France, 1774–1814

This chapter looks at why revolution broke out in France in 1789.

It considers the nature and problems of the ‘Ancien Régime’ –
the French monarchy which was eventually overthrown in 1792
after attempts to share power between the king and an elected
assembly. It explains why there was so much political instability
in the period 1790–95 and why the Revolution became more
extreme. The rise to power of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1799 is
considered, and also the changes that he brought to France as
Consul and from 1804 as Emperor. You need to consider the
following questions throughout this chapter:
• What were the causes and immediate outcomes of the 1789
Revolution?
• Why were French governments unstable from 1790 to 1795?
• Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to overthrow the Directory in
1799?
• What were Napoleon’s domestic aims and achievements to 1814?

KEY DATES
1774 Louis XVI comes to the throne
1787 Assembly of Notables to discuss financial problems
1789 May Estates General meets
1789 20 June Tennis Court Oath
1789 14 July Storming of the Bastille
1789 October Days
1791 Flight to Varennes by Louis XVI
1792 War with Austria and Prussia
1793 Execution of Louis XVI
1793 Terror
1794 Coup of Thermidor
1795 Directory
1799 Coup of Brumaire. Bonaparte takes power
1802 Concordat with Papacy
1804 Civil Code
1804 Napoleon becomes Emperor
1805 War of Third Coalition
1808 Peninsular War
1812 Napoleon invades Russia
1814 Napoleon abdicates
1815 Hundred Days
1821 Napoleon dies on St Helena
1 What were the causes and
immediate outcomes of the 1789
Revolution?
The French Revolution had long-term and short-term causes. It was
brought about by resentments in French society about inequality and
privilege. These were reinforced by the writings of the Enlightenment
and, more directly, by economic distress. In the short term it was
brought about by the monarchy’s failure to solve a growing financial
crisis and Louis XVI’s inability to manage the process of reform and
rising political demands. The outcome of the events of 1789 were in
the short term to bring about shared power by the king and an elected
assembly but in the longer term to establish a republic and the
abolition of monarchy which brought war and the rise of a military
leader who declared himself Emperor in 1804.

Louis XVI

Born in 1754, he was the grandson of Louis XV. He came to the

throne in 1774. Personally kind, he was not a dynamic or decisive
figure. He was ridiculed for his inability to have children by his
Austrian wife, Princess Marie Antoinette, until a minor operation
made sexual relations possible for him. Though interested in many
new ideas, particularly those connected to naval matters, he was
unable to deal effectively with the growing problem of finance. He did
not give support to a series of reforming ministers. His acceptance of
advice to go to war against Britain in 1778 made the situation critical.
He eventually agreed to summon the Estates General, the equivalent
to a French parliament, which had not met since 1614, but then
could not manage it. Shifting between support for change and a
desire to use force to prevent it, he allowed events to get out of
control. Forced to reside in the centre of Paris, not his palace at
Versailles, by mob action in October 1789, his position became
increasingly dangerous. He botched an attempt to flee in July 1791
and became a reluctant constitutional monarch. He unwisely
supported a war policy in 1792 and was blamed for the French
failures. He was overthrown as king in August 1792 and was
executed in January 1793.
What were the problems of the Ancien
Régime in 1774 and how were these
affected by the policies of Louis XVI?
The term ‘Ancien Régime’ refers to the rule of the French monarchs
before the Revolution of 1789. When Louis XVI came to the French
throne in 1774 he inherited problems. Some of these were long term
and were to do with how France was governed and the long-term
inequalities of French society. Others, especially financial problems,
were a result of costly wars fought in the reign of his grandfather Louis
XV.

Long-term social problems

Louis XVI inherited a country that was deeply divided and unequal.
France was made up of different classes, called Estates. Most of the
French people were in the Third Estate. Of these some 80 per cent
were peasants and the rest urban workers, tradesmen and a growing
middle class. Above them were the First and Second Estates who had
privileges that the mass of French people did not enjoy. The 0.5 per
cent of churchmen who made up the First Estate owned 10 per cent of
the land and were exempt from direct taxes. The official religion of
France was Roman Catholicism and all French people had to pay a
tax to the Church. Within the Church, members of the nobility held
nearly all important and richer posts. The nobles, roughly 120,000 in
number out of a population of some 28 million, were also exempt from
direct taxes. Most of the leading officers in the armed forces,
government ministers, provincial governors and important office
holders such as the local administrators and diplomats were members
of the aristocracy. Nobles also had the right as lords of the manor to
hold courts and receive payments from their peasant tenants. These
were known as feudal dues and were owed to them because of their
noble status. This inequality and privilege caused discontent among
the French middle classes who resented the lack of opportunity and
the inequality in taxation. Many peasants resented the feudal
payments, especially in times of hardship.
Long-term financial problems
Because of the tax privileges, the burden of taxation fell unequally.
The French monarchy faced financial problems because it lacked a
uniform and effective means of collecting taxes. There was a history of
selling offices to raise money – not only positions in the legal system
but also in the financial system. The crown relied on private individuals
to collect taxes. Contracts were agreed to collect fixed sums in
advance. Anything extra was profit for the collectors. Thus much
money, which could have gone to the crown, went instead into the
pockets of individuals. These intermediaries were known as ‘tax
farmers’. The French state could not collect enough taxes to meet
expenses and had to rely on loans. In normal times there was a
financial shortfall, but two expensive wars fought by Louis XV – the
War of the Austrian Succession 1740–48 and the Seven Years War
1756–63 – had increased the debts. In 1748 France had a debt of 1
billion livres and by 1763 this had risen to 1.8 billion. A lot of the taxes
raised had to go on paying interest on a very large debt.

ACTIVITY
Look at the long-term problems of France in 1774. Discuss with a
partner or in a group which is the most serious of the problems and
which is the least serious. Explain your view to the class.

Long-term economic problems

There were also long-term economic problems. Most French people
were peasant farmers and many of them made a bare living by
subsistence farming. A run of bad harvests could mean severe
hardships. France before 1774 was used to bread riots and hardship
in many rural communities. Population growth had meant that urban
population had grown. This was particularly true of Paris where there
were very poor districts. The internal customs duties payable when
supplies went from province to province added to the problems of food
costs in bad years, and the customs posts were deeply unpopular.
Long-term political problems
The growing middle class, brought about by the development of trade
and the growth of towns, saw considerable interest in ideas. Even
before 1774 the French authorities faced a more literate public and
the growth of criticism about the power of the clergy and nobles.
Journals, books and newspapers increased in number. However, there
was little formal outlet for discussion as France did not have a
parliament as such, and the king was in theory absolute and could rule
as he wished within the law. There was censorship and control over
publications. The king could arbitrarily imprison his subjects and the
only institutions that resembled a parliament, and indeed had the
name ‘parlements’, were in fact courts of law dominated by the
nobles which merely registered royal edicts giving them the force of
law. There was no equivalent to the British parliament which elected
members and could vote on financial matters and initiate laws.

Short-term problems after 1774 and the

impact of Louis XVI’s policies
Louis XVI did little to solve these problems and, indeed, made them
worse. His decision to go to war again against Britain in 1778 in
support of the British colonies in North America that had rebelled
against George III added to the debt quite considerably. Various
attempts by reforming ministers to solve the financial problems were
not sufficiently supported by the King to be successful.
The king and his queen, Marie Antoinette, did not set a good example
by failing to curb their spending. However, the inherited debt and the
high costs of war were more significant causes of financial problems.
There was little attempt to change France and to restrict privilege.
Even tax reform proved to be impossible when the privileged orders
resisted. Louis persisted in relying on tax farming and merely asking
the privileged classes to co-operate rather than enforcing major
governmental change. The King was reluctant to make any political
concessions. The decision to intervene in the American Revolution
meant that many new ideas had come back to France about the right
to resist tyranny, the right to be consulted about taxation and the right
of all to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ as the American
Declaration of Independence of 1776 said. Louis gave aid to rebels
proclaiming these new ideas but was not prepared to make changes
at home, which would have given his own subjects greater rights or
liberty. For many, aristocratic privileges were a barrier to ‘the pursuit of
happiness’ and Louis did little to reduce this.
As shown below, the King and his ministers were aware of the
problems, but failed to solve them in a series of attempted reforms
before 1799. These failures were crucial as they left the King with one
choice: to appeal to the nation as a whole and summon the old French
assembly – the Estates General – which had not met since 1614 to
help him with the financial problems. In the end, this decision saw the
beginning of the Revolution and the end of the Ancien Régime.

ACTIVITY
Review the key terms covered so far and make sure that you
understand them by writing a brief definition:
• Ancien Régime
• Parlement
• Feudal dues
• Estates General.
What were the pressures for change?
Changes in the social and intellectual life of France in the latter half of
the eighteenth century led to greater demands for change and the
governments of Louis XVI found themselves under pressure to
respond to growing discontent among all classes.

Social pressures
The growth in the French middle class from about 700,000 in 1700 to
2.3 million by 1780 meant that this class was more numerous and
likely to resent the privileges of the first two Estates. There was
greater literacy and a growth in demand for books and journals, many
of which were critical of the Ancien Régime. The businessmen and
merchants resented restrictions on trade such as internal customs and
lack of uniform weights and measures. There were large numbers of
lawyers who wanted political change and also a society which gave
more opportunities for people of talent to prosper regardless of how
privileged their background was. Even among the clergy, the middle-
ranking priests were resentful about the domination of the Church by
aristocratic bishops and abbots. Within the cities there was also social
discontent. Paris was the most populous with 620,000 people by
1789. The next largest city was Lyon with only 145,000. Thus, Paris
was disproportionately large and influential. It had a large underclass
of servants, casual labourers, peddlers, itinerant craftsmen and
25,000 prostitutes. Living in overcrowded and often unhealthy
conditions, they resented restrictions imposed by employers and city
authorities. Subject to hardship when bread prices rose, they often
resorted to mob action. Like the more prosperous middle classes, they
were reading more and had greater awareness of new ideas about the
people having rights.

SOURCE A

How far does Source A indicate that the main cause of the
Revolution was social unrest among the middle class?
A churchman writes about the Third Estate in a pamphlet. From
the Abbé Sieyès, ‘What Is the Third Estate?’, 1789
What is the Third Estate? Everything; but shackled and oppressed.
What would it be without the privileged order? Everything, free and
flourishing. Nothing can succeed without privileged persons, far from
being useful to the nation, enfeeble and injure it; the noble order
does not enter at all into the social organization; that it is a burden
upon the nation.

Economic discontent
A series of bad harvests during 1788–89 and a fall in trade and
employment created a great deal of urban discontent. There were
80,000 unemployed people in Paris by 1789 and most larger towns
and cities saw food riots in the spring and early summer. Food prices
peaked in July 1789 and coincided with the outbreak of revolution. In
the countryside peasants came under pressure from the 1760s as
landowners tried to take over lands traditionally used by the villages
as a whole. Landlords enclosed common land and forests that poorer
farmers used for animal grazing and gathering wood, nuts and berries.
By 1788 there were increasing instances of peasants refusing to pay
dues and taxes and attacks on the manor houses (chateaux) of
landlords. Though economic discontent produced violence and unrest
by poorer people in both town and countryside, it was also an element
in creating unrest among the middle classes. The increase in barriers
to trade, especially between 1785 and 1787 when the tax farmers
tightened collection and set up more customs posts, hit manufacturers
and traders. State control of prices and the restrictions of the trade
guilds which controlled production were resented by enterprising
businessmen. The unfairness of the tax system made matters worse
and seemed to show that there was a major need for change.

Political pressure
For many educated Frenchmen, the lack of political rights and a
chance to participate in government was frustrating. The old
parliament of France, the Estates General, had not met since 1614.
The power of the monarchy had grown during the seventeenth
century, especially under Louis XIV (1660–1715) who had promoted
absolutism. His grand palace at Versailles was symbolic of the power
of the central French state, imposing its will on the people in alliance
with a privileged nobility and clergy. Alternative ideas of shared power
and the participation of a wider political community had emerged in
the eighteenth century. These reforming ideas were promoted by
influential thinkers known as the Philosophes, and were part of a wider
movement known as the Enlightenment.

Louis XIV and absolutism

Louis XIV, 1660–1715, established a more powerful monarchy after a
period of political unrest in the mid-seventeenth century, which
stressed the God-given authority of the monarch. This type of powerful
monarchy was known as absolutism. Louis’ power was expressed in
his grand palace at Versailles and by his image in art and music as
‘the Sun King’. Much of his reign was spent at war, which caused
debts, and in practice there was unrest and division in France by
1715, so he left a problematic legacy to his successors Louis XV and
Louis XVI of a monarchy that was absolute in theory but less so in
practice.
In many European countries and in North America, there was a growth
of interest in scientific knowledge and a discussion of all sorts of
ideas. The interest in knowledge was reflected in the work of scholars
like Denis Diderot who attempted to gather all knowledge into an
encyclopedia. Greater knowledge led to treatises on change – there
were works on agriculture, on industry, on finance, education, on the
pursuit of happiness and on the nature of government. This expansion
of intellectual activity was the work of an elite of thinkers and scholars.
However, it had wider effects, particularly in matters of religion and
politics.
There were doubts cast on traditional religious beliefs and the power
of the Church to censor inquiries that threatened Christian beliefs.
There was also the general questioning of traditions that affected
belief in absolute monarchy. The most famous was the work of Jean
Jacques Rousseau (a French-speaking Swiss writer, 1712–78) who
questioned why, ‘Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains’ in his
book The Social Contract, which suggested that men and women
obey laws as part of an unwritten contract with those in power, not as
a matter of blind obedience to God-given authority.
The new ideas affected not only the middle class but also some in the
nobility. A major political writer was the Baron de Montesquieu (1689–
1755) who argued that there should be a division between those who
govern, those who discuss laws, and the judges to ensure a balance
of power to protect the subjects from excessive state power. In Paris,
Enlightenment ideas spread to the ordinary people, especially
independent craftsmen and shopkeepers.

