La Chanson de la Victoire (The Song of Victory): La Petite Arpenteuse (Non, SV, you are a General of France in the Napoleonic War!)

Parlez-vous français?

  • Oui, je parle très bien français!

    Votes: 162 14.3%
  • Un peu.

    Votes: 188 16.6%
  • What? Francis? Nope.

    Votes: 330 29.1%
  • What? Oh, don't be silly, my dear!

    Votes: 161 14.2%
  • ¿El español es lo suficientemente bueno?

    Votes: 86 7.6%
  • Ich verstehe dich irgendwie.

    Votes: 64 5.6%
  • Я очень хорошо говорю по-русски.

    Votes: 64 5.6%
  • 我听不懂。

    Votes: 35 3.1%
  • 何を言っているのですか?

    Votes: 28 2.5%
  • nuqneH pa'!

    Votes: 10 0.9%
  • فرانسه بلدنستم

    Votes: 7 0.6%

  • Total voters
    1,135
Marx might decide to lean more into a republican and egalitarian, rather then a revolt and revolution of the workers, considering the previous events of the workers revolting to stop crime.
Very, very much doubt that

Marx would be out there trying to salvage Rob's rep (and rightfully so)

and I don't see why he would change from OTL to suddenly be a fan of workers councils and the like
 
The Irish Uprising is a good opportunity for us to pay back the British for Vendee (when they landed troops, advisors and supplies to train and arm the Royalist rebellion). It is only fair that we do the same with the Irish, in order to have a way to actually threaten Britain with invasion.
 
So we're fabulously wealthy right? If we diverted like, 5% of our current profits to the Irish cause, how much would that buy?
 
Why?

No, seriously, why?

If anything, he and many others would rightfully paint Robby as a grim warning as to what can happen when you start to see your every action as justified just because you have good Intentions.
This is good old "when our turn comes, we will make no excuses for the terror" Marx, not to mention Engels, I dont see why he would despite Robey, aside from maybe him being a bourgeoisie revolutionary, but even then he is to be commended for fighting against aristocracy
 
This is good old "when our turn comes, we will make no excuses for the terror" Marx, not to mention Engels, I dont see why he would despite Robey, aside from maybe him being a bourgeoisie revolutionary, but even then he is to be commended for fighting against aristocracy
Bold of you to assume that these two will grow up to be the exact same Persons with the exact same believes as in OTL, is all I'm saying.

If they'll even be born at all. Since Marx in OTL was born in 1818 and Engels in 1820, that may get butterflied away yet.
 
Last edited:
The Irish Uprising is a good opportunity for us to pay back the British for Vendee (when they landed troops, advisors and supplies to train and arm the Royalist rebellion). It is only fair that we do the same with the Irish, in order to have a way to actually threaten Britain with invasion.
The problem being we have no reliable way to get to the Irish to run guns and officers to them.

The RN is still pretty powerful.
So we're fabulously wealthy right? If we diverted like, 5% of our current profits to the Irish cause, how much would that buy?
Enough to arm the Irish republican Army
 
The problem being we have no reliable way to get to the Irish to run guns and officers to them.
Hmm...we could do what was done IRL, and utilize the wider Connacht region to smuggle in supplies, though we'll likely have to take out their outpost on the island of Inish Bofin.
 
The problem being we have no reliable way to get to the Irish to run guns and officers to them.

The RN is still pretty powerful.

Time to pitch in to America, Spain and maybe Russia as well. With a good amount of luck, some concessions and a little help from Brian, we may be able to get ourselves a naval coalition that is strong enough to contest the Royal Navy...
 
I don't really think Marx went with general opinion on any historical matter, much less the French Revolution
Even so, he seems unlikely to side with Mr Off-With-Their-Heads the Wannabe-Baby-Killer.

Marx was a radical, but he didn't go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot.

That was more of a Soviet Union thing.
 
how exactly? Genuinely what did he do that was worse or more then what he did OTL in terms of the terror
Well, let's see. He beheaded two of the Revolutions greatest advocates, one of them friggin' Jean Paul Marat, for the 'crime' of criticizing him, he launched a coup when he really didn't have to, was willing to kill the Family of one of his perceived Rivals to gain revenge by proxy and, oh yeah, HE TRIED TO HAVE TWO BABIES MURDERED IN THEIR BEDS!!!

All that on top of the many, MANY innocent People he put on the Guillotine to satisfy his Paranoia, I think it's fair to say that he crossed a line, even when compared to OTL.
 
