Talk:Girondins

I don't think the category listing here is appropriate. The Girondists were not a political party in any proper sense - they were a faction. And to call them "liberals" is to buy into the grand historiographical narrative of girondin-admiring 19th century liberal historians like Thiers and Michelet (I think) who admired the Girondists as precursors to themselves. This view is seen by most modern historians as deeply flawed. While there was certainly liberalism to be found in the French Revolution, I think it's highly dubious to identify it with this opportunistic and not very impressive lot. john k 00:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"This view is seen by most modern historians as deeply flawed." That's pretty sweeping, and it's not reflected in the article as it stands. Some citations (and maybe some relevant contributions to the article) would seem to be in order. From what I can tell, both the Girondists and the Montagnards were generally what would later be called liberals. Of course, later liberals prefer to embrace the Gironde because they mostly didn't live long enough to get their hands as bloody... -- Jmabel 06:02, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be completely fair to call both Girondists and Montagnards liberals. However, The Mountain is not in this category, nor in the liberalism series. Which suggests to me that the categorization of Girondists as such is not so much a matter of noting that just about everybody in the French Revolution to the right of the Hébertists and to the left of the hard core monarchist emigrés was a liberal, but in the old, discredited, 19th century sense that the Girondists were the precursors of the reasonable Orleanist liberals (or, perhaps, its inverted Marxist form which sees the Girondins as the agents of large commercial interests, or whatever it is they said). That is to say - sure, the Girondins were liberals. So were the Montagnards. So were the Feuillants. So were the various deputies of the Plain. So was just about everybody who had a role in governing France between 1789 and 1799 (except, of course, for poor Louis XVI). But to call out the Girondins, specifically, and nobodoy else, as a "liberal party," is highly misleading. john k 06:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I concur. You might want to ping User:Wilfried Derksen (a.k.a. Gangulf), who was responsible for most the recent major reorganization of articles and categories related to liberalism. -- Jmabel 06:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I might agree that other currents could be considered to be more or less liberals, like the feuillants, but e.g. not every French revolutionary current. The Jacobins for example were clearly not liberal, since they used terror to impose their ideas. This method certainly excludes then from being liberal. --Gangulf 17:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You must realize, however, that the ideals the jacobins had were far more liberal than those of the girondists. Take note of where the members of the groups came from - the girondists drew their members and power bloc from the middle class - the burgeoisie. The jacobins, essentially the Mountain, drew their support from the mob of Paris. Robespierre is known as the "pure idealist" for a reason - he wanted total equality amongst the people. Indeed, he was the precursor of socialism - and, as some in the 60's and 70's may have argued, the precursor of communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.131.181 (talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2006.

Which is precisely why many would say that, at least once in power, the Jacobins were to the left of "liberal". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look the political term "Liberal" can undergo many changes in an always changing society, especially during the French Revolution. During the Legislative Assembly period all those who opposed the ancien regime, were deemed "liberal" that ranged from the Constitutionalist Monarchists/Feulliants to the precusors of the Enrages/Hebrtists. Remember even the ancien regime aristocrats believed that the Feulliants were just as equally as radical as the jacobins when the revolution was in its infancy. Then you have the further division of power once the ancien regime is ousted and the Convention arises, Feulliants are considered conservative, while the Girodians as moderates and the Jacobins are leftists. Once Barnave and his boys are neutralized as a political force, you have the Jacobins becoming the Liberals and the Girondists righties, and Roux's Enrages and Herbertists becoming the radicals. After the eradication of Girondists, you have the Jacobins split among the Robespierre faction being of the left, Danton's faction which before were considered Radicals in the beggining, now as perceived as Righties and the Herbertists as Ultra-Lefties. To the Herbertist and to Roux's Enrages, Robespierre and his compatriots were Moderates at best. To the Indulgents, the Robespierrists were aligned with the Communial Radicals (herbertists) for allowing their social platform to continue. To put it succintly, as the Terror increased and Parisan radicalism arose, groups' reactions to the ever increasing changes brought from the revolution also changed. Therefore I agree Girondists should not be considered "Liberals", because at one time or another most groups in the Revolution were considered Liberals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronsin1976 (talk • contribs) 18 Feb 2006.

