It has been long my intention, but I finally got around to writing about the most infamous of rebellions (arguably): the French Revolution. If you know your history of revolutions, then you know that they are almost never successful (at least not in the long-term). In fact, the only successful revolutions that I can think of right off the top of my head are the American, Haitian, Lutheran, Glorious, and Irish Revolutions. So, it goes without saying that the French revolution was not too successful. Why? Largely because of Napoleon.

That’s correct, I’ll also be covering Napoleon. This is one of my favorite parts of history to study because there is so much that comes together. This is not simply one section of history, but really many streams of historical events that finally come together into a few grand events.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the work of Jacques-Louis David for painting the Tennis Court Oath (though it is biased toward the revolutionaries) that is the cover of this book. And also, I would like to thank all the many, many resources that made this book possible, and I would like to give a special thank you to all the history teachers I have ever had (I never let go of those notes from class).

So, as always, I want to keep you, the reader, as interested in the topic as much possible, so I will try to write a more or less informal discourse by making jokes and commentary along the way. And, of course, I shall try to cover this topic as objectively as possible, as a historian should, at least until the final chapter of this book, where I shall finally insert my own opinion from a historical perspective on what I think of the French Revolution and whether or not it truly was as significant as it has often been played up to be. Until then, however, I hope you enjoy reading the next few chapters as much as I enjoyed writing them.

#nonfiction

#history

#frenchrevolution

The French Revolution, as most individuals are already aware, had no clear single cause. In fact, historians have been debating about which causes were the most significant since the event has taken place. The only thing that everyone can seem to agree on is this: there was certainly more than one cause for the French Revolution, and some of them had more of a profound impact than others. So, before I dive into that, a little bit of contextualization about France and the rest of the world around this time period…

France, under the rule of King Louis XIII (1601-1643), had fought valiantly in the later half of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which many historians argue (myself included) was the deadliest event in human history (in terms of the global population relative to the time period). (You can view a post of mine on this topic here: https://theprose.com/post/369353/the-deadliest-event-in-human-history-the-thirty-years-war). Now, while no side technically won this conflict, France actually gained some land, and so arguably came out a little bit further on top than most any other participating nation. That being noted, France was more or less riding a small wave of power stemming from this great conflict.

But then things began to rapidly change. Ideologically speaking, France was actually doing great. For instance, with the onset of the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, the country actually had many philosophical minds within its borders. For instance, there was Montesquieu (1689-1755), Blaise Pascal(1623-1662), and of course, my all-time favorite, Voltaire (1694-1778). In fact, King Louis XIV (1638-1715) was so impressed by the potential that scientific advancements had for bettering the nation of France, that he oversaw the creation of the French Royal Academy of Sciences (est. 1666), which, conversely to England’s similar English Royal Society (est. 1660), actually paid its members and heavily encouraged them to explore various fields of science.

However, while France was an important center of scientific and philosophical thought during the pre-Revolutionary times, it was rapidly degrading in many other respects. For instance, King Louis XIV was actually only four years old when he inherited the French throne. That meant that the burden of ruling France fell to his cardinal, Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661). This individual, I must admit, did a fair job at ruling the nation. He managed to crush both “Fronde” Revolts and personally educated the king, and in short, King Louis XIV would inherit a relatively-stable nation when his cardinal died and he was finally old enough to rule.

However, as soon as King Louis XIV came to rule, things started to fall apart (and mostly because of the actions of this very powerful king). For one, France had been religiously tolerant of Catholics and Protestant Huguenots since the Henry IV’s (1553-1610) Edict of Nantes in 1598 (here is an article of mine about the Protestant Reformation that may shed some more insight into that: https://theprose.com/post/385550/the-protestant-reformation). However, Louis XIV was strictly Catholic, and thus sought to repeal this important edict. He did so in 1685, with the Edict of Fontainebleau, which repealed the former act. Thus, France had been reverted back to a Catholic-favoring country, despite having a very large Protestant Huguenot population.

Of course, as one can imagine, this deeply upset many of France’s population. And King Louis XIV had to make things even worse by spending money as if the nation had an endless supply of it. For instance, he oversaw the modifications of a family hunting lodge in (freezing-cold) Versailles into the Palace of Versailles. This highly-ambitious architectural project, begun in 1679, was headed by a very masterful architect by the name of Jules Hardouin-Mansart (1646-1708).

I must admit: the Palace of Versailles is one of the most impressive structures that has ever been build in recent history, in my opinion. There is, of course, the grand Hall of Mirrors, for instance, and the many gardens, as well. It was a place for nobles and leaders all over the world to gather for festivities and talk politics. However, this project was exceedingly expensive. Some parts of the palace are literally made out of pure gold, and even the palace gates are gold-plated and ornately carved in many places.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), the French Comptroller General of Finances at the time, tried frantically to divert funds and rearrange national economics to prevent the capitol of France from being seriously financially wounded by the construction of the Palace of Versailles. Outside of that, Colbert had some rather controversial economic strategies. In fact, many today blame his trade war for causing the Dutch Conflict of 1672-1678.

However, even Colbert’s best efforts couldn’t have protected France from the debt that was procured during the Wars of King Louis XIV (1662-1702). These wars were waged by the French king in attempts to gain menial bits of power and ground (in most cases). While there are too many conflicts for me to go into, there were some rather notable French adversaries throughout the era, including Holland, the League of Augsburg (Nine Years’ War), and even Spain (in fact, the War of Spanish Succession is still today categorized as one of the most deadly conflicts in history, population adjusted).

By the end of the “sun king’s” rule, France was becoming swamped with debt, and it was not appearing as if there would be any financial relief coming anytime soon. While Louis XIV’s endeavors were controversial to say the least, he may have had some regrets about his life, presumed by his last words to his son, Louis XV (1710-1774). In his recorded last statements, he seemed to beg his son not to follow his war-waging and ruthless path.

Well, Louis XV did not really listen. In fact, he was very much like his father in many respects. His chief mistress, Madame de Pompadour, heavily influenced his ruling decisions. Unfortunately, neither of these individuals were very skilled at governing a nation, and as a result France sank deeper and deeper into debt. Also, Louis XV was also a horrible father to his son, Louis XV, and a pretty cruel and iron-fisted ruler in general. (In fact, the main reason why Louis XVI allowed mass cat-burnings in France was because his father, Louis XV, was a horrible father to him, but also loved cats. As soon as Louis XVI inherited the throne, he ordered all the palace felines to be killed, because they reminded him too much of his father’s cruelty).

Thus, following the rule of Louis XV, came Louis XVI (1754-1793). History tends to paint Louis XVI in a very poor light, but in an effort to consider both sides, I shall acknowledge that he actually did a great many very progressive things for France. For instance, Louis XVI brought back religious tolerance to France through the Edict of Versailles (1788), which allowed non-Catholics civil rights in France for the first time. He also abolished torture in extracting confessions, and tried his hardest to give the lower classes more representation in government. He abolished serfdom on royal land, and encouraged science and exploration. He abolished the labor tax, and even got rid of the death penalty for deserters of the military. On top of that, Louis XVI was known as a man of “simple” trade: he was fascinated with carpentry and woodwork. And lastly, he was supposedly a very kind king and human being in general.

