The Massacre of Naples

Massacres of Naples Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

In the 1790s, France hit it's phase where a revolutionary regime took over this was invaded as of the French King's wishes, and the neighbouring monarchies, but this attack failed. And by the late 1790s, the French forces drove the invasions out of their country. One of the armies marched down and took Southern Italy, But in 1799 Royalist revolts came, and pushed into a rebellion, they then started to massacre the Jacobins in Naples. Royalist and Papal armies attacked Naples, over the next few years. 4100 people were massacred the revolt in 1799. With 100 or so maybe 1000, massacred by the British fleet by Lord Nelson, on his personal orders. The French and local Italian supporters armies reached Naples a few other times, but eventually by 1815, there had been a number of massacres. It is said 50,000 Naples people were massacred in total in 1789-1815 by the forces. Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

A Picture of 18thC naples, would have shown terrible things, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

Added to this, the Royalist side in the French Revolution also caused lots of other deaths, they via dueling asking opponenet in early in the revolution. also the revolts by hthe Vendee killed a number of revolutionaries before the revolt saw a brutal crackdown, there were these things going on by the right across France, some say some executiosn after the Jacobin reing of terror, weere by royalist forces, all this added to somethinmgs approaching 1000 deaths, inclduing exuctions by the royals regime before they were ousted but only for them after the revolution started, at least 33 in 1789, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/
In Poland in 1792, the same year as the much famed Reign of Terror, where they massacred in Praga a part of Warsaw 10/20,000 people, plus 1000s in other times. They went into the city while crushing the liberal revolt in this large city against the partition of Poland, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

Also there were some massacres in Spain aswell.
Britain, their 2 famous massacres kill 5000 civilians, & see many prefer the French, but most Spanish do not support the French as of them being invaders, but adopt their new liberal ways, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

Brits, took the St. Vincent & Grenadines, in 1762 off Frenchpeople, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/
Who were often mostly pirates,
And Shipwrecked Africans Arawak speakers, 'Garifanu' originate there,
& are the main people,
Brits evict the 5000 for revolting, in 1795, & as of this forced relocation, 1/2die, on route,
600 Jamaican Maroons, slaves who had escaped to the interior, they receive the same treatment that decade,
The rest, the majority kept their 1730s self-rule agreement, for long,

570 British convicts died on route to Australia, in 1788-1800, out of a small number.

260-360 massacred in White terror in France after 1815, including some executions and some massacresof French Troops, from outside France, this is another covered up stat,
1000 Irishmen massacred in 1790s revolt by Brits

Added to this, 500,000 Crimeans, and Volga Turks died, in Russian evictions in the 1790s.

Goya paints, pictures of hung rebels, & French troops treated appallingly,
20500 French prisoners, are killed/starved/die of disease,
On the desert island of Cabrera isle in the W-Mediteranean, & in SW-England prisons,
Half on each isle, but all by the British though, the prison the Brits had in Devopn, saw French people die in ways like Concentration camps,

I say Britain's monarchical elite can be blamed for this,
Plus 250 Americans, also in the British prisons too,
Caught during the naval war with them, of 1812, and earlier,
Of which some survived,
But added to this some low 100s of French were executed for criminal acts, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

50 massacres by Grenada Royalists in 1795, some more in slave revolts in other isles, and of course some later,

In Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, 1/22,000 French were massacred by Royalist forces, and 5/125,000 died as slaves of Royalists

Plus 2/6,000 by Royal Portugal in Paraguay as Guarannis in 19thC, durinng 1789-1815 era, were massacred

And 1000s more killed by Royalists in massacres in the South American wars in massacres. like by Llaneros royalists, before the area called Llaneros became republican, and so helped thr republic and indepependance win there were more massacres too, by both sides, but the Royaolist Llaneros one was biggest

And 3000 Bushmen hunted dead by the Dutch in South Africa in 1770-90s

Brits killed 10s at least in India, and 1800s, and 10s in Australia, and Pacific in massacres

Canada saw some rebellions of Irish in the 1800s, with some killed in that

Another Irish revolt in 1803, saw deaths and executions,

A Scotsman was executed in Scotland in the 1790s for being revolutionary,

Europe's Royal's saw close royalist cousins in Arabia, massacres 4/11,000 in 1801/02

Royalist forces massacred allot in Haiti, as did slaves, but is killing somebody who owns you as a slave, as bad as a massdacre of a innocent I am not sure

It is said by some 100s died in prisons under the 1815 White terror, of enemies of Royalists, with many more jailed,

