為什么法國(guó)人民在如此堅(jiān)決反對(duì)君主制之后，卻又如此愿意接受拿破侖為皇帝？
Why were the French people so willing to accept Napoleon as emperor after they had so vigorously rejected monarchy?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
這個(gè)問題實(shí)際上說明了一個(gè)關(guān)于革命的常見誤解，就連許多專業(yè)的歷史學(xué)家將其作為事實(shí)接受，所以不要太難為自己。
正文翻譯
Why were the French people so willing to accept Napoleon as emperor after they had so vigorously rejected monarchy?
為什么法國(guó)人民在如此堅(jiān)決反對(duì)君主制之后，卻又如此愿意接受拿破侖為皇帝？
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
, B.A. History, University of Oxford (2021)
，牛津大學(xué)歷史學(xué)學(xué)士（2021）
The French people as a whole did not vigorously reject Monarchy, the people of Paris did.
It was the populace of Paris who drove the Revolution, and thus drove the rejection of monarchy. As an urban population very near to the center of power of France, the Parisians were able to influence policy through the threat or actualization of violent revolution to a much greater extent than any other population in the country. Their support for and action in favor of the Revolution should not be taken as reflecting all of France. It certainly did not, for example, reflect the feelings of the people of the Vendee, who rose in favor of the King.
The people of Paris physically taking the center of power, which no one else in the country was able to do without taking a rather long walk
There is another element present, though, that is needed to understand why the people of France, even the people of Paris, accepted Napoleon so readily. See, the Republic that Napoleon overthrew, called the Directory, was not the Republic that the Parisians and other radical revolutionaries fought for. Far from being any sort of populist state, the Directory was run by and for the interests of a few wealthy commoners; whenever anyone, Royalist or Revolutionary, opposed to their interest won, they simply sent in the army to nullify the results. That was why it was called the Directory; it directed democracy to suit the interests of its ruling cabal.
The Directory was hated by Royalists and Revolutionaries equally, and its sole base of support was the army. Napoleon, through his victories in Italy, had gained the adoration of the soldiers, and thus the support of the army. When Napoleon launched his coup he didn’t win so much because he had wide support; he won because there was literally no one willing to defend the Directory. Because the Directory had already used the army to purge Royalism and Radicalism, there also wasn't that much support left for either alternative that could have capitalized on the chaos. In 1799, when Napoleon took power, the choice was not between Republicanism and Monarchy; it was between Oligarchy and Monarchy, and one led by a man who had proven himself to be competent.