You are probably thinking, “If King Louis XVI did so many great things, then why was a revolution raised against him?” Well, in all fairness, King Louis XVI was not the best at governing a country. In addition to this, the rulers of France had basically been passing down the pile of troubles and things that needed to be fixed from ruler to ruler, without actually addressing much of it. By the time it reached Louis XVI, there was nothing much he could have done, the mess of troubles had grown so large. In many respects, King Louis XVI was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was punished for that.

Marie Antoinette (1755-1793), similarly, was not the best at governing. In fact, she was more or less a stark opposite of her husband: while Louis XVI was into trades that were seen as the work of peasants, Antoinette enjoyed attending fancy balls and wearing expensive gowns and so forth (and, no, she never said “let them eat cake,” jeez!). In fact, once, Louis XVI worked very hard to construct a very decorative and high-quality spinning wheel for his wife on her birthday. But, of course, Antoinette saw the act of spinning one’s own clothing as a peasant’s job, so she soon gave it to one of her friends. However, it should not go without noting that many historians believe that Louis VXI and Marie Antoinette were both supposedly generally-kind individuals, though their union was technically a Franco-Austrian alliance. That is one of the reasons why it is really so heartbreaking that the two were executed.

That ends the segment of causes of the French Revolution from the perspective of the lineage of the French royal family. However, there are also many other aspects to consider. Many historians, in the past, have stated that the American Revolution was a large cause of the French one. However, they’re starting to backtrack on that, because, in all truth, many parts of France would have had so little connection with the nobility and other nations that they wouldn’t have even known that the American revolution had occurred by the time their own rolled around. So the American Revolution likely had very little to do with causing that of the French one, when compared to some of the other causes.

The Enlightenment sort of accidentally set the ball in motion, as well. In fact, many Enlightenment thinkers would, ironically, end up being killed in the revolution that they had indirectly started (I shall cover this more in detail later in the book). There was also the fact that, despite King Louis XVI’s best efforts, the lower classes still had very little representation in the French government. What the representative system was, was known as the Estates General (or the Three Estates). The First Estate represented the clergy, the Second Estate represented the nobility, and last (and certainly least), the Third Estate represented the interests of the commoners. It seemed like a pretty fair system at first glance…Until one considers that the Third Estate had almost no members at all relative to the rest of the Estates General, despite representing the majority of France’s population.

France’s population was also facing severe food shortages. In addition to this, the clergy were taxing them like crazy (that’s why one of the main goals of the revolutionaries was to rid France of the Catholic Church for good). They had almost no representation in government, and frankly, they were suffering immensely because of it. Now, I should probably mention one of the final major causes of the French Revolution, and that was because of a little tax known as the “taille.”

No, I’m not talking about grapes and wine, I’m talking about the annual district tax on land that Charles VII (1403-1461) had instituted way back in the early 1400s. This tax Charles VII had passed by imploring the Estates General for permission to administer it. Essentially, he wished to pass the tax to weaken the power of the parliament. By the late 1400s, the taille was secured by King Louis XI (1423-1483) (also known “the spider” because of his “wild and devious ways”). This tax would be imposed more and more upon the lower classes, and the clergy and nobility even had the opportunity to exempt themselves from it (whereas the lower classes could not do this even if they had the means to).

Of course, there were also a few other, more minor (but still very important) potential causes of the French Revolution. The Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) had seen France defeated in Europe, India, and the Americas (thus, many historians believe that it should be called “the first world war…” I agree with that notion). Therefore, France had no major colonies left from which to draw money from, at least when compared to more-accomplished nations in the field of exploration, such as the Netherlands or England.

Then there was the onset of the first Industrial Revolution (yes, there were two: one that started just before the 1800s, and one in the late 1800s). Countries like England already had large coal mines and factories pumping out goods on mass scales by the late 1700s, and France still hadn’t seen any of this progress. Yes, the people of France were very displeased with their situation, indeed.

It would all come to a head in 1789, and it would be a very bloody ordeal that would see large amounts of suffering on all sides. There were many more causes for the French Revolution than those I have listed, but these, I believe, were the more prominent ones. The French Revolution, as I stated earlier, was not caused by one single event, nor was it caused by one single individual, but rather through a series of events and individuals (many of whom were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time). Keeping in mind what the great author, Leo Tolstoy, wrote - that no one can truly trace what caused any given event - one thing is apparent: the French Revolution occurred, and it would be very, very troublesome.

#nonfiction

#history

#frenchrevolution

On June 20 1789, a group of French nobles, politicians, and civilians who proclaimed themselves as the National Assembly went to meet in Versailles to talk about establishing a better French government: one that gave more representation to the lower classes. They found that the doors to their meeting place were locked, however, and so they traveled over to a nearby tennis court where they pledged to meet again, and to do so until they had established a new French constitution.

That is the popular scene. However, while everything in the above paragraph is accurate, that is not simply how it occurred. For one, though the tennis court was technically “nearby,” relative to perhaps the locations of other, alternative tennis courts, it was still a very considerable length away (and I recall learning that it took about one or two hours to walk to). In fact, even before the Tennis Court Oath, there were already pushes for a reformed French Government.

Now, before I continue, I should probably state that, though it is traditionally taught that there was only one group of revolutionaries during the French revolution, the views and lengths to which the participants of that Revolution would go were very different between many individuals. For instance, the two largest goals of many of the revolutionaries were arguably to establish a more fair French government that adequately addressed the needs of the masses, and to abolish religion from France as much as possible. However, there were other goals for specific groups of individuals, as well. For instance, many women supported the revolution because they hoped to gain more rights as women.

Another society soon sprang up, known as the Society of Thirty (also known as the Patriotic Society of 1798, and the Society of 1798), was a group of French radicals that staunchly supported the French Revolution. Arguably their most famous member was none other than Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette (or, in less unreasonable terms, “Lafayette”) (1757-1834). Aside from having one of the longest naming titles in history, he was also a key individual in the American Revolution of 1775-1783.

In France, on July 14, 1789, things became particularly bloody. A considerable group of revolutionaries and even a few mutinying soldiers surrounded a stone military fortification and prison known as the Bastille. They did not storm this fortress to free its prisoners, however (in fact, there were only a handful of prisoners in it, including a common thief and a lunatic); rather, the rebels sought to procure the weapons and ammunition - including over two hundred barrels of gunpowder - inside the establishment.

The revolutionary crowd was armed with muskets, swords, and other types of official or makeshift weaponry. In the other corner, there were the soldiers defending the Bastille. They were led by none other than Bernard-René Jordan de Launay (1740-1789). The governor of the garrison, Launay, attempted to negotiate peace terms with the rebels, and ordered his own troops (of which, there were roughly one hundred) not to fire on the rebel crowd unless fired upon.

However, as peace talks subsided, the crowd attempted to rush the Bastille - the garrison retaliated. As the day wore on, as many as one thousand Paris civilians may have joined the fray. The garrison had artillery on hand, but they would not use it because they considered that using cannons against a civilian crowd would be inhumane. Eventually, Launay agreed to surrender if none of his troops were harmed (this was at first rejected by the rebel forces).

After the surrender, Launay himself was supposed to be taken to a different location, apart from his troops, but on the way, a mob got ahold of him and stabbed and beat him to death, despite the fact that he surrendered peacefully. (The moral of this story being, if you have cannons on hand, just use them). The storming of the Bastille is often seen as the earliest major act of the French Revolution, and has since gone down in history.

As this and other acts of violence began to erupt, the National Assembly began making legal changes, as well. For instance, they abolished feudalism, finally (on all land, as in, not just on royal land, as Louis XVI had done).

