Category: French Revolution

Introduction

The modern concept of nationalism does not consider its long history and the difference in cultural and political contexts. One of the most developed variants of this concept is the nationalism of the era of the French Revolution. Nationalism then gave meaning to a substantial political movement against the monarchy and helped shape modern France culturally, ideologically, and politically. Nationalism as a cultural concept matured in French literature and philosophy, becoming related to religion in terms of meanings. In 1789, with the outbreak of the French Revolution, the idea of ​​nationalism spread throughout France, forming a new ideology and structure of society that adhered to the values ​​of freedom, equality, and fraternity. The rise of nationalism within France, as it played heavily during the French Revolution, is considered hereafter.

Pre-revolutionary France

By 1789, an absolute monarchy had developed in France during the life of Louis XVI. He, in turn, relied on an extensive bureaucracy, a vast apparatus of officials, and a regular army. France’s entire political and cultural life revolved around the family of the ruler and his associates. Louis XVI behaved wastefully, and boldly, and showed complete ignorance of ordinary citizens’ affairs and France’s economic problems. Against the backdrop of absolute monarchy in 1788, unemployment developed among the working class and peasants who worked in the silk weaving industry and were engaged in harvesting¹. The general mental state of the citizens was depressive since France of those years reflected only the royal family’s life. The impression was that ordinary people felt isolated and deprived of the opportunity to express themselves. It is how the pre-revolutionary crisis developed, which raised a wave of French nationalism. The economic background made a quiet life of people impossible since they could neither work, trade nor pay royal taxes.

Realizing this, Louis XVI makes the first concessions and begins to consult with the assembly of notables. The assembled group included aristocrats, whom the king usually only notified of his will but did not consult and did not entrust the solution to significant problems. Meanwhile, in 1789, a political crisis can be traced against the backdrop of an economic one, and Louis XVI convened the Estates General². The Estates General is a representative body of power, incredibly responsible to citizens for innovations, particularly economic ones. It is an elected body, which eventually caused an unexpected stir among the peasants and the bourgeoisie, who wanted to participate in the country’s political life and put forward their demands. The peasants opposed payments, significant taxes, and levies and declared discrimination from feudal lords and seigneurs in their direction. The bourgeoisie demanded the abolition of censorship and restrictions on trade and industry.

It should be noted that the bourgeoisie was the stronghold of the ideas of the Enlightenment, which played a critical role in forming a new French ideology based on nationalism. The opening of the Estates General in the spring of 1789 made it possible for the people to feel their influence on matters of state³. The people felt united because they made efforts to solve everyday problems. Nevertheless, Louis XVI treated the Estates General condescendingly and lightly, considering them only as an auxiliary situational body for solving economic issues. Inspired people, seeing each other’s discontent and realizing for the first time overcoming fragmentation, began to act.

Ideology

The French Enlightenment became the backbone for creating the ideology of nationalism. Then the concept of nationalism was inextricably linked with society itself, and some philosophers did not separate these two concepts. However, historical and political events have reformed the linguistic meaning of the word. The views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau became central to the formation of the ideology of the French Revolution. Thanks to his works and other authors, France’s concept of nation and nationalism was quickly intellectualized while becoming the property of the peasants, not the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, and the upper class.

Having defined the nation, Jean-Jacques Rousseau took up the difficult task of educating and instilling new moral and intellectual values. The ideological awareness of the nation begins at a moment of crisis and dispute, where all people understand the possibilities of unification⁴. Nationalism was understood by Jean-Jacques Rousseau exclusively as cultural and political. A nation is a formed independent unit because it needs a state. And this state should personify the nation and be in close contact with it. In the monarchical rule, this was not possible since, under the absolute power of Louis XVI, the French were separated from France. Louis XVI became the face of France; in contrast, France as a state became the only manifestation of the power of Louis XVI and his family.

The nationalist revolution took place in France because the people became the sole referent for the actions carried out by the revolutionaries. This revolution was carried out for the people and at the hands of the people, who had ideological enemies that prevented them from gaining freedom. A nation could live only by politics, and politics was the only way to manifest national aspirations⁵. Nevertheless, according to the ideologists of the French Revolution, the final formation of the nation takes place only after the revolution’s victory, even though the revolutionary struggle is closely connected with nationalism.

The theoretical justification for the nationalism of the revolution lies in the term of the sovereign. In monarchical countries, the sovereign is the king and his family, and the closest associates may also partially have the sovereign status⁶. The king is the guarantor of sovereignty and its most striking manifestation. That is why a king’s assassination or natural death (especially in the Middle Ages) was perceived as a severe blow and a possible end to statehood in monarchical countries. As a result of the revolution, and even at the moment of the revolution, the nation becomes sovereign. It is the central meaning of French nationalism and revolutionary mood. It is in the hands of the nation that the main forces and potential of the state are concentrated. The sovereign nation decides its future; its members are intellectually and morally developed, consistent, intelligent, and robust.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau develops before the revolution the theory of the social contract and the term of the civil religion, which is the list of ideologies in which the nation sincerely believes. Such a religion may be unique for each nation member in detail, but its coordinates, as a whole, should be general⁷. Thus, the French nation has chosen as its ideologemes freedom, the ideals of equality and support for each other, that is, fraternity. This ideology consistently shaped the revolutionary and post-revolutionary French society and later became a household name for democratic ideologies. Initially, however, the Rousseauist concept was far from what people now understand by democracy: the state’s rule under the people’s will. The Rousseauian concept was based on a confrontation with the monarchy and did not imply, at that particular time, a well-coordinated system of elections and multi-stage voting. In the 1780s, there were strict voting qualifications, which allowed only men over 25 years old, and this system was supported by many people, not only supporters of Louis XVI and the monarchy in general.

Nation and Society

The separation of society and nation was controversial, but this issue was clarified by the end of the French Revolution. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other thinkers have tended to see the nation as a profoundly political term⁸. Society cannot fight political enemies for the future and freedom. In a way, French people are the most rigid and not active, unlike the nation⁹. Thus, the French community has always existed and cohabited with Louis XVI and his extravagance. However, the French nation was able to rally and bring the king to trial and execution.

Society thus retains inequality and can be divided into estates and castes, like the Indian system. According to the convention of the Jacobin Club, the nation is based on people’s equality and the struggle for this equality¹⁰. It is the primary meaning of egalitarianism, including the radical one. Having defeated the enemy in a brutal, bloody battle, nations deserve equality on various principles, from origin to professional affiliation and education. The system of lords, who subordinated the peasants, was overcome through tough reforms against the backdrop of the revolution. This feudal-communal system with an unequal distribution of wealth, manual labor for low pay, and extortions became one of the foundations of the French crisis in the heyday of Louis XVI.

The theoreticians of the French Revolution and nationalism took in the education of the social masses, who were then the majority uneducated. Instead of social tension, in the 1780s, there was an atmosphere of general acceptance of each other for overthrowing the absolute monarchy¹¹. Feeling deceived by Louis XVI and the nobility, it seemed to people that they could only rely on each other, even if many of them did not understand anything about politics. Thus, representative bodies were organized that people could trust. In the late 1780s, a change in feudal legislation began with an improvement in the position of the peasants.

The most significant change was the judicial reform of the same years because, under the absolute monarchy, the court (both the main and the small district courts) became utterly subject to the personal will of Louis XVI. The courts ceased to fulfill their direct duties and lost their practical meaning; therefore, the Estates General decided to change this system entirely¹². Cruelty throughout all the years of the revolution only reinforced people’s confidence in each other and the correctness of the professed views. Thus, people who achieved civic consciousness against the backdrop of violent events turned French society into a politically engaged nation with their claims, desires, and plans for the future.

