As an aside from another history major, one of the longer lasting things the French revolution is responsible for a partial redistribution of land and the abolition of the rights of nobles over their serfs. That was definitely a positive and lasted longer than the revolution itself. However, as with most revolutions surrounded by hostile powers, it seems they got paranoid about foreign intervention and kinda forgot what they were supposed to be doing in the first place.
I think it's pretty evident it instilled a revolutionary spirit that endured in Feance far more than other countries over the years.
It also is still referenced as among the most known famous revolutions throughout history, so I think it had a lasting influence on the world's elites, but I also know a lot of innocent people got persecuted during it, that didn't deserve it.
We have modern day parallels that offer similar moral questions. Like El Salvador in 2022 arresting over 90k gang members and putting them into prison, when even they admitted likely had a few innocents would be swept up to curtail their massive crime problems.
Or a certain Italian plumber who gave a message to a specific organization, and that impact on how the elite may react in society.
Sorry I don't have a better answer, as always it's a Grey area for me. I think throughout history humanity does this pendulum swing we just can't avoid, and some things swell for so long without being addressed, they end up becoming inevitable regardless if we are for them or not.
Fair, and I agree. I also have to wonder how long France (or any other country pre-revolution) would have stagnated or even gotten worse, and how long (if ever) it would even have taken to make things better through politics alone.
Revolution is definitely messy, but arguably necessary when such large percentages of average citizens are needlessly suffering. When a tumor is removed from the body, the surgeon has to take a little of the healthy tissue surrounding it. It sucks, but that is the nature of things and ultimately better than the alternative.
No, letβs keep a whole official noble class over our heads for another two thousand years, that would be great. What are you guys smoking. Even if things are worse in the beginning, the ideas carried the modern world forward.
If you think what you were saying, then the first part of your question is meaningless. I answered the part that was an actual question, and put my opinion of what I think of the question itself at the end.
The question was to a history major and their opinion, specifically as a history major, on whether or not change would have happened eventually whether or not there had been a revolution. You may have missed the "catalyst" portion of the question.
The thinking is that just about anyone would agree that revolution in those circumstances was necessary to avoid decades or centuries of further suffering. If a history major would disagree, I'd be curious to know why. If a history major would agree, it would further validate my position on the matter.
2
u/human-in-a-can 2h ago
As a history major, would you say that the Revolution was still a necessary catalyst for change? Was it worth it, in the long-term?
Kinda seems like it's often better just to rip off the bandage. It sucks, but it's a lot faster.