By the time Napoleon had declared himself Emperor, he had truly turned France around. He had fixed the economy and instituted many reforms. At that point, no one but the most radical Republicans opposed him assuming the title of Emperor- and there weren't as many radical Republicans as many assume.
這個(gè)問題實(shí)際上說明了一個(gè)關(guān)于革命的常見誤解，就連許多專業(yè)的歷史學(xué)家將其作為事實(shí)接受，所以不要太難為自己。然而，這個(gè)誤解是值得探討的。
法國(guó)人民作為一個(gè)整體并沒有強(qiáng)烈地拒絕君主制，而是巴黎人民拒絕了。
正是巴黎的民眾推動(dòng)了大革命，從而推動(dòng)了對(duì)君主制的拒絕。作為一個(gè)非常接近法國(guó)權(quán)力中心的城市人口，巴黎人能夠通過暴力革命的威脅或?qū)崿F(xiàn)來影響國(guó)家政策，其程度遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過該國(guó)的任何其他地區(qū)的人口。他們對(duì)革命的支持和行動(dòng)不應(yīng)該被認(rèn)為是反映了整個(gè)法國(guó)。例如，它肯定沒有反映旺代人民的感受，后者起義支持他們的國(guó)王。
巴黎人民可以身體力行地奪取權(quán)力中心的權(quán)力，在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)沒有人能夠做到這一點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗麄円呦喈?dāng)長(zhǎng)的路來到這里。
不過，要理解法國(guó)人民，甚至是巴黎人民為何如此輕易地接受拿破侖，還需要另一個(gè)因素存在。你看，拿破侖推翻的共和國(guó)，其實(shí)被稱為督政府，并不是巴黎人和其他激進(jìn)的革命者所真正爭(zhēng)取的共和國(guó)。督政府遠(yuǎn)不是什么民粹主義國(guó)家，而是由少數(shù)富有的平民為其利益而管理的；只要有任何人，無論是?；庶h還是革命黨，反對(duì)他們的利益，他們就會(huì)派軍隊(duì)來廢除選舉結(jié)果。這就是為什么它被稱為督政府；它督導(dǎo)民主以滿足其統(tǒng)治集團(tuán)的利益。
保皇黨人和革命黨人同樣憎恨督政府，后者唯一的支持基礎(chǔ)是軍隊(duì)。拿破侖通過在意大利的勝利，獲得了士兵的崇拜，從而得到了軍隊(duì)的支持。當(dāng)拿破侖發(fā)動(dòng)政變時(shí)，他的勝利并不是因?yàn)樗袕V泛的支持；他的勝利是因?yàn)楹?jiǎn)直沒有人愿意捍衛(wèi)督政府。因?yàn)槎秸耙呀?jīng)利用軍隊(duì)清除了?；手髁x和激進(jìn)主義，所以也沒有多少人支持可以利用混亂的其它替代方案。1799年，當(dāng)拿破侖掌權(quán)時(shí)，選擇不是在共和主義和君主制之間，而是在寡頭政治和君主制之間，而且是由一個(gè)已經(jīng)證明自己有能力的人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。
當(dāng)拿破侖宣布自己為皇帝時(shí)，他已經(jīng)真正扭轉(zhuǎn)了法國(guó)的局面。他解決了經(jīng)濟(jì)問題并進(jìn)行了許多改革。在這一點(diǎn)上，除了最激進(jìn)的共和黨人，沒有人反對(duì)他擔(dān)任皇帝的頭銜--而激進(jìn)的共和黨人并不像許多人認(rèn)為的那么多。
How close did the early USA come to such a failure? Is it mostly its decentralized nature that prevented it?
早期的美國(guó)離這樣的失?。ㄖ笓泶骶髦疲┯卸噙h(yuǎn)？主要是其分散的性質(zhì)阻止了它嗎？
The USA was never in any danger of this. First off it wasn’t a popular revolution at all, but even if it was no American city had anywhere near the population to be as dominant as Paris.
美國(guó)從未遇到過這種危險(xiǎn)。首先，它根本不是一場(chǎng)人民革命，但即使它是，也沒有任何美國(guó)城市的人口能像巴黎那樣占優(yōu)勢(shì)。
I can think of two rural rebellions and two military mutinies but can’t remember any urban mob eruptions.
我能想到兩次農(nóng)村叛亂和兩次軍事叛亂，但不記得任何城市暴民爆發(fā)的叛亂。
The American revolutionaries came close to re-instating a king as part of a constitutional monarchy to stave off mob rule, inviting Prince Henry of Prussia to become king but he refused.
Why America’s Founders Tried to Recruit a Foreign Prince to Be Their King—And How That Moment Holds a Warning for Today
美國(guó)革命者接近重新確立一個(gè)國(guó)王，作為君主立憲制的一部分，以避免暴民統(tǒng)治，邀請(qǐng)普魯士的亨利王子成為國(guó)王，但他拒絕了。
為什么美國(guó)的國(guó)父?jìng)冊(cè)噲D招募一個(gè)外國(guó)王子成為他們的國(guó)王——以及那一刻對(duì)今天有何警示（文章鏈接）
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
This was Gorham’s idea and unlikely to be accepted by Americans.
