Didn’t he divorce Josephine specifically because she couldn’t provide a male heir?
Not sure what you mean by this. The Gracchi were the victims of a famous purge not the perpetrators (or at least an assination, I’m not aware of a wider purge associated with their assination)
The Gracchi and about three thousand of their followers were indeed victims^. They were “successful” in the sense that their most important reforms, for better and for worse, survived their deaths (“and so succeeded for society”, if you see things that way). Sulla fared far better, which is why they called him happy Sulla Felix even in his day. The definition of success is elastic, and not that many other highly prominent Romans died as peacefully.
^As a result of the Gracchi corn law reform, tens of thousands of soldiers and supporters reportedly moved to Rome. It is unclear to me how enthusiastically they expressed their support.
My French history isn’t so good. What purge in the French Revolution are you referring to, as distinguished from the Reign of Terror? I mean, which set of people were the victims of the successful purge?
Digging back to high school hisoty class… my thought is, I could say France successfully “purged” itself of Louis XVI when they executed him. However, I don’t think the debate prompt contemplates every assassination or act of regicide as a successful “purge”. Nor do I think it is appropriate to lump the French Revolution of the 1790s with the one 50 years later since they really were distinct events (if that is what you are doing). Finally, I’m not sure whether it’s appropriate to give abolition of the absolute monarchy (as opposed to the constitutional monarchies that followed, the monarchy in general, or autocracy) as the predominant goal of any identifiable “purge” in the French Revolution, so as to make that purge “successful”.
~Max
You answered your own question. Of course it was a purge - it wasn’t mere regicide,as such a monarch could also be replaced by another. It was the replacement of King with Republic that made it a purge. They didn’t just purge themselves of Louis, but all the trappings too.
A an aside, on a personal note, replying to a 5 days-old post like that is super annoying.
Oh, sorry, didn’t check the date.
Thank you for clarifying, though. I do see what you mean but I wouldn’t consider it successful on account of the restoration of his brother.
Come to think of it, if the French Revolution was a successful purge, shouldn’t every revolution be considered a successful purge?
~Max
Though that would make the purge unsuccessful though.
To me the purges of Sulla and definitely the second Triumvirate are better examples as there was no political philosophy behind them, it was purely or at least mainly about money. And in that respect they succeeded, very rich people were executed and their money ended up with the powers that be.
That makes no sense to me. By that definition the English civil wars also ended in a purge, despite only the king being executed.
The French revolution had a regicide (that was arguably* successful) and a purge, the great terror (that was absolutely 100% definitely not successful)
* - very arguably, I mean most of the ensuing century of French history was spent being ruled by either monarchy or hereditary Emperor
Didn’t take. That’s what makes it ultimately successful and e.g. the English Commonwealth a failure.
Sure. But like I said, that one didn’t take.
I’d argue that the French Revolution succeeded in spite of the purge, not because of it. If the Jacobins hadn’t driven out the moderates who actually started the revolution, France might have evolved into a stable democracy - maybe a Dutch-style republic, maybe a British-style constitutional monarchy. Either would have been better than the century of chaos they got.
It lasted longer than the French first Republic.
But why would that have anything to do with it being a purge or not? I mean if Kategate was to lead to the UK permanently becoming a Republic this year would that retroactively make it a purge? Whats the different between that and France permanently becoming a Republic 70+ years after the execution of king Louis?
Didn’t the restoration last longer than the First Republic? Louis XVIII died a natural death after like 10 years on the throne. And then Charles X ruled for almost another decade before being deposed by another monarch. And I think giving the 1790s Revolution credit for the 1848(?) Revolution’s “successful” abolishment of the monarchy is too much of a stretch.
It seems to me that
- royalist factions retained significant power after 1799, the traditional end date of the French Revolution
- powerful royalist factions were part of the trappings of the monarchy
- the French Revolution, in as much as it was a purge of the monarchy and all its trappings, did not eliminate all the trappings
- The French Revolution, as a purge of the monarchy and all its trappings, was not successful
~Max
I don’t only consider the First Republic, I consider all of post-Revolution history as counting towards whether it was a success or not.
Yes, because their REAL goals are to liquidate dissidents and keep people in line, and that’s exactly what they do. Stalin, in fact, had a number of them because, in his view, even if you were seemingly loyal, being around too long allowed you gain contacts and might start giving you ideas. It was a twisted and grotesque form of, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
Not every monarchy has been purged by decapitating one or more people: often it is enough to force them into exile and strip them of their citizenship. There may be a subsequent military dictatorship to contend with, as in Greece and Romania, but that is a separate problem.
More like an amped-up version of
Beat your child every day. If you don’t know what he did, he will.
In either case, nasty business for sure.
The British Monarchy is merely a figurehead, and as I pointed out the French revolution didnt “take” either- there were several monarchies afterward.
Interesting… would you consider Túpac Amaru II’s rebellion against Spain a “successful political purge”? I wouldn’t consider it successful on account of the rebellion being quashed, its leader and his extended family executed, the banning of Incan culture and people under continued Spanish rule. To me these are all hallmarks of a failed rebellion, in that each goal was not met: the rulers were not overthrown, the leader of the rebellion did not gain power, the people did not gain independence - let alone lasting independence.
~Max
Why the fuck would I?
I’m done, this is just getting ridiculous now. These continuing questions are asinine and have nothing to do with my point (which, in case it wasn’t clear, is that French society now is the direct product of the French Revolution so in as much as we consider France a successful society, the Revolution succeeded).
I won’t be responding further to you or anyone else quibbling over the exact meaning of “purge” - given that “French Revolution” was one of the OP’s own examples.
Well, I’m afraid the OP was wrong. A “purge” is a “top down” phenomenon. The people in power get rid of dissident or even potentially dangerous individuals and groups in the population they control, thus solidifying that power.
Definition taken from Wikipedia: " In history, religion and political science, a purge is a position removal or execution of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, another organization, their team leaders, or society as a whole."
A revolution is a “bottom up” phenomenon. It’s when the common people band together and rid themselves of those in power. Once power, wealth, and control are achieved, the rebels often become just as bad or worse than the tyrants they replaced.
When I took philosophy for a semester as an elective, no debate could take place until an “Operational Definition” was agreed upon and in place. In other words, all sides of the debate had to be discussing the same thing. This situation illustrates the reason why.