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.
The revolution would gain no momentum without the support of the masses
Yes, but the nature of the revolution would differ based on who got that support, right? When I say manipulate, I mean it in the most literal sense. You have the Mountain and you have the Girondins, both of whom wanted control of the National Convention. The Jacobins, with their more fiery orators (such as Georges Danton), were able to attract the militant sans-culottes. With these people on their side, the Mountain was much better equipped at achieving their goals. Thus, with the Mountain in charge, the King was executed and the reign of terror began. If the Girondins were more persuasive, then perhaps the king wouldn't have been executed and things would have ended differently (though that is just speculation). In this way, a few people were able to use the many in order to make the revolution follow their personal desires.
The same situation happened in Russia between the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and other socialist/anarchist factions. Certainly the policies and goals of these groups differed greatly.
But the original argument was on what caused the revolution, and that would still have to be the economic struggles of the peasants. If everything was going well, there would be no revolution, would it?
No, of course not. I'm just saying that a struggle isn't enough to start a revolution, you have to have people to lead it.
Well if I'm right, the struggle didn't start with leaders. The Storming of the Bastille is an example.
Perhaps local leaders to guide the people, but a national leader that guides the whole of the people? I am not sure if I agree with that. Though that's what Lenin's argument is. I'll have to read his works on the Vanguard party.
Oddly enough the French Revolution was started by an uproar in the nobility over:
1. The closure of the Parlement of Paris by the King, which was "supreme court" of France at the time. 2. His attempts to receive support for taxing the nobility, which failed and caused him to call an Estates-General for the first time since 1614.
It was the calling of the Estates-General that brought the Third Estate, the commoner, into the mix.
I've gotten a little wiser from my readings so far.
Would like to point out the fact that much of Europe underwent such socio-economic circumstances, that the nobility of most nations then (E.g Junker class of Prussia) lorded over the poorer people.
Then again the historian Soubal(? Spelling needed), a Marxist took pains to link it to class struggle.
After reading a summary of Furet, I rather feel that the Revolution in itself was a long process, starting before 1789, and ending long after the Empire.
According to him social reasons, economic reasons, absolute monarchy are but the sparks of a greater cause, the 'competition between different political groups to supplant their own discourse, and in doing so, implenent it in the purest radicalised form'. So, political and ideological reasons.
Did the peasants really fight? Or in a burst of fervor and energy they did? Did they complain when absolute monarchy came back? Not really.
I've gotten a little wiser from my readings so far. Would like to point out the fact that much of Europe underwent such socio-economic circumstances, that the nobility of most nations then (E.g Junker class of Prussia) lorded over the poorer people. Then again the historian Soubal(? Spelling needed), a Marxist took pains to link it to class struggle. After reading a summary of Furet, I rather feel that the Revolution in itself was a long process, starting before 1789, and ending long after the Empire. According to him social reasons, economic reasons, absolute monarchy are but the sparks of a greater cause, the 'competition between different political groups to supplant their own discourse, and in doing so, implenent it in the purest radicalised form'. So, political and ideological reasons. Did the peasants really fight? Or in a burst of fervor and energy they did? Did they complain when absolute monarchy came back? Not really.
I am glad you have informed yourself, and I will not press the issue of what caused the Revolution, but one caused you may have missed is that the French aided the Americans in their revolution some years prior. This feeling of a democratic society was appealing to the peasant majoirty though by no means the most major of causes.
Well it depends on what you view as fighting. The women did storm Versailles and killed two guards, while there had been an over throwing of a french pison (forget the name sorry).
And they did complain when absolute monarchy came back, however, I would not view Napoleon I reign as a monarchy as more of a dictatorship. Also, many did like Napoleon because he was capable and earned the French a great deal of power. That all ended of course.
Also may I suggest looking into the Revolutions of 1848.
I rather feel that the Revolution in itself was a long process, starting before 1789, and ending long after the Empire.
Everything in history is a chain of connection, but I do not really view a revolution in the way that you describe. A revolution starts when we have a buildup of pressure in a system. In the French Revolution's case, the death of Louis XIV and the massive debt he left behind was a major factor. I do not consider this part of the Revolution, but it certainly was a contributing factor.
