#The French had many revolutions before the French Revolution

[dresshistorynerd]

Roughly 10 More Cool Historical Queer Figures More People Should Know About

Part 2 - Modern Era

Part 1

Last year I made a post of roughly 10 (emphasis on roughly) earlier historical queer figures, and promised a list of another (roughly) 10 figures. So again in spirit of pride month, I'm delivering you roughly 10 (technically there's 12 or more however you want to count them) more cool historical queer figures.

In the first list I had fucked up the splitting of my list and there were only 8 figures. I had somehow misplaced the first entry here on this list even though time-period-wise it should have been on the first one, but alas it will go here.

The same disclaimers apply here too. This list is centered around western history (but not exclusively) because that's the history I'm most familiar with, though it's definitely not all white, since western history is not all white. I will be avoiding using modern labels, since they are rarely exactly applicable to history, rather I will present whatever we know about these figures' gender, sexuality and relationships. If there's information about what language they used about themselves, I will use that. Often we don't know their own thoughts, so I will need to do some educated guess work, but I will lean towards ambiguity whenever evidence is particularly unclear. If you are the type of person who gets angry with the mere suggestion there's a possibility that a historical gnc person might not have been cis, I encourage you to read my answers to related asks (here and here) first before sending me another identical ask. Try to at least bring some new arguments if you decide to waste my time with your trans erasure.

9. Romaine-la-Prophétesse (c. 1750 - at least 1792)

Romaine-la-Prophétesse, or Romaine the Prophetess, was a Haitian revolutionary and religious leader. It's unclear what pronounce they would have used for themself, so I'll refer to them as they/them. They were assigned male at birth and were born around 1750 in the Spanish controlled Hispaniola as Romaine Rivière to free black parents, possibly of Kongolese origin. By 1772 they had migrated to the French part of the island and become a small coffee plantation owner. By that point they had also met Marie Roze Adam a mulatto woman, who was enslaved in another plantation, where they were likely an employer. Between 1772 and 1777 she gave birth to their three children, who were born into slavery. After meeting their future wife, Romaine spent 12 years working to free her and their children from slavery. They purchased Marie Roze and their children and immediately married her, exploiting a law, according to which marrying her master freed her and any of her children owned by the same master. Romaine became very respected in the area's free black community and they and their wife became godparents to multiple children. Still even after freeing their wife and children from bondage they did own at least two slaves, as did many wealthy free black and mulatto people.

After the French Revolution many of the free black Haitians were radicalized. The French revolutionaries had promised freedom and equality, but while all whites, even the poor ones, gained citizenship, the citizen status of free people of colour was tenuous and black slaves remained slaves. This led to a lot of tensions and fighting, which in 1791 erupted into several uprisings, the uprising of the free people of colour against their discrimination and the slave rebellion. Romaine joined the slave rebellion after a powerful white plantation owner near their plantation gathered troops threatening them and their community. They called upon free black and poor white people in their community outnumbering the white troops, attacked the plantation, burned it down and freed it's slaves. It's a little unclear when exactly, but at least by the revolution, Romaine started to be known as Romaine the Prophetess. They dressed in women's clothing and spoke about being possessed by a female spirit. They became known as both a healer and a prophet. With a saber in hand they preached that God was black - their religious practice and revolutionary politics were very intertwined. Vodou was not yet a formalized belief system, but this was the time when it was taking form as Catholic and Indigenous African and Caribbean beliefs mingled together among Caribbean people of colour. Romaine's religious beliefs seem to also be a mix of Kongolese Catholicism (Catholicism has been a major religion in Kongo since early 16th century) and indigenous West-African religions. This was quite common among Haitian revolutionaries, but there was still a lot of variety.

After capturing and burning the first plantation, Romaine and their growing army of freed slaves, burned multiple other plantations in the area of Southern Hispaniola and freed thousands of slaves. There were excesses of violence as an inevitable consequence of the extreme brutality the slaves had been subjected to (how the Caribbean slaves and Maroons were treated by the Europeans is one of the most nauseating things I have ever read and after that it's impossible for me to condemn anything they did afterward to their oppressors). Eventually most of the wealthy free black people turned against Romaine and the slave revolt and pressured them to go into peace treaty with the French. By that point they had enough of the upper hand that they managed to keep control over large parts of the province. However, the peace would not last and eventually Romaine and their troops were defeated by the French in 1792. Romaine's family was capture, but they apparently managed to escape and was said to have continued preaching, however there's no other record of them after that. Haitian Revolution was eventually after a decade successful and made Haiti the first state to entirely abolish slavery.

10. We'Wha (1849–1896)

We'Wha was a Zuni, Indigenous American Pueblo people from Zuni River Valley, a potter, a weaver and a cultural ambassador. They were a lhamana, a third gender category in Zuni culture. The lhamana are usually amab people, who take both masculine and feminine characteristics and perform both feminine and masculine roles in the community. It's unclear what pronouns We'Wha would have used in the English language, so I will use they/them. At the time of We'Wha's birth the Zuni had managed to stay away from colonizers and continued their traditional livelihoods and religious practices. But the Zunis had their first interactions with the colonizers, who brought smallpox, which killed many of the villagers, including We'Wha's parents, after which they and their brother were adopted by an aunt. US tried to gain control of New Mexico - in 1877 they established Zuni Reservation and begun a policy to assimilate Indigenous People to the industrial American society by converting them to Christianity. Which is why in 1878 missionaries arrive to We'Wha's village. They became the missionaries' domestic servant and learned English. The missionaries left from the village in 1881, without managing to force their culture and morals on the villagers.

During the missionaries' stay at the village, We'Wha befriended Matilda Coxe Stevenson, an ethnologist, who recorded a lot of Zuni culture with the help of We'Wha. Matilda and her husband invited them to visit Washington D.C. with them. We'Wha used the opportunity to meet with president and form good relationship with the US government in order to protect the independence of their tribe. 6 years after their visit to Washington D.C., they were arrested. US soldiers had tried to interfere with the internal community trial of the Zuni and arrest their elders. We'Wha had resisted the soldiers and ended up in jail for a month.

Today Zuni people are surviving centuries of genocide as well as one can. Halona Idiwan’a, or Pueblo of Zuni, the Zuni reservation and homeland, has a sizable Zuni population. There's 9 500 speakers of Zuni language, most of who live in Halona Idiwan’a. The traditional religion is also still practiced by the Zuni. In early 2000s Zuni people successfully opposed a coal mine, which was planned near Zuni Salt Lake, a sacred site in Zuni lands. To this day they are still opposing colonial intervention.

11. Edward Carpenter (1844-1929)

Edward Carpenter was from a wealthy English family. He was a writer, poet, philosopher, socialist, early gay rights activist, prison reformist and animal rights activist. He wrote much about Uranians, term for queer men, which he used as a term for all queer people. He argued for non-medicalized view of queerness, and didn't just argue that it should be tolerated, but that it was a natural human trait beneficial to humanity. He had multiple relationships with men thorough his life, and had a particular preference for gruff working class men. As a 58 years old he met 36 year old George Merrill, a working class man, and the two fell in love. George moved in with Edward and they lived together for almost 40 years, until George died suddenly. Edward was devastated and shortly after suffered a stroke and died as well.

12. May Morris (1862-1938)

May Morris was English Arts and Crafts artist, designer artisan and socialist. Her father was William Morris himself, the father of the Arts and Crafts movement, and her mother was Jane Morris, muse and model of Pre-Raphaelite art. May was a very influential embroiderer. She was active in the movement and founded Women's Guild of Art when Art Workers' Guild did not admit women. She was married to a man, the secretary of the Socialist League, for 8 year, despite her mother's disapproval of him, but eventually divorced him. In 1917 her life long relationship with Mary Lobb begun. Mary cross-dressed but used feminine terms. She loved dogs. She moved into May's countryside Arts and Crafts cottage with the guise of being May's gardener, but eventually they were openly a couple. They traveled together for hiking trips, for example to Iceland many times.

13. Renée Vivien (1877-1909)

Renée Vivien was a mentally ill lesbian poet, Sappho enjoyer (a woman of culture) and a cat lover. She had a profound homoromantic childhood friendship, mommy issues and was melodramatic about women. She would have done numbers on Tumblr dot com. She was English, but lived most of her life in France with the money she inherited from her rich father at a young age. All her relationships were quite dramatic. She left the homoromantic friendship with Violet Shillito for a hot American actress Natalie Barney, after which the friend died of typhoid fever and Renée separated with Natalie because she was sure she had killed Violet with a broken heart. Next year in 1902 she started an affair with a married Jewish Baroness Héléne von Zuylen. They had to keep their relationship discreet because of Héléne's position, but it continued for years and Renée considered them to be married. Still when she got a letter from a secret admirer, wife of a Turkish diplomat, French-educated Muslim woman, Kérimé Turkhan Pasha, she started a secret affair with her too. They had only brief encounters, but exchanged a lot of passionate correspondence. Renée was not willing to leave Héléne, but eventually in 1907 Héléne left her for another woman. Next year Kérimé ended their relationship, as she relocated to St. Petersburg with her husband. Renée took all that as well as the average poet. She abused alcohol and drugs more than she had before and attempted suicide in a way I can only describe as on brand. She overdosed on opium, stretched on her divan and placed a bouquet of violets over her heart. Her commitment to the symbolism was real. In all seriousness she was not well. Her substance abuse and disordered eating had deteriorated her health and tragically complications of her mental illnesses would claim her life only a year later.

14. Lucy Hicks Anderson (1886–1954)

Lucy was Black American born in Kentucky to a working class family and assigned male at birth. From a young age she insisted that she was a girl and wanted to wear dresses. Her mother took her to a physician, who suggested that she should allow Lucy to present as a girl and raise her as such, which she did. Lucy left school at age 15 to support herself by working as a domestic servant. As an adult she would move around and work in the service sector and as a chefs, get married and move to Oxnard, California. After divorcing her husband in 1929 she bought a boarding house with her savings, and used is as a front to operate a brothel and illegal liquor business during the prohibition. She became a local socialite and hostess with a lot of influence in the high society. She was on that grindset. Her influential connections got her out of jail, when her brothel was exposed. After that she married a her second husband in New York in 1944, Reuben Anderson, a soldier. They returned to Oxnard, where she resumed her brothel operation. In 1946 a sailor claimed to have caught a venereal disease from her brothel, so even she was forced to undergo a medical examination, during which her masculine sex characteristics were discovered and she was accused of fraud for "lying" about her sex in her marriage license. In the court she said:

"I defy any doctor in the world to prove that I am not a woman. [...] I have lived, dressed, acted just what I am, a woman."