Prussian scheme - Wikipedia
The Prussian scheme is the name of a reported 1786 attempt by President of the Continental Congress Nathaniel Gorham , acting in possible concert with other persons influential in the government of the United States , to establish a monarchy in the U.S. under the rule of Henry of Prussia , a prince of the House of Hohenzollern , possibly to resolve the ongoing political crises occurring during the last days of the Articles of Confederation . The attempt may have died due to a lack of interest on Henry's part, popular opposition to a rumored proposal involving a different potential monarch, the convening of the Philadelphia Convention , or some combination thereof. Background [ edit ] Post-revolutionary monarchist tendencies [ edit ] Prince Henry of Prussia was reportedly offered the hypothetical throne of the United States. The protracted disturbances created by the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation as the United States' constitution, which culminated in Shays' Rebellion , reportedly gave rise to a "class of men in the community who gave very serious apprehensions to the advocates for a Republican form of government". [1] Prior to, and following, the May 1787 convening of the Philadelphia Convention, widely circulated rumors reported that the conclave was meeting for the purpose of offering to enthrone Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany as king of the United States. [2] So acute were the rumors that the convention issued a public denial that any proposal for a reestablishment of monarchy was being considered, the denial later being repeated in a letter sent by Alexander Martin to the governor of North Carolina . [2] American attitudes toward Prussia [ edit ] American public opinion at the time generally regarded Prussia warmly. [3] Prince Henry's older brother, Frederick the Great , harbored an "immense hatred" toward Great Britain for having abandoned Prussia near the end of the Seven Years' War . [3] During the American Revolution , he had closed Prussian territory to passage by the army of the Principality of Anhalt-Zerbst , a British ally. This required military forces from the landlocked nation to make a circuitous journey to reach a seaport for deployment to North America, during which nearly half of Anhalt-Zerbst troops deserted. [4] Similar restrictions were placed on troops from other British allies attempting to transit to North America, including the Principality of Bayreuth , the Margraviate of Ansbach , and the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel . [3] Proposal [ edit ] In the early 20th century a letter was discovered from Henry of Prussia to the Prussian-American general Baron Von Steuben (pictured) seemingly confirming the veracity of the "Prussian scheme" story. Early allegations [ edit ] According to Rufus King , at about the same time the rumors pertaining to Prince Frederick were circulating, Nathaniel Gorham secretly corresponded to Prince Henry of Prussia offering to create him as monarch of the United States.
這只是戈勒姆的想法，不太可能被美國(guó)人接受。
普魯士計(jì)劃 - 維基百科
普魯士計(jì)劃是1786年大陸會(huì)議主席納撒尼爾-戈勒姆在可能與其他對(duì)美國(guó)政府有影響力的人合作的情況下，試圖在美國(guó)建立一個(gè)由普魯士的亨利（霍亨索倫家族的一位王子）的統(tǒng)治下的君主制政府，這可能是為了解決在聯(lián)邦條款的最后日子里發(fā)生的持續(xù)性政治危機(jī)。這一嘗試可能是由于亨利方面缺乏興趣、民眾反對(duì)一個(gè)涉及不同潛在君主的傳言、費(fèi)城會(huì)議的召開，或其中的一些原因的組合而失敗。
背景--革命后的君主主義傾向：據(jù)報(bào)道，普魯士的亨利王子被提出來擔(dān)任美國(guó)的假想王位。據(jù)報(bào)道，由于《聯(lián)邦條款》作為美國(guó)憲法的缺陷所造成的長(zhǎng)期騷亂，最終導(dǎo)致了謝斯叛亂，"社會(huì)上有一類人對(duì)共和政體的倡導(dǎo)者產(chǎn)生了非常嚴(yán)重的憂慮"。在1787年5月費(fèi)城會(huì)議召開之前和之后，廣泛流傳的謠言稱，會(huì)議的目的是提議冊(cè)封約克和奧爾巴尼公爵弗雷德里克王子為美國(guó)國(guó)王。謠言如此尖銳，以至于大會(huì)公開否認(rèn)正在考慮任何重建君主制的提議，后來亞歷山大-馬丁在給北卡羅來納州州長(zhǎng)的信中重復(fù)了這一否認(rèn)。
美國(guó)對(duì)普魯士的態(tài)度：當(dāng)時(shí)的美國(guó)輿論普遍對(duì)普魯士持熱情態(tài)度。亨利王子的哥哥，腓特烈大帝，對(duì)英國(guó)在七年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)結(jié)束前拋棄普魯士懷有 "巨大的仇恨"。在美國(guó)革命期間，他關(guān)閉了普魯士的領(lǐng)土，不讓英國(guó)盟友安哈爾特-澤爾布斯特公國(guó)的軍隊(duì)通過。這就要求這個(gè)內(nèi)陸國(guó)家的軍隊(duì)必須經(jīng)過迂回的旅程才能到達(dá)一個(gè)海港，以部署到北美，在此期間，安哈爾特-澤爾布斯特的軍隊(duì)有近一半開小差。其他試圖轉(zhuǎn)運(yùn)到北美的英國(guó)盟友的部隊(duì)也受到了類似的限制，包括拜羅伊特公國(guó)、安斯巴赫侯爵和黑森-卡塞爾侯爵。
提議：在20世紀(jì)初，人們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一封普魯士的亨利寫給普魯士裔美國(guó)將軍馮-斯圖本男爵（如圖）的信，似乎證實(shí)了"普魯士計(jì)劃"故事的真實(shí)性。
早期的指控：根據(jù)魯弗斯-金的說法，大約在與弗雷德里克王子有關(guān)的謠言甚囂塵上的同時(shí)，納撒尼爾-戈勒姆秘密地與普魯士的亨利王子通信，提出要把他立為美國(guó)的君主。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Then why did the king not move the position of himself and his government to a place where the population supported him?