By October 5, 1789, another infamous event occurred: the Women’s March on Versailles (also sometimes known as the October Days). It began in Paris, where civilians were already upset about the scarcity of food and the high prices for bread. These individuals and some revolutionary agitators eventually marched to Versailles, and swelled into a group of thousands of individuals. They were armed with everything from standard weapons to kitchen knives and pitchforks. They ventured to the Palace of Versailles, to try to pressure the king and queen to return to Paris. In fact, Mari Antoinette tried to appease the rebel forces by ordering the flour in the palace pantries to be distributed amongst them (it was really too little too late, unfortunately for her).

The palace only had minimal military staff on hand, and even these were mostly body guards that were mostly just for show and did not really have much formal training compared to that which a typical French infantryman should have received. The royals called for more troops, which did arrive, albeit in small numbers and too late to do much about the situation. Early in the morning, some of the rioters discovered that one of the palace gates was unguarded, and the attack began.

The palace guards tried frantically to barricade any doors and hallways that they could, though this effort proved to be unsuccessful, as Antoinette herself was chased barefoot down a hallway and (in a classic horror-movie fashion) was banging on a locked door as several of her guards (including, Tardivet, who was beheaded) were killed behind her. She narrowly escaped death. However, many of the palace guards were not so fortunate. In fact, many of them were beaten to death, and even a few of them had their heads removed and placed atop pikes (which the king and queen would have to ride past on their way back to Paris).

Finally, however, the violence had calmed down enough to commence negotiations. It was decided that the king and queen should be forced back to Paris, and there they would remain. The National Assembly would often force Louis XVI into signing away more and more power. The king and queen would even attempt to escape from Paris (by dressing in disguise) in 1791, but were recognized by a postmaster in the town of Varennes and arrested (some accounts even state that they were only recognized because the postmaster knew the distinct smell of Antoinette’s perfume. Something to think about the next time you’re trying to escape from captivity but also want to maintain your prestige while doing it).

And of course, the National Assembly was busy at work with other things, as well, in the political respect. They wrote the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” that granted “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” It also allowed for freedom of speech, press, access to public offices, legislation, and restricted the monarchy and outlawed tax exempts and arbitrary arrests.

However, these reforms did not meet the desires of everybody, particularly those of women. In response, Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793), a French playwright (whose real name was Marie Gouze), wrote “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen,” which affirmed that women should have the same rights as men. The majority of revolutionaries and the National Assembly “ignored her demands.” In fact, she defended the life of Louis XVI, and the revolutionaries sentenced her to death in 1793, by decapitation under the guillotine.

The National Assembly also sought to endure the process of purging France of the oppressive Catholic Church (as, the Church had pretty much been oppressing the lower classes of France up until that point). The Church was soon secularized and it was established that bishops and priests would be elected and paid by the state. The revolutionaries also forced several clergy members to take the oath of the “Civil Constitution,” which meant that they were alleged to these terms.

Finally, the National Assembly created a limited constitutional monarchy. Under this system, the monarch (in this case, Louis XVI) had little power, and deputies were chosen by electors that were voted upon by tax-paying French to a new revolutionary-formed organization: the Legislative Assembly.

Thus, the National Assembly was soon discarded, and the Legislative Assembly took over. By this time, with yet another shift in power, things in France were really starting to go to pieces. The revolutionaries and the loyalists (who were still loyal to the French king) were beginning to engage in constant, small conflicts, and even within both of these groups there were smaller groups of people who disagreed about the general cause but fought over how those causes should be accomplished and the extent to which certain courses of action should be undertaken.

In a pathetic attempt to unite all of the French against a common enemy, it was decided that France should invade Austria. That way, all of France’s population would unite against the Austrians. Well, that plan backfired, and Austria actually began to win the conflict (and even almost captured Paris). (So, people, please…Just take one problem at a time).

With all this turmoil, one group in particular began to take charge: these were the Jacobins (est. 1789), a group of revolutionary extremists. One of the widely-known leaders of this group was none other than the notorious Maximilien Robespierre (full name, Maximilien-François-Marie-Isidore de Robespierre) (1758-1794).

Soon, power shifted again, with the creation of the next latest revolutionary governing body, the National Convention, which was formed shortly after the king’s capture (so, we’ve gone, now, from the National Assembly, to the Legislative Assembly, to the National Convention). Oh, and how could I almost leave out the Paris Commune (the French Revolution one), which was established in 1789 but became quite violent and repulsive of the royal French government in 1792. This organization was led led by yet another revolutionary radical: Georges Danton (1759-1794). In fact, I would argue that Danton was even more extreme than Robespierre (and yet, both of them would be overthrown and killed by the same revolutionaries that they helped to inspire). The followers of the Paris Commune were known as sans-culottes. The organization ultimately pressured the National Convention into making more radical decisions.

Around 1793, Maximilien Robespierre would form the Committee of Public Safety. A pretty ironic name, this was, especially considering that it weathered many of “the domestic and foreign crises of 1793.” This organization also established the Republic of Virtue, which was given permission to monitor and regulate the French military. The Committee would be replaced by the elected Directory (made up of a “Council of Elders” who were voted on by “council” members who were voted on by tax-paying citizens of France who were over the age of twenty one).

The Revolutionaries also made significant strides in ridding France of religion. They pillaged and repurposed many churches and cathedrals. The revolutionaries also encouraged priests to marry, and even created a non-Christian calendar in 1793 (though it included the year of 1792). It consisted of twelve months, which were composed of three ten-day weeks called “décades.” Each day was approximately one hundred thousand seconds long, and the year would begin at the autumnal equinox. The calendar recognized no religious holidays whatsoever. It would last for fourteen years, before being rejected by Napoleon on the first day of 1806.

Now, where was I? Ah, yes: the National Convention. This organization was a primitive form of a representative government, and like the typical two-party political systems today, it had two primary factions. First, there were the Girondins (called so because the party leaders were from the department of the Gironde). These individuals were less extreme, and wanted the revolution to be as little violent as possible and for the king and queen to be kept alive. Then, on the opposite side of the room, were the Mountain (literally called so because the floor on their side of the establishment was raised a little higher than it was in the rest of the room). While both sides had Jacobins sprinkled throughout them, the Mountain had far more than the former party, and the Mountain were also generally quite the extremists: they generally rooted for quick, violent action and wanted the king and queen dead.

In fact, these groups came to despise each other. At one point, one of the leading Mountain extremists, Jean-Paul Marat (1743-1793), was assassinated by one of the members of the Girondins while in the bathtub (which was ironic, because he supposedly always smelled rancid and had a persistent skin infection). The assassinator, Charlotte Corday (1768-1793), was later executed for her action. In fact, at one point around the same year, the Mountain staged an act of terror in which they arrested some twenty two Girondins and sentenced them to death. That silenced the more-conservative minority, leaving the extremists in an alarming state of control

Finally, it seemed to explode into violence, shortly after the execution of the king and then the queen. On January 21,1793, King Louis XVI was to be executed under the guillotine (he was thirty eight). During the reign of terror, Antionette would meet a similar fate (in fact, the words “pardon me” were part of her final speech, because she accidentally stepped on the executioner’s foot). Here is the speech that the king is recorded to have delivered minutes before his death:

“I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge; I Pardon those who have occasioned my death; and I pray to God that the blood you are going to shed may never be visited on France.”

Perhaps there is more that he wished to say, but a drum roll began, and he was silenced, and a few moments later, positioned under the blade and beheaded. His wish would go unfulfilled, as in the months to come, the Reign of Terror would commence.