She and her husband were convicted and both put in men's prison. To add to the cruelty, she was forbidden to wear women's clothing. She survived the ordeal and was freed in 1950, after which she moved with her husband to Los Angeles and they lived quietly together until her death.

15. Amelio Robles Ávila (1889-1984)

Amelio Robles Ávila was a Mexican revolutionary colonel and decorated war hero. He was born to a middle class farmer, who owned 42 hectares of land, and afab in Xochipala, Guerrero. He was sent to girl's Catholic school, but showed interest in masculine pursuits from an early age, becoming very proficient in running of a ranch. Even before adopting a male presentation or becoming a soldier, he was known as an excellent marksman and rider. He joined the revolutionary Zapatista army between 1911 and 1912, still presenting as a woman. The Zapatistas were formed as a response to the military dictatorship under general Porfirio Díaz, who ruled from late 19th to early 20th century. Prior to the Porfiriato there was still significant Indigineus Nahua population in Central Mexico, where people lived largely in Nahua villages and worked communally owned land. During the dictatorship though communal landownership was undermined and land was centralized to haciendas, which were a type of grand estate used broadly in Latin America as brutal colonial enterprises. This sparked a revolution, led by the Zapatistas, who sought land reform and fought the military dictatorship with guerilla warfare.

Two years after joining the Zapatistas, Amelio started to present as a man and demanded to be respected as such. And mostly he was, by his family as well. He was accomplished in the army and eventually gained his own command of over 300 men. He fought till the end of revolutionary period in 1920, and returned to put down a counter-revolutionary rebellion in 1923. After his army career he settled down, and in 1930s he married Ángela Torres, with whom he adopted a daughter, Regula Robles Torres. He was a widely known to be trans and so when his birth certificate was falsified so he could legally adopt his daughter, it was probably a favour from the government. At some point after the revolution, a group of men tried to do a hate crime on him and "expose" his anatomy, but he killed two of them in self-defense, as he should. In 1948 he received a medical certificate, where it was confirmed he had 6 (six) bullet wounds, to officially enter the Confederation of Veterans of the Revolution. And finally in 1970 he was officially recognized by the state as a male veteran (veterano) of the Revolution and received several awards for his distinguished military service. He died as a 95-year-old revolutionary hero and certified chad. There is a story that in his deathbed he asked to be dressed in women's clothing when he was buried to face God's judgement, but this is likely a baseless rumor, since he also apparently asked in the same breath honours for his military service (which he had already received) and according to his death certificate he had lost the ability to speak before his death.

16. Alan L. Hart (1890-1962)

Alan L. Hart was an American physician, radiologist and novelist, who made significant advancements to tuberculosis treatment and was the first transman to medically transition in US. He was afab and was born in 1890, but very early on expressed a strong desire to be a boy, which was largely accepted by her parents and grandparents, who let him present as a boy and referred to him in masculine ways. However, when he attended school he was required to dress as a girl, though outside it he continued to presenting as a boy. In medical collage he was still forced to present as a woman. He was very unhappy that his female name was used in his medical degree when he graduated, since it meant he had to continued presenting as a woman for jobs or be outed as a "sexual invert". Right after his graduation though in 1917 (when he was still presenting on his first job as a woman, but outside it as a man) he sought medical transition. His doctor agreed that "from a sociological and psychological standpoint he is a man" and his surgery was completed during the next year after which he legally changed his name and married his first wife Inez Stark. Later, when hormone theraphy became available, he started using testosterone as well. Unfortunately in the same year he was outed by a former classmate and was forced to move with his wife to remote Montana, which was very traumatic for him. Financial troubles and secrecy caused by this outing and relocation put a strain on his marriage and they separated in 1923. Two years later he married his second wife, Edna Ruddick, which would last till his death.

During the same year Alan moved to work in Trudeau School of Tuberculosis in New York to do his postgraduate work, then worked for two years in a sanatorium in Illinois and finally in 1928 received his master's degree in radiology from the University of Pennsylvania. After that he did his career working with and researching tuberculosis, which was the most common cause of death in America still at the time. He developed an x-ray screening method for spotting tuberculosis early on and preventing it from spreading. Using his screening method he led a mass campaign to screen for tuberculosis in Connecticut for 16 years, and similar screening campaigns were then used all over US and the world. This was crucial in ending the tuberculosis epidemics, which had been going on for decades across the world. His method is still the standard used today. During his career he also wrote medical drama fiction and published four novels.

In his will he had directed for his personal photographs and letters to be destroyed, which was his last act of controlling the narrative of his own life, which had been briefly stolen from him, when he had been outed. This was carried out, but even then, a decade after his death, he was reclaimed by anti-trans lesbian groups as a historical lesbian figure. During 1980s and 1990s though trans people and some lesbians, like the Lesbian Avengers, valiantly defended his legacy, protested these lesbian groups and eventually forced them to back down.

17. Willem Arondeus (1894-1943)

Willem Arondeus was a Dutch artist, writer and poet and an openly gay man. Quickly after Neatherlands was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, he joined the Dutch resistance. He used his skills as an artist to become a very successful forger. He forged documents for Dutch Jews so they could avoid Nazi detection and escape the occupation with a lesbian resistant Frieda Belingfante. Their efforts were hindered by Population Registration, where the Nazis could verify the documents to be false. So in 1943 they attacked the record archives and managed to blow up the building and destroy 15% of the identity cards. Later though someone betrayed them and Willem was caught by the Nazis. He refused to identify his companions, but the Nazis found his notebook and were able to catch everyone except Frieda. Willem took all the blame for the attack, which is possibly why two of his comrades were given clemency, but the rest 13 and him were sentenced to death. Before his execution he made sure it was known he and two others in the group were gay and said either to a friend or a lawyer:

"Tell people that homosexuals are not cowards."

18. Sister Rosetta Tharpe (1915-1973)

Rosetta Tharpe was born in Cotton Plantation, Arkansas, USA, to black cotton pickers, who were also gospel musicians. She was a young prodigy and started touring as a gospel singer and player at a young age. She is often called the Godmother of Rock 'n' Roll, because of her immense influence to the genre. She was a pioneer of electric guitar technique that would have a massive influence to the development of electric blues and the sound of rock 'n' roll. Her act was provocative, as she combined spiritual gospel lyrics with embrace of sexuality and appearances in nightclubs. She had relationships with men and women and was married several times. One of her more famous sapphic relationships was with another black artist, Marie Knight. Their relationship lasted for five years during which they made music and performed together. They remained friends for the rest of Rosetta's life, and years after her death at age 82 Marie recorded a tribute album for Rosetta.

19 & 20. Tove Jansson (1914-2001) and Tuulikki Pietilä (1917-2009)

Tove Jansson was the creator of Moomins, an artist and a writer. She was born in Helsinki, Finland, to an upper class Swedish-Finnish artist family. She had relationships with both men and women. Her early serious relationship was with Atos Wirtanen, a socialist politician, who inspired Snufkin's character. Her first relationship with a woman was with a married theater director, Vivica Bandler. Tutsik and Lipsik were based on herself and Vivica. In 1956 she started relationship with her life partner, Tuulikki Pietilä, which lasted till the end of her life. Tuulikki was an influential Finnish graphic artist and sister to Reima Pietilä (one half of Pietilä architect pair, my favorite Finnish architects). Tuutikki was based on her. They traveled all over the world and spend their summers on a small rocky island in Pellinki. In 1992 they attended together the presidential independence day party (a big event every year in Finland) as probably the first sapphic couple.

[girlactionfigure]

THURSDAY HERO: Elizaveta Pilenko

Hid Children In Trash Bins

Elizaveta Pilenko was an Eastern Orthodox nun who saved French Jews by hiding them in her convent and smuggling them to safe houses. This holy woman, known as Mother Maria, paid the ultimate price for her bravery.

Born in Latvia in 1891, Elizaveta’s parents were pious Orthodox Christians who raised her in an environment drenched in faith. At seven, she asked her mother if she could become a nun. However, young Elizaveta’s world fell apart when her beloved father died when she was 14. The girl’s grief was so overwhelming that it destroyed her faith. The lesson she learned from her father’s untimely death was that adults know God doesn’t exist, but they lie to kids about it. She felt that God was no more real than Santa Claus. Teenage Elizaveta said, “If there is no justice, then there is no God.”

After her father’s funeral, Elizaveta’s mother moved the family to St. Petersburg. It was 1906, and the Russian revoutionary movement was gaining steam. Now a sworn atheist, Elizaveta felt a kinship with the antiestablishment communists, and she joined up with a radical group in St. Petersburg. However, despite her young age – only 15 – Elizaveta grew frustrated with the immaturity of her Bolshevik comrades, who loved to spend hours in bohemian cafes talking about revolution, but were less concerned with actually getting anything done. She said, “…they will not understand that to die for the revolution means to feel a rope around one’s neck.”

Not finding comfort in the faith she was raised with or the communist ideology of her friends in St. Petersburg, Elizaveta got married at 18 to Dimitri Kuzmin-Karaviev, an alcoholic. The couple had a daughter, Gaiana, and Elizaveta began writing poetry and studying theology, awakening her long-dormant interest in religion. The marriage was not a happy one, and Elizaveta and Dimitri divorced after three years. She applied and was accepted at the prestigious theological seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg, becoming one of the first females to attend.

During the Russian Revolution, in 1918, Elizaveta was elected deputy mayor of the town of Anapa. The White Army – loyal to the Tsar – captured the town, leading the mayor to flee and Elizaveta to become mayor. She was arrested by the White Army for being a Bolshevik, even though she had long before renounced her communist beliefs. Elizaveta was put on trial but the judge, Daniel Skobstova, fell in love with her and saved her life. After the trial was adjourned Elizaveta and Daniel were married. They had a son, Yuri, and another daughter, Anastasia. The family traveled around Europe, moving to Yugoslavia and then Paris. In 1926, Elizaveta suffered another tragedy – her baby girl Anastasia died of influenza. Once again Elizaveta’s life was turned upside down by grief. Her marriage fell apart, and Yuri went to live with his father. Several years later, the unthinkable happened: Elizaveta’s oldest daughter Gaiana suddenly died. Alone now and ravaged by depression and loss, Elizaveta decided to change her life dramatically. Instead of stewing in her own misery, she would focus on helping others.

