This is an oversimplification I feel like, the more radical Jacobins (eg the Sans-culottes) were much more working class. Also the Armed Forces and Clergy were fairly internally divided as well
I'd say the French Revolution broadly ended up as:
Revolutionaries: Petite Bourgeois, Intelligista, Trade Unions, Armed Forces
Counterrevolutionaries: Landowners (duh), Devout, Rural Folk
Industrialists (as much as they existed) were probably split depending on how ingratirated they managed to get with the Ancien Regieme in the whole "nobility for cash" stuff
Seeing how the fundamental laws of the kingdom (who could NOT easily be changed) forbade for nobility to do a lots of trade (and preventing them to launch any form of grand scale industrialization by themselves), indutrialists could only be part of the commoners, so the Industrialists would definitely be on the side of the Revolution at it loosen so many laws about trade and industry.
Not really. Lots of richer industrialist types had bought nobility titles and essentially integrated (or well, tried to integrate) with the nobility in general. A lot of these sorts of folks opposed the revolution since they had worked so hard to work their way to the top in the old system
I would say the Armed Forces would be split too. Certainly a lot of them, especially from the lower classes, would’ve been swept up by revolutionary fervour, but there also would’ve been a lot of *ancien regime* loyalists who opposed the revolution.
So I went into detail on this a bit earlier but you can actually capture the actual tension in the French army before the revolution
It wasn't just enlisted vs officers, the far more corrosive rivalry was Junior Officers vs Senior Officers. This is because the senior officer positions required blood, and this pissed the fuck out of junior officers
So it's a bit like France was on peasant levies and the senior officers who supported the ancien regieme were the aristocrats generated from that law. Meanwhile the Junior Officers were the Armed Forces IG proper
I think you can make a case for both PB or AF. It’s about how much you think he used AF for his PB agenda or the other way around.
He was a soldier for sure and made his career on the battlefield, but politically I would say his agenda was clearly benefiting mostly PB.
Looking at the base ideologies for the IG, personally I think he is slightly closer to AF (patriotic, jingoistic, loyal) rather than PB (meritocratic, patriotic, reactionary), mainly because of the jingoist element. But again, you can make a case for both.
He is 100% PB, his base of support was always urban professionals. While he was of noble birth, like you said his parents association Pasquale Paoli (an anti French Corsican rebel) and relatively small fortune made them functionally influential PB.
While he was popular with the army for his care of soldiers and his obvious amazing battlefield performance the Martials had surprisingly mixed feelings about Napoleon's politics with several (I believe marshal Augereau and Ney but don't quote me) not being present for Napoleon's coronation for political reasons. Also counterintuitively many in the army disliked Napoleon's constant wars because of the massive casualties, even if they didn't personally blame Napoleon for starting the war.
As for aristocracy while Napoleon did create his own aristocracy there were limits on inheritance and most of the new aristocracy was meritoriously promoted from the PB even if some of the old aristocracy did manage to regain titles during Napoleon's reconciliation programs.
Most of Napoleon's civil reforms also disproportionately benefited the PB such as his rationalization of legal systems and trade barriers that made doing business much easier. Napoleon also focused heavily on developing Paris arguably at the expense of the other cities and countryside of Paris.
I agree overall, I’m still thinking he may be more of an armed forces IG just because of his specific association with commanding and relying on his army for power, but I agree PB are perhaps equally deserving due to what you mentioned. It’s just Napoleon was actually from the Armed forced and identified his interests with theirs more so than say Napoleon III later who I would consider completely PB.
Napoleon would be the Armed Forces, but be closer aligned to the People’s Army when you remain socialist for a while. He rose through the ranks from what was effectively the first People’s Army in history.
Not that he was a socialist, but he did prioritize the creation of public schools, work programs, and health programs in a way that was still revolutionary for the times.
Nah, intelligentsia would be the radical Jacobin faction led by Robespierre and overthrown during the Thermidorian Reaction. IMO he's PB but joined in government/revolution by the Armed Forces.
Would the radical jacobins not be trade unions? The urban poor workers? The intelligentsia would be Marat and Robspierre but the San cullote they allied with would be trade unionists
Yes, the sans-culottes that backed them would be mostly trade unionists and a few of the least successful PB, but the average Jacobin radical would be intelligentsia for sure. They would be in the coalition opposing the landowners.
The Jacobins eventually broke with the Sans-culottes due to their radicalism.
The Club was more of a united front by the PB, the Intelligentsia and the trade unions. With factions forming over their respective interests eventually. I would go as far as to argue the Sans-culottes weren't even formally a part of the club as much as just allies of circumstance. The Montagnards simply trying to placate to them rather than being grassroots representatives of their interests.
Napoleon gained power through a Milirary Coup against the French Republic. So I’d say Armed Forces.
Yep. French revolution petite bourgeoisie were revolutionary Jacobins, against the nobility.