Cleanup!

Please!

A better summary would also be appropriate. Halfway down the article I still wasn't really sure what their political opinions were all about.

"In the Legislative Assembly these represented a compact body of opinion which, though not as yet definitely republican, was considerably more advanced than the moderate royalism of the majority of the Parisian deputies."

"More advanced"? And how royalistic were the 'majority of the Parisian deputies'? Apocryphite 11:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a clean up is required.

This while piece reads like some sort of poor translation.

I've read video instruction manuals that made more sense. (Surfingus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingus (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind

Sometimes they are referred to as "Girondists", sometimes as "Girondines". Could someone settle on one or the other name? Jhobson1 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer the obvious question: "What did they believe?"

The introduction is among the worst I've read in the Wikipedia. It's a jumble of minutae.

• Just answer the obvious question "What did they believe?" (And why should I care?)

• What is meant by "considerably more advanced than the moderate royalism" It this some sort of standardized Wikipedia civilization score? patsw 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this (almost a year later, I note).

"The Girondists ... were a political faction .... a group of individuals who held certain opinions and principles in common"

Well just what were these "opinions and principles" that made them "a political faction"??
There should be a sentence or two on this in the lead paragraph.
- (Though pace User:Patsw above, IMHO the question "why should I care?" will have to be resolved by each reader for him/her self.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

This is currently a broken article, probably due to the indiscriminate inclusion of 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica material. Lines such as

"The crisis came in March 1793. The Girondists, who had a majority in the Convention, controlled the executive council and filled the ministry, believed themselves invincible. Their orators had no serious rivals in the hostile camp; their system was established in the purest reason. But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers"

are laughably POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.46.220 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, terrible intro. Colipon+(T) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV in the sense it reflects the contributor's opinion, but in the sense it was copied and pasted from a very old-fashioned account dating back to the time when the issues of the FR were still topical. Modern research has covered this period and has much more interesting things to say. --Anne97432 (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, whether it's language is POV or not on some key points (it does seem a bit flowery and accusatory when it talks about them being killed by 'the very forces they helped unchained) ultimately isn't so important as the fact that it completely fails to say what they believe. The intro says it was a group united by 'certain opinions and principles', and then the article completely fails to articulate anywhere what those principles were. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the mistake is in implying that they were unified by "certain opinions and principles." They really weren't. The group formed as a loose collection of orators in the Legislative Assembly who were pushing for war with the Emperor. Later they tended to oppose execution of the king. Otherwise, they were largely united only by their dislike of the Mountain. They were not a particularly coherent faction. john k (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, you've identified some general unifying features of this group: they pushed for war and opposed execution of the King. Also, they disliked some Mountain. If this is true of the group, on the balance anyway, then it should be in the intro. In fact, it should probably be the intro.

Thanks, I've learned more by reading this entry than by staring at the lists of names in the article. — gogobera (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A question did the Girondists have to Draft a Army to fight Austria?

Just a question In declareing war on Austria.Did the Girondist have to "draft" an army to fight? Or was the revolutionary feeling so high. That people joined the army to fight? Thanks Mn08270921stcentDr.EdsonAndre'Johnson D.D.ULC>ANDREMOI (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you post the question on the reference desk, where lots of people are eager to answer questions that are not related to article improvement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A little much?

Segments like these make for pretty exciting reading, but sound a little one sided and sensationalistic...: "The crisis came in March 1793. The Girondists, who had a majority in the Convention, controlled the executive council and filled the ministry, believed themselves invincible. Their orators had no serious rivals in the hostile camp; their system was established in the purest reason. But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers. This was especially fruitful because while the largest groups in the convention were the Jacobins and Brissotins, uncommitted delegates accounted for almost half the total number."

Would anyone object to this being rewritten to sound a little more balanced. I hardly think it's apt to say the Girondist "system was established in the purest reason", nor that the Montagnards were lacking in "talent" by comparison... 174.53.187.179 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)