Elizaveta felt a strong calling to help the needy. She divorced her second husband and fulfilled her childhood dream: she became a nun, taking the name Mother Maria. She rented an old house in Paris and called it her “convent.” She kept the door unlocked and welcomed refugees and the poor. Father Dmitri Klepinin became house chaplain.

So many people came to Mother Maria’s convent seeking help that they filled every inch of the building. Elizaveta/Mother Maria slept in the basement next to the boiler. Some of the people seeking refuge in the “convent” were children, and Mother Maria set up the dining area as a classroom. This continued for two years, until Elizaveta was able to buy a bigger house, a “handyman’s special” that could sleep 100. Stables in back were transformed into a church.

On May 10, 1940 the Germans marched into France, and the country fell to Germany a month later. Suddenly, French Jews started flocking to Elizaveta’s convent, begging for refuge and help. Father Dmitri started making fake baptismal certificates so Jews could hide their identities, and Elizaveta fed and hid as many Jews in the house as she could. The collaborationist Vichy regime kept thousands of Jews in stadiums before being deported to concentration camps. Elizaveta snuck into these massive holding facilities bringing food and water for the Jews imprisoned there. Once she smuggled four Jewish children out in garbage bins and then found safe homes for them.

Elizaveta/Mother Maria, her son Yuri and Father Dmitri continued hiding and helping Jewish refugees for almost three years. In early 1943 their luck ran out. Father Dmitri and Yuri were arrested by the Gestapo and sent to a concentration camp in Germany, where Yuri was executed and the priest died of pneumonia. Soon after their arrest, Elizaveta too was arrested and sent to Ravensbruck, a camp for women only. There, in 1945, Elizaveta volunteered to die in place of a young Jewish woman. She was sent to the gas chamber in March, 1945. Soon after, the camp was liberated.

Elizaveta Pilenko, aka Mother Maria, was canonized as an Eastern Orthodox saint in 2004, along with her son Yuri and Father Dmitri. She was recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem.

For welcoming Jewish refugees and saving lives, at the cost of her own, we honor Elizaveta Pilenko, Mother Maria, as this week’s Thursday Hero.

[herunswithscissors]

Don't let your idealism prevent little improvements.

Little changes are better than no changes. Society is a huge ship. It turns slowly.

I think more leftists need to recognize the gap between “this should happen eventually” and “this would be feasible to achieve in the near future”

Like, I’m an anarchist. (Although maybe I’m not according to some people but idk who cares) And I think an ideal world would have no nation states or borders. But that’s not going to happen tomorrow, or next year, or for a long time

So while I wait, instead of endlessly hemming and hawing over what the would should look like, I try to focus on what I can do right now to improve the world in material ways and to lessen the suffering of others

[nesiacha]

Parents Who Survived Their Children Executed During the Revolution

I deliberately choose to exclude from this list the parents who were just as involved in the Revolution as their children, but feel free to include them if you wish.

Jean Benoît Nicolas Desmoulins, who died about a year after his son’s execution Camille Desmoulins.

Nicole Momoro (née Pernot), who died a week after the execution of her son Antoine-François Momoro, likely from grief, her age not having made things easier.

Marie-Anne Robinot, mother of Saint-Just.

Claude-Étienne Laridon Duplessis, who died shortly after his daughter's death Lucile Desmoulins.

Marie-Catherine Anceret, mother of Gracchus Babeuf.

Marie-Madeleine Camut, mother of Danton.

Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, father of Anaxagoras Chaumette.

Anne-Françoise-Marie Boisdeveix, mother of Lucile Desmoulins.

Catherine Pons mother of Barbaroux thank so yo much @sillyletterscomposingsillywords to add it

Whether or not one agrees with the ideals of the executed revolutionaries, it is impossible not to feel sympathy and to bow before the pain of the parents who survived the loss of their children. It is worth noting that most of them, except for Camille Desmoulins and Lucile Desmoulins, never had the privilege of seeing their children rehabilitated.

P.S. : Feel free to add names, I know I’ve left out many. I will update the list as soon as I learn of any other names.

[xiranjayzhao]

I originally filmed this rant after seeing a now-deleted video in which a dude was like "So many of you are calling for a revolution in my comments but you don't realize how badly the French Revolution went!! Working class movements always get coopted by the bourgeoisie or the military!!"

While he had some valid points about needing to think hard about the realistic geopolitical consequences of a revolution and having to do prep work before flippantly calling for one, it pissed me off that he was lecturing people like that while obviously not knowing SHIT about the French Revolution. He was also dismissing the Russian Revolution in a very shallow way in the comments. This is not to say that those revolutions are immune from criticism, but productive criticism has to be based in FACTS and STUDY and not vibes from 20-minute Oversimplified videos.

Some on the left have this tendency to turn up their noses at previous revolutions and act like there's no point in even acknowledging them because Guillotine Bad Gulag Bad or whatever, but that is very unhelpful behaviour. To truly learn from the past we need to understand the nuanced how and why that led to devastating mistakes and atrocities during revolutions.

[tamamita]

why do zionists always assume its antisemitic to think that zionism a settler colonial idea

Modern Zionists aren't actually well-read into their own history. I could invoke the likes of Theodore Herlz, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, David Ben Gurion, and many other political Zionists and how they were ardent supporters of settler colonialism, yet it wouldn't get through their head, because they genuinely believe the land of Palestine is their right to claim, despite the people inhabitating the area. But to claim that the establishment of the Settler state was necessary due to antisemitism is not correct.

The pogrom of the Jewish people in the Pale of Settlement in Imperial Russia resulted in the mass displacement of Jews. But most Jews did not flee to Palestine, but to the US and Western Europe to live relatively better lives, due to the French revolution and so on. They had no desire whatsoever to move to Palestine due to its harsh climate and environment. Although the repression of Jews in the 19th century added to Zionism's appeal, Zionism did not emerge because of it as is often portrayed.

Jewish historian Michael Stanislawiski explains:

The first expression of this new ideology were published well before the spread of the new anti-semitic ideology and before the pogroms of the ealy 1880s. The fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution.

-- Zionism, a short introduction (Stanislawski, 2017)

As was the case for that time, the doctrine of nationalism became prevalent across Europe. Many versions of it gained hold of European intellectuals and the upper-classes. One of these were ethnonationalism, which emphasised common ancestry. Such a view was popular among Germans, Hungarians, Russians, Poles and etc, who saw their "tribes" as being distinct, and therefore needed to be preserved from foreign threats. Zionism would mirror some of these aspects, which was prevalent in Eastern Europe. The founding father of Revisionist Zionism (and the precursor to the Likud party), Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated:

"The creation of a Jewish majority, was the fundamental aim of Zionism, the term "Jewish State", means a Jewish majority and Palestine will become a Jewish country at the moment when it has a Jewish majority".

-- Zionism, and the Arabs, 1882-1948 A study of ideology (Yosef Gorny, 1987)

However, there was another ideology emerging which was far more popular among the oppressed Jewish people, which would propell them to emancipate themselves where they lived. Revolutionary Socialism.

According Ilan Pappe, the doctrine of Zionism was vehemently opposed by Jewish leaders all around Europe on the basis of Talmudic violations, the rise of revolutionary socialism and the rise of Jewish assimilationism. Additionally, in a conference in Frankfurt, rabbis decided to omit the mentioning of "the return" from Jewish prayers as a reaction to Zionism. However, Zionism would face intense opposition from Socialist Jews, especially the Bundists, who openly declared Zionism to be anti-Socialist, opportunistic and reactionary. Zionism was an alien idea, and revolutionary socialism emphasised the importance of the liberation of Jews where they lived, resulting in an ideological feud between the Bundists and Political Zionists. Even the likes of the Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the Settler state, and David Ben Gurion, the first PM of the settler state, would condemn the Bundists for their opposition to Political Zionism.

[amateurvoltaire]

Usually when an English speaker is getting into the history of the French Revolution and wants to go beyond Wikipedia, they stumble on The Twelve Who Ruled. It’s inevitable. Since 1941 it has been a staple of lecture halls and history aficionados alike.

For me it was one of the first things I read, many years ago, and it shaped, to some extent, how I approached the period. I read it again last year, expecting to see it differently. I didn’t. It’s an old book. But still, by the standards of 21st-century historiography, largely accurate.

So since it’s a book a lot of beginners encounter, and since I’ve had half a mind to review some of the dozens of books on the French Revolution I own, I thought it would be a good place to start.

I will be assessing this book (and all others I review) on a scale from 1 to 5 in eight categories:

Before we start, remember two things:

This is my review, which means it is, by definition, biased. I try to stay as neutral as possible, but no one is fully objective.

You should never take anything as fact. I research things. I enjoy researching things. I spend far too much time researching things. But I’m human, and that means I make mistakes. Challenge everything you read, including this.

Twelve Who Ruled: An In-depth Review

Historical Accuracy

For a book published in the 1940s, Twelve Who Ruled is remarkable in how much of it remains uncontested, especially given that archival access in France was impossible during the war. Using only the printed sources available to him, Palmer built a richly detailed narrative of Year II. He avoided major factual errors and did not indulge in the lurid exaggerations or mythologising that often plagued earlier accounts of the Revolution.

On the contrary, Palmer’s portraits of key figures and events have stood the test of time. His depiction of Robespierre, for example, was unmatched in its balance, nuance and restraint when the book was published. Subsequent scholarship has generally confirmed Palmer’s factual claims. Indeed, many of his interpretations have been validated by later evidence: for instance, he is one of the first to advance the argument that the Terror’s policies were reactive responses to severe crises, rather than a premeditated program of mass violence, and that Robespierre never exercised dictatorial authority.

Eighty years later, Twelve Who Ruled still holds up as a factually sound work. Far from perpetuating discredited myths, Palmer steered a middle course, avoiding both Thermidorian clichés about a “blood-mad” Committee and hagiographic Jacobin legends.

Historiographical Position

When situating The Twelve Who Ruled within the landscape of French Revolution historiography, it is important to remember that Palmer was writing in 1941, before most of the major scholarly camps had fully taken shape. His work does not fit neatly into the classic categories of Marxist, Revisionist, or post-Revisionist schools (1), though it engaged with and later influenced those debates.

Palmer’s approach was essentially a liberal narrative of the Revolution’s most turbulent phase. He focused on the pragmatic demands of governance during an existential crisis, rather than on class struggle or ideological abstraction. This already set him apart from the Marxist tradition. His attention remained squarely on the actions and dilemmas of the twelve men on the Committee of Public Safety, and on the political and military pressures that shaped their decisions.