SOURCE B

How useful is Source B in explaining opposition to the Ancien

Régime by 1789?

An Enlightenment view of liberty. From Jean Jacques

Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762)
The tyrant assures his subjects he will give them civil peace and
tranquillity. Granted; but what do they gain, if the wars his ambition
brings down upon them, his insatiable greed and the bad conduct of
his ministers press on. What do they gain, if the very tranquillity they
enjoy does not end the miseries? Tranquillity is found also in
dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live
in?
To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man.

It would be wrong to think of the King as opposed to the

Enlightenment. The queen, Marie Antoinette, was a great admirer of
Rousseau. Louis was interested in various reforms. However, as he
proved incapable of bringing about change to end the financial crisis
and resorted to summoning the Estates General, he opened the way
for discontents to be expressed and new political ideas to be
discussed.
What was the reaction of Louis XVI to
attempts to reform 1774–89?
The need to reform was pressing but Louis did not succeed in taking
the initiative, despite being well-intentioned. Having appointed some
able ministers, he failed to back them and let the situation get worse.
He reluctantly agreed at last to a special assembly of notables to
discuss the financial crisis in 1787 but this failed to get agreement and
so he accepted the summoning of the Estates General and even
allowed a nationwide consultation to put forward grievances. This was
a huge gamble and might have worked had he himself led the
movement for change but in fact it led to revolution and eventually his
overthrow and execution.

Turgot and early attempts to reform

Faced with a deficit of 37 million livres, Louis XVI appointed an
economic expert as his key minister – the Controller General of
Finances. Given that the deficit was in modern terms at least £6000
million, some drastic action was needed and Anne-Robert-Jacques
Turgot had plenty of ideas. He wanted to promote national wealth by
freeing trade and reducing price controls; to end tax privileges and to
improve communications to generate wealth. Appointed in 1774, he
was dismissed in 1776 when the Queen and privileged aristocrats at
court turned against him.

Necker and the Compte Rendu

His successor, a Swiss Protestant banker called Jacques Necker,
was also inventive. He aimed to cut back on the sale of offices and
reduce the share of the tax farmers in tax collected. To show
transparency in government he published the national accounts in the
Compte Rendu (report to the king) of 1781 – a bestseller as French
people wanted to know the secrets of finance. This was a step too far
for his enemies at court. He too was dismissed.

Calonne and the Assembly of Notables

His successor, the smooth and experienced aristocratic administrator
Charles de Calonne, offered an ambitious three-pronged programme
that would have economised spending, ended tax privileges in the
payment of the key land tax, the taille, and increased prosperity by
abolishing internal customs duties. He also proposed ending the
unpopular corvée. When this did not meet with the approval of the
parlement, Calonne turned to another striking proposal. In 1787, he
called a special assembly of notables – of leading figures in the
nation, aristocrats and royal princes. While not rejecting the reforms
as such, the Assembly wanted to link them to greater political
participation in government. The privileged classes were prepared to
accept a reduction in their privileges but not without the calling of the
Estates General. The failure to get agreement ensured that Calonne
would go the way of his predecessors, and he was dismissed in April
1788.

SOURCE C

What is the message of the cartoon in Source C?

A cartoon of 1788 shows the Assembly of Notables being

called. The aristocratic delegates are shown as poultry being
summoned to vote to be killed and eaten
Brienne and the decision to call the Estates
General
The attempts to reform continued. Calonne’s successor, the
aristocratic churchman Brienne, proposed to solve the financial
problems by a new uniform land tax paid for by all. He also proposed
other changes – reform of the customs barriers, provincial assemblies,
civil rights for Protestants and the ending of torture. These
progressive measures were rejected by the Assembly of Notables and
also by the parlements, which refused to register them.
By 1788 the King had lost patience and he supported Brienne far
more than he had supported the other reformers. When the
parlements continued to refuse to register the changes, he exiled its
members, announced plans to end parlements’ rights to register
edicts, or orders, and arrested leading members, including his own
cousin who had expressed criticisms.
Would the King now rule as a real absolute monarch and force the
privileged classes to accept change? This was one option open to
him, but he did not follow it. Instead he announced another assembly
– this time of the whole nation. On 8 August 1788 he declared that he
would summon the Estates General.
• The leaders of the parlements had come to be seen as popular
heroes resisting the power of the King, rather than selfish defenders
of privilege.
• There had been demonstrations in their support, for example the
‘Day of Tiles’ in Grenoble.
• Louis and Brienne feared that if the King rejected both the Assembly
of Notables and the parlements, and ruled as a real absolute
monarch, then the state would not be able to borrow the money it
needed to function.
The importance of this decision cannot be overstated.
• It led to widespread discussion of the grievances of the whole
nation. Traditionally the calling of the Estates General was preceded
by local meetings to draw up lists of grievances called Cahiers de
Doléances (literally ‘writing books of things which caused pain or
distress’).
• For the first time in the century there were elections for delegates to
this grand meeting of the Estates.
• It led to considerable expectations of reform and change.
• Brienne was replaced by Necker who returned from Switzerland and
was expected to take charge of a programme of change discussed
and agreed by the whole nation.

ACTIVITY
Hold a balloon debate in which the key advisers in this chapter argue
that they should stay in a hot air balloon which is sinking and has to
lose a passenger! You will need to research ‘your’ adviser and argue
that he was the best royal minister in the period 1774–1789.
SOURCE D

‘By February 1789 there was a revolutionary attitude in

France.’ To what extent does Source D support that
statement?

Some demands from the Third Estate in Carcassonne in

Southern France in the Cahier drawn up in February 1789 at a
special meeting
10 Voting in the new assembly should be by head, not by estate.
11 No class, organization or individual citizen may lay claim to tax
privileges.
12 The dues exacted from commoners holding lands should be
abolished, and also regulations which exclude members of the Third
Estate from certain positions, offices, and ranks which have hitherto
been bestowed on nobles.
13 There should be no arbitrary orders for imprisonment … any tax
exemptions. … All taxes should be assessed on the same system
throughout the nation.
14 Freedom should be granted also to the press.

The situation by 1789

The atmosphere created by this anticipation of change was
heightened by high bread prices and unrest among the urban and
rural population. The middle classes sensed an opportunity to
introduce a new constitution and bring about fundamental change and
an end to privilege. The level of political discussion was very high:
debating societies talked about reform in the language of the
Enlightenment – especially ‘liberty’.
Only the most skilful monarch could have managed these
expectations and avoided massive unrest. However, Louis was unable
to grasp the widespread feeling for change. When the Estates General
met it was announced that voting would be by Estate not by
delegates. Necker had persuaded Louis to allow the Third Estate
larger numbers of delegates, but the clergy and the aristocracy could
outvote them. Also the first meeting of the long awaited Estates
General was disappointing with Louis offering no programme and
proceedings going in a slow and formal manner.
Louis had allowed every chance for serious reform to fail. By
participating in yet another war – the War of American
independence from 1778 to 1783 – the financial situation had been
made worse. The King had failed to control his own nobles and to
make them agree to reform. He had failed to back his own ministers.
He had failed to see the consequences of suddenly allowing every
district in France to meet to discuss grievances while having no plan
to meet those grievances. In addition, he had not understood how to
treat the Estates General or seen how important it was not to
disappoint the high hopes for social, economic and political change.
What were the responses to Louis’
actions during 1789 and how did the
revolution develop?
The King’s hesitations and initial refusals to allow the Estates General
to vote by head and not by order – giving the first two Estates an
automatic majority over the third, which represented the bulk of the
nation – began a build-up of resentment against royal authority that
grew when he was seen to oppose change. It was clear that Louis
was reluctant to accept his new position as a constitutional monarch
sharing his power with the representatives of the people. As change
began to take place, the revolution grew more radical.

The King’s response to the Estates General

When the Estates General met in 1789, it consisted of 278 nobles,
330 churchmen and 604 representatives of the Third Estate (i.e. the
rest of the population). The King started badly by ordering each estate
to its own meeting hall. This was in the eyes of the King not a national
assembly but a meeting of three separate Estates, two of which could
outvote the other. The old-fashioned class-ridden view of society was
emphasized by the Third Estate being ordered to wear formal black
clothes, in contrast to the colourful dress of the nobles. No plans for
reform were announced in the opening ceremonies and valuable time
was wasted in each Estate verifying the election results to ensure that
the correct delegates were attending. The mismanagement drove the
Third Estate to declare on 17 June that it was the assembly of the
nation and not just an advisory body called by the King. When it
appeared that they were locked out of their meeting room, they met in
a tennis court (in modern terms, more like a large squash court, see
Source E below) on 20 June and declared they were a ‘national
assembly’ and swore an oath not to disperse until France had a
constitution.

The Tennis Court Oath

This was a key moment of the revolution and confirmed the change in
the Estates General. Originally called by the King to advise him on
terms that he decided, it had become a very different body by 17
June. It had declared that it was the representative body of the nation
– even though this was far from the truth as the bulk of the French
people were peasants and the bulk of the representatives from the
Third Estate were middle-class urban dwellers and professionals. The
oath taken on 20 June moved this idea forward by binding the
members to form a new constitution that would formally end the
absolute power of the king and give the people the right to elect
representatives. This would mean that the government would be
responsible to the nation and not just the king. This was truly
revolutionary. The occasion was seen as so important and historic that
the great artist Jacques-Louis David was commissioned to paint it in
1790 (see Source E). However, before he could finish many of the
original members had fallen victim to revolutionary violence so his
sketch is a somewhat poignant commentary on the view that those
who start revolutions rarely finish them.

SOURCE E

Look at Source E. How does the artist seek to portray the

great importance and drama of this event?

The Tennis Court Oath painting by Jacques-Louis David

The King was not to be moved. On 23 June he held a meeting of the
Estates and told them to go away and consider and discuss proposals
for reform separately. The Third Estate refused to obey the king.
When 47 nobles joined them, Louis gave way and agreed that there
should be one body and the three Estates should join.
Thus, by June 1789, Louis was facing a situation that he had never
intended. There was a new national assembly committed to a new
constitution, which would involve regular elections. Claims had been
made openly for the nation to be involved in government and decision-
making.

The storming of the Bastille

The revolution had begun, quite bloodlessly, before the event that
France now celebrates as its beginning – the storming of the Bastille
on 14 July. The King helped to bring this about by appearing to be
preparing for the use of military force to restore his authority by
summoning troops to the capital. He provoked a crisis by dismissing
the reforming minister Necker on 11 July.
However, Paris had become a hotbed of political agitation;
unemployment and high bread prices had created discontent. The
authorities had virtually lost control of the capital. Impromptu public
meetings and the speeches of radical political agitators had created a
mood of excitement. The King’s actions did not help, but the
conditions for an outburst were already there.
Crowds attacked customs posts, then, fearing military action to
suppress the assembly, they searched for arms. First they took
weapons from the Invalides military hospital and then moved to the
fortress of the Bastille. This had largely fallen out of use and was used
to house a few prisoners, but its sheer bulk was a symbol of royal
authority. The troops stationed there fired on the crowds. Other
disobedient troops joined the attackers and there was bloodshed,
culminating in the mob killing the prison’s governor, the Marquis de
Launay.

SOURCE F

How useful is Source F as evidence about the atmosphere in

Paris in July 1789?

A Parisian newspaper reports the storming of the Bastille, July

1789
The conquerors, glorious and covered in honour, carry their arms
and the spoils of the conquered, the flags of victory, the victory
laurels offered them from every side, all this created a frightening
and splendid spectacle. The people, anxious to avenge themselves,
allowed neither De Launay nor the other officers to reach the place
of trial; they seized them from the hands of their conquerors, and
trampled them underfoot one after the other. De Launay was struck
by a thousand blows, his head was cut off and hoisted on the end of
a pike with blood streaming down all sides … This glorious day must
amaze our enemies, and finally usher in for us the triumph of justice
and liberty. In the evening, there were celebrations.
SOURCE G

How does the tone and the content of Sources F and G differ?
Which do you think is the more reliable source?

The British ambassador reported to the government in London

on 30 July 1789 on the events of 14 July.
The fate of the Governor M.de Launay, is generally lamented, for he
was an Officer of great merit and always treated the prisoners
committed to his charge with humanity: it may be observed that the
mildness of the present reign in France is strongly characterised by
the small number of persons who were discovered in confinement in
the Bastille: yet these considerations were not sufficient to check the
fury of the populace, animated by the success of the attack and
heated with the spirit of vengeance.

To maintain order the Paris propertied classes (the electors of

delegates to the Estates General) created a new city council and a
National Guard – signs that the King’s authority was being ignored.
The King accepted this on 17 July.

The Great Fear, the August Decrees and the

Declaration of the Rights of Man
The King had paid the price for failing to be decisive in leading a
movement for reform or decisively using the ample military forces at
his disposal to end the revolution. Events now went forward at a pace
that left him out of control.
There was a marked increase in peasant unrest in the wake of
rumours that the nobles were going to stop reform and attack them.
This ‘Great Fear’ resulted in the burning of many chateaux and the
destruction of records of taxes and dues. In the towns, too, there was
the overthrow of traditional authority. The Assembly in Paris was
caught up in the national mood for radical change. It voted for the
abolition of feudal dues on 4 August 1789, and on 26 August passed
the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen – a bold
statement that Frenchmen were citizens not subjects, with rights not
merely the duty to obey the monarch.

ACTIVITY
Reread the section on 1789 and find arguments and facts to support
each of the following statements:
• ‘The loss of royal authority by July 1789 was mainly the fault of the
king himself.’
• ‘The loss of royal authority was because of a situation that was too
difficult for the king to control and he should not be held
responsible.’
Then decide which you think is more convincing and why.

