What, do you believe, to be the most profound and significant revolution?

A) American revolution, 1775 - 1783 [13 British American colonies gained independence from Britain, to form the United States of America]

B) Russian revolution, 1917 - 1918 [Russia revolted against Tsar Nicholas II, ending the line of Tsar's and forming communist Soviet Russia, under Lenin]

C) French Revolution, 1789 - 1795, 1848...pick one :P [Numerous revolutions, specific conclusion and events being the change from Louis XV to Napoleon, from Monarch, to republic, to emporer, Robespierre's regime, etcetc]

D) European Wave of Revolution 1830/1848 [revolution swept across Europe for a period of years, from France, German states, Poland, Italian states, Belgium independence, etcetc]

Try to consider not only the effect they have now, or what they had after, but also at the time. The French and European revolutions, for example, were far more profound for the people of the day, in terms of effect and bloody violence. You may also want to think ideologically - communism, or major change, like America from being a string of colonies to becoming a nation.
And try to flame eachother. I don't want a reputation for creating civil threads. Yeesh :P

Im going to go for "A" Alex, the American Revolution.

Partially because im semi biased and mostly because the US had a major impact on the worlds economy. Obviously when the 13 original states were formed it wasnt the massive boost that is so prevalent in todays economy. Essential we fuel the worlds fire, sometimes literally.

And try to flame eachother. I don't want a reputation for creating civil threads. Yeesh :P
Suck eet you limey bastard!!!! :D

A. Love us or hate us, you can't deny the magnitude of what that led to.

If you differentiate between "when it happened" and "now", it's completely up for grabs.

If you look at the current state of the world, I'm not sure there's any debate about (A).

Definatly A, if the American Revolution had not occured the world would be a much different place. We helped win WW2 for the allies, defeated communism, not to mention we are the number 1 super power atm.


Edit: Also im pretty sure that the American Revolution helped jump start the French revolution.

Just because I'm naturally a devil's advocate.....C.

The rise of Napolean and his ruinous wars led him to sell us the Louisiania Territoy. Without Napolean, it is unclear whether a weak Spain would have returned control to France. If Spain had retained Louisiania, with the cozy relationship we had with them over New Orleans, it would have been decades, if ever, before possession of Louisiania became significant to us. The Louisiania Purchase not only doubled our land mass, but also was the seed to manifest destiny. This would be a much different country without Louisiania.

Yea, that's pretty American-centric argument, best I can think of at the moment.

Fil

edit: meant France, put B for some reason

A of course for obvious reasons.

It couldn't possibly be B, as the system that benefited from that one already collapsed.

It couldn't be C because that's France..and who really cares about France?

D..well come on, Europe was squabbling back and forth for centuries on end before then, it really wasn't anything new..heck, the EU(SSR) is going to have more of a lasting impact than all of that.

There's nothing like rising up against the mighty imperialists. I think many will atest that had we not one that battle we all would be talking funny and sipping tea and driving on the wrong side of the road!

Seriously though, the Industrial Revolution helped spark capitalism, and YAY for capitalism.

I would say globally A has had a more profound effect. Though the others were major factors in history, A imo lead to the beginnning of mass democracy across the world, and was the catalyst to truely end monarchy.

I think in choosing A, most of you are considering nothing but the modern day effect of the revolution (or rebellion, whichever floats your boat).
I think those of Eastern Europe and Asia would undoubtedly have chosen the French revolution. It changed a Tsar ruled, capitalist country in to a so called "communist" empire, swallowing half of the countries surrounding it, dominating the landscape for, what, three quaters of a century? It carried Russia through WW2 (pretty much crushing Germany), and had an enormous effect on the world after (cold war, anyone?), occupying not only American focus, but world focus. The struggle of Communism and Capitalism is pretty much what the last half of the 20th century was about.

Our landscape, politically and physically, would be radically different if there were to be no Russian Revolution in 1917. How many wars, invasions, territories, peoples, have all come under its sway? Devastating and spectacular accomplishments have been its consequence for decades. Even in its collapse, the revolutionary movement has achieved almost unbelievable effects upon the world.

Of course I'm not playing down the American Revolution. But do the commercial and economic achievements of the USA outstrip both the devastating and the brutal reaches of Soviet Russia? I certainly know what Eastern Europeans would believe to be the more significant in the past, and the present.

'A imo lead to the beginnning of mass democracy across the world, and was the catalyst to truely end monarchy.'

- Do what now?
End monarchy? Not really seeing how that was down to the US :P
And monarchy hasn't ended. Constituionalized, mayhaps. But not ended.

Anyone who has personally been affected by a revolution will choose it over any other. In the long term view, the American Revolution inspired a number of others and its effect has lasted for centuries so far. The Russian Revolution (actually two if you count the Bolsheviks seizing control) had immense effect, but only for a comparatively short time. It's only lasting effect will depend upon what China becomes in the long run since it is the bastard godchild of the Soviet revolution.

