Happy Birthday to the one and only Jean-Paul Marat!
Went on a nice little café date today in honour of his birthday + a photo of the tattoo I got back in January and the one time I was in Paris and lucky enough to visit the David exhibition

blake kathryn

Janaina Medeiros

Origami Around
Peter Solarz
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

if i look back, i am lost

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
One Nice Bug Per Day
AnasAbdin
$LAYYYTER
Three Goblin Art
todays bird
almost home
No title available

titsay

izzy's playlists!
Mike Driver

Andulka

tannertan36
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from South Africa
seen from Russia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from Ireland

seen from South Korea
seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
@itssemisstuff
Happy Birthday to the one and only Jean-Paul Marat!
Went on a nice little café date today in honour of his birthday + a photo of the tattoo I got back in January and the one time I was in Paris and lucky enough to visit the David exhibition
liberals be like "I HATE CAPITALISM SMASH THE PATRIARCHY" but start cursing out your entire bloodline when you DARE mention communism.
I just realised I have never posted my Robespierre ita bag here on Tumblr.. I spent four hours on it.. I handmade everything...
Anyway here it is( ꈍᴗꈍ)
(Art credits to @aramistinguette and @theorahsart)
I made it in like.. February?March?Idk it took me a lot of time cuz I don't have a printer or a pinmaker
Some things Barras said about Josephine in his memoirs
Out of curiosity, I started digging through Barras's memoirs every time he mentioned Josephine. And he really speaks low about her. It seems he has personal beef with her. But anyways, I'll put my favorite fragments:
😐😐😐
Wtf Barras? Holy fanfiction 😭
Joyeux anniversaire, Robespierre. Wherever you are, thank you again and here's to another year.
*The biography is called Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life. For the Introduction's title, Peter Mcphee was in fact referencing another quote by another biographer (Janet Malcolm) for a different biography.
Happy Birthday to this visionary day dreamer~
I was running out of ideas for Tomodachi Life, so I decided to create the Marquis de Sade, why not? But then...
YES. Restif de la Bretonne. I created him too.
I just wanted them to have met and try to make them have beef or something, since they hated each other in real life, but instead, de Sade fell for him 😭😭
There we are. I gave Restif a hat to disguise how bald he is lol.
And this is de Sade's room (the why I decided to create him; it's so him lmao)
nobody suffers like someone who yearns for a historical figure who died before photographs and audio recordings existed
hello gorgeous ~~ i need your help as a joséphine specialist, do you have reliable sources to answer in an educational way to people using the "napoléon reestablished slavery to please joséphine because her family used to own slaves" stance ?
Hi Mathilde! Thanks for asking (and for calling me for gorgeous🤭)
So, my main source - especially for the most controversial topics around Joséphine - is always Pierre Branda's biography, Joséphine - le paradoxe du cygne. He basically states that she never actively encouraged Napoleon towards the reinstatement of slavery and that there's no written evidence of any involvement by her in the matter.
But even better, here on Tumblr @nesiacha is a goldmine of sources and historiographic debates, especially on the subject of Caraibbean history during the Revolution and Napoleonic era - among numerous topics. They know about Joséphine and her relationship with her homeland very well, so they'll complete this answer.
Here are my personal thoughs on the matter, whom I invite people to discuss upon as always, I'll be glad to hear yours too.
It's well known how Napoleon hated women being active and outspoken in political matters, and he certainly didn't encourage his own wife to be so. And he himself would NEVER take political decisions based on such "irrational" things such as feelings - for a woman, of all things. Being a mysoginist and emotionally constipated were the undersides of the intention of being the as rational and level-headed as possible in a leading role, I guess.
I think that behind the decision of reinstating slavery there was rather a comparison with the British Empire, whose economy thrived thanks to colonialism like nobody else. He couldn't cut them from their colonies in West Asia during the campaign of Egypt, so he would try to compete with them on the economic level. So a very pragmatic reason. Not that it makes the decision of reinstating slavery better.
(Also Napoleonic historians like Thierry Lentz debated that Napoleon didn't actually do anything that wasn't happening already as the Revolution had never managed to impose the abolition de facto, but I suspect that it's something said with the intention of making Napoleon look better than reality rather than being balanced and seeking the truth. Fondation Napoléon is very good with sources but can sometimes be a little biased. Here's Branda's, Lentz' and Lheureux-Prévot essay on the subject).
