European aristocrats were politically bankrupted long ago, but many of them leveraged the cachet of their titles onto high-end consumer goods and vacuous charities, so they’ve preserved the ability to go around all snooty-faced.
No, but I think Lafayette would have been pretty satisfied.
That is flat out wrong there is no way of looking at it where the purge (of the reign of terror) worked. Whatever might be said of the revolution (people have been arguing about that since the revolution itself) but the reign of terror, was a completely self defeating and pointless.
For starters the vast majority of those murdered weren’t even aristocrats. The majority of those killed were peasants revolting (or living in the same province as people who were revolting) against the draft and suppression of Catholicism, who were executed by the “infernal columns” or the commissioners who followed them. That did nothing except sow disinfection and anger for generations
Even in Paris itself still most of those killed weren’t aristocrats they were ordinary criminals who were killed to make room for the revolutionary prisoners, which was utterly pointless.
The remaining murders were either opponents of the faction in power and/or aristocrats. Even for that tiny percentage that were aristocrats is absolutely no way the murders (most of the aristocracy had already fled) did anything to further the aims of the revolution or even weaken the aristocracy (which was restored after Napoleon’s fall).
Once again:
What was the original quote?
Only focusing on the Terror is moving the goalposts from what I originally responded to.
The Revolution succeeded - France is no longer a monarchy.
We should agree that it succeeded: France is no longer a monarchy, and, to a degree of approximation, the French today believe in republicanism and “liberty, equality, fraternity” and would not stomach the idea of a monarchy, whereas the English Civil War failed.
Was the reign of terror the thing that prevent a French monarchy from being re-established? I thought the monarchy was well done by then and this was a fight over what a future government (not a monarchy) would look like.
Rather than get bogged down in the semantics of the meanings of “purge” and “success”, let’s ask ChatGPT.
Which political revolutions were successful in the long term?
ChatGPT:
Several political revolutions have been successful in the long term, leading to significant changes in governance, society, and ideology. Some notable examples include:
- American Revolution (1765-1783): The revolution resulted in the independence of the thirteen American colonies from British rule, leading to the formation of the United States of America and the establishment of democratic principles, such as representative government and individual rights.
- French Revolution (1789-1799): While tumultuous initially, the French Revolution brought an end to the absolute monarchy and paved the way for modern democratic institutions in France. It also inspired revolutionary movements globally and contributed to the spread of democratic ideals.
- Haitian Revolution (1791-1804): The Haitian Revolution was a successful slave revolt that led to the abolition of slavery and the establishment of Haiti as an independent nation. It was one of the most significant anti-slavery and anti-colonial uprisings in history.
- Mexican Revolution (1910-1920): The Mexican Revolution led to the overthrow of the authoritarian regime of Porfirio Díaz and resulted in significant social, political, and economic reforms, including land redistribution and labor rights.
- Russian Revolution (1917): The Russian Revolution resulted in the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy and the establishment of the Soviet Union, marking a shift towards socialism and communism. Although the Soviet Union later dissolved, the revolution had a lasting impact on global politics and ideologies.
- Chinese Communist Revolution (1945-1949): Led by the Communist Party of China and Mao Zedong, this revolution resulted in the establishment of the People’s Republic of China and the Communist government’s ascent to power, leading to significant social and economic transformations.
- Iranian Revolution (1979): The Iranian Revolution overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty and established an Islamic republic led by Ayatollah Khomeini, fundamentally changing Iran’s political and social landscape.
These revolutions, among others, reshaped the political, social, and economic structures of their respective countries and, in many cases, had lasting impacts on global politics and ideologies.
And:
summarize political revolutions which occurred in Ancient Greece and Rome.
ChatGPT
In Ancient Greece and Rome, several political revolutions and upheavals occurred, shaping the course of history and influencing future governance systems. Here are summaries of some key events:
- Ancient Greek Revolutions:
- Athenian Democracy (c. 508-322 BCE): Athens experienced a transformative political revolution when it transitioned from oligarchic rule to a democratic system under the leadership of figures like Cleisthenes and Pericles. This period marked the birth of direct democracy, where citizens participated in decision-making through assemblies and juries.
- Spartan Revolutions (Various periods): Sparta witnessed several internal revolutions and power struggles, such as the reforms of Lycurgus aimed at creating a militaristic and egalitarian society. However, these revolutions were more about societal and military restructuring than political ideology shifts.
- Ancient Roman Revolutions:
- Roman Republic to Empire (c. 509-27 BCE): The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire can be seen as a gradual evolution rather than a single revolution. Factors such as civil wars, the rise of military leaders like Julius Caesar, and the consolidation of power by emperors like Augustus marked this transition. It resulted in a shift from a republican system with elected officials to an imperial system with centralized authority.