#nonfiction

#history

#frenchrevolution

Shortly before the execution of the king in 1793, and lasting through 1794, the Reign of Terror unfolded. This event of the French Revolution was rightly named. Simply speaking, everyone in France would have been (or should have felt) terrified. This was because no matter what side somebody was on, there was a risk of them being killed. The revolutionaries were afraid of being killed by those still loyal to the traditional French government, and the loyalists were afraid of being executed by the revolutionaries. Even the pacifists and those who were neutral were at risk of being killed by either of these two groups for not choosing a side.

The Revolutionaries were infamous for their use of the guillotine (I once had to compose a very detailed paper on this, so I am looking forward to writing the next few paragraphs). While this was not a very new invention, it was greatly improved shortly before the French Revolution. Earlier in history, the Germans had invented something similar to the guillotine that we are familiar with today: it differed only in that the blade was of a half-circle shape. But the French guillotine had a more knife-like blade. It was invented in 1792 by Antoine Louis, a French leading surgeon (1723-1792). He originally wanted to create a device that would be humane in that it would kill a prisoner in a way that involved a quick death and, therefore, as little pain as possible. However, Louis and his family soon grew disgusted by the device, and even changed their name so that it could not be associated with them (a common nickname for the guillotine at the time was the “Louisette”).

Thankfully for Louis, another individual (who also hated the death penalty but wanted to create a sane way for prisoners to be executed), Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (1738-1814), received more credit for the invention. In fact, one of the individuals associated with the invention of the device was supposedly killed by it (one would assume that it was Antoine Louis, as he died in 1792, but that was technically before the Reign of Terror. The real victim is credited to be Tobias Schmidt). Regardless, this little method of execution would become very widespread in a very short time.

A few years prior, in 1789, Guillotin himself (who had been a member of the National Assembly) had managed to pass a law requiring that all executions were to be conducted by “means of a machine.” This was done so that those prisoners who had less money would only suffer a painless execution (as, traditionally, those with less money would be unable to afford a simple beheading, and thus were often tortured to death. Because, I guess that that’s somehow less expensive than simply whacking someone in the neck with a sword. Although, it does make sense for money-procuring purposes).

The guillotine quickly began to be utilized by the revolutionaries, and they were pretty infamous for executing even members of their own revolution. There are actually records of individuals being executed for incredibly menial “crimes,” such as: owning too much bread, telling a simple joke, and even so much as looking suspicious. One woman was executed because she cried when her husband was beheaded. That was the only reason she was killed, because she cried. The revolutionaries took that as a sign that she did not support the revolution, so they plucked her out of the crowd, strapped her to the guillotine, let the knife hang high above her, but did not let it fall right away. Instead, they let her husband’s blood drip upon her for some time while she stared at his severed head, and then, without warning, they let the blade fall upon her own neck. Essentially, the revolutionaries would execute someone on a whim, as long as at least one person, in most cases, thought that such-and-such individual looked suspicious in some way.

Of course, the revolutionaries loved it when people cheered for the beheadings, because that meant that those individuals were likely supporters of the revolution (either that, or they had a rather warped idea of what an entertainment event was). Of course, if someone cheered for the beheadings, the loyalists would know that they were supporters of the revolution and likely kill them. It was the Reign of Terror: no one was safe.

Still, though, the guillotine gradually made its way into French culture in a variety of ways. Some of the first restaurants had miniature guillotines that guests could use to slice bread. Even some children were given small guillotines that they could behead their toy dolls with (so the next time you are shopping for presents, why not get your three-year-old son, who you don’t even trust with a butter knife, something that they can chop the heads of their toys off with?). Scientists would even conduct experiments on the heads of the decapitated, trying to figure out how long one could remain conscious when their head is chopped off.

As I stated in an earlier chapter of this book, many Enlightenment thinkers and scientists met their demise during the French Revolution. One such man was Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794). He was a fantastic scientific mind, but unfortunately was condemned to death by means of decapitation under the guillotine because he was caught selling watered-down tobacco products. Before he died, he told his assistant that he would blink after his head was chopped off, and he wanted his assistant to count the seconds until it took him to stop blinking. That timeframe, he argued, would be the time it took for the mind to lose consciousness after decapitation. Well, Lavoisier’s assistant was astonished to find that the scientist managed to blink rapidly for (as based on some accounts) as much as thirty seconds after decapitation. Of course, now, most scientists today are pretty sure that this was a simple muscle reflex, and not evidence that the poor intellectual was still alive.

However, there were many other experiments done, as well. Sometimes individuals would pick up the head of a decapitation victim and slap it across the face to see if there was a reaction. Sometimes when this was done, crowds would report seeing the face grow red with anger (I fail to see how this could be possible, given the amount of blood that would have fled from the face through the severed neck). Another popular tactic was for a scientist to pick up a severed head, hold it in front of them, and ask: “can you hear me? Three blinks yes; two blinks no.” The idea was that either way they would receive a response if the person was still alive.

And in case anyone is wondering, more-recent studies on decapitated organisms reveals that a human may, in fact, retain consciousness for as long as twenty seconds after decapitation. That is a lot of time for one to realize that their head has just been severed from their body. The guillotine was responsible for a great many…Um…Interesting social and scientific developments, indeed.

Unfortunately for the revolutionaries, this method of execution still had some major drawbacks. For one, there was hair. Hair is actually pretty strong, and they found that if an individual had long hair, it could stop the blade just enough so that the execution could not be conducted properly. That meant that each prisoner’s hair had to be cut to a certain extent so that they could be killed properly (at least you would get to show off your stylish new looks to a crowd before your death). Then there was the fact that, well, cutting off people’s heads involves a lot of blood, and the wicker baskets that the heads fell into were not the most water-tight. In many places with a guillotine that was in constant use, blood would literally flow through the streets, getting into market places and seeping into homes. That, as one can imagine, was very unsanitary and created a lot of health problems for local inhabitants.

And one of the main drawbacks of using the guillotine was that, despite how swiftly it killed prisoners (it may have been responsible for as many as sixteen thousand deaths during the French Revolution alone), it was still not swift enough, apparently. Thus, the revolutionaries resorted to hanging or drowning prisoners as an alternative. Sometimes (and this was actually not too rare), they would line condemned prisoners up and discharge cannons at them (oddly enough, my main concern is for the individuals whom would have to clean up the mess that resulted).

There were also quite a few notable casualties during the Reign of Terror. One such death was that of the accused failed assassinator of Robespierre, Cécile Renault (1774-1794). Her death was heavily pursued by Robespierre, who claimed that she had intended to murder him with two hand-held knives.

The two most ironic deaths, however, are arguably those of Georges Danton and Maximilien Robespierre. These two individuals greatly helped to inspire the revolution. Georges Danton was executed in early 1794 (which was largely due to Robespierre’s pursuit of Danton’s downfall, oddly enough). Danton reportedly was in a humorous mood when being led to the guillotine, and when one woman in the crowd called him ugly (he really was not too physically appealing, to say the least), he replied something along the lines of “why should you be telling me now? I shan’t be ugly much longer!” He is even said to have predicted Robespierre’s death, as reportedly, one of his main regrets was that he should face execution before Robespierre.