SOURCE H

What can you learn from Sources F and H about the

development of the Revolution during the summer of 1789?

Extracts from the Declaration of the Rights of Man, 26 August

1789
1 Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.
2 The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural
and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property,
security, and resistance to oppression.
3 The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No
body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not
proceed directly from the nation.
4 Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no
one else.
5 Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society.
6 Law is the expression of the general will.
The King could do little except observe these major changes in French
society and government. They were the unintended consequence of
the decision to summon the Estates General and the failure to gauge
the situation.

The ‘March of the Women’ and the October

Days
By October, Louis was having second thoughts. He did not embrace
change. He resented his loss of status as representative of the nation
and made some half-hearted moves to restoring what he thought was
the natural order of monarchy. He summoned troops from the
Flanders Regiment, who were known to be loyal to him personally, to
his palace at Versailles. At a reception for some of the officers, the
revolutionary red, white and blue cockade (emblem) was trampled
underfoot.
With food prices high and with a great deal of hardship fuelling radical
agitation in the poorer districts, another burst of popular fury erupted.
This ‘March of the Women’ was led by the fishwives of the Paris
markets protesting about the price of bread. A great demonstration
was held and a march on Versailles took place. The National Guard
and its indecisive commander, the Marquis de la Fayette, followed
the crowds to Versailles where there was bloodshed, as royal guards
were killed and the palace invaded on 5 October 1789.
Up to this point both the King and his ministers and the national
assembly had been meeting at Versailles. The events of 5 October
forced both King and assembly to move to the centre of Paris. Louis
went in a humiliating procession, jeered by crowds, to take refuge in
the Tuileries Palace, where he was at the mercy of the mob far more.
The Assembly now moved to establishing a new reformed France and
to drawing up a new constitution. Its name now – the Constituent
Assembly – showed that it was working as an independent body, not
as part of a royal government.

ACTIVITY
Reread the chapter and explain why each of the following was
important in the development of the Revolution in 1789:
• The Storming of the Bastille
• The Tennis Court Oath
• The Declaration of the Rights of Man
• The October Days
Now rank these events in order of importance: 1=least important,
5=most important and explain your reasons.

The role of the King in the development of the

Revolution in 1789
The King was in many ways the author of his own misfortunes and his
fatal inconsistency ended chances of a royal-based reform
programme and also an effective suppression of revolution. However,
the economic situation was not within his control and neither was the
growth of the population of Paris and the radical ideas of the
Enlightenment. He also inherited financial problems and an inefficient
financial and administrative system. There were disturbances in other
countries in the late eighteenth century and the use of force was not
always effective, as was shown in the successful rebellion of the
American colonies against Britain. Thus, while Louis’ responses to the
developments of 1789 can be seen as intensifying the Revolution,
they cannot completely explain the loss of royal control by the end of
1789.

SUMMARY DIAGRAM
What were the causes and immediate outcomes of the 1789
Revolution?
2 Why were French governments
unstable from 1790 to 1795?
The achievements of the National Assembly which became the
Constituent Assembly were remarkable, but it became increasingly
difficult to ensure that France was stable after 1790. The opening up
of political debate had led to all sorts of different ideas – some very
radical – while at the same time there was conservative concern about
the pace of change, so France became very divided. The situation
was made worse by war from 1792. The new constitution took until
1791 to be formed and by then many had lost faith in the King and
there were also powerful republican groups. With the overthrow of the
King power passed to the radical revolutionaries but their reign of
terror was too extreme for many and they were overthrown in 1794
and a more conservative government called the Directory ruled until
1799. Threatened by both royalists and radicals they relied more and
more on military power.
The views and aims of revolutionary
and counter-revolutionary groups
The events of 1789 had moved France very quickly from an absolute
monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. There had also been an
unprecedented amount of political discussion and interest in political
developments. This had led to a wide range of views being expressed
and the formation of new political clubs which pressed for change. The
opponents of the Revolution – or the counter-revolutionary groups –
also emerged. Thus, France became very divided, and political
arguments went beyond mere discussion and became violent, leading
to instability in government, extremism and loss of life.

Revolutionary groups
The discussions about the Cahiers and the relaxation of censorship
and government control led to an expansion of political activity and the
expression of a range of radical political ideas. The most influential
groups that demanded radical change were members of political clubs
called the Cordeliers and the Jacobins. Middle-class radicals founded
the Cordeliers Club in 1790 as the Society of the Friends of the Rights
of Man and of the Citizen. Its members encouraged working-class
membership. The leading speakers Georges-Jacques Danton and
Camille Desmoulins wanted to extend the Revolution to ensure that
it represented the ordinary people and they also wished to end the
monarchy. The Jacobins originated in a meeting of deputies from
Brittany to the Estates General. A discussion club in a former convent
of St Jacques, it was initially moderate, but it split in July 1791. Those
who believed in a constitutional monarchy left to form a club called the
Feuillants. This left the Jacobin club as a gathering of more radical
members who, like its leading speaker Maximilien Robespierre, looked
for power for the people, an end to the monarchy, a sweeping away of
the old elites and a new Republic of virtue that would see a rebirth of
France. He and many radicals saw the people as natural and pure, as
opposed to the corrupt court and nobility. These ideas were expressed
in a newspaper called ‘The Friend of the People’ organized by Jean-
Paul Marat.
Maximilien Robespierre

Born in Arras in 1758, Robespierre was the son of a lawyer. He

trained in law in Paris and specialized in defending poorer people.
Robespierre was elected to the Estates General in 1789. He
developed radical ideas and was a member of the Jacobin club.
Though opposed to war in 1792, he was a passionate believer in the
Revolution and the end of the monarchy. He took the major role in
the overthrow of the Girondins and was a leading member of the
Committee of Public Safety, supporting extreme measures of terror
against perceived opponents. Highly influential with the Paris
crowds, he became powerful and aimed to implement controversial
changes such as the Cult of the Supreme Being in place of
traditional religion. He lost support among the people and the
Convention and was arrested, condemned and executed in July
1794.
Less radical, but still anxious for change, was another leading group,
the Girondins. Called after the Gironde region where many of its
members came from, this group supported revolution but were
prepared to accept a constitutional monarchy. They were initially the
allies and supporters of a journalist and intellectual, Jacques-Pierre
Brissot, and included the influential political leaders Jean Roland and
his wife.
Clubs and parties in the French Revolution
There were no political parties in the modern sense and the titles
below refer either to the places where like-minded people met to
discuss political events, like the former Convent of St Jacques (hence
Jacobins), or to names given to them.

Even more extreme revolutionary ideas emerged in Paris such as the

Hébertists. These were sometimes known as the Enragés (the angry
ones) and called for a popular democracy, the destruction of the old
privileged classes and the role of the king, and policies to share
wealth among the poor.
What had begun as a moderate and bloodless revolution that called
for a constitutional monarchy that would consult its subjects about key
elements such as taxation had turned by 1792 into a much more
extreme movement as the political clubs and groups struggled for
power and did not hesitate to gain the support of the Paris people.
The monarchy was overthrown in a violent coup in August 1792, and
the King was tried and executed in January 1793, showing the
increased influence of the more extreme groups.

ACTIVITY
Make sure you understand these key terms by writing a short
definition of each one:
• Counter Revolution
• Emigre
• Jacobin
• Girondin
• Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
This development of radicalism had been feared by royalists since
1789. Many nobles and the King’s brothers had left France and
established themselves over the border in the lands of the German
Archbishop of Trier. These émigrés, as they were known, urged other
European monarchs to intervene to restore the power of Louis. They
promoted resistance to the Revolution in France.
Many Frenchmen did not agree with the changes. There was
particular resentment among many Catholics at the religious policies
that ended the special position of the Catholic Church, took over its
lands and made priests officials of the state (The Civil Constitution
of the Clergy). Opposition to the new ideas and to the control being
exerted by the revolutionary assemblies in Paris gave rise to counter-
revolutionary movements which split France and led to civil war.
These were strong in Brittany where local forces known as Chouans
opposed the Revolution in favour of a restoration of the power of the
Church and the King. In la Vendée in the west there was resistance
and revolutionary armies fought bitter struggles against opposition.
This often involved mass executions such as those at Nantes in 1793
and in Lyon where special forces were sent from Paris to overthrow
the royalist government that had been set up in the city.
However, violence was not just a result of royalist ideas being pitted
against revolutionary ideas. The more extreme Jacobins denounced
and had executed the Girondin leaders and also their rival radicals.
The leader of this terror was Robespierre and he brought about the
downfall and death of his one-time friends Danton and Desmoulins.
Brissot and the Rolands were tried and executed. But political murder
was not all on one side. A Girondin, Charlotte Corday, murdered Marat
in his bath and was herself tried and executed. Robespierre and his
supporters were overthrown by force in July 1794.
The Revolution brought new ideas about religion, with Robespierre
supporting a Cult of the Supreme Being to replace Christianity. This
was a broadly religious movement with special ceremonies in praise of
key civic virtues. The Jacobin St Just had ideas about revolutionising
education, distributing wealth among the people and having true
democracy and when war broke out from 1792 (see below) the
revolutionaries had the idea of a total war with a citizen army being
supported by the entire population. There were calls not only for
democracy for men but even for political equality for women – though
this was frowned on by the male-dominated revolutionary groups.
Nevertheless, a few thinkers like the Marquis de Condorcet supported
the feminist ideas of Olympe de Gouges and Théroigne de
Méricourt. However, these won little general sympathy and were seen
as part of the political extremism brought about by revolution.

ACTIVITY
1 List the main radical ideas which had emerged by 1793.
2 Why do you think the revolution became so radical?
Why were there so many changes of
government 1790–95?
The Estates General renamed itself the National Assembly on 17 June
1790 and on 9 July became the National Constituent Assembly. While
the King continued to appoint ministers, the Assembly passed
legislation, which transformed and modernized France, and finally
produced a written Constitution in September 1791. A new elected
assembly called the Legislative Assembly lasted from September
1791 to 1792. France was still a monarchy but the King was
suspended in August 1792 and France became a republic in
September with a new National Convention. Rule passed to
committees of this convention. Revolutionary violence increased from
September 1792 until an extensive Terror was established during
1793–94 with political groups attacking their enemies and sending
them to execution while suppressing all resistance to the Revolution
with great violence. The Terror ended in 1795 when France had yet
another constitution under a government of Directors who ruled
France until a military coup in 1799 brought Napoleon Bonaparte to
power. Thus, the period from 1790 to 1795 was one of considerable
change and political instability.
The Constituent Assembly reorganized local government, ended
nobility and passed important measures freeing trade and ending
guild restriction. It confirmed the end of feudalism and began a
process of bringing in uniform laws. But its main function was to give
France a constitution. When it had introduced a new constitution its
members who had been active since the calling of the Estates
General in 1789 passed a law that former deputies were not eligible to
sit in the new Legislative Assembly. Thus, valuable experience was
lost.
The attempt to make the new constitutional monarchy work was
weakened by the King attempting unsuccessfully to flee France in July
1791, which made him seem a traitor to his own people and increased
calls for a republic. The rising influence of the more extreme
revolutionary groups like the Jacobins and the growth of counter-
revolution in France led to instability. This was also caused by
disputes over religion with the King opposing the Civil Constitution of
the Clergy and then the outbreak of war in 1792 and early defeats of
France’s forces made for instability. Popular disturbances in Paris
brought the monarchy to an end in August 1792.
The new Republic faced the strains of war both against foreign nations
and also its own people in the provinces. It had bitter political in-
fighting between different groups and came to rely heavily on terror.
The emergence of highly radical leaders dominated by abstract ideas
made the Republic vulnerable. When it seemed that Robespierre
might extend the Terror, he was overthrown by former allies. But even
with the end of the most extreme factions, there was limited stability
with both royalists and radicals in danger of taking over. In 1795 there
was yet another attempt to institute a new constitution with the
formation of the Directory. Though this lasted until 1799, it was not led
by inspiring leaders and was dangerously dependent on military
successes by ambitious generals.
Thus, after 1790 the Revolution did not settle to a moderate
constitutional monarchy as many hoped but could not sustain a more
radical form of government either. It has been rightly claimed that the
Revolution did not throw up an outstanding leader who could unite the
nation.

ACTIVITY
Discussion point
Consider the following statement: ‘The Constitution of 1791 was
doomed to fail.’ Below are some points to help with your thinking.
• Think about what was necessary for it to succeed.
• Think about whether there was too much extremism and too little
trust in the king.
• Think about whether anything in history is ‘doomed to fail’.
Economic problems 1790–95
The bad harvests and high prices, together with longer-term economic
problems in many areas of the countryside, had contributed to the
events of 1789. The constitutional monarchy that had emerged was
helped by better harvests in 1790. However, in 1791 once again
harvests were bad. There were food riots in Paris in January and
February 1792 and the rate of unemployment rose. This was partly
because of the effects of the Revolution. The departure of many
aristocrats and richer elements in French society meant that the
demand for luxury goods fell. Those involved in many trades that
supplied items such as lace, silk clothes, expensive shoes and all
sorts of consumer goods found that their incomes fell and many
workshops closed. The outbreak of a slave revolt in the French West
Indian colony of St Dominique disrupted imports of some key items
such as coffee and sugar and disrupted the profitable West Indies
trade.

Inflation and paper money

Economic conditions were made worse by the issuing of paper money
by the government. The new notes were called assignats and they
were, in effect, transferrable IOUs based on the wealth that the state
had gained from taking over Church lands. However, their value was
unstable and this resulted in inflation. French people were reluctant
to use this paper money so causing a shortage of currency, which
inhibited trade.