He also diverged from what would later become the Revisionist school. While Palmer shared their scepticism of class determinism, he did not embrace their emphasis on ideology as the primary driver. His account treats the Terror less as a product of revolutionary rhetoric than as a contingent response to internal collapse and foreign invasion. He was wary of overly ideological explanations.

In short, The Twelve Who Ruled occupies a distinctive historiographical position. As the first serious monograph on the Committee of Public Safety, it predates the Cold War polarities that shaped later scholarship. In my opinion, Palmer might best be described as a pragmatic liberal historian of the French Revolution. He did not write in the Marxist tradition of Lefebvre or Soboul (though he admired Lefebvre enough to translate his work), nor did he share the iconoclastic edge of later revisionists like Cobban or Furet (2).

Use of Primary Sources

Writing during World War II from the United States, Palmer relied entirely on published primary sources available in America. These included a wide range of printed materials: the proceedings and debates of the National Convention, official documents and reports of the Committee of Public Safety, as well as memoirs, letters, and revolutionary newspapers.

This breadth of material allowed him to reconstruct the Committee’s decisions and actions almost day by day, giving his narrative credibility. Crucially, Palmer did not confine himself to Paris. Because he was interested in the representatives on mission and provincial enforcement of the Terror, he also consulted sources on events in Lyon, Alsace, and Brittany. For its time, the study had a notably wide geographic scope.

Even so, Palmer’s research was limited to what was in print. He lacked access to unpublished archives, local records, or police files that later historians would use to deepen the field of social history. His source base is political and governmental. It reflects the perspective of the revolutionary authorities, not that of ordinary people.

In short, Palmer worked almost entirely with documents written by the deputies and officials (all men) who “ruled.” As a result, the book pays less attention to marginal voices (3). The result is a body of sources broad in political scope, if limited in social depth.

Palmer’s use of sources is generally careful and even-handed. He provides context for the material he cites and avoids cherry-picking. His work relies on French-language sources, as expected for the subject (4). While not archive-based in the modern sense, the research was solid enough that the book’s factual foundation has remained largely intact even after eighy years of further research.

Methodological Rigor

The Twelve who Ruled is not overtly theoretical; its strength lies in a coherent narrative framework and a clear analytical focus. In an era when many academic historians were often abandoning narrative and turning to structural or conceptual models, Palmer resisted the trend. He showed that storytelling, when anchored in analysis, could still carry serious weight. He did not invoke grand theories (Marxist class theory, Tocquevillian social theory, etc.), nor did he fill the text with historiographical jargon. Instead, he focused on applying a steady interpretive lens to the events of 1793–1794.

The idea that the Revolution’s survival hinged on creating a unified, legitimate, and forceful authority during the crisis is the leitmotif of the book. Every chapter, whether addressing the war effort, economic controls, or factional purges, returns to this analytical core. In methodological terms, Palmer’s approach can be described as problem-driven narrative.He identifies the central issue (governing amid chaos) and examines how various factors (personalities, ideologies, circumstances) shaped the response attempted by the Committee of Public Safety. The result is a tightly focused analysis. Despite covering a tumultuous year, the reader always understands why events unfold as they do: because the revolutionaries were trying, with varying degrees of success and virtue, to resolve the Republic’s existential crisis.

In discussing key concepts such as “revolution,” “terror,” and “virtue,” Palmer adopts sensible, if traditional, definitions. He uses the term “Terror” in his title and narrative because it was (and remains) the conventional label for the period, but he is careful to unpack what it meant in practice. He does not treat “The Terror” as a monolithic or abstract force. Instead, he breaks it down into specific policies and events (the Law of Suspects, the Revolutionary Tribunal’s activities, pressure from the sans-culottes etc.) to show how violence was implemented pragmatically, not philosophically.

Notably, Palmer did not anachronistically impose the term “Reign of Terror” on everything, he knew that the term gained currency mainly after Robespierre’s fall. His narrative implies, in line with modern findings, that the revolutionary government itself did not treat “Terror” as a coherent policy slogan (5). Palmer’s treatment of terror as a concept is methodological. He presents it as an emergency government and analyses the mechanics and morality of state violence without becoming entangled in a semantic argument.

His treatment of “revolution” and “virtue” follows the same logic. He presents the Revolution as a struggle to preserve the Republic against its enemies, even at the cost of violating some of its founding principles. He regularly cites the ideals of liberty and equality, and the 1789 Constitution, not to celebrate them but to underline the irony of their suspension “until the peace.” The term “virtue” appears mainly in the context of revolutionary rhetoric, particularly Robespierre’s vision of republican virtue. Palmer does not deliver a philosophical essay on the term. He lets Robespierre and Saint-Just speak for themselves, then examines the consequences. His analysis makes it clear that he understands Jacobin virtue as a kind of austere civic morality, which he implicitly weighs against liberal values.

Methodologically, Palmer is rigorous and consistent. He poses an implicit question: how did twelve men govern a revolution in crisis?—and answers it through a chronological but analytical narrative. His framework is free of glaring contradictions. He weaves political, military, and economic history into a single, unified argument.

The clarity of Palmer’s conceptual handling is evident in how easily the argument can be distilled. Readers never wonder what Palmer thinks the Terror was. He sees it as a revolutionary dictatorship, a term he uses without apology. It was, in some respects, effective (securing military victory), in others, creative (experimenting with democratic forms and state control), and in many, morally troubling.

Narrative Style

This is a subjective category, but one of Palmer’s greatest strengths lies in his narrative style, which is both clear and engaging. Unlike some academic history books, Twelve Who Ruled reads almost like a story, albeit a richly documented one, of a dramatic year in French history. Palmer’s prose is accessible and relatively free of jargon. He was writing for an educated audience, but not exclusively for specialists, and this shows in the readability of the text.

The story is driven by the vivid personalities of the twelve Committee members and the high-stakes drama they lived through. At times, Palmer almost novelistically follows individual members into the provinces or captures the atmosphere in the Convention, which helps the reader visualise events. This blend of narrative colour and historical evidence keeps the text grounded.

That said, the book does not read like a novel throughout. Twelve Who Ruled is densely detailed, and Palmer does not simplify the complexity of Year II. Some sections, for example those on the organisation of war production or the Committee’s internal bureaucracy, are dry and require the reader to absorb a large amount of technical information. However, these are consistently interwoven with more dramatic material such as battles, trials, and political confrontations. The balance keeps the pacing steady across the text.

Palmer is particularly effective in his character sketches. Each of the twelve becomes memorable (Carnot the stern military organiser, Barère the silver-tongued pragmatist, Saint-Just the youthful ideologue etc.) without collapsing into cliché. These almost literary portraits make the reader more invested in the unfolding story.

Perhaps most striking is the absence of pretension in Palmer’s style.His prose has a classic literary quality: measured, erudite, but never self-important. Compared to many writers of historical research, Palmer’s style is disciplined. He doesn’t try to prove his intelligence with a flood of ornate language. He simply writes well.

Originality and Contribution

Upon publication, Twelve Who Ruled was an innovative and ground-breaking contribution to French Revolutionary studies. R. R. Palmer effectively pioneered the focused study of the Committee of Public Safety, a subject that, surprisingly, had never before been treated in a comprehensive monograph. In 1941, historiography on the French Revolution was rich in general narratives and class analyses of 1789 or the broader revolutionary period, but the intense year of the Terror and its governing body had received no sustained study. Palmer filled that gap brilliantly.

By focusing on the twelve men of the Committee and examining their rule as a collective, Palmer offered a new angle. Rather than writing a biography of Robespierre or a general history of the Revolution, he did something original: a group portrait of a revolutionary government in action. This approach yielded fresh insights by highlighting the role of less-famous figures like Billaud-Varene, Lindet, the two Prieur(s) or Saint-André in winning the war and running the country.

At the time, interpretations of the Terror tended to fall into polemical extremes, either apologetic or scathing. Palmer’s contribution was to demystify the Terror. He did not glorify it or denounce it in moral absolutes. He analysed it as a political and historical reality. That stance was unusual in 1941, especially for an American historian. His work managed to synthesise insights from competing schools: it acknowledged the Terror’s necessity in context, a point later taken up by leftist historians, while also recognising its moral and strategic failures, a view more often stressed by revisionists.

This balance gave the book lasting academic value. This synthesis gave the book a lasting academic impact, as it could be read profitably by people on different sides of the interpretive spectrum.

Authorial Bias and Political Agenda

Palmer’s personal values and context inevitably informed his work, yet Twelve Who Ruled is notably measured and fair-minded, without a heavy-handed political agenda. R. R. Palmer was a liberal-democratic American intellectual, and someone who valued the ideals of the Enlightenment and constitutional government. That perspective quietly shapes the book. Palmer clearly admires certain principles of 1789 and he often reminds the reader of what was lost when the Terror regime suspended civil liberties and elections. His sympathy for liberal democracy leads him to approach the Committee of Public Safety with a critical eye, especially regarding their use of coercion and violence. He does not defend the guillotine or the repression of dissent. On the contrary, he treats those as regrettable, if at times understandable, choices.

Crucially, Palmer’s liberalism does not reduce his book to a simple anti-revolutionary stance. If anything, there is a degree of admiration for the Committee’s sense of duty and purpose, even as he remains aware of the compromises they made. He describes the Committee’s rule as a “dictatorship,” but one born of necessity, reflecting a liberal’s reluctant concession that extreme times may call for extreme measures. His relief when the Terror ends is unmistakable. The tone around Thermidor suggests a welcome return to politics as usual, though he does not spare the Thermidorians from criticism either.

Throughout, Palmer shows a clear preference for moderation. He tends to praise figures like Barère or Carnot when they show pragmatism or hesitation toward the use of violence. Barère is labelled, for instance, a “reluctant terrorist,” someone who chose expediency over fanaticism. In contrast, Palmer is more critical of those he sees as driven by ideology. Figures such as Billaud-Varenne or Collot d’Herbois are portrayed less sympathetically, as hardliners whose insistence on revolutionary purity helped drive repression too far.

Even here, Palmer does not resort to caricature. He places the actions of extremists in context, explaining their behaviour as a product of pressure rather than inherent cruelty. His bias, to the extent that it appears, leans toward moderate, pragmatic politics. He gives implicit approval when the Committee acts with competence and restraint. He shows clear discomfort when ideological rigidity overrides practical judgment.