- Gracchi Reforms (133-121 BCE): The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, initiated agrarian and social reforms aimed at addressing land distribution issues and advocating for the rights of the plebeian class. These efforts led to political conflicts, violence, and ultimately contributed to the weakening of the Roman Republic.
Overall, the political revolutions in Ancient Greece and Rome were characterized by shifts in governance structures, power dynamics, and societal values, leaving a lasting impact on the development of political systems and ideologies in subsequent eras.
Not surprisingly, these answers are not very good. But the controversy from the question, and answering it well, depend on definitions of “purge” and “success”. This isn’t really changed by referring to “revolutions” instead, and “changing the world” is not the same as being “successful”.
That said, I think few would claim the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights were not massively influential and generally a force for good.
The French Revolution was not successful in the short to medium term but many of its principles are still revered in France. It made a big difference to law, democracy, government and much of European society.
Mexican Revolutionaries are widely honoured across the country, which recently and hugely celebrated its 200th anniversary. It absolutely changed the power distribution and path of this country in many ways.
Haiti, Russia, China and Iran might be more difficult and dependent on your definitions. Haiti in particular is a troubled example due to racism and international reaction.
Cleisthenes and Pericles were hugely important. But can this be considered a purge because oligarchs had their power reduced? Ditto Solon and Pisistratus. Is a civil war the same as a purge by alternate means?
I am a fan of the Gracchi Brothers, who by restricting latifundia did much to empower Rome, offering short term stability and making it more robust in the medium term, even if conflict between powerful interests remained. It seems harsh to blame them for multifactorial loss of empire.
You could take the whole period from the Gracchi to Augustus; throwing in Marius, Sulla, Crassus and Caesar for good measure. The Wiki article on Tiberius Gracchus does not seem very complete. Had he not tried to reform Rome after his long and successful governing of Spain, Rome would still have had enormous problems with the military requirement of owning land, the economic effects of slavery in the latifundia, urban congestion, political corruption, disgruntled retired soldiers, lack of employment and the rising power and resentment of groups like the Goths. Someone had suggested Sulla, and it isn’t a bad choice.
They accept a monarchy several/many times after that times, which is why it failed.
It put an end to that monarchy, but several followed it.
True, but they were no longer absolute monarchies. After the Estates-Générales, l’état c’est moitié.
Napoleon wasnt absolute?
Napoleon was not a king, as such.
100% absolutely definitely not. The victims of the reign of terror were overwhelmingly provincial peasants and common criminals who were summarily excuted to make room for revolutionary prisoners. There is no way their execution or the execution of the small minority that were aristocrats (and/or members of the opposition faction) was anything except self-defeating.
Emperor, yes, not king as such, but that is still a monarch
First Consul. Napoleon did not claim an aristocratic background, nor think he was a divine representative, nor did he have a son with Josephine (and so was not thinking dynastically for most of his life). His very considerable powers (which he felt necessary for reform) were tempered by the Constitution and his Napoleonic Code, and so placed civil rule above that of the military. They were not absolute.
Though Napoleon married Marie-Louise in 1810 IIRC, making him related (son-in-law) to the Hapsburgs, the French generally saw him as a dictator or enlightened despot. He could have tried to establish an English style monarchy and at one point it would have been popular. But he didn’t.
But of course people still argue about this.
Don’t forget that Charles I, at his trial, consistently refused to acknowledge the charges against him and claimed that the court had no authority to try him or jurisdiction over him; that the trial was not legal and merely imposed by force of arms, and, legally speaking, you might acknowledge that he had a point. The king is king by the grace of God, and the king can do no wrong. This kind of reasoning was no longer valid in France during Napoleonic times or during the Bourbon restoration either.
The French constitution was not perfect (and French society was sharply divided at times), which is why it is currently on the Fifth Republic. But you could argue that the net results make it more free and democratic today than the U.S.
I mean you could argue that but you could also argue the net result of American reliance on industrial mass production is better, more flavorsome cheese than France 
At least two versions of the French constitution were drafted explicitly to preserve an autocratic regime.
Though this is sidetrack to the OP. Which was about specifically the purges of the reign of terror (and other historical purges) not the wider revolutionary program.
So I was thinking Sulla and the second triumvirate as successful purges simply because they were quite explicitly about money rather than any wider political philosophy (there was an element of removing political opponents but that was secondary, particularly for the triumvirate). In that respect they did work, lots of rich people were executed and their cash ended up in the coffers of the people in charge. That was the reason for the proscriptions and they achieved their aim.