I don't remember if he did it before or making peace with England at Amiens, but they were rivalries no matter the good relationship (which was fragile anyway as we know).
On the other hand, I don't buy Joséphine's neutrality and passivity either. Just like in the matter of her alleged extramarital affairs, a lack of primary sources doesn't automatically deny that something happens. We may lack correspondance proving her involvement on the reinstatement of slavery, but she could still have talked in private with Caraibbean grand blancs and Napoleon.
Branda's biography itself is all about proving how Joséphine had much more agency and business skills than pop culture credits her for. During Thermidor, Thérèse Tallien and her moved mountains in order to save individual friends and friends's friends. And during the Empire she continued to serve as PR between Napoleon and the world.
We also know how partial she was when it came to support friends. Being both a survivor and a woman (=socially underprivileged) taught her not to hold on political ideals but rather on relying on personal relationships, which also came from her Martinican background. Sadly, that also means that she was friends with many other slave owners who had the best interest in maintaining slavery.
So believing that she may have influenced Napoleon in some way the decision of reinstating slavery is the opposite of nonsense.
Hope it's a good answer, I did my best even if I'm not the most expert when it comes to topic of slavery in the Carribean and Napoleon, so I would love to be checked🙏 I loved writing this anyway, bisous✨️
...should I bother to explain the truth to this person? About how the word "terrorist" came into existence?
I say yes. It'll be fun to watch and there's nothing wrong with knowing more about history
*strerches my fingers*
Alright this is going to be long. I should get some alcohol ready or something.
So I've been working on this for three hours now. Three hours with only one short pause coz I got a phone call. It has not been reread. I need and deserve a fucking break.
Feel free to add comments and corrections. I'm sure I messed up in many many many parts. This is a vulgarization for the uninitiated and I have to summarize and skip some stuff.
But damn I'm exhausted and I want to share this with you first before I add that to a post that already has 11k notes.
Today I'm celebrating my birthday and, since last year I've been obsessed with Robespierre and the French Revolution, my friends gave me this as a gift.
I’m new to French Revolution history, can you recommend some recourses and books please? 🥹
Hello citizen ( ꈍᴗꈍ)
I'll try to recommend some books and blogs that I know are trustworthy sources, sorry if it's always the same stuff but I'm trying to start doing research as well and I'm learning as I go.
Anyway for books I'd recommend:
- Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee (great book that isn't straight up themidor propaganda)
- liberty or death by Peter McPhee
- Saint-Just by Vinot
- Charlotte Robespierre's memoirs
- Saint-Just, apostle of the terror by Geoffrey Bruun
- Twelve who ruled by Robert Roswell Palmerq
For movies I'd recommend:
le terreur et la vertu
Part 1:
Part 2 :
And if you want to
La révolution française (1989) although that IS NOT accurate and does contain a lot of Thermidorian propaganda so be very careful
Part 1:
Part 2 :
For documentaries
Deconstructing the myth of Robespierre the dictator
And this one as well
Moving onto blogs I'd recommend
@saintjustitude
@anotherhumaninthisworld
That's pretty much it I'm sorry if it's not a lot as I said I'm learning as I go and unfortunately I'm not one of the many trustworthy historians in the community, I gave you where to start and I hope you have fun!(。•̀ᴗ-)✧
Also you might wanna consider learning french if you don't already know it, you'll need it like air if you want to search deeper
Amuse-toi bien, citoyen! (≧▽≦)
A couple of weeks ago, someone submitted French revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre as their history crush.
While I was pleased to see Robespierre spotlighted, I was not pleased to see how he was depicted. Contrary to popular (and frankly erroneous opinion), Robespierre was not a lunatic, a tyrant, or a mass murderer. He did not “go insane” or kill thousands of people. In fact, he saved thousands and lost his life because of it.
Pretty crush worthy right?
Well, it gets better.
Throughout some of the bloodiest points of the revolution, Robespierre made it his mission to stand up against the very excesses he is now accused of promoting. He protected the lives of thousands of his political enemies, personally intervened in the condemnation of King Louis XVI’s sister (Madame Elisabeth), and promptly scolded/recalled those deputies responsible for military atrocities on the war front.