Conclusion

Nationalism during the French Revolution became a stronghold of social restructuring and civic consciousness. United against the enemy, the absolute monarchy, people, despite the lack of education, managed to believe in the ideals of the Enlightenment and take part in creating new authorities that they trusted. The developed nationalist ideology was based on the models of pedagogy, culture, and humanistic maturation and helped to solve the fundamental economic problems caused by the wasteful rule of Louis XVI.

Bibliography

Armstrong, John. Nations Before Nationalism. UNC Press Books, 2017.

Barron, Alexander et al. “Individuals, Institutions, and Innovation in the Debates of the French Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.18 (2018): 4607-4612.

Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Connely, Owen. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era. Harcourt. 2000.

Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: A Short History. Brookings Institution Press, 2019.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Independently published, 2020.

Footnotes

1. Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2019. 77.
2. Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: A Short History. Brookings Institution Press, 2019, 54.
3. Connely, Owen. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era. Harcourt. 2000. 81-82.
4. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Independently published, 2020.
5. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Independently published, 2020, 24-26.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Independently published, 2020, 49.
9. Armstrong, John. Nations Before Nationalism. UNC Press Books, 2017, 60-61.
10. Connely, Owen. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era. Harcourt. 2000, 100.
11. Armstrong, John. Nations Before Nationalism. UNC Press Books, 2017. 111-112.
12. Barron, Alexander et al. “Individuals, Institutions, and Innovation in the Debates of the French Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.18 (2018): 4608.

Alexis De Tocqueville was a famous French writer and thinker. He was born in 1805 in an aristocratic French family (De Tocqueville, 2010). De Tocqueville was deeply involved in the studies of history and wrote several books, with The Old Regime and the French Revolution being his last work. This paper focuses on the I and II parts of the last of De Tocqueville’s works, summarizing the content of individual chapters. In particular, it emphasizes the main mistakes of the Old Regime that both invoked and shaped the French Revolution.

In the first chapter, Tocqueville explains the French Revolution’s inevitability and its shocking impact in the context of Europe nobility not realizing its true scope. At first, they regarded the Revolution (1789–99) as a temporal phenomenon from both foreign and domestic perspectives (Bourke, 2022). The nobles of other countries saw opportunities that could potentially lead to their advantage. However, they soon realized its originality and had to change their approach. Upon its outbreak, the nobility still fundamentally misunderstood the Revolution and supposed that it might be everlasting and groundbreaking for the whole civilization.

The Church suffered significant losses during the French Revolution. It has caused several wrong associations with an anti-religious sentiment of the Revolution. Consequently, in chapter 2, Tocqueville (2010) explains that the Church was targeted by the anti-elitist and semi-anarchist aims of the Revolution due to being a part of the feudal system. Tocqueville notes that it was political involvement rather than religion that provoked hostility. He also highlights that, overall, Christianity is not antithetical to democratic ideas.

The French Revolution was truly revolutionary due to its universality. In other words, its ideals were easily applicable not only to the French and their rights but to other people and places as well. Moreover, albeit being political at its core, the Revolution’s values invoked such passion among its followers that it emulated a religious fervor (Shusterman, 2020). Ultimately, this tendency led to the French Revolution embracing the religious movement character rather than a solely political one, seeking to establish universal rights without geographical boundaries.

In the fourth chapter, Tocqueville provides a brief history of the European civilization’s development after the Roman Empire’s fall. In this context, he explains that the structure of society and political institutions, in general, were ubiquitously homogenous – feudal – across the region throughout the Middle Ages (Singh, 2021). During this time, the feudal system reigned. However, as the Middle Ages ended, this system began to change due to the loss of power by local governments in favor of a centralized authority. With local lords serving mainly ceremonial purposes and centralized authorities controlling real power, the spirit of the feudal system gradually disappeared, which played an important role in the Old Regime’s fall.

In this short chapter, Tocqueville summarizes the first book of his analysis of the French Revolution. He agrees that the Revolution is responsible for the sudden feudalism’s collapse but states that this system was already dying (Tocqueville, 2010). From Tocqueville’s perspective, historical changes are the products of long and steady processes – the Revolution grew for several generations in Europe. Consequently, as feudalism was declining in the region, its death occurred in France. In this context, Tocqueville argues that the aim of the French Revolution was a reorganization, not anarchy. The Revolution’s main goals and eventual accomplishments were to destroy the feudal order and replace it with the concept of equality (Tocqueville, 2010). Consequently, Tocqueville repeats his main point regarding the Revolution’s inevitability, resulting from the rise and fall of feudalism as a system that has outlived itself and had to be changed regardless. With the establishment of nearly identical living conditions in other countries, Tocqueville continues to investigate the exact reason behind the Revolution’s French origins.

In light of the Revolution’s purpose to demolish feudalism, it is logical to imply that the Revolution should have occurred in a country where peasants had faired the worst. However, Tocqueville proves that implication wrong at the beginning of the second part. He argues it was not the French feudalism’s dominance but its weakness that provided a fertile ground for Revolution (Tocqueville, 2010). Feudalism had become anachronistic and useless in French society.

In the next chapter, Tocqueville pictures the French central government before the Revolution. As feudalistic practices grew weaker, France developed a centralized government administered primarily by commoners (Aslanmirza, 2021). At its center was the Royal Council, with members appointed directly by the king. Compared to the nobility members, the Council did not display its influence needlessly and was discrete in nature. It discussed and passed laws, defined taxes, and allocations, and acted as the supreme court for French appeals. Another feudalistic practice that was abandoned referred to the manor lords’ legal obligations to support the welfare of poor community members. Instead, it became the central government’s role to solve economic and social issues.

During the Middle Ages, French municipalities and towns were semi-autonomous, with officials being elected and accountable to the townspeople. However, in 1692, the practice of free and democratic municipal elections was abolished; instead, the king began to appoint them. In the third chapter of Book II, Tocqueville notes that this tendency was largely driven by a desire for profit, not by the opposition to democracy (Tocqueville, 2010). Consequently, in place of townspeople, assemblies began to consist of notorious middle-class and business corporation representatives. In addition, the abolishment of democratic practices occurred in the context of central authorities slowly overtaking every detail of social life in France.

The fourth chapter of the second book provides insights into the corruption of the French judicial system. Tocqueville explains that French courts originally held remarkable independence. However, the central government made the majority of court cases subject to the jurisdiction of the king, effectively subduing the courts (Tocqueville, 2010). In other words, any case in the king’s interest was directed to special courts under the royal influence. For instance, such was the case for essential government officials who were protected from legal trials regardless of their actions (Tocqueville, 2010). Starting as an exception for individual cases, it eventually became a fundamental rule, leaving only the semblance of the former justice.

The fifth chapter of the second part is a recapitulation of the situation in pre-revolutionary France. The central government had full control over France: governmental representatives assigned to provinces allowed for no self-sufficiency, whereas special courts monitored the cases regarding central administration (Tocqueville, 2010). Tocqueville (2010) remarks that centralization was further accelerated by the Revolution. Due to its anti-aristocratic motive, the Revolution contributed to centralization after defeating the monarchy.

In this chapter, Tocqueville explains the social reasons behind the increased centralization. As mentioned in the previous chapter, nearly every life aspect relied on the central government under the Old Regime. Such paternalism made the people dependent on the central authorities to provide the solution to any issue (Tocqueville, 2010). Consequently, when the Revolution of 1789–99 arrived, people were largely unable to live in a system that was not governed by a powerful central authority.

