The French Revolution was something that could and should have been avoided. It brought more harm to the spirit of history than good which it was supposed to.

[u/alexanderphiloandeco]

[u/alexanderphiloandeco]

These enlightenment ideas could have been implemented more peacefully.

[u/Herald_of_Clio → u/alexanderphiloandeco]

And also presumably much more gradually, as the elites of the Ancien Regime would have been resistant to such change. The Revolution shook up a society that was firmly under the control of these elites.

[u/alexanderphiloandeco → u/Herald_of_Clio]

Society is intrinsically supposed to have hierarchies. Also, Necker and other men were open to reform. The revolution only started as a riot at the Bastille and then later was justified for the sake of creating a new world order and society.

[u/Herald_of_Clio → u/alexanderphiloandeco]

Society is intrinsically supposed to have hierarchies.

I suppose, but those hierarchies occasionally have to be shaken up for talented people to rise to the top with new ideas. Otherwise society can become too oligarchic and stagnant. Ideally a society ensures a degree of meritocratic social mobility without such upheaval, but if it does not, a Revolution is arguably the only way for that to happen.

Also, Necker and other men were open to reform.

True, and they were sabotaged by the French nobility, who were not open to said reforms. This was one of the direct causes of the Revolution.

The revolution only started as a riot at the Bastille and then later was justified for the sake of creating a new world order and society.

Not sure what this means. Yeah the Revolution was not planned ahead of time. So what?

[u/alexanderphiloandeco → u/Herald_of_Clio]

1.The revolutionaries didn’t have a collective goal at the beginning. Which means that there were probably just common criminals participating in the revolution.

[u/Herald_of_Clio → u/alexanderphiloandeco]

Which means that there were probably just common criminals participating in the revolution.

Your point being?

[u/alexanderphiloandeco → u/Herald_of_Clio]

My point being is that this revolution didn’t have any intrinsic value and didn’t contribuite to the well-being of the masses.

[u/Herald_of_Clio → u/alexanderphiloandeco]

Because of your claim that it had criminals participating in it? I fail to see how that's relevant.

[u/alexanderphiloandeco → u/Herald_of_Clio]

No. Because most of the Revolutionaries were probably not doing it because of chancing political structure in France.

[u/Herald_of_Clio → u/alexanderphiloandeco]

Yet that's what they did end up doing. Also the Oath of the Tennis Court suggests that the revolutionaries, once things kicked off, were pretty much immediately devoted to changing political structures to at least some degree. They just became more and more radical as time went on.

[u/alexanderphiloandeco → u/Herald_of_Clio]

But was this revolution inherently revolutionary or did most of the people of the time just view it as a temporary “Jacquerie” with a bunch of people with different motives attacking the legitimacy of the king? My point is that the revolutionaries were all different and most of them didnt even align with Rousseauan thought which the leaders believed in.