Talk:National Convention

anonymous comment

I love this article's style! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.180.158.87 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs improvement

This article seems to be missing a "second half". There is no indication of why the Convention was replaced by the Directory. Yet in that article, it notes The Convention had acquired so much unpopularity that, if its members had retired into private life, they would have courted danger and risked the undoing of their work.. It seems this needs to be greatly expanded. Maury 12:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in general our material on the course of events in France from roughly October 1792 until the rise of Napoleon is pretty weak. About 18 months back, I did a lot of work on the Revolution down to September 1792; no one has really picked up that baton. There is a lot of good material scattered in individual biographical articles, but not in a main narrative. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Early in this article, the phrase "the formal end of the French monarchy" appears. This is not accurate, as there were kings and emporers to follow. See Napoleon I (1804-1814), Charles X (1824 - 1830), Louis Phillipe (1830-1848), Napolean III (1852-1870) and so on. —This unsigned comment was added by 205.160.53.142 (talk • contribs) 29 March 2006.

Yes, monarchy was later restored, as was nobility, but, just as we (and nearly all historians) refer to the "abolition of noble titles", we refer to the "end of the monarchy". - Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The term I usually see is absolute monarchy. The absolute monarchs tended to ignore or deny constitutional law. Even William the Conqueror saw a need to make sure it was followed but for some reason or other that is not clear to me (but then, I am not a king) the absolute monarchs were determined to set these constitutions aside, except where they empowered monarchy. Maybe they were too much influenced by the Roman Empire, their cultural paradigm. So, the English and French Revolutions ended absolute monarchy in favor of republics or limited monarchies. Frankly I do not see at all why Charles I and Louis XVI had to be executed when only a modicum of reason would have saved their lives and something of their positions. But then, the element of the irrational is that is is not reasonably comprehensible. Anyway when I get to this I am inclined to use the end of absolute monarchy, with proper references of course.Branigan 00:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is in the very definition of "absolute". It was not an "absolute" after all if Louis XVI called for Estates-General in 1789 (There were parliaments in France which caused so much problems to "absolute" kings even before 1789). And we should not, probably, to cite William the Conqueror, Charles I and Louis XVI in the same kind of state. William the Conqueror really belongs to a feudal kingdom, Charles I was not an "absolute" monarch and precisely his inclination to that direction brought about The Civil War.Nivose (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is more of a "semantic" discussion. Of course we have to regard "absolutism" as a tendency in these cases. They never actually achieved it, as the revolutions called a halt. So slavery was "abolished" in the US, even though the case of penal servitude is specifically excepted, and even though the southern social system kept it in place for over 50 years more, in practice. As for Louis calling the Estates General, that was an admission of defeat, a backing down from absolutist intent. Prior to then he had no such intent. But you know, when you are trying to express historical concepts, problems of semantics DO arise. In the end people just agree on a conventional word to use. I believe the conventional word here is absolute monarchy, which the texts use, and WP uses elsewhere. So, there is no reason not to use the word. This is after all a conventional view, not an innovative one. As for the examples I cite, I would not use them anyway, because this is not the article about Absolute Monarchy. In using such a word, it is only necessary to link internally to the article. I'm not going in THAT direction, so I won't see you there, where, I presume, you will want to resume your issues with absolute monarchy.Branigan 01:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your point of importance of "semantics". Also I believe that such kind discussion belongs to the "mother" article - French Revolution itself, in causes and nature of the state in France. Using it in National Convention article changes the meaning of the event. What the deputies disagree with - kind of monarchy or monarchy itself, which will lead us somewhere else. Events in the article are well beyond that. And actual wording in French was "La Convention nationale décrète que la royauté est abolie en France". Royalty. The same goes about "Abolishing the Feudal System" on August 11, 1789, for example. Definitely there was no feudal system in 1789 France anymore. But people did use it, it did mean something to them. Should we start a discussion about that at this point? I don't think that WP is for such historical research. It is better to stick to facts and let user/reader go in that if he finds something intriguing. Nivose (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is a matter of judgement. Judgements often vary. We seem to be more reporters than analysts. We report on what the scholars have said. But, it is not quite as simple as that. Someone might think the source is not a valid one. Also someone has to arrange the material in the sources. So, there is some judgement involved. I think distancing oneself from the source is a good idea. "The legislators believed they were abolishing the feudal system...." They did think they were abolishing the vestages of the feudal system. Was it the feudal system? I don't know what to say there, unless "There is no eye, there is no ear, ...." I guess one will have to use one's judgement at the time and take one's chances in the arena of contention. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. On the other hand, boxing everyone into submission isn't a victory, either. Ciao.Branigan

Slavery

I think a paragraph about the National Convention talking about slavery and how they allowed it to continue while promoting the rights of men would be useful. Frenchrev2018 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Frenchrev2018

"Majorities begin revolutions..."

This statement which is probably a quote should be presented as such rather than as an objective fact. Moreover, is this perhaps a misquote, for it seems to me that it might just as well be the other way around.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There is ref "Thompson 1959, p. 310" at the end of the paragraph. Previous paragraph gives 11.9% voter turnout which hardly could be described as "majority" and is "an objective fact" in objectivity of which you have doubts. Despite that preceding "Though only a million voters went to the polls, there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen." you can find in number of FR historians. Furthermore the montagnards of 1793-1974 represented even smaller fraction as well as the girondins. That is why I added "note 1" with contemporary "revisionist" view of Furet with the statement that "the Revolution had well and truly entered its 'popular' age" which is in full agreement of the "mainstream" Thompson's view.
On the other hand the same trend one can see in American, English and Russian revolutions - Majorities begin revolutions; minorities carry them on.
--Nivose (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A summary reading of this article makes me wonder if it's neutral

It seems like it's written in a way that's potentially not neutral. Xn00bit (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)