Before the Revolution, France was centralized both in government and geography, with the capital of Paris being its life force. According to Tocqueville (2010), Parisian authorities had full control over the country. At the same time, Paris grew exponentially as a commercial and cultural center. The press was concentrated in Paris, which made the Parisian point of view the only valid reference (Tocqueville, 2010). In addition to its cultural, governmental, and intellectual dominance, Paris also grew as a manufacturing center. In this context, it hosted the majority of the labor force available.

In the eighth chapter of the second book, Tocqueville studies the background of the homogeneity of the French community. He mainly refers to the powerful middle class that grew in power at the expense of the nobility, which became possible due to the long-time practice of selling land in exchange for funds (Tocqueville, 2010). The new landowners had the same ideas, habits, and interests in books and amusements. This fact, combined with the ubiquitous and standardized governmental legislature, eventually resulted in societal sameness.

Simultaneously with the loss of political power, nobility gained individual privileges. Tocqueville expands on this issue in the ninth chapter of the second part in light of French strict social stratification. For instance, nobles were exempted from the taille land tax attributable to the majority of the population (Tocqueville, 2010). Close to the Revolution, this tax dramatically increased, motivating non-noble people to crave privileged titles, which were sold by the crown. As a result, the original nobility disregarded middle-class individuals who bought the title, while the latter treated peasants even worse. Therefore, a sense of solidarity and community was absent in the country.

In the tenth chapter, Tocqueville argues that taxation without consent was the Old Regime’s fatal error. It began with King Charles VII (1403–61) being desperate to establish stability in the kingdom. Consequently, he pronounced the taille tax not consenting to the country’s legislative body (Tocqueville, 2010). In this context, Tocqueville exemplifies that French commoners and nobility were demotivated to work together to find solutions to their problems – instead, the classes became rivals. The nobility agreed not to oppose the tax in exchange for the exemption from it. In return, nobles were expected to provide military service, but the proportional growth of taxes in the following years completely devaluated their sacrifice.

The eleventh chapter of the second book comments on the spirit of individual freedom present in society despite the ubiquitous governmental control of public affairs. According to Tocqueville (2010), the French government was encouraged solely by greed and did not intend to explicitly provoke anger in public opinion. Consequently, people were allowed to express their opinions and share their grievances. In particular, the nobility and clergy were well-positioned to communicate their views to the monarchy. In this regard, Tocqueville considers a loss that these classes were targeted by the Revolution. For instance, he explains that despite the commonly held opinions, the clergy actually served as a shield against the crown’s greed.

In the last chapter of the second book, Tocqueville elaborates on the conditions of the commoners that had severely deteriorated by the 1780s. Aligning with the feudalism decline in Europe, the quality of life of the peasantry decreased proportionally. The drastic social stratification within French society ensured that the educated upper and middle classes moved to live in towns and cities, practically viewing the country’s people as aliens (Tocqueville, 2010). For example, this tendency had a substantial negative effect on agricultural development and production, which did not progress past rudimentary methods. Overall, French society had become fragmented, with each group resenting the other. By establishing such a situation, the central government subdued society and took away the tools to retaliate effectively. However, it had lost the support required in times of need to keep itself afloat.

Judging by the summary of the listed chapters, it becomes apparent that the economic and social policies of the Old Regime gradually contributed to and ultimately led to the Revolution. In the first book, Tocqueville pictures the French Revolution as inevitable and universal, listing the monarchy, the Church, and the nobility among its victims. In the second book, Tocqueville provides the reasoning behind peculiar features of the Revolution and its backgrounds, such as social stratification, taxation, and centralization.

References

Aslanmirza, Ö. (2021). Public Traces in Pre-Revolutionary France: Trivets of the Public Sphere.Current Research in Social Sciences, 7(1), 23-30.

Bourke, R. (2022). Hegel and the French Revolution. History of European Ideas, 1-12.

De Tocqueville, A. (2010). The old regime and the French revolution. Anchor.

Shusterman, N. (2020). The French Revolution: Faith, Desire, and Politics. Routledge.

Singh, V. (2021). Nature of the european medieval society: A review. Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research, 10(8), 42-45. Web.

Introduction

Throughout history, revolutions have been a common occurrence, and some of them are greatly recalled. One of the most known was the French Revolution, which lasted from 1789 to 1799.¹ These years provide a pivotal and historical epoch of radical social movements, the demolition of monarchy, and political upheavals. As a result of the tumultuous social and political overhauls, many stances have been used to interpret the French Revolution. The ideas presented by the interpretations of the effects and consequences of the revolution are important in offering knowledge of new political ideologies. The purpose of this essay is to outline major interpretations of French Revolution and to give a reflection on the most convincing analysis.

Adolphe Thiers Interpretation

Adolphe Thiers provided the first interpretations on the French Revolution. It was written during the restoration when singing Marseillaise and the tricolor flag was forbidden. His works praise the revolution’s accomplishments, principles, and leaders, with the heroes being persons such as Mirabeau, Lafayette, and others². Thiers condemned aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy for inability to bring change by encouraging to be genuine in their efforts to seek equality for all. Thiers’ works play a major role in undermining the legitimacy of the Bourbon regime of Charles X.³ Thiers’s history is less appropriate for British critics due to his positive views of Napoleon Bonaparte and the French revolution.

The Third Republic and Aulard Interpretation

Alphonse Aulard was the first professional historian of the French revolution who promoted scholarly editions. The Republicans in Paris and the national government funded and promoted his appointment to the Sorbonne.⁴ Aulard promoted the bourgeois, republican and anticlerical view of the French revolution. He indicated that from a social point of view, the revolution resulted in the suppression of the feudal system in the emancipation of people, and privileges of birth abolition. The revolt stifled matters related to land division, the establishment of equality, and life simplification. Aulard’s histography was based on positivism and favored the study of parliamentary debate.

Marxist/Classic Interpretation

Marxist interpretation sees the revolution as a significant bourgeois revolution marked by class struggles and led to the bourgeoisie’s victory. This view was developed by historian Albert Mathiez and social politician Jean Jaures led by Albert Soboul and George’s Lefebvre.⁵ At this time, the French believed that wage earners were disillusioned, but in a real sense, they had gained more economic influence, which would be refracted under the Old Regime. Albert recognized the lower classes’ relevance when he indicated that life was challenging for the peasantry.⁶ The Marxist historical interpretation recognized how bourgeoisie disgruntlement with limitations imposed on them by the Ancient Regime resulted in challenges of higher authority and monarchy.

Revisionism Interpretation

Revisionism in this context refers to the rejection of the Marxist interpretation of revolution carried out against aristocracy by the bourgeoisie on the right and proletariat push intervention on the left. George Taylor, a revisionist historian, argued that the interpretation was interred in aspects of lost paradigms assassinated by critical research.⁷ The criticism directly challenged doctrine approaches by showing how some enlightened elites promoted France’s economics and political modernization. The revisionist interpretation was solemnly focused on political facts to understand the causes of the French revolution.

Revisionism focuses not only on an institution or process as political policies but also on how culture made it possible to develop distinct policies and appear new forms of conflicts, politicians, and organizations. Alfred Cobban introduces the social interpretation of the French revolution.⁸ He argued that feudalism had long disappeared in France. Lynn Hunt, a revisionist, includes culture and politics as a class in her interpretative works of the French revolution, assuming more meaning in political culture.⁹ The interpretation argues against romantics’ beliefs in the need for revolution and emphasizes the insurrectionary violence in Paris, claiming that it was not an effect of revolution.

