[stannis]

Hypothetical question. Had you been living in France during the 19th century (any period - the various Republics and Empires), which broad ideological grouping would you have supported: the conservative-monarchists (generally very Catholic and right-wing) or the Republicans (anti-clerical and a bit more to the left)? And why?

I ask this especiialy to those who have studied this period in at least some detail.

[Theodore]

I would have been a Republican, most probably a neo-Jacobin in the early years and a Blanquist in later years.

Which means I would most likely end up in front of a firing squad during the Commune.

[Looter]

I would have supported Robespierre, then I would have been a Bonapartist, finally with Napoleon III, I would have been a Marxist. I get my French politics from "Les Miserables", for me Napoleon is like a God, that modernized all of Europe, but way ahead of his time, France's Stalin.

[Cid]

You know I was thinking of asking the very same question.

Its hard to answer this question, because we have to consider for our ideas were formed in the delicate balance of nurture and nature. I think the circumstances in which you are raised effect your views greatly, so it depends not only when but also where I lived.

19th century Ottoman Empire: Most likely inspired by the Enlightenment philosophers I would support reforms in the Ottoman Empire, most importantly the abolishment of the Millet system and the development of Ottoman citizenry. Also very important would be the establishment of parliament, the introduction of trias politica and establishing a mandatory education system. Overall I think I would strongly support to abolish the feudal society and the Millet system and to replace it by a Republican society (although perhaps tolerate for a Constitutional Monarchy as a state form)

19th century Western Europe: Probably either I would emigrate to the United States to get some "free" land in the Western Plains or I would be an admirer of the French Revolution and support Napoleon Bonaparte in the conquest of Europe, in the end only to find myself disillusioned by the discrepancy between the ideals and the reality.

20th century: It wouldn't matter much where, most likely I would be a socialist who supports the socialistic ideal. Before WW1 I would probably support socialism by means of parliamentary democracy. During the Interbellum, I would probably support the socialistic revolution.

Still it is all speculation.

[Zel]

Probably a Bonapartist

[Ombrageux]

19th century France... I would be a rabidly anti-Jacobin Republican or Constitutional Monarchist (probably closer to the latter, to not freak out France's absolutist neighbors). During Bonaparte's reign, I think I would have supported him, you gotta love Caesers. Afterwards... bleh, does it really matter? I'd probably be what they used to call a "radical", that is, the people sitting in the waffly middle of parliament: generally anti-clerical, republican and always in power due to coalition politics.

[Clausewitz]

I think I would have been a Bonapartist under the First Empire, and an Orleanist under the three Bourbon kings. I think I would closely follow Guizot, who was a badass. As the First and Second Republics demonstrated with their instability, France probably wasn't ready for such governments.

I would have supported the Second Republic, though, and voted for Cavaignac; it's better than the Second Empire. I would have resisted the coup that ended it but I would have pushed for a stronger, perhaps presidential regime. I think during the Empire I would have moved toward Gambetta and the Opportunists when, at last, France could stomach a Republic. Even Thiers had to admit it at that point.

I think I would have sat there with the Opportunists and the moderate Republicans, waffling with DumbTeen throughout the Third Republic.

You must admit, even as much shit as the Third Republic gets, that the scandal, the culture, the empire, the industry, the personalities, the instability and the ideas make for very entertaining history.