Reflection and Opinions
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.