Last edited:
he launched a coup when he really didn't ahve to

Which also gave the British the opportunity to form the Second Coalition, so Robespierre is partially to blame for that too. (however, I will admit that the British would have pulled a coalition shenanigan sooner or later, but Robespierre plunging France into civil war at the worst possible moment accelerated their timetable on that)
 
Well, let's see. He beheaded two of the Revolutions greatest advocates for the 'crime' of criticizing him, he launched a coup when he really didn't have to, was willing to kill the Family of one of his perceived Rivals to gain revenge by proxy and, oh yeah, HE TRIED TO HAVE TWO BABIES MURDERED IN THEIR BEDS!!!

All that on top of the many, MANY innocent People he put on the Guillotine to satisfy his Paranoia, I think it's fair to say that he crossed a line, even when compared to OTL.
He kinda did that OTL too, just with different people, it could be argued that the coup was to stop a military takeover, dont quite remember what family your referring to, and they were the children of the king. That doesn't neccecerally make it good, but it's understandable
 
He kinda did that OTL too, just with different people, it could be argued that the coup was to stop a military takeover, dont quite remember what family your referring to, and they were the children of the king. That doesn't neccecerally make it good, but it's understandable
One: No, it isn't. Children of the King or not, they were still FRICKIN' CHILDREN and he essentially wanted to murder them for who their Parents happened to be, even AFTER they had renounced the Ancient Regime and decided to fight for France and the Republic!

Two: I am referring to Therese's and Napoleon's Children. Two Babies, not even a year old, and he sent assassins to kill them.

And don't you DARE argue that that was 'justified' in any way, shape or form. I don't fucking care if he did it to 'eliminate the Children of Tyrants' or whatever mental gymnastics he used to justify it. Trying to murder two newly-born Babies in their beds is capital E EVIL, no matter your Reasons!
 
Last edited:
One: No, it isn't. Children of the King or not, they were still FRICKIN' CHILDREN and he essentially wanted to murder them for who their Parents happened to be, even AFTER they had renounced the Ancient Regime and decided to fight for France and the Republic!

Two: I am referring to Therese's and Napoleon's Children. Two Babies, not even a year old, and he sent assassins to kill them.

And don't you DARE argue that that was 'justified' in any way, shape or form. I don't fucking care if he did it to 'eliminate the Children of Tyrants' or whatever mental gymnastics he used to justify it. Trying to murder two newly-born Babies in their beds is capital E EVIL, no matter your Reasons!
I'm not saying it's justified I'm saying that his reasoning is understandable, equally so on the subject of our kids
 
I'm not saying it's justified I'm saying that his reasoning is understandable, equally so on the subject of our kids
His reasoning is ONLY understandable if you genuinely believe that some nebulous end of 'Republic' (yeah, right, as if Robby would have hesitated one second to murder every single Person who even slightly disagreed with him on what that should entail and mean on the spot) justifies committing even the most horrible Atrocities as a means in the pursuit of it, even to the point that every single little thing that could MAYBE pose the smallest FRACTION of a potential threat must be eradicated at any cost.
But it's pretty clear by now I won't convince you on that.

Just saying: Being so dead-set as you are on defending the Actions of a paranoid Mass-Murderer is a pretty weird hill to die on, if you ask me.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
His reasoning is ONLY understandable if you genuinely believe that some nebulous end of 'Republic' (yeah, right, as if Robby would have hesitated one second to murder every single Person who even slightly disagreed with him on what that should entail and mean on the spot) justifies committing even the most horrible Atrocities as a means in the pursuit of it, even to the point that every single thing that could perhaps and MAYBE pose the smallest FRACTION of a potential threat must be eradicated at any cost.
But it's pretty clear by now I won't convince you on that.

Just saying: Being so dead-set as you are on defending the Actions of a paranoid Mass-Murderer is a pretty weird hill to die on, if you ask me.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Which... he did

so it's understandable from his point of view

exactly what I was saying
 
Which... he did

so it's understandable from his point of view

exactly what I was saying
Oh, uh...I was under the Impression you were AGREEING with his reasoning or saying 'He's got a point'.

If I got that wrong, then that's my bad and I'm sorry.

Doesn't change the fact that his 'reasoning' was irrational and borderline insane when viewed from any kind of measured perspective, however. That's kinda the reason why he lost all support in the end, after all.
 
Back
Top