)

This had cost so much the French economy was in fact suffering, and the people were ripe for rebellion.

So the British naturally had no fondness for the royal Bourbon family, and initially stayed out of warring with the new Assembly.

But when the Assembly actually executed Louis XVI, they got alarmed ... it's dangerous for monarchies when one of their own, even an enemy, is killed by commoners ... their own population might violently review the idea that some people are born to rule, others are born to be ruled.

Britain ended up joining a coalition of monarchies in 1793 and didn't stop fighting and financing until 1815 ...

No wonder the name Albion is prefixed with the word perfidious!

[cato]

Silverstar,
The late Enlightenment ideals that drove the Americans were not universialy embraced by the French. The ideals of liberty, freedom of speech, assembly, property, reasonable commerce found root most often in the nobility and upper classes, Lafyette being but one example of many(Simon Schama's "citizen nobility"). It was "anger and hunger" that motivated the revolution, from the bottom up.

After the Crown's credit collapsed, a number of remedies were attempted such as free-trade of grain and the dissolution of the guilds, the removal of venal offices, and noble (tax exemption)priviledge. None of these worked, each managed to alianate a segment of the population, and the hard winter and subsequent dearth of 1787-88 exacerbated the problem. While funding the American Revolution certainly put serious strains on the French treasury, from what I understand the continued expenditure on an expensive foreign policy (attempting to follow up the American's victory and Suffren's successes in the Indian Ocean) really removed any wiggle room the Crown may have had in terms of floating new loans in Amsterdam and Zurich. However, Louis's fate was ultimately his own, proving that "absolutism without conviction" is truly hazardous to a monarch's health. In the end the French Revolution had more in common with the Russian than American one.

Cato

[silverstar]

you can t help thinking there were hidden forces manipulating
things, and that these secret forces brought on the French Revolution
and stirred up the populace.
There were bread riots and the price of food was rising
but there were also reports of grain shipments being hijacked and the grain set on fire, so there were saboteurs at work.

But is there something in the water of Paris that makes the
Parisians so fond of rioting ?
There were anti monarchy riots in 1830
There were the riots of 1848
There was the Paris Commune in 1871 in which 40,000 plus died
as the French army took back control of the city from the Communards.
Even as late as 1968 Paris came to a standstill with rioting
but nothing as serious as the past.

Then in 2005 the paris riots (mainly in the suburbs ) with hundreds of cars and buses torched.

The words Paris and Revolution somehow seem to go together.

[dave lukins]

At the end of the day it is the French beating up the French. Some of the Leaders even met Mme Guillotine at the hands of the people they were "helping". It was a period when nobody was safe. You could be killed for not wearing the Citizens badge in your headress, or for wearing a Green coat!! Like you said it must be something in the water, maybe the should change the name of the Seine to the InSeine:))

[silverstar]

gotta say though that the French Rev really woke up a sleeping
giant, the French had a huge population back then
and were under attack by the Prussians , allied with the old
imperial powers, and yet they somehow overcame internal and external opposition and their armies had victory after victory in austria spain italy germany prussia etc
Napoleon brought about a new world order and put his relatives on the thrones of many european countries.

The invasion of Russia was a bridge too far... it was madness
if he had decided instead to consolodate his power and dominance of
Europe things might have ended up very differently...
we might all be speaking French !

[pate]

I speak a bit of French... A friend of mine said they had a eupheism for the Guilluotine, something like 'a voir la petite fenetre' or something, roughly translated as 'looking out the little window' the window being the place they put your head before lopping it off...

He also said, that for a little while, there was some justice... If there was somebody that truly deserved it, they were quietly hustled away and disposed of by the neighborhood... I got the impression that he felt it turned sour when it ceased to be individuals settling scores and became a government settling scores, then a government finding scape-goats and ultimately a government quelling opposition... Sort of ironic that it started out with a people quietly killing the symbols of what was viewed as a corrupt monarchy and descended into a corrupt democracy loudly disposing of its proclaimed 'enemies' and ultimately an Emporer (sp) cementing his hold on the people...

What sort of French would we all be speaking if Napoleon hadn't taken over, (wasn't L'academie Francais established in his time?) weren't the local dialects of Normandy and the Langedoc among others stamped out in a rather draconian fashion in favor of the Parisian french dialect? I may be wrong of course...

[clackers]

gotta say though that the French Rev really woke up a sleeping
giant, the French had a huge population back then
and were under attack by the Prussians , allied with the old
imperial powers, and yet they somehow overcame internal and external opposition and their armies had victory after victory in austria spain italy germany prussia etc
Napoleon brought about a new world order and put his relatives on the thrones of many european countries.

Well, it's a pretty complicated issue, Silverstar ... you can treat Napoleon one of two ways ... as a practical implementer of the principles of the Revolution, realizing that for stability you had to fit in with the existing royalties of Europe and recognize that the Church still had attractions for much of the Frog working class ... or as traitor to its principles, becoming Emperor and accommodating the Pope ...