Then, on July 27, 1794, Maximilien Robespierre met his end. Before this date, he had made a number of poor political decisions and conducted several actions that did not make him appear the most deserving of his position, so to speak. It all came to a head in the National Convention itself, when both the Girondins and the Mountain shouted him down so much that he could scarcely utter a word in his defense. Then, someone brought up the fact that he had been largely responsible for Danton’s death (“the blood of Danton chokes him!”), at which Robespierre is reported to have shouted in response: “is it Danton you regret?...Cowards! Why didn’t you defend him?!”

The day of (or the day following, it is difficult to discern) Robespierre’s execution marked the end of the Reign of Terror. Before it ended, however, there began something known as the Vendean (Vendee) Rebellion (1793-1796). There were many loyalists, anti-revolutionaries, and pacifists around the Vendean area, and the farmers there saw the new revolutionary government’s abolition of serfdom as more of a threat rather than a reform. When the National Convention called for a draft of three hundred thousand troops, that was the last straw.

The Vendean militia and many civilians attempted to fight off the revolutionaries in a very bloody countermovement. This rebellion was actually very large and involved a number of battles. In fact, many of the Vendee were nobles, and as a result were very skilled in warfare (as, under the French monarchy, nobles were often made into generals). The whole ordeal would ultimately fail on the Vendees part, and the numbers of deaths (let me be clear: deaths, not all casualties) could have been as high as two hundred thousand. Let me state that again: the Vendean Rebellion could have resulted in as many as 200,000 deaths (not wounded or missing; deaths).

The Reign of Terror (which, excluding the Vendean Rebellion, had over fifty thousand killed) would have a lasting impact on France, and it really proved that the Revolutionaries could not very well control the results of countless grievances of those from all sides of the quarrel. But the revolution was not concluded. There were still thousands who would be killed throughout the years to come. But already, the French Revolution seemed to have passed its climax of terror.

#nonfiction

#history

#frenchrevolution

As the French Revolution began to come to a close, there were still many attempts by the revolutionaries to keep the fire burning, so to speak. However, this chapter shall still be short, as the fire would, in fact, die down quite swiftly following the Reign of Terror.

“The Republic of Virtue,” which had largely been formed by the Committee of Public safety and had a large part to play in the regulating of the French military, was now no longer as applicable to society because of the death of Maximilien Robespierre. To add to that, even the revolutionaries seemed to realize that they perhaps were a little bit out of control. In 1779, before the Reign of Terror had ended, the Committee of Public Safety had passed the “Law of 14 Frimaire,” which sought to “centralize the administration of France more effectively.” It essentially proclaimed that representatives of the Committee could not undergo unapproved “action.”

The revolutionaries also had executed the leaders of the Paris Commune (which had included Georges Danton) in another attempt to try and clean things up a little bit (how ironic. I can only imagine what a kick in the teeth that would have been for the radical extremists in the Commune).

However, the revolutionaries still pursued many of their goals. For instance, they still attempted to de-Christianize France as much as possible (surprisingly, Robespierre had actually been against this. But now that he was out of the picture, there were that many fewer challenges in the way).

Another organization that was formed before the end of the Reign of Terror was the Society for Revolutionary Republican Women (est. 1793). This organization was arguably the most famous women-led group within the Revolution. Its goals were largely to ensure that the needs, rights and privileges of women were met by the Revolution. However, both the moderate revolutionaries and the extremest Jacobins were alarmed by this society, and the push for women’s rights as a whole, so they put an end to the organization in early November of that same year. The society had lasted only about five months (I guess that when the revolutionaries preached equality for all, they didn’t really mean for all).

Another minority group was much more successful: “Friends of the Blacks” (est. 1788) was an organization of individuals who wished to see slavery completely abolished in France and all of its colonies. Thankfully, their efforts would actually pay off, with slavery finally being ended all throughout France and its territories in 1794 (unfortunately, France would still participate in slave-trading).

However, it was not through political reforms and the urges of progressives alone that banned this practice. The abolition of slavery in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti) would involve the only successful slave revolt in world history.

The Haitian revolution took place from 1791-1804. The French colony of Saint-Domingue did not experience many of the sweeping reforms of the French Revolution. Therefore, many of its peasants and lower-class citizens still had few rights, and there was still slavery in the colony by the late 1700s. François-Dominique Toussaint L’Ouverture(1743-1803), the son of an educated slave, led the revolution. Interestingly enough, he had no desire to participate in the revolution at first, but as soon as large amounts of slaves and poor peasants began sweeping the colony, he became caught up in it.

Despite the fact that L’Ouverture had helped his former master to escape from rebel captivity, he was definitely an extremist. He looked upon the willingness of the other rebels to compromise with Europeans with scorn, and soon began to train his own armies in guerrilla tactics. He was an outstanding general, could lead his troops very well, engaged in coordinated military strikes with Spain, and largely led what we now call Haiti on the road to abolish slavery. Even the abolitionist Europeans soon came to look up to him.

In 1803, however, L’Ouverture was tricked into attending an event at which he was captured and, under orders of Napoleon, interrogated. He would die in captivity. Though he had overseen numerous periods of relative peace on Haiti, it was still not yet an independent nation.

The leadership fell to Jean-Jacques Dessalines (1758-1806), who finally led Haiti to independence in 1805. He would serve as the nation’s first emperor, until his death in 1806. The independence of Haiti was no small feat. They had fought the troops of France during the revolution, and later on even defeated Napoleon’s troops.

However, before the nation would even gain its independence, things had not even settled down in France. With the wheels of the Revolution finally beginning to come to a halt, the National Convention lost a lot of power. In 1794, the Jacobin club was formally shut down. Though some small groups of former Jacobins tried to keep the spark alive by forming smaller, unofficial clubs, by the turn of the century, there was really no real trace of the Jacobins remaining. In England and other nations, the term Jacobin began to be associated with political extremists and radicals, but even this term would soon be pushed aside by new titles, such as “socialist” and “Marxist.”

In 1795, the Directory was established by the Legislative Assembly, pretty much putting an end to the National Convention, the Committee of Public Safety and the Assembly itself. As stated earlier in this book, the Directory was composed of a council of elders who were elected by “council” members, who were elected by males over the age of twenty one who paid taxes.

But the Revolution was already pretty much dead. Both sides were quite tired, and most groups were in a state of disarray and inorganization (that should be a word). With this evident, the “Great Fear” swept France. Essentially, the Great Fear was the worry that other nations would see France’s state of disarray as an opportunity to invade the nation. It would all come to an end in 1799, however, when an infamous individual would put an end to the Directory and assume his position as the main leader of France.

This individual was, of course, Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821). Much of the changes made during the French Revolution, in fact, Napoleon sought to undo. Whether or not this was for the best is still up for debate, but one thing is for sure: under Napoleon, France resumed its former strength and unity, and for some time, it would swell and expand across Europe, Africa, and even make plans to invade India with Russia and the Persians. This era would encompass what we today refer to as the Napoleonic Wars (1800-1815).

#nonfiction

#history

#frenchrevolution

Despite my love for this time period, this shall be but a brief chapter, relative to the mountains of books that have been composed about Napoleon and his conquests. However, this is merely because I seek to compose a short, general summary of events. I wish to avoid writing a long, complicated series of essays that only a historian could read, because my goal in writing this series is to provide a simple, basic rundown of this era of history in an entertaining manner. So, I will state that, if one should wish to read more in depth about Napoleon and this time period, I would suggest reading more credible (and detailed) official biographies and works. If one should wish for a more historical-fictional, thrilling piece from the perspective of a nation that was nearly conquered by Napoleon, I could request no greater work than “War and Peace,” by Leo Tolstoy. Now, on to the chapter.

Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Ajaccio, Corsica, on August 15, 1769. This was (and still is) an island in the Mediterranean Sea, and was formerly owned by Italy, before France absorbed the land into its own nation around the time of Napoleon’s birth. Thus, Napoleon Bonaparte is actually an Italian name.

Napoleon soon ventured to mainland France, received an education at a religious school, and, finally, became involved in the French military when he was enrolled into a cadet school in May of 1779 (yes, I am aware that he would have not yet been ten years old at this time. I guess that back then, they trained them young and used them when they were “ripe”). He would graduate from another academy later on, and enter the French military as a low-class officer.

Napoleon would soon become beloved by his troops, and generally disliked by his officers. This was because Napoleon was supposedly very gracious toward the troops that served under him: he would eat in their mess houses instead of the officer’s mess, would engage in conversations with his subordinates, and was generally kinder to the lower-ranking soldier. The officers who served under him, however, he treated with more sterness and formality.

He quickly rose in the ranks, and in 1795, he was promoted to the rank of general. This is credited to the fact that, in that year, he aided the suppression of royalist forces who were staging a countermovement against the revolutionary government. Aside from this, Napoleon fought many conflicts abroad (this was because, as stated earlier in this book, the French had attempted to unite the French nation against other European powers. This resulted in constant fighting since 1792). In fact, it was largely because of Napoleon that the Austrians, who had nearly taken Paris during the disarray of the French Revolution, were defeated in 1797.

In 1799, Napoleon took power in a coup d’etat. The transition of power was perhaps as swift as it was because Louis XVII (1785-1795) had died young without really having a chance to take the throne, and Louis XIII (1755-1824) was not yet in power (though, he would rule after Napoleon’s second exile). In 1804, Napoleon was being crowned by Pope Pius VII (1742-1823) when he took the crown from the Pope’s hands, and placed it atop his own head, proclaiming himself emperor. He was the first emperor that France had seen rule the nation in a millennium.

Now, most individuals are very familiar with the whole story about the Napoleonic Wars (1800-1815) and his many grand conquests, but before I delve into that, let us first cover what Napoleon did to stabilize France. After all, it was still reeling from its very bloody revolution.

Firstly, the Directory had been shut down when Napoleon took the throne in 1799. With the last of the revolutionary governments out of the way, it was time to make some reforms.

Secondly, in 1801, Napoleon issued the Concordat, which largely served to make peace with the Catholic Church, which had been largely repressed by the revolutionaries. He returned France to the traditional calendar as well. However, not wishing to grant the Church too much power, and also in an attempt to appease the former revolutionaries, the Concordat still severely limited the Church’s power. In fact, one of its measures was the refusal to return land to the Church that it had lost during the French Revolution.

Thirdly, Napoleon created the Civil Code (Code Napoleon), in 1804. This was Napoleon’s attempt to ensure that the former revolutionaries of France would not be displeased with him. What it did was preserve many of the revolutionary goals. However, it still allowed for several to be detracted, including most of the rights that women had gained during the French Revolution. Napoleon also established that there would be no tax exemptions in France, so that the wealthy as well as the lower classes all had to pay their taxes.

Fourthly, Napoleon began issuing conscripts to draft more soldiers into the French military. This would greatly improve the strength and numbers of the French military forces. During the Revolution, the Nation in Arms (the revolutionary French military) was actually incredibly large and managed to push back invading European powers, so Napoleon wanted a similarly-large and abled military.

Fifthly, Napoleon began to regulate the mail and press, setting limits on what could or could not be published or sent via mail, and so forth.

Lastly, in this new Napoleonic government, the “Prefects” were created as central government agents that were responsible for reviewing all local government under Napoleon. These magistrates would carry out their jobs quite devotedly.

Finally, we come to the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon had a fascinating ability to glance at a map for a while and then formulate a whole effective battle plan in his head. He was an outstanding commander and rather effective at giving orders.

In 1796, when fighting the Austrians, Napoleon had taken Lombardy, and then much of Italy. He made his eldest brother, Joseph-Napoleon (1768-1844) (who was a lawyer) king of Naples, and then Spain, when it was captured (after a brief insurrection against the French) in 1808 (I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that Napoleon’s parents were rather lazy in naming their children). In fact, as an interesting side note, Joseph-Napoleon was apparently a kind individual and, during Napoleon’s downfall, would move to the United States of America, where he spent most of his days on a large mansion estate in New Jersey. He was supposedly very charitable, and beloved by the local populace. You can visit his mansion (which is very impressive in its gardens) today, in Point Breeze, New Jersey (he was also quite the architect, having oversaw the construction numerous tunnels than ran underneath his property). Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes, Napoleon’s conquests.

When Napoleon began to invade the German regions and Prussia, he began to encounter more pushback. One individual worth mentioning here is Johan Gottlieb Fichte (1752-1814), a German philosopher who largely founded German idealism and attempted to spread German nationalism in opposition to the invading French forces.

In 1805, around the mountains of Bohemia, arguably the greatest battle of all of the Napoleonic Wars (and Napoleon’s greatest victory, arguably) took place: the Battle of Austerlitz (also known as the Battle of the Three Emperors). This confrontation took place within Austerlitz, Austria, and saw the grand armies of Emperor Napoleon, of France; Emperor Alexander I, of Russia; and Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, of Austria. There were also many German forces present, as well as numerous troops from other nations and provinces. Napoleon would crush them all in that decisive, one-day battle on December 2.

From 1798 to 1801 (by now, you have probably realized that I am listing these by region rather than by timeline), Napoleon embarked on his “African Campaign.” He invaded Egypt and Syria, and fell in love with the Egyptian pyramids, statues, and relics. In fact, this campaign has been credited to the spread of interest in Ancient Egyptian culture across Europe, especially in England. (In fact, by the 1850s, an illegal mummy trade began booming in Egypt, because if there’s one thing we all love to have in our houses, it’s thousand-year-old corpses).

In fact, Napoleon’s France even fought the United States (yes, they did). This is known as the “Quasi War” (or the Franco-American War) (1798-1800), which was an official naval conflict against the two technically-allied nations. This war actually saw quite a few casualties and ship losses on both sides (as far as early-modern naval battles go). However, in 1803, Napoleon sold the Louisiana territory to the United States (this is known as the Louisiana Purchase) to fund the French navy, somewhat restoring former friendly relations.

Napoleon also had a habit of making and then breaking treaties with Russia, constantly, throughout the Napoleonic Era. Russia would offer to help France invade India, and then Russia was still invaded by Napoleon. They would fight alongside the French in the Ottoman lands, and yet were still later attacked by Napoleon.

Over the course of the many Napoleonic conflicts, Napoleon had created many interesting arrangements. The Treaties of Tilsit, for instance, were signed in 1807 by France, Austria, and Prussia, allowing France to “create a new European order.” An earlier treaty was also signed between France and Russia. Both of them were at the expense of Prussia, which lost about half of its pre-war territory to the French. However, within about a year, Napoleon was once again pushing on toward Russia.

The Grand Empire was also formed under Napoleon (may we please just appreciate how awesome that name is? If I were an emperor, of course I would call my greatest alliance the “Grand Empire!”). This was a forced alliance between France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia against the British.