Reflection on Convincing Perspective

After considering the different interpretations, the revisionist viewpoint seems to offer the most convincing perspective on reflecting the French revolution. The analogy offers a better interpretation compared to other perception as it recognizes that the major factors that resulted in the French revolution were political changes through social and cultural factors. The interpretation not only considers revolution through political perspectives but also involves economic and social factors regarding their influence on politics during the revolution period.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the French Revolution provides a pivotal and historical epoch of radical social movements, the demolition of monarchy, and political upheavals. Before the revolution, France was ruled by an absolute monarch. The revolution brought new changes in political aspects and promoted modernization. Several interpretations have been formulated in the context to explain concepts of the French Revolution. New emphasis had been placed on the French revolution’s economic and social aspects. The revisionist interpretation seems more convincing in its perspectives as it considers social and economic factors that influence revolution.

Works Cited

Crook, Malcolm, et al. “Forum: The Legacy of Alfred Cobban.” French History, vol. 34, no. 4, 2020, pp. 512–560.

Doyle, William. The Oxford history of the French revolution. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Ducange, Jean-Numa. The French Revolution and Social Democracy. Brill, 2018.

Fletcher, Roger. Revisionism and Empire: Socialist Imperialism in Germany, 1897–1914. Routledge, 2018.

Fontana, Biancamaria. TLS. Times Literary Supplement 6094. Brill, 2020

Gerber, Michael Ryan. Vichy’s New Man: National Regeneration and Historical Revisionism in French Education, 1940-1944. 2018. Ohio University, PhD Dissertation.

McPhee Peter. French Revolution, 1789-1799. Oxford University Press, 2022, Chapter 9.

Wolloch, Nathaniel. Moderate and Radical Liberalism. Brill, 2022.

Footnotes

1. Wolloch, Nathaniel. Moderate and Radical Liberalism. Brill, 2022.
2. Fontana, Biancamaria. TLS. Times Literary Supplement 6094. Brill, 2020
3. Wolloch, Nathaniel. Moderate and Radical Liberalism. Brill, 2022.
4. Ducange, Jean-Numa. The French Revolution and Social Democracy. Brill, 2018.
5. McPhee Peter. French Revolution, 1789-1799. Oxford University Press, 2022, Chapter 9.
6. Doyle, William. The Oxford history of the French revolution. Oxford University Press, 2018.
7. Gerber, Michael Ryan. Vichy’s New Man: National Regeneration and Historical Revisionism in French Education, 1940-1944. 2018. Ohio University, PhD Dissertation.
8. Crook, Malcolm, et al. “Forum: The Legacy of Alfred Cobban.” French History, vol. 34, no. 4, 2020, pp. 512–560.
9. Fletcher, Roger. Revisionism and Empire: Socialist Imperialism in Germany, 1897–1914. Routledge, 2018.

Introduction

The French Revolution of 1789-1799 was a defining moment in world history, marking the end of the old order and the beginning of modernity. The French Revolution was a series of events that marked the downfall of the Bourbon monarchy and the rise of a democratic republic in France. Several factors, including the economic crisis, political corruption, and Enlightenment ideas about the rights of citizens, drove the revolution. In this task, I have explored the French Revolution by examining its historical context, biases that have influenced its narrative, and the connections between the past and present.

Creating a Research Question

Assumptions, Beliefs, and Values

I was interested in the French Revolution because of its significance in developing modern democratic societies. As an individual who values democracy and the rights of citizens, I wanted to understand the events that led to the establishment of the first democratic republic in the world. My perspectives and opinions on the topic have influenced my choice of topic. I approach the study of the French Revolution with the belief that it was a necessary step in the progress of human civilization.

Significance of the Research Question

The significance of the research question lies in its connection to the current event. The French Revolution was the first time in history that a society attempted to establish a democratic republic, and it remains a significant event in the history of democracy. The revolution inspired subsequent political movements worldwide and impacted the development of modern democracies (Beck, 2018). The question of what led to the French Revolution and how it was implemented is an important one that continues to be relevant to our understanding of democracy today.

Historical Research Question

The historical research question I have chosen to explore is: What were the causes and consequences of the French Revolution? This question is important because it allows us to understand the events that led to the downfall of the Bourbon monarchy and the rise of the first democratic republic in the world.

Sources

To finalize my research question, I used a variety of primary and secondary sources. I used books and articles by historians such as Simon Schama, Eric Hobsbawm, and Thomas Carlyle to gain a better understanding of the events that led to the French Revolution. I also used online databases such as JSTOR and Project MUSE (available at: https://libguides.snhu.edu/apa) to access additional primary and secondary sources. The primary sources that I used included historical documents such as government records, letters, and diaries from the period. The secondary sources I used included historical interpretations of the events of the French Revolution.

Evidence

The evidence from the primary and secondary sources strengthened my focus on the causes and consequences of the French Revolution. The primary sources allowed me to see the events of the revolution through the eyes of people there. In contrast, the secondary sources provided a more comprehensive view of the events of the revolution and its impact on the world. The evidence from the sources showed that several factors, including the economic crisis, political corruption, and Enlightenment ideas about the rights of citizens, drove the French Revolution.

Building Context to Address Questions

The French Revolution was a significant period in European history that lasted from 1789 to 1799, resulting in a democratic, secular, and centralized state in France. The revolution was shaped by various social, economic, and political factors, including the Enlightenment, a cultural and intellectual movement emphasizing reason, individual rights, and equality, challenging traditional institutions like the monarchy and the Catholic Church (Beck, 2018). The popularity of these ideas among the French helped create a sense of nationalism and contributed to the development of the French Revolution.

Additionally, in the late 18th century, France faced severe economic challenges, including a national debt and rising food prices, which led to widespread poverty and hunger (Cherstich et al., 2020). At the same time, the French aristocracy was enjoying great wealth and privilege, further fueling the resentment and anger of the French people. One of the historical figures who played a crucial role in the French Revolution was Maximilien Robespierre (Mattes, 2021). Robespierre was a lawyer and politician motivated by his commitment to the ideals of the Enlightenment and his desire to create a more equal and just society in France.

As a member of the National Assembly, he played a significant role in forming the Committee of Public Safety, which governed France during the revolution. Robespierre’s involvement in the French Revolution reflects his commitment to the ideals of the Enlightenment and his efforts to bring about a more equitable society in France. He was a strong advocate for the rights of the common people and was instrumental in implementing reforms aimed at improving the lives of the French people.

Examining How Bias Impacts Narrative

The impact of potentially biased sources on our understanding of historical events cannot be overstated. These sources can shape our perception of historical and current events, influencing our knowledge of the past and shaping our opinions of the present. To demonstrate the influence of biased sources on historical events, I will use the example of the French Revolution. As previously mentioned, some narratives of the French Revolution depict it as a time of violence, chaos, and instability, influenced by the biases of institutions like the monarchy and the Catholic Church (Mattes, 2021). On the other hand, other narratives highlight the positive aspects of the revolution, such as the establishment of a democratic state and the creation of a national identity based on Enlightenment ideals.