Worsening problems
These economic problems were accompanied by problems that
accompanied the decision to go to war in 1792 against Austria and
subsequently Prussia and Britain. The war brought the threat of
foreign invasion and stirred up fears and resentments, which were in
part fuelled by food shortages and high prices at a time when trade
was highly disrupted first by revolution and then by war.
The hardships of the people of Paris were expressed in resentment
against the old ruling classes. The sans-culottes demanded harsher
measures against enemies and suspects who they saw as priests who
would not swear an oath of loyalty to the new constitutional Church, to
aristocrats, to traders and merchants who hoarded food and deprived
the poor, and to the King and the royal family.
Louis resolutely refused to accept laws in the Legislative Assembly
against so-called non-juror priests and also to accept that the property
of the aristocratic émigrés should be confiscated.
As with the revolutionary journées, or ‘days’, of 1789, economic
hardship was a major contributor to a fresh outbreak of popular unrest
in Paris that led to the end of the monarchy on 10 August when
crowds supported by radical politicians, and provincial troops who had
come to defend Paris, attacked the royal guards at the Tuileries and
brought an end to the monarchy.
The economic problems continued into 1793. The value of the paper
money assignats fell by 50 per cent and grain supplies were at
dangerously low levels. The new Convention tried to impose controls
in response to popular demands for actions against hoarders.
However, price controls merely meant less grain was brought to
market and illegal trading or the black market flourished, raising prices
even more and creating more social discontent. The more extreme
elements in the Convention called for death for hoarders and new
taxes on the rich.

SOURCE I

How useful is Source I as evidence for the grievances of the

people of Paris in 1793?

Jacques Roux, a radical member of the Paris local government

(Commune) petitions the Convention, in June 1793. He refers to
currency speculation involving the paper money (assignats)
Have you outlawed speculation? No. Have you decreed the death
penalty for hoarding? No. Have you controlled trade (to ensure
plentiful and cheap food)? No. Have you banned the exchange of
assignats for specie? Have you visited the poorer floors of the
houses of Paris? You would have been moved to tears by the tears
and signs of an immense population without food and clothing.

The political situation worsened – the moderate revolutionary Girondin

government faced considerable demonstrations from the Paris crowds
and radical elements of the National Guard which overthrew it in June
1793, leading to a more radical Jacobin government and to the
political violence known as the Terror (see pages 19–21).
The civil war that had broken out in the countryside by 1793 disrupted
food supplies even more. The needs of war against European
enemies absorbed resources and raised prices. In September 1793
the Jacobin government passed the Law of the General Maximum.
This controlled prices but also wages. The Jacobin leaders believed in
the Revolution passionately but that meant fighting a war. They did not
put the interests of the urban workers before the need for stable
prices. They prevented higher wages and took action against strikes
by tradesmen such as plasterers, bakers, butchers and printers. In
March 1794 there was renewed attempt by the government to control
wages.

ACTIVITY
Draw a spider diagram to show the problems facing France in 1793.
On your diagram, label the most serious problem as 1, the next most
serious problem as 2, and so on.
The discontent in Paris that had once resulted in the creation of a new
constitutional monarchy and then helped to destroy the monarchy and
to support a radical regime and a revolutionary Terror was now turning
against the Jacobins and their leader Robespierre. The sans-culottes
made no attempt to save Robespierre from being overthrown by his
enemies in the Coup of Thermidor on 17 July 1794. Initially a period of
cheaper food had led to popular support for the radical revolutionaries,
but fear of wage reductions led to a loss of this support. After
Robespierre’s fall, price controls were first reduced and then ended.
For the first time since 1791 there were serious rises in bread prices
and real wages fell back to 1789 levels.

SOURCE J

Compare and contrast Sources I and J as evidence for

hardship in France 1793–95.

Government Report 1795

The worker’s wage is far too low to meet his daily needs: the
unfortunate pensioners and small investors have to sell their last
sticks of furniture; the shop keepers and small businessmen find
their capital and income eaten up; the civil servants also suffer
economic privation.

Arms production was reduced, causing hardship, and supplies of food

from the countryside were reduced because peasants refused to
accept discredited paper money. The gap between poor and rich
seemed once again to be considerable and on 1 April 1795 there were
bread riots and an attempt to take over the Convention. It was met
with determined resistance and repression. Hunger and distress led to
a wider revolt on 20 May known as the Revolt of Prairial. The sans-
culottes surrounded and entered the Convention, demanding lower
prices and action against the rich. But when they dispersed the
authorities used troops to surround the main working-class districts.
Economic distress continued but it could no longer fuel effective crowd
action. The Revolution had given rise to high hopes for economic
change, which it was not able to deliver.
Foreign threats and the impact of war
on France
The initial events of the Revolution did not lead Louis XVI’s fellow
monarchs in Europe to rush to his defence. He had exploited the
problems of Britain in the American War of Independence and had
intervened in the Netherlands in 1788 to take advantage of a revolt
against Austrian rule in neighbouring Belgium. When his brothers and
other nobles left France, they established themselves in Coblenz, over
the border in modern-day Germany. At this time, Germany was over
1000 independent mini countries under the nominal control of the Holy
Roman Empire. The émigrés were sheltered by sympathetic German
archbishops but did not get the support they needed for an invasion of
France by the largest German powers, Austria and Prussia. The
European powers were not entirely displeased to see France
weakened by revolution.
However, as the Revolution became more radical, especially after
Louis tried unsuccessfully to flee and it was clear he was a virtual
prisoner in his own country in July 1791, there was more concern. In
August 1791 the King of Prussia, Frederick William, and the Emperor
of Austria issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, threatening intervention in
support of Louis. The Austrian Emperor Leopold was the brother of
Marie Antoinette and was becoming concerned for her safety.

SOURCE K

How far does the evidence in Source K show that the

Revolution was faced by united and dangerous enemies?

From the Declaration of Pillnitz, August 1791

His Majesty the Emperor and His Majesty the King of Prussia …
declare together that they regard the actual situation of His Majesty
the King of France as a matter of communal interest for all
sovereigns of Europe. They hope that that interest will be
recognized by the powers whose assistance is called in … to
strengthen, in utmost liberty, the foundations of a monarchical
government of the French. In that case, aforementioned Majesties
are determined to act promptly and unanimously, with the forces
necessary for realizing the proposed and communal goal. In
expectation, they will give the suitable orders to their troops so that
they will be ready to commence activity.

Thus the threat from foreign powers and the dangers of the émigrés
led some in France to demand war. This was pushed by the
Girondins, the more moderate revolutionary group led by Jacques-
Pierre Brissot. They hoped to unify the nation behind a pre-emptive
war to defend the Revolution and also to spread revolutionary ideas. It
was opposed by Robespierre who argued that it could actually lead to
counter-revolution if it failed. The King supported the war against his
own fellow monarchs hoping that it would bring about a restoration of
royal power.
The war changed the whole nature of the Revolution. France declared
war on Austria in April 1792 and against Prussia in June. Great
revolutionary enthusiasm was not enough to prevent French forces
being driven back as they attempted to invade the Austrian
Netherlands. France now faced invasion and worse. In July the
Prussian commander issued the Brunswick Manifesto threatening to
destroy Paris if the King were harmed. This created a panic in Paris
that was made worse when Prussian forces took the fortress of
Verdun.
The threat of a counter-revolution supported by Austrian and Prussian
forces led to a wave of suspicion. Treachery was blamed for the
military failures and a state of emergency was declared. Provincial
troops were summoned to Paris to defend the Revolution. The Paris
crowds invaded the Tuileries Palace on 20 June and forced the King
to wear the red cap of liberty. However, in the heightened
atmosphere of war this was not going to be enough. Louis had
incurred suspicion for vetoing measures against émigrés and had
opposed calling up extra troops. On 10 August mobs attacked the
Tuileries Palace, massacred the royal guards, forced the
imprisonment of the King and a suspension of the monarchy.
The immediate threat of invasion was ended by a revolutionary victory
at the Battle of Valmy, but the monarchy was doomed by then and a
Republic was declared. The fevered atmosphere of war brought a
massacre of suspects in the Paris prisons. The wave of violence
continued relentlessly. The King was tried and executed in January
1793. Civil war erupted in the south and west. French threats to the
Netherlands together with revulsion at the death of the King brought
about war with Britain. Revolutionary France was now isolated in
Europe and faced a coalition of major European nations which was
capable of aiding the opposition within France itself.

The Battle of Valmy, 20 September 1792

Prussian forces invaded France and were met by a French force led
by Dumouriez and Kellermann. A rapid Prussian advance might have
been decisive but the Prussians decided to attack a French force,
blocking their retreat to Germany. An artillery duel made the Prussians
stop their attack and a further clash at Jemappes in November ended
the Prussian invasion. Though fought by members of the former royal
French army, not revolutionary hordes, the battle was decisive in
saving the Revolution.
The feeling of betrayal was increased when the victor of Valmy,
French generals Lafayette and Dumouriez, deserted to Austria. The
Girondin ministers who had been so anxious for war now faced a
popular uprising supported by their political enemies. The war led to a
second French Revolution that toppled the moderates and brought the
more extreme elements into power from 31 May to 2 June 1793.
The National Convention and its Committees – Public Safety and
General Safety – was dominated by Robespierre who enjoyed the
support of the Paris sans-culottes and offered a policy of total war. All
national resources were taken for war. There was conscription, new
arms workshops were set up; suspected opponents were arrested and
controls put on prices and wages. Political representatives were sent
to dismiss and often execute defeatist or inadequate generals.
SOURCE L

How useful is Source L for showing the impact of war on the

people of France? Answer by explaining ways in which you
think it is useful and then consider any limitations you think
this evidence has.

Decree of the Convention, August 1793, instituting national

conscription
From this moment until that in which the enemy shall have been
driven from the soil of the Republic, all Frenchmen are in permanent
requisition for the service of the armies. The young men shall go to
battle; the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions;
the women shall make tents and clothing and shall serve in the
hospitals; the children shall turn old linen into lint; the aged shall
betake themselves to the public places in order to arouse the
courage of the warriors and preach the hatred of kings and the unity
of the Republic.
It is, accordingly, authorized to form all the establishments, factories,
workshops, and mills which shall be deemed necessary for the
carrying on of these works, as well as to put in requisition, within the
entire extent of the Republic, the artists and working men who can
contribute to their success.

Utmost violence was used against internal opponents, with mass

killings in the provinces and public execution by guillotine in Paris.
Marie Antoinette was a victim in October but those killed were often
accused of undermining the war effort rather than just being nobles
executed in a class war.
The idea of a citizen army and a ruthless political terror were the direct
consequences of war, though they had their roots in some of the
revolutionary ideas discussed since 1789. However, without the threat
of war it is unlikely that revolutionaries like Robespierre would have
gained power. The author of the war effort was Lazare Carnot and his
organization anticipated the total war of the twentieth century. By 1794
the threat of invasion had lessened and there was greater control of
rebellious areas of France itself – at an estimated cost of some
200,000 lives.
The war offered opportunities for talented younger officers to emerge
and the large forces raised by the revolutionary regime were effective
in reducing the threat and in French conquests. By July 1794, the
foreign threat was no longer strong enough to justify a possible
extension of terror and the economic controls were being resented. In
July Robespierre fell and though the war was continued by his
successors, it did not dominate the course of the revolution to such an
extent.

ACTIVITY
Make notes on pages 24–26 on the importance of the Revolutionary
War. Pick out key points about the impact of the war and use sub-
headings and bullet points as much as possible.

SUMMARY DIAGRAM
Why were French governments unstable from 1790 to 1795?
3 Why was Napoleon Bonaparte
able to overthrow the Directory in
1799?
The most notable military victories of the Revolution were won by a
young Corsican commander trained in France called Napoleon
Bonaparte. Making his name by taking a leading part in driving Britain
out of the southern French port of Toulon in 1793 he went on to gain
powerful friends in the Directory and was appointed to command the
army of Italy in 1796. He achieved spectacular successes and went on
to a very well-publicized campaign in Egypt, which while failing in the
long term produced some short-term victories that caught the public
imagination and led to him being used by plotters to overthrow the
Directors in 1799.
The aims and rule of the Directory
The members of the Convention and the Committees of Public Safety
and General Security who organized the overthrow and execution of
Robespierre and his leading supporters in July 1794 were known as
the Thermidorians, after the date of the coup in the revolutionary
calendar – Thermidor (July). Their aim was to avoid a bout of terror
that might have brought them to their deaths and to end the
supremacy of Robespierre. They wanted to distance the government
from the radical ideas of Robespierre on religion and avoid what they
saw as the absurdities of his Cult of the Supreme Being. They
doubted the need or wisdom of continuing the Terror, given the
improved military situation, and wanted to reduce the control of the
state on economic activity. They were mainly middle-class political
figures who distrusted the radical Paris Commune, which they saw as
dominated by the sans-culottes. They also distrusted the radical
constitution that the Jacobins had drawn up but which had never been
implemented.
The defeat of the popular risings of April and May opened the way to a
new and less extreme revolutionary regime that was more in line with
the ideas of 1791 in protecting property and preventing the state
having too much power.
The Constitution of the Directory was not instituted until 1795. The
Directory was a ruling committee of five men. They constituted the
executive branch of government and were chosen for five years by the
upper chamber of the legislature, which was the Council of the Elders
(Conseil des Anciens). This consisted of 250 members all of whom
had to be over the age of 40. They chose the Directors from a list
submitted by the second chamber, the Council of Five Hundred, who
had to be at least 30 years old. Both houses were elected by all men
over 21 who paid direct taxes. There were 5.5 million of these
taxpayers out of a population of about 30 million. They voted for a
special group called electors who in turn chose the members of the
two councils. These were men who were even wealthier and there
were high property qualifications, which meant that only 30,000 men
were eligible. There were annual elections for these elite electors but
they chose only a third of the two houses each year to ensure
continuity. The Directors served for five years with one retiring each
year on the basis of drawing lots.
This elaborate arrangement aimed to ensure certain outcomes.
• The Directors would not be as powerful as a monarch or as powerful
as the Convention’s previous committees. No future Robespierre
could emerge.
• The voting would be in the hands of wealthier elements who would
not threaten stability or vote for measures to benefit the masses at
the expense of taxpayers.
• The restriction in age would ensure that more mature men would
dominate and not younger and more radical men.
The Directory was brought in at a time when the Thermadorians had
reduced the power of the sans-culottes and the political clubs. The
threat of invasion was much less than in 1792–93 and internal unrest,
while not suppressed, had been lessened. However, problems
remained.
• The fall of Robespierre had encouraged considerable violence by
royalists in the provinces – the so-called White Terror – and there
was a danger that there might be a restoration of the monarchy.
• The power of the radicals had been diminished but there was still a
danger from the sans-culottes.
• There were ongoing economic problems that might cause instability
and the financial position was not secure.
• France faced the hostility of many European powers and Britain in
particular was a persistent foe whose strong finances and powerful
navy threatened France.
• There was still a need to maintain large military forces and the
regime was dependent on military victory.
• There was always the danger of a military coup.
The reputation of the Directory and
opposition to it
The Directory did not throw up a single inspirational figure and its
reputation has been of a weak and unsuccessful government that fell
victim to intrigues and the emergence of a strong military leader.
Napoleon Bonaparte ended the regime and introduced a stronger and
more purposeful government. The elements that have been seen as
weak are as follows:
• The constitution did not allow for firm government and the Directory
faced a series of attempts to overthrow it, both from royalists and
from the radicals – the so-called neo-Jacobins.
• The regime was corrupt and financially inefficient.
• There was overreliance on censorship and repression in the
absence of genuine support.
• The regime depended on military success and the plunder from
military campaigns.
• The regime was weakened by internal intrigues that finally brought
the Directory to an end in 1799.
However, defenders of the Directory point out that the challenges to it
were met more firmly than was the case with previous revolutionary
regimes. In October 1795 the Directory faced a challenge from 25,000
royalist demonstrators in Paris protesting against measures to ensure
that the new councils would be dominated by those loyal to the
Republic. On 13 Vendemiaire in the revolutionary calendar (5
October) the Directory used a young commander, Napoleon
Bonaparte, to protect them with artillery and his ‘whiff of grapeshot’ –
deadly cannon used at point blank range – dispersed the
demonstrations.

ACTIVITY
Find points to support each of these interpretations:
1 The Directory’s poor reputation is justified and it achieved little.
2 The Directory was more successful than is often claimed and does
not deserve its poor reputation.
Then consider which you think is more convincing and why.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Corsica in 1769. His family were

minor aristocrats and his father was a lawyer. Napoleon was sent to
France to study as a result of the family’s collaboration with the
French who had recently taken over the island. He trained as a
professional soldier and became a lieutenant of artillery – the least
fashionable and aristocratic part of the army. Serious and withdrawn,
he read widely and was deeply interested in the French Revolution.
He returned to Corsica to try to lead the revolution there but was
driven out by local feuds and the Bonapartes moved to France. His
friendship with some leading Jacobins led to him being able to take a
leading part in the battle to expel British forces from the port of
Toulon. This gave him a good reputation and marrying the mistress
of one of the Directors, Paul Barras, made him known in political
circles. He commanded a force that dispersed a mob trying to
overthrow the Directory in 1795 and his loyalty was rewarded by a
command of the army of Italy. This was the breakthrough as by rapid
movement and skilled tactics he defeated the enemy forces of
Piedmont and Austria and imposed a peace treaty in 1797 giving
France control of Northern Italy.
In 1798 he led a daring expedition to Egypt to cut off British
Mediterranean trade routes to the East. Successful on land, his ships
were destroyed by the British admiral Nelson. Leaving his army he
returned to France where he was taken up by opponents of the
Directory and took part in a coup in November 1799 to establish a
new constitution. Once within reach of power, he took his opportunity
to dominate the new government as First Consul and became
Consul for Life in 1802. He oversaw a batch of highly important
internal reforms as Consul including a major reform of French law.
He declared himself Emperor in 1804. However, his main concern
was war. He led a brilliant campaign in central Europe 1805–07
defeating Austria, Prussia and Russia and dominating Europe. To
defeat Britain he tried to strangle British trade by forbidding British
exports but this backfired and led him into wars in Spain and
Portugal and also in Russia in 1812. French forces could not hold on
to Spain and Portugal when British troops supported local forces.
The invasion of Russia was on a very large scale but was
unsuccessful and saw a humiliating and costly retreat. Still believing
in victory he fought a campaign in Germany in 1813 against Prussia
and Austria but could not prevent the invasion of France in 1814.
Losing the loyalty of key figures in his government and faced with
unfavourable odds against much larger allied forces and having lost
control of the seas to Britain, he abdicated in April 1814 and was
exiled to the small island of Elba in a miniature and humiliating
parody of Empire. He returned to France in 1815 for a brief
restoration of his imperial rule but was defeated by British, Dutch and
Prussian forces at Waterloo and exiled finally to the remote Atlantic
island of St Helena where he died of cancer in 1821.

ACTIVITY
Napoleon has been seen as a heroic figure who saved the
Revolution and a tyrannical dictator who destroyed it.
Find one book or article which supports the first view and one which
supports the second. Which do you think is the more convincing and
why?
In March a threat from the radical left, a conspiracy by François Noel
(Gracchus) Babeuf, a radical democrat, was discovered and Babeuf
was arrested and executed in 1797.

ACTIVITY
Research the events of Vendemiare in 1795 and assess how
accurate the portrayal in Source M is.
Threatened by royalist victories in the elections of September 1797
that might have seen a royalist takeover, the Directors took decisive
action and in the so-called Coup of Fructidor arrested two right-wing
Directors and 27 deputies. Though the constitution in theory
weakened the executive, in practice the Directors overcame threats
and were not afraid to take decisive measures. Mass conscription was
continued and the Law of Hostages of 1799 gave the government
considerable powers of arrest, imprisonment and confiscation of
property of those aiming to overturn the regime in any area that was
designated ‘disturbed’.

SOURCE M

What does Source M suggest about the methods used by the

Directory to maintain order?

The defeat of the royalist uprising of Vendemiaire, 1795

Individually, some of the Directors, particularly Paul Barras, had a
reputation for corruption but the Directory did see financial reform. The
Minister of Finance from 1796 to 1797, Dominique-Vincent Ramel de
Nogaret, introduced impressive reform measures that improved the
collection of the main land tax by drawing up new registers of property
and establishing regular tax offices in each department. His measures
helped to end the assignat inflation and by a bold measure of
renouncing part of the debt (the so-called bankruptcy of two thirds) he
made repayments of the remaining amounts more realistic.
It was true that this was not a regime that could appeal to the public
for support or offer much in the way of inspired leadership. There was
a reliance on force and on intrigue. In 1799 in the Coup of Prairial
(June) the more conservative directors plotted against the neo-
Jacobin directors. It was to extend this that the conservatives, led by
Sieyès and Pierre Ducos, aimed at a purge of the two councils with
the assistance of a compliant general. By a deal with Bonaparte,
Emmanuel-Joseph Sièyes and his conspirators brought about the
end of the Directory in November 1799 (see below). However, given
the strains of war and the internal divisions, it could be argued that the
Directory did well to maintain itself in power for so long and to keep
parliamentary government going.
The Directory did depend on military success. It inherited the war of
the First Coalition, which was ended by spectacular military victories
by General Bonaparte in Italy leading to the Treaty of Campo Formio
in 1797, which gave France lands in Northern Italy. The Directors also
received much needed revenue from plunder. Bonaparte was a leader
of considerable military ability, but he had been appointed as a young
man by the Directors who should get some credit. However, in 1798
another European coalition was formed against them. With Bonaparte
away on a campaign in Egypt in 1798, there was less success, heavy
cost and less plunder to fund the government.
By 1799 there was talk of a ‘margouillis national’, which means a
national mess in French. There was a range of problems:
• The problems of inflation had been replaced by the problems of
falling prices and economic downturn.
• Military successes were less frequent and there was less money
coming into France from plunder of conquered territories.
• There was growing opposition, especially the increasing threat from
a revival of Jacobinism and popular unrest. However, there were
also opponents who were royalists and supported an end to the
Revolution.
• The Directory was divided and some of its members were plotting a
military coup to strengthen the government and put down
opposition.
The Directory had ceased to attract much support. When the coup of
November 1799 resulted in the formation of a consulate dominated by
Bonaparte, there was little attempt by any significant forces to oppose
this. For all its achievements, the Directory could not guarantee
stability or maintain internal unity.
The military reputation and political
ambitions of Napoleon Bonaparte up
to 1799
Napoleon Bonaparte was able to rise because of the opportunities
open to a young soldier of talent as a result of the Revolution. He first
achieved major success in his part in driving the English out of the
port of Toulon in 1793. He manoeuvred cannon onto high ground in
order to attack his enemies and showed personal bravery and
initiative.
The Italian campaign created the image of a new kind of general
fighting a new kind of war. Here was a people’s commander, speaking
directly to his men, being in the thick of the fighting, sharing the
hardships of his troops and being prepared to lead from the front. In
his dispatches he promoted his own abilities and created an image of
a true revolutionary general. He worked hard to boost morale,
addressing his forces in an inspirational manner, taking the trouble to
know them and winning their loyalty. He revitalized a tired and
dispirited army and led them against a divided enemy with old-
fashioned tactics. The essence of the Italian campaign was speed and
concentrating forces against the weak points of his enemy. He rapidly
defeated the forces of the Italian state of Piedmont and then faced the
stronger forces of the Austrian Emperor. Rapid and decisive
campaigning led to Austrian withdrawal and a peace signed in 1797 at
Campo Formio. Bonaparte negotiated this treaty personally and it led
to French control of Northern Italy. The spectacle of Italian forces in
the historic city of Venice was thrilling for the French public, loot
flowed into France, and Napoleon became a state-builder, setting up a
new government in Milan.
Bonaparte was not the only successful general during the Directory,
but he was the only one to give so much attention to establishing an
image by publishing bulletins designed to show his genius. This
suggests that he had political ambitions.

SOURCE N
 How useful is Source N in explaining Bonaparte’s success in
Italy 1796–97?

Bonaparte’s speech to his troops, March 1796

Soldiers, you are naked, ill fed! The Government owes you much; it
can give you nothing. Your patience, the courage you display in the
midst of these rocks, are admirable; but they procure you no glory,
no fame is reflected upon you. I seek to lead you into the most fertile
plains in the world. Rich provinces, great cities will be in your power.
There you will find honour, glory, and riches. Soldiers of Italy, would
you be lacking in courage or constancy?

The Egyptian Expedition, 1798

His next campaign was deliberately designed to grab the imagination
and admiration of France and was one of the boldest moves in the
war. He took his forces to Egypt, then part of the Ottoman Empire, in
order to cut the trade links between Britain and India, one of its richest
imperial possessions. The aim was for France to dominate the
Eastern Mediterranean, but Bonaparte also took with him scholars to
make the expedition part of an enlightened project to gain knowledge
of the ancient civilizations of the Middle East.
The modern light artillery and the carefully planned military tactics that
he had developed would be effective against the limited resources of
the forces of the rulers of Egypt, the Mamluks, and would be sure to
enhance the general’s reputation. But Bonaparte had not counted on
British naval power. The British navy led by Horatio Nelson attacked
the French fleet at anchor in the Nile at Aboukir Bay, cutting the
French forces off from the homeland. On land Bonaparte achieved his
spectacular victories near the Pyramids and went on to dominate
Egypt and invade Syria. However, the campaign was marked by
plague and by massacres of prisoners. It also petered out when
France was unable to take the key coastal town of Acre. To the French
public, however, Bonaparte was the heroic conqueror of Egypt and
when he slipped past the British ships and got back to France, he was
greeted as a hero.

Was this reputation deserved?

Bonaparte claimed to have found a weak and ineffective army, which
he revitalized by his personal energy and leadership. Though the army
had had limited success it did consist of 41,000 men, many of whom
had battle experience. Napoleon’s reputation was based on a smaller
French force winning victories against larger odds. It is true that he
was outnumbered. The Piedmontese had 25,000 men and the
Austrians had 38,000 in Italy. However, the two enemies did not
establish a joint command so Bonaparte was able to use his forces
against weaker Piedmontese forces and then go on to tackle Austria.
Bonaparte was lucky in the initial battles. An attack on the
Piedmontese at Ceva 16–17 April 1796 did not achieve much, but the
government of Piedmont decided not to pursue the campaign and its
forces fell back on Turin. The campaign against Austria did include
some spectacular incidents – an attack led by Bonaparte on the
bridge at Lodi over the river Adda made him famous but was not
militarily significant as the Austrians were already retreating. The
decisive battle at Rivoli in January 1797 was not against aged and
incompetent Austrian generals and though the French were
successful it was not as a result of brilliant tactics but sheer
determination. Bonaparte did maintain a war of movement against
Austria but he also tried to take the fortified city of Mantua for eight
months. The city did fall in February 1797.
On the other hand, Bonaparte was flexible and did see that he must
ensure that Piedmontese forces were defeated before they joined with
Austria. When attacked he did improvise very effectively, as at the
final great battle at Rivoli. Whatever the importance of incidents such
as the struggle for the bridge at Lodi 10 May 1796, his personal
involvement in positioning artillery and encouraging his forces to
attack led him to gain a high reputation among his men. This was a
major element in bringing victory.
Even though the campaigns of 1798 were against an enemy with
limited artillery and knowledge of modern tactics, they were very
effective. Bonaparte used the latest ideas of deploying his forces in
what was known as the ‘ordre mixte’, alternating lines and columns
and using lighter artillery to maximum effect. His personal reputation
was boosted by acts of individual bravery, especially visiting plague
victims at Jaffa, helping to move them and not fearing to touch them.

SOURCE O

How far does Source O support the view that Bonaparte was a
great leader?

Bonaparte’s senior military surgeon gives an account of his

actions towards plague victims, 1798
His presence among plague victims brought great consolations; he
made the doctors treat several patients in front of him. They were
piercing the swellings to relieve pain. He touched those who were
most distressed to prove to them that they had an ordinary illness.
He helped lift, or rather carry, the hideous corpse of a soldier whose
tattered uniform was befouled by the bursting of abscessed wounds.

Military historians continue to debate his reputation. However, the

victorious outcome in Italy and the successes on the battlefield in
Egypt spoke for themselves to a French public deprived of heroic
leadership. Bonaparte had the political skill to make the most of what
he had achieved and to construct his own legend. Even after his fall in
1815 in lonely exile on St Helena he rewrote history, adding heroic
speeches to his troops in 1796 that he had not actually made at the
time.

Napoleon’s political ambitions

Bonaparte did not see himself merely as a commander. He had taken
an active part in politics in Corsica after the Revolution, so much so
that his enemies made it necessary for him to return to France and
take his family with him. He had taken a keen interest in revolutionary
writings and politics, had associated himself with the Jacobins and
had the support of Robespierre’s brother. He escaped possible
execution after their fall, but showed an interest in state-building both
during the Italian campaigns where he set up a revolutionary state in
Milan and also in Egypt where he took a keen interest in establishing a
model state.
Bonaparte prepared the ground for taking power by carefully
calculated bulletins and the promotion of a heroic image. He was also
more than ready to co-operate with the politicians of the Directory who
wanted to have the services of a politically minded general to back a
coup to strengthen the executive and to purge political enemies. He
later claimed that he had planned to take power all along. His wide
reading and interest in reforms suggest that he was confident in a
sense of mission to maintain the gains of the Revolution. At the same
time he wanted to give back to France unity and internal discipline,
which would allow it to become a great European power again. More
critical views have seen him as an ambitious general eager to promote
himself and his family and to extend the authority he enjoyed as a
military commander to France as a whole.

The coup of 1799

It is often debated whether the coup of 1799, which brought the
Directory to an end and began the rule of Bonaparte, was a result of
the weaknesses of the existing regime or his own strengths and
popular appeal.
It is true that the coup did not overthrow a flourishing or particularly
popular government. There had been attempts to overthrow the
Directors from conservatives and from neo-Jacobins. The regime
relied heavily on force to maintain itself and there was the ongoing
threat from European powers that had formed the Second Coalition
against France in 1798.
However, a study of the history of previous republics that had ended
with the emergence of a strong dictatorial figure led many to fear that
a military-backed coup would destroy the gains of the Revolution.
There was no certainty that, despite his high reputation, Bonaparte
would be acceptable as the leader of a coup. Also, the leaders of the
coup did not aim to establish a military dictatorship but rather to
remove the threat of a return to Jacobinism and to strengthen the
executive power.
The chief plotters were Emmanuel Sieyès and Pierre Ducos who
enlisted the support their fellow Director Paul Barras. They had
support in both councils but not enough to act without the threat of
military action that was to be provided by Bonaparte. A crisis was
engineered when the Directors resigned – the two Jacobins being
forced to leave office by the others. The meetings of the two councils
were moved from central Paris to the outskirts at St Cloud to prevent
any popular demonstrations. There, Bonaparte and loyal troops were
gathered.
What was expected to be a short and successful takeover turned out
to be a botched and farcical event.

ACTIVITY
Write a profile of Bonaparte from the point of view of a writer in 1799
explaining his character and achievements, and assessing his future
prospects.
The Council of Five Hundred (see page 28) put up more resistance
than expected to the establishment of a new government. When they
protested Bonaparte entered the Chamber but was met by furious
opposition and shouts of ‘Outside the law.’ This was dangerous. If the
troops had failed to support him, then Bonaparte could have been
arrested as a plotter. At a crucial time he wavered, but the day was
saved by his brother Lucien who claimed that Bonaparte’s life was
being threatened. The troops rushed into the meeting room and the
deputies rushed out.

SOURCE P

How useful is Source P as evidence for the events of 10

November 1799? Answer by using the provenance of the
source and your own knowledge.
Bonaparte gave a different version in a proclamation on 10
November 1799
The councils being assembled at St Cloud. Several members of the
council of five hundred, armed with daggers and fire-arms, circulated
around them nothing but menaces of death. I then repaired to the
council of five hundred without arms, and my head uncovered, such
as I had been received and applauded by the elders. Twenty
assassins threw themselves upon me, and sought my breast. The
grenadiers of the legislative body, whom I had left at the door of the
hall, came up and placed themselves between me and my
assassins. At this time the cry of ‘Outlaw!’ was raised against the
defender of the law. They pressed around the president [Napoleon’s
brother Lucien Bonaparte], threatened him to his face. I gave orders
to rescue him from their power, and six grenadiers of the legislative
body brought him out of the hall. Immediately after the grenadiers of
the legislative body entered into the hall, and caused it to be
evacuated.

Sieyès was ready with a new constitution increasing the power of the
government. The Directors were replaced by three Consuls initially
ruling for ten years. The name derived from the rulers of the Republic
of Ancient Rome. However, this was not a dictatorship as there was
an elected legislature. In this most complex arrangement the lower
house had two bodies. The first was the Tribunate of 100 members
aged 25 and above. The second was the Legislature consisting of 300
members over 30. The upper house was the Senate consisting of 60
members over 40 years old. The actual government was dominated
by Napoleon as First Consul – the other two fell into obscurity. He
appointed the Senate who in turn appointed the members of the
Tribunate and Legislature. The democratic element, such as it was,
came from the male population (some 6 million) choosing a
Communal List (600,000) who in turn chose a Department List
(60,000) who chose the National List (6000) from whom the Senate
chose the Tribunate and the Legislature. The First Consul and his
Council of State proposed any new laws. These were approved by the
Senate. They were discussed by the Tribunate and voted on by the
Legislature.
Bonaparte justified the changes in a speech in November 1799 by
stressing the decline between 1797 and 1799.

SOURCE Q

How useful is Source Q in explaining whether Bonaparte was

able to take power in 1799 because of the weakness of the
Directory? What knowledge would you use to test the
accuracy of his comments?

A speed by Bonaparte in 1799

I left you peace, I find war. I left you conquests, I find enemies at our
borders. I left you the millions (of francs) from Italy. I find misery and
extortionate laws! Where are the brave hundred thousand soldiers,
my companions of glory now?

The coup had succeeded in strengthening the government, which

could not be removed for ten years and was sure of any of its
measures being passed. In 1802 Bonaparte was made Consul for
Life, ending any chance of a change of government. In 1804 he
declared himself Emperor (see pages 41–43).
The coup had removed the instability, as with the support of the army
and with little power remaining with the assemblies there was little
chance of any attempted coups such as had threatened the Directors
being successful.
The new regime retained some democratic elements. The new
constitution was referred to all males to vote on in a plebiscite or
referendum. Also initially all adult males voted for the first of the lists of
people who would eventually make up the Legislature. However, this
was very far from the most democratic of the constitutions of the
French Revolution and it was the one that gave elected assemblies
the least power.

ACTIVITY
Reread this section. Find evidence for each of the following
interpretations:
1 ‘Napoleon came to power because he was an outstanding leader.’
2 ‘Napoleon only came to power because of the weaknesses of the
Directory. His own abilities have been exaggerated.’
After that, decide which view you agree with more and why.

SUMMARY DIAGRAM

Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to overthrow the Directory in

1799?
4 What were Napoleon Bonaparte’s
domestic aims and achievements
to 1814?
Though much of Bonaparte’s energies went into military campaigns,
there was a period from 1800 to 1804 where he gave his attention to
domestic changes and this produced some of the most important
achievements of his career. After 1804 his conquests in Europe
preoccupied him but the reforms spread into Europe and he continued
to take an interest in domestic policy.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s initiatives as
First Consul
Bonaparte’s immediate domestic aims were to maintain his authority
and to enable him to defeat his internal opponents and ensure that the
French state could support the defence of France and its conquests
since 1793 against foreign powers. However, during the Consulate he
initiated important changes in France which showed that he was not
merely pursuing power for its own sake. In order to sustain the new
balance between ‘liberty’ and ‘order’ of 1799 he extended his power in
1802 to become Consul for Life. This was presented to the people for
approval in the tradition of the Revolution but in fact the results were
rigged and only token opposition was shown.

Local government
Local government was controlled by the change in the way that
France’s 83 departments were ruled. Prefects were appointed with
wide responsibilities to allow Bonaparte to maintain control of the
different regions. His power extended to major towns as he also
appointed mayors and nominated members of town councils.
This seemed to go against the ideal of democracy and the rights of the
people of the Revolution, but it did carry on some of its ideas. There
was uniform administration for all French citizens, even if it was
directed from a central authority. Appointments were made on merit
and not through privilege. Members of the French middle class were
given posts in local government on merit, and sound and efficient
government was promoted.

Legal reform
The revolutionary idea of efficient and uniform administration in place
of the old privilege and huge regional and local differences that had
existed before 1789 was also reflected in important legal reforms.
There had been widespread discussions of introducing one uniform
legal code for the whole of France. This had led to lengthy
discussions, but the military mind of Bonaparte was applied to the
problem and he encouraged the production of a Civil Code in 1804
and later commercial and criminal codes by 1807. Thus laws were
made uniform throughout France.

Education
Another key revolutionary idea had been equality and opportunities
open to talented people regardless of class. One requirement for this
was that there should be an educational system open to all. This was
beyond the scope of what was possible, but Bonaparte showed a
keen interest in educational change to produce the administrators and
officers that France needed. In 1802 the Consul initiated 45 state
academies or lycées which provided scholarships for 6400 boys.
Beneficiaries were mainly the sons of officers and officials. The aim
was to offer technical education of a high standard. After 1805 there
were more state secondary schools established. The 300 new schools
were tightly organized with a common national curriculum and strict
regulations as to timetable and the content of lessons. In neither
secondary education nor higher education was there much stress on
free enquiry, rather the development of skills useful to the nation and
the promotion of a sense of national unity and obedience.

The Concordat
Religious change was an important element of the Consulate.
Religious disputes had divided France since 1790 and many priests
had rejected the state Church established by the Revolution and had
refused to swear an oath of loyalty. Religion had motivated much of
the opposition to the Revolution in the provinces and it was vital for
national unity that Catholics were reconciled to the state. Napoleon
began negotiations with Pope Pius VII in 1800 and an agreement was
reached in 1801 and published in 1802 called the Concordat.
Catholicism was recognized as the religion of the majority of French
people. The Church was, thus, given a special position but it remained
state controlled with its clergy being paid by the state and leading
appointments being made by the First Consul. A new structure with 10
archbishops, 60 bishops and 3000 parishes was established. As the
Church had suffered a lot from anticlerical actions during the
Revolution it was reassuring for it to be given something of its old
status back; but Napoleon retained a lot of control. Key appointments
were made by him and the state retained its control over registering
births, deaths and marriages which it had taken in 1790. After the
Concordat, French Catholics did not feel however, that supporting the
state was somehow to be disloyal to the Catholic Church.

Public finance
The period of peace between 1801 and 1804 allowed Napoleon to
initiate other important measures as Consul. There were
improvements in tax collection that built on the work of the Directory.
Registers showing liability for the main direct tax on land were
improved and the collection of both indirect and direct taxes was made
more rigorous and less corrupt.
An important financial measure was the creation of a Bank of France
in 1800. Britain and the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium)
had established national banks in the seventeenth century. This
allowed secure issuing of paper money and made lending to the state
more secure. In order to bring greater financial stability to help trade
and to make borrowing easier the Consul introduced a new currency –
the franc de germinal – based on gold and silver coins whose content
of precious metal was closely controlled. This finally ended the danger
of inflated paper currency.

The significance of domestic reforms

The energy that Bonaparte put into establishing a new and more
stable, if less democratic, state and into putting into practice changes
that the revolutionary regimes had discussed but had not managed to
implement makes the Consulate one of the most dynamic periods for
domestic change in the nineteenth century. The nature and impact of
domestic policy generally will be discussed below but the initiatives of
the Consulate have led some to consider Napoleon as the heir to both
the Enlightenment (see pages 6–8) and the Revolution. For others,
the initiatives were deeply flawed because of the authoritarian nature
of the regime and the underlying motive for change has been seen
less as the national good but more the cementing of a military
dictatorship.
In December 1804 the whole nature of the regime was changed by
the decision of the Consul for Life to go a step further towards
personal power and declare himself Emperor.
The inauguration of the Empire
The Consulate was a monarchy in all but name. Bonaparte enjoyed
more power than Louis XVI had done as constitutional monarch after
the changes from 1789. He had put into practice reforms, which had
proved impossible for Louis and his ministers from 1774. He had given
France greater internal stability than the Ancien Régime, virtually
ending the riots and disturbances that had often accompanied bad
harvests even under strong kings.
However, this stability depended heavily on the energy and
personality of the Consul and not on a system. In the event of
Bonaparte’s assassination or death in battle, then France could easily
be plunged once again into instability and civil war.
There were two elements that may have led to the Empire of 1804.
The first was undoubtedly Bonaparte’s ambition and desire to promote
his family. He had a strong belief in his destiny to rule and a great
desire that his family and his descendants should be rewarded. His
position was a strange one. There were few republics in the Europe of
his day. Hereditary monarchy was the norm even when the monarchs
as in Britain shared power with elected assemblies or aristocratic
elites. The US was a Republic but even in that more democratic
country, a strong elected ruler had been established by the
constitution of 1787. But there the president could change without a
violent civil war. In France that would not be likely. Once Napoleon fell,
then it was likely that the Consular system would fall with him.
However, if he became a hereditary monarch then the nation could get
used to the idea of his son inheriting the crown and the underlying
system could continue with the support of a new aristocracy led by the
Bonaparte family.

ACTIVITY
Make a table. In the first column list the major reforms of the
Consulate:
• Legal reforms
• Education
• The Concordat
• Financial reforms.
In the second column explain briefly what each achieved.
In the third column ‘mark’ each reform out of 6 – with 6 being the ‘top
mark’. In the fourth column explain your ‘mark’.
Look at your ‘top mark reform’ – perhaps it is legal reform. Now plan
an essay about that reform, for example:
‘Assess the view that The Code Napoleon was the most important of
the reforms of the Consulate.’
The other impetus for an Empire came not so much from Bonaparte,
but from the notables. The Council of State and the Tribunate and
Senate were in favour of a monarchy. There had been plots against
the Consul, particularly those masterminded by the Breton opposition
leader Georges Cadoudal. The fear of royalist plots was great enough
for Bonaparte to order the kidnap and execution of the exiled Bourbon
prince – the Duc d’Enghien – from Germany in 1804, one of his most
controversial and shocking acts. The army leaders too were in support
and Bonaparte had received a great many petitions to take the next
step and make himself hereditary ruler.
Despite Josephine’s objections and some fears that he would be seen
as overambitious and might end up in a similar position to Louis XVI,
he took the decision to establish the Empire in May 1804. Backed by a
plebiscite he held a grand ceremony in Notre Dame with the Pope
present in December. The Empire was proclaimed at the same time as
the Civil Code and Napoleon made it clear that his new imperial status
was based on the people and the senate.

SOURCE R

Look at Source R. What image is the artist trying to project?

Napoleon on His Imperial Throne by Jean-August-Dominique
Ingres, painted in 1806

The Empire saw a change in style. A new aristocracy appeared with

special robes and symbols. His brothers were given grand titles.
Heavy symbolism appeared. Napoleon linked himself to royal
traditions before the Bourbons. He took as his personal symbol the
bee. This had been a favoured symbol of the ancient Merovingian
kings of France, especially Childeric (436–481). Charlemagne (747–
814) was also featured in paintings and tributes. Court ceremonials
became grander.
Emperors are at a higher level than mere kings, so members of his
family could be elevated to kingship. Louis his brother became King of
Holland. Joseph was first of all King of Naples and then King of Spain.
Jerome became King of Westphalia in Germany. Even one of
Napoleon’s generals, Murat, became King of Naples. The Empire was
supported by rewards that went beyond Napoleon’s family. The Legion
of Honour was extended to 25,000 people who received grants of land
as well as the prestige and the Napoleonic elites – officers,
administrators, wealthy supporters – were given posts and honours.
The elites were known as ‘the masses of granite’ on which the Empire
was built. The Empire also saw impressive public buildings and public
works. But Napoleon himself was careful to retain the image of the
simple soldier. On campaigns that took him out of France for a long
period – 1805–07, 1809 and 1812–13 – he dressed very plainly and
shared a lot of the hardships of his men.

SOURCE S

How far does Source S support the view that Napoleon was
an insecure emperor? Does your own knowledge suggest that
he was right to wage war?

Napoleon reflects on his situation as Emperor (1809)

My empire will be destroyed if I cease being fearsome – if my son is
not a great military commander – if he is not able to do what I do –
then he will fall off the throne. Among established kings, a war’s only
purpose is to take a province or capture a city. But with me, it’s
always a question of my existence of a monarch.

To secure his dynasty he divorced Josephine and married the Austrian

princess Marie-Louise of Parma in 1810. She produced a male heir –
the Duke of Reichstadt. However, the chances of establishing a
dynasty were in practice remote. Napoleon the Emperor faced
relentless opposition from Britain and undertook years of campaigning
against the other European monarchs. In the end, the survival of the
Empire was based on his ability to defeat his enemies on the
battlefield rather than any real legitimacy.

ACTIVITY
Which of these comments on why Napoleon became Emperor
seems more accurate?
• ‘An act which showed his vanity and ambition.’
• ‘The Act of a responsible statesman.’
Explain your view by reference to the chapter.
The nature and impact of Napoleon’s
reforms (legal, education, social and
financial)
The legal reforms
The Civil Code of 1804 and its extension in 1807 set out a uniform law
system for all of France. It established the clear principle that law was
the creation of the state and it was nothing to do with local custom, or
religion or the traditional rights and privileges of nobles. The Code had
some major effects on French life.
• Property could be bequeathed more freely and did not all have to
pass to the eldest son.
• The ending of feudal rights that the Revolution had brought about
was confirmed in law.
• Privileges such as those of the Church were ended.
• The property rights of those who had gained land from the Church
or from the nobility during the Revolution were confirmed.
These elements together with the very fact that there was one
national, uniform law code could be seen as beneficial for many
property owners and met a lot of the demands expressed in the
cahiers of 1789. However, there were elements that were a lot less
liberal.
• The Code permitted the reintroduction of slavery in French overseas
colonies to protect the rights of the owners of slaves who had lost
their human property during the Revolution.
• Husbands’ and fathers’ authority over women and children was
reinforced. Married women could not own property in their own right.
Wives who survived their husbands did not automatically inherit
their property. Husbands were favoured in disputes about custody
rights of children; divorce requirements were stricter for women than
men. Women could only gain divorce if husbands had been
unfaithful and if the other woman was actually brought into the
 family home, but any infidelity on a woman’s part was grounds for
divorce.
• Fathers’ rights to control their children were reinforced and
employers’ rights over their workers were also recognized.
Thus male authority was strengthened in society – over wives,
children, workers and slaves. The main support for the regime came
from property owners as they were the main beneficiaries of the
reforms.

Education
Educational reform at secondary level was for boys. There was little
provision for either primary education or for girls’ education, which
continued to be met by private teaching or by the Church. The aim
was to provide an elite of well-trained civil servants and officers. There
was little offered in the way of intellectual speculation. In higher
education there was more development in the Empire. The so-called
‘University’ was decreed in 1806 and established in 1808. Here the
aim was for one institution to bring 26 academies together in a
centralized system of higher state education. Mostly the plans
concerned scientific and technological developments, but the idea
was never developed because of the demands of war after 1805. A
feature of educational reform was regimentation and overall control
and utilitarian rather than speculative content and teaching. The scale
of the lycées and secondary schools remained too limited for the
reforms to have a widespread impact, but an important model was
established for future French education.

Social changes
The effects of the changes aimed to have a major effect on French
society. The religious changes ensured that toleration was an official
policy even though the Catholic Church was recognized as the main
religious body. The divisions in society caused by opposition to
religious change were reduced and the hostility towards ‘godless
revolutionary government’ from provincial areas lessened.
The greater access to positions in the state met a lot of the middle-
class grievances of the pre-revolutionary period and increased the
status and wealth of the French middle classes. Property owning was
made more secure by legal changes that recognized the ownership of
previous noble and ecclesiastical land. However, the gap between
richer and poorer elements increased. The urban lower middle class
lost any political influence, and workmen were more controlled by the
use of livrets – a record of behaviour kept by employers that made it
hard for those workers who did not conform to get future employment.
The heavy spending on war and the extensive programmes of
buildings and public works provided employment, but the main
beneficiaries of the Napoleonic regimes were the notables – the richer
middle classes who had brought about the Revolution. The old nobles,
though encouraged to support the regime, remained suspicious and
many stayed in exile. The poorer peasants and the sans-culottes
gained little from the regime and generally did not participate in the
upward social mobility of a growing middle class.

Financial and economic

The Consulate had provided a stable currency and a new national
bank. The inflation of the revolutionary period was contained. The
Empire consciously promoted industry. The Revolution had moved
France into free trade, ending customs barriers. The fall of
Robespierre ended restrictions on wages and prices. Manufacturers
and employers gained from the end of guild restrictions and the
restrictions on workers’ organizations. Napoleon gave them tariff
protection by putting import duties on foreign goods. His conquests
gave them access to wider European markets. Control of other
European countries gave France a chance to restrict foreign
production that came into competition with French industries. A new
commercial law code and uniform weights and measures helped
business. Roads and canal building helped trade and business
communications.
However, the downside was the loss of capital available to be invested
into industry. This money was instead devoted to Napoleon’s
extensive and prolonged wars, which restricted cash and resources
available for other economic projects. Also, the war disrupted valuable
trade with Britain as Napoleon attempted to cut off British products
from being sold in Europe by his Continental System in 1806. As
Britain was the major manufacturing country in the world, this hit
French consumers and merchants. It also meant that valuable British
colonial raw materials were not as easily available. The activities of
the British navy also hit French merchants and overseas traders.
Britain relished seizing valuable French cargos and also captured
valuable French overseas colonies.
Napoleon’s use of propaganda and
other means of control
There were beneficiaries from Napoleon’s rule and many were excited
by the resurgence of France as a great European power and by the
expansion of France into Europe. However, for others, Napoleon’s
regime betrayed the Revolution and was simply a military dictatorship.
To counter opposition, the regime depended on a lot of images and
propaganda. Much of this was inherited from the Revolution whose
leaders were adept at using all sorts of propaganda messages to gain
support. However, Napoleon also relied heavily on repression and the
use of police, informers and threats. There has been some historical
discussion about whether Napoleonic France was a ‘police state’ –
that is whether it relied on a high level of surveillance, censorship and
punishment of dissent to stay in power. Some have seen Napoleon as
a forerunner of twentieth-century dictatorships such as communist
Russia, fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. Parallels have been drawn with
the glorification of the national leader as almost a superhuman being
and the widespread system of spying and information gathering
together with wide police powers and the repression of opponents.
The control of the media was important for Napoleon and he is quoted
as saying ‘Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a
thousand bayonets.’ The explosion of newspapers and journals had
been a major feature of the Revolution, but the Napoleonic regime
reduced newspapers considerably. Sixty newspapers were closed in
1800 alone, and the remaining ones were subject to strict censorship.
The government produced its own version of events in an official
paper called ‘Le Moniteur’. Both as Consul and Emperor, Napoleon
took a close personal interest in ensuring that there was control of the
arts and literature. Publishers had to gain official approval before
printing plays, novels and pamphlets. A developed system of official
censorship was in place by 1810 affecting all printed material, with
punishments for those not submitting to the official code of practice.
Censorship was part of a much tighter police system. A former
supporter of the Terror, Joseph Fouché was an efficient minister of
police and daily reports were sent to Napoleon on matters of security.
The jurisdiction of the police was wide and included monitoring
opinion, ensuring that food prices were not too high to avoid
discontent, policing economic measures, chasing deserters and
maintaining a system of spying and surveillance.
A distinction was made between these quasi-political activities and the
normal maintenance of law and order and suppressing crime, which
was in the hands of the gendarmerie, which was run on military lines.
The state had effective control over the judicial system as the regime
selected judges and could remove them from office. In the
departments (administrative regions of France) the prefects had
considerable powers of surveillance and suppression of both
opposition and crime. Under the control of the Ministry of the Interior,
the prefects and their deputies oversaw a wide range of local activities
and the central government had effective agents in local areas.

Key debate: Was Napoleonic France a police state?

A police state is a state whose main characteristic is repression by a
police or security force empowered to override the rights of the
individual in order to protect the state.
Historians such as Michael Broers and Michael Sibalis have
suggested that there was a police state.
• There were special tribunals for crimes against the state.
• From 1810 there were state prisons for political offences.
• There were roundups of suspects.
• The police forces were increased significantly; for example, the
Corps of Gendarmes went from 10,000 to 15,000 in the first year of
the Consulate.
However, local studies suggest that enforcement of decrees was not
on a level of a twentieth-century policed state. In Rouen, for example,
there were few detentions and prefects were often too overwhelmed
by their other responsibilities to hunt down suspected critics.
On the positive side, the regime provided spectacular victories
especially in the years 1805–07 when Austria, Prussia and Russia
were defeated. Control of the press helped to ensure that news
reporting was favourable. There were visible signs of national glory
such as the Arc de Triomphe. Napoleon was portrayed in a heroic way
in paintings and in tangible artifacts such as medallions. There was a
distinct cult built up round him that helped to sustain popular support,
even when his wars began to go far less well after 1812.

ACTIVITY
1 Explain the meaning of the term ‘police state’.
2 From the chapter and your own reading list the evidence that
Napoleonic France was a ‘police state’.
3 What evidence might show that this is not an appropriate
description?
4 Write the first paragraph of the following essay question: Was
Napoleonic France a ‘police state?

SOURCE T

How useful is Source T as evidence for the amount of

freedom in Napoleonic France? You should consider both the
provenance of the evidence and your own knowledge in
making your decision.

An English visitor to Napoleon’s France. Anne Plumptre,

Narrative of Three Years Residence in France 1802–1805,
published in 1810
I was as perfectly free as I am in England, I went whithersoever I
was desirous of going, and was uniformly received with the same
politeness and hospitality as while peace still subsisted between the
two countries. I never witnessed harsh measures of the government
but towards the turbulent and factious; I saw everywhere the works
of public utility going forward; industry, commerce, and the arts
encouraged; and I could not consider the people as unhappy, or the
government as odious … I have found speech everywhere as free in
France as in England: I have heard persons deliver their sentiments
on Bonaparte and his government, whether favourable or
unfavourable, without the least reserve; and that not in private
companies only and where some one among the company might be
a spy of the police for any thing that the others knew to the contrary
– yet this idea was no restraint upon them.

