Title says it all. I need some causes. Thing is, I don't believe in the fact that the monarchy caused it totally, Antoinette's debts did not single-handedly bring down the Ancien Regime. Nor do I believe the economic situation can be deemed wholly responsible. Perhaps the murky shadows of Jacobin politics?
If there are any experts out there, opinions are needed.
France was still practicing feudalism in the 18th century. The nobles and the clergy enjoyed many privileges, like not having to pay taxes. The people however had to pay extremely heavy taxes, so they had to work hard. This situation, plus the behavior of the King, who ruled as an absolute monarch, made the common people discontent and was one of the causes of the French revolution.
The entire clergy population owned almost half the land in france at that time. They only made up about 2 percent of the population. You would think that the peasants would be angry and they were. The bourgeousie was pretty mad too.
I would recommend reading Sieyes "what is the third estate." It was a propaganda piece circulating at the time, and basically sums up the attitudes of those craving revolution. It's probably one of the most important things ever written, so even if you don't care about French history you should read it. Here's the full text.
Thing is, I don't believe in the fact that the monarchy caused it totally,
A more abstract cause I've heard of with regards to causes, is the penchant the French seem to have for blood and manifestos. After the Enlightenment period and the birth of rationalism as an idea, the French have had a remarkable number of revolutions and republics. It could be a part of the national psyche, just as it is a German characteristic to obey orders.
One of the reasons my history teahcer loves (not just for the french Revolution but just about everything peasents seem to do) is food; or lack of it. Peasants moved from rural areas into the urban places so food production decreased and there were crop failures in the 1780's. Less food that is more expensive leads to a decline in already miserable conditions. You can live with an unfair system and taxes but you can't live without food.
The American Revolution had happened a few years before so upheavel was in the air perhaps :? The french did help the Americans out so ideas could have spread back to europe.
Just beacuse it makes em smile: When the Bastille was stormed there were only 7 prisoners in residence. 4 of them were counterfeiters and one was an ELgish/Irish lunatic who thoght he was Julius Caesar.
The country was in distress. I'm not with you on the causes, OP. I strongly believe it was the monarch/elite aristocracies inability to care for the people. Its obvious the fiefs didn't exist, the time was of nations. France owned the stuff, but who 'owned' it as property? Not a lot of people. The eventual problem was that the people felt they were being BS'd and Antionette and Louis were gettin' fat using all the cash. Not only that but France has always been a giver [even when it shouldn't], they had to pay for the 7 Years war and ontop of that helping out during the American Revo.
In the end, as drace nicely put -- Bread became a whole month's earning. France needed reform and Louis wasn't giving it out. He ordered an estate assembly thinking that the two estates of the Church and the Elites would fix it, but he had no control. The third estate left and due to its massive 98% of France's poor population took control. Different things happened, lots of people using the guillotine. Power switched hands many times, I believe its called the reign of terror. I know there were some remarkable figures -- like when the elites with some cash pulled out to form 'The Convention' and were against groups such as those of the Jacobins (which were evidently kicking ass). I forgot the complete timeline, but to sum it up after a while the Directory showed up and [without much success] tried to rid france of its socioeconomic problems. Within a few years the reign of Napoleon began and he pulled France out of its troubles to bring back a Monarchy. So basically, the people were poor, they pull out of their party and France is a constitutional Monarchy. Reign of terror with loads of junk. .. Then back to a Monarchy.
The primary causes, in my opinion, rest in the socioeconomic problems of not being able to care for the people. Not that they were poor, but that they were already poor and getting poorer at quite a rate which for them seemed inevitable to get out of. Eventually everyone they knew was a peasant, and they were PO'd.
To sum, just like any revolution, the cause was distress and economic struggles of the masses.
Now, what was the cause of such misery is another thing. I'd argue that it was the class hierarchical system and feudalism along with a few historical events that aided the revolutionary cause.
The French for example went nearly bankrupt by aiding the American revolution against Britain.
To sum, just like any revolution, the cause was distress and economic struggles of the masses.
But, you also have to note the setting of this distress. Due to the ideals of the Enlightenment, a few people in the top two estates (such as Sieyes) actually cared about the plight of the third estate. This wasn't exactly a grass roots revolution, many of the leaders were quite well off. Robespierre, a lawyer, wasn't exactly starving. People like him were probably more motivated by power than by necesity. The revolution wasn't caused by the starving masses, it was caused by the people who manipulated the starving masses.
The revolution wasn't caused by the starving masses, it was caused by the people who manipulated the starving masses.
I wouldn't go at lengths to say so. Have you ever heard of the storming of the Bastille? No leader, just revolutionists getting weapons so when the time comes they can kick some arse.
Idk, it was a terrifying reign and many just random common people, starving or not, in the middle of the political upheaval were, in my opinion, acting on their own regard feeling that they were part of this manifesto.
The revolution would gain no momentum without the support of the masses.
And I don't think its right to say the leaders were manipulative. Just as you said, Enlightenment ideas did create an opposition to the autocracy and a care for the lower classes. I do not like the "they did it for power" argument that always shows up. Its dumb, stupid, and idealist, having no social, economic, political, or psychological basis.