If anything, the book carries a mild Whiggish tone (6). Palmer seems to view the Terror as a detour from the path of democratic progress, a necessary detour but a detour nonetheless. This aligns with a classical liberal reading of the Revolution, where 1789 and 1793 are seen not as a permanent rupture, but as part of the long and painful emergence of liberal democracy. In the final chapters, Palmer’s relief at the Republic’s military victories and the subsiding of emergency measures feels almost celebratory, implying a return to the Revolution’s original liberal course. Yet, he also soberly concludes with the personal tragedies of the twelve, showing that history’s verdict is complicated.

It is also worth noting what Palmer does not do. Namely, propaganda.

Twelve Who Ruled is not a cautionary tale or propaganda tract. Given that it was written in 1941, with fascism on the rise, one might expect an American liberal to use the French Terror to denounce totalitarianism. But Palmer avoids crude analogies. He lets readers draw their own conclusions. A reader in 1941 might well think of Hitler or Stalin while reading about the dangers of concentrated power, but Palmer does not push that comparison. His portrait of the Committee, a dictatorial body that nevertheless saved France, complicates any simple moral about dictatorship. The lesson is not imposed.

Suitability for Teaching or Further Research

Over the years, Twelve Who Ruled has proven highly effective for teaching the French Revolution and remains a reliable point of entry for further research. Its structured narrative and wide scope make it a strong introduction for students and general readers, while its analytical precision offers more experienced readers material for reflection and debate. Within Anglophone historiography, few works cover Year II with the same aplomb.

The book’s focus on individual leaders and specific crises helps anchor the chronology of 1793 to 1794 in something tangible and humane. Because Palmer explains context as he goes, for example by giving background on the Vendée revolt, the Federalist insurrections, and the food shortages, it allows even newcomers to the topic to grasp the wider dynamics of the period.

Its limitations are those of its time. Now more than eighty years old, the book does not reflect more recent developments in the field. Questions of gender, global context, symbolic culture, and the experience of ordinary people are not part of Palmer’s framework.

Most importantly, the book is so well-written that even someone unaccustomed to reading non-fiction will find it engaging. It does not demand specialist knowledge, but it never talks down to the reader. As an introduction to the French Revolution, it is hard to beat. Few works manage to be this serious, this readable, and this enduring at the same time. It remains a book worth reading, not just for what it says about 1793, but for how well it says it.

Notes

(1) This is worth a post of its own, but in short—and this is an extremely simplified summary—the historiography of the French Revolution can be broadly outlined as follows:

Conservative reaction (1790s to 1890s): Sees the Revolution as a catastrophe that overturned legitimate order. Authors: Edmund Burke, Hippolyte Taine, Louis de Bonald.

Liberal narrative (1820s to 1910s): Praises the moderate reforms of 1789, condemns later extremism, and stresses continuity with the Old Regime. Authors: Adolphe Thiers, Alexis de Tocqueville, François Guizot.

Radical republican and proto-socialist (1840s to 1930s): Celebrates popular egalitarianism and defends Jacobin democracy. Authors: Jules Michelet, Louis Blanc, Jean Jaurès.

Marxist classical social school (1920s to mid-1960s): Frames the Revolution as a bourgeois class struggle that abolished feudalism and views the Terror as a necessary defence. Authors: Albert Mathiez, Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul, Michel Vovelle.

Revisionist critique (mid-1960s to late 1980s): Rejects the class model, emphasises political contingency and the culture of violence. Authors: Alfred Cobban, William Doyle, François Furet, Simon Schama, Patrice Gueniffey.

Post-revisionist and cultural turn (late 1980s to 2000s): Combines political and social analysis, focuses on language, symbols, and local experiences. Authors: Lynn Hunt, Timothy Tackett, Jean-Clément Martin, Mona Ozouf, Roger Chartier, Peter McPhee, Hervé Leuwers.

There are also several other areas of research like Gender History and Colonial Perspectives which emerged in the 1980s and 1990s.

(2) It goes without saying that recent post-revisionist trends, including cultural and gender-focused approaches, lie outside Palmer’s scope. These methodologies only emerged decades after 1941. Palmer does not, for example, examine revolutionary festivals, political symbols, or the “culture of citizenship” as later cultural historians would.

(3) This is not unique to Palmer. Most scholarship of his time ignores marginalised groups, including women, the poor, enslaved people, and colonial subjects.

(4) PSA: if you are reading a history book on a specific country or event, and most of its sources are not in that country’s language, stop reading.

(5) Palmer does recount the demand of 5 September 1793 to make terror “the order of the day,” but he treats it as a historical moment rather than an ideological programme.

(6) Whiggish refers to a teleological view of history, typically associated with 19th-century liberal thought. It sees the past as a steady march toward progress, constitutional government, and political liberty. A “Whiggish” historian tends to interpret events as steps on the road to modern democracy, even when those steps include violent detours.

[theorahsart]

Please enlighten me about the french revolution

Here's 5 key things I see people most commonly not consider that I think greatly impacts how they interpret events:

-There was much 'state sanctioned' violence in France long before The Revolution started. The early clashes in the Revolution (ie. Storming of Bastille) didn't just come out of nowhere. People were genuinely fearing for their lives and felt they had no other choice. This same fear and anxiety haunted the rest of the Revolution.

-The Monarchy wasn't just killed for purely idealogical reasons. Louis and Antoinette essentially started a war against their own country. They posed a very real danger to people's lives, and even then the choice to kill Louis was a long deliberated one. The country was at war, people felt they had no choice.

-It's right to acknowledge that the amount of suspicion going around during The Terror was excessive, and it became arguably too easy to accuse and arrest people. It's wrong to assume people were accused purely on basis that they 'didn't share the same opinions' as those in power. The country was at war. Rightly or wrongly, most people were arrested because they were suspected of threatening the safety of France, not because the Jacobins simply wanted to eradicate anyone who didn't share their values.

-There were many, many events over several years that justified people becoming so overwhelmingly concerned with stamping out counter-revolution and being excessively suspicious. Such as: Aristocrats gathering personal armies and sending open threats about destroying the Revolutionaries, or once trusted heroes surprising everyone with secret betrayals (see Lafayette or Mirabeau for good examples), and all of these threats and spies and assassinations happening whilst the country was at war.

-THE COUNTRY WAS AT WAR. Every reductive criticism I've seen of the Revolution seems to dismiss that everyone was making choices against the very real fear that at any minute their hard fought for human rights and democracy could be taken away if they lose one more battle to a neighbouring country. It was basically 'kill the enemy or lose an entire country to war and oppression', that's the mindset politicians were in at that time.

One rly basic thing that I have to explain all the tie (just cos I'm making a comic about him so I get many comments on him specifically lol):

-Robespierre was only one person and didn't control the entire country lol Evidence generally points to him actively avoiding having any power as much as possible. The only executive power he had was in the last year of his life, and he still shared that with 11 other ppl, who had a chance to vote each other out of their committee every month. There wasn't some long term plan to take him down after he'd ravaged the country for a year. It happened very suddenly in an atmosphere of paranoia and extreme anxiety, when he made a bad speech that set off alarm bells. He was then *accused* of tyranny/conspiracy/etc etc. That didnt mean he actually was a tyrant. Loads of politicians across the years had similar accusations used against them. Robespierre was as much a victim of the irrational suspicion and anxiety of The Terror as anyone else at the time.

One final long note:

Every bad moment in the Revolution was A Group Project, it's naive and reductive to put the blame on any single person. I also think its naive and reductive to try frame The Revolution as being a failure or a success. We take for granted all the freedom, protections and choices we have today. Those things never existed back then, it was all entirely new and scary and no one knew wtf they were doing, or if it would last. History doesn't seem to ever have neat tidy success or failures when so many people are involved.

Perhaps the one tangible aspect of the Revolution is it's undeniable impact on modern day human rights and political systems. For me personally, I would want people to focus on this aspect of Frev and how they created those things, alongside all the violence that was frankly, very normal across many European countries during that time.

Like, people go on about how monstrous and vengeful the Guillotine was, either romanticising it or demonising it. But the kind of capital punishment that existed pre-Guillotine was much more barbaric. The kind of capital punishment that exists in modern day USA is much more barbaric (a death that was over in seconds is more humane than pumping someone with chemicals that burn your insides slowly and paralyse you so that you don't cry out in pain in front of whoever is watching you die. In case you hadn't guessed I'm very very against the capital punishment laws in USA =_=)

I went to a UK museum recently and read an article in a Bath newspaper from 1790s. Two boys were publicly hanged for stealing some food.

Considering that 1790s France was a) dealing out a style of public execution that was less painful/quicker than hangings and b) working very hard in attempts to ensure that boys such as that had free education, a right to vote, and protection of rights, so that they'd never have to be arrested for stealing bread to begin with- which of these countries is more barbaric at that time? Why do we frame the Revolution as barbaric and not the wider culture it was clumsily attempting to evolve from?

That was rly long lol But those are the things I want everyone to consider first before they begin any of the more nuanced opinions/discussions I'd LOVE to be having with strangers on Instagram.

FYI Im NOT an expert so I might still be wrong about any of these points nad I will VERY HAPPILY accept that, if any awesome respectable well read ppl call me out. And thats the last thing rly, just trust that it's an endless journey and you're always gonna be learning new things all the time when it comes to history.

[endearing-dalliance]

Another Blow Against Arcane: Antisemitism

Christian Linke posted the original pitch for Arcane, and I'm starting to understand why so many people turned them down before they finally got the project funded.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I got stuck on "svengalis". I wasn't originally going to harp on about this since I had never heard the term before, but I read up on it and OH BOY

apparently Svengali is the name of the villainous character from the French story Trilby. It actually inspired the Phantom of the Opera, which I thought was neat. Many smarter and more eloquent people than I have labeled the character and author antisemetic af

His main role in the story was that he really wanted to train Trilby, a beautiful young woman, but she rejected him. A bunch of stuff happens to her romantically that made her leave Paris with her brother. He later dies, and Svengali takes advantage to sink his claws into her. He hypnotizes her into having a split personality, and in that state she becomes a successful singer like he wanted. Unfortunately, it is physically and psychologically devastating, and she dies because she cannot live without him.

his name has come to mean someone who manipulates or controls another person, usually a young woman, to further his own agenda. There's even the "Svengali defense" that portrays a defendant as a pawn of a more influential criminal mastermind.

his physical description includes a tall and bony middle-aged body, thick black hair to the shoulder, beady and heavily lidded evil eyes, long hooked nose, thin and sallow (yellowish or grayish) face. He wore red and a long cloak, and was described as effeminate and continually filthy.