那么，為什么國(guó)王不把他自己和他的政府的駐地轉(zhuǎn)移到一個(gè)人民支持他的地方呢？
He initially was away from Paris at Versailles; then he was kidnapped to Paris.
他最初確實(shí)是離開巴黎去了凡爾賽宮；然后他被綁架回了巴黎。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Louis XIV built Versailles in the 1660’s for precisely that reason actually. He’d grown up during a period of civil war and political tumult in Paris, and vowed to keep the monarchy safe from the filthy overcrowded corrupt city. But he was never able to get a firm handle on the state finances, and the mess he left behind wasn’t successfully dealt with by either of his successors.
實(shí)際上，路易十四在1660年代建造凡爾賽宮正是出于這個(gè)原因。他是在巴黎的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)和政治動(dòng)蕩時(shí)期長(zhǎng)大的，他發(fā)誓要讓君主制遠(yuǎn)離這個(gè)骯臟擁擠腐敗的城市。但他從未能牢牢掌控國(guó)家財(cái)政，他留下的爛攤子也沒有被他的任何一位繼任者成功處理。
Calling Napoleon simply a “monarch” also seems to miss the point a bit. He fits the descxtion of a monarch well, but I doubt any of the kings and emperors of Europe would want to be grouped with him.
將拿破侖簡(jiǎn)單地稱為"君主"似乎也有點(diǎn)失之偏頗。他很符合君主的描述，但我懷疑歐洲的任何一個(gè)國(guó)王和皇帝會(huì)想和他擺在一起。
European Monarchs probably wouldn’t want to be associated with Napoleon is accurate. European royalty made great strides to meet “royal” bloodlines, to the point of accepting foreign born rulers that had the proper blood than a homegrown leader. Many of the European monarchs, even ones opposed to each other, were related. Much more so than many realize. Napoleon was a commoner, so reviled. The European aristocracy approved of France re-instituting a Monarchy but wanted it replaced with someone of the proper bloodline.
By the end of Napoleon’s reign, there was a slightly different take on him. Most accept Napoleon as a military genius but, he made institutional governmental changes that revolutionized the French government. Some of these institutions are still active in France today. While Napoleon may not have survived to succeed, he certainly left a legacy that placed France as a world power up to the 20th century.
歐洲君主可能不愿意與拿破侖聯(lián)系在一起的說法是準(zhǔn)確的。歐洲皇室在對(duì)"皇室"血統(tǒng)方面的需求非常強(qiáng)大，以至于愿意接受擁有適當(dāng)血統(tǒng)的外國(guó)出生的統(tǒng)治者，而不是接受本土的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。許多歐洲君主，甚至是相互對(duì)立的君主，他們之間都有關(guān)系。比許多人意識(shí)到的要多得多。拿破侖是個(gè)平民，所以被謾罵。歐洲貴族們贊同法國(guó)重新建立君主制，但希望用具有適當(dāng)血統(tǒng)的人取代他。
到了拿破侖統(tǒng)治的末期，人們對(duì)他的看法略有不同。大多數(shù)人接受拿破侖是一個(gè)軍事天才，但是，他進(jìn)行的政府機(jī)構(gòu)改革徹底改變了法國(guó)政府。其中一些機(jī)構(gòu)今天仍然活躍在法國(guó)。雖然拿破侖可能沒有活著取得成功，但他肯定留下了一份遺產(chǎn)，使法國(guó)成為一個(gè)世界強(qiáng)國(guó)，直到20世紀(jì)。
He was like Putin.