Identifying the perspectives missing from these narratives, particularly those of marginalized groups whose stories were not recorded or ignored. For example, the perspectives of women, people of color, and lower classes were often not included in historical accounts of the French Revolution. Their voices were silenced, and their experiences were ignored. To gain a complete understanding of the French Revolution, I used a variety of works by historians like Simon Schama, Eric Hobsbawm, and Thomas Carlyle (primary sources), as well as online databases like JSTOR and Project MUSE (secondary sources). This allowed me to access multiple perspectives and gain a more nuanced understanding of the events leading up to the French Revolution. Therefore, biased sources significantly impact our understanding of historical and current events. It is essential to recognize the perspectives missing from the narrative and seek a diverse range of sources to understand the past and present.

Connecting the Past with the Present

The study of history can provide valuable insights into the root causes and development of current events. By exploring the historical context of a current event, we can gain a deeper understanding of its origins and evolution. This, in turn, allows us to approach the current event with a more nuanced perspective, considering the various factors that have contributed to its development over time (Mattes, 2021). One of the key benefits of historical research is the ability to question our assumptions, beliefs, and values. In today’s world, it is all too easy to become entrenched in our opinions and beliefs without considering alternative perspectives. However, examining the historical context of a current event can challenge our preconceived notions and develop a more critical and nuanced understanding of the world around us.

For example, when examining the French Revolution, it is important to consider not only the political and economic factors that led to its outbreak but also the cultural and intellectual movements of the time, such as the Enlightenment. This allows us to appreciate the complexity of the revolution and understand why it was such a significant turning point in European history. In addition to providing a deeper understanding of current events, historical research can also help us to comprehend the world’s current challenges and questions.

History provides a contextual understanding of the world, allowing us to see how current problems and challenges have evolved. This can be particularly useful in addressing complex societal issues, such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination, as it provides a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes and historical roots of these problems (Cherstich et al., 2020). Finally, having a deeper understanding of history can be valuable in academic and professional settings and in one’s personal life. By questioning our assumptions and beliefs and examining events from different perspectives, we can develop a more well-rounded and informed understanding of the world. This can help us make more informed decisions and engage in more productive and meaningful discussions.

Conclusion

The work conducted in this project has demonstrated the importance of historical inquiry in connecting the past with the present. Examining a historical event and its influence on the current event has shown how understanding the past can inform and deepen one’s understanding of contemporary issues. The development of historical inquiry skills is valuable in improving critical thinking, questioning assumptions, and gaining a deeper appreciation for the world’s complexities.

References

Beck, C. J. (2018). The Structure of Comparison in the Study of Revolution. Sociological Theory, 36(2), 134–161. Web.

Cherstich, I., Holbraad, M., & Tassi, N. (2020). Revolution as Event: Ritual, Violence, and Transformation. In Anthropologies of Revolution: Forging Time, People, and Worlds (1st ed., pp. 18–40). University of California Press. Web.

Mattes, A. (2021). The French Revolution, the Election of 1800, and the Character of the American Nation: A Transatlantic Perspective. In D. Gish & A. Bibby (Eds.), Rival Visions: How Jefferson and His Contemporaries Defined the Early American Republic (pp. 101–132). University of Virginia Press. Web.

Introduction

While studying the French Revolution of 1789 and the Napoleonic Wars of 1803-1815, I was challenged by the question of their impact on the ideas of nations. In order to understand and develop this topic I would like to tell you some historical facts.

Main text

The Napoleonic Wars involved French Empire of the Napoleon period, a number of European allies and coalitions that were opposed to the Napoleon’s conquest. Napoleon’s power rose very quickly. He conquered most of Europe, but failed in the France’s invasion of Russia in 1812. As the result of these events there was a collapse of the Napoleon’s Empire, the Bourbon monarchy was revived in France again. Meanwhile French occupation of Spain had weakened. The Spanish Empire began to stand up for its independence from France in the question of holding over its colonies. So here we can see the direct impact of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars on the ideas of the Spanish nation. The Spanish Empire provided a certain opening for nationalist revolutions in the territory of Latin America.

There are couple of versions of the Napoleonic Wars ending. First one relates it to the Waterloo (18 June 1815) and the Second Treaty of Paris (Scott, 1992, pp. 443-469). Another version, which predominates in the United Kingdom, asserts that the end of the Napoleonic Wars should be referred to as the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years’ War of 1689 – 1815 (Crouzet, 1996, pp. 432-450).

If we are talking about war between Britain and France of 1803–1814, then we need to mention that Britain remained at war throughout the whole period of the hostilities of the Napoleonic Wars. The British Army gave a great support to the Spanish strike in the Peninsular War of 1808-1814. So we can see that Britain actually helped the Spanish nation to embody its national ideas. Britain was very powerful state at that time and its influence on the European economy was great. The French government thought that cutting the United Kingdom off from the Continent would be a good way to end its economic influence over Europe and would isolate it. That is why French designed the Continental System, but it never succeeded in its objective. So I guess we can say that the impact of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars on the ideas of the British nation was very important, because they strengthened British nation in the idea that their nation is strong because of its economic supremacy and its geographical location.

In 1812 Napoleon invaded the Russian Empire. After being defeated, Napoleon had left his army and urgently returned to Paris. The impact of this war on the ideas of the Russian nation can be described as a consolidation of these people against outer threats.

As a conclusion I would like to say that the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars brought great changes to the European continent and made a great impact on the ideas of different nations. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, France was no longer the dominant force in Europe, as it had been since the times of the French king – Louis XIV.

The United Kingdom became firmly one of the most powerful countries in the world. Britain’s Royal Navy held superiority throughout the whole world and her economy was the most powerful in the commercial system of that time.

Such ideas of the French Revolution as democracy, abolition of privileges and due process in courts that were imported to the European countries played a great role on its people’s national ideas and views. The rights of the middle classes were incorporated into law and custom. The wealth was meant to be built on the citizen’s activities, such as industry and commerce. I think that is why European monarchs had to keep some of the reforms that were brought about by Napoleon. As a result of these, institutional legacies have survived and remained to this day. Most of the European countries have a civil-law legal system, where codes are clearly redacted and based on the Napoleonic Code.

That is how the new powerful movement had appeared. Nationalism shaped the course of European history. I think that the growth of the nationalism stated the beginning of some nations and the end of others. The map of Europe changed a lot in the hundred years after the Napoleonic Era. It was based not on the basis of human culture, national origins, and on the very important issue – national ideology. Napoleon’s ruling over Europe was the basic ground for the founding of the nation-states of Germany and Italy, because its main idea was the consolidation of the city-states, kingdoms and principalities.

Works Cited

Crouzet, Francois. The Second Hundred Years War: Some Reflections. New York: Pocket, 1996.

Scott, H. M. Review. “The Second ‘Hundred Years War’ 1689-1815”. The Historical Journal 35 (1992): pp. 443-469.

Introduction

The French Revolution was one of the most remarkable periods in French history, where the representatives of emerging bourgeoisie and people from the privileged classes wanted to underline their superiority. The crucial events started at the beginning of 1789, when the old regime was completely destroyed in order to make such concepts like reason and justice control the country.

The French Revolution was divided into two considerable portions: liberal and radical. Liberal nobles sought to destroy royal absolutism, however they did not want to see an end of the ruling monarchy. Unfortunately, it was not enough for people to follow the example of liberals, and within a short period of time, the liberal French Revolution turned out to be radical, where radicals demanded freedom and rights from the government.

The liberal and radical portions of the French Revolution had many similarities and differences: thought their representatives wanted some changes to be made, they used different methods to achieve their purposes, and radical approaches were more noticeable and effective for the country and its citizens.

Discussion

Origins of the French Revolution as the desire to see the changes. The end of the 1780s was a difficult period for many French people. More reasons to start a revolution became evident: widespread famine, considerable rises of prices, the desire of Louis XV to participate in wars that led to bankruptcy and spreading of internal trade barriers. There were no doubts that certain changes were obligatory for people. “The abuses attending the levy of taxes were heavy and universal.