I know, coincidence right? Surely they didn't create, pitch, get funding for, and produce an updated version of a character that many people, including George Orwell, criticized as antisemetic. That subsequent adaptations have deliberately modified to be less stereotypical and offensive. This cannot be the character so many people enjoy and even admire at times, a symbol of revolution against an oppressive society that literally gases people.

Well fuck. On top of everything else, does this validate the Silco/Jinx shippers?

[alpaca-clouds]

Let me talk about Mizrak

Yeah, this with all the entire Nocturne brainrot is going to continue for a couple more days at least. But the show has so many interesting themes and characters and I just love it so much. And after getting all my friends to watch the show, I got surprised by one of them being super angry about Mizrak.

Why? Well, because of the last scene with him and Olrox in the season and his words of: "You are just an animal that lost its soul centuries ago." And the friend considered that "being an asshole" and "cruel".

To which I say: Cruel? Yes. Asshole? No.

Let me explain.

First, let me make one thing clear: No, Mizrak is not a templar. I have seen that one too many times. He is not a templar. He is a monk knight of the order of St. John, so the Knights Hospitaller. Like the templars they were very much tied to the crusades originally, but they are not the same thing. There were a lot of orders and types of knights associated with the crusades. Templars were just one of them. (Do you guys wanna hear more about the templars? I can talk more about them.)

We know from bits and pieces of dialogue that Mizrak originates in Jerusalem (which is also where the order was founded). This is a gentle reminder: Israel as we know it today was not a thing back then. But Jerusalem was always a place of religious conflict as it holds importance in all three Abrahamic religions. Which was, what the crusades were all about after all. Before the time of the French Revolution, though, there was mostly some a conflict between the Ottomans and some Arab forces over Palestine. There were some Christian orders accepted within the city though.

Now, the Knights Hospitaller, who were accepted in Jerusalem, had a strong connection to France. Which... lead to problems, when some of the Arabs and the French got into problems. Which let to the Knights Hospitaller leaving for Malta. This too is referenced in the dialogue. (If you guys cannot tell: I am very happy with the amount of historical research put into this show!)

Mizrak looks to be in his early 30s. So I assume he entered the order in his mid-teens (which was a usual age to enter an order like that) and then probably left for Malta within a couple of years after that when the political situation got more charged. And then from Malta to France.

The Knights Hospitaller back then for all intent and purposes lived as militarized monks. That means they made vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. And this very much shines through with his character in so many scenes.

Of course we see that the entire "chastity" thing does not work out that well for him. But that is also why he clearly is shown to be conflicted about that entire thing. What he tries to uphold, though, is the obedience aspect of his vows. And that is, what his entire conflict is about.

See, what I love about this character is that there is all this delicious conflict.

I will iterate again: I grew up in a very, very conservative, strict, catholic household. Other kids got read fairytales for bedtime. My mother read me the bible. Priests and monks were people we intermingled with a lot. (Heck, the last pope? I met him when he was still a bishop.) And hence I got to make one very clear experience: There are three types of Catholics: Those, who focus on all the horrible things. Those, who focus on the literal stuff written in the bible. And those, who focus on the positive stuff. You know, the stuff with helping people, and being poor, and sharing, and being in general a good person. (Though the three types are not always mutually exclusive.)

And it is pretty clear that Mizrak is of the latter kind. He believes in the good he can do through his faith in God and Christ. But he has also grown up in an Order and a Church that puts a lot of focus on the idea of sin, on the idea of obedience, and the idea of the "natural order".

But there he is, with his Abbot collaborating with demons and vampires to enforce that "natural order", which among other things goes against their own vow of poverty. This is so clearly against Mizrak's believes. Because in his very core, Mizrak is a good fucking man. He is one of the good guys. Who wants to do good through his faith in God. And this conflicts for him.

So by the end of episode 7 he reached the point to go against his vow of obedience, because his faith in doing good was stronger, than his dedication to his vows. He very actively broke his vows in the eyes of his order, standing against his order, to protect those darn kids. Because it was the right thing to do. He is absolutely willing to do the noble sacrifice if that is what it takes to save those kids. And in comes that weird dude and takes this chance from him.

And his entire thing with Olrox... It seems very much that Mizrak is indeed gay. As the series so helpfully points out: Yeah, priests, monks, other clergy, and their vows of chastity were always a thing that rarely worked out. Again, as someone who grew up with close ties to the church: The fact that everyone is secretly fucking is... well known. As well as the fact that yeah, there are a lot of gay clergy. Mostly for the reason that they are shamed for their sexuality and then take the vows to not be tempted into homosexuality. Only to find that a priest school with a lot of other queer supressed men is exactly the place you do not want to be to not be tempted. (And that is all without going into all the non-con, pedophilia and what not. Things that were also already happening back then, I guarantee you.)

So, try to imagine that entire thing from Mizrak's perspective. There he is, already ashamed and suppressed about all of that and in comes this very, very seductive vampire man, who kinda seems to align with some of his values, but not with others. And who is emotionally unavailable as fuck, outright telling him that he does not love our dear Mizrak. Someone, who clearly is not for the vampires and your abbot, but also clearly not willing to take the other side. The side that you in your heart (even though it means standing against your order) know to be right. And this man, who claims to not love you, then comes in and tries to stop you from doing what is right.

Yeah, no fuck, Mizrak is a bit pissed at him. Especially as in that moment Olrox very clearly goes against Mizrak's ideals, that are all about self-sacrificially doing the right thing.

And I do think that Mizrak is right in one regard: Olrox lost his soul. He lost a part of himself. Through the trauma of colonialism, but he lost it never the less.

So, once more: Thanks the team for giving us another interesting, well-rounded religious character! CV already did so well with Isaac and Mizrak is sofar extremely promising in that regard.

[hadesisqueer]

One of the funniest moments in a class for me was precisely when I was like 17 and I had been sick for over a month and unable to come to school and I went back like the last two days before Christmas break. I went into History class apologizing to the teacher for missing so many classes, as I did with all my other teachers, and just like all the others he kept telling me to chill, that my health and well-being came first and not to worry about my grades right now, that I could do my exams at another moment and everything would be fine. Then I sat down and he started the class. It was the French Revolution, I remembered it from a previous year. My teacher started asking questions (like, making sure all the others had kept up with what he'd been teaching, while reassuring me that it's fine if I didn't know). He asked “when we talk about the French Revolution, who do you associate with the word "Terror"? to a boy. He didn't know. Then he asked someone else, and someone else, and someone else, one by one. Eventually the teacher reached me, and when he started saying "well I assume you, after missing so many classes, you don't--" and then I just said "Robespierre".

The whole class fell silent. Everyone stared at me. The teacher nodded pleased but then he was like "I've been explaining all this to you kids for two weeks and in a class of 25 people the only one who can associate Terror with Robespierre is the one who was sick and didn't come to class. You guys gotta be joking". I could feel the eyes of my classmates staring at me with hate lmao

[luvs4haechan]

Ooh can you write a fic about haechan and the reader in a college au, where she's like some kind of humanities major? And his petname for her is like "sunshine" or something cute like that? Kicking my feet and squealing thinking abt it

sunshine

𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘦: fluff!!!!

𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨: haechan x fem!reader

𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵/𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴: college au, use of y/n, the fr***h 🇫🇷

𝘸𝘤: 1,7k

masterlist

"hi sunshine," you heard, despite being focused on reading the progress of the french revolution. it was moments like these where you began to regret taking so many classes - evidently history, english literature, and religious studies were kicking your ass. exam season meant your head burried in as many textbooks as you could carry to the library. it also mean your very sweet boyfriend being a little extra clingy; he explaied it as not being able to see you as often. it made you wonder how he had the time to pester you, as he himself was taking a very difficult computer engineering course. although you were always happy to see him, it didn't mean you had the time to - which led to many nights of him laying in your dorm, scrolling endlessly through tiktok, and every once in a while asking when you'd be done studying.

"hi hyuck," you replied, not taking your eyes of the page. you had almost memorised all the key dates you were struggling with. despite your lack of attention, your boyfriend pressed a kiss to the top of your head and made himself comfortable on your bed.

"what's keeping you from me today, sunshine?" he asked, playing with the stuffed teddy (that he actually bought you for your first anniversary). donghyuck was very understanding of your busy schedule, he'd often say your course was way harder than his, although you always disagreed. whenever he'd find you in the library at odd hours of the night, he would either bring you a snack and a red bull or bother you enough that you would give up and agree to go rest. donghyuck had always been attentive, even when you were just friends. he always made sure you were taken care of, whether that meant driving you home from a party or picking up pads when you were on your period. he often claimed that his love language was acts of service, however you said it was definitely physical touch.

"the french revolution," you replied, still engrossed in the, now unreadable, notes you took during your lectures.

"oh not the french," he rolled his eyes dramatically, even though you couldn't see him. your boyfriend heaved a sigh, hoping to catch at least some of your attention. luckily, you had braced for this moment and knew you could take a small break when he finally showed up.

"i know, the french are so dramatic," you played along with his antics, standing up and moving onto the bed with him. you placed your hand on his cheek, as he nuzzled further into it, enjoying your tentative touch. your hand moved up to brush some hair from his forehead, taking a good look at him. donghyuck's arms wrapped around your frame, bringing you to lay down almost on top of him. he placed his own hand on your jaw, tilting your head to meet his lips in a soft kiss.

"hi," he whispered, pulling away with a smile on his face.

"hi baby," you whispered back, a smiliar love struck smile adorning your face. your own arms wrapped around him, feeling his warm and comforting embrace. donghyuck's hand moved to brush through your hair as you settled further into his arms.

"how you feeling? still got a lot to do?" he said, glancing at the clock. it was only 3pm, so he knew you probably planned to study for a lot longer.

"i'm fine, a little tired, but fine. i really want to get this revolution under control before tomorrow," you sighed, closing your eyes.

"oh yeah, this revolution has to be stopped y/n. i believe you can do it, but in less than one day? that's a strech even for you," your boyfriend's playful words making you laugh softly, although his tone was totally serious.

"i think i can do it," you said with a small smile, eyes still closed. donghyuck looked down at you in his arms, a smile spreading across his face too.

"i think you can do anything, you're literally wonder woman," he emphasised his words by squeezing your frame slightly. his words caused another laugh to bubble out of you.

"sure, hyuck," you patted his chest, as if he were a child and you had no choice but to agree with his crazy beliefs.