Robespierre did believe in terror - but his terror was a necessary one, a terror which relied on clemency and reason to achieve its means. It was not “the Terror” we are taught or the the Terror that we know. That terror was the one carried out by Robespierre’s political enemies, enemies who then utilized propaganda to attribute their excesses to Robespierre posthumously.
As the esteemed historian William Doyle writes:
Robespierre himself, he was never a dictator, and there is no reliable evidence to suggest that it was his aim…men called him a dictator because they feared moral inflexibility in one who had power. After they had destroyed him, they used the charge to justify what they had done. It also enabled them to blame him for acts they themselves had helped to commit, but which became increasingly a subject for shame, recrimination, and revenge during the months of retreat from terror and ruthless government which now began.
Need more proof? Put down that AP Euro textbook and look into some accredited works on the subject from JM Thompson, Albert Mathiez, George Rude, or RR Palmer.
Vive Robespierre!
Vive Robespierre!
Was the repression of the Vendée a genocide?
Before discussing this topic, I want to clarify that I am not an expert in the Vendée: I've only read a few books on the subject. So, if I say anything incorrect, I would be very grateful if you would correct me.
I must add that I also haven't read Secher's famous doctoral thesis, but I did read Alberto Bárcena's La Guerre de la Vendée. This book is heavily based on Secher's work, but with an even more religious and idealistic perspective.
The War in the Vendée remains a controversial topic that sparks much debate among historians. It is documented that there were tens of thousands of deaths, the vast majority of them civilians. For this reason, some historians speak of genocide, but that would lead us into unstable territory, as this term is often overused.
Genocide is something very specific and well-defined by the Rome Statute. Genocide is when there is an attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. It's a relatively recent term, coined in the 20th century, in 1944. It was created to name the Nazis' Final Solution for the extermination of Jews in occupied territories. Genocide is the persecution of a group with clearly defined ethnic and religious characteristics to the bitter end. Genocide is a political decision made by a government that believes a group must be eradicated.
In the case of the Vendée, this isn't entirely accurate. The Vendéans were eliminated first by the Convention's army and then by the Directory's because they were considered counter-revolutionary rebels. They were killed not for being Vendéans, nor for being Catholic, but because a significant number of them had taken up arms against the revolution. There was no order from the Convention or the Directory to exterminate Vendéans simply for being Vendéans. The Vendéans didn't even recognize themselves as a specific regional or ethnic group. The objective was to crush a rebellion. Furthermore, many Republicans were also massacred.
In the book I mentioned before, the author argues that the Vendée massacre was a genocide because it was planned by the revolutionary government and that the main cause was religious, since the Revolution was anti-Catholic. I disagree. It is true that the Revolution adopted anti-Catholic measures, but I believe we must try to separate politics from religion —although they were very intertwined at that time. The measures taken were an attempt to dismantle the political power of the Church, not to eliminate the faith itself; there was de-Christianization, but that doesn't represent the entire Revolution. It is true that the Vendée was predominantly Catholic, but they had more reasons to take up arms than that, and, I repeat, they were not eliminated for being Catholic, but for staging an insurrection against the revolutionary government.
It is not my intention to deny that it was a very brutal repression, because it was. But what the revolutionaries did during those years in the Vendée falls into the category of war crimes, or, to be more specific, it could be called populicide (the total or partial annihilation of a people or population by a government—a term coined by Babeuf in 1795 to describe what happened in the Vendée). But it does not fall into the category of genocide. It is incorrect to use that term; if it is used, genocide could also be applied to many other things, and we would be distorting what genocide truly means.
I am currently absolutely fascinated by this primary source find - one of the ‘grievance lists’ (cahiers de doléances) written in 1789. This one was created by a widow from Normandy. And… if half of these lines had been given to a period drama character, the screenwriters would have been raked over the coals for being hamfisted and anachronistic.