The kingdom was parceled into generalities, with an intendant at the head of each…” (Young 84) Both men and women comprehended that they had powers and ideas for giving a birth to a new age, a new period that aimed at realizing the principles of the Enlightenment. The peculiar feature of these ideas was its optimistic nature: prejudice and cruelty had to be replaced by liberty and inspiration. Oppression and tyranny should be stopped. This is what the vast majority of revolutionaries believed in.

Of course, a hope that the presence of revolution promoted certain changes and made the government to think about the improvement of citizens’ lives and wellbeing was inherent to the French. However, it was not enough to proclaim the revolution as an event; it was also necessary to attract the attention of many people, help them unite, speak about their demands, and introduce the steps, which could be beneficial for them.

The Liberal portion of the French Revolution as a good but a bit weak start. In order to present a thorough and informative comparison of the two different portions of the French Revolution, it is better to define the essence of each of them and clear up their strong and weak points.

One of the remarkable steps taken by liberalists was the August Decrees according to which “The National Assembly hereby completely abolishes the feudal system. It decrees that, among the existing rights and dues, both feudal and censuel, all those originating in or representing real or personal serfdom shall be abolished without indemnification” (Robinson 405).

In general, the representatives of the liberal portion of the French Revolution were eager to support men’s access to Church and army positions, to limit the king’s power by means of constitution, and to present certain administrative reforms in order to develop religious toleration and fair court trials.

These were the main ideas, offered by all liberal at the middle of 1789. However, those liberal steps could make the first move of the events and introduce possible changes. It was not enough to offer ideas and reforms, certain radical actions were required, and that demand gave birth to another more serious and determined step – the French Revolution with radical intentions.

The actions of Radicals as a powerful means to achieve success in revolution. The representatives of the radical revolutionaries were so called sans-culottes. “The sans-culottes, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, favoured direct democracy, which meant that the deputies in the nation’s Legislature (The National Convention between 1792 and 1795) should be ‘mandated’ by their constituents” (Lewis sec.2).

One of their first demands was to decrease taxes, fix prices, and to solve the problems connected to counter-revolutionaries. The positive side of those actions was a desire to find the middle between poverty and wealth, for example, small farms and shops, which were able to gain recognition and bring financial benefits. If the liberals could not overthrow the government (monarchy), the radicals, in their turn, attempted to make citizens’ voice being heard.

Thomas Paine, an English radical, served as the best example of how to persuade people take the radical side of the revolution. This portion of the French Revolution was famous by numerous steps and ideas, and, their attempt to attack the palace, where the king was, turned out to a brilliant step to demonstrate how serious their intentions were.

The results of that attack were rather impressive: the king Louis and Marie Antoinette had to flee. This action was not similar to those of the liberals. People were upset because of empty words, they needed to take some actions and demonstrate that their power and their requests should be noticed and taken into consideration.

The liberal and radical portions of the French Revolution as they are. In spite of the fact that liberal and radical sides of the French Revolution differed considerably, their influence to the general state of affairs and development of the country remained to be considerable. By means of the liberal French Revolution, the government got a chance to hear people and their discontents about the ruling power.

Unfortunately, the liberals did not want to attract much attention to the seriousness of their actions and words. They wanted to promote some changes, but still, they did not have much time and abilities to make all their demands, interests, and dreams come true. Radical actions had to be more noticeable, brighter, and effective. However, it was the idea of liberals to change the situation in the country, this is why the actions of radicals depended on liberals and the beginners of the revolution.

Conclusion

The results of the French Revolution were influential indeed. The representatives of both liberal and radical sides achieved certain progress: the leading positions of the aristocracy, political injustice, and king’s power were weakened. The vast majority of aristocrats lost their benefits, and ordinary people got a chance to be recognized due to their skills and knowledge.

The ancient regime was changed. The liberals performed their functions as public speakers and indicator that people could not continue the ordinary style of life and dependence on king’s interests, and radicals proved people’s intentions and used the most powerful actions to demonstrate their abilities.

The county is a power of people, ordinary citizens, that may be controlled by the government to a certain extent. The French king lost a chance to protect his people and to show his care and support. This is why the results of his ruling led to the French Revolution, where such different movements like liberals and radicals had to be united in order to achieve success and recognition.

Works Cited

Lewis, Gwynne. The French Revolution, 1787-1799: The People’ and the French Revolution. 2010. Web.

Robinson, J.H. “The Decree Abolishing the Feudal System, August 11, 1789.” Readings in European History 2 (2001): 404-409.

Young, Arthur. Travels During the Years 1787, 1788 and 1790. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. Web.

Introduction

When the French people revolted against the monarchy in 1789, Louis XVI was King of France. Marie Antoinette was his young and beautiful queen. Many events during the revolution have been attributed to her. She is thought to have contributed to the people’s disdain for the monarchy. The queen’s love for expensive adornments and involvement in various scandals elicited resentment in the French. Excessive taxes and rising food prices increased the loathing they had for Marie Antoinette. She was a victim of the revolution, more than she was a villain.

France on the eve of the revolution

When Louis XVI became king, he inherited, from his grandfather, a country that was in shambles. He had to grapple with escalating prices of basic necessities like bread, growing resentment for the social strata (by the peasantry and common people), high taxes and growing unpopularity in the international community. These are just among a horde of other problems facing France at the time. France was heavily in debt owing to its participation in foreign crusades. At that time, taxes had to be increased in order to raise funds to pay off this debt.

With the ascent to power of a young king, the French expected grand reforms to take place in France. They expected fresh and new ideas that would turn France and their lives around. This, however, was not to be. The young king did not implement the expected reforms, and persistently made bad economic decisions that worsened the situation. He was weak, prone to indecision, and easily gave in when opposition was mounted on him. When a fresh start was not forthcoming, the French became disappointed in the monarchy. They started agitating for its abolition.

Consistent bad weather and prolonged winter had destroyed crops. Food prices also sky rocketed. Bad roads made the situation worse. Food could not be easily transported from rural to highly populated urban areas. King Louis’ financial strategies and policies failed miserably, making the French people to be angry at the crown for not improving their lives. The situation was dire and the resentment and anger towards the monarchy and ruling class that had been building over time reached its peak in 1789. Tired of the current situation and raring for change, the French people had to find a reason to revolt. They found a helpless scapegoat. The queen, who was viewed as an anti-reformist, was perfect for this role.

Queen of France: Victim or Villain?

The character of Marie Antoinette-last queen of France and wife to King Louis XVI has been painted in different shades of criticisms and reverence over the years. She has been projected as the villain during the French revolution. This was by those who thought that the queen was misunderstood, misrepresented and unjustly persecuted by the French people and historians alike. They continuously distorted her image. The true Marie Antoinette remains unknown.

Marie was blessed with abundant beauty. As a young bride and queen, she elicited great admiration from innumerable admirers. The French loved the young Austrian princess (then French queen). In the words of Edmund Burke, “she was a delightful vision, radiating splendor, full of life and joy”. As she spent more time in France, her weaknesses became apparent. The people’s opinions of her started changing. The French started resenting her.

Unlike her husband (who was withdrawn and often perceived as weak willed), Marie was outgoing, cheerful and strong. She easily made friends and preferred spending her time dancing and gambling. She spent what was thought to be a fortune of public funds to satisfy her expensive tastes. The French had to wait for eight years before she produced a child. She was blamed for failing to give the king an heir.

