Not the only one to die just because, in those times.

The French Revolution saw so much bloodshed for so little change (for the ordinary people at least).

The XIXth century history in Europe would have been much different if it were not for the French revolution (and Napoleon). For horrific Napoleon reign was, it marked the end of the constant warfare that plagued European states before (congress of Vienna).

Pre revolution, France was also one of the most backward political system in Western Europe, especially compared to England or the Netherlands. It also marked the end of the Church power in Western Europe

I agree it was a lot of bloodshed but eventually the change was huge. France is still by far the most socialist country in Western Europe.

The major impact was the rise of national identities following the revolutionary wars and Napoleonic conquests. The same population who took part in the Terror voted happily for noted autocrat Napoleon, then lived under kings of various levels of mediocrity, briefly under a Republic before electing the then-President Emperor (because that turned out so well the first time), before returning to a Republican regime after being beaten by Bismark. The current blend of social democracy (though less and less social these days) has little in the way of direct filiation with the original French Revolution.

France never reverted to the kind of excesses that the set of Royalty at the time of the French revolution practiced.

And yes, you're right the effect wasn't a direct one but it definitely became part of the DNA of France. For instance the role of the church before and after the revolution are tremendously different and aristocracy never managed to get the same strong grip on France as it did before.

> France never reverted to the kind of excesses that the set of Royalty at the time of the French revolution practiced.

> And yes, you're right the effect wasn't a direct one but it definitely became part of the DNA of France. For instance the role of the church before and after the revolution are tremendously different and aristocracy never managed to get the same strong grip on France as it did before.

If you mean it was the end of the absolute monarchy, then yes, absolutely. Charles X (second French king of the XIXth century) hadn't got the memo, and his attempt to go back to the good old days cost him his life. However, Napoleon's empire wasn't particularly different from pre-revolutionary France in terms of political liberties.

Most developed places never practiced the same excesses, though... other than the Communist countries, at least.

I think you misread parent. You seem to refer to the excesses of the French revolution, not of the French monarchy. It's true that France would not know the same kind of mass executions all over the country again, but it would exert occasionally a ferocious repression during its wars (eg, in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars) or in its colonies (eg, the massacres in French Algeria just after the end of WWII).

No, I was referring to the excesses of the monarchy. I think North Korea is one example of a Communist country that has gone above and beyond any ancient monarchy with its terrible mix of poverty, starvation, exploitation there. And it's still going that way even today.

> I agree it was a lot of bloodshed but eventually the change was huge.

Political mass-murder of innocent women and children, mass conscription (slave armies), total war, 5 million dead, entire regions devastated for generations...totally worth it though.

> Political mass-murder of innocent women and children

What about the innocent men?

> totally worth it though.

That's up for debate.

Also I see some irony that when there is a terrorist attack that kills innocent people in Paris, the way to show solidarity is to sing this in football matches:

Do you hear, in the countryside, the roar of those ferocious soldiers? They're coming right into your arms to cut the throats of your sons, your women! To arms, citizens, form your battalions, Let's march, let's march! Let an impure blood soak our fields!

Slaves were freed though.

People get punished because of their social standing and profession all the time - see also conscripts, slaves, and persons of colour in the modern _______.

It seems that he was hardly an innocent bystander.

> Lavoisier was a powerful member of a number of aristocratic councils, and an administrator of the Ferme Générale. The Ferme générale was one of the most hated components of the Ancien Régime because of the profits it took at the expense of the state, the secrecy of the terms of its contracts, and the violence of its armed agents. All of these political and economic activities enabled him to fund his scientific research.

He had a direct hand in oppressing an enslaved population, extracting their wealth, and using it for his own means.

The ancien régime was deeply flawed, but don't forget that the winners write history. Indeed, we live inside the Revolution still, so you can trust barely anything you've ever read on the subject. If you'd like an alternate perspective, I can recommend this volume: http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Revolutions-Modern-W...

Thanks for the book!

Edmund Burke was a famous critic of the French Revolution.

It was as bad as its 20th century replicas, the red revolutions around the globe which were all based on the same ill notions of fairness, justice and equality.

Burke's an interesting case. Although revered by many contemporary American conservatives, he was a member of Britain's more left-wing political party, the Whigs (the counterpart to the more right-wing Tories).

Like most Whigs, Burke was a supporter of the American Revolution, but he was horrified by the excesses of its French sequel. He famously wrote his major work on the subject, Reflections on the Revolution in France, as a letter to French aristocrat Charles-Jean-François Depont, and later expanded it into a short book. In the Reflections, Burke predicted—over three years before the Reign of Terror—that the French Revolution would lead to disaster. Moreover, he specifically cited among the causes its abstract foundations disconnected from the reality of human nature.

La Terreur proved Burke right, of course, and yet the French Revolutionary principles—among them liberté, égalité, and fraternité—are for the most part as fresh as a daisy. Perhaps in the 21st century we could add diversité and inclusivité to the mix, but the basic lesson is clear: the Revolution hasn't ended. Burke's Reflections is thus more than a historical curiosity—it's also an urgent warning for the present.

> butchered to satiate their hatred towards the "elite"

The elite are the people at the top. Being as this head was chopped off in Dr. Guillotin's invention at the behest of the people running his country, I'd say he was no longer part of a noble, elite class when he took his last breath.

He may have been smart, but he was not smart enough to avoid being on the violent, rapacious Ferme générale, which expropriated wealth for the king from working people creating wealth. French society had enough of this parasitism after too many long years, so off to the guillotine with Lavoisier and the king, and good riddance. Chemistry somehow managed to progress after his death.

Nowadays we have the heir LP's sending money to VC's, "activist shareholders" trying to steal more from the workers at corporations creating wealth, judges and bondholders in the US trying to use their dirty deals with Argentina's old junta to steal more from Argentina. The USA is rife with parasites, and many feel the same way about our modern parasites as those that lead Lavoisier to the guillotine.

As an aside, Antoine Louis is generally credited with designing the guillotine, not Dr. Guillotin, a physician who wanted to reform capital punishment.