Talk:The Mountain

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Violinmelody.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any differing interpretations of the group? (anon 3 May 2005)

That's pretty vague. Differing as to who it included? No. Differing in almost any other respect? Yes. Did you have something in particular in mind? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would offer some different interpretations. I disagree with the statement that "the Girondists comprised mainly theorists and thinkers, whereas the Mountain consisted almost entirely of uncompromising men of action." There were a number of "men of action" alligned with the Gironde, including many of the Revolution's most accomplished journalists such as Brissot, Gorsas, Louvet and Carra, and a number of skilled orators such as Vergniaud, Barbaroux and Gensonne. On the other hand, there were also a number of Montagnards who were really more along the lines of theorists, including, one could argue, Robespierre. The assertion that temprament was the main source of the Girondin-Montagnard split is based largely on the work of Michael Syndenham, who contended that the two groups were actually motovated by similar ideologies. The point is debatable, but I would contend that the Girondins and the Montagnards were split on a number of issues, including their views on the Parisian militants, the war, the strength of the central government and the need for Terror. None of this is mentioned in the article. Also, the Mountain did not entirely dissolve after Robespierre's execution. A number of deputies continued to agitate for Montagnard principles over the course of the next year, and were referred to as "the Crest". Some collaborated with the insurrectionists during the Prarial uprising, and were subsequently guillotined. The group largely broke up during the repression which followed, but some of its members participated in the Babeuf plot. (anon 15 July 2005)

• Prarial ==> Prairial
• the "Crest" is also known as the "Summit"

I concur with most of the anonymous remark above (except that I'm not sure how much being a journalist or even an orator qualifies as being a "man of action"). But there is a lot here that probably should be worked into the article.

I think that when people say that their ideologies were similar, they consider the four matters you list as tactical rather than ideological. For example, they would that Gironde did not reject Terror on principle (they were, after all, committed Regicides), but because they simply didn't consider it an effective tactic to get what they wanted. Similarly, Robespierre's initial opposition to fighting a war to export the Revolution was almost certainly not a matter of principle: it was, overtly, based on a fear that even victory would simply bring a victorious general to power, precisely what happenned a decade later. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

This raises some interesting points of discussion. The correct spelling is, as you state Prairial, and the French "la Crete" can be translated both as "the Summit" and "the Crest" with roughly equivalent meanings. As for the main issues- I think that the whole "man of action" debate does not really get to the heart of the issue. The Montagne and the Gironde, like all political factions, both included skilled polemicists (for example, Marat for the Montagne and Louvet for the Gironde), eloquent parliamentary orators (say, Danton and Vergniaud) and theorists (say, Robsepierre and Condorcet). The main reason for the split was a question of political principle rather than political style. In terms of principle, I will concede that the issue of the war was, in fact, the least decisive factor. Only a handful of future Montagnards, most notably Robespierre, opposed the war. And once the war began, none of the Montagnards turned to defeatism, and instead became even more militaristic than the Girondins. The main issue is that the Girondins, who were more or less in power when the war began (spring of 1792), more or less supported its outbreak. I disagree with you on the issue of the Terror. First of all, the Girondins were never really supporters of the regicide. While some Girondins, most notably Vergniaud, voted in the end for the death of the King, this was largely a tactical conceit, since the issue had been more or less decided. In general, the Girondins, if not outright opponents of the death of Louis XVI, opposed the legality of his trial before the Convention and advocated instead a national plebicite on his fate, which was easily suppressed by the Montagnards.

The Girondins also opposed the Montagnard's increasing recourse to violent rhetoric, which was really the prelude to the actual Reign of Terror, which would only be enacted after the Girondins had been purged (indeed, their execution in October 1793 would be one of the first major steps toward the Terror). Perhaps the most important issue was the split between Paris and the provinces. The Montagne was largely created as a political faction in Paris during the fall of 1792, and thus was closely aligned with the already quite powerful Parisian radical movement, which had, in fact, existed from the very first days of the Revolution. The Gironde, by contrast, opposed what they saw as the increasing dominatation of Parisian radicals and, in the end, became inseperably linked to "federalism", which sought to raise the provinces against Paris. In this way, the Montagnard-Girondist split was the origin of the brief but bloody civil war which was waged in France in 1793 (excluding the Vendee, which was a different matter entirely). All of these arguments, I admit, are open to argument. However, I would say that it is evident that the article on "the Montagne", which seems to be only a sligtly modified version of the informative but quaint 1911 encyclopedia, needs to be revised. Joe Horan (16 July 2005)

(I can't tell if this last was from the same person as the first remark above. Either way, I'd sure appreciate if people would take accounts and sign their posts with ~~~~ so we can see who said what when. Thanks -- Jmabel | Talk 22:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC))

• I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I would welcome your taking a shot at the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but wasn't "Mountain", a political term that emerged in the same context as the seminal political designations, "Left" and "Right", intended to infer the plebian mass base of the revolution, like people who sat in the bleachers in baseball games.Tom Cod (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the anonymous author above that the distinctions between the 2 groups is probably largely based upon the opinions of Syndenham; It is a shame that we are in 2009, and still no one is able to distinguish either the 2 groups from one another or what really happened behaviorally during the French Revolution... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the organization of pages changed here without discussion -- and, I might add, without the person who moved this cleaning up the dozens of links pointing to one of the most important political groupings of the French Revolution?

