so who do you think is the country with the greatest revolutionary HUNGER Russia? France? YOU DECIDE!
As always, it was the the US that started the trend... They even divided their country into two opposing camps later so that they could indulge in internecine revolutionary fervor!
Hard to say. Russia rarely had revolutions - most of them were revolts. France is better I think in that regard.
Japan... well, because of our drugs called anime, manga, and isekai novels.. oh wait.. that's generalization.. France is the most powerful candidate for this one.
That wasn't really a revolution. It was just a continuation of the civil war. Rome was still in a state of stasis after the bald man's death and nothing really changed until the second triumvirate. That isn't to say that Rome didn't have a revolution. It most certainly did, that is when they overthrew the old monarchy in favor of "democracy".
More than that occasion. First it was the Monarchy to the Republic to dictatorship/empire, then back to a Monarchy after the empire fragmented. Though to be fair, it was over a period of close to 1000 years, 600 BC being the approximate time of Rome's monarchal period.
Yeah, but there wasn't a revolution or single action that caused the fragmentation of Rome, nor was the shift to an indefinite dictatorship another. Augustus clad his new office in pre-existing titles and powers because he wanted to appear legitimate, and not like a dictator or king. That is why he, and all the other emperors, legitimized their rule of Rome through the titles and offices they held. That is a slight, albeit crooked continuation of the republic, not a revolution. And he was enabled to do so, through the civil war. (Fatigue amongst the populace that just wished for peace. They had experienced 3 civil wars. And Octavian didn't have any opponents left to stop him. Everyone just wished for peace) And the fragmentation wasn't one either. That was caused by a long series of fuck ups by emperors, a vast influx of immigrants, and the upkeeping of an expensive army and several military campaigns. The only real revolution, being a violent overthrowing of one social order to another, only happened between the first monarchy and the formation of the republic. The rest were caused by civil wars and fuck ups
Fair enough, though I'm of the opinion that the difference between a revolution and a civil war is a matter of degree. Most revolutions do end up with armies clashing in the end anyway, all the examples given like the US, France, Russia and even China all had armed conflicts as part of their revolutions.
I see your point. But I would argue that revolutions are only revolutions if they succeed in switching to new systems of governance. The American revolution, rather than being a revolution, was more akin to an independence movement. The only reason I gather that it has been provided with the moniker of revolution is that the Americans, during and after the fact, had a complete change of their system of governance. Basically to democracy. But since they didn't change Great Britain's system of governance, it can't be called a revolution. Nor a civil war, as they weren't a faction that gained power in the British Empire. All the rest are most certainly revolutions. And, at least for me, civil wars and revolutions are two distinctly different things. But I certainly do get what you mean, I had to research rather quickly on the difference. It's been too long since had read anything about civil wars and revolutions
I would say the french revolution, if only because that changed everything about modern Europe. Changing the face of what was, considered at the time, the most advanced nations in the world, while also conquering all of Europe (except for Britain and Russia lol), is not a small feat. Although with the Russian revolution you could also talk about how its still reverberating today in Cuba or Vietnam, Communism/Socialism as a legit form of government more or less died with the soviet union.