他就像普京一樣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Few people in France fought for Liberté. What we meant with that word was more égalité, and Napoléon was it fiercest advocate, alongside meritocracy.
Liberty is a need of well-off man who has nothing to do of his days and weeks… It was the case in Greece, it is the case today. The one who spent 12 hours scratching the soil to cultivate his crops only cares about what will be in his plate tonight.
在法國(guó)，很少有人為"自由"而戰(zhàn)。我們對(duì)這個(gè)詞的意思的解釋更接近于“平等”，拿破侖是它最激烈的倡導(dǎo)者，同時(shí)也是功利主義者。
自由是一個(gè)富裕的人的需要，這些人在平日里和工作日里都無所事事......在希臘以前是這樣，在今天也是這樣。一個(gè)花了12個(gè)小時(shí)在土地里抓緊時(shí)間耕種莊稼的人，只會(huì)關(guān)心今晚他的盤子里會(huì)有什么。
Calling Napoleon’s government a “monarchy” is a bit misleading to begin with. Aside from his title he was really more of a dictator.
把拿破侖的政府稱為"君主制"有點(diǎn)誤導(dǎo)。除了他的頭銜之外，他實(shí)際上更像是一個(gè)獨(dú)裁者。
As was every contemporary monarch in Europe at the time, save the sovereigns of Sweden and the UK (the only truly constitutional monarchies at the time of the Revolution.) so what’s your point exactly?
當(dāng)時(shí)歐洲所有的當(dāng)代君主都是如此，除了瑞典和英國(guó)的君主（革命時(shí)唯一真正的君主立憲制國(guó)家），所以你到底想說什么？
Thank you for an excellent response that has enlightened me.
I remember studying the French Revolution in College and that my Professor was extremely interested in us gaining a full understanding of the how and why and what it meant, but at the end of the day, I’m not sure I really got it.
My original take aways were:
The circular nature of the French Revolution shows that Democracy with a capital ‘D’ is not ‘pre-destined’ and people need to be very careful of what they ask for because they might just get it.
People will accept almost any form of Government rather than complete Chaos.
Starving and taxing the people at the same time is not a winning strategy for maintaining power as History has proven over and over again.
The French Aristocracy were an anachronism who similar to the Russian Aristocracy sowed the seeds to their own destruction by refusing to grow with the times.
Cobble stone streets are a problem for the authorities, since a mob can tear them up and readily make barricades to thwart local enforcement.
Parisians are on the whole an excitable group and once they get rolling, it’s hard to get them to stop or back done.
Robespierre was not a good person.
Murat should have been more careful.
謝謝你的精彩回答，讓我豁然開朗。
我記得在大學(xué)里學(xué)習(xí)法國(guó)大革命時(shí)，我的教授對(duì)授予我們充分了解它發(fā)生的方式和原因以及它的意義非常在意，但到最后，我不確定我是否真的領(lǐng)悟到了。
我最初的收獲是：
1.法國(guó)大革命的循環(huán)性質(zhì)表明，大寫的民主不是"預(yù)先注定的"，人們需要非常小心他們所要求的東西，因?yàn)樗麄兛赡苷娴臅?huì)得到。
2.人們會(huì)接受幾乎任何形式的政府，而不是完全的混亂。
3.饑餓和向人民征稅并不是維持權(quán)力的制勝法寶，歷史已經(jīng)一再證明。
4.法國(guó)貴族是一個(gè)不合時(shí)宜的東西，他們與俄羅斯貴族類似，拒絕與時(shí)俱進(jìn)，為自己的毀滅埋下了種子。
5.鵝卵石街道對(duì)當(dāng)局來說是個(gè)問題，因?yàn)楸┩娇梢园阉鼈兡胨?，并隨時(shí)制造路障來阻撓地方執(zhí)法。
6.巴黎人總的來說是一個(gè)容易激動(dòng)的群體，一旦他們開始行動(dòng)，就很難讓他們停下來或放棄行動(dòng)。
7.羅伯斯庇爾不是一個(gè)好人。
8.穆拉特應(yīng)該更加小心的。
Thanks, I've read a lot on Napoleon and how he became emperor was always a mystery to me, you've finally answered it.