No, Olympe de Gouges Was Not Executed for Being a Feminist
As @mathildeaquisexta and @robespapier already explained so well in this post, let’s be clear once and for all: Olympe de Gouges was not executed because she was a feminist, nor for any misogynistic reason.
She was executed under suspicion of modérantisme—a political stance that did not necessarily imply opposition to executions or support for clemency—and more crucially, under accusations of counter-revolutionary activity. In her writings, she advocated either a return to constitutional monarchy or the establishment of a federal republic. Given the intense internal and external civil war at the time, such views were considered dangerously destabilizing. The Montagnards, under mounting pressure, resorted to increasingly harsh measures—something that does not excuse their actions, many of which were indefensible, but places them in a broader revolutionary context.
Some sources—though I’ve yet to locate them again, so this should be taken cautiously—even suggest that she may have called for Robespierre’s death. In any case, she was far from the saintly figure some portray her as.
Did Olympe de Gouges deserve to die? Absolutely not. Was her execution condemnable, especially from a human standpoint? Yes. But from a legal perspective—however flawed the laws may have been—her writings were seen as criminal and therefore her trial was not, strictly speaking, unlawful.
Her feminism itself was full of contradictions. She opposed revolutionary women taking up arms, for instance. An interesting detail: historian Mathilde Larrère pointed out in a video that when de Gouges rewrote Article 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen(La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen) for her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (Déclarations des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne), she significantly altered its meaning.
Here is the original Article 12: "The security of the rights of man and citizen requires public military forces: these forces are therefore instituted for the benefit of all, and not for the personal use of those to whom they are entrusted."
Now Olympe's version: "The guarantee of the rights of woman and citizen requires a major utility; this guarantee must be instituted for the advantage of all and for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted."
Where other revolutionary women were requesting weapons—and rightly so, given that they were at war—de Gouges stood firmly against it. At times, I can’t help but wonder if she wasn’t somewhat disconnected from the reality on the ground.
Yes, it's necessary to condemn lynchings, murders, and other excesses of the Revolution. But we must also avoid the "black legend" narrative that demonizes figures like the Montagnards, the CSP of the year II, Hébertistes, or the Enragés, just as we must reject the "golden legend" that romanticizes the Revolution. Much of the Revolution’s progress was driven by violent struggle: the storming of the Bastille, the fall of the Tuileries (which finally removed Louis XVI—a serious threat to the nation and the revolution because of his betrayal), or even the uprisings of enslaved Black people in the colonies.
These were violent acts—but how else could centuries of brutal oppression be overthrown? Enslavers were never going to relinquish power simply because someone asked nicely. The system itself was inventive in its cruelty and designed to resist any path toward Black liberation.
And yet, Olympe de Gouges, despite being an abolitionist, condemned the Haitian revolt in 1792. In a striking and disturbing passage from her play L'Esclavage des Noirs ou l'Heureux Naufrage, she directly addresses the enslaved and says:
"It is to you, now, slaves, men of color, that I am going to speak; I may have undeniable rights to condemn your ferocity: cruel ones, by imitating the tyrants, you justify them. Most of your masters were humane and kind, and in your blind rage, you do not distinguish innocent victims from your persecutors.
Men were not born for chains, and yet you prove they are necessary. If overwhelming force is on your side, why unleash all the furies of your burning lands? Poison, iron, daggers, the invention of the most barbaric and atrocious tortures cost you nothing, they say. What cruelty! What inhumanity! Ah! How deeply you make those groan who sought to prepare, through tempered means, a gentler fate for you — a fate more worthy of envy than all those illusory advantages with which the authors of France’s and America’s calamities have misled you.
Tyranny will follow you, as crime clings to those perverse men. Nothing will ever bring harmony among you. Fear my prediction — you know whether it is founded on true and solid grounds. I speak my oracles based on reason and divine justice. I do not recant: I abhor your tyrants; your cruelties fill me with horror »
