Thread by @LandsknechtPike

I wouldn't put a single event to end it. I'm a "Braudelian" here and I would stress his concept of importance of "long history" over specific events. I think French revolution is overrated in many ways and there were many more factors that contributed to change. (thread)

https://twitter.com/JRstract/status/1473289474796838920

I will explain this concept of longue durée (literally "long term") by French historian Fernand Braudel in more detail in some other thread. It's basically a total approach to history that gives priority to long-term historical structures over specific events.

Emphasizing on the French revolution as the most significant change puts too much importance on political and ideological changes, while ignoring the massively important industrial revolution that started taking place simultaneously after these political revolutions.

I think Eric Hobsbawm's concept of "double revolution" is better here as he combines the political revolution of 1789-1848 with the industrial revolution because the latter was just fundamentally much more important to changing the way of life of Europeans.

The "Aristocratic Civilization" of 800-1800 ultimately collapsed out of reasons beyond its control. It's similar to how some civilizations collapsed due to natural disasters, it's just that here it's a case of a civilization buried because of a "blessing" of progressing too fast.

So in a way you can see industrial revolution as a "natural disaster" type of event for the 800-1800 European civilization which sped up its fall dramatically. That's not to say it would have survived otherwise as the decline in key aspects of this society was already obvious.

The key characteristic of French revolution and other revolutions that everyone overlooks is that they were actually supported by a large segment of aristocracy, and that aristocracy had already been flirting with enlightenment for a long time.

There are also other things why I wouldn't put the French revolution as the most significant mark, one of it is that it ultimately wasn't successful as monarchy was later restored, and 19th century was for a large part ruled by monarchies.

This is where I also disagree with traditionalists and reactionaries who view French revolution as a key event and that supposedly everything could have been different if it had been reversed. Ironically, they have a very Marxist view of history here emphasizing revolutions.

The Braudelian view of "long history" is actually the most traditionalist in the pure sense of the word because it emphasizes the importance of how institutions and societies develop very slowly and organically, and takes the entire society into account to last detail.

This is why Braudel was ultimately criticized by Marxists of his time so much because they viewed his approach to history as the ultimate conservative approach. So it's very ironic that political conservatives have a Marxist way of stressing importance of revolutions as well.

There is a good book by one of the students of Braudel Interpreting the French Revolution where he examines the French revolution from this Braudelian perspective and downplays its importance significantly with very solid arguments.