Marie was uneducated, and could scarcely read or write in her native German or French. Her knowledge of French politics and public affairs was scanty, yet she was thought to influence most of Louis’ decisions. People despised her for persuading the king to reject reformatory policies suggested by parliament.¹¹ When the Bastille was stormed in 1789, claims were made that she persuaded the king to reject the suggested reforms. This escalated the flow of events during the initial stages of the revolution.

Being an Austrian princess, she loved her home and was loyal to Austria. During the revolution, she supported plans for France to invade Austria in the hope that France would be defeated. She also solicited her brother-Leopold II’s assistance during the attempted escape by the royal family in 1792. There are also claims that Marie tried to persuade her brother to attack the French revolutionaries in the hope that the revolution would be quelled by Austrian forces. Marie did not hide her loyalty to Austria. This irked the revolutionaries who perceived her an enemy of France. They accused her of treason. She was convicted and executed of the same.

Marie’s personal qualities, descent and relations with other people were exploited by the French people to pile blame on her for the appalling state of their lives and the economy of France. All manner of accusations came her way. The queen was blamed for France’s empty public coffers due to her expensive fashion tastes. However, France was already in debt and the economy had deteriorated even before Marie came onto the scene as queen. By blaming her for their financial woes, the French masses were only satisfying their need for a scapegoat. In any case, as queen of France and a woman of high social standing, she was expected to adorn herself with the finest quality of clothing and jewelry available.

The French public was fixated on destroying their queen’s public image, and it was not long before propagandists started spreading false rumors and distributing leaflets containing false claims about the queen. The leaflets accused her of conspiring with Austria against France, incest with her son, having multiple lovers including the king’s brothers and extravagance among other accusations. The source or truthfulness of these leaflets could not be ascertained, and even if the queen tried her best to defend herself, her public image had already been gravely dented. The king also tried to defend his queen against the falsities to no avail.

One of the most successful assaults on her character and standing as queen was perhaps, the perfectly orchestrated affair involving an expensive diamond necklace. She was rumored to have been engaged in an affair with a cardinal so as to obtain from him, an expensive diamond necklace. The plan was to discredit her moral standing, and it almost worked. The public loathed her after that even though the whole affair was discovered to be false. These were some of the unfair trials that she had to undergo as a young and beautiful queen.

The queen wielded a lot of persuasive power over her husband. She was, therefore, in a position to influence him positively so as to bring change to the lives of French men. Marie, however, was not interested in changing the society or the lives of the masses. She often discouraged the king’s reformist ideas. In spite of this fact, Marie cannot be blamed for her role in the revolution. France was already facing myriad problems before she came to the scene. She really did have a role in the revolution. It was only to aggravate an already existing situation a little bit.

Conclusion

The French masses revolted against the crown for a variety of reasons. The majority of these were economic reasons. Social and religious issues also came up as events unfolded. The king did not draw much public attention as his queen did. She was the more conspicuous of the two. She acted as the symbol of the monarchy and royal family. It is the reason why she was the perfect scapegoat for blaming the monarchy.

Works Cited

Barker, Nancy. “Let Them Eat Cake”: The Mythical Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution”. The Historian. 55.1(1993), 34-42.Web.

Brown, Lorri. What Really Killed Marie Antoinette? How Propaganda Killed the Last Queen of France. 2008. Web.

Burke, Edmund. (n.d.). Reflections on the Revolution in France. n.d. Web.

Doyle, William. Origins of the French Revolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.

Fraser, Antonia. Marie Antoinette: The Journey, London, Anchor, 2002. Print.

Lewis, Jone. (n.d.) Marie Antoinette. n.d. Web.

Roesler, Shirley. Out of the Shadows: Women and Politics in the French Revolution 1789-95, New York, Peter Lang, 1998. Print.

Soboul, Albert. Understanding the French Revolution, New York, International Publishers 1998. Print

Weber, Caroline. Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution, London, Picador, 2007. Print.

Winkler, Megan. Marie Antoinette: The French Queen, Scapegoat and Victim of the French Revolution. 2008. Web.

Introduction

The French Revolution took place between 1989 and 1799. This was the most radical event in the country’s history. France had remained under the absolute monarch for very long but the revolution led to its collapse within less than four years.

During the period, the country’s society and political structure transformed to what would become the new era of European enlightenment. Different movies have tried to cover the historical event from different perspectives. One of these movies is Marie Antoinette. This discussion analyzes the differences between the movie and five other sources in their portrayal of the French Revolution.

Marie Antoinette and the Actual Historic Event

The movie by the name Marie Antoinette tells the story of the Austrian-born queen and the events leading to the collapse of the monarchy in France. The movie begins by introducing the queen after she gets married to Louis-Auguste. After the marriage she became the Dauphine and later assumed the role of the queen after her husband became the King of France.

However, according to the film, Austria was an enemy of France. At the time she was the Queen, Marie was seen to harbor care and sympathy for the nations believed to be enemies of France. This made the citizens mad and accused her as promiscuous and profligate.

The film also highlights the events of the Diamond Necklace, an incident that ruined the reputation of the new queen despite the fact that she was innocent. The worst decision by the King was to move the royal family to another city. The idea changed the opinion of the people thereby leading to the bloodiest revolution in the country’s history.

Although the movie does not present most of the events of the revolution, it informs the audience about the abolishment of the monarchy in the 1790s by the citizens. Following the abolishment of leadership, the royal family faced the hardest moment and later imprisoned. The execution of the king represented the end of the monarchy. The queen was executed in 1793 using the guillotine, nicknamed the French Razor.

This movie is one of the best sources of information about the revolution and the beginning of enlightenment in France and the whole of Europe. The movie informs the audience about her betrothal and subsequent marriage to the King Louis XVI at a tender age of 15. It was after she became the queen of the country at the age of 19 when things began to change and eventually resulting in the end of her leadership as the queen. The events resulted in the fall and collapse of Versailles and eventually the revolution.

One thing about this movie is that it tries to concentrate of the life of Marie Antoinette as the best approach to inform the audience about the revolution. However, some other articles and sources tell the story from a different angle. Historians describe the revolution as the most radical event that changed the way the governance of the country.

For many years, France was under absolute monarchy. This affected the rights and stability of the people. A few years before the revolution, France faced a severe drought and food supplies were minimal. It had created enemies with certain countries including Austria. Since Marie was from the same country, she developed sympathies for the country thereby making the people angry.

The people were tired of the system of governance and wanted a sudden transformation. The revolution led to the development of new ideas. Different sources indicate that the citizens wanted to be free and have their rights given.

The only way to achieve this was through a revolution. The groups against the events were executed for betrayal or treason. Throughout the revolution period, the country faced enormous tensions between the liberal movements and the monarchy that had remained conservative for years.

The people wanted to have major reforms and changes in the country and change the nature of governance in the country. Following the events of the bloodiest revolution in the world’s history, France was proclaimed from the King after his execution in 1792. It is therefore notable that the movie manages to present useful information about the French Revolution by focusing mainly on the life of Marie Antoinette.

Conclusion

The movie explores the events of the French Revolution through the life of the ill-fated queen. This means that most of the information and events of the revolution in the movie are similar to what other sources indicate and discuss about the revolution. The marriage of an Austrian girl by King Louis was one of the fueling factors to the revolution.

The people had lost their patience and trust with the absolute monarchy because it sympathized with its enemies including Austria. This led to the French revolution as the people tried to fight for freedom, stability and their rights. The revolution influenced similar ideas throughout Europe thereby resulting in enlightenment.

