"Hunger and lack of medical care have been fairly endemic in the world for most of its history and yet revolutions have been relatively rare."
True, but it'd be interesting to know why certain crises cause revolutions and why many do not. I believe there have been a great many power shifts or takeovers (that fall short of actual revolution) within existing governments during times of stress, when the people want governmental change. However, if an alternate government presents itself during this time, then people generally seem more willing to give them a chance and, by the time the new government's grace-period has run out the crisis has ended, and there is little real change. (Probably a bad example, but kind of like how the Confederates during the American Civil War used to be part of the Union government, so they already knew what they were doing as far as ruling and organization went).
"but what if Louis had been more of a go-getting enlightened despot kick-ass sort of monarch who could have battered through tax reform and not gone through finance ministers like silk stockings." Haha.. 'The Schlub cycle', so true... I've wondered that too. I tend to think it had something to do with it. I mean, Robespierre wouldn't have been as successful as he was without his reputation for being 'virtuous' and leading a fairly low-key lifestyle (er, well.. when he was doing government things anyway). Maybe Louis wouldn't have failed so miserably if the people had seen him as sympathetic rather than being so exorbitant... Just seeing the standard of life royalty had back then is sickening, especially comparing it to everyone else's!
On an alternate note, I've noticed a great many revolutions and government overthrows seem to happen during summer (July 14th is especially popular.. I found several historical government takeovers when I put it into wikipedia). I wonder why that is, because it seems like food is at its lowest during winter...
no subject
True, but it'd be interesting to know why certain crises cause revolutions and why many do not. I believe there have been a great many power shifts or takeovers (that fall short of actual revolution) within existing governments during times of stress, when the people want governmental change. However, if an alternate government presents itself during this time, then people generally seem more willing to give them a chance and, by the time the new government's grace-period has run out the crisis has ended, and there is little real change. (Probably a bad example, but kind of like how the Confederates during the American Civil War used to be part of the Union government, so they already knew what they were doing as far as ruling and organization went).
"but what if Louis had been more of a go-getting enlightened despot kick-ass sort of monarch who could have battered through tax reform and not gone through finance ministers like silk stockings."
Haha.. 'The Schlub cycle', so true... I've wondered that too. I tend to think it had something to do with it. I mean, Robespierre wouldn't have been as successful as he was without his reputation for being 'virtuous' and leading a fairly low-key lifestyle (er, well.. when he was doing government things anyway). Maybe Louis wouldn't have failed so miserably if the people had seen him as sympathetic rather than being so exorbitant... Just seeing the standard of life royalty had back then is sickening, especially comparing it to everyone else's!
On an alternate note, I've noticed a great many revolutions and government overthrows seem to happen during summer (July 14th is especially popular.. I found several historical government takeovers when I put it into wikipedia). I wonder why that is, because it seems like food is at its lowest during winter...