The invasion of Russia was a bridge too far... it was madness if he had decided instead to consolodate his power and dominance of Europe things might have ended up very differently...
we might all be speaking French !

The war with Russia was an unwanted one, Silverstar ... Napoleon desired peace with Russia, but Alexander certainly didn't want peace with Revolutionary France ... a story repeated several times over with Britain, Prussia and Austria ...

[Strompy]

Well, it's a pretty complicated issue, Silverstar ... you can treat Napoleon one of two ways ... as a practical implementer of the principles of the Revolution, realizing that for stability you had to fit in with the existing royalties of Europe and recognize that the Church still had attractions for much of the Frog working class ... or as traitor to its principles, becoming Emperor and accommodating the Pope ...



The war with Russia was an unwanted one, Silverstar ... Napoleon desired peace with Russia, but Alexander certainly didn't want peace with Revolutionary France ... a story repeated several times over with Britain, Prussia and Austria ...

Alexander couldn't give a stuff about 'Revolutionary France'. Anyways, France was a dictatorship after 18 Brumaire. No, Napoleon invaded Russia to enforce the continental blockade, i.e. he invaded Russia to defeat Britain. Russia flaunted the blockade because trade with Britain was vital to Russia's economy.

[Strompy]

The Bastille was stormed in summer of 1789 and perhaps
that event was the first signal that the days of the
French Monarchy and aristocratic rule were numbered.


The French King had supported the revolutionaries in America
with finance and arms.
The French were taking quiet satisfaction in seeing those
upstart colonists putting the British nose out of joint.


Perhaps the French did nt realise that those revolutionary ideas
would soon cross the Atlantic and threaten their own society.

That the very same King who had given aid and comfort to the rebels would one day climb the scaffold to face the guillotine and the humiliation of a public execution.

(Perhaps the British took quiet satisfaction at seeing that ? )

The British supported the initial aims of the revolution(Britain had gone through a similar period of enlightenment in the 17th century. Glorious Revolution, 1689 Bill of Rights, etc, etc,.). The idea of a French constitutional monarchy was quite popular in Britain. It was only once that the mass murder started that opinions began to change.

Yeah, Tis kinda of ironic that French support for the Americans put the final nail in the French economy which in turn led to the revolution in France.

[clackers]

What sort of French would we all be speaking if Napoleon hadn't taken over, (wasn't L'academie Francais established in his time?) weren't the local dialects of Normandy and the Langedoc among others stamped out in a rather draconian fashion in favor of the Parisian french dialect? I may be wrong of course...

French (presumably the Parisian variety) was the ... er ... lingua franca ... of diplomacy long before Napoleon, Pate. John Quincy Adams was an excellent speaker.

In fact, European nobles like Czar Alexander spoke better French than the Corsican Ogre!

[clackers]

No, Napoleon invaded Russia to enforce the continental blockade, i.e. he invaded Russia to defeat Britain. Russia flaunted the blockade because trade with Britain was vital to Russia's economy.

As late as January 1812, Napoleon wrote to his brother saying he hadn't lost hope of a peaceful settlement. But this was wishful thinking. The single biggest reason for war breaking out was his support for a Polish state, which the Russians were never going to accept.

As Zamoyski writes in Moscow 1812, a memorandum was written explaining:

"France wanted Russia's friendship and needed her as an ally in her struggle against Britain, which was the one remaining obstacle to a general peace. She did not want to fight Russia as there was nothing she wanted to take from her. Also, she had more pressing business in Spain, which required Napoleon's personal attention"

But the Little Corporal believed the moment he went to Spain to take command of the Peninsular War, his 'ally' Alexander would turn on him as the Austrians had done in 1809, and invade the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

[pate]

French (presumably the Parisian variety) was the ... er ... lingua franca ... of diplomacy long before Napoleon, Pate. John Quincy Adams was an excellent speaker.

In fact, European nobles like Czar Alexander spoke better French than the Corsican Ogre!

French was at one time considered the language of science as well. Anyhow since you have fallen into my trap I have a few links for you: (sorry about using wikipedia, but it does give a brief overview that can get one started digging deeper)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language

History
Further information: Occitan literature
Occitan was the vehicle for the influential poetry of the medieval troubadours. With the gradual imposition of French royal power over its territory, Occitan declined in status from the 14th century on. By the Edict of Villers-Cotterets (1539) it was decreed that the langue d'oïl (Northern French) should be used for all French administration. Occitan's greatest decline was during the French Revolution, during which diversity of language was considered a threat. The literary renaissance of late 19th century (which included a Nobel Prize for Frédéric Mistral) was attenuated by the First World War, where Occitan speakers spent extended periods of time alongside French-speaking comrades.

