I only know a little about these three revolutions, but to start off i'll make my cases.
>English Civil War: Once Charles I ignored Parliament completely and attacked the Scots the revolution was inevitable - there was no longer any hope of reconciliation and the two parties were now forced to fight each other for survival.
>American War Of Independence The formation of the Sons of Liberty and other interstate organisations. Previously the rebellious elements were fractious and disconnected, but once they began to interlink and co-ordinate the Revolution really got going.
>French Revolution The Tennis Court Oath was the first official and supported act of direct insurrection, I believe, and was done publically no less. This ensured that there was no going back and set the stage for the first wave of the revolution.
In Irish history, it was when they executed the leaders of the Easter Rising. This swung popular support massively in favour of Nationalists and politicised a lot of people who would have previously been quite neutral. This was actually their plan all along and was inspired by the idea of a blood sacrifice. They knew any rebellion would be a military failure, but the hope was their deaths would invigorate the nation, and it worked. A somewhat similiar thing happened after Bloody Sunday in the early 70s.
I'd say the southamerican revolutions were unavoidable once napoleon deposed the spanish king for a while, the ammount of pent up tension was far too big to hold it if the royal institutions got shaken up.
>>1559 point of no return for russia was assassination of alexander ii, no one else was going to let the serfs free slowly and manageable, this is what i think is the major primary cause of the revolution
>>2717 i'm not talking about the short term effects of his assassination or the political instability at the time of the assassination. i'm saying that i believe if alexander hadn't been assassinated the revolution wouldn't of happened. he was strong enough to just be overthrown like nicholas was but he was open enough to reform that once the serfs we made free he would of modernized as western europe had done, and avoid the catastrophical rash behaviour of the government in 1905 .
i agree with you that the revolution as we know it kicked off mainly in 1905, but at the same time russia became kind of stable between 1909-1912 because of stolypins land reforms and other policies he enacted to give the citizenry what they wanted.
>>1421 I studied the Russian and French Revolutions in school and it seems like once the old government lose the support of the army it's over. In France royal soldiers helped storm the bastille while in Russia in 1905 they held the army but in 1917 they were sick of the Tsar's shit an it was all over then.
>>3373 It's like in Chinese history: soldiers weren't even officially considered part of their caste system, but in reality every single dynasty relied on military support. Every regime in history relied on the support of men with big, pointy sticks.
>>3481 Nah, Nicky was a reactionary douchebag in a time when monarchies were already outdated.
>>3732 i think he was 48 hours away from announcing the opening of the first dumas to the public when he was assassinated, it's widely believed he would of slowly transitioned to a constitutional monarchy over time had he not been killed.
>>3916 Yep, it would have been interesting to see how the public, and especially the nobility would have reacted to this. His death certainly marks the end of non-nationalistic policies and a beginning of mass russification.
>>3481 Nicholas Romanov had some redeaming qualities but absolutely none in regards to leadership. He was dedicated to his family and willing to sit down and have a talk with just about anyone at least once, but at the same time he was stubbornly unwavering in his belief of his own divine right to rule and was almost certainly aware of and possibly even leader of The Black Hundreds, a group devoted to oppressing Jews and carrying out pogroms. He also had no sense for, training in, or innate ability to lead. I think he purposely wasn't taught for some reason though, his sister wrote in a letter "Nicky should have been taught to rule and he wasn't!"
His wife was a total loon and their son was too young to judge but their daughters seem to have been very sharp, devoted and forward thinking. During the war they even worked as nurses, there was probably at least one decent Tsarina among them.
Nicholas was incompetent but also had to deal with hard circumstances, his regime never looked hopeful but he directly made a bad situation worse.
>>6220 The most obvious is that there was no food in the months before the French revolution. There is now in industrialized and newly industrialized countries. Developing countries that still have problems with famine often don't have enough of a government to rebel against.
In the last 5 years we've had 2 west-backed "revolutions" turning 2 countries to absolute shit, as well as daily revolutions all over Africa though as >>6322 said it mostly looks like local militias just creating their country
>>6155 I agree that Haiti is in a bad state now, but the entire country fascinates me more than anything. The culture, the architecture, the food, the location... >>6193 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Culture_of_Haiti https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Haiti i'm a lil too lazy to write sorry
>>6439 Because of globalization, collapsing the food market of one country would mean having to collapse the food supply of the entire world, or cutting off that country from the world market. It's not as simple as just forcing a local famine anymore.
>>5106 IMO it's not really a revolution unless the revolutionaries have taken full military and political control of a sizable area of land (meaning a medium to large city at the very least). If the revolutionaries haven't done this then they're little more than activists or a low level rebel group.
>>6530 >The culture Literally Africa tier, if Africa was even shittier
>The architecture A few surviving buildings from French colonialism among a sea of mudhuts
>The food Literally baked mud
>The location You mean the lush, beautiful jungle that they completely deforested?
Seriously, how the fuck do you mess up a nation that produced half of the sugar and coffee consumed in Europe? And they didn't even just own Haiti but all of Hispaniola. How the fuck do you fuck up this hard? >By being niggers
Now first world = rich countries (NA, EU and those developped asian and oceanian countries) Second world = developping nations (Russia and friends, SA, most of Asia etc) Third world = shitholes (Africa)
>>7053 No you faggot, we already have a classification like that. Industrialized, newly industrialized, and developing nations. It may be an outdated classification, but it's still useful for historical discussions, and guess what board we're on.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.