The various European revolutions were more or less "me too" revolutions and owed a great deal, at least ideologically, to the American notion of telling their monarchs to take a hike (or become figureheads only if they are sentimental about their rulers). I don't consider them as influential for that reason. In the case of the French revolution, they slaughtered off their upper class and shortly thereafter began to treat Napoleon like any king prior. Some revolution.

I'm likely biased, but my vote goes for the US revolution as well. It had immense effect (especially on the new world) and its result has lasted for two and a half centuries with no sign of faltering.

B for me, it changed alot for Russian and other soviet nations inhabitants, and as well changed alot how the world game rules over years.

'the American Revolution inspired a number of others and its effect has lasted for centuries so far'

- Any argument backing that up? Not something I'm ready to chew up. The American Revolution was a colonial rebellion, hardly the inspiration for Polish peasents rising up during the 1800's.

'and its result has lasted for two and a half centuries with no sign of faltering.'

- Result in what context? That its revolutionary outcome still exists? Aye.
But in terms of world-wide, immense ripples? Probably not been a world-factor for more than 80 years, and still arguably eclipsed by the British until WW2.

The majority of revolutions in the new world (with the exception of a couple communist inspired ones) were all inspired by the US. Kicking the European powers out of the Americas was what we were all about. It is no fluke that the term "president" is more commonly found in latin America than the term "prime minister".

In Europe, the example was set in 1776 by the US for getting rid of aristocracy and replacing it with a republic. The revolts in Europe thereafter were not to trade one monarch for another as had been the case in other revolts prior, but rather to place some degree of power directly in the hands of the people. Are you seriously suggesting the US revolution did not serve as an inspiration? That 13 puny colonies could band together and free themselves of control by one of the great powers was not noted by the Europeans? Even the Polish peasants you noted would have been keenly aware of that example. To some degree, you could even argue the Russian revolution started out that way before it took on a character all its own.

The Russian Revolution (actually two if you count the Bolsheviks seizing control) had immense effect, but only for a comparatively short time
The Russian Revolution was less than 100 years ago, and the waves it created have not yet settled.

The threat of the USSR had a huge effect on the way the US operated for 50 years- which in turn influenced a whole host of other things in turn- such as our war in Vietnam, our cool relations with Cuba, the formation of the School of the Americas, our support of Al Queda in Afghanistan (look where that got us) and a whole bunch of other things. If there was no USSR (or a more moderate one- perhaps if Stalin had caught a bullet early on or something) and no Cold War... what would have happened?

Obviously, if you look at a large enough picture, everything in the past 300 years or so becomes more and more connected.

All thing are interconnected I agree...but think how different the world would be if the US revolution had failed. All the arguments you state for the influence of the USSR apply equally to the US. Our existence has drastically altered the policies of the world as much (or more) as the Soviets. Take a look at the underlying goals (individual freedom or classless society) and then decide which has more pull today in the minds of the world.

All the arguments you state for the influence of the USSR apply equally to the USAnd every other event in history. What if the English Peasant Revolt in 1381 (is that right?) had gone further and become the English Peasant Revolution?

We can play "what if" all day long and give opinion all day long- that is the point of the threads. Not that one person is "right" and another is wrong. It is an excercise in history, theory and debate for shits and giggles.

Um, that's not "what ifs" that is "did happens".

'All thing are interconnected I agree...but think how different the world would be if the US revolution had failed'

- Well OK, let's think.

How different would it actually be? Britain pretty much invented modern democracy, balanced the threat of too much power throughout the world (most wars in Europe were making sure the balance of power remains, and Britain was part of the first actual Cold War with Russia, which eventually turned hot), we spread Western ideas, principles, democracies, revolutionized industry and technology, science and culture, after periods of time allowed almost every colony to become independent peacefully, so forth, so on.

Who knows how the world would have been bettered had the British Empire retained its tremendously rich 13 American colonies?

Of course, I'm being too pro-British Empire there, but it's a view that I think helps express just how different the world would be with or without the US.

Fundamentally, Britain and America are equal in almost all ideals, approaches, and applications. So whether or not the 13 colonies who would spread across the American continent attained independence or not, how much difference would it really have caused?

Now look at Russia. Had the 1917 revolution not took place, god knows what peace we could have found in the last half of the 20th century.

In honor of our last debate, lets start this one clearly:

Um, that's not "what ifs" that is "did happens".
I'm not following you here.

Gulor said (implied in his quote is the "what... if... scenario):
if the US revolution had failed.
I replied:
What if the English Peasant Revolt in 1381 (is that right?) had gone further and become the English Peasant Revolution
Then followed that up with:
We can play "what if" all day long and give opinion all day long
None of those things happened. Everything that *has* happened is (obviously, due to cause and effect) related.

We can play "what if" all day long, and it is fun- but we can't take it too seriously, either.