With also some kills of revolutions in Germany in the era, some of French troops, that were massacres, and also of Hungarians revolutionaries, And Prussian teroops massacred some Villagers in Germany, and also Swede and Austrian radicals, with som,e Russians killed in politically orientated kills in the era, and this does not include the huge Russian royal massacres before 1789, in wars with the Ottomans, and evictions of tribes east, from the south. Also in Britain there were executiosn of mutineer sailors in big numbers, murders of French diplomats, even relatively left wing in some ways Venice killed some people, Bucharest saw 128 Jews killed by soldiers, and some Americans in the 1812 war were victims of massacres by the British army,

We have not even brought in royal massacres in China and Egypt,

But alltogether the royalist side massacred more in the main theatre of conflict,

Also in Portugal 600 masons were killed by anti revolutioneries, as some felt they were associated to the revolt,

The revolution was right, nobody can really deny that, some claim the reign of terror proves it was wrong, but if so, what do the Royal massacres of the Communes, or of the Revolutionary war prove, no actually the revolution was right massacres were not really correct by any side, but were little compared to the horror against Europe and the world, if there had been no revolution of low life expectancies, and terrible inequality,

After all this, surely for people to claim the French Revolution was wrong as of the bloodshed is insane, All the people who oppose it are normally people who when push comes to shove support the French King, like they may defend him and say it was bad to execurte him, but they would never say that for Robespierre, when if they were fair to the views they claim they would, do that. The fact is the crimes of the non revolutionary regimes were far far greater than the revolutionary one, and if you are saying well you wanted revolution without bloodshed, well then ok, buit lets face it, if that were possible ok, but to prtend it was seems a bit silly, and even if you say that, as I say elsewhere its like the bombing of Dresden whether that was wrong or right it does not make it wrong to have beaten Hitler in war. It maty have been better via other ways, but that is anothyer matter,and surely it would be just the case that Maybe Hitler or the French king would have been as likely to win via peace loving ways as the revolutionaries, as they had the power and could crush the revolutionaries. The most annoying one is in Britain where history books ignore baroad, except for the French Revolution, and ignmore massacres except for France's, they do not talk of what Royalists did after Culloden, and if they do excuse it, they do not talk of the massacre of Berwick, and if they do, they choose the lowest possible estimated massacre total, or Royal massacres elsewhere like in Aberdeen, or Ireland, or Bolton, and only talk of crimes of non royalists. If you mention these you are told stop remembering thye past, oh you have long memories, you, then thenh royalists cry at some war criminal like Charles I being executed, I say if the reign of terror proves the French Revolution wrong, then the other massacres in Naples, and Poland poroove the opponents of the French Revolution wrong, as they were opposing it and so are you, If you laugh at that view, well how mad is it to claim all the Revolution's advacnces should be summed up just by Robespierre under pressure, why is it not just as fair to sum up all it's opponents by what the Tsar's army did to Poles, and what Royalists in Naples under essentially very little pressure, by what Britain did to the US prisoners of war in the Independance war, by what they did to French prisoners in Mediteranean islanes, and in Southern England, while Napoleon treated captured British soldiers, quite nicely, by comparison, Or what about what French Royalists did under pressure to Protestants in the 16th Century, yes you may claim it was religous extrem,ism, but it was done under royals, and if you claim what Robespierre did was a crime for every revolitionary and enlightenemnt idweal which some people have claimed, surely you should do the same for crimes by the royals and claim it was the fault of loads of their stuff, if its ok to say that was REligous extremism, alone, and the Royals who were culpible have no responsibilty then surely you can claim the Jacobion crimes were just as of one tiny thing a left winger dissagress with, I could claim well thats what happens if you have people who dissagree with us on say, not allowing religous freedom, and just say none else of it was the revolutionaries, so all revolutionaries who allowed religous freedom are not responsible so are perfect, compared to the rest. No people who oppose the revolution shoukld accept the opponents of the revolution were horribloe, and comitted far worse crimes than the revolution, aeven when you compare just the era when France was in revolution 1789-1815, (I am including Napoleon as part of the era of the revolution, as lets face it was it's heir, and if you do not include him, then actually you just include more crimes for the right, and the left wins by a mile), and if you look at facts, if you compare the lands Britain etc that were not revolution led, but who had many people for revolutionary ideals, and lands Revolutionary led they had similar populations in this era, we are talking about Europe, here, then the Revolution regimes killed far less per head, and even if we include colonial eras, so massacres by colonial regimes in that era too it is the same. Of course if you take the view all war is wrong, then you should opposethe royal regime most as it was the Royal Bourbon regime who asked lands to invade France, and France was just doing self defence. And they had done a few crushing of revolutions before too, in the Netherlands and Belgium, and Bohemia, and it was bound to be the case, one time, the opposing revolutionaries they were crushing would be led by people who in the end would just be able to defend themselves, and of course as revolutionaries took France not a much smaller land, they were able to. Some say Robespeirre was a some millitariet as he wanted to spread revolution through Europe, but it was the right who started this. Whenever a land saw a left wing revolution, like the Netherlands, the right via Prussia, or Austria would invade so they were the invaders, and it was the case in France too. To say, well they should never have revolted for themselves, is like a robber saying it was not his fault he shot some person, he was robbing as the victim he claims should never have fought back. People should be allowed to fight back. The revolution had blood, on it's hands, but far less than the Royal regimes, indeed France's royals comitted worse in the centuries before, and in the eras they ruled in recorded history 600sad to on and off, 1870s, comitted worse kills per famine, povicides, and massacres per head, than the repulics, of later, and when you look at how many died in say 1950-2007, in massacres in France by the state, and how many in say 1650-1707, you get one that massacred loads of Hugenouts and such, and Southern Protestants, and loads of people, and one that had few massacres other than renegade far right lunatics killing, and outside of France yes terrible things were done in Algeria, but per head of population far less than the horrific things done by French royals say in African slavery, the Carribean to Caribs and France. Some smay say they wanted revolution without bloodhshed, well that would be almost impossible liook at what the kings did otherwise. Look at Britain it only became a democracy as the elite feared a French Revolution. It was not right to massacre, but there is no doubt the opoponenets of revolution were worse. To say the Jacobins were extremists iignores the facts, that the Revolution was essential. After all the revolution massacred probbabaly less people than Reaganistas did in Central America in the late 20th Century, and less than British regimes in the mid 19th Century via Gordon in China, and the tens of thousands after the Indian Mutiny. And not much more than the English king did in the 1290s, in Scotland, when Scotland had barely any more people, than Glasgow has today, To deny the French revolution was good, is unbelievable ignorance, or evil as you do not care about the people it helped. And you support the murderers and war mongers and slavers who opposed it. Yes people died but they did fighting Hitler and both fights were needed, it is terrible people died in it. But death would be even more common without it. It was essential, and it saved millions, without it we would be like how 1780s Absolutist France had famines, so did more absolutist British eras, but less absolutists eras in Britain like 1780s did not, if Britain had not had the 1650s events famines in Britain would continue abnd have killed millions to 1780, as they did in France. ALso less technolagy would have come. Ireland was the most undemiocratic part of Britain to 1900, and so had famines, Britain would have ghad this too, without more dem,ocracy, and when Britain was only a bit democratic in 19th C the unenfranscvhised were badly off, when they were franchised they were well off in 1920s, compared to earlier eras, and even teh depression could not bring them down to levels that even rich 18th C and earky 19thC and earlier eras had, none of that would have happened without a French Revolution so it helped us all, without it we would be poor just like 1780s France,