"no i'm serious right now. sunshine, you can literally do anything you put your mind to. i've seen it too. you're incredible y/n," donghyuck said, no playfulness in his tone now. the words warmed your heart, butterflies swarming your stomach. it sometimes amazed you, that after so much time with donghyuck he still managed to charm you every time he opened his mouth. well...maybe not every time, but most times. your boyfriend fully believed that you would never undertand the capacity in which he loves and cares for you. you are always his first thought in the morning, and his last just before he fell asleep. he belived his sole purpose was to make someone as perfect as you happy. donghyuck's favourite times were spent by your side, making you laugh, smile, and (hopefully) feel cared for. all he ever wanted was for you to be happy, as long as he achieved that nothing else mattered to him.

"thank you," you whispered, pressing a soft kiss to his neck. the both of you layed in your dorm bed for a little while longer, before you began to get up causing donghyuck to whine.

"sunshine come on," he drew out his words, clinging onto you. "you can study some other time, i won't always be here," the brunette whined, as you untangled yourself from him.

"are you saying you'll break up with me?" you raised your eyebrows, stilling your movements.

"yes," he deadpanned, knowing his words couldn't be further from the truth. you rolled your eyes at his usual antics, detaching yourself further from him and moving to sit at your desk.

"you're so annoying," you say, not looking at him and opening your textbooks again.

"yeah, but you love me," the smile on his face could be heard as he said the words. his smugness caused you to shake your head.

"unfortunately," you mumbled, focusing on the words written on the pages. no more words were exchanged, as donghyuck knew you were keen to study some more - although he did love trying to grab your attention in numerous ways.

a few hours passed, of you studying with a couple of breaks, and donghyuck trying and failing to catch your attention. you were almost satisfied with your knowledge of history, at least for today - tomorrow was probably another day of looming over textbooks and crashing out over minor details you needed to remember in order to pass.

"wanna go to the beach?" the joy of living in a beach city. as the days were warming, you often found yourself sitting at the familiar beach. the sound of the waves always managed to calm your racing mind and tune out any nerves you seemed to have. your boyfriend found himself almost hanging off your bed, the boredom getting the better of him.

"yes," you said, closing your text book as you read the last line of the topic. you turned around, stood up and pressed a kiss to his upside-down lips. donghyuck raised his eyebrows, as this wasn't the outcome he expected when he asked the question. most times, when he bothered you while you were revising, his words went unnoticed. nevertheless, he was happy with your answer, and watched as you put on some warmer clothes. even though the sun was shining, and the air smelled like spring you knew better than to dress as if it was already summer.

soon the both of you found yourselves sitting on a blanket, an arrangement of snacks spread in front of you. donghyuck sat behind you, as you made yourself comfortable inbetween his legs, your back against his firm chest. your boyfriend's arms quickly found their way around you, keeping you warm and cozy.

"the sunset is so pretty," you commented, looking ahead at the horizon. pinks and oranges were melting into one as the sun hid behind the still water of the sea. sunsets at the beach were some of the best memories you'd made at university. whether it was parties that streched into the early hours of the morning, or simple, quiet dates with your boyfriend. it was times like these were you found yourself most at peace; the quiet hum of the waves crashing against the shore, the sun casting an orange glow over your fading tan from last summer, and donghyuck's body providing you with warmth as his arms wrapped tighter around you.

"not as pretty as you," donghyuck said, nuzzling his face into the crook of your neck, pressing a soft kiss on the exposed skin. his words caused you to laugh, he always managed to make you smile.

"you're so corny," you craned your neck to look up at him.

"no, you just can't take a compliment," he said, stealing a quick kiss from your lips. donghyuck pulled back with a wide grin. "i love being here with you, sunshine," he pressed another, longer, kiss to your lips - as if he was sealing his love.

"i wouldn't want to be anywhere else," you returned his smile, yours wider if that was possible. "i'd go anywhere, as long as it's with you," you laced your fingers with him, moving to look at the beautiful sunset again.

"i love you, sunshine," donghyuck rested his head on top of yours. "and i totally believe you can still stop that revolution, by the way."

𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘢 𝘺𝘢𝘱𝘴!

thank u anon!!! this kind of felt rushed im so sorry lmk what you think 😚😚 also very hard to write since im a STEM girl but hope i got it all semi-right 💔 pls send more requests i have so much more time now to write 😋😋

[nesiacha]

Survey: Who is your favorite feminist revolutionary of the frev (or at least someone who contributed to women's rights)?

In this survey, I have deliberately chosen a representative from each different faction.

On the Girondist side: Marquis de Condorcet The revolutionary who campaigned for gender equality, one of the few in his era. He is impossible not to mention in this discussion.

On the Dantonist side: Camille Desmoulins He advocated for the rights of married women to administer their property in 1793. In issue 14 of his journal Révolutions de France et de Brabant, he speaks highly of Théroigne de Méricourt and writes the following passage: "At the request of Mademoiselle Théroigne to be admitted to the district with a vote of consent, the assembly followed the president’s conclusions, thanking this excellent citizen for her motion; a canon from the Council of Mâcon having formally recognized that women have a soul and reason like men, they cannot be forbidden from making as good use of them as the speaker did; he will always make Mademoiselle Théroigne, and all women of her sex, free to propose what they believe to be advantageous to the homeland."

For the Maratist group: Jean-Paul Marat The journalist from L’Ami du Peuple often defended women who were victims of domestic violence, encouraging them to flee their homes and denounce those who abused them. Here is an excerpt from his writings found in the excellent book Madame Marat: A Heroic Life in the Turmoil of the French Revolution by Stefania di Pasquale: "Women are more inclined to tenderness than men. During their childhood, children are expected to oppose themselves to shame, but as soon as they come to the age in which women start listening to us, we hurry to conquer them and to excite their imagination; we focus all of our thoughts to unleash their senses. Hasn’t the time come to create a sweet bond with them? Men have always chosen while women have always accepted! How many foolish parents sacrifice the happiness of their daughters? Forced to yield the object of their heart forever, they become unable to love again, seeing only misfortune in their future." He also defended prostitutes.

For the Cretois group: Charles-Gilbert Romme The revolutionary mathematician, founder of the revolutionary calendar, also worked for certain women's rights. He founded a mixed club with Théroigne de Méricourt, and in a report on public education dated December 20, 1792, he advocated for girls to have access to republican schools. He made the following remark: "They should not be strangers to social virtues, since, in addition to needing them for themselves, they can develop or strengthen them in the hearts of men. If, in the natural and social order, man is called to execute and act, woman, by an imperious and necessary influence, is called to give the will a stronger and more vehement impulse." Although Romme’s feminism had limits, as seen in his statement: "The secondary schools in question are not for both sexes."

For the Robespierristes group: Georges Couthon One of the best-known members of the CPS in Year II, also spoke in favor of women's rights to share property administration in August 1793, as seen here: source. Additionally, he allowed his wife to give a speech at the Federation Festival in Clermont-Ferrand in 1790, before he gave his own speech, as seen here: source.

For the Enragés group: Jacques Roux Here is an excerpt from Markov Walter on this Enragés leader: "All the revolutionary parties tried to involve women, while, with the exception of the Enragés, they sought to exclude them from any real political activity. Jacques Roux considered them the decisive reserve of the Revolution. 'Victory was indisputable as soon as women joined the sans-culottes.'"

For the Hébertist group: Jean-Nicolas Pache This former Girondin minister of the War , who became an Hébertist and later Mayor of Paris, founded the Société patriotique du Luxembourg club, which, according to Louis Devance, "admitted women from the age of fourteen, with the same formalities as men, but their numbers could not exceed one-fifth of the total members; they were eligible for the same positions in the society, excluding the office roles."

For the Babouvist group: Gracchus Babeuf Babeuf wrote a letter in favor of gender equality to Dubois de Fosseux in 1786, as seen here: source. He supported the full participation of women in political clubs and paid tribute to the women of the French Revolution in his journal article: "Women dedicate their entire days to prevent us from starving," and said of them, "But beware, women, whom we have degraded, without whom, however, and without their courage on the 5th and 6th of October, we might not have had freedom!" He even remarked to one of his colleagues: "The advice you give us regarding the role women can play is sensible and judicious; we will take advantage of it. We know the influence that this fascinating sex can have, who, like us, cannot endure the yoke of tyranny and who are no less courageous when it comes to breaking it." He believed that the homeland had everything to gain from exploiting women’s talents in politics.

For the Thermidorian group: Armand Benoît Joseph Guffroy When he is not making false accusations against Élisabeth Le Bas or showing appalling behavior by kicking his former collaborator Marie-Anne Babeuf out after a violent argument, or writing poorly about Lucile Desmoulins and Marie-Françoise Hébert(euphemism) , one can find some quality in Guffroy's progressive views on women's rights. He wrote: "I had proposed to admit women to the primary assemblies, to deliberate on the choice of municipalities, and I still believe that my two separate ballots and my posted ballots would disturb all the conspiracies. If one is wise, one will come back to it; and I predict that we will never have a public spirit, public morals, if women do not participate in the administration as I have proposed. The National Assembly admitted to swearing the constitution, those who were in the tribune on the 4th of this month. Why would we separate them from the public good? The queen promised to raise her son in the principles of constitutional liberty; all French mothers must publicly swear this civic oath: without that, I repeat, no morals, no morals, no fatherland. Frenchmen, prove that you are men, by giving back to your wives all their dignity; French women, prove that you are worthy of giving birth to a race of free men."

Sources:

Antoine Resche

Louis Devance Le féminisme pendant la révolution française

Walter Markov

Stefania di Pasquale

Jean-Marc Schiappa

Charles-Gilbert Romme, "Rapport sur l’instruction publique, considéré dans son ensemble, suivi d’un projet de décret sur les principales bases du plan général, prononcé devant la Convention le 20 décembre 1792"

Thank you @anotherhumaninthisworld without whom I would not have been able to see the writings of Couthon, Guffroy, and Desmoulins in favor of women's rights.

[elbiotipo]

I hugely respect fantasy authors who just use the metric system instead of a traditional measurement system when it doesn't make any sense. This happens a lot with Xianxia webnovels. Also props to fantasy authors who use the wrong measurement system, like how korean wuxia authors use traditional korean measurements instead of chinese ones, or how the webnovel Release That Witch uses traditional Chinese measurements in a medieval european fantasy world.

With regards to measurement systems, I accept when authors just use real life measurements (and preferably the metric system) I see it as just an artifact of writing, of course we can't have for example a whole book in a fictional language (unless you're REALLY hardcore), it is for the benefit of the audience written in a real-life language with understandable measurements.