In fact, the British would really be the main force that Napoleon would fail to conquer (“Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!…” Now it’s stuck in your head). He would try to defeat the British in so many ways. In fact, he even issued something known as the Continental System, which was France’s attempt to defeat Britain by cutting off British exports. Before I conclude the French struggles with the British, however, allow me to complete my overview of the Russian front.

Many of you have probably seen that painting of Napoleon riding a rearing horse in the Russian winter as he points into the sky. Well, he was actually riding a donkey through the snow, hunched over with a blanket over him like a peasant (painters tended to exaggerate things just a *little* bit). Besides, the best painting of Napoleon is in the main traditional post-Medieval Government building in Ghent (if you ever get the chance to travel to Belgium, I highly recommend you visit it).

By 1812, Napoleon had managed to capture Vilna. He then moved on as far as Borodino, engaging in both major and minor confrontations along the whole way (cue “1812 Overture” music). While the victory status of the Battle of Borodino (September 7, 1812) is still disputed (the Russians technically defeated the French forces, but then retreated back to Moscow), ultimately, Napoleon would take the advance. About a week later, Napoleon captured the practically-unguarded Moscow (the Russian armies having already retreated from the city).

The city would be burned, however (both by French forces and retreating Russian civilians and soldiers), though Napoleon had attempted to pass rules preventing the burning of the city. In fact, many individuals were executed on incendiary charges. However, with little food, and a cold winter approaching, Napoleon would retreat back from Russia, and he was pursued by the Russian forces the entire way. The Russian campaign was the bloodiest of Napoleon’s campaigns. He would lose some 500,000 individuals, while Russia lost around 400,000. The Germans had also been forced to fight on the side of Napoleon, and there were over one and a half million soldiers involved in the fighting in all, not to mention the countless militia forces that would have been fighting on both sides.

However, it was not only the impressive military tactics of Russian Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov (1745-1813) that resulted in Napoleon’s retreat from France. The summer of 1812 was a very hot summer in Russia. It would have been absolutely dreadful for soldiers, in all their heavy equipment, to fight in that heat (I know, because, I’ve fought in temperatures that hot…In paintball. It was at times an agonizing experience). And, as misfortune would have it, the winter of 1812 would also be a record-breaking winter season in Russia, with freezing-cold temperatures (I can only imagine how how badly frozen paintballs hurt). In fact, the cold Russian winter is also often credited for largely defeating the German forces in Russia during the Second World War.

Historians still argue if Napoleon won or lost the Russian campaign. On the one hand, he did capture Moscow. On the other hand, he retreated from Moscow shortly after he captured it. Regardless, the retreat of the French from Russia would seriously wound Europe’s fear and respect for the French forces.

After his abdication via the Treaty of Fontainebleau in 1814, Napoleon was exiled to Elba, an island in the Mediterranean Sea. However, in 1815, he would return during the Hundred Days, reclaim France and his popularity, and begin his campaign again. Allegedly, Napoleon was surrounded by French troops, and he held open his coat and shouted something like, “you may kill me if you wish, but would you really kill your own emperor?” (Note: these were not his exact words, as sources conflict on what his real words were). The soldiers, apparently, instead of killing him, hoisted Napoleon up and shouted “vive l’Emperor!”

After Napoleon’s first exile, and after the Hundred Days, on June 8, 1815, Napoleon would lead his French forces against the combined forces of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Nassau, Brunswick, and Hanover (the Seventh Coalition). The army of the Duke of Wellington (a title that did not exist until 1814), and the army of Prussia were also present, as were many Saxon soldiers and Germans from other regions. This became known as the Battle of Waterloo, and took place in present-day Belgium.

Napoleon’s armies were defeated, and in that same year of 1815, he was exiled to Saint Helena, where he died in 1821 (presumed to be from stomach cancer, hence why he tended to hold his hand inside his coat, gripping his stomach from the pain). Of course, he was not really in a traditional exile, because he pretty much lived in total comfort and with many servants until his death (new evidence points to the possibility that he may have been planning a second return to power in France). (On a peculiar note, Napoleon’s urethra is rumored to have been misplaced during his autopsy. I’d like to assume that the doctors wished to examine his urinary tract for signs of stomach cancer, but who knows? Supposedly, it was rediscovered and has passed ownership several times. It is now, as of the year 2020, claimed to be in the ownership of an American physician. It was also once apparently on display, though descriptions were not too kind, as it was claimed to look like “a dried up seahorse,” and “beef jerky…” Why do I know all this?).

Ok, so, moving back to more…Um…Formal topics of discussion, Napoleon was undoubtedly one of the greatest military commanders in all of human history, and is also frequently regarded as an excellent national leader, as well. He was a controversial figure, to say the least: he did many great things for France and other nations of Europe, but also many bad things, especially for minorities and by invading other nations. Though he attempted to retain many of the political gains that were made during the French Revolution, he largely contrasted them, reverting much of France back to its original state. In fact, under Louis XIII and, later, Louis “Pierre” Philippe (1773-1850) France would pretty much lose the revolutionary changes that had been preserved under Napoleon. The Napoleonic Era was a large mess of conflicts, and its conclusion would prompt a conservative resurgence and a desire to restore the old European order, but one that would ultimately fail.

#nonfiction

#history

#napoleon

Of course, the French Revolution ended over two hundred years ago, so anything that I may have to say on the matter would likely not make a difference to anyone who holds a different opinion. However, I still wish to remain respectful to some degree, especially seeing as the French Revolution was the demise of thousands and thousands of individuals. Therefore, do keep in mind that the following chapter is largely my opinion. So, firstly, allow me to begin with the French Revolution itself.

To start off, what do I think of the Revolution? Was it worth it? Was it justified? In all truth, I look down very much on the French revolutionaries, to be euphemistic. Historically speaking, whatever good intentions the revolutionaries had were easily counterbalanced by their acts of terror, violence, and bloodshed. I am not saying that the act of merely instating a revolution was unjustified and uncalled for - there truly was a need to reform the French government. Nations like England had already established a government of the people; Prussia had much religious freedom; but in France, there was still a primitive Medieval governing system.

Things had to change in France. Civilians were literally starving; bread prices were far too high for the average individual to afford; the nation was swamped with debt; the lower classes had very little representation in government, despite being the vast majority of that nation’s population; the clergy had far too much of a say in taxation and political affairs; even the wealthy nobility largely began to hate the French monarchy, because under that government they lost a lot of power (when the peasants and the ultra wealthy are on the same side, you now that something huge is about to happen)…Things in France truly did need to be changed.

I think that the false perception at the time (and even how it is sometimes looked back on now) was that there would be this grand, majestic revolution of the people against a tyrannic monarchy, and all would be put straight, after a long and slow (but steady) process. That is always the misconception, it seems. Take the American Revolution, for instance. If you are like me and are a product of the American education system, you likely find that the revolution is very glorified, in a way: it’s taught in a way that makes the patriotic American forces seem like a graceful, purely-benevolent force that overthrew a foreign dictatorship.

However, I often find myself looking at the American Revolution from the British perspective: they protected the colonies from the French in the Seven Years’ War - of course the taxes were higher, to pay off war debt! Not to mention the fact that those living in the British Isles were actually paying higher taxes than in the colonies, and that the infamous Tea Tax actually lowered the cost of tea (albeit so a monopoly could be formed of the East India Tea Trading Company). The colonies even had a small representation in Parliament. One may even go as far to argue that Britain technically had more rights to retain the colonies than the colonies had to break away. However, I must acknowledge that, while that may perhaps have been the case, ultimately, there were many factors which made living under Great Britain all the more damaging to the colonies, so the American Revolution, likely, did still need to occur (not to mention, it all worked out fine…I think…).