just like how Bruitain's working class were poor before democarcy in the 1840s depiste Britain being wealthy as to France in 1780, with LEs of 18 in some towns in Britain in the 1840s before democracy and for France in the 1780s, when it was wealthy in some ways with Hot air ballons invented, but when many people died of famine in huge numbers, and when the LE was dreadful, with some areas having people who felt a guy with a just a few klivestock was rich, living in huts, and with huge poverty, without these tools created by covenanters etc against aristo-royal dictats, we would have been in their control and democarcy would not have come, so thats what I feel. And if you think the reforms of the French Revolution should not have happened after lal that, then you are a very evil bully, and uncaring, unable to realise what it was about, why it matters

For more read ,Why the French Revolution was good

Or More 18th C Crimes by some Royal Regimes

Or Poem on World History http://www.lonympics.co.uk/worldhistory/PARTS1.htm a great poem,

Or A anti Russian Royalty site, detailing it's oppressions, and why it was so wrong, secret history in a way, as these facts are not talked of much

Or sites below ook at http://ww

w.lonympics.co.uk/

Here are some more sites, there are books and articles on the subjects in many internet places, or internet book shops, bookstores, at the bottom, are lists of which were the worst regimes of the past few centuries.

100s of websites http://www.lonympics.co.uk/ On more fascinating subjects like this, just as illuminating.

A site on the El Nino Famines that killed 10s of millions of Indians, and Chinese and others in the 19th Century

The Highland Clearances and it's full terribleness

A site on the Belgian Congo, and how the king of that land killed 10s of millions of Congolese

The most evil regimes of the 19th century

The massacres of Berwick of 1296

A mention of the massacres after Culloden

A site on 1640s Britain

Worst 18th Century regimes

A Quiz on the French Revolution

What were the nicest regimes ever

The Best regimes ever in terms of achievers