Bibliography

Aftalion, Florin. The French Revolution: An Economic Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Hanson, Paul. Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Johnston, Richard. The French Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Marie Antoinett, directed by Coppola Sofia. Prod. Kirsten Dunst. (Paramount Pictures, 2006).

Stewart, Matt. The French Revolution: A Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Introduction

Human history has been shaped greatly by three periods: The industrial revolution, the period of enlightenment, the French revolution, and finally the period of protest and revolution 1815-1850 (Mantoux 3-7). These periods were associated with great minds and discoveries that have continued to shape human actions. This paper discusses the four periods and associated changes over time.

Industrial revolution

The Industrial Revolution started in Britain towards the end of the eighteenth century. The most interesting this is that the industrial revolution led to the invention and discovery of many things that drastically transformed the production methods. It started with a shift from slower or manual as well as more costly methods of production to machine-based production methods that were quicker and inexpensive (Mantoux 1-3). Since machines were too heavy and expensive, they could be transferred into places of residence. Machines were housed in factories. This again brought a change in the working style of people, that is, they started moving away from home to factories.

Since, the starting of the Industrial revolution, the way of life of many people has kept changing. In fact, today there are many inventions that are changing the lives of many people than what was witnessed at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In fact, what is certain is basically the way the industrial revolution significantly affected the way people live. There is no stage or phase in life that has not been impacted by the Industrial Revolution.

Period of Enlightenment

The term enlightenment is used to specifically describe the trends both in letters and thought in Europe as well as the American colonies. It occurred during the eighteenth century just before the French Revolution (Brown 2). One of the greatest and interesting things during this period was the basic beliefs of scholars and philosophers. This group of thinkers had a lot of confidence in the import of human reason. One of the persons to have brought a lot of insights into human reason during this time was Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton helped in unlocking natural laws.

Another person to have added insights into human reason was Locke. Locke advanced the idea that knowledge was not natural but is acquired. He also indicated for knowledge to be acquired there must be the human reason. His advancements have so far been proven (Brown 3-5). Knowledge is acquired from the environment. Through Pavlov experiment, it can be learned that knowledge is acquired through conditioned reflex or recurrent exposure. In addition, through proper education, the nature of humanity could easily be changed forever.

French revolution

The French Revolution started in the late 1780s and ended in the early 1800s when Napoleon was defeated (Lefebvre 2-6). The revolution is vital particularly in contemporary history as it has significantly contributed not just to the global impact, but also continued influences on society. To begin with, the French Revolution resulted in what is called the right of self-determination in international law. This was a revolutionary concept introduced at a time France wanted to conquer entire Europe. The revolution changed the processes of war across Europe. That is, the wars were fought on the basis of contemporary ideas. In fact, the change in tactics was largely associated with the effect of the period of Enlightenment.

The revolution impacted or influenced the nationalistic aspects of many countries. In other words, it changed the way people from different countries thought and contacted themselves. France supported a type of contemporary society that was based entirely on the aspect of self-determination (Lefebvre 2-5). What is interesting is that it set the way states in future days would be established and even understood. For instance, today states that are lawful have a common culture as well as a common boundary. This means that any other country that illegally attacks another will have violated international laws. In addition, the revolution gave rise to the idea of nation-states. In short, the French Revolution brought the idea of national self-determination.” This ideology became the powerful slogan of the radical as well as liberal ideas that considerably changed or influenced the modern states.

Protest and revolution 1815-1850

This is more like the industrial revolution although differ on a just a few aspects. After peace returned around 1815, the previous bad situation completely changed (Rudé 2-7). Some changes were observed in political and economic spheres. These two tended to blend, strengthening each other leading to the “dual revolution” (Jones and Wahrman 1-3). The idea of dual revolution as well posed a huge challenge to the intellectuals (Mantoux 2-6). For instance, it helped in elucidating the meanings of the changes that were occurring in the context of political, social and economic aspect and the way they would shape human action. Some of the things that were brought as a result of this period were new ideologies such as liberalism, nationalism, socialism and conservatism which continue to define even the modern society.

Conclusion

The world has been shaped by different systems and ideologies that were developed in the eighteenth century. Some of these ideologies have continued to shape the world today and are attributed to the industrial revolution, the pried of enlightenment, French revolution and finally the period of protest and revolution 1815-1850.

Works Cited

Brown, Stuart. British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment. London, UK: Psychology Press, 2003. Print.

Jones, Colin and Dror Wahrman. The age of cultural revolutions : Britain and France, 1750-1820. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2002. Print.

Lefebvre, Georges. The coming of the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print.

Mantoux, Paul. The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Rudé, George. Revolutionary Europe, 1783 – 1815. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Print.

Thesis Statement

The French Revolution (1789 – 1799) was the most revolutionary era in the history of France as the country underwent radical reforms. The intention of the revolution was to do away with monarchies and aristocratic privileges, with the aim of emerging as an enlightened nation that embraced human rights, citizenship and nationalism.

Introduction

When the French Revolution began, there was the hope of not only political changes but also societal changes. There was an imbalance in the French society, so much so that it caused significant friction between the two main social strata; the upper and middle classes. This situation was further aggravated by the lack of a correlation between intellectual and economic development. There were two main effects of the revolution on French society; governmental and secular effects.

As a result of the revolution, the French constitution was enacted in 1791, which effectively made France a Constitutional monarchy. This meant that event the king was under the Constitution (Butler, 2005). One of the greatest landmark revolutions was the spread of the Napoleonic culture and some of the most prominent features of this culture were modernization, even in warfare, and an increased fashion sense. So much so were these effects that to date, France is the fashion centre of the world. There was also the introduction of the metric measuring system (Butler, 2005).

Interestingly, the current French Constitution was mostly crafted by the First President of France, Charles De Gaulle. It comes as no surprise that the president of France is very powerful, with many executive decisions being bestowed upon him. Unfortunately, this has seen many French presidents carry their affairs in absolute disregard for the law and conduct themselves like blood blooded aristocrats. Jacque Chirac was well known for financial crimes and abuse of office, yet the law granted him immunity from prosecution. The buck does not stop there as the similarities between the present political fronts and the pre-evolutionary elite. The first group of culprits is of the French members of Parliament. This group is known for their exorbitance, affluence and abuse of power. The second lot is the alumnae of Les Grandes Ecoles; elitist universities that bred pedigrees. A graduate from these universities is readily embraced into the job market and end up dominating high-end jobs. The third group consists of the majority of the country’s population. Even though they are the biggest taxpayers, they are conspicuously omitted from important political and national decision-making processes. All this is extremely reminiscent of the pre-revolutionary era (Infoplease, 2008).

In conclusion, the French revolution was in fact and indeed a revolutionary era. However, it is not as extensive as it has so often been made to seem. The main objective was to fight for social equality; power was to be demystified from a bourgeois affair. Under the Napoleon Code, feudalism was abolished and its place contractual relations and general social order were adopted (Infoplease, 2008). The long-standing ancient European structures were abolished and in their place, democracy, which was a precedent for constitutions, government and elections. It is a well-known fact that prior to the French Revolution, France was far from the sophisticated nation that it is now. But although historians may differ greatly on what exactly transpired and what the exact effects of the revolutionary war, one thing remains constant across the board; the French revolution revolutionized the world as a whole.

Works Cited

Butler A. (2005). A Revolutionary Change: The French Revolution and the Metric System. 2008. Web.

Infoplease (2008) encyclopedia – French Revolution. Web.