Quite an interesting article if you care to read it. I spent some time in south of France in my teens, and here in Missouri I worked at a French restaurant owned by a Provencal native, le chef de cuisine a Parisian, and myself (a Midwesterner by birth; transplant by family with deep roots in the bayou) as the sous chef... Anyhow, native speakers of Occitan tend to clam up and speak 'normal' French if you wander by and they are speaking their native language, at least that's how it was when I was there... They seem a bit embarrassed, I was told by the owner of the restaurant that it was a legacy from the French Revolution, and also told by the family I stayed with in S. France basically the same thing...



Overview of the L'acadamie Francais (I was wrong about Napolean instituting it, kudos to you):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3...fran%C3%A7aise

Opposing regional languages
The Académie française interfered in June 2008 in the French Parliament discussions about regional languages (Basque, Breton, Catalan, and Corsican), when it protested against constitutional protection for them.

I see they are still at it...




A bit about the Norman dialect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language

Geographical distribution
Norman is spoken in mainland Normandy in France where it has no official status, but is classed as a regional language.

-----

The last native speakers of Auregnais, the Norman language of Alderney, died during the 20th century, although some rememberers still exist. The dialect of Herm also lapsed, at an unknown date.

Ah, but then that wasn't REAL French was it?



Here's one that makes it all even more confusing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proven%C3%A7al_(dialect)

...In the English-speaking world, "Provençal" is often used to refer to all dialects of Occitan, but it actually refers specifically to the dialect spoken in Provence...

My head is beginning to spin, but I'm almost there, hold on!



This last one is about a place far from the Continent, but south of the town where my grandfather grew up (I think, maybe we just have family up thataway...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provencal,_Louisiana

No idea what type of French if any they speak there...



And lastly I give you Cajun: (according to the wiki-entry I qualify as a minority!!! Wow, and I thought I was American...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun

Ethnic group of national origin
The Cajuns retain a unique dialect of the French language and numerous other cultural traits that distinguish them as an ethnic group. Cajuns were officially recognized by the U.S. government as a national ethnic group in 1980 per a discrimination lawsuit filed in federal district court. Presided over by Judge Edwin Hunter, the case, known as Roach v. Dresser Industries Valve and Instrument Division (494 F.Supp. 215, D.C. La., 1980), hinged on the issue of the Cajuns' ethnicity. Significantly, Judge Hunter held in his ruling that:

“ We conclude that plaintiff is protected by Title VII's ban on national origin discrimination. The Louisiana Acadian (Cajun) is alive and well. He is 'up front' and 'main stream.' He is not asking for any special treatment. By affording coverage under the 'national origin' clause of Title VII he is afforded no special privilege. He is given only the same protection as those with English, Spanish, French, Iranian, Portuguese, Mexican, Italian, Irish, et al., ancestors.

Wow, I just learned something too... How can I exploit this??



Anyhow, my main point was that the French Revolution did much to stamp out the vibrancy of the French Language, you don't normally learn this stuff in a 'normal' French class with a 'normal' French teacher... Needless to say, my French est horrible, mais je bien comprends... sort of...

The one thing the L'acadamie Francais does is attempt to ossify the language in the 18th siecle, at the cost of stamping out most of the regional 'French' that can still be found within its borders, ie the non-Parisian French... At least that's how I see it. The French Revolution was an awful parody of the American Revolution...

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant or whatever!;)

[clackers]

Anyhow, my main point was that the French Revolution did much to stamp out the vibrancy of the French Language, you don't normally learn this stuff in a 'normal' French class with a 'normal' French teacher... Needless to say, my French est horrible, mais je bien comprends... sort of...

The one thing the L'acadamie Francais does is attempt to ossify the language in the 18th siecle, at the cost of stamping out most of the regional 'French' that can still be found within its borders, ie the non-Parisian French...

But that in itself was a feature of 'modernizing' the society, Pate ... a tendency to adopt a common language throughout a country, usually the dialect of the dominant province, state or kingdom.

You don't need a formal Academy to make that happen. Just look at the countries that don't have one.

Italy's got the same issue (culturally, Venetians have had almost as close a connection to Vienna as Rome).

High German is dominant, to the point that as I understand it, Berlin is a pocket of it surrounded by Low German speakers.

English (including the sort spoken in the triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London) has won out over the centuries at the expense of the 'Gaelic' languages of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, etc.

But recent years have been encouraging. Globalization has its limits. Not everyone wants the world to end up speaking just English or Mandarin. The EU in particular wants to do what it can to preserve what is distinctive about the sort of subcultures you've talked about.

It won't be easy, but perhaps Catalan, Norman, Breton, and the other varieties you've mentioned can co-exist with the official language in some form in the future. The louder and prouder they are (ie in Canada, Quebec French vs English), the better their chances.

PS As for your French cooking, Pate, I remember reading Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential, where he writes about the difference between a dish prepared by a chef and one by us, the general public. I laughed when he put it down to the amount of butter used!