Read on Twitter
So just a few (aka a lot) more things since the French Revolution, Reign of Terror, and Robespierre are all trending and there are a lot of bad takes. First off, nothing in history is bound to happen. The Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and Napoleon all could have been avoided.
So to try to say German imperialism, WWI, and WWII were direct consequences of the French Revolution (as one twitter account I saw did) is absurd. Secondly, there are almost always multiple causes for events in history, especially something as complex as a Revolution.
It wasn't just debt, possible starvation, an inept government, aristocratic high-handiness, inequality, or the Enlightenment that caused the Revolution. It was all those factors, and many more, combined. And no, Marie Antoinette and cake did not cause the French Revolution.
If you are going to boil down the causes of the Revolution to one tweet then go with this one (and follow her, she's amazing): https://twitter.com/JenniferJ_Davis/status/1275909095107821568?s=20
Thirdly, the Terror is not the entire Revolution. Was the Terror bad? Yes, undoubtedly so. But there is so much more to the French Revolution than death and destruction. The principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité were the beautiful products of that same Revolution.
And, again, the Terror itself was not inevitable. The end result of pushes for change and reform is not inherently catastrophic. The Revolution had a real chance at producing a constitutional republic perhaps more pure in its principles than our own.
And the blame for the Terror does not solely rest with "the mob." Rather, it lies at the feet of monarchies that feared change. The French monarchy itself was fairly popular until Louis XVI stalled popular legislation and tried to abandon his people with the Flight to Varennes.
The first instance of mass popular violence (the September Massacre) was a response to military defeat and Austro-Prussian threats to crush the Revolution and burn Paris to the ground. Only under extreme external pressure and rather understandable paranoia did the Terror occur.
Fourthly (?) the Jacobins and Robespierre were not the only ones to use violence during the Revolution, it was a very violent period with violent measures used by multiple groups. Also the Jacobins weren't nihilists (which I apparently need to say), Nazis, or Communists.*
*Quick side-note: stop projecting modern ideologies onto 300 year old political groups. It doesn't make sense and it's silly.
They also weren't the farthest left of the revolutionaries (cough cough Cordeliers). Their ideology itself wasn't inherently violent. Also, they didn't lead the Revolution at the beginning. They only came to power after several years and many mistakes by other political groups.
Which brings me to my 5th (?) point: neither the nobility, middle class, nor the "mob" was the sole revolutionary class for the entirety of the Revolution. The influence of various social classes waned and declined throughout the Revolution.
The social classes also made alliances and had internal turmoil. Revolutionary politics is (unsurprisingly) complicated and I (surprisingly) won't get into it here. Also no social class is a monolith. There were royalists and counter-revolutionaries among all of them.
Ok, final and most important point. The Revolution was not a political success but it was arguably an ideological success. The ideals the French Revolution espoused shaped and continue to shape the modern world. We still fight for the same rights they fought for.
And to those in power: the best way to avoid violent revolution is through reform. Learn from the mistakes of the Ancien Régime and Louis XVI. Actually listen to the people and implement wide-ranging reforms. If you don't, then frankly you should be scared.
Alright, I think that's most of the bad takes I saw covered. I'm so tired...