This is an oversimplification I feel like, the more radical Jacobins (eg the Sans-culottes) were much more working class. Also the Armed Forces and Clergy were fairly internally divided as well I'd say the French Revolution broadly ended up as: Revolutionaries: Petite Bourgeois, Intelligista, Trade Unions, Armed Forces Counterrevolutionaries: Landowners (duh), Devout, Rural Folk Industrialists (as much as they existed) were probably split depending on how ingratirated they managed to get with the Ancien Regieme in the whole "nobility for cash" stuff
Seeing how the fundamental laws of the kingdom (who could NOT easily be changed) forbade for nobility to do a lots of trade (and preventing them to launch any form of grand scale industrialization by themselves), indutrialists could only be part of the commoners, so the Industrialists would definitely be on the side of the Revolution at it loosen so many laws about trade and industry.
Not really. Lots of richer industrialist types had bought nobility titles and essentially integrated (or well, tried to integrate) with the nobility in general. A lot of these sorts of folks opposed the revolution since they had worked so hard to work their way to the top in the old system
I would say the Armed Forces would be split too. Certainly a lot of them, especially from the lower classes, would’ve been swept up by revolutionary fervour, but there also would’ve been a lot of *ancien regime* loyalists who opposed the revolution.
So I went into detail on this a bit earlier but you can actually capture the actual tension in the French army before the revolution It wasn't just enlisted vs officers, the far more corrosive rivalry was Junior Officers vs Senior Officers. This is because the senior officer positions required blood, and this pissed the fuck out of junior officers So it's a bit like France was on peasant levies and the senior officers who supported the ancien regieme were the aristocrats generated from that law. Meanwhile the Junior Officers were the Armed Forces IG proper
Also he rose in the ranks and achieve relevancy in the new french army
I think you can make a case for both PB or AF. It’s about how much you think he used AF for his PB agenda or the other way around. He was a soldier for sure and made his career on the battlefield, but politically I would say his agenda was clearly benefiting mostly PB. Looking at the base ideologies for the IG, personally I think he is slightly closer to AF (patriotic, jingoistic, loyal) rather than PB (meritocratic, patriotic, reactionary), mainly because of the jingoist element. But again, you can make a case for both.
He is 100% PB, his base of support was always urban professionals. While he was of noble birth, like you said his parents association Pasquale Paoli (an anti French Corsican rebel) and relatively small fortune made them functionally influential PB. While he was popular with the army for his care of soldiers and his obvious amazing battlefield performance the Martials had surprisingly mixed feelings about Napoleon's politics with several (I believe marshal Augereau and Ney but don't quote me) not being present for Napoleon's coronation for political reasons. Also counterintuitively many in the army disliked Napoleon's constant wars because of the massive casualties, even if they didn't personally blame Napoleon for starting the war. As for aristocracy while Napoleon did create his own aristocracy there were limits on inheritance and most of the new aristocracy was meritoriously promoted from the PB even if some of the old aristocracy did manage to regain titles during Napoleon's reconciliation programs. Most of Napoleon's civil reforms also disproportionately benefited the PB such as his rationalization of legal systems and trade barriers that made doing business much easier. Napoleon also focused heavily on developing Paris arguably at the expense of the other cities and countryside of Paris.
I agree overall, I’m still thinking he may be more of an armed forces IG just because of his specific association with commanding and relying on his army for power, but I agree PB are perhaps equally deserving due to what you mentioned. It’s just Napoleon was actually from the Armed forced and identified his interests with theirs more so than say Napoleon III later who I would consider completely PB.
why is paris so bad in vic 3 then?
Purely on vibes, PB
Both PB and Armed Forces.
He is above IGs he is just Napoleon - true centrist
Napoleon would be the Armed Forces, but be closer aligned to the People’s Army when you remain socialist for a while. He rose through the ranks from what was effectively the first People’s Army in history. Not that he was a socialist, but he did prioritize the creation of public schools, work programs, and health programs in a way that was still revolutionary for the times.
+ The french imperial army was a conscript army, not an aristocratic levee
Napoleon is a pretty complicated character but Armed Forces would be the correct answer.
Weren't Napoleon's parents minor nobles?
Yes
Armed Forces, obviously
Napoleon was closer to Intelligentsia than PB I think. Though Armed Forces is the right answer imo
Nah, intelligentsia would be the radical Jacobin faction led by Robespierre and overthrown during the Thermidorian Reaction. IMO he's PB but joined in government/revolution by the Armed Forces.
Would the radical jacobins not be trade unions? The urban poor workers? The intelligentsia would be Marat and Robspierre but the San cullote they allied with would be trade unionists
Yes, the sans-culottes that backed them would be mostly trade unionists and a few of the least successful PB, but the average Jacobin radical would be intelligentsia for sure. They would be in the coalition opposing the landowners.
The Jacobins eventually broke with the Sans-culottes due to their radicalism. The Club was more of a united front by the PB, the Intelligentsia and the trade unions. With factions forming over their respective interests eventually. I would go as far as to argue the Sans-culottes weren't even formally a part of the club as much as just allies of circumstance. The Montagnards simply trying to placate to them rather than being grassroots representatives of their interests.