Nothing against Steve Earle, but The Mountain (political group) is of a different order of importance than a record album and far more likely to be linked to. The disambiguation page should be The Mountain (disambiguation) and The Mountain should refer to the political grouping. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have consensus (see Talk:The Mountain (political group)) this is all back here again. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And of course let's not forget the rock group Mountain. (Mountain (band). Tom Cod (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to find out what La Montagne stood for, beleived in or accomplished. As the "left" political term originally pertained to this group, I was hoping this information might be here. Could I ask that the article include a little about these things? "very diverse shades of opinion" doesn't really cover it. Thankyou.

mr_happyhour 24 Dec 2006

Yes, this could be enormously expanded. Could someone take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. Both the name Montagne and the concept of the political left derived from the fact that Robespierre and his closest allies took their seats on the upper ranks at the left of the speakerTropische Storm Sven 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any expansion to speak of on the "very diverse shades of opinion". - Jmabel | Talk 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that information on the Mountain and its radicalization and political ideas need to be clarified and expanded in this article. In particular, the schism between the Girondins and the Mountain and how the Mountain was able to dominate the political body during the Terror. I would also like to see information on other figures in the Mountain, besides Robespierre, to clarify these "very diverse shades of opinion." Aweeksdu11 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems worth noting that there was a new Mountain in the Second Republic which acted as the left wing in parliament throughout that government's short existence. I added a brief reference to it, but it'd be good to have more on this. At present, my main knowledge of it comes from Marx's 18th Brumaire, which I don't think is really a reliable source, so I'm reluctant to do much. john k (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written an article on the Mountain in the Second Republic (The Mountain (1849)) and tried to incorporate some material from the 18th Brumaire, though it wasn't my primary source. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a section about the policies pursued by the Mountain, as well as their involvement in Lyon. I would also like to add information on their rise to power.Camryndreyer (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camryndreyer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there nothing at all, not even a link, on this page or the disambiguation page, to the article on the Degar tribesmen in Vietnam, who also went by the name "Montagnards" before and during the Vietnam War? AnnaGoFast (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content put forward in this change seems useful for both perspective and detail. But it deletes existing content without explanation. It's also unsourced, and that needs fixing.

Not only that . . it replaces content without changing the supporting citation.

It seems unlikely tht p.26 of Palmer's Twelve Who Ruled says both tht "The Mountain accused the Girondins of plotting against Paris because this caveat within the proposed constitution would have allowed rural areas of France to vote against legislation that benefits Paris, the main constituency of the Mountain. However, the real discord in the Convention occurred not between the Mountain and the Gironde, but between the aggressive antics of the minority of the Mountain and the rest of the Convention", as previously claimed, and tht " After the 'sans-culottes' had forced the National Convention to expel twenty prominent Girondins seen as counter-revolutionary, there were anti-Jacobin insurrections in major provincial cities, including Bordeaux, Lyon, Caen, Marseille and Toulon. Coming at a time of external military crisis and invasion, these 'federalist' revolts were ruthlessly repressed", as the changed article text claims. This is a bit like changing the points under the train; and it happens in other places too in this edit.

For all three reasons it seems necessary to revert the edit . . can the contributor, or anyone else, have a go?

--' SquisherDa (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph: National Assembly vs. National Convention

Is this a typo? ″Its members, called the Montagnards (French: [mɔ̃taɲaʁ]), sat on the highest benches in the National Assembly."

Weren't the Mountain a major faction in the National Convention of 1792 instead of the National Assembly? Rest of article seems to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:8001:7A42:39C1:19CA:2736:A2AC (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: "The Montagnards that survived were arrested, executed or deported. By 1795 the Mountain had effectively been obliterated." and "Finally, at the end of 1794 the Mountain largely devolved into a group called The Crest (French: crête), which lacked any real power." and nothing within the article describes the Montagnards past that.

And then, with zero commentary, Montagnards are shown winning Legislative Body elections in 1798 and 1799 in a landslide? What is up with that?

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BennyJoel (article contribs).

There happen to be some people who are using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source, you cannot do this. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, cannot be cited as sources. However, these encyclopedias do happen to be great starting points for research and they provide excellent sources they used to make the article one would currently be viewing, but you cannot use them as sources themselves. Encyclopedias are only meant for general information and are not made by just a handful of authors, they also get updated constantly (like Wikipedia articles). DragonMaster9817 (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched the French Revolution, first at university 45 years ago, and have never Never NEVER seen Montagnard (which translates as "Mountain Man" not as "The Mountain")referred to as The Mountain. The French word "montagne" means mountain. I grew up in a French speaking community in Quebec (though I am an anglophone).

Let me repeat this: MONTAGNARD means MOUNTAIN MAN (or Mountain dweller or Mountain person). MONTAGNE means MOUNTAIN.

Yes, the club itself was called La Montange (The Mountain), but it is NEVER written in English, even in English sources, as "The Mountain", and the accepted term is MONTAGNARDS.

I have found in Wikipedia that, through what I assume is the arrogance of Wikipedians, that they decide to impose their will on established fact. This is a case of it. IT IS WRONG.

Why not translate Thermidor when referring to the French revolutionary month as "Heat"? This is arrogance, and it is a kind of cultural appropriation. You have declared war on the French language (a sensitive subject in Quebec).Montju (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]