Had the US not broken away, likely Spain would still own most of the new world, not Britain. You had as much chance of an "uber" Spanish empire as a British one, and the Spanish were far less shy about exploiting their subjects. It was the Americans, not the British, who forced Spain / Mexico to relinquish control of much of the southwestern US and the pacific colonies. Russia would likely still own the northwest US. The French would never have sold off the central part of the continent to their enemies, the British, so they would have unloaded it to someone else (Dutch maybe? Austrians?) or kept it for themselves. In real life, the Louisianna Purchase was only possible because the Americans were not on good terms with the Brits and the French saw a way to make some money without strengthening their rivals.

So with no revolution, what you would *likely* have is a balkanized new world with several competing aggressive European empires in control. A recipe for disaster, or at least another front for "the Great Game". Likely the Americas would be in much the same shape as Africa ... divided, inefficient and ineffectual.

Another point: Had not the US breaking away made Britain rethink its approach to its colonies, likely they would not granted independence to other colonies voluntarily either. Losing your most valuable overseas colony of the time because of political inflexibility is not something you forget. Even so, many of the later British colonies (like India) were granted independence only after political pressure from other countries (especially the US) and the simple expense of administering a far flung empire after breaking the bank against the Germans. They weren't given independence out of the goodness of British hearts.

Britain pretty much invented modern democracy
BZZZZZT!

You had(and have) a constitutional monarchy.

The first(and longest lasting) modern democracy is the US.

BBZZZT!!
You had (have) a republic.

Which is a democracy.

As is the constitutional monarch.

And it is we who gave democracy to a quater of the world.

Give me a fuckin break.

http://www.usahistory.info/American-Revolution/King-George-III.html

THAT is not a democracy of any sort.

Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by a monarch and a parliament he controls.

What do you think constituional monarch is? A process, you prat. Democracy hadn't prevailed over the better part of the Monarch until the mid 1800's. The solid emergence of the two-party system and election by the public, the monarch's power was all but eclipsed. Even under George III, his powers were refined to being a strong political influence, NOT, and never, did a monarch control parliament or the democratic process of government beyond the Civil War.

You're trying to undermine our constitutional monarch by showing that it isn't a pure democracy. Well no, skippy, that's why it's called a constitutional monarch.

England gets part of the credit for modern democracy in that they created the concept, but with the power residing with either the monarchy or in the last two generations before George III, power mongers that didn't let go of their power. The American colonies showed that

A) the people got sick of the lack of represtation.
B) they wouldn't back down from their ideals.

being that the colonies were far away from England allowed for different ideas to see the light of day and get use. the governers that were firmly under the british crown (or parliment) always seemed to be out of touch with the people they were reponsible. add to that the heavy taxing the colonies got because it was generating solid income from all sorts of industries and you get a lot of pissed of people. for America, we had people who were smart enough to work up a replacement government and probably religious humility to keep themselves in check when they wrote the decleration of independance and the consitution.

I don't think the idea of democracy hit the rest of the world so much as the idea that the monarchy could be kicked out of it's own territory and those people rulling themselves.

in England, democracy finally got to the point were the masses had the power to shape policy but at the same time they wanted to keep the monarchy around as a sort of a testament to everyone that england was still a world power.

France had a lot of contact with our founding fathers with help spark their revolution. If i remember my history right, the Frence monarchy didn't seem like the brightest folks.

And it probably went down the same way for the rest of Europe except Russia. monarchies either got replaced with this new fangled power to the people or their parliments (and the eqivulents) were made up of represenatives of the people.

Russia was different in that people got tired of the crap condition they seemed to be stuck with while the Czar looked to be quite cozy. Their relative isolation from the rest of Europe allowed for Marxism/Communisim to get a foothold. and with Lennin and his friends kicked out their monarchy (read: killed, burned and buried) and took over. the irony is that politics didn't really change. power was held by few people and wasn't decided by the populus.

China went the same way cause it was close to the then Soviet Union. Only thing was that Mao was reading Communisim differently. He was trying to apply it as it was orignally designed. well we all know it didn't come out excactly like that, but it was closer. the goverment in charge didn't seem to become as overbearing as Russia did. maybe they took a look at Stallin and decided not to let that happen or maybe it's cause the China had some other religious/philosphical ideals entrenched (i know communisim is atheist by default, but some concept are easy to adapt).

so if your eyes glazed over halfway....
England sparked the idea of Democracy
America employes Democracy
Europe kicks the monarchy around and either picks up Democracy or monarchy listens to the people
Communism snuck into Russian cause noone seemed to talk to them, who in turn told China it was the best thing in the world.

North Korea looked at communism, liked the idea but thought Russia and China was too lose with it and tightened control. and the kicker is, one family has been in control of the place for two generations. maybe one really fucked up monarchy in the future, or maybe not.

Cuba took up communism cause it was one of two choices. the USA didn't like the idea that Castro was considering it so we tried to kick him out and failed hediously cause it was a half ass attempt. so he went to communism in spite.

and Sealand is a little gun platform that thinks it's a country with a monarch and a population of....3 people and 200 blade servers

Is it me or did that just all sort of make sense :confused: