History of the French Revolution - Report Example

Instruction: Task: History of the French Revolution. History plays a very major role in influencing the that a society takes. Through the analysis of various historical events, we are able to discern elements that can be applied into the contemporary society. As such, historical events that make up classical civilisations form the basis for detailed evaluations and analyses with the aim of gaining as much from these events as possible. Additionally, the most significant events, such as revolutions and other forms of uprisings, which characterize ancient empires are the most important for evaluating them. In light of this, a combination of economic troubles and social disparities between the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie formed the major part of the pre-revolutionary conditions in France. A revolution refers to a state of political instability during which the public forcefully causes shifts in the governmental structure of their community. In many instances, it is caused by a variety of factors all of which culminate into public disapproval, thereby resulting in a forceful removal or alteration of the government in a bid to offset some of the invariable factors that necessitated the revolution (Jenkins 109). In most of the cases, the causes have to be significantly large enough to affect a large portion of the population. It is only then that the population can effectively rise up against the government. As such, one of the major causes of the French revolution was the economic crisis that affected the population so much that they had to take action against the authorities for not curbing their economic issues. The economic crisis resulted from a significant rise in French population by a margin of up to 10 million people. The majority of these people lived off agricultural practices in the rural parts of France. As such, their livelihood was basically based on their effective utilisation of the land resources, which were leased to them by wealthy lords. In return, these people had to pay hefty taxes to ensure their proper subsequent utilisation of the land (Neely 275). However, the system was very unfair to them since the taxes that they had to pay was significantly more than they could actually get from the land. Therefore, this meant that while they struggled as hard as they could, they simply could not sustain the system and still have enough for themselves. This led to feelings of discontentment and dissatisfaction that ultimately made the people revolt against the system. Additionally, the economic situation was worsened by the relatively greedy nature of the lords. While the majority of the people, around 90%, lived off agricultural activities, the wealthy few were entirely reliant on the taxes that were generated from the majority of the population. On the other hand, the wealthy lords were expected to sustain the king by presenting some of the revenues generated from the taxes to the national government. However, this was not always the case as they occasionally kept a large portion of the revenues for their own personal use. Additionally, only the lowly in the society paid taxes, while the wealthy and those in positions of power were immune to the taxes. This situation was aggravated by the fact that the wealthy had a penchant for a lavish lifestyle. This life had to be sustained all through, and it had to be done by the taxes from the poor in the society. With continued hardships, the taxes were gradually increased in a bid to sustain the extravagant lifestyle of those in higher positions. However, this was becoming so much of a burden on the peasants and regular farmers. Consequently, this kind of system nurtured the peasants into detesting the wealthy in the society. They increasingly felt that it was unfair that they had to sustain the good lives of those ranking higher in the society, while themselves they were languishing in poverty (Kley and Kaiser 312). Eventually, this resulted in feelings of disapproval and displeasure against the rule, subsequently leading to the revolution. Another factor that took a toll on the economy was King Louis XVI’s proclivity for waging wars and taking part in various political feuds. By taking part in wars, the French economy was deeply affected and the state was soon in deep debt. Nonetheless, this was in addition to the pre-existing debts that resulted from the previous ruler, Louis XV, who was also of a profligate nature. It is worth noting that Louis XVI also maintained a lifestyle characterized by excessive embezzlement of the public funds as highlighted by the development of luxuries such as the palace of Versailles. Apart from this inherent inclination towards extravagance, real strain on the economy came as a result of Louis XVI’s participation in the American War of Independence. Pre-revolutionary France excessively took part in the war and this depleted their resources to quite a substantial level. Louis XVI participation in the war was aimed at weakening the British, France’s long time enemy (Haine 56). This made him invest heavily in assisting the American War of Independence at the expense of maintaining the economy of his own state. However, by the time that they realized the problem associated with taking part in the war, France was exceedingly poor. The national debt was exceedingly high, and the rulers sort to rectifying the situation by increasing the taxes that the people paid. However, the increase in taxes did little to offset the debts, and the desperation of the situation meant that more action had to be taken. This came in the form of trying to pass a rule that would compel the nobles to pay extra taxes. However, this was not particularly successful and heralded the onset of the revolution as the nobles turned against the proposed rule and this initial act of defiance subsequently led to the revolution (Kley and Kaiser 115). Additionally, another major reason behind the French revolution was the rise of the bourgeoisie against the aristocrats in line with fighting for survival in an increasingly volatile environment in the pre-revolutionary France. There was constant turmoil between the different social classes that existed in pre-evolutionary France. Moreover, there was an ever widening gap between the Second Estate and the Third Estate, in addition to the disparities between the estates and the absolute authority that ruled. It is worth noting that the Third Estate was made up of the farming peasants and the bourgeoisie, the Second Estate was made up of the nobility, while the First Estate was made up of the Catholic clergy (Haine 199). The delineation of the people along these classes was the start of a battle for the control of the resources, with each Estate feeling that it was being oppressed by the others. This was particularly true for the Third and Second Estates that majorly shouldered the society’s existence. Existence at the time was pegged on the social class to which someone belonged. Higher classes meant that you were exempted from social responsibilities such as taxes in addition to further benefits and privileges associated with such a class, while lower classes condemned you to working and paying taxes in addition to fending for your own survival. Additionally, there were absolutely no privileges associated with being among the people of the lower social class. On the other hand, the ruling authority in the form of a king had complete power over the people, and could virtually do as he wished. Over time, the gap between the lowest in the society and the top-most individual was so wide that the burden became unsustainable on the part of the Third Class (Lefebvre 201). This happened in line with the economic situation that made it increasingly difficult for the survival of the people. The wider the gap, the more difficult it was for the peasants and bourgeoisie to maintain the lives of the lavish rulers and First Estate individuals. From this, we can draw a relationship between the economic troubles that pre-revolutionary France went through and the subsequent measures that the different Estates took in a bid to survive the turn of events. As the aristocrats, led by King Louis XVI, sought to rectify the ever expanding debts by increasing the taxes paid by the bourgeoisie and the poorest in the society it reached a point where the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats were each struggling to ensure they maintained the level of freedom as they knew it. The bourgeoisie and nobles were joined in part by the large majority of the poorest farmers to reject the authoritative decree that they pay more taxes. This was particularly highlighted during the day of the tiles when the parliament of the day, made largely of the noble, refused to approve a law aimed at facilitating the acquisition of a loan aimed at offsetting the huge national debt (Doyle 299). They were subsequently fired, which led to them taking to the streets in protest. However, the king was not done with them yet, and soldiers were sent to disperse their demonstrations. Interestingly, the soldiers were met with tiles from atop the city, highlighting the first outright act of defiance. Moreover, this also heralded the start of the revolution as the parliamentarians involved started a campaign against paying taxes and even managed to convince larger France to take part in the cause. Moreover, the bourgeoisies were initially stifled and subdued by the aristocrats to quite a significant level. Despite this, they were the link between the poorest in the society and the ruling class and the First Estate made up of the clergy. Land leases and tax duties were generally left for them, and they were subsequently answerable to the aristocracy of the time. Despite their relatively significant input to the welfare of the society, they were still not able to gain significant access to the higher ranks of the ruling class (Price 222). They basically remained as subordinates whose only work was to facilitate proper relations between the top leadership and the lowest in the society. Over time, the bourgeoisies enriched themselves courtesy of the position that they held in the society. Given that they were typically the middle class who controlled most, if not all, of the trade and industries, they stood to gain a lot and improve their social status through increase and advancement in the industry (Price 256). As such, industrial growth of the mid-18th century enabled them to have economic and social power that put them at par with the aristocrats. This technically meant that they were in a position to offer some form of challenge to the aristocrats. Nonetheless, the feudal system still prevented them from taking up any position of authority or ruling power. However, the continued expansion of the industries meant that they had even more power and skill in addition to the wealth needed for political aspirations (Lefebvre 234). Therefore, the point that can be noted from this advancement is that the bourgeoisies took the enlightenment that they got from their position in the society to turn against the aristocrats and initiate the French revolution. The population also played a major role in influencing the rise of the bourgeoisie against the aristocrats. French population realized the fastest growth rate during the 18th century, almost to a point that it doubled. This increase in birth rate was mainly for the lower and middle class, composed of the Third Estate. Therefore, over time, the poor peasants and relatively comfortable middle class formed more than 95% of the population, and it is at this point that they felt they deserved a fairer share of control and ruling power than they actually were able to participate in at the time (Jenkins 154). In fact, their ability to get to the ruling position and have any significant influence was almost non-existent, and they were basically voiceless on how they were being ruled. With their increased numbers, any instance of oppression was more than likely to trigger a revolutionary reaction particularly in consideration of their increased enlightenment. Therefore, the increase in population aided the inclination towards the revolution as the bourgeoisies felt more and more that they were capable of gaining and maintaining power from the aristocrats particularly in light of their enlightenment (Curran 178). Moreover, the antagonisms between the bourgeoisies and the aristocrats led to the collective idealization that one’s qualification to a position of government or leadership had to be based on their participation in activities that contributed in the welfare of the society. Initially, being in government and any other position of power was basically a matter of where one was born, the family of birth, rather than the leadership and governance or managerial skills that one had (Price 378). Therefore, changing this conception was a breakthrough for the bourgeoisies as it enabled the subsequent creation of a National Assembly to defy the monarchy. Moreover, it is these provisions that made it easier for the Estates-General called by the King to fail, weakening the government system even further. Consequently, the combination of all these factors meant that the ruling authority, the aristocrats, had no chance against the rise of the middle class, the bourgeoisies, in addition to the lowest in the social chain. The French revolution heralded a new beginning for the French nationals as they were finally able to have some say on aspects of government that were of direct concern to them. The revolution was as a result of the various aforementioned factors, and for a large part was a combination of all of them. While the economic troubles put pressure on the ruling authority to find ways of offsetting its debts, the measure of increasing taxes only led to increased dissatisfaction from the taxpaying facets of the society. On the other hand, participation in wars and a penchant for a lavish lifestyle increased the economic pressure on national coffers. With time the bourgeoisies became wealthy enough and gained significant enlightenment that enabled them initiate a series of strategies that ultimately gave them power over the aristocrats. Consequently, this historical timeline gives an overview of the economic and social conditions of the pre-revolutionary France that ultimately resulted in the French revolution. Works Cited. Curran, Mark. Atheism, Religion and Enlightenment in Pre-revolutionary Europe. Indianapolis, IN: Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2012. Print. Haine, Scott. The History of France. Massachusetts, MA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000. Print. Neely, Sylvia. A Concise History of the French Revolution. Malden, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print. Jenkins, Cecil. A Brief History of France. Texas, TX: Running Press Book Publishers, 2011. Print. Kley, Dale. & Kaiser, Thomas. From Deficit to Deluge: The Origins of the French Revolution. California, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011. Print. Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: From Its Origins to 1793. Malden, MA: Routledge, 2005. Print. Doyle, William. The Oxford History of the French Revolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. Price, Rodgers. A Concise History of France. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print. Read More