An attempt to explain why a revolution broke out in France alone in 1789 inspite of the generally parallel (similar) conditions between France and the rest of Europe. The question of ail questions is that if the conditions in France were generally parallel (similar) to many states in Europe, why then did France experience a revolution alone in 1789.

An attempt to explain why a revolution broke out in France alone in 1789 inspite of the generally parallel (similar) conditions between France and the rest of Europe. The question of ail questions is that if the conditions in France were generally parallel (similar) to many states in Europe, why then did France experience a revolution alone in 1789. Again, if the condition in France was better in some instances considering the peasants and middle class, why then did she host a revolution alone in 1789? In other words, why were the peasants and middle class at the fore front of the revolution in spite of the irrelatively better conditions when compared to their counterparts elsewhere?

By 1789, the social, political and economic conditions between France and the rest of Europe were generally the same. With the exception of Britain (to some extent), Europe was ruled by despotic rulers, the society was divided into classes and the masses lived in poor economic conditions. Although these conditions were favourable to revolutions throughout Europe, a revolution broke out in France alone in 1789 because of the extra-ordinary conditions in France. Even when the conditions in France were better than the rest of Europe, such better conditions acted as a catalyst leading to the revolution.

As already noted, France, like Austria, Prussia, Russia and Spain were under despotic rulers. Whereas despotism in France was still absolute, the rest of Europe had enlightened despots who had improved the conditions of their people. For example, in Spain Charles III had eliminated corruption and reformed the  taxation system while in Prussia Fredrick the great had codified the Prussian law. These reforms sharply contrast with France that was infested with corruption, unfair taxation system and absence of the law. This difference explains why a revolution first broke out in France and not in any other state of Europe.

Whereas the church influence and privileges in France was still maintained by 1789, this was reduced and abolished in other parts of Europe. For instance, Joseph II of Austria had granted religious freedom, dismissed the church's influence in state affairs and confiscated its land. Even in Spain the church was under state control. The Frenchmen therefore wanted a revolution to destroy the church's influence in the social, political and economic affairs of France and have religious freedom that was already put right elsewhere in Europe.

Enlightened despots in other parts of Europe had also reformed the tax department while France still maintained the ancient system of taxation. In Austria, the privileges of the aristocracy were abolished and everybody who owned land was taxed. In France the tax burden was heaviest on the peasants while the nobles and the clergy who had a lot of land were exempted. This rigidity in the social class system is what made France to raise little revenue leading to the financial crisis that became one of immediate causes othe 1789 revolution.

NB. The taxation department in France was privatized. This made the contractors to overtax and mistreat the Frenchmen in order to make profits. This is why taxation was referred to as the cancer of the ancient regime.

The  repercussions of natural disaster was worst in France due to economic rigidities created by tax farmers collectors). The numerous taxes and road toll made it difficult to ration goods from where it was plenty to areas of scarcity. This made economic hardship to hit France hardest by 1789 leading to a revolution. Besides France was still relying on agriculture, which is more vulnerable to devastations by natural disasters. Other states like England, Belgium and Prussia were investing heavily in industries, which reduced the impact of natural disasters.

Although the conditions of the French peasants was better than any other country in Europe, it instead morale boosted their determination to struggle for more better conditions. This is in line with Denis Richards's argument that; It tends to be people with something to loose and not merely something to gain who think most eagerly of improving the existing state of society. Actually the French peasants were relatively better and were able to pay taxes to the nobles, clergy and the state. They were therefore very disappointed by the diversion of their taxes to the luxuries of the unproductive minorities-the clergy and nobles. This is why they participated in mobs and mob actions that made the French revolution inevitable.

Even in Russia where the conditions of the peasants were worst a revolution was avoided by 1789. Infact, there was little difference between a slave and a peasant but she survived a revolution because of the ability of the iron lady Tzar Catherine II who used force timely and promptly. For example she brutally suppressed the peasant revolt of1773 and 1775. This contrasts with Louis XVI who failed to use force as the third estate declared themselves the national assembly and took the Tennis court oath which made the revolution of 1789 to progress.

NB. Louis xvi's inability to use force appropriately was partly due to the fact that he had lost the control over the army. By 1789 the French army were divided into two i.e. those who were still loyal to him and those who had lost trust to him (and therefore disloyal). This is why when things turned hot, he tried to flee to Austria and get foreign troops to suppress the revