3 causes of french revolution essay

Sign Up Today

Start your 14 day free trial today

The History Hit Miscellany of Facts, Figures and Fascinating Finds

• French Revolution and Napoleon

The 6 Main Causes of the French Revolution

The main causes of the french revolution remain debated. the middle class resented political exclusion, the lower classes didn't want to support the current feudal system and the government was on the brink of bankruptcty. here we take a deeper look into the main causes of the french revolution..

Sarah Roller

27 sep 2021, @sarahroller8.

This educational video is a visual version of this article and presented by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Please see our AI ethics and diversity policy for more information on how we use AI and select presenters on our website.

In 1789, France was the powerhouse of Europe, with a large overseas empire, strong colonial trade links as well as a flourishing silk trade at home, and was the centre of the Enlightenment movement in Europe. The Revolution which engulfed France shocked her European counterparts and changed the course of French politics and government completely. Many of its values – l iberté, égalité, fraternité –  are still widely used as a motto today.

1. Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette

France had an absolute monarchy in the 18th century – life centred around the king, who had complete power. Whilst theoretically this could work well, it was a system heavily dependent on the personality of the king in question. Louis XVI was indecisive, shy and lacked the charisma and charm which his predecessors had so benefited from.

The court at Versailles , just outside Paris, had between 3,000 and 10,000 courtiers living there at any one time, all bound by strict etiquette. Such a large and complex social set required management by the king in order to manage power, bestow favours and keep a watchful eye over potential troublemakers. Louis simply didn’t have the capability or iron will necessary to do this.

Louis’ wife and queen, Marie Antoinette , was an Austrian-born princess whose (supposedly) profligate spending, Austrian sympathies and alleged sexual deviancy were targeted repeatedly. Incapable of acting in a way which might have transformed public opinion, the royal couple saw themselves become scapegoats for far more issues than those which they could control.

‘Marie Antoinette en chemise’, portrait of the queen in a muslin dress (by Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, 1783)

Image Credit: Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As an absolute monarch, Louis was also held somewhat responsible – along with his advisors – for failures. Failures could only be blamed on advisors or external parties for so long, and by the late 1780s, the king himself was the target of popular discontent and anger rather than those around him: a dangerous position for an absolute monarch to be in. Whilst contemporaries may have perceived the king as being anointed by God, it was their subjects who permitted them to maintain this status.

2. Inherited problems

By no means did Louis XVI inherit an easy situation. The power of the French monarchy had peaked under Louis XIV, and by the time Louis XVI inherited, France found herself in an increasingly dire financial situation, weakened by the Seven Years War and American War of Independence .

With an old and inefficient taxation system which saw large portions of the wealthiest parts of French society exempt from major taxes, the burden was carried by the poorest and simply didn’t provide enough cash.

Variations by region also caused unhappiness: Brittany continued to pay the gabelle  (salt tax) and the  pays d’election  no longer had regional autonomy, for example. The system was clunky and unfair, with some areas over-represented and some under-represented in government and through financial contributions. It was desperately in need of sweeping reforms. The French economy was also growing increasingly stagnant. Hampered by internal tolls and tariffs, regional trade was slow and the agricultural and industrial revolution which was hitting Britain was much slower to arrive, and to be adopted in France.

3. The Estates System & the bourgeoise

The Estates System was far from unique to France: this ancient feudal social structure broke society into 3 groups, clergy, nobility and everyone else. In the Medieval period, prior to the boom of the merchant classes, this system did broadly reflect the structure of the world. As more and more prosperous self-made men rose through the ranks, the system’s rigidity became an increasing source of frustration. The new bourgeoise class could only make the leap to the Second Estate (the nobility) through the practice of venality, the buying and selling of offices.

Following  parlements  blocking of reforms, Louis XVI was persuaded to call an assembly known as the Estates General, which had last been called in 1614. Each estate drew up a list of grievances, the  cahier de doleances,  which were presented to the king. The event turned into a stalemate, with the First and Second Estates continually voting to block the Third Estate out of a petty desire to keep their status firm, refusing to acknowledge the need to work together to achieve reform.

Opening of the Estates-General in Versailles 5 May 1789

Image Credit: Isidore-Stanislaus Helman (1743-1806) and Charles Monnet (1732-1808), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

These deep divisions between the estates were a major contributing factor to the eruption of revolution. With an ever-growing and increasingly loud Third Estate, the prospect of meaningful societal change began to increasingly appear to be something of a possibility.

4. Taxation & money

French finances were a mess by the late 18th century. The taxation system allowed the wealthiest to avoid paying virtually any tax at all, and given that wealth almost always equalled power, any attempt to push through radical financial reforms was blocked by the  parlements.  Unable to change the tax, and not daring to increase the burden on those who already shouldered it, Jacques Necker, the finance minister, raised money through taking out loans rather than raising taxes. Whilst this had some short term benefits, loans accrued interest and pushed the country further into debt.

In an attempt to add some form of transparency to royal expenditure and to create a more educated and informed populace, Necker published the Crown’s expenses and accounts in a document known as the Compte rendu au roi.  Instead of placating the situation, it in fact gave the people an insight into something they had previously considered to be none of their concern.

With France on the brink of bankruptcy, and people more acutely aware and less tolerant of the feudal financial system they were upholding, the situation was becoming more and more delicate. Attempts to push through radical financial reforms were made, but Louis’ influence was too weak to force his nobles to bend to his will.

5. The Enlightenment

Historians debate the influence of Enlightenment in the French Revolution. Individuals like Voltaire and Rousseau espoused values of liberty, equality, tolerance, constitutional government and the separation of church and state. In an age where literacy levels were increasing and printing was cheap, these ideas were discussed and disseminated far more than previous movements had been.

Many also view the philosophy and ideals of the First Republic as being underpinned by Enlightenment ideas, and the motto most closely associated with the revolution itself – ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ – can be seen as a reflection of key ideas in Enlightenment pamphlets.

Voltaire, Portrait by Nicolas de Largillière, c. 1724

Image Credit: Nicolas de Largillière, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

6. Bad luck

Many of these issues were long term factors causing discontent and stagnation in France, but they had not caused revolution to erupt in the first 15 years of Louis’ reign. The real cost of living had increased by 62% between 1741 and 1785, and two successive years of poor harvests in 1788 and 1789 caused the price of bread to be dramatically inflated along with a drop in wages.

This added hardship added an extra layer of resentment and weight to the grievances of the Third Estate, which was largely made up of peasants and a few bourgeoise. Accusations of the extravagant spending of the royal family – irrespective of their truth – further exacerbated tensions, and the king and queen were increasingly targets of  libelles and attacks in print.

You May Also Like

The Peasants’ Revolt: Rise of the Rebels

10 Myths About Winston Churchill

Medusa: What Was a Gorgon?

10 Facts About the Battle of Shrewsbury

5 of Our Top Podcasts About the Norman Conquest of 1066

How Did 3 People Seemingly Escape From Alcatraz?

5 of Our Top Documentaries About the Norman Conquest of 1066

1848: The Year of Revolutions

What Prompted the Boston Tea Party?

15 Quotes by Nelson Mandela

The History of Advent

The Princes in the Tower: Solving History’s Greatest Cold Case

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

French Revolution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: October 12, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The French Revolution was a watershed event in world history that began in 1789 and ended in the late 1790s with the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte. During this period, French citizens radically altered their political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as the monarchy and the feudal system. The upheaval was caused by disgust with the French aristocracy and the economic policies of King Louis XVI, who met his death by guillotine, as did his wife Marie Antoinette. Though it degenerated into a bloodbath during the Reign of Terror, the French Revolution helped to shape modern democracies by showing the power inherent in the will of the people.

Causes of the French Revolution

As the 18th century drew to a close, France’s costly involvement in the American Revolution , combined with extravagant spending by King Louis XVI , had left France on the brink of bankruptcy.

Not only were the royal coffers depleted, but several years of poor harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor. Many expressed their desperation and resentment toward a regime that imposed heavy taxes—yet failed to provide any relief—by rioting, looting and striking.

In the fall of 1786, Louis XVI’s controller general, Charles Alexandre de Calonne, proposed a financial reform package that included a universal land tax from which the aristocratic classes would no longer be exempt.

Estates General

To garner support for these measures and forestall a growing aristocratic revolt, the king summoned the Estates General ( les états généraux ) – an assembly representing France’s clergy, nobility and middle class – for the first time since 1614.

The meeting was scheduled for May 5, 1789; in the meantime, delegates of the three estates from each locality would compile lists of grievances ( cahiers de doléances ) to present to the king.

Rise of the Third Estate

France’s population, of course, had changed considerably since 1614. The non-aristocratic, middle-class members of the Third Estate now represented 98 percent of the people but could still be outvoted by the other two bodies.

In the lead-up to the May 5 meeting, the Third Estate began to mobilize support for equal representation and the abolishment of the noble veto—in other words, they wanted voting by head and not by status.

While all of the orders shared a common desire for fiscal and judicial reform as well as a more representative form of government, the nobles in particular were loath to give up the privileges they had long enjoyed under the traditional system.

Tennis Court Oath

By the time the Estates General convened at Versailles , the highly public debate over its voting process had erupted into open hostility between the three orders, eclipsing the original purpose of the meeting and the authority of the man who had convened it — the king himself.

On June 17, with talks over procedure stalled, the Third Estate met alone and formally adopted the title of National Assembly; three days later, they met in a nearby indoor tennis court and took the so-called Tennis Court Oath (serment du jeu de paume), vowing not to disperse until constitutional reform had been achieved.

Within a week, most of the clerical deputies and 47 liberal nobles had joined them, and on June 27 Louis XVI grudgingly absorbed all three orders into the new National Assembly.

The Bastille 

On June 12, as the National Assembly (known as the National Constituent Assembly during its work on a constitution) continued to meet at Versailles, fear and violence consumed the capital.

Though enthusiastic about the recent breakdown of royal power, Parisians grew panicked as rumors of an impending military coup began to circulate. A popular insurgency culminated on July 14 when rioters stormed the Bastille fortress in an attempt to secure gunpowder and weapons; many consider this event, now commemorated in France as a national holiday, as the start of the French Revolution.

The wave of revolutionary fervor and widespread hysteria quickly swept the entire country. Revolting against years of exploitation, peasants looted and burned the homes of tax collectors, landlords and the aristocratic elite.

Known as the Great Fear ( la Grande peur ), the agrarian insurrection hastened the growing exodus of nobles from France and inspired the National Constituent Assembly to abolish feudalism on August 4, 1789, signing what historian Georges Lefebvre later called the “death certificate of the old order.”

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

IIn late August, the Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen ( Déclaration des droits de l ’homme et du citoyen ), a statement of democratic principles grounded in the philosophical and political ideas of Enlightenment thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau .

The document proclaimed the Assembly’s commitment to replace the ancien régime with a system based on equal opportunity, freedom of speech, popular sovereignty and representative government.

Drafting a formal constitution proved much more of a challenge for the National Constituent Assembly, which had the added burden of functioning as a legislature during harsh economic times.

For months, its members wrestled with fundamental questions about the shape and expanse of France’s new political landscape. For instance, who would be responsible for electing delegates? Would the clergy owe allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church or the French government? Perhaps most importantly, how much authority would the king, his public image further weakened after a failed attempt to flee the country in June 1791, retain?

Adopted on September 3, 1791, France’s first written constitution echoed the more moderate voices in the Assembly, establishing a constitutional monarchy in which the king enjoyed royal veto power and the ability to appoint ministers. This compromise did not sit well with influential radicals like Maximilien de Robespierre , Camille Desmoulins and Georges Danton, who began drumming up popular support for a more republican form of government and for the trial of Louis XVI.

French Revolution Turns Radical

In April 1792, the newly elected Legislative Assembly declared war on Austria and Prussia, where it believed that French émigrés were building counterrevolutionary alliances; it also hoped to spread its revolutionary ideals across Europe through warfare.

On the domestic front, meanwhile, the political crisis took a radical turn when a group of insurgents led by the extremist Jacobins attacked the royal residence in Paris and arrested the king on August 10, 1792.

The following month, amid a wave of violence in which Parisian insurrectionists massacred hundreds of accused counterrevolutionaries, the Legislative Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, which proclaimed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the French republic.

On January 21, 1793, it sent King Louis XVI, condemned to death for high treason and crimes against the state, to the guillotine ; his wife Marie-Antoinette suffered the same fate nine months later.

Reign of Terror

Following the king’s execution, war with various European powers and intense divisions within the National Convention brought the French Revolution to its most violent and turbulent phase.

In June 1793, the Jacobins seized control of the National Convention from the more moderate Girondins and instituted a series of radical measures, including the establishment of a new calendar and the eradication of Christianity .

They also unleashed the bloody Reign of Terror (la Terreur), a 10-month period in which suspected enemies of the revolution were guillotined by the thousands. Many of the killings were carried out under orders from Robespierre, who dominated the draconian Committee of Public Safety until his own execution on July 28, 1794.

Did you know? Over 17,000 people were officially tried and executed during the Reign of Terror, and an unknown number of others died in prison or without trial.

Thermidorian Reaction

The death of Robespierre marked the beginning of the Thermidorian Reaction, a moderate phase in which the French people revolted against the Reign of Terror’s excesses.

On August 22, 1795, the National Convention, composed largely of Girondins who had survived the Reign of Terror, approved a new constitution that created France’s first bicameral legislature.

Executive power would lie in the hands of a five-member Directory ( Directoire ) appointed by parliament. Royalists and Jacobins protested the new regime but were swiftly silenced by the army, now led by a young and successful general named Napoleon Bonaparte .

French Revolution Ends: Napoleon’s Rise

The Directory’s four years in power were riddled with financial crises, popular discontent, inefficiency and, above all, political corruption. By the late 1790s, the directors relied almost entirely on the military to maintain their authority and had ceded much of their power to the generals in the field.

On November 9, 1799, as frustration with their leadership reached a fever pitch, Napoleon Bonaparte staged a coup d’état, abolishing the Directory and appointing himself France’s “ first consul .” The event marked the end of the French Revolution and the beginning of the Napoleonic era, during which France would come to dominate much of continental Europe.

Photo Gallery 

French Revolution. The National Archives (U.K.) The United States and the French Revolution, 1789–1799. Office of the Historian. U.S. Department of State . Versailles, from the French Revolution to the Interwar Period. Chateau de Versailles . French Revolution. Monticello.org . Individuals, institutions, and innovation in the debates of the French Revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 

HISTORY Vault

Stream thousands of hours of acclaimed series, probing documentaries and captivating specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Modern History

What were the causes of the French Revolution?

The French Revolution, which spanned from 1789 to 1799, was both an uprising against the monarchy, as well as a profound social and political upheaval that reshaped the very fabric of French society.

The streets of Paris and the halls of Versailles echoed with calls for liberty, equality, and fraternity, as the old order crumbled, and a new one emerged from its ashes.

But what led to this monumental shift? 

Here are the five most important causes:

1. Monumental social inequalities

The social fabric of pre-revolutionary France was characterized by deep-seated inequalities that played a significant role in fermenting discontent.

Central to this was the Estates System, a socio-political structure that divided the French population into three distinct groups.

The First Estate consisted of the clergy, both high-ranking bishops who lived lavishly and parish priests who often shared the struggles of the common people.

The Second Estate was the nobility, a group that enjoyed vast privileges, from tax exemptions to exclusive rights to high offices.

Then there was the Third Estate, a diverse group that encompassed everyone from affluent bourgeoisie merchants to struggling peasants.

Despite representing over 95% of the population, the Third Estate had minimal political power and bore the brunt of the nation's tax burdens.

Prominent figures like Abbé Sieyès raised the question of this glaring disparity.

In his influential pamphlet "What is the Third Estate?", Sieyès argued that the Third Estate was the true representative of the French nation and should no longer be subservient to the outdated privileges of the clergy and nobility.

His writings resonated with a growing sentiment that the old social order was unjust and needed reform.

Adding to the social tensions were the conditions in rapidly growing urban centers like Paris.

The city saw an influx of peasants seeking better fortunes, only to be met with overcrowded living conditions, inadequate sanitation, and rampant unemployment.

This urban proletariat became a hotbed for revolutionary fervor, especially as they encountered the stark contrast between their hardships and the opulence of the aristocracy.

2. Severe economic strains

The economic landscape of late 18th-century France was fraught with challenges that played a pivotal role in setting the stage for the Revolution.

At the heart of these challenges was the nation's crippling financial crisis. France had accumulated a staggering national debt, a significant portion of which was due to its involvement in foreign wars, most notably the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War .

These military endeavors, while driven by geopolitical ambitions, drained the royal treasury.

Compounding the financial woes was the country's outdated and inefficient system of taxation.

The burden of taxation fell disproportionately on the Third Estate, which comprised the vast majority of the population, including peasants, artisans, and the burgeoning bourgeoisie.

This was in stark contrast to the First and Second Estates—the clergy and the nobility—who enjoyed extensive tax exemptions and privileges.

The "taille," a direct land tax primarily on the peasantry and non-nobles, and the "gabelle," a tax on salt, were particularly onerous.

Such regressive taxation exacerbated social inequalities and fueled resentment against the privileged classes.

Yet, the economic strain was not limited to high taxes and war debts. France also grappled with a series of crop failures in the years leading up to the Revolution.

Poor harvests, particularly in 1788, led to food shortages and skyrocketing bread prices.

Bread, a staple of the French diet, became unaffordable for many, leading to widespread famine and discontent.

The subsistence crisis, as it's often termed, heightened the economic despair.

The urban proletariat, or the working-class city dwellers, faced rising unemployment and diminishing wages, further deepening the economic divide.

3. Catastrophic political mismanagement

The Bourbon monarchy, under King Louis XVI, epitomized the challenges of an absolutist regime grappling with modernizing pressures.

Louis, while well-intentioned, lacked the decisiveness and political acumen necessary to navigate the complex socio-economic and political challenges of his era.

His frequent vacillations on key issues, coupled with an inability to push through necessary reforms, left the monarchy appearing both weak and out of touch.

One of the most glaring examples of political mismanagement was the monarchy's handling of the financial crisis.

While the need for fiscal reform was evident, Louis XVI's attempts were often half-hearted and lacked follow-through.

His appointment of finance ministers like Jacques Necker and Charles Alexandre de Calonne showcased the inconsistency in the approach.

While Necker was popular among the public and advocated for greater transparency in royal finances, Calonne sought to implement controversial tax reforms that further alienated the nobility and the broader population.

The convocation of the Estates-General in 1789, after a hiatus of nearly 150 years, was a desperate attempt to address the financial crisis and seek broader consensus on reforms.

However, it quickly became mired in debates over representation and voting procedures.

The Third Estate, representing the vast majority of the French population, felt marginalized as they were granted the same representation as the much smaller First and Second Estates.

Their demands for "double representation" and voting by head, rather than by estate, were met with resistance, leading to further political deadlock.

4. Inspirational new thinkers

The Enlightenment, a movement that championed reason, individual rights, and secularism, profoundly influenced the minds of the French populace and set the ideological groundwork for the Revolution.

Philosophers and writers began to question the established order, challenging the divine right of kings, the privileges of the nobility, and the unchecked power of the Church.

Voltaire, with his biting wit and criticism of the Church and the monarchy, became a beacon for those advocating for a more rational and just society.

His works, such as "Candide," ridiculed the prevailing societal norms and highlighted the injustices of the Ancien Régime.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his seminal work "The Social Contract," introduced the revolutionary idea that authority should be derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine mandate.

He posited that individuals had natural rights and that society's structures should reflect a social contract that respects these rights.

Another influential figure was Denis Diderot, who, along with Jean le Rond d'Alembert, embarked on the ambitious project of compiling "Encyclopédie."

This monumental work sought to catalog all human knowledge and, in the process, disseminated Enlightenment ideas to a broader audience.

The "Encyclopédie" not only challenged traditional sources of authority but also promoted scientific inquiry, secularism, and social progress.

5. External pressures on France

While the roots of the French Revolution were deeply embedded in the nation's own socio-political fabric, external influences played a non-trivial role in shaping the course of events.

One of the most significant of these influences was the American Revolution.

The struggle of the American colonies for independence from British rule resonated deeply with many in France, who saw parallels between the American fight for liberty and their own aspirations for freedom and equality.

France's involvement in the American Revolutionary War was not merely ideological; it was also military and financial.

The French government provided crucial support to the American rebels, with troops, naval forces, and funds.

Figures like the Marquis de Lafayette became symbols of this Franco-American alliance.

Lafayette, who fought alongside George Washington, returned to France imbued with revolutionary fervor and ideas about republicanism and human rights.

His experiences and those of other French soldiers who fought in America served as a conduit for the transmission of revolutionary ideals back to France.

However, the support for the American Revolution came at a significant cost.

The financial strain of the war exacerbated France's already precarious economic situation, pushing it further into debt.

While the war ended in a victory for the American colonies, the financial repercussions for France were profound and contributed to the economic crises that precipitated the French Revolution.

Beyond the American Revolution, the broader geopolitical landscape of Europe also influenced events in France.

The constant rivalries and wars with other European powers, especially Britain, drained French resources and often dictated domestic policy decisions.

The diplomatic isolation France faced in the years leading up to the Revolution, coupled with the fear of counter-revolutionary interventions from neighboring monarchies, further heightened the sense of urgency and paranoia during the revolutionary period.

The final match which lit the fire of revolution

While the French Revolution was the culmination of years of mounting tensions and systemic issues, certain immediate events acted as catalysts, propelling France into a decade of upheaval.

One of the most symbolic of these triggers was the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789.

The Bastille, a fortress-prison in Paris, had come to represent the tyranny and oppression of the Bourbon monarchy.

Its storming by a group of Parisian citizens was not just a quest to secure arms but also a powerful statement against the old regime.

The fall of the Bastille marked the point of no return, signaling the beginning of widespread revolt.

In the weeks leading up to this event, the Estates-General, convened in May 1789, had become mired in disputes over representation and voting.

The Third Estate, frustrated by the deadlock and feeling marginalized, took the audacious step of declaring themselves the National Assembly on June 17, 1789.

This self-proclamation was a direct challenge to the authority of the king and the established order.

The subsequent locking of the Salle des États, whether by design or accident, was perceived as a royal attempt to suppress the newly formed National Assembly.

This led to the famous Tennis Court Oath on June 20, where members of the Third Estate vowed not to disband until a new constitution for France was established.

King Louis XVI's response to these events was ambivalent at best. His dismissal of the popular finance minister, Jacques Necker, on July 11, 1789, was seen as a move against the reformist faction and further inflamed public sentiment.

The subsequent mass demonstrations and the formation of the National Guard under the Marquis de Lafayette underscored the shifting power dynamics.

In essence, the summer of 1789 was a whirlwind of events, each building on the other, that transformed the simmering discontent into an open revolution.

These immediate triggers, set against the backdrop of broader economic, social, and political issues, were the final push that plunged France into a revolutionary era.

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

History Cooperative

French Revolution: History, Timeline, Causes, and Outcomes

The French Revolution, a seismic event that reshaped the contours of political power and societal norms, began in 1789, not merely as a chapter in history but as a dramatic upheaval that would influence the course of human events far beyond its own time and borders.

It was more than a clash of ideologies; it was a profound transformation that questioned the very foundations of monarchical rule and aristocratic privilege, leading to the rise of republicanism and the concept of citizenship.

The causes of this revolution were as complex as its outcomes were far-reaching, stemming from a confluence of economic strife, social inequalities, and a hunger for political reform.

The outcomes of the French Revolution, embedded in the realms of political thought, civil rights, and societal structures, continue to resonate, offering invaluable insights into the power and potential of collective action for change.

Table of Contents

Time and Location

The French Revolution, a cornerstone event in the annals of history, ignited in 1789, a time when Europe was dominated by monarchical rule and the vestiges of feudalism. This epochal period, which spanned a decade until the late 1790s, witnessed profound social, political, and economic transformations that not only reshaped France but also sent shockwaves across the continent and beyond.

Paris, the heart of France, served as the epicenter of revolutionary activity , where iconic events such as the storming of the Bastille became symbols of the struggle for freedom. Yet, the revolution was not confined to the city’s limits; its influence permeated through every corner of France, from bustling urban centers to serene rural areas, each witnessing the unfolding drama of revolution in unique ways.

The revolution consisted of many complex factions, each representing a distinct set of interests and ideologies. Initially, the conflict arose between the Third Estate, which included a diverse group from peasants and urban laborers to the bourgeoisie, and the First and Second Estates, made up of the clergy and the nobility, respectively.

The Third Estate sought to dismantle the archaic social structure that relegated them to the burden of taxation while denying them political representation and rights. Their demands for reform and equality found resonance across a society strained by economic distress and the autocratic rule of the monarchy.

As the revolution evolved, so too did the nature of the conflict. The initial unity within the Third Estate fractured, giving rise to factions such as the Jacobins and Girondins, who, despite sharing a common revolutionary zeal, diverged sharply in their visions for France’s future.

The Jacobins , with figures like Maximilien Robespierre at the helm, advocated for radical measures, including the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, while the Girondins favored a more moderate approach.

The sans-culottes , representing the militant working-class Parisians, further complicated the revolutionary landscape with their demands for immediate economic relief and political reforms.

The revolution’s adversaries were not limited to internal factions; monarchies throughout Europe viewed the republic with suspicion and hostility. Fearing the spread of revolutionary fervor within their own borders, European powers such as Austria, Prussia, and Britain engaged in military confrontations with France, aiming to restore the French monarchy and stem the tide of revolution.

These external threats intensified the internal strife, fueling the revolution’s radical phase and propelling it towards its eventual conclusion with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, who capitalized on the chaos to establish his own rule.

READ MORE: How Did Napoleon Die: Stomach Cancer, Poison, or Something Else?

Causes of the French Revolution

The French Revolution’s roots are deeply embedded in a confluence of political, social, economic, and intellectual factors that, over time, eroded the foundations of the Ancien Régime and set the stage for revolutionary change.

At the heart of the revolution were grievances that transcended class boundaries, uniting much of the nation in a quest for profound transformation.

Economic Hardship and Social Inequality

A critical catalyst for the revolution was France’s dire economic condition. Fiscal mismanagement, costly involvement in foreign wars (notably the American Revolutionary War), and an antiquated tax system placed an unbearable strain on the populace, particularly the Third Estate, which bore the brunt of taxation while being denied equitable representation.

Simultaneously, extravagant spending by Louis XVI and his predecessors further drained the national treasury, exacerbating the financial crisis.

The social structure of France, rigidly divided into three estates, underscored profound inequalities. The First (clergy) and Second (nobility) Estates enjoyed significant privileges, including exemption from many taxes, which contrasted starkly with the hardships faced by the Third Estate, comprising peasants , urban workers, and a rising bourgeoisie.

This disparity fueled resentment and a growing demand for social and economic justice.

Enlightenment Ideals

The Enlightenment , a powerful intellectual movement sweeping through Europe, profoundly influenced the revolutionary spirit. Philosophers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu criticized traditional structures of power and authority, advocating for principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Their writings inspired a new way of thinking about governance, society, and the rights of individuals, sowing the seeds of revolution among a populace eager for change.

Political Crisis and the Estates-General

The immediate catalyst for the French Revolution was deeply rooted in a political crisis, underscored by the French monarchy’s chronic financial woes. King Louis XVI, facing dire fiscal insolvency, sought to break the deadlock through the convocation of the Estates-General in 1789, marking the first assembly of its kind since 1614.

This critical move, intended to garner support for financial reforms, unwittingly set the stage for widespread political upheaval. It provided the Third Estate, representing the common people of France, with an unprecedented opportunity to voice their longstanding grievances and demand a more significant share of political authority.

The Third Estate, comprising a vast majority of the population but long marginalized in the political framework of the Ancien Régime, seized this moment to assert its power. Their transformation into the National Assembly was a monumental shift, symbolizing a rejection of the existing social and political order.

The catalyst for this transformation was their exclusion from the Estates-General meeting, leading them to gather in a nearby tennis court. There, they took the historic Tennis Court Oath, vowing not to disperse until France had a new constitution.

This act of defiance was not just a political statement but a clear indication of the revolutionaries’ resolve to overhaul French society.

Amidst this burgeoning crisis, the personal life of Marie Antoinette , Louis XVI’s queen, became a focal point of public scrutiny and scandal. 

Married to Louis at the tender age of fourteen, Marie Antoinette, the youngest daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I, was known for her lavish lifestyle and the preferential treatment she accorded her friends and relatives.

READ MORE: Roman Emperors in Order: The Complete List from Caesar to the Fall of Rome

Her disregard for traditional court fashion and etiquette, along with her perceived extravagance, made her an easy target for public criticism and ridicule. Popular songs in Parisian cafés and a flourishing genre of pornographic literature vilified the queen, accusing her of infidelity, corruption, and disloyalty.

Such depictions, whether grounded in truth or fabricated, fueled the growing discontent among the populace, further complicating the already tense political atmosphere.

The intertwining of personal scandals with the broader political crisis highlighted the deep-seated issues within the French monarchy and aristocracy, contributing to the revolutionary fervor.

As the political crisis deepened, the actions of the Third Estate and the controversies surrounding Marie Antoinette exemplified the widespread desire for change and the rejection of the Ancient Régime’s corruption and excesses.

Key Concepts, Events, and People of the French Revolution

As the Estates General convened in 1789, little did the world know that this gathering would mark the beginning of a revolution that would forever alter the course of history.

Through the rise and fall of factions, the clash of ideologies, and the leadership of remarkable individuals, this era reshaped not only France but also set a precedent for future generations.

From the storming of the Bastille to the establishment of the Directory, each event and figure played a crucial role in crafting a new vision of governance and social equality.

Estates General

When the Estates General was summoned in May 1789, it marked the beginning of a series of events that would catalyze the French Revolution. Initially intended as a means for King Louis XVI to address the financial crisis by securing support for tax reforms, the assembly instead became a flashpoint for broader grievances.

Representing the three estates of French society—the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners—the Estates General highlighted the profound disparities and simmering tensions between these groups.

The Third Estate, comprising 98% of the population but traditionally having the least power, seized the moment to push for more significant reforms, challenging the very foundations of the Ancient Régime.

The deadlock over voting procedures—where the Third Estate demanded votes be counted by head rather than by estate—led to its members declaring themselves the National Assembly, an act of defiance that effectively inaugurated the revolution.

This bold step, coupled with the subsequent Tennis Court Oath where they vowed not to disperse until a new constitution was created, underscored a fundamental shift in authority from the monarchy to the people, setting a precedent for popular sovereignty that would resonate throughout the revolution.

Rise of the Third Estate

The Rise of the Third Estate underscores the growing power and assertiveness of the common people of France. Fueled by economic hardship, social inequality, and inspired by Enlightenment ideals, this diverse group—encompassing peasants, urban workers, and the bourgeoisie—began to challenge the existing social and political order.

Their transformation from a marginalized majority into the National Assembly marked a radical departure from traditional power structures, asserting their role as legitimate representatives of the French people. This period was characterized by significant political mobilization and the formation of popular societies and clubs, which played a crucial role in spreading revolutionary ideas and organizing action.

This newfound empowerment of the Third Estate culminated in key revolutionary acts, such as the storming of the Bastille in July 1789, a symbol of royal tyranny. This event not only demonstrated the power of popular action but also signaled the irreversible nature of the revolutionary movement.

The rise of the Third Estate paved the way for the abolition of feudal privileges and the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen , foundational texts that sought to establish a new social and political order based on equality, liberty, and fraternity.

A People’s Monarchy

The concept of a People’s Monarchy emerged as a compromise in the early stages of the French Revolution, reflecting the initial desire among many revolutionaries to retain the monarchy within a constitutional framework.

This period was marked by King Louis XVI’s grudging acceptance of the National Assembly’s authority and the enactment of significant reforms, including the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the Constitution of 1791, which established a limited monarchy and sought to redistribute power more equitably.

However, this attempt to balance revolutionary demands with monarchical tradition was fraught with difficulties, as mutual distrust between the king and the revolutionaries continued to escalate.

The failure of the People’s Monarchy was precipitated by the Flight to Varennes in June 1791, when Louis XVI attempted to escape France and rally foreign support for the restoration of his absolute power.

This act of betrayal eroded any remaining support for the monarchy among the populace and the Assembly, leading to increased calls for the establishment of a republic.

The people’s experiment with a constitutional monarchy thus served to highlight the irreconcilable differences between the revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality and the traditional monarchical order, setting the stage for the republic’s proclamation.

Birth of a Republic

The proclamation of the First French Republic in September 1792 represented a radical departure from centuries of monarchical rule, embodying the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

This transition was catalyzed by escalating political tensions, military challenges, and the radicalization of the revolution, particularly after the king’s failed flight and perceived betrayal.

The Republic’s birth was a moment of immense optimism and aspiration, as it promised to reshape French society on the principles of democratic governance and civic equality. It also marked the beginning of a new calendar, symbolic of the revolutionaries’ desire to break completely with the past and start anew.

However, the early years of the Republic were marked by significant challenges, including internal divisions, economic struggles, and threats from monarchist powers in Europe.

These pressures necessitated the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety and the Reign of Terror, measures aimed at defending the revolution but which also led to extreme political repression.

Reign of Terror

The Reign of Terror, from September 1793 to July 1794, remains one of the most controversial and bloodiest periods of the French Revolution. Under the auspices of the Committee of Public Safety, led by figures such as Maximilien Robespierre, the French government adopted radical measures to purge the nation of perceived enemies of the revolution.

This period saw the widespread use of the guillotine , with thousands executed on charges of counter-revolutionary activities or mere suspicion of disloyalty. The Terror aimed to consolidate revolutionary gains and protect the nascent Republic from internal and external threats, but its legacy is marred by the extremity of its actions and the climate of fear it engendered.

The end of the Terror came with the Thermidorian Reaction on 27th July 1794 (9th Thermidor Year II, according to the revolutionary calendar), which resulted in the arrest and execution of Robespierre and his closest allies.

This marked a significant turning point, leading to the dismantling of the Committee of Public Safety and the gradual relaxation of emergency measures. The aftermath of the Terror reflected a society grappling with the consequences of its radical actions, seeking stability after years of upheaval but still committed to the revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality .

Thermidorians and the Directory

Following the Thermidorian Reaction , the political landscape of France underwent significant changes, leading to the establishment of the Directory in November 1795.

This new government, a five-member executive body, was intended to provide stability and moderate the excesses of the previous radical phase. The Directory period was characterized by a mix of conservative and revolutionary policies, aimed at consolidating the Republic and addressing the economic and social issues that had fueled the revolution.

Despite its efforts to navigate the challenges of governance, the Directory faced significant opposition from royalists on the right and Jacobins on the left, leading to a period of political instability and corruption.

The Directory’s inability to resolve these tensions and its growing unpopularity set the stage for its downfall. The coup of 18 Brumaire in November 1799, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, ended the Directory and established the Consulate, marking the end of the revolutionary government and the beginning of Napoleonic rule.

While the Directory failed to achieve lasting stability, it played a crucial role in the transition from radical revolution to the establishment of a more authoritarian regime, highlighting the complexities of revolutionary governance and the challenges of fulfilling the ideals of 1789.

French Revolution End and Outcome: Napoleon’s Rise

The revolution’s end is often marked by Napoleon’s coup d’état on 18 Brumaire , which not only concluded a decade of political instability and social unrest but also ushered in a new era of governance under his rule.

This period, while stabilizing France and bringing much-needed order, seemed to contradict the revolution’s initial aims of establishing a democratic republic grounded in the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Napoleon’s rise to power, culminating in his coronation as Emperor, symbolizes a complex conclusion to the revolutionary narrative, intertwining the fulfillment and betrayal of its foundational ideals.

Evaluating the revolution’s success requires a nuanced perspective. On one hand, it dismantled the Ancien Régime, abolished feudalism, and set forth the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, laying the cornerstone for modern democracy and human rights. 

These achievements signify profound societal and legal transformations that resonated well beyond France’s borders, influencing subsequent movements for freedom and equality globally.

On the other hand, the revolution’s trajectory through the Reign of Terror and the subsequent rise of a military dictatorship under Napoleon raises questions about the cost of these advances and the ultimate realization of the revolution’s goals.

The French Revolution’s conclusion with Napoleon Bonaparte’s ascension to power is emblematic of its complex legacy. This period not only marked the cessation of years of turmoil but also initiated a new chapter in French governance, characterized by stability and reform yet marked by a departure from the revolution’s original democratic aspirations.

The Significance of the French Revolution

The French Revolution holds a place of prominence in the annals of history, celebrated for its profound impact on the course of modern civilization. Its fame stems not only from the dramatic events and transformative ideas it unleashed but also from its enduring influence on political thought, social reform, and the global struggle for justice and equality.

This period of intense upheaval and radical change challenged the very foundations of society, dismantling centuries-old institutions and laying the groundwork for a new era defined by the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

At its core, the French Revolution was a manifestation of human aspiration towards freedom and self-determination, a vivid illustration of the power of collective action to reshape the world. It introduced revolutionary concepts of citizenship and rights that have since become the bedrock of democratic societies.

Moreover, the revolution’s ripple effects were felt worldwide, inspiring a wave of independence movements and revolutions across Europe, Latin America, and beyond. Its legacy is a testament to the idea that people have the power to overthrow oppressive systems and construct a more equitable society.

The revolution’s significance also lies in its contributions to political and social thought. It was a living laboratory for ideas that were radical at the time, such as the separation of church and state, the abolition of feudal privileges, and the establishment of a constitution to govern the rights and duties of the French citizens.

These concepts, debated and implemented with varying degrees of success during the revolution, have become fundamental to modern governance.

Furthermore, the French Revolution is famous for its dramatic and symbolic events, from the storming of the Bastille to the Reign of Terror, which have etched themselves into the collective memory of humanity.

These events highlight the complexities and contradictions of the revolutionary process, underscoring the challenges inherent in profound societal transformation.

Key Figures of the French Revolution

The French Revolutions were painted by the actions and ideologies of several key figures whose contributions defined the era. These individuals, with their diverse roles and perspectives, were central in navigating the revolution’s trajectory, capturing the complexities and contradictions of this tumultuous period.

Maximilien Robespierre , often synonymous with the Reign of Terror, was a figure of paradoxes. A lawyer and politician, his early advocacy for the rights of the common people and opposition to absolute monarchy marked him as a champion of liberty.

However, as a leader of the Committee of Public Safety, his name became associated with the radical phase of the revolution, characterized by extreme measures in the name of safeguarding the republic. His eventual downfall and execution reflect the revolution’s capacity for self-consumption.

Georges Danton , another prominent revolutionary leader, played a crucial role in the early stages of the revolution. Known for his oratory skills and charismatic leadership, Danton was instrumental in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the First French Republic.

Unlike Robespierre, Danton is often remembered for his pragmatism and efforts to moderate the revolution’s excesses, which ultimately led to his execution during the Reign of Terror, highlighting the volatile nature of revolutionary politics.

Louis XVI, the king at the revolution’s outbreak, represents the Ancient Régime’s complexities and the challenges of monarchical rule in a time of profound societal change.

His inability to effectively manage France’s financial crisis and his hesitancy to embrace substantial reforms contributed to the revolutionary fervor. His execution in 1793 symbolized the revolution’s radical break from monarchical tradition and the birth of the republic.

Marie Antoinette, the queen consort of Louis XVI, became a symbol of the monarchy’s extravagance and disconnect from the common people. Her fate, like that of her husband, underscores the revolution’s rejection of the old order and the desire for a new societal structure based on equality and merit rather than birthright.

Jean-Paul Marat , a journalist and politician, used his publication, L’Ami du Peuple, to advocate for the rights of the lower classes and to call for radical measures against the revolution’s enemies.

His assassination by Charlotte Corday, a Girondin sympathizer, in 1793 became one of the revolution’s most famous episodes, illustrating the deep divisions within revolutionary France.

Finally, Napoleon Bonaparte, though not a leader during the revolution’s peak, emerged from its aftermath to shape France’s future. A military genius, Napoleon used the opportunities presented by the revolution’s chaos to rise to power, eventually declaring himself Emperor of the French.

His reign would consolidate many of the revolution’s reforms while curtailing its democratic aspirations, embodying the complexities of the revolution’s legacy.

These key figures, among others, played significant roles in the unfolding of the French Revolution. Their contributions, whether for the cause of liberty, the maintenance of order, or the pursuit of personal power, highlight the multifaceted nature of the revolution and its enduring impact on history.

References:

(1) Schama, Simon. Citizens: a Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York, Random House, 1990, pp. 119-221.

(2) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 11-12

(3) Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Revolution. Vintage Books, 1996, pp. 56-57.

(4) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 24-25

(5) Lewis, Gwynne. The French Revolution: Rethinking the Debate. Routledge, 2016, pp. 12-14.

(6) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 14-25

(7) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 63-65.

(8) Schama, Simon. Citizens: a Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York, Random House, 1990, pp. 242-244.

(9) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 74.

(10) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 82 – 84.

(11) Lewis, Gwynne. The French Revolution: Rethinking the Debate. Routledge, 2016, p. 20.

(12) Hampson, Norman. A Social History of the French Revolution. University of Toronto Press, 1968, pp. 60-61.

(13) https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/301ModernEurope/Sieyes3dEstate.pdf (14) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 104-105.

(15) French Revolution. “A Citizen Recalls the Taking of the Bastille (1789),” January 11, 2013. https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/humbert-taking-of-the-bastille-1789/.

(16) Hampson, Norman. A Social History of the French Revolution. University of Toronto Press, 1968, pp. 74-75.

(17) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 36-37.

(18) Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: From its origins to 1793. Routledge, 1957, pp. 121-122.

(19) Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Random House, 1989, pp. 428-430.

(20) Hampson, Norman. A Social History of the French Revolution. University of Toronto Press, 1968, p. 80.

(21) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 116-117.

(22) Fitzsimmons, Michael “The Principles of 1789” in McPhee, Peter, editor. A Companion to the French Revolution. Blackwell, 2013, pp. 75-88.

(23) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 68-81.

(24) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 45-46.

(25) Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Random House, 1989,.pp. 460-466.

(26) Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Random House, 1989, pp. 524-525.

(27) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 47-48.

(28) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 51.

(29) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 128.

(30) Lewis, Gwynne. The French Revolution: Rethinking the Debate. Routledge, 2016, pp. 30 -31.

(31) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp.. 53 -62.

(32) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 129-130.

(33) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 62-63.

(34) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 156-157, 171-173.

(35) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 65-66.

(36) Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Random House, 1989, pp. 543-544.

(37) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 179-180.

(38) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 184-185.

(39) Hampson, Norman. Social History of the French Revolution. Routledge, 1963, pp. 148-149.

(40) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 191-192.

(41) Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: From Its Origins to 1793. Routledge, 1962, pp. 252-254.

(42) Hazan, Eric. A People’s History of the French Revolution, Verso, 2014, pp. 88-89.

(43) Schama, Simon. Citizens: a Chronicle of the French Revolution. Random House, 1990, pp. 576-79.

(44) Schama, Simon. Citizens: a Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York, Random House, 1990, pp. 649-51

(45) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 242-243.

(46) Connor, Clifford. Marat: The Tribune of the French Revolution. Pluto Press, 2012.

(47) Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Random House, 1989, pp. 722-724.

(48) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 246-47.

(49) Hampson, Norman. A Social History of the French Revolution. University of Toronto Press, 1968, pp. 209-210.

(50) Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Revolution. Vintage Books, 1996, pp 68-70.

(51) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 205-206

(52) Schama, Simon. Citizens: a Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York, Random House, 1990, 784-86.

(53) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 262.

(54) Schama, Simon. Citizens: a Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York, Random House, 1990, pp. 619-22.

(55) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 269-70.

(56) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 276.

(57) Robespierre on Virtue and Terror (1794). https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/robespierre-virtue-terror-1794/. Accessed 19 May 2020.

(58) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 290-91.

(59) Doyle, William. Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 293-95.

(60) Lewis, Gwynne. The French Revolution: Rethinking the Debate. Routledge, 2016, pp. 49-51.

How to Cite this Article

There are three different ways you can cite this article.

1. To cite this article in an academic-style article or paper , use:

<a href=" https://historycooperative.org/the-french-revolution/ ">French Revolution: History, Timeline, Causes, and Outcomes</a>

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

History Grade 10 - Topic 3 Essay Questions

Causes of the French Revolution

Based on the 2012 Grade 10 NSC Exemplar Paper:

Grade 10 Past Exam Paper

Grade 10 Source Addendum

Grade 10 Past Exam Memo

Essay 1: What were the causes of the French Revolution?

In 1789 the bloody French Revolution began, which would continue till the late 1790’s. The aim of the revolution was to overthrow the monarchy and uproot the system of feudalism, and replace it with ideas of equality, liberty and fraternity. [1] The French revolution occurred for various reasons, including poor economic policies, poor leadership, an exploitative political- and social structures. 

Political Causes

The political causes of the French revolution included the autocratic monarchy, bankruptcy and extravagant spending of royals. To understand the causes of the French Revolution, one needs to understand France’s political structure before the revolution began. An autocratic monarchy means that French society was governed by an all-powerful king or queen, believed to have been given divine right to rule by God. [2] These monarchs were hereditary rulers, which meant that the son or daughter of the monarch would be the next ruler. [3] As many believed the monarchs to be a “representative of God”, they did not question the orders of their rulers. But this unlimited power of the monarchs soon led to abuse. Under King Louis XIV reign all monarchs could have anyone arrested and imprisoned by the Letter de Cachet. The monarchs did not care for their subjects as even the innocent could be arrested and imprisoned at any time. This caused anxiety, panic and fear in France.

King Louis XIV reigned from 1643 to 1713. [4] After his death, his great-grandson, King Louis XV became king at the age of five. Both his parents and brother had passed away in 1712, and a regent, Philippe II, was appointed who would govern till he came of age. [5] When King Louis XV finally took the throne, he was a lazy leader who lacked self-confidence and spent more time with his mistresses than with the affairs of state. [6] His national policies never had firm direction. He became known as the “butterfly monarch”. [7] His involvement in the Seven Years War (1756 – 1763) drained France’s treasury. [8] While the country was bankrupt and many citizens were impoverished, taxes were generated to sustain a large army. [9] King Louis XV contributed to France’s bankruptcy due to overspending on his luxurious lifestyle and wars. [10]

The next leader, Louis XVI (1774 – 1793) reign also set the stage for a revolution. King Louis XVI is remembered as a simple man, but his wife Marie Antoinette lived in the lap of luxury. [11] Louis XVI inherited the kingdom and all the debt of France when he became king. He failed to fix the financial situation. The expensive upkeep of his palace and the unnecessary spending of Marie Antoinette angered the French population. Especially as the tax system excluded nobility from paying tax, while the poor paid for the royals’ luxurious lifestyles. By 1786 Charles de Calonne, the general of finances, warned against raising taxes of the poor as it could lead to unrest. [12] As King Louis XVI did not want to tax nobility, De Calonne had to approach European Banks for loans. [13] While King Louis was unable to fix France’s financial situation, his wife continued with her extravagant lifestyle. Marie-Antoinette’s never-minded response to the poor suffering is mostly reflected in the quote: “Let them eat cake”. [14]   Even though no evidence could be found that she truly said it, the famous quote does portray the monarchy’s attitude. While many were starving, the monarchy turned a blind eye. This quote shows how oblivious they were to the suffering of their people.

The defective administration of generations of monarchs set the stage for a French revolution. The poor were no longer willing to pay for the monarchy’s extravagant lifestyles and unwise foreign policies. People were starting to revolt against the idea of “divine rule” and started to question the authority and wisdom of their monarchs.

Social Causes:

The second cause of the French revolution was based on the social structure of France. French society was based on the relics of feudalism, which divided the French population in to three classes based on the Estate System. [15]   According to the Estate System, people’s status and rights were determined by the estate they owned. [16] The three estates included the clergy, the nobility and the peasants.

The first estate consisted of the clergy, which was subdivided into two groups, the upper and lower clergy. The higher clergy were at the top of the hierarchy in French society, while the lower clergy were impoverished. The higher clergy lived extravagantly, exploiting people and exempt from paying taxes. [17] While the lower clergy was also employed as workers of the church, monasteries and educational institutions, but not in high positions such as the higher clergy. [18]

The second estate consisted of the nobility, which included two groups, namely the court nobles and the provincial nobles. [19] They were also exempt from paying taxes. However, the provincial nobles actually cared for the people, while the court nobles only focused on leading scandalously wealthy lives. [20]

The third estate consisted of the peasants, which included the sweepers, farmers and cobblers. [21] They were the lowest classes in French society, who were forced to pay taxes to sustain the luxuriously living of the first and second estate.

But besides the unequal taxing given to the third estate, they were also unequally represented in court. The third estate represented 98% of the French population, yet they were outvoted by the first two estates. The third estate fought against this unequal representation and began to mobilize support for abolishing the noble veto. This meant that votes would be counted by the amount of people in favor or against a law, rather than nobles dictating laws. This led to opposition from the first two estates, who wanted to remain in control.

To fight against the current voting system, the Third Estate met on 17 June 1789 alone to change the title of National Assembly. [22] Three days later, they met at an indoor tennis court and undertook the Tennis Court Oath, declaring that would not end their fight until they achieved judicial, fiscal and governmental reform. [23] On 27 June, after 47 liberal nobles joined the Third Estate’s cause, Louis XVI accepted all three orders into a new assembly.

The rise of the third estate against the Estate System and unequal representation due to the class structure also gave rise to the French Revolution. The poor were angered to pay for the luxurious lifestyles of first and second estate. They were also tired of having 2% of the population veto all their rights and having inequal representation in court even though they made up 98% of French society.

Economic Causes

Another cause of the French revolution was the economic conditions of France. King Louis XIV “Seven Years War” left France bankrupt. His foreign policies led to expensive foreign wars, which emptied the coffers of the royal treasury. After his death, he was succeeded by Louis XVI. But as previously shown, even though the king was simple, his wife continued with frivolous spending. King Louis XVI also refused to listen to the economic counsel given to him, which led to necessary economic changes being ignored.

Firstly, when Louis XVI took the throne, Turgot was appointed Minister of Finance in 1774. Turgot’s first duty was to rid France of their debt. [24] He came up with a solution to appease the peasants and fix France’s financial situation by minimizing spending of the royal court and imposing taxes on all three estates. [25] However, Turgot’s solution was dismissed after Marie Antoinette intervened. Turgot was fired and Necker was appointed as the new Finance Minister in 1776. Necker remained King Louis XVI Finance Minister for seven years. [26] During his time he published a report of the income and expenses of the government, to appease the French population. [27] But in 1783, he was also fired. Finally, Calonne was appointed Minister of Finance in 1783. Calonne advised the king to improve France’s financial situation by approaching European banks for a loan. [28] The European banks were not keen to lend money to France, but Calonne was able to obtain a loan. Calonne’s solution proved problematic. When France finally did receive a loan, their debt doubled within three years from 300, 000, 000 to 600, 000, 000. [29] Thereafter, Calonne realized that his solution was not feasible and urged the king to impose taxes on all three classes. Finally, Calonne was also dismissed.

King Louis XVI economic decisions finally set the stage for the revolution. The monarchy refused to impose taxes on all three estates, while the royals continued living in a lap of luxury. These decisions created economic instability in France. The peasants were angered, as while they were starving, they had to maintain the standard of living for the rich. Therefore, the economic conditions in France was one of the main reasons for the revolution.

Ultimately, there was three main reasons for the French Revolution. The Estate System, economic policies and autocratic monarchy gave rise to a bloody revolution, which led to the need for equality, liberty and fraternity in France. 

Essay 2:  What is the Legacy of the French Revolution of 1789 or What were the consequences of the French Revolution? 

Tip:  If there is a term that is unfamiliar to you, please check out our French Revolution Glossary some definitions.

The Bloody French Revolution officially began when hundreds of French city workers stormed the Bastille fortress in Paris in 1789. [30]   Although the revolution came to an end in the late 1790’s, its legacy (or consequences) had a significant impact on the World, especially other European countries.  This statement will be examined by discussing various political and socio-economic legacies of the French Revolution of 1789, while discussing how the idea of the possibility that popular mobilization can overthrow established monarchies and aristocracies rose from the French Revolution of 1789.

Political Legacies:

When discussing the legacy of the French Revolution, it is important to understand the causes of the revolution as it gives one a better understanding of the desired outcomes.  For example, one of the main causes was that French citizens who belonged to the Third Estate . grew significantly tired of the absolute power and wealth of the French monarchy and wanted a political system that represented the popular interests.  Consequently, one of the direct consequences of the revolution was that France became a Republic; which indicated a step towards liberty, equality and democracy. [31]   This need for liberty and equality spread to many other countries and especially to countries in central Europe, where popular protest  and movements called for the election of parliaments and to ultimately demolish the feudalistic-approach of European life. [32]

As briefly mentioned, the French Revolution of 1789 demonstrated that an organized group of popular protest and mutual interests could demolish something as established as old monarchies and aristocracies. [33]   This idea significantly led to the revolution of the slaves of Saint-Domingue, a French Colony on one of the Caribbean Islands, who mobilized themselves for the fight for their independence. [34]   In 1804 this movement was able to finally break free from French colonial rule and establish the Republic of Haiti.

Socio-Economic Legacies:

When discussing the political movements that were influenced by the French Revolution, it is also important to discuss the Socio-Economic legacies that were influenced by the changes in the political environments.  For example, the fall of the monarchy also meant that the French system of estates (based on Feudalism) also crumbled.  This meant that the French middle class were able to gain better opportunities through acquiring more land (as the Church’s lands were nationalized) and having to pay less taxes (as they did not have to pay Feudal taxes anymore). [35]   Furthermore, the elite classes (such as the nobles and corrupt clergy) lost most of their power and privileges.  Therefore, it is evident that the revolution led to a significant change in the political, social and economic structures of France.

Growth of Nationalism

With the middle class and “peasants” (in this context, French farmers) gaining more opportunities and a better standard of living and the decline of Feudalism, as well as the loss of extreme privileges of the clergy and nobleman, a need for the growth in Nationalistic sentiments continued.  Consequently, instead of the protection provided by the Feudalistic-structure , a French army was established. [36] Other examples of the lasting spread of French Nationalism, is the change of France’s flag (the Tricolore), the National anthem (the Marseillaise) and the creation of France’s National Day (Bastille Day). [37]   The legacy of French Nationalism out of the French Revolution still exists today.

Conclusion:

When discussing the causes and outcomes of the French Revolution of 1789, it evident that the outcomes of the revolution had a lasting impact on the French political, social and economic way of life.  As seen in the examples of the changing social structures, the change in the tax system and finally the strong rise in French Nationalism.  It is also important to note the legacy created by the ideology of the French Revolution and its effect on many European countries.  For example, as seen in the growth of the Jacobin movements.  One of the most significant phenomena surrounding the French Revolution of 1789 and its legacy, is that the world was able to witness how people were able to organize themselves to fight for National interest and take down century old ways of life.  This ultimately led to the legacy and the birth of the idea of the possibility of differing political ideologies. [38]

Tips & Notes:

• Check out our Essay Writing Skills  for more tips on writing essays.
• Remember, this is just an example essay.  You still need to use the work provided by your teacher or learned in class.
• It is important to check in with your teacher and make sure this meets his/her requirements.  For example, they might prefer that you do not use headings in your essay.

This content was originally produced for the SAHO classroom by Ilse Brookes, Amber Fox-Martin & Simone van der Colff

[1] Author Unknown, “French Revolution”, History, (Uploaded: 9 November 2009), (Accessed: 29 April 2020), Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

[2] Author Unknown, “France Before the Revolution”, History Crunch, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 29 April 2020), Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

[3] Author Unknown, “France Before the Revolution”, History Crunch, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 29 April 2020), Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

[4] Author Unknown, “Louis XV”, Encyclopedia Britannica, (Uploaded: 11 February 2020), (Accessed 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-XV

[7] V. Rana, “Causes of the French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes’, History Discussion, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.historydiscussion.net/world-history/french-revolution/causes-of-french-revolution-political-social-and-economic-causes/1881

[8] Author Unknown, “The French Revolution (1789 – 1799)”, Sparknotes, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/section1/

[10] V. Rana, “Causes of the French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes’, History Discussion, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.historydiscussion.net/world-history/french-revolution/causes-of-french-revolution-political-social-and-economic-causes/1881

[12] Author Unknown, “The French Revolution (1789 – 1799)”, Sparknotes, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/section1/

[14] J. M. Cunningham, “Did Marie-Antoinette really say “Let them eat Cake”?”, Encyclopedia Britannica, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them

[15] Author Unknown, “France Before the Revolution”, History Crunch, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 29 April 2020), Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

[17] V. Rana, “Causes of the French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes’, History Discussion, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.historydiscussion.net/world-history/french-revolution/causes-of-french-revolution-political-social-and-economic-causes/1881

[22] Author Unknown, “French Revolution”, History, (Uploaded: 9 November 2009), (Accessed: 29 April 2020), Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

[24] V. Rana, “Causes of the French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes’, History Discussion, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.historydiscussion.net/world-history/french-revolution/causes-of-french-revolution-political-social-and-economic-causes/1881

[28] Author Unknown, “The French Revolution (1789 – 1799)”, Sparknotes, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/section1/

[29] V. Rana, “Causes of the French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes’, History Discussion, (Uploaded: Unknown), (Accessed: 30 April 2020), Available at: https://www.historydiscussion.net/world-history/french-revolution/causes-of-french-revolution-political-social-and-economic-causes/1881

[30] South African History Online, (2011), “The French Revolution,” Grade 10 – Topic 3, South African History Online (online), Available at https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/grade-10-topic-3-french-revolution-0 (Accessed:  6 June 2020)

[31] J. Battaro & P. Visser & N. Worden, (2011), “Grade 10 Learner’s Book,” Oxford in Search of History.  Oxford University Press, South Africa.

[32] UKEssays, November 2018, “Legacies of the French Revolution,” UKEssays (online). Available at https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-major-legacies-of-the-frenc… (Accessed 5 June 2020).

[33] UKEssays, November 2018, “Legacies of the French Revolution,” UKEssays (online). Available at https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-major-legacies-of-the-frenc… (Accessed 5 June 2020).

[34] UKEssays, November 2018, “Legacies of the French Revolution,” UKEssays (online). Available at https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-major-legacies-of-the-frenc… (Accessed 5 June 2020).

[35] J. Battaro & P. Visser & N. Worden, (2011), “Grade 10 Learner’s Book,” Oxford in Search of History.  Oxford University Press, South Africa.

[36] J. Battaro & P. Visser & N. Worden, (2011), “Grade 10 Learner’s Book,” Oxford in Search of History.  Oxford University Press, South Africa.

[37] J. Battaro & P. Visser & N. Worden, (2011), “Grade 10 Learner’s Book,” Oxford in Search of History.  Oxford University Press, South Africa.

[38] UKEssays, November 2018, “Legacies of the French Revolution,” UKEssays (online). Available at https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-major-legacies-of-the-frenc… (Accessed 5 June 2020).

[1] Battaro, J. & Visser, P. & Worden, N., 2011, Oxford in Search of History:  Grade 10 Learner’s Book, Oxford University Press, South Africa.

[2] Goldstone, J.A. “A Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory”, Annual Reviews, (Vol. 4), 139 – 187. 

[2] Schwartz, M.  “History 151: The French Revolution: Causes, Outcomes, Confliction Interpretations”, (Accessed: 28 April 2020), Mount Holyoke Available at: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151s03/french_rev_causes_consequences.htm

[3] South African History Online, November 2011, “The French Revolution”, Grade 10 – Topic 10 (online).  Available at https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/grade-10-topic-3-french-revolution-0 (Accessed:  6 June 2020).

[4] Tulloch, S., Reader’s Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder: A Unique and Powerful Combination of Dictionary and Thesaurus, London: The Reader’s Digest Association Limited, date unknown. 

[5] UKEssays, November 2018, “Legacies of the French Revolution,” UKEssays (online). Available at https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-major-legacies-of-the-frenc… (Accessed 5 June 2020).

Return to topic: The French Revolution

Return to SAHO Home

Return to History Classroom

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history

What Caused the French Revolution? Essay

Introduction, causes of the french revolution, works cited.

The French revolution that took place in 1789-1799 was a period of political and social upheaval in France. However, the revolution did not only affect France alone but also the whole of Europe (Lefebvre 6). The revolution brought about the modern revolution- an idea of a plan that can transform the world. The revolution ushered in modernity after the collapse of the old regime that was characterized by legal inequality, feudal economy and absolutist politics.

The revolution began after a meeting of the Estates-Generals on 5 May 1989, which was attended by the Third Estates (merchants, peasants, professional men and artisans) representatives who felt uncomfortable with the old regime governance that exempted clergies and the rich from paying taxes. The meeting then changed its name to National Assembly after the nobles and clergies joined.

The main aim of this meeting was to give France a constitution that called for liberty, equality, and fraternity. After the King realized of the meeting he kicked them out of their usual meeting place (Lefebvre 8). On 20 June 1789, they changed their meeting venue to the Oath of Tennis Court.

The King further tried to remove them from the hall, which sparked out the revolution. On July 14, the revolution became radical after a mob stormed and captured the Bastille, the old royal prison in Paris. The radicals further spread from Paris to other districts in the country. In this paper, the focus is in support of John Locke’s statement that “if man’s rights are deprived the people affected have the right to overthrow the government and establish a new one.”

Royal Absolutism: In 18 th century, France had an absolute monarch that was applicable in both theory and practice. In reality, France rather than having a parliament had Estate General that was composed of members from each of the three estates (Cobban 3). This Estate General was semi-representative and ineffective as it last convened in 1641. France experienced a bloated bureaucratic administration from the government officials.

The bureaucracy overgrew and by 1750, it was very large, inefficient and corrupt. The officials had acquired properties illegally, bought and sold government offices for their own benefits. In addition, there was no unified system of law in France as every region had its parliament that determined the law. The French revolution implemented a single and unified system of law.

Finances: Lack of legislature made the French monarchy to have an overall control of the finances. The king managed the countries fiscal year and by 1789, the government of France was so bankrupt that it could not settle its debts.

In addition, the level of debts had increased in the past years due to the involvement of France in many wars in the late 17 th century and early 18 th century (Cobban 1946). Further, the exemption of a number of social groups from payment of taxes led to the government’s failure to raise enough finances. The rich, the clergy and the church, universities and the cities were exempted from paying taxes.

Enlightenment: During the 18 th century, the French society started awareness of the happenings in their nations. The third class that was paying taxes while the first and second did not, became aware of the inequality and the effects it had on them (Cobban 6).

In addition, the need for women to take part in elections and decision-making in the country also brought about the rise of revolution. Further, the realization of the third class that all men were born to be equal in paying taxes, enjoying equal rights, owning properties, and being elected to representatives contributed to the rise of the revolution.

The American Revolution : In 1775-1783, America experienced a revolution and the government of France sent its troops and navy to help the rebelling colonists. Its troops had contacts with the Americans, which is believed to be a source of exchange of revolutionary ideas.

These troops further spread the ideas to the French citizens after returning to France (Cobban 5). In addition, the formation of democratic republic in 1780s attracted attention of various writers who wrote about the America and predicted the trend to follow in European countries. Those who read the books became enlightened and preached the information of steady and inevitable progress of man’s intellectual nature and morals, which caused more tensions in France.

Food Scarcity: Years before the revolution, France experienced a harsh climate conditions that led to poor harvests (Cobban 5). This consequently led to the rise of hunger and high prices of bread in France. In addition, the government was unable to deal with the situation due to poor means of transport that hindered the transportation of food from rural areas with plenty foods to the hunger stricken and populated areas. This led to destabilization of the French Citizens, which eventually led to the revolution.

The causes of the French revolution were due to inefficiency of the old regime of governance of the French Monarchy. This made the monarchy to violate human rights and needs. To look for an alternative means for a government that would cater and have the concerns of the French society as the priority, the society had to kick out the old regime and form a new modern regime.

This gives support and concurs with John Locke statement “if man’s rights are deprived they have the right to overthrow the government and establish a new one.”

Cobban, Alfred. Historians and the Causes of French Revolution . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1946. Print

Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: From its Origin to 1793 . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 15). What Caused the French Revolution? https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-revolution/

"What Caused the French Revolution?" IvyPanda , 15 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-revolution/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'What Caused the French Revolution'. 15 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "What Caused the French Revolution?" March 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-revolution/.

1. IvyPanda . "What Caused the French Revolution?" March 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-revolution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "What Caused the French Revolution?" March 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-french-revolution/.

• Christian Clergies: Ethics and Integrity
• Modern Philosophers: Martin Luther, Erasmus, Leonardo Davinci and Thomas Biley
• Exempted From Paying Taxes: International Students Who Are Not Working
• Qualitative research: Data Analysis and Reporting Plan
• History: The French Declaration of 1789
• The French and Russian Revolutions of 1789 and 1917
• Western Civilization: The French Revolution 1789-99
• Revolution and Napoleon Between the 1789 and the 1815
• The Revolutions 1789-1815 and 1848
• French Revolution in World History
• History of the English Population During the 19th Century
• The Renaissance and Its Cultural, Political and Economic Influence
• The Rise of Democracy
• Article Summary and Critique
• English Imperialism in the Caribbean and Africa

Home — Essay Samples — History — French Revolution — The Main Causes Of The French Revolution

The Main Causes of The French Revolution

• Categories: French Revolution Middle Ages

About this sample

Words: 1050 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1050 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Works Cited

• Doyle, W. (1989). The origins of the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Godechot, J. (1971). France and the Atlantic revolution of the eighteenth century, 1770-1799. New York: Free Press.
• Hampson, N. (1988). The French Revolution: A concise history. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Hunt, L. (1984). Politics, culture, and class in the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Lefebvre, G. (1962). The coming of the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• McPhee, P. (2015). The French Revolution, 1789–1799. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Palmer, R. R. (1959). The age of democratic revolution: A political history of Europe and America, 1760–1800. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schama, S. (1989). Citizens: A chronicle of the French Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Soboul, A. (1975). The French Revolution, 1787–1799: From the storming of the Bastille to Napoleon. New York: Random House.
• Tackett, T. (1996). Becoming a revolutionary: The deputies of the French National Assembly and the emergence of a revolutionary culture (1789-1790). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 648 words

5 pages / 2116 words

2 pages / 696 words

1 pages / 606 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on French Revolution

The French Revolution, an epochal event that reshaped not only the course of French history but also the global political landscape, was ignited by a multifaceted interplay of political, social, and economic factors. To grasp [...]

The American and French Revolutions were two significant events in world history that led to the establishment of new political and social systems. While both were revolutions against the existing political authority, they had [...]

The French Revolution and the American Revolution are two pivotal events in history that have shaped the modern world in profound ways. While both revolutions were fueled by a desire for liberty and equality, they differed in [...]

The American and French Revolutions are two pivotal events in world history that have shaped the modern political landscape. Both revolutions were fueled by a desire for freedom, equality, and democracy, but they unfolded in [...]

There are many similarities and differences between the American and the French Revolutions. The American Revolution started because Great Britain put taxes on America and they were trying to break free from that. Great Britain [...]

h3>1. How do you think Louis XVI’s qualities as a leader led to the French Revolution?Louis did not know how to lead the general population effectively, and the general population discussed knew this. Louis had never needed to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with JSH?
• About Journal of Social History
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

Intellectual History and the Causes of the French Revolution

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jack R Censer, Intellectual History and the Causes of the French Revolution, Journal of Social History , Volume 52, Issue 3, Spring 2019, Pages 545–554, https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shy082

• Permissions Icon Permissions

From the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, historians, politicians, and even the interested public believed radical ideas to be at the bottom of this upheaval. Upstaged by social explanations, particularly in the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, intellectual accounts have regained prominence, as recent scholarship has reiterated that ideas mattered. But what ideas? This essay focuses on those ideas that became evident at and around the outbreak of the revolution in 1788–89. For this period, a new wave of scholarship emphasizes not the idea of equality but rather historic rights and patriotism. In these accounts, Enlightenment notions of natural law provided the central justification for radicalizing the revolution as the decade proceeded. Beyond patriotism and rights, this essay also examines other competing discourses, especially those that challenged the church.

Many histories of the French Revolution, beginning with those written in the era itself, assumed, almost axiomatically, that the ideas of the philosophes had caused the “coming” of the event. 1 As social and other historians undermined that theory, intellectual historians moved in new directions, particularly toward the social history of ideas. Most visibly, in the 1960s, Robert Darnton and François Furet showed how subversive (even if not actually revolutionary) ideas had seeped into political culture through pornography and porous state borders. 2 Jürgen Habermas enlarged this vision by arguing that a “public sphere” had emerged in France that allowed subversive ideas and practices in various milieus, such as Freemasonry, the growing periodical press, and learned societies. 3 Still, few scholars claimed a direct link between these ideas and revolution.

Nonetheless, scholarly interest in ideas radically sharpened after the publication of François Furet’s Penser la revolution française in 1978, which opened up a new approach to intellectual history. 4 The first half of the book lambasted the Marxist explanation for the Revolution, which Furet labeled a “catechism” with class struggle at its absolute, immutable center. The twentieth-century Marxists who advocated this view saw themselves as the obvious heirs to the founding of the French republic, but Furet dismissed the Marxist interpretation as sheer fabrication.

Having pushed aside class conflict as the Revolution’s central dynamic, Furet succinctly posited his own theory that even before 1789 the monarchy was toothless. Into that power vacuum, sailed Rousseau’s Social Contract , a tract so powerful that its message eclipsed other ideologies and installed a potent logic—the absolute dominance of popular sovereignty. Yet, activating popular sovereignty required an advocate, an individual who could claim to embody the people’s will. Robespierre filled this role admirably, but he also created the potential for individual tyranny far more potent than that of a king whose authority was inherent in his body but surely did not represent the France of millions of people. From this fatal flaw eventually followed the Committee of Public Safety and the Terror. Furet’s theory was novel: by reducing the Revolution to the Terror, and blaming all of it on the logic of popular sovereignty derived from Rousseau, he tied the philosophe directly to the Revolution. Furet’s approach, drawn sharply to make a criticism of the Revolution as well as a scholarly point, was more specific than those that more generally connected the Enlightenment to the Revolution.

Although Furet’s interpretation did much to supplant Marxist and more traditional intellectual interpretations, it was criticized by scholars who contended that Rousseau’s fame had sprung far more from his sentimental writings than from the Social Contract . More recently, however, some scholars have resuscitated Rousseau’s influence. 5 Nonetheless, Furet provided no explanation for the revolutionaries’ acceptance of Rousseauian ideas other than the political vacuum and the rigorous logic springing from Rousseau’s belief that equality had no limits. How could these specific ideas hijack the mindset of a population?

Keith Baker articulated a parallel but different explanation for the acceptance of revolutionary ideology. 6 He put forth the abstract concept that every individual lives in an environment with discourses—ideational resources—that compete for attention. Facing these choices, people rather unconsciously pick and assemble notions that provide concrete solutions to material problems. In 1789, as governmental problems abounded, the elite—particularly dissatisfied elites—adopted three somewhat disparate discourses to frame their response. Baker labeled these three languages justice (opposition to despotism), reason (opposition to political views accepted because of their antiquity), and will (the right to implement enlightened concepts). The discourse of will approximated Furet’s notion of the role of equality and popular sovereignty. Yet Baker departed from Furet’s understanding of the way that ideology worked, adopting a more complex explanation for the creation of revolutionary ideology that included both chance and an alignment with material conditions. Nonetheless, Furet and Baker generally agreed on the important role of ideas or, more precisely, cultural change as a logic for revolution. 7

Continued work by Keith Baker, now collaborating with Dan Edelstein, remains highly visible, thanks in part to the impressive development of Stanford’s Digital Archive. 8 The architecture of the website springs from Edelstein’s and Baker’s priorities, which reflect their own understanding of the Revolution’s origins. Now, with a twenty-first century digital toolbox, Baker, Edelstein, and others at Stanford oversee technologists who are able to create algorithms that help scholars discover word associations, the building blocks for political discourse, on a far grander scale than what was possible even a few years ago. Still more important in extending their view of the power of ideas has been their new book Scripting Revolution , whose introduction confidently asserts that a revolution only assumes that form after being named a revolution. In practice, this theory implies that the French Revolution did not actually begin after the elections and the seizure of the Bastille in 1789 but instead only commenced later that year when Louis-Marie Prudhomme’s periodical Révolutions de Paris published a contemporary history of the events that labeled them revolutionary. Although Baker’s essay on the eighteenth-century use of the term “revolution” indicated the necessity of naming or “scripting,” he asserted this stronger point after Pierre Rétat pointed out Prudhomme’s essay. But what Rétat had begun in a fairly obscure article (that Baker carefully acknowledged and credited), Baker emphatically embraced and applied to all subsequent revolutions. In short, events called for the label; then, the label “revolution” defined subsequent actions. 9

Despite the significant achievements of Furet and Baker in reconceptualizing the intellectual origins of the Revolution, a new paradigm—classical republicanism—has exerted significant influence since 2000, at least in the English-speaking wing of the field. Baker would hardly contest this, it seems to me, since the convergence between the newer notion and his own arguments is considerable. In fact, he and his former student Johnson Kent Wright have done much to introduce this perspective to explain the French Revolution. 10 What neither they nor anyone else has provided is a standard definition of classical republicanism. For the purposes of this essay, one might assert that the essence of the term lies in the Greek and Roman defense of virtue and personal liberty against an empire. In the eighteenth century, according to this view, resistance fell to the nobility, which, motivated by honor, defended a populace that was itself only motivated by interest and largely incapable of taking up this necessary battle.

The ascendance of classical republicanism in accounts of the events of 1788–89 has tended to relegate the emphasis on natural rights (that Baker links to the language of “will”) to the subsequent radicalization of the Revolution. But this relationship was never quite settled, as Rousseau’s Social Contract advocated both republicanism and natural rights. Furthermore, advocates of classical republicanism also had their eye on equality, although they conceived of it more as the ennobling of all rather than leveling. In short, the equality born of natural law was minimized in 1788–89. Equality had proved difficult to accommodate consistently, much less realize, in the early part of revolutionary struggle driven by classical republicanism. 11

Worth noting as an aside is the prescience of two of the canonical works from a previous generation of scholars. Peter Gay clearly recognized the philosophes’ interest in the ancients but focused on their views that castigated religion, while Robert R. Palmer’s “intermediate bodies” are congruent with the resistance of elites, though clearly he imagined a social elite wider than the nobility of classical republicanism. 12

Evidence for how broad has been the reach of classical republicanism as an explanation for revolution are two distinguished studies in the related fields of fiscal policy and the economy. John Shovlin’s book, The Political Economy of Virtue details the debates beginning in the 1740 s between those who favored “virtuous” small producers over the wealthier, parasitic echelons of society. 13 His study depicts a battle between producers on one side and financiers and the comfortable on the other. Contemporaries believed that luxury and profit were derived from the exploitation of honest workers. Shovlin follows this division through the decades of the eighteenth century; though positions evolved, the rich and the oppressed remained opposed. To be sure, the author sometimes resorts to fancy footwork, as some entrepreneurial activities dropped by the rich and adopted by the poor apparently change from despicable to honored simply by virtue of who performed the work. He praises profit well earned by the hands of the poor and attacks that when the rich become the recipients.

During the revolutionary crisis, Shovlin argues, the advocates for the peasantry and the workers seized the upper hand. Dealing with the deficit, their representatives came to believe that piecemeal reforms would not do and the problem at bottom was an excess of luxury. At the center of this attack was Mirabeau, who argued that “speculation creates a false wealth which undermines real sources of riches in agriculture and in commerce.” 14 Further, Shovlin states that patriotism had influenced and shaped how ordinary citizens understood political economy. Although the author seldom acknowledges the link between patriotism and classical republicanism, the rhetoric he uncovers fits neatly with the broader theory of classical republicanism. 15

In his valuable work Privilege and the Politics of Taxation in Eighteenth Century France , Michael Kwass analyzes the resistance to royal taxation that boiled over in the Old Regime and into the Revolution and directly points out the immediate relevance of classical republicanism to the debate. Kwass notes that the contemporary meaning of classical republicanism included a king and “representative bodies” that coexisted in a milieu where a “vigilant” mistrust of authority and hostility to finance were augmented by the embrace of an authentic rustic existence in which virtue reigned. Watchfulness was necessary, even though somewhat powerless against the encroachment of the sovereign. But Kwass believes that Mireabeau, in the long term struggle of this scenario, articulated in 1750–51 the possibility of coexistence. Morally, the king was obliged toward restraint. Royal taxation had produced crises; only an end to arbitrary rule and its replacement could be successful. 16

Decades later, according to Kwass, Jacques Necker mobilized a similar rhetoric. Brought into government to address the deficit, Necker appealed to patriotism rather than duty to the king, whom he advised to encourage public involvement. As Kwass notes: “By publicizing the working of the state . . . both patriotism and public opinion would emerge to guide the nation to reform, stability, and fiscal strength.” 17 Such remarks were more than just a rhetorical similarity to classical republicanism, as shown by a popular engraving, which linked the minister and his fiscal plan to antiquity. Hallmarks of this classical allusion are the cupids who crowned Necker and his policies with garlands. Central to the piece is a monument labeled as a pyramid, whose lettering indicated that taxes linked to the king were to be eliminated, replaced by charity, equity, and abundance. 18

Although classical republican ideals were thus supposed to inhabit the economy and fiscal policy, they were, compared to the rhetoric of the political sphere, limited at best. Jay M. Smith’s provocative Nobility Reimagined asserts that the revolutionaries desired but failed to construct a republic based on the antique values of honor and virtue. The study describes the nobles’ hostility to Louis XIV’s absolutism and their desire to base society on patriotism and political virtue. As Smith notes, the French were familiar with ancient authors such as Livy, Tacitus, and Plutarch and “the ‘civic humanism’ idiom that served as an important vehicle for transmitting the values of the ancient republics to the early modern Atlantic world.” 19 The embrace of antiquity fueled the pride of nobles but also reminded them of family heritage and their disproportionate political and economic power. This cauldron yielded a compensatory embrace of virtue.

According to Smith, an increased interest in adding equality to the mix of values emerged at mid-century. In particular, commerce, premised on equality in moral and physical goods, was widely considered valuable. The publication in 1756 of Gabriel-François Coyer’s La Noblesse commerçante , which elevated the dignity of the merchant’s profession, furthered change. The contemporary Pierre Jaubert claimed even more as he asserted that “virtue, valor, zeal for the patrie , probity, ability, talent, experience, scorn for dangers, the honor of becoming a martyr for one’s patrie . . . in short, personal merit, are always hereditary in families.” 20 Smith claimed that such attributes were intended to incorporate commoners into the elite. Antique republicanism was socially expansive. In fact, by the 1760 s, the French had turned to ennobling the nation.

Despite all of these signs of inclusivity, Smith also indicates that many nobles were uneasy with this change. With the Revolution opening the door to unimaginable equality, the nobles asserted their difference, particularly by refusing to double the number of commoner representatives to the Third Estate. This action gave rise to a bitter struggle that animated the Revolution. Despite the ultimate demolition of the ideal of classical republicanism in revolutionary France, the passions ignited in 1788–89 reveal its importance to contemporaries and its relevance to history.

The monarch’s multiple foreign policy failures, the subsistence crises of 1788–89, the credit crunch of the 1780s, and the institutional paralysis that undermined all royal efforts at reform would also need to be integrated into any comprehensive analysis of the causes of the Old Regime’s collapse in 1789. 21

Agreeing with Kwass, Smith argues that in the end, these events and discourses cannot be “easily separated.” 22 Thus, politics and circumstances led to a radical division in which the nobility and the king ended up as the opponents of republican morality. To judge by the work of Shovlin, Kwass, and Smith, the central role of ideas in the complex crises of the late 1780 s seems well established. These scholars have begun to connect classical republicanism to the actions taken during this key historical conjuncture.

Ushered by classical republicanism into a smaller space in the intellectual ferment, the role of natural law requires reevaluation. Scholars who focus on classical republicanism in the origins of the Revolution sometimes imply through offhand remarks that natural law exerted a major impact as the Revolution continued. More work needs to be done to chart natural law and connect it to revolutionary events. Historians’ use of these two separate logics undermines the fundamental coherence of revolutionary thinking and perhaps that of the Enlightenment itself. Whereas classical republicanism is premised on the historic resistance to central control, natural law focuses on human equality, yielding a contradiction—perhaps even a useful one—that still resonates throughout modern politics.

Largely outside the political maelstrom, other ideas flourished. Particularly impressive is the study by Darrin McMahon on the “counter enlightenment,” a group that absorbed some progressive notions. 23 Even more astonishing—as it certainly would have been to Voltaire—has been the work on the Catholic enlightenment. Important new books by Jeffrey Burson and Ulrich Lehner have revivified an effort whose roots lie in R. R. Palmer’s Catholics and Unbelievers , which illuminated the balance of tradition and change. 24 Also relevant in this vein are Alan Kors’s studies of the Catholic Church. In his earliest work on Baron d’Holbach, Kors focused on the loneliness of atheists. More recently, he produced two important books that unequivocally revealed that notions of atheism circulated far more widely than even he earlier imagined. In seeking to reject atheism, the Church amplified the reach of what it sought to repress. 25 A new book by Anton Matysin on scepticism and doubt takes a similar tack. 26 Nonetheless, John Robertson’s persuasive The Case for the Enlightenment concludes that the Enlightenment, linked as it was to critiquing religion, was fundamentally reformist. 27 Nevertheless, none of these books on religious doubt attempt to relate their subjects directly to the upheaval in 1789.

None of these recent approaches seems to have raised the importance of intellectuals to quite the level achieved in France’s sister rebellion in North America. Sophia Rosenfeld has chronicled how Tom Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense , highlighting the acuity and value of the thinking of the common man, galvanized public opinion and incited the North American Revolution. Scholars, including Rosenfeld herself, have found no similar impact on the French Revolution. In fact, counterrevolutionaries actually marshaled the notion of common sense to sway the people against the uprising. The complexity and abstractness of many revolutionary plans created an opportunity for reactionaries to argue that common sense did not embrace, or in fact even respect, revolutionary goals. 28

Nonetheless, scholars, including Jay Smith, have noted the pamphlet war preceding 1788–89, in which Sieyès’s What Is the Third Estate? was most visible. 29 William Sewell’s work on Sieyès and Kenneth Margerison’s on pamphlets more generally provide additional evidence for the importance of these texts. 30 Doubtless, these publications could prove to be the most promising place to link the various prerevolutionary languages to the revolutionary plans enacted in Versailles, Paris, and throughout the country, though little evidence exists that the rural population knew much of this exchange among propagandists. Nonetheless, this explosion of print may provide fertile ground to examine the role of ideas.

Entering the crowded arena regarding the intellectual origins of the French Revolution has been Jonathan Israel, who approaches the role of ideas by postulating a direct connection between individual Enlightenment thinkers and specific views that would compete in the Revolution. In this way, Israel is rehabilitating the older approach that focuses not on languages or presuppositions but on on individuals and the power of ideas. Although his work (five books totaling four thousand pages published from 2001 to 2014) could be useful, its combativeness, the overemphases of its argument, and its length all undercut that potential contribution. In fact, his corpus has inspired the most acrimonious debate on the intellectual history of the Revolution in recent years. Largely because of the prominence of this debate, Israel’s work has somewhat obscured the previous decades of more sober, though still contentious scholarship. For this reason, both its arguments and the reactions it has provoked thus require a brief review. 31

To pursue the connection between ideas and the Revolution, Israel sorted the philosophes into two camps. Beginning in the seventeenth century with Spinoza, whose theory denied the spiritual and insisted on atheism, Israel focuses on Spinoza’s belief in “monism,” which held that only one substance (material not spiritual) made up the universe. The philosopher opposed “deists” and others—very prominently Rousseau—who posited a creator who fashioned the universe. From this sharp division, Israel finds two separate logics. The deists, believing in God, held that little could be done to improve on his perfection; monists, holding all matter to be equal, averred that everyone could participate in making life better. In this analysis, the atheists become the source of the moderate, incremental revolution, while the religious appear as political fanatics and authors of the Terror.

Israel presents his thesis forcibly, and the rebuttals have shown similar intensity. Although Furet attacked the Marxists and offended others by insisting that the Jacobin dictatorship was the logical end of the Revolution, even that of 1789, Israel undertakes a far larger, even compulsive effort to organize the Revolution around his Manichaean notion and refute other interpretations.

A storm of criticism greeted Israel’s work. 32 Kent Wright, Carolina Armenteros, Keith Baker, and Harvey Chisick found much to criticize and little to praise in the book. Israel seemingly found it impossible to acknowledge any of their critiques, which he completely rejected. For an example, consider the interchange between Baker and Israel. As author of the iconic biography of Condorcet, Baker had noted that that philosophe did not even include Spinoza in his narrative of human progress. Such a challenge to Israel’s linkages led the latter to remark condescendingly that this could “conceivably” be right, but nonetheless, the two philosophes still strongly shared goals. 33

Possibly, Israel’s resistance to criticism accounts for even more critical reviews that followed, by highly distinguished scholars Lynn Hunt, Jeremy Popkin, and David Bell. 34 In his review, Bell remarked that “Israel, in some remarkably cavalier pages, treats . . . popular actions almost with annoyance. . . . He takes no interest in the common people’s culture.” Israel’s unwillingness to engage with the work of other scholars piqued Lynn Hunt who derided his one-sided accounts: “Israel’s palette is too black and white for . . . subtleties. He is always right, and so are his heroes.” 35

Despite all its faults, Israel’s work does suggest the value in plumbing the ideas of individual intellectual predecessors of the French Revolution. Though few will follow his precise path, a focus on the use of ideas, from the Greeks to the physiocrats, could help illuminate the intellectual history of the revolutionary maelstrom. With this narrower focus, scholars just might be able to supplement the interplay of discourses and embedded presuppositions by seeing ideas at work among intellectuals.

The author wishes to thank Jane Turner Censer and Gary Kates for their advice and assistance.

See, for example, Edmund Burke’s early assertions in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790; rept. ed., Garden City, NY, 1961), first published in 1790.

Over the last several decades, Robert Darnton and François Furet have published numerous works in this area. See especially, Robert Darnton, The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-revolutionary France (New York, 1995); and François Furet et al., Livre et société dans la France du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1965–70), 2 vols.

Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society , trans. Thomas Burger (Boston, MA, 1993). See also Ran Halévi, Les Loges maçonniques dans la France d’Ancien Régime: Aux origins de la sociabilité démocratique (Paris, 1984).

François Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution , trans. Elborg Forster (New York, 1981).

See for example, Carol Blum, Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue: The Language of Politics in the French Revolution (Ithaca, NY, 1986); and more recently, Dan Edelstein, The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, & the French Revolution (Chicago, 2010). See below for a discussion of Jonathan Israel’s work.

Keith Michael Baker, Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on French Political Culture in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1990).

For an even more poignant criticism of the role of ideas, consult Roger Chartier, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution , trans Lydia G. Cochrane (Princeton, NJ, 1991), 67–91. Chartier argues that “books” do not make revolutions; rather it is the cultural act of reading that possesses power.

The website can be found at: https://frda.stanford.edu .

Keith Michael Baker and Dan Edelstein, eds., Scripting Revolution: A Historical Approach to the Comparative Study of Revolution (Stanford, CA, 2015). See Rétat’s article, “Forme et discours d’un journal Révolutionnaire: Les Révolutions de Paris en 1789,” in Claude Labrosse, Pierre Rétat, and Henri Duranton, L’Instrument périodique: La function de la presse au XVIIIe siècle (Lyon, France, 1985), 139–66. One can see Baker’s use of the article in Scripting Revolution , 96–97. Baker was even more emphatic on this point in a discussion at a conference at Haifa University in 1989.

Keith Michael Baker, “A Script for a French Revolution: The Political Consciousness of the Abbé Mably,” in Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); and Johnson Kent Wright, A Classical Republican in Eighteenth-Century France: The Political Thought of Mably (Stanford, CA, 1997). See also Rachel Hammersley, The English Republican Tradition and Eighteenth-Century France: Between the Ancients and the Moderns (Manchester, England, 2010). For more on the mixture of natural law and the right to resist overweening monarchs in the Atlantic world, consult Jack R. Censer, Debating Modern Revolution: The Evolution of Revolutionary Ideas (London, 2016), 7–52.

Edelstein, The Terror of Natural Right .

Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation , 2 vols. (New York, 1967, 1969); and R. R. Palmer, The Age of Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800 , 2 vols. (Princeton, NJ, 1959, 1964).

John Shovlin, The Political Economy of Virtue: Luxury, Patriotism, and the Origins of the French Revolution (Ithaca, NY, 2006). Marisa Linton, The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France (New York, 2001); Andrew Jainchill, Reimagining Politics after the Terror: The Republican Origins of French Liberalism (Ithaca, NY, 2008).

Shovlin, The Political Economy , 171.

Henry C. Clark, Compass of Society: Commerce and Absolutism in Old Regime France (Lanham, MD, 2007) shows how resistance and accommodation limited at first the liberty of both producers and polity. However, it must be said that such values triumphed as the nineteenth century rolled along. In fact, James Livesey, Making Democracy in the French Revolution (Cambridge, MA, 2001) argues persuasively that already in the Directory (1795–99), both liberal economy and politics had revived, if only briefly before dominating in a later period.

Michael Kwass, Privilege and the Politics of Taxation in Eighteenth Century France: Liberté, Égalité, Fiscalité (Cambridge, 2000), 234–38.

Kwass, Privilege and the Politics of Taxation , 251.

Kwass, Privilege and the Politics of Taxation , 245.

Jay M. Smith, Nobility Reimagined: The Patriotic Nation in Eighteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY, 2005), 32.

Smith, Nobility Reimagined , 133.

Smith, Nobility Reimagined , 265.

Smith, Nobility Reimagined , 266.

Darrin M. McMahon, Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity (New York, 2001).

Jeffrey D. Burson, The Rise and Fall of Theological Enlightenment: Jean-Martin de Prades and Ideological Polarization in Eighteenth-Century France (South Bend, IN, 2010); Ulrich L. Lehner, The Catholic Enlightenment: The Forgotten History of a Global Movement (New York, 2016); and R. R. Palmer, Catholics and Unbelievers in 18th Century France (Princeton, NJ, 1939).

Alan Charles Kors, D’Holbach’s Coterie: An Enlightenment in Paris (Princeton, 1976); Epicureans and Atheists in France, 1650–1729 (Cambridge, 2016); and Naturalism and Unbelief in France, 1650–1729 (Cambridge, 2016).

Anton M. Matysin, The Specter of Skepticism in the Age of Enlightenment (Baltimore, MD, 2016).

John Robertson, The Case for the Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples, 1680–1760 (Cambridge, 2005). In fact, in his The Enlightenment: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2015), 116, Robertson goes farther to note that “the Revolution was the antithesis of Enlightenment.”

Sophia Rosenfeld, Common Sense: A Political History (Cambridge, MA, 2011).

Smith, Nobility Reimagined , 255–57. Of course, Peter Gay found group solidarity in the eighteenth-century philosophes in his The Party of Humanity: Essays in the French Enlightenment (New York, 1964).

William H. Sewell, Jr., A Rhetoric of Bourgeois Revolution: The Abbé Sieyes and What Is the Third Estate? (Durham, NC, 1994); and Kenneth Margerison, Pamphlets & Public Opinion: The Campaign for a Union of Orders in the Early French Revolution (West Lafayette, IN, 1998).

Jonathan I. Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford, 2001); Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670–1752 (Oxford, 2006); A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy (Princeton, 2010); Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750–1790 (Oxford, 2011); and Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from The Rights of Man to Robespierre (Princeton, 2014).

H-France Forum 9, no. 1 (Winter 2014).

H-France Forum 9, no. 1, 80.

This paragraph is based on the following reviews and responses: David A. Bell, “A Very Different French Revolution,” New York Review of Books (July 10, 2014); Jonathan Israel, “The French Revolution: An Exchange,” New York Review of Books , October 10, 2014; Lynn Hunt, “Louis XVI Wasn’t Killed by Ideas,” New Republic , June 27, 2014; Jonathan Israel and Lynn Hunt, “Was Louis XVI Overthrown by Ideas?” New Republic , July 31, 2014; Jeremy D. Popkin, “Review of Jonathan Israel, Revolutionary Ideas,” H-France Review 15, no. 66 (May 2015); Jonathan Israel, “Response to Jeremy Popkin’s Review, H-France Review 15, no. 67 (May 2015).

Bell, “A Very Different French Revolution,” 2; Hunt, “Louis XVI,” 8.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1527-1897
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

French Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

What led to the french revolution.

At the close of the 18 th century, France had been long involved in the American Revolution and the extravagant spending of King Louis XVI led France to bankruptcy. Additionally, the common people of France were caught in a vicious cycle of poor harvest, cattle disease, and the increasing prices of bread. This led to widespread discontent and made the people revolt against the monarchy.

Prominent Events of the French Revolution

The entire period of the French Revolution saw several events. Some of the prominent ones include:

Rise of the Third Estate

The population of France had been changing for a long time and non-aristocratic members formed a major part of the Third Estate. However, the Third Estate was not provided equivalent powers and by 1798 began to mobilize for equal representation and wanted voting by head and not by status. The nobles were, however, not ready to part with their privileges and powers.

Tennis Court Oath

With increasing hostility between the three orders about the voting rights of the Third Estate, the title of the National Assembly was adopted by it at an indoor tennis court and took the Tennis Court Oath vowing not to disperse until constitutional reform had been achieved.

The Bastille and Great Fear

As the National Assembly continued its work, violence and fear had consumed the capital city. The rumors of an impending military coup further put the people of Paris in fear. Many rioters marched into the Bastille fortress to collect gunpowder and weapons and this is what marked the beginning of the French Revolution. The revolutionary fear spread far and wide and peasants looted and burned homes of tax collectors and landlords who had exploited them. This agrarian revolt is termed as Great Fear and led the National Assembly to abolish feudalism in August 1789.

Declaration of Rights

The National Assembly adopted the Declaration of Rights of Man and of the citizen in August 1789. The declaration proclaimed to replace the ancient regime with a system based on equal opportunities, freedom of speech, popular sovereignty, and representative government.

Reign of Terror

During the French Revolution, the period marred with a lot of violence was known as the Reign of Terror. It was during this period that the revolution turned radical and King Louis XVI was sent to death from treason.

Violence during the French Revolution

End of the French Revolution

In 1795, the National Convention created the first bicameral legislature of France. The executive power was given to the five-member Directory. However, the members of the Directory were involved in corruption, inefficiency as well as the financial crisis. By the 1790s, most of the members of the Directory had ceded much of their power to the military generals. In 1799, frustrated with the leadership, Napoleon Bonaparte staged a coup and abolished the Directory, and appointed himself as France’s “first consul.” This led to the end of the French Revolution.

Important Notes

• French Revolution was started to bring about political changes in France.
• The revolution aimed to create a free and sovereign France.
• There were several important events during the French Revolution that were marred by violence and revolts by peasants.

The revolution came to an end with the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Related Posts

Satyagraha Movement: Essay & Important Notes

“Causes of Industrial Revolution” Essay

Narmada Bachao Andolan: Essay and Important Notes

The Idea of Satyagraha

American Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

Industrial Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

Add comment cancel reply.

Causes of French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes

Causes of French Revolution: Political, Social and Economic Causes!

The three main causes of French revolution are as follows: 1. Political Cause 2. Social Cause 3. Economic Cause.

1. Political Cause:

During the eighteen the Century France was the centre of autocratic monarchy. The French Monarchs had unlimited power and they declared themselves as the “Representative of God”.

Image Source: 2.bp.blogspot.com/_8uW1gTbUKfs/TRarqf5sauI/AAAAAAAAAWE/atK90o6ZfTk/s1600/French-Revolution-Logo-FINAL.jpg

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Louis XIV was the exponent of this view. The French Monarchs engaged themselves in luxurious and extravagance at the royal court of Versailles. They enjoyed unlimited power. By the Letter de Catchet, they arrested any person at any time and imprisoned them. They paid no attention towards their subjects.

Louis XIV (1643-1715) of the Bourbon Dynasty was a powerful monarch. He was an efficient, hard-working and confident ruler. He participated in many wars. Louis XIV’s concept of unlimited royal power is revealed by his famous remarks, “I am the State”.

Louis XV (1715-1774) succeeded Louix XIV He was a ‘butterfly monarch’. His defective foreign policy weakened the economic condition of France. Louis XV fought the Seven Years War against England which brought nothing for France. France became bankrupt due to over expenditure in wars and luxury. He realised it later on. Before his death he cried-‘After me the Deluge’.

After Louis XV, Louis XVI (1774-1793) ascended the throne of France. During that period, the economic condition of France became weak. Louis XVI was an innocent and simple man. But he was influenced by his queen Marie Antoinette who always interfered in the state affairs.

Out of frustration he uttered-“Oh! What a burden of mine and they have taught me nothing.” Marie Antoinette was the daughter of Marie Theresa, the Austrian Empress. She always felt proud as she was the daughter of Austrain Empress. She always enjoyed luxurious and extravagant life. She sowed seed of the French Revolution. Thus, the autrocratic monarchy, defective administration, extravagant expenditure formed the political cause of the French Revolution.

2. Social Cause:

The Social condition of France during the eighteenth century was very miserable. The then French Society was divided into three classes— the Clergy, Nobles and Common People.

The Clergy belonged to the First Estate. The Clergy was sub­divided into two groups i.e. the higher clergy and the lower clergy. The higher clergy occupied the top position in the society. They managed the churches, monasteries and educational institutions of France. They did not pay any tax to the monarch.

They exploited the common people in various ways. The higher clergy lived in the midst of scandalous luxury and extravagance. The common people had a strong hatred towards the higher clergy. On the other hand, the lower clergy served the people in true sense of the term and they lived a very miserable life.

The Nobility was regarded as the Second Estate in the French Society. They also did not pay any tax to the king. The Nobility was also sub divided into two groups-the Court nobles and the provincial nobles. The court nobles lived in pomp and luxury. They did not pay any heed towards the problems of the common people of their areas.

On the other hand, the provincial nobles paid their attention towards the problems of the people. But they did not enjoy the same privileges as the Court nobles enjoyed. The Third Estate formed a heterogenous class. The farmers, cobblers, sweepers and other lower classes belonged to this class. The condition of the farmers was very miserable.

They paid the taxes like Taille, Tithe and Gable. Inspite of this, the clergies and the nobles employed them in their fields in curve. The Bourgeoisie formed the top most group of the Third Estate. The doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, writers and philosophers belonged to this class. They had the wealth and social status. But the French Monarch, influenced by the clergies and nobles, ranked them as the Third Estate.

So they influenced the people for revolution. They aroused the common people about their rights. Thus, the common people became rebellious. The lower Clergies and the provincial nobles also joined their hands with the common people along with the bourgeoisie. So the French Revolution is also known as the ‘Bourgeoisie Revolution’.

3. Economic Cause:

The economic condition of France formed another cause for the outbreak of the French Revolution. The economic condition of France became poor due to the foreign wars of Louis XIV, the seven years War of Louis XV and other expensive wars. During the reign period of Louis XVI, the royal treasury became empty as extravagant expenses of his queen Marie Antoinette.

To get rid of this condition. Louis XVI appointed Turgot as his Finance Minister in 1774. Turgot tried to minimise the expenditure of the royal court. He also advised the king to impose taxes on every classes of the society. But due to the interference of Queen Marie Antoinette, Louis XVI dismissed Turgot.

Then Necker was appointed as the Finance Minister in 1776. He published a report on the income and expenditure of the State in order to arouse the people. But he was also dismissed by the king.

The next person who was appointed by the King as the Finance Minister of France in 1783 was Callone. He adapted the policy of borrowing in order to meet the expenditure of the royal court. But due to this policy, the national debt of France increased from 300,000,000 to 600,000,000 Franks only in three years.

Then Callone proposed to impose taxes on all the classes. But he was dismissed by the king. In this situation, the king at last summoned the States General. The economic instability formed one of the most important causes of the French Revolution.

Related Articles:

• French Revolution: Influence, Causes and Course of the Revolution
• Coalitions: First, Second, Third and Fourth Coalition | French Revolution
• The Causes of French Revolution
• 6 Great Personalities of the French Revolution

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

French Revolution Essay - History