But even then, it was not a slow but steady and prideful takeover of the elite British infantry forces by a ragtag group of mostly-civilian militiamen and a simple Continental Army, against a purely-tyrannical power. Not at all; instead, it more resembled a rather brutal and difficult fight that Britain mainly lost because they simply stopped fighting it: they could have likely defeated the American forces if they really wanted to (gee, Cornwallis, you only had much of the most powerful military in the world under your command! Watch out: that little toddler right there might beat you up!). Right, now where was I?

Ah, yes: in a similar manner, I would imagine that there was hope among the soon-to-be revolutionaries of France that there would be some majestic, derived takeover. And while that perhaps may have been the case in another scenario, that was certainly not what occurred. Just look at the painting of the Tennis Court Oath on the cover of this book: could there be a more glorified, majestic depiction of the revolutionaries? In fact, the artist of that painting, Jacques-Louis David, was very pro-revolution, indeed. In fact, it was requested that he paint Mari Antoinette as she was on her way to be executed in 1793, but he didn’t think that she was even worth a painting, let alone a drawing, so he merely drew a very crude sketch of her on the wagon. The revolution through his eyes was seemingly perfectly justified and a glorious occurrence.

However, we know now today that it did not happen in this manner. The French Revolution perhaps could have been something close to what those optimists saw it as (though I highly doubt it), but instead, it became what most revolutions - good or bad - typically resemble: a bloody and difficult struggle. In fact, the French Revolution was much worse than that. In many cases, when a people are hopelessly or unjustly oppressed, violence perhaps may be understandable (perhaps even called for), at least to draw attention to the cause.

However, the violence expressed in the French Revolution was extreme beyond comprehension: it was the massacring of innocent people and civilians and even the execution of the movement’s own leaders and inspirationalists (also not a word, but it should be one). The Revolution did not result in sympathy from other nations and powers; rather, it caused so much chaos and disorder that it dragged France so low that other nations were shamed of and even afraid of it, to the point that several literally attempted to conquer the country.

However, I do imagine that, had the revolution not happened then, it would have happened eventually. Even if King Louis XVI had lived out his whole life as ruler of France, making reform after reform as he had been doing prior to the Revolution, things likely would have hardly changed. There was just such a buildup of things that needed to be corrected, changed, improved, or altered that I doubt ten King Louis XVI’s could have fixed them. It would be like trying to drain a whole lake with nothing more than a small water faucet - the dam was bound to burst from sheer pressure before enough legal change could be enacted.

However, in my mind, that still does not excuse the mass amounts of bloodshed, double-crossing, violence, barbarism, and betrayal that commenced throughout the French revolution and the Reign of Terror. Especially considering that the revolutionaries themselves did not wish to consider the rights of women or people of color definitely proves that the Revolution was a disorganized mess of competing goals that no one could seem to successfully rein in.

And this brings me to my next topic of discussion: did the Revolution actually achieve anything? This question is probably the most debated topic of the Revolution among historians (or, at least I had quite a few AP history essays on that way back when I was in that class). There are experts on both sides of this debate, and frankly, I do not have a clear answer myself. I would argue that there were successes (such as the abolition of slavery in much of France and its territory and some minor economic changes that would outlive Napoleon’s reversions) and failures of the Revolution. However, when taken as a whole (which really should not be done, anyway), the Revolution, I would argue, was largely ineffective at implementing lasting, progressive reform.

Just looking at a timeline of France’s history, one can see that there would be another French revolution only about three decades later, in 1830, against Charles X. Then there was another French Revolution in 1832. And, after they had finally chased the monarchy out, Louis “Pierre” Philippe would take his place as leader and promise reform, but did not make nearly any real changes, so they chased him out in the French Revolution of 1848. Then there was the French Revolution of 1871, in which the new Paris Commune attempted to establish a socialist government over France. More recently, there occurred the French Revolution of 1968. And all throughout, many of the indigenous inhabitants of French Colonies abroad rebelled against oppressive French occupation (particularly in Algeria) (Charles de Gaulle may have been an effective leader and a very helpful figure in defeating the Nazis, but when it came to retaining hold of French colonies, he was quite the tyrant). Is this a sign that history always repeats itself, or that these many French Revolutions were not successful? Probably a combination of both.

Then there was Napoleon. Napoleon undid many of the reforms that had been made during the French Revolution, especially any rights that women had gained. Those things that did remain I can only hope that Napoleon was not planning on reverting back to normal after he conquered much of Europe thoroughly. Of course, we all know where Napoleon’s little (not) actions led the world: arguably to the Great War (believe me, that is actually how I learned it. People say that the world doesn’t revolve around one’s self…I am beginning to think that the world revolves around Napoleon!). (For a post of mine that explains how this all correlates, you can use this link here: https://theprose.com/post/368697/the-world-war-one-story-as-it-actually-happened). And now, I shall put forth the inquiry: was Napoleon really as significant as people say? I think yes.

Leo Tolstoy may disagree with me (but what do I care? He’s been dead for over one hundred years), but I do think that only someone like Napoleon could have conducted the era the way he did it. Had Napoleon not come along, however, I think that someone else would have. The Nation in Arms was actually doing a moderate job at pushing back foreign powers, so I do not think that it would have been likely that a foreign power would have taken France, let alone extinguished it from the map (just look at Poland, for instance: Poland has been absorbed by nations over and over for centuries, and even it still exists…Sorry, Poland). I do think that, had Napoleon not come along, France would have likely sank to near rock-bottom, and then someone else would have stepped up to the French throne and took power in a similar manner as Napoleon did.

However, I doubt that that individual would have been very successful at conducting foreign warfare. Napoleon simply had the mind for orchestrating battles with acute precision. I would like to believe that many individuals would have been capable of restoring France, but only very few could have been a Napoleon. Of course, Napoleon himself would ultimately fail, as he was defeated at Waterloo in 1815.

Now, do I consider Napoleon to be a “bad” person (relative to society’s views, of course)? Frankly, historians have been debating this mater as well; so much that the basis for any argument has been shredded and deluded far beyond its original state, but I must still say that I have qualms with Napoleon’s actions to say the least. He may have done things for France, indeed, and ultimately improved many conditions that the civilian populations had up until then been forced to live with, but ultimately, Napoleon repressed the rights of minorities (or at least attempted to, in Haiti), invaded foreign nations, and completely turned the political geography of Europe askew. (Although, to be honest, if I were a peasant who was oppressed by the rulers of Poland, I wouldn’t care who was in charge - it would seem to be the same difference either way). Besides, as I stated before, the changes that Napoleon would come to inflict would rather clearly set the ball in motion for further acts of violence and bloodshed, leading up all the way to (and possibly further past) the early twentieth century.

Well, that ends this series. I graciously thank all of you who have made it to the end (or have read any one of my chapters, for that matter), and I am rather pleased that my ranting is not too boring (at least, I assume that you’re still here, as there would be no way of knowing from the author’s perspective). This series was, once again, but a brief and informal discourse on a very broad and complicated era of history. (I am quite tired now, and I should probably take a break from my computer). Anyways, thank you once again for coming along, and I hope that you have enjoyed this series. I know that I enjoyed writing it.

#opinion

#history

#frenchrevolution

#napoleon