More historical date

[F. Joe Haydn]

The American Revolution is more important. The French Revolution would probably never have happened without the American Revolution because the former was greatly inspired by the latter. Also, the formation of a whole new country that has had a huge impact on world history and is one of the biggest superpowers in the world is very significant. In France, the government changed, but France was already one of the most powerful countries in the world before the Revolution and a new country wasn't formed. Also, the United States was one of the first democracies since the ancient Athenian democracy, which is a very important distinction. Without the American Revolution, democratization might've never happened in the countries that have now experienced it. The French Revolution, on the other hand, failed in its attempt to make France a democracy.

[F. Joe Haydn]

The American Revolution is more important. The French Revolution would probably never have happened without the American Revolution because the former was greatly inspired by the latter.

The problem I have with this argument is, that inasmuch as history can be understood as a series of reactions, it reduces the matter of historical significance to a question of chronology. By the same reasoning, one could proclaim the marriage of Nancy Hanks to Thomas Lincoln the most significant event of the American Civil War (for without their union, Abraham Lincoln would never have been born, his presidency would never have existed, and any number of futures supplanted our own). "I was first" cannot be the sum total of an argument for greater significance, because one can simply continue to turn back one more page ad infinitum.

Also, the formation of a whole new country that has had a huge impact on world history and is one of the biggest superpowers in the world is very significant. In France, the government changed, but France was already one of the most powerful countries in the world before the Revolution and a new country wasn't formed.

That's not really true, though. For one, the French Revolution definitely led to the creation of new countries in Europe (the Confederation of the Rhine says hello). More importantly, France's Revolutionary Wars effected the most dramatic political upheaval of European history arguably since the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire. States that had existed for centuries - the Holy Roman Empire* and the Dutch Republic to name a few - suddenly ceased to be, and the Napoleonic Code remains the foundation for much of continental law. I would be careful, too, to discount changes in government as less significant than the emergence of new states - after all, one could easily argue the American Revolution did little more than supplant de facto autonomy within the British Empire with de jure autonomy under the Constitution.

*Which, in fairness, was primarily decorative by the late eighteenth century

Also, the United States was one of the first democracies since the ancient Athenian democracy, which is a very important distinction. Without the American Revolution, democratization might've never happened in the countries that have now experienced it. The French Revolution, on the other hand, failed in its attempt to make France a democracy.

This is a fair argument, though of course France's revolution also played a large role in spreading democratic ideals throughout the West (even if it was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing democracy in France in 1789). I'm not sure there's a correct answer to this question, but it's certainly an interesting one.

I can see the problem with the argument, but I also think that it is in fact important to look at the effects a historical event had on future events. I do agree that it would be ridiculous to argue that because the Stamp Act caused the American Revolution, which in turn caused the French Revolution, the Stamp Act is therefore more significant than both events because neither event would have happened without it. However, I believe that this argument is ridiculous because it analyzes indirect effects, such as a causing b causing c. It would be ridiculous to claim that the Stamp Act caused the French Revolution. I believe that if you only look at direct events, such as a causing b, then the argument works. And I'm not saying that a is automatically more significant than b. The Stamp Act is clearly less significant than the American Revolution. I'm just saying that one must take the fact that the Stamp Act caused the American Revolution into consideration when analyzing the significance of the Stamp Act. And it is true that there is an argument that the French Revolution was inevitable; that the disastrous state of France's finances and Louis' XVI misrule would have eventually caused the Revolution without the American Revolution. But I still find it hard to believe that the French Revolution wasn't inspired by the American Revolution and that it wouldn't have happened without it when several of the main figures from the American Revolution, such as the Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Paine, also had major roles in the French Revolution. And this argument is made even less believable when it is noted that The Declaration of the Rights of Man was greatly inspired by The Declaration of Independence.

While the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars may have led to the collapse of several long-lived states, the resulting states usually just became client states of France. I think it is fair to say that the United States had a bigger impact on world history than any and all of these client states. And when a state becomes independent from another state, I would call that the formation of a new state, not a change in government. It's not like the Americans overthrew the British government in Britain and created a new government there.

While the French Revolution definitely spread democratic ideals throughout Europe through documents such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man, it also did some of the opposite by fueling reactionary movements who were revolted by the violence and bloodshed of the Revolution and the subversion of royal authority. With regards to the American Revolution, it isn't clear that reactionary movements were fueled to the same extent as they were with the French Revolution. And I would argue that democratization is more historically significant than the formation of reactionary movements because such movements have existed all throughout history, while very little democracies existed in the world up to the point of the American Revolution. And while it is impossible to know which revolution had a greater effect on world democratization, I would argue that the revolution that actually succeeded in bringing about a democracy probably had a greater effect.