Next, it takes an event or a succession of events to catalyze the reaction in which the pressure must be let out explosively. Note succession of events, which implies a succession of reactions of different intensity. In this case, our landmark moments serve as these catalysts and reactions: The calling of Estates-General leading to the creation of the National Assembly, the sacking of Necker leading to the Great Fear, the threat of foreign invasion leading to the Terror, and more. These events are not necessarily linear, but they do provide a framework with which to analyze the intensity of these explosive reactions.
The end of a revolution is hard to identify. Zhou Enlai, the premier of the People's Republic of China, when asked for his assessment of the French Revolution, simply said: "It is too early to say." Nevertheless, we must identify when we are having catalysts and reactions and when we are merely experiencing the effects of said reactions. In terms of pressure, not all the pressure is always necessarily let out, just the amount that the machine can continue to hold without collapsing further. In this case, the stability that Napoleon introduced can be considered to be a measure of the end of the first French Revolution. These pressures remained suppressed until they built up again and resulted in the July Revolution.
Everything in history is a chain of connection, but I do not really view a revolution in the way that you describe. A revolution starts when we have a buildup of pressure in a system. In the French Revolution's case, the death of Louis XIV and the massive debt he left behind was a major factor. I do not consider this part of the Revolution, but it certainly was a contributing factor.
I do know about it. It's rather central on the surface level.
But surely, there were British, other European soldiers fighting the same war. Why not bring back revolutionary ideas on their behalf?
Why only the French?
Oh, one more thing. His popularity soared after Saratoga in fact, it did not plummet at that point.
And they did complain when absolute monarchy came back, however, I would not view Napoleon I reign as a monarchy as more of a dictatorship. Also, many did like Napoleon because he was capable and earned the French a great deal of power. That all ended of course.
There were more assasination attempts on his life than on Louis'. A dictatorship yes, but one that aroused the French's anger in the end. You didn't think they were pleased when he was at war for all his reign except one year? And that he called up 80,000 men every year as recruits?
To Parsat: I don't really feel that they are in a linear sequence, they were merely happenings that sparked something, something at a much complex level. Say for example, the easiest, class struggle ( BS in my opinion), or Jacobinism.
But my question is still the same, why just the French?
But let us answer your question. Well it goes back to what I said earlier about the French aiding the American Revolution. Many French people brought back the idea of a republic from aiding Americans. However, you must remember the French were in a volitile state and were growing increasingly upset with their monarch. Meanwhile places like Britain had a unitied cause against republic ideas, also many monarchs created ways to gain respect from the peasants even if they were disliked. Louis did no such thing. Also it helps if the military doesn't start haitng you.
But my question is still the same, why just the French?
To me the best answer to this question is that France was either not authoritarian enough or not liberalized enough; it was paralyzed and unable to take a firm side.
First of all, it was difficult for France to really effect some sort of change without a central legislative body on par with the monarchy, such as England's Parliament. However, at the same time the French people, even several nobles (Anne-Robert Turgot, for example), were willing to believe in more Enlightened, liberal modes of government. The American Revolution and the diplomatic visits from Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did much to encourage this. Without some sort of legislative body, however, they would be dead-ended.
Now juxtapose this sentiment with several apparently contradictory sentiments, and we may start to see why France's lack of some sort of extreme lead to revolution. You note (correctly) that Louix XV's popularity rose after the Battle of Saratoga, but for what reason? If for liberty, then why were tracts by Rousseau and Voltaire banned by the government? And still, smugglers from the Netherlands and Switzerland brought these books in, where they were widely read. As opposed to nations such as Prussia, the French were not tight-fisted enough around their authority to keep the seeds of revolution from being sown.
did u know that french salad dressing is red for the blood that was spilled in the revolution? that makes blue cheese salad dressing, which is made from spoiled rotten cheese, look tasty!
i just use vinegar and oil i was actually thinking about using vinegar alone since oil is so fattening but someone told me the oil was necessary. it would be nice not to use oil. does anyone know if it's possible?