謝謝，我讀了很多關(guān)于拿破侖的書，他如何成為皇帝對(duì)我來說總是個(gè)謎，你終于回答了這個(gè)問題。
Perhaps another way to view this is, “was the French Revolution a movement of the people or was it a coup orchestrated by various factions and as such always doomed to replace the terrible monarchy with another terrible form of government?” Or did the thinking even extend beyond the benefit of the French? After all Napoleon quickly put an end to the concept of “egalite” by reinstating slavery and creating “royal” dynasties based around his relatives.
也許可以用另一種看法，"法國(guó)大革命到底是一場(chǎng)人民的運(yùn)動(dòng)，還是一場(chǎng)由各派別策劃的政變，因此總是注定要用另一種可怕的政府形式來取代可怕的君主制？" 或者說，這種思維甚至超越了法國(guó)人的利益？畢竟拿破侖通過恢復(fù)奴隸制和建立以他的親屬為中心的 "王室"王朝，迅速結(jié)束了"平等"的概念。
Questions the education system was never bothered to ask or answer… so that we can remain in perpetual ignorance.
教育系統(tǒng)從來都不會(huì)費(fèi)心提出或回答這種問題......這樣就可以保證我們永遠(yuǎn)處于無知狀態(tài)。
Indeed, but as we become educated (after leaving schools and colleges) we can inform ourselves and then we are entitled to have our own opinions.
的確，但隨著我們受過教育（離開學(xué)校和學(xué)院后），我們可以自己去了解情況，然后我們就有權(quán)發(fā)表自己的意見。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
The French Revolution, like the Russian Revolution, started as a popular revolution AGAINST something more than FOR something. What usually happens in these rebellions is that one of the factions tries to heist the Revolution after the Ancien Regime is ousted. In France, the radicals managed to out-leverage the moderates; in Russia, the Bolsheviks, originally one of the smallest factions, strong-armed the others. Neither of these factions would have been the popular choice nationwide. Had the moderates in France or Mensheviks or Social Revolutionaries gained power in Russia, their histories might have been far less bloody. It’s tempting to believe that the most radical factions have an advantage in these scenarios due to their ability to manipulate the mobs.
法國(guó)大革命，就像俄國(guó)革命一樣，開始時(shí)是一場(chǎng)反對(duì)什么而不是支持什么的人民革命。在這些叛亂中通常發(fā)生的情況是，其中一個(gè)派別試圖在前政權(quán)被趕走后搶奪革命果實(shí)。在法國(guó)，激進(jìn)派成功地利用了溫和派；在俄國(guó)，布爾什維克，原本是最小的派別之一，強(qiáng)行對(duì)其他派別使用武力。這兩個(gè)派別都不會(huì)成為全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的流行選擇。如果法國(guó)的溫和派或孟什維克或社會(huì)革命黨人在俄國(guó)獲得了權(quán)力，他們的歷史可能就不會(huì)那么血腥。人們很容易理解最激進(jìn)的派別在這些情況下是有優(yōu)勢(shì)的，因?yàn)樗麄冇心芰Σ倏v暴民。
The people of Paris were used by the revolutionaries but they were a mere tool serving the revolutionary leaders. They were useful idiots who were sent back to their slums once the monarchy had been overthrown.
巴黎的人民被革命者利用了，他們只是為革命領(lǐng)袖服務(wù)的工具。他們是有用的白癡，一旦君主制被推翻，他們就會(huì)被送回他們的貧民窟。
I learned something new there. Succinct but really informative.
有用的知識(shí)增加了。
Very well put. You are right, the urban element is all to often, even completely ignored. Striking parallels all over the 1st world countries, including the U.S.
說得非常好。你是對(duì)的，城市因素經(jīng)常被忽視，甚至完全被忽視。第一世界國(guó)家，包括美國(guó)，都有驚人的相似之處。
It is weird — Both of Europe's largest land empires were created by a man who didn't call himself a king because the people murdered their last king.
這很奇怪--歐洲最大的兩個(gè)陸地帝國(guó)都是由一個(gè)不稱自己為國(guó)王的人創(chuàng)建的，因?yàn)槿嗣裰\殺了他們的最后一個(gè)國(guó)王。
Good point, the logistics of older times; scarcer and slower transport and communication were crucial factors.
