Nah. Compared to those two examples the French Revolution is overrated and not in the same league.
It's interesting isn't it? We used to think that the French Revolution was the central event in the creation of modernity and that subsequent history could not be understood without some reference to its legacy. We now know that we were looking at the telescope through the wrong end: the Revolution had a larger impact on the writing of history than it did on history itself. It's no coincidence that the (ongoing) crisis in the historiography of the French Revolution began at the same time as the (ongoing) existential crisis in the Historical profession.
since you're more up on these things than I am: could you point me to some current historians/historiographers who are central to this 'crisis of the Historical profession', and how this connects with arguments that the impact of the French Revolution has been repeatedly overstated?
the only real reading/study I've done on the subject is Hobsbawm, who of course sees both the "British industrial revolution" (which he dates to the 1780s) and the French Revolution (dated from 1789 all the way through 1815) as the two cataclysmic events that would come to define modernity: the former in modes of production and the latter in state and political formation, law codes, etc.