Frankly, this is appalling. To suggest that enslaved people—who had endured horrors that defy comprehension—were just as bad as their oppressors is a cruel and absurd false equivalence when we know all the horrors of the slavery system and even if there were deaths on the other side who were truly regrettable, it is clearly not comparable. And what “tyrants” is she referring to? At the time, there was no formal revolutionary government in place in Saint-Domingue. There was no “major force” on their side. At that point in time, slavery had not yet been abolished, and the arrival of Sonthonax — a proponent of the gradual abolition of slavery — marked a turning point. One of the key factors behind the push for abolition was the execution of Louis XVI, which led some white royalist planters to seriously consider turning Saint-Domingue over to the British. In this context, the text appears, in my view, somewhat disconnected from the historical and political realities of the time.
In short, this is a deeply misjudged and insulting passage. That said, she's far from the only historical figure with contradictory views on slavery—Brissot and even Robespierre had their own problematic moments.
To her credit, de Gouges was lucid in other respects. She opposed the war that Brissot advocated, aligning instead—whether consciously or not—with Danton, Robespierre, and Billaud-Varenne, who foresaw the catastrophe it would bring. According to historian Antoine Resche, she supported constitutional monarchy but rejected the property-based voting system (suffrage censitaire).
Still, Olympe de Gouges was not widely known among revolutionary women of her time. Her Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen) had limited impact. The true revolutionary womens "stars" were Théroigne de Méricourt, Pauline Léon, Claire Lacombe, Sophie de Grouchy, Louise Reine Audu, Manon Roland, Louise de Kéralio, Simone Evrard, Albertine Marat, the Ferning sisters, Rosalie Jullien, Sophie Momoro (as Goddess of Reason), Jeanne Odo, and perhaps Marguerite David ( of the group of Enragés).
In fact, it’s likely that de Gouges knew of these women, but not necessarily the other way around. Even after her execution, I’ve found almost no evidence of posthumous recognition during the revolutionary period.
From Year III to IV, women like Sylvie Audouin, Thérésia Tallien, Marie-Anne Babeuf, Sophie Lapierre, and possibly Élisabeth Le Bon (widow of Joseph Le Bon) gained more visibility — though Thérésia and Babeuf were probably more famous than Audouin or Lapierre. Still, Olympe remained largely absent from the collective memory ( at least to my knowledge). So she wasn't completely unknown, but her importance wasn't as great as some people would have us believe.
According to Mathilde Larrère, Olympe de Gouges only emerged from oblivion thanks to feminist Benoîte Groult, who revived her memory and her declaration. This was a fantastic move—it's always good to recover lost revolutionary voices.
But ironically, her legacy has since been co-opted by people who hold a very dark view of the French Revolution, some even veering toward counter-revolutionary ideals—because, yes, de Gouges was a staunch monarchist. Even worse, some who now praise her aren’t feminists at all, but use her image dishonestly to discredit the Revolution as a whole.
And the tragic twist? The women who were famous during the Revolution—Louise-Reine Audu, the Ferning sisters, Sophie Momoro, Marguerite David, Jeanne Odo, Rosalie Jullien, Sylvie Audouin, Sophie Lapierre, Marie-Anne Babeuf, Elisabeth Le Bon, Louise de Kéralio—have largely disappeared from collective memory. Others have been demonized or reduced to caricatures: Pauline Léon, Claire Lacombe, Simone Evrard, Albertine Marat.
Once again, my point is not to demonize Olympe de Gouges, but to highlight the problem of turning her into the only legitimate feminist voice of the French Revolution, while erasing or vilifying all others just because they held different political views.
If people genuinely want to honor Olympe de Gouges, they should portray her in full:
Her strengths—her opposition to property-based voting, her fight for the rights of children born out of wedlock, her courage in speaking out, her revolutionary spirit, her willingness to denounce Louis XVI’s betrayal despite her monarchist leanings.
And her flaws—her rejection of women bearing arms, her naivety about nonviolent change, her harsh and misguided condemnation of enslaved people fighting for their freedom.
She was sincere in her convictions, passionate about justice, and undoubtedly brave. But she was also human, with contradictions and limits like any of us.
One day, I hope to see a real film that portrays all the women of the French Revolution—regardless of their political alignment—without distortion or demonization.
Waterlily LIs if they were cast by different authors
Sasha
Remy (sorry for that)
Anton
Langley
Alice
Wincy
Anastasia