SOURCE U

What different messages about Napoleonic France are given

in Sources T and U?

A famous critic of Napoleon’s tyranny, Germaine de Staël,

whom Napoleon exiled, writes critically of the Empire after its
fall. Considerations on the Principal Events of the French
Revolution, LF ed., Germaine de Staël, 1817 (source:
https://oll.libertyfund.org)
It is generally after long civil troubles that tyranny is established,
because it offers the hope of shelter to all the exhausted and fearful
people. This was true of Bonaparte. His scheme for arriving at the
domination of France rested upon three principal elements – to
satisfy men’s interests at the expense of their freedom, to dominate
public opinion by lies, and to give the nation war instead of liberty.

SUMMARY DIAGRAM
What were Napoleon Bonaparte’s domestic aims and achievements
to 1814?

Chapter summary
The revolution that broke out in France in 1789 was a result of long-
term flaws in the French monarchy and French society. The nobility
and higher clergy were exempt from most taxes and enjoyed a
privileged position when it came to gaining positions of power and
responsibility. The bulk of the population were tenant farmers who
had to put up with a range of feudal payments to noble landlords and
who had none of the tax privileges enjoyed by the privileged classes.
The middle classes, growing in wealth and confidence, saw their
progress blocked by privileged aristocrats and resented the unequal
taxation. Inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment, they saw little
chance of the political reforms they were reading about. The
monarchy suffered from severe financial problems brought on by war
which brought it to the verge of bankruptcy. From 1787 there were
bad harvests and high prices. There were demands for a body which
represented France to be called to bring about reforms.
 Louis agreed to summon a meeting of the Estates General. Hopes
for change were dashed by wrangles over voting procedures. The
Third Estate declared that it was a National Assembly. Louis took no
decisive action but seemed to threaten to use force. In the panic,
crowds seeking arms stormed the Bastille fortress in Paris, In the
summer of 1789, unrest spread through the French countryside and,
in a wave of enthusiasm for change, the Assembly promised to end.
In October hungry crowds forced the royal family and the Assembly
to move from Versailles to Paris and the process of drawing up a new
constitution was begun. Rapid changes were made ending
aristocratic titles, reorganizing local government and bringing the
church under civil control.
In the midst of this, new political ideas and discussions developed
as political clubs and groups formed. Some of these were radical
enough to demand an end to the monarchy. This came in 1792 after
the new constitution of 1791 failed to work and the King rashly
encouraged war against Austria and Prussia. In September a
Republic was declared. The King was executed in January 1793.
Both internal civil war and external war led to a period of
revolutionary terror in 1793–94 until there was a reaction against
extremism and a more moderate constitution. The regime depended
on military success and the rising general Bonaparte became a
famous figure. In 1799, discontented politicians plotted a coup and
enlisted Bonaparte in the plot. Bonaparte ruled France as consul,
then consul for life, then emperor in 1804. As consul, Bonaparte
oversaw some very important changes to France in law, education,
government, finance and religion. The decision to proclaim himself
Emperor was to give his regime more stability and sense of
permanence. However, it really relied on military successes and
prestige. The wars were fought with enormous success from 1805–
07. By then, Napoleon dominated Europe. However, failures in Spain
and then a disastrous expedition to Russia in 1812 saw the regime
start to unravel. Though Napoleon raised very large armies to
replace the half a million men lost in Russia, he could not achieve
victory on a large scale again. He was forced to abdicate in 1814. He
returned in 1815 but was defeated by the British and Prussians at
Waterloo.
Refresher questions
1 What were the financial problems facing the French monarchy by
1789?
2 What economic hardships faced the people of France in 1788?
3 What was the Tennis Court Oath?
4 How did Louis XIV mishandle the Estates general in 1789?
5 What happened in the Terror?
6 Why did the Directory fall?
7 What shows Bonaparte’s military abilities before 1799?
8 How did the reforms of the Consulate change France?
9 Why did Napoleon decide to become emperor?
10 What is a police state? What might show that Napoleonic France
was a police state?

Study skills
Paper 1 guidance: Source questions
Understanding and interpreting sources
In your examination for Paper 1 you will be presented with four
sources and a question made up of two parts. You will have to
answer both parts of the question. The first question will ask you to
read two sources and compare and contrast them – see where they
agree and disagree or assess how useful they are as evidence. For
the second question you will need to read all four sources and
consider how they support a particular view.
In the examination, you need to show key skills in approaching
evidence.
• You have to interpret evidence. You need to link it to the issue in
the question and decide what the evidence is saying about the
issue. In the example below the issue is:
How far was the French Revolution brought about by the
financial problems of Louis XVI?
• You will need to consider how useful the evidence is. This involves
thinking carefully about who wrote it, why it was written and how
typical it might be.
• This really involves knowledge of the whole situation in 1789, but it
is also important to look at the type of evidence you are dealing
with. The use of knowledge is a skill that will be developed in the
next two chapters. Here it is important to ask ‘How is this source
linked to the issue in the question?’ and ‘Was the person who
produced this source in a position to know, and is there a reason
why he or she might hold that view?’
However, you can only move on to these questions once you are
sure you understand the relevance of the sources to the question.
The activity below will help you to establish the basic relevance of
the four sources. You do not need to create a table in an examination
but the activity will help you with the vital first step – the skill of
interpreting the sources.
 ACTIVITY
Look at Sources A–D. Make a copy of the table below. You will see
that one part has been done for you. Now fill in the rest for Sources
B to D.
Source What is this source saying about the What
key issue? evidence
from the
source shows
this?

A Indicates serious financial problems and ‘poor condition

bad conditions. Does not say problems of the people’
will cause a revolution but says they are – danger of
serious and would be made worse by bankruptcy;
war. Real threat to the Crown because dangerously
of the financial situation weaken the
crown

D
On the basis of what they say about the importance of finance,
group the sources. Which ones are most obviously saying that
finance is the key and which ones suggest that it is not just finance,
but other issues?

SOURCE A

The finance minister outlines his views to Louis XVI (Turgot,

memorandum, August 1774)
There must be no increase in taxation because of the poor
condition of the people.
There must be no more loans because each loan reduced royal
revenue because of the interest payments.
There is only one way and it is to make our expenses lower than
our debts, low enough for us to save money to pay off old debts.
Without this, the first cannon shot (if we were to go to war) would
force the state into bankruptcy and dangerously weaken the crown.

SOURCE B

A courtier and later royalist recalls the 1786 reform proposals

of the Minister of Finance, Calonne (The Marquis de Bouillé,
Memoirs, 1821)
The most striking of the country’s troubles was the chaos in the
finances, the result of years of extravagance made worse by the
expense of the American War of Independence, which had cost the
state over 1200 million livres.
Calonne had a bold and wide-ranging plan, which the King
promised to support. This would have changed the whole system
of financial administration. The worst problems were the unfair
distribution of taxation; the cost of collecting taxes and the abuse of
privilege by the richest section of taxpayers.

SOURCE C

A noble member of the Assembly of Notables states his

objection to Calonne’s reform plans, 1787
The King does not have the authority to bring in a new tax payable
by all. Only the Estates General could give the necessary consent
for such a tax.
A permanent tax should not be payable by everyone. Farmers
have the resources of the crafts, labour and trade, which noblemen
and clergymen do not have. It would not be fair that while the
nobleman fights and the priest celebrates divine services, they
should not have the privilege of not paying a permanent tax.
SOURCE D

An English traveller in France records the views expressed by

guests at a dinner party he attended in 1787 (From Arthur
Young, Travels in France, 1792)
There was a great confusion in the finances, with a deficit that was
difficult to provide for without calling an Estates General.
There were no talented ministers to provide any solution to the
financial crisis.
There was a king on the throne without the resources of mind that
could govern in such a moment.
The court was depraved and thought only of pleasure.
A great unrest existed among all ranks of men, eager for change.
A strong current of liberty had increased since the American
Revolution.

Comparing and contrasting two sources

In the examination you may be asked to compare and contrast two
sources. It is important not to just describe what one says and follow
it by describing what the other says.
• There should be a point by point comparison (where the sources
agree) and contrast (where the sources disagree).
• The comparisons should be illustrated by brief quotations from
both texts.
• There should be some explanation of the differences by looking at
who was writing and why.
To help practise the skill of comparing and contrasting sources and
planning an answer it might be helpful to draw up a table like the one
below:
Points on which the sources agree
Parts of each source which show this
Reasons as to why the sources might agree (provenance)
Points on which the sources disagree
Parts of each source which show this
Reasons as to why the sources might disagree (provenance)

ACTIVITY
Practise this skill by filling in the table for the two Sources T and U
on page 48.
Paper 2 guidance: Essay questions
Understanding the wording of the question
and planning an answer
In Paper 2 of your examination you will have to answer two types of
essay question for two topics. The first question is a short answer
essay which will ask you to explain an issue or event, the second is a
long essay. Most of the advice applies to answering the long essays
but there is also guidance on how to tackle the ‘explain’ or short
essay questions.

Understanding the wording of the question

It is very important that you read the wording of the question you are
answering very carefully. You must focus on the key words and
phrases in the question; these may be dates, the names of leading
figures or phrases such as ‘How successful …?’ Unless you directly
address the demands of the question you will not score highly.
The first thing to do is to identify the command words; these will give
you the instructions about what you have to do.
In Question (a) you will be asked to explain an event or why
something happened.
In Question (b) you may be asked:
• to make a judgement about the causes or consequences of an
event
• to consider to what extent or how far a particular factor was the
most important in bringing about an event
• to make a judgement about a particular government or ruler.
Here are two examples.
1 ‘The most important reason for the French Revolution (to 1789)
was the spread of the ideas of the Enlightenment.’ How far do you
agree?
 You could also be given a statement such as this one. Although
this question requires you to consider reasons, you must consider
the spread of the Enlightenment and write a good paragraph on it,
even if you argue that it was not the most important reason.
However, even if you think it was the most important, you must
still explain why other factors were less important.
2 How far was Louis XVI responsible for his own downfall?
In this essay you would need to analyse what personal failings led
to his downfall. However, in order to reach the highest levels you
would need to judge the relative importance of this factor in order
to reach a balanced conclusion, not simply produce a list of
mistakes of the King.

Planning an answer
Once you have understood the demands of the question, the next
step is planning your answer. The plan should outline your line of
argument. This means that you will need to think about what you are
going to argue before you start writing. This should help you to
maintain a consistent line of argument throughout your answer. It
also means that your plan will be a list of reasons about the issue or
issues in the question which will ensure an analytical response.
Simply having a list of dates would encourage you to write a
narrative or descriptive answer and this would result in an
unsuccessful essay.
Consider the first example on page 53: ‘The most important reason
for the French Revolution (to 1789) was the spread of the ideas of
the Enlightenment.’ How far do you agree?
Your plan should be structured around issues such as the following:
• Why was the Enlightenment important?
• What other reasons are there?
• Why are these reasons important?
• Are they more or less important than the Enlightenment?
• What is your overall view having looked at the key factor and the
other causes?
A plan for this essay might take the following form:
1 The Enlightenment: what key ideas influenced the Revolution, e.g.
Rousseau and the Social Contract; Voltaire and scepticism about
religion? Montesquieu and the idea of a balance of power? Make
the view that it was the most important factor clear by linking
these ideas to events, e.g. the Declaration of the Rights of Man;
the calls for a National Assembly to reflect the sovereignty of the
nation; the Tennis Court Oath.
2 Other factors: privilege and financial problems that led to the
calling of the Estates General. Possible links to enlightened ideas.
3 The desire of the middle classes for greater opportunity; Sieyès.
More informed and politically aware urban population again linked
to spread of ideas.
4 Economic grievances: bad harvests, urban unemployment,
peasant discontent – less linked to ideas.
5 Political mistakes of King and government in handling 1789 crisis:
perhaps this disappointed those who were led by the study of new
ideas to expect change.
6 Conclusion: weighs up the relative importance of Enlightenment
ideas and brings together interim conclusions in previous
paragraphs. Perhaps arguing that though few might have read the
Enlightenment philosophers the key ideas were very powerful
among the educated middle class of the Third Estates in the
Estates General and other grievances were linked to them or
argue that the ideas had been common for years before the
Revolution but it took short-term factors like bad harvests and a
financial and political crisis which led the King to call the Estates
General to bring a revolution that included some of the ideas.
Planning answers to these questions will help you put together a
structured answer and avoid the common mistake of listing reasons
with each paragraph essentially saying ‘Another reason for the
French Revolution was …’
Planning an answer will help you focus on the actual question and
not simply write about the topic. In the second question you might
write all you know about the King but not explain why he was or was
not responsible for his downfall. Under the pressure of time in the
examination room, it is easy to forget the importance of planning and
just to start writing; but this will usually result in an essay that does
not have a clear line of argument, or changes its line of argument
halfway through, making it less convincing and so scoring fewer
marks.

QUESTION PRACTICE
The focus of this section has been on planning. Use the information
in this chapter to plan answers to the following questions:

1 How far was Louis XVI to blame for the loss of royal authority by
October 1789?

2 To what extent was the Terror the result of the threat of external
war?

3 ‘Napoleon’s rise to power by 1799 depended upon his own

abilities.’ How far do you agree?

4 ‘The Civil Code was the most important of Napoleon’s domestic

reforms between 1799 and 1804?.’ How far do you agree?
EXPLAIN QUESTIONS

1 Explain why it was so hard for Louis XVI to solve his financial
problems.

2 Explain why the constitutional monarchy failed.

3 Explain why Robespierre fell from power in 1794.

4 Explain why Napoleon became First Consul in 1799.