What? France's revolution didn't begin until the 1789, long after when America won the war (1782?)

Louis XVI bankrolled the American Revolution, putting France in enormous debt ( the biggest economic problem in France in 1780s) leading to the French Revolution, then Napoleon.

France was already in debt before the 1780s - that's like saying that, you suicided because you don't have enough money, but you paid your money to the store, so the store killed you.

Xy, if you don't understand cause and effect, why do you think yourself such a smart one?

Because he can't admit that America is or ever was important

Tsh, America is important, but not really until after World War 1. Like I said, France's debt problems originated much earlier, I think from Louis XIV's excessive spendings.

It wasn't really financial, though finance was a factor. They are saying that it was the ideas the ordinary French soldiers were exposed to. They were fighting for equality and freedom. When they came home they looked around at the absolutist monarchy they were under and realized that if it could change in America it could change in France too.

In a similar war Black soldiers posted to Europe during World War II returned to America having seen a world in which things could be different.

The American Revolution opened a Pandora's box for the governments of the day. It started the Age of Revolutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Revolution

Of course you can't reduce the French Revolution to a paragraph but The American Revolution certainly influenced it.

Not really true, the French revolution was mainly influenced by the philosophers and thinkers of the enlightenment period (Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, etc), so even before the American revolution ever happened. Btw, the American revolution was actually influenced by those European thinkers more than the contrary.

And answering to Juq, Russia wasn't the first military power during that period. Compared to western Europe, Russia was still technologically in the middle age. Stop saying insanities.

Louis XVI bankrolled the American Revolution, putting France in enormous debt ( the biggest economic problem in France in 1780s) leading to the French Revolution, then Napoleon.

"The Wars of Religion crippled France in the late 16th century, but a major victory over Spain in the Thirty Years' War made France the most powerful nation on the continent once more. In parallel, France developed its first colonial empire in Asia, Africa, and in the Americas. Under Louis XIV France achieved military supremacy over its rivals, but escalating conflicts against increasingly powerful enemy coalitions checked French ambitions and left the kingdom bankrupt at the opening of the 18th century."

Of course - I said you can't reduce the French Revolution to a paragraph. But I did outline one of the influences - it was definitely a factor just like the factor you outlined.

Here's a primary source:


“Be encouraged, all ye friends of freedom, and writers in its defense! The times are auspicious. Your labours have not been in vain. Behold kingdoms, admonished by you, starting from sleep, breaking their fetters, and claiming justice from their oppressors! Behold, the light you have struck out, after setting America free, reflected to France, and there kindled into a blaze that lays despotism in ashes, and warms and illuminates EUROPE!”
– Richard Price, British philosopher and preacher

http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/american-revolution/impact-other-nations.html

Not true - Russia was not in the middle ages at that time - Yekaterina II did her little assassination, and (ruined Russia) made it much more German in ways. And honestly, Russia was the biggest military power since post-Pyotr I times, due to the really big guns they had, how many big guns they had and how many folk to operate those guns.

Not true - Russia was not in the middle ages at that time - Yekaterina II did her little assassination, and (ruined Russia) made it much more German in ways. And honestly, Russia was the biggest military power since post-Pyotr I times, due to the really big guns they had, how many big guns they had and how many folk to operate those guns.

Wrong, wrong and again wrong Juq, I think your knowledge of history on military/economics as well as historical demographics is quite low.
Just one important thing to remind to you: Russia was way less populated than nowadays, actually less populated than France which was already around 26 million inhabitants before the Napoleonic wars, ranked third just behind China and India in terms of population, that's also why France was the main economic/military power of Europe before the 19th century.

Whereas Russia was really backwards even as later as the Crimean war, the Crimean war demonstrated to the world what no one had previously realized:
Russia was militarily weak, technologically backward, and administratively incompetent. Despite his grand ambitions toward the south and Turkey, Russia had not built its railroad network in that direction, and communications were bad. The bureaucracy was riddled with graft, corruption and inefficiency and was unprepared for war. The Navy was weak and technologically backward; the Army, although very large, was good only for parades, suffered from colonels who pocketed their men's pay, poor morale, and was even more out of touch with the latest technology as developed by Britain and France. As Fuller notes, "Russia had been beaten on the Crimean peninsula, and the military feared that it would inevitably be beaten again unless steps were taken to surmount its military weakness."

Edited 5/5/2015 14:01:19

Hmm, I wonder who wrote that report, a British? The reason Russia lost the Crimean war was because Prussia was too busy to help, and it was 1 versus 3 in a mostly naval conflict. Any power would have trouble with fighting three great powers, that's just the rules. In almost every war, whoever has more folk wins.

Look at the Bar Confederation War, in the same time period - France and Polish revolters teamed up and were destroyed.

Edited 5/5/2015 14:09:29

If your mentioning the Battle of Vienna you should also think about Charles Martell's victory at the Battle of Tours (732)

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=1971

1683 is more famous but Poiters is very much in Western Europe and the Caliphate was seemingly unstoppable at the time. Much more dangerous to Christianity. I personally think part of the defeat of the Muslims was because of being so far away from where they started. But you can't deny that the Christian kingdoms were hugely relieved by the outcome of the battle.

I wonder who wrote that report, a British?

Some serious and highly qualified historians. No need anyway to lie Juq, the Crimean war proved how weak the Russian army and navy were.
You want another proof? The Russo-Japanese war of 1904, Russia had lost two of its three fleets, only its Black Sea Fleet remained. Japan became the sixth-most powerful naval force, while the Russian Navy declined to one barely stronger than that of Austria–Hungary.

As for the Bar Confederation, France was barely present, no army sent, some French magnates helped financially the Polish, and only one general was sent, the general Dumouriez to help organizing their forces. You also forgot to mention that, at the meantime, Prussia and Austria invaded Poland, and that the Bar confederated rebels had to fight the loyal forces of the Polish king as a civil war, so not only the Russians.

The Japanese army won the Russians but poorly victory, another victory like this, and they are lost.
I do not think the Russians had a strong navy, especially weak relative to the British Navy

^ Russia did not have a good navy, the Russian-Japanese war - just look at where the Baltic fleets had to sail from - the Baltic! And there was practically no way to get anything over there since the Transiberian rail was not built until 1916.

The Bar Confederation War - almost no loyalists and French troops were 9000 strong, I think.

Some serious and highly qualified historians.

Everyone is a "serious and highly qualified historian" - I've seen your crap sources before.

Edited 5/5/2015 16:33:55

The Bar Confederation War - almost no loyalists and French troops were 9000 strong, I think.

"I Think", try to show some reliable sources before ever trying to convince me first ok? There were no french regular armies in Poland, only advisors such as Dumouriez, and financial help from French magnates, that was not a Russia vs France battle.

Everyone is a "serious and highly qualified historian" - I've seen your crap sources before.

Not really, unless you are Barbara Jelavich (where my source came from), expert on the diplomatic histories of the Russian and Habsburg monarchies, the diplomacy of the Ottoman Empire, and the history of the Balkans. So stop pretending yourself historian.

Do not think it's something that has controversy, it only 100 years ago