Tell me about Marie Antoinette.

Strictly speaking, Antoinette is not a woman who likes to play politics. She is fundamentally different from the German wife of Nicholas II, the last czar of Romanov Dynasty in Russia. Before the Great Revolution, she never interfered in national politics. She is only content with her present enjoyment, holding more parties and wearing more beautiful clothes. Even at the beginning of the great revolution, she just instinctively kept everything of herself. Her poor political skills show that she lacks knowledge and is unable to turn the tide. She and her husband are at the mercy of angry people like two puppets. When jacobins, actually composed of a group of terrorists, demanded more severe punishment for the king's family, the king and queen were pushed to the guillotine one after another. So what kind of responsibility should Antoinette bear for the outbreak of the French Revolution? The best way to evaluate a historical figure is to separate this figure from history and see where history will go without her. To be fair, Antoinette was just a fuse of the Great Revolution. Without her, the revolution will still happen, only a matter of time. There are three reasons. First, due to years of wars in France, such as the war with Britain for Canada, the war of independence to support the United States, and the seven-year war on the European continent, the French treasury has long been exhausted. Louis XV left Louis XVI with a debt-ridden mess. No wonder Louis XVI said, "Now let me succeed? I am still too young! " The main reason for the collapse of the French kingdom is the financial collapse, and the financial collapse is mainly because foreign wars dragged France over, which has many similarities with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Second, the incompetence of Louis XVI is actually very similar to the apocalypse emperor in the history of China. Both of them like to do manual labor, Louis XVI likes to make locks, and Emperor Apocalypse likes to do carpentry. Both of them are quite good, but they are all out-and-out mediocrities in governing the country. Hereditary monarchy has its drawbacks, especially the system of succession to the throne, which often supports a political idiot and destroys a dynasty. Nero in Rome and Song Huizong in China are the best examples. The historical situation at that time was that, on the one hand, Louis XVI provided a more capitalist environment for his subjects, allowing them to be opportunistic and constantly stimulating their enthusiasm for getting rich and property awareness, on the other hand, he provided unprecedented social investment and welfare for the French nation, making people used to and even loved running the country. Once the treasury was empty, Louis XVI and his ministers began to think of folk wealth, but Louis XVI had no other way to make money, but kept borrowing money from his subjects, especially the wealthy bourgeoisie, and then he refused to repay the money he owed. At first, everyone was helpless about the king's derailment, but in the end, they couldn't bear it. Those "angry victims" saw that there was no hope of paying back the money, and they did not hesitate to call for revolution-they did not hesitate to create large-scale violent turmoil or even catastrophe to vent their inner resentment, and then usurped the position of the king. Third, the royal family does not have a strong army loyal to itself. When the crowd besieged Versailles, the king's few bodyguards even defected. When Louis XVI was imprisoned in Paris, he didn't think of organizing an army to suppress the "thugs", but fled to Austria with the help of German mercenaries. When the crowd attacked Louis XVI's last fortress, the Tuileries Palace in Paris, the king could only organize 900 foreign mercenaries to fight. Louis XVI had no hope for these Swiss soldiers! I can only give in easily. Remember, political power can only come out of the barrel of a gun, and it is only a matter of time before a government without military support is overthrown. It can be seen that even without Antoinette, the French Revolution would still break out, mainly because her husband's incompetence and promising stimulated careerists from all walks of life, hoping to reshuffle the French political situation. In the final analysis, it was a great struggle and massacre between the old and new classes for dominance, and Antoinette only played a tragic role in it. Marie Antoinette and Cleopatra also have many similarities. Both of them became victims of politics, but Antoinette was passive and Cleopatra was active. Both of them did their best in luxury, but both ended in tragedy. One had his beautiful head cut off, and the other committed suicide by putting a poisonous snake in his grave because he didn't want to be dragged to Rome for a parade. Both of them were vilified by the people before their lives, but after their death, their evaluation became more and more objective, and many literary works tried to show people their true colors. To be fair, they are all poor women on the historical stage.