很好的觀點(diǎn)。古時(shí)候的物流、更稀缺和較慢的運(yùn)輸和溝通是關(guān)鍵因素。
Very good explanation ! I would add Napoléon Always managed to présent himself as a son of the révolution, and, for some aspects, it was true since he fought in the revolutionary army and he succeded in conforting and spreading the principle from the révolution of the egality before the law with the civil code.
非常好的解釋! 我想補(bǔ)充的是，拿破侖總是設(shè)法把自己說成是革命之子，而且，在某些方面，這是真的，因?yàn)樗诟锩婈?duì)中作戰(zhàn)，他成功地在民法典中確認(rèn)和傳播了革命中法律面前人人平等的原則。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Perfect Answer. Paris mob ,an assorted collection of Intellectuals and Goons overthrew Monarchy and murdered their king .France is a highly centralized state Anarchy in Paris will render entire country dysfunctional. Napoleon saved the revolution at Siege of Toulon,Oct 1795,counter revolution Austrian offensive in Italy . Finaly he took over through a military coup in 1799 .Similarly Petrograd mob caused revolution in Russia. Unfortunately there was no Russian Napoleon
完美的答案。一群由知識(shí)分子和暴徒組成的巴黎暴徒推翻了君主制并謀殺了他們的國(guó)王。法國(guó)是一個(gè)高度集中的國(guó)家，巴黎的無政府狀態(tài)將使整個(gè)國(guó)家失去功能。拿破侖在1795年10月圍攻土倫時(shí)拯救了革命，并在意大利反擊了奧地利的反革命攻勢(shì)。最后，他通過1799年的軍事政變奪取了政權(quán)。同樣，彼得格勒的暴徒也在俄國(guó)引發(fā)了革命。不幸的是，俄國(guó)沒有拿破侖。
I’m not sure if “Paris mob” covers it. There were crazed intellectuals and anarchists and drunkards and whoremongers aplenty in ‘89 and ‘30 and ‘48 and ‘71, and co-optation from the very start in every case, but the Paris insurgencies were basically movements of workers and artisans. And I dare say the same was true of Petrograd.
Today in the US, the question needs to be asked: behind the political co-optation and infiltration and provocation, is there a real movement of people tired of racist/classist oppression and stagnating at the edge of poverty?
我不確定"巴黎暴徒"一詞是否能涵蓋它。在1789年、1830年、1848年和1871年，有很多瘋狂的知識(shí)分子和無政府主義者、酒鬼和嫖客，而且每一次都是從一開始就被收編了，但巴黎的叛亂基本上是工人和工匠的運(yùn)動(dòng)。我敢說彼得格勒也是如此。
今天在美國(guó)，需要問的一個(gè)問題是：在政治上的合縱連橫和滲透挑釁的背后，是否有一個(gè)厭倦了種族主義/階級(jí)主義壓迫和停滯在貧困邊緣的人群的真正運(yùn)動(dòng)在醞釀？
, lives in Paris
，住在巴黎
法國(guó)人民根本不反對(duì)君主制，他們最初是為了建立君主立憲制。共和國(guó)由嗜血的狂熱者領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，他們殺害了許多愛國(guó)者，原因往往微不足道。拿破侖結(jié)束了這種混亂，使人們同意他的崛起。
, Passionate in 20th century military history
，對(duì)20世紀(jì)的軍事史充滿了激情
Also the revolutionaries were against monarchy because you become a king not because of your merit but because of bloodline. Napoleon became emperor because he was a good general an a national hero at that time. Many of his reforms and civil codes are still in place even after he was dispossessed.
法國(guó)大革命起初并不反對(duì)君主制。它的目的是廢除貴族血統(tǒng)的權(quán)利和特權(quán)，使每個(gè)人都能平等地接受法律。國(guó)王起初被保留下來，但當(dāng)他試圖逃離巴黎，加入入侵法國(guó)的外國(guó)軍隊(duì)時(shí)，他被視為叛徒，這就是為什么他后來被處決。
另外，革命者們也反對(duì)君主制，因?yàn)槟愠蔀閲?guó)王不是因?yàn)槟愕墓?jī)，而是因?yàn)檠y(tǒng)的關(guān)系。拿破侖成為皇帝是因?yàn)樗且粋€(gè)優(yōu)秀的將軍，是當(dāng)時(shí)的民族英雄。他的許多改革和民法即使在他被剝奪權(quán)利后仍在實(shí)施。