But I also welcome the fact that this is hinted somewhere at the work, because measurements, especially in pre-industrial (or rather pre-French Revolution) times, were something odd and diverse. Before metrication, every kingdom, and in many cases individual cities and even towns, had different measurements, which made trade a nightmare. A trader had to contend with different measurement systems (and coinage, that depended on different weights and measurements too!), which had quite interesting effects.

There's also an argument to be made that science and technology was only made possible at all by having consistent units of measurement and measurement devices. The Romans probably, for example, could have built steam engines, but they had not thermometers or means to mean pressure to really use them as a tool. And the idea that we can measure everything has really changed our society. "Man as a measure of all things"....

I've expanded more on this here:

I would love for works to interact more with this, not only in the conlang "these are our measurement units" but also in what it means to have different measurement units between states and maybe civilizations (for example, humans interacting with alien civilizations... would we adopt their units of measurement to adapt to the 'galactic standard', if there is such a thing?)

[secondjulia]

The Giant of the French Revolution: Danton, A Life by David Lawday

I recently finished this book and have mixed feelings.

Firstly, the good:

It's very readable. The style is clear and easy to get through. In the copy I read*, the actual content (before the notes) is only 264 pages.

I do like books focused on one person because you can get a more in-depth understanding than in a book that tries to cover everyone from Robespierre to Fouquier-Tinville to Some Guy(1). I got Danton, a Life because I hoped to learn more about the corruption charges. Unfortunately, that seems to be a giant unknown(2).

Secondly, the medium:

Though I like individual biographies, I find that sometimes they tend toward bias, like the author wants to spend 200-300 pages defending/glorifying the subject. I didn't find this book to be too bad in that respect, but the author really breezes by certain points, like:

"[The Jacobins] muttered about the impropriety of [Danton] taking a girl-child in marriage."(p.233-234)

I mean, wow do you think they might've had a point?!

The author openly admits he fills in gaps & extrapolates:

"it requires a fair degree of intuition and deduction to reach Danton" (p.7)

It's a particularly necessary practice in this case because Danton left a remarkable small written record of his own. This is understandable. But this use of "intuition and deduction" probably contributes to some of the problems I'll mention in the next section.

Generally, though, I think the book avoided over-romanticizing or whitewashing terribly. I did not actually know how many times Danton called for people's heads & vividly advocated violence. Other things I've read depict him like a contrast to Robespierre as though Danton were always the peaceful one while Robespierre was bloodthirsty; it seems they forgot all the times he called for or defended violence as much as anybody else:

"Let us create terror... and put the sword of justice to the heads of our enemies. (p. 189)" "[The Tribunal] needs splitting into a lot of sections so that every day some scoundrel pays with his head." (p. 191) "...this moment we live through is necessary for the destruction of those who have merely aped patriotism" (p.234)

So, the author's credit, he does not shrink from this side of Danton or depict him as some angelic counterweight to Robespierre.

Finally, the bad

Firstly, the style of references in this book is the most annoying thing I've seen in my life. There's no in-text citations, footnotes, or bibliography (!!!). In the Notes section, the full citations appear in the first relevant note then like in-text citations in any subsequent notes. My friend in Europe with multiple humanities & science degrees says they've seen this before (but also hate it), so it is a standard. But I found it maddening, especially the lack of a bibliography. Every time you look up a note and it has just (Author Name) you have to go hunting around for the first note that mentioned that source in order to find the full citation.

But more about the content: The author does this weird thing where every time Robespierre shows up, he has to sneak in some foreshadowing/every petty insult everyone ever gave him(3), so we know for sure that he's a repulsive weirdo, e.g. (all bold is mine):

"Joyless eyes" (p. 46)

"the pasty-faced eunuch" (p.232)

"[Danton] stood well over a head above Robespierre; in his antagonist's flaccid eyes, he had read puniness from the day they first met." (p.232)

There are several like the one above which I'm pretty sure include some of that "intuition and deduction" the author uses — and not just for Danton. I know Danton talked shit about Robespierre, but the author seems eager to make leaps about people's assumptions & internal judgements, e.g.:

"Danton must have wondered why the ardent Camille kept up the friendship [with Robespierre]" (46)

"All would have been rejoicing... had Camille, generous, exultant Camille not done a curious thing... Swayed perhaps by his habit of ingratiating himself with men on the rise, he introduced Robespierre to Lucile's older sister Adèle, and the lonely Jacobin... began calling... decked out in a new topcoat and expensive wig. Camille must have felt sorry for Robespierre." (p. 78)

The books Robespierre and the Women He Loved and The Fall of Robespierre: 24 Hours in Revolutionary France both say that Robespierre was very popular (politically) with women, and the former says he was fastidious and polite and at least moderately attractive. So it seems odd and unfounded to present this as a confusing event. Why wouldn't Camille introduce him to a woman? It feels again like the author has to emphasize that the Evil Dictator must've been repulsive in all ways.

As though he literally cannot understand how anybody could like Robespierre even on a personal level, the author really doesn't get the Robespierre-Camille friendship (also more petty physical insults):

"His pallid face seemed to have withered, grown still paler and drier. Robespierre was only a year older than Danton, but he looked to be fifty. It was harder than ever to imagine the exultant Camille maintaining a close friendship with Robespierre." (p. 74)

And then the author conveniently forgets this friendship completely in the end when it comes to the signing of the arrest decree for the Dantonists:

"The rest signed, the boldness of their pen strokes betraying the depth of their purpose... The shyest hand of all, appearing in small, thin script in a bottom corner was that of Robespierre, as if his fear of Danton would never leave him." (p.244)

This also looks like another perplexing leap about someone's thoughts and feelings. Why should we assume Robespierre's "shy" script reflects his fear of Danton and not his conflict over Camille?

Overall:

So I both enjoyed and didn't enjoy this book. I found I kept reading it and often had to make myself stop because I had to do actual work or life things. The author's writing style is easy and approachable.

And I did enjoy learning more about Danton, who is mentioned everywhere else but not necessarily with enough detail to really understand him and his position in the Revolution. I feel like I came away with more details — positives, negatives, and unknowns — that I could investigate further or try to piece together with other information.

But the way the author caricatured Robespierre and assumed people's opinions and feelings — beyond what they documented or said — was frustrating. I get that this was not a biography on Robespierre and so the author seems to have gone with a sort of standard, flat interpretation of him, but it often seemed unnecessary, and if I hadn't already read other things about him specifically, I'd probably come away with a very slanted view.

So I guess to conclude, I am glad I read the book and could recommend it if you want more about Danton, but I would go into it with a cautious eye and be aware of the author's slant and his framing of the situation and people.

Notes:

*The edition I got from the library is: David, L. (2009). The Giant of the French Revolution: Danton, A Life. Grove Press.

I'm reading a book like that now, The Fall of Robespierre: 24 Hours in Revolutionary France, which is remarkably boring, but of course I understand how a broad depiction of many players in a scenario gives a different kind of depth. I don't think one approach is better than the other. We need both to understand the big picture and the actions of individuals.

At this point, I feel like I personally can believe that there was some corruption but I understand that the concrete evidence is thin.

And some of the Robespierre insults I'm pretty sure he made up. I did fight my way through the Worst Citation Style In the World to hunt down the sources for these characterizations; some have citations, some don't.

[pettytiredandjewish]

yes, we are content actually. if these attacks act as a deterrent for satanyahu to end the war and stop the death (since he claims to care about the "international security" of israelis everywhere), it will be worth it.

the demand is simple: end the loss of life in gaza, and the loss of life in america will cease as well.

they never should have violated that ceasefire in march. they had a perfect peace deal, and they blew it for the sake of selfish territorial expansion. if they hadn't done that, those people would still be alive. therefore, israel is indirectly responsible for their deaths.

don't you use that same logic to blame hamas for every single palestinian death (conveniently ignoring every murder that happened pre-1980)? two can play that game.

we tried peacefully protesting in 2024. it did nothing. in 2025, we're doing revolution. remind me again what happened during the french revolution? they didn't peacefully protest outside the palace of king louis and beg him for concessions, did they?

Wowww…. So you’re just cool with innocent people (who are living outside of Israel and Palestine) getting attacked/injured/and possibly getting killed because of urban warfare?

Damn y’all really don’t give a damn about peoples lives. And y’all call us “evil” Zionist cold hearted monsters. Yikes I lowkey feel sad for you.

You do know that there are other wars happening right? Some of them are genocides. The I/P war is not a genocide. It’s a horrible urban warfare.

Urban warfare is not pretty and people does lose their lives because of it. It’s fucked up.

You do know that Hamas has been controlling the narrative of this war right? They are using their connections to spread propaganda and misinformation so they could gain sympathy.

It’s been proven multiple times but no one gives a flying fuck. Why? Because a lot of people are antisemitic. They just hate Jews.

The coverage with the I/p war is different from other ongoing (and past middle eastern) wars. Do you know why? Because Israel (which is classified as a Jewish state) is involved.

As I’ve mentioned before- a lot of people are antisemitic. That includes the media. I’ve read through so many news coverages on various wars and when comparing it to coverage of the I/p war… it’s drastically different.

A lot of their intel is from Hamas backed media (the same media that is spreading misinformation and propaganda). If they do look at non bias intel, they frame it so that Israel is a monster.

Do I think that what the current Israeli government is doing is right? No I think that they are handling some things wrong. Note I said Israeli government- not Israeli citizens.

The media has a hard time separating the Israeli government and civilians. They also have a hard time understanding that when a country was just brutally attacked (resulting in a lot of people injured/killed/ and taken hostage) by a terrorist organization, that said country is gonna fight back.

I’m pretty damn sure that if Hamas attacked a different country (similar to Oct 7) then that country would do the same thing and fight back.

The spread of misinformation and propaganda is the reason why a lot of people are supporting Hamas. It’s sad and fucked up. (It also just proves that people lack common sense and critical thinking)

Hell, even if I wasn’t Jewish- I would still be fucking horrified by what’s happening. I would be fucking asking why y’all are blindly supporting a terrorist organization.

You may think that wishing harm against a specific group of people is okay because they are “inherently evil by their “connection” to Israel because their Jewish”- but that kind of thinking is fucked up and very harmful.

Wishing and acting on this kind of thinking leads to people fearing for their lives, losing trust, getting injured, and worse- killed.

Are you okay with that? Are you okay with what’s happening? Cuz if you are, then you are really fucked in the head. Damn I do feel sad for you. This kind of thinking isn’t healthy or good for you.