bunniesandbeheadings:

unhistorical:

October 5, 1789: A crowd of Parisian women march on Versailles.

The Women’s March on Versailles was one of the early significant events of the French Revolution. It took place three months after the Storming of the Bastille and a little over a month after the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the National Constituent Assembly – so the spirit of revolution and ill feelings toward the government were high. The principal and immediate motivator for this episode was the continuing famine and scarcity of bread, which was especially acute in Paris and surrounding areas, but the march itself was not entirely a spontaneous event. An organized march on Versailles had been championed in August by the Marquis of Saint-Huruge to protest the King’s “strangulation” of the Assembly through his oppressive vetoes.

But the Women’s March rallied around a cry for food, precipitated by reports of a lavish welcoming banquet conducted by military officers at Versailles, which itself was a symbol of the monarchy and its excess. Rallied by the beat of a drum, women gathered at the markets and then made their way through the city, armed with pitchforks and knives and accompanied by some men – including Stanislas-Marie Maillard, who later wrote an account of the event. In six hours, the crowd reached Versailles. The next morning, some members of the crowd burst through an unguarded gate, killed and beat several guardsmen, and narrowly missed the queen, who managed to escape. The crowd was pacified temporarily by the appearance of the queen with the Marquis de Lafayette on a balcony, where they met the rioters. Despite this goodwill, the people (now numbering at around 60,000) were imbued with a great sense of power over the royal family, whom they escorted to the Palais des Tuileries in Paris. 

It should be noted that while the bread shortage was the catalyst to the march, the king’s refusal to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the proposed Constitutional Articles from the previous August (which included a cessation of feudal dues) were also powerful motivating factors and one of the reasons the march attracted bourgeois support. 

But since people marching were poor and primarily women, their desires have been largely compartmentalized and dismissed as being nothing more than a blind cry for food. The reality is that they were more politically minded than given credit for. They drew a distinction between their desire for bread and their contended political rights, for when a royalist promised them that an absolute king would not let them starve they responded with how “they asked for bread but not at the price of liberty.”

This is alluded to in the above post with a vague reference to the tyrannical veto but I just wanted to underscore: the so-called benevolent King Louis XVI would not even submit to the paltriest of paltry reforms. He had to be cajoled with force from the very beginning and was never the saint of Constitutionalism that some of his latter-day apologists have made him out to be.

Before you study the history, study the historian.. Before you study the historian, study his historical and social environment. The historian, being an individual, is also a product of history and society; and it is in this twofold light that the student of history must learn to regard him.

E.H. Carr, What is History?, 1962
(via tritticodelledelizie)

[Camille Desmoulins] had a stutter, but despite countless attempts to find a remedy, only one worked, which his family discovered when Camille was eleven. One of his father’s military friends visited the house and made a comment about the laziness of the poor, at which the enraged Desmoulins blurted out an eloquent tirade without a single stumble. Maybe doctors should try this with any patient who stutters, suggesting ‘Have you tried an angry speech about the monarchy?’

Mark Steel’s Vive La Revolution. (via ice—queen)

corsicanbaby:

date a man who speaks up when he believes in something. date a man who is into being a martyr for his country. date a man who can write. date a man who calls for 10,000 heads to fall for the sake of the republic. date a man who spends time in the sewers. date a man who takes long baths. date a man who was stabbed in the bathtub. date Jean-Paul Marat.

this is one of my favorite things to do w people’s historical faves: tell me five stories about Robespierre that you love (and I hope you get through this)

revolution-avec-revolution:

Thank you, I’m doing significantly better now! These stories won’t have sources provided, simply because that requires effort, and, well, this is intended to be a cutesy post where I rant about these Cool Stories that I have read about in Actual Published Works. So people will just have to trust me on this.

1. The tart story! We know this one to be true for sure, since Robespierre composed a letter and a poem about tarts, the latter of which is hilarious. So, basically, Robespierre stayed at someone’s house, and he was forced to sleep in the room where the pastries were kept (I think the hosts were bakers, or something of that nature). Robespierre described in a letter that he spent almost the whole night gorging himself on tarts, and how he had to eventually master his “passions amid such seductive items” (I’m almost positive that’s the exact wording of the quote).

2. I also like the story about Robespierre walking home with Charlotte, his sister. They were on their way, when suddenly, Maximilien got distracted, walking way ahead of Charlotte without noticing the fact that he had left her behind. Apparently, he got home, and was like “Oh no! Where’s Charlotte?”. She got home shortly after, Maximilien said something along the lines of “Where were you??”, shortly realizing what had occurred. They both laughed about it.

3. I think there was also a story about Robespierre coming home, taking some soup with a ladle, and, being so tired, dumping it out on the tablecloth instead of into the bowl from which he was supposed to eat. I can relate.

4. One time, when Robespierre was going through the countryside, he waved his hat out of the carriage at a local farmer, hoping that his gesture would be returned due to the apparent “hospitality” of those living in the country. The man simply gave him a glare, and Robespierre proceeded to write a (pretty sarcastic) letter to someone describing how upset he was by the encounter.

5. Oooh, there’s also the story about the pigeons that Robespierre kept as a child. Charlotte and Henriette lived separately from their siblings, Maximilien and Augustin. Maximilien kept pigeons in the garden, and when Charlotte and Henriette came over to visit, they begged him to let them take one home. He hesitantly agreed, and sure enough, the pigeon died shortly after due to the fact that the girls left it outside during a storm. Maximilien apparently cried upon hearing the news. It’s not a happy story, but I still like hearing about Robespierre caring about his pets so much.

Marie Antoinette, unlike her popularizers, unlike even her husband, knew exactly what she was about. And this was, in the end, the absolute and divine right of kings to rule their subjects. Perhaps she was vain and capricious. But by 1789, Marie Antoinette was also one of the only assertive voices at court for the monarchy. She saw the National Assembly as illegitimate and she despised its deputies. And as Louis XVI dithered, she suggested, on more than one occasion, that what remaining force the king had be urged to suppress the uprising – even if it meant spilling the blood of “our subjects.” Surely, people like Caroline Weber [author of Queen of Fashion] who locate Marie Antoinette’s transgression in her “rebellion…to establish her own royal style and seduce the public,” do her a disservice. The queen seduces us, but only in death. In life, Marie Antoinette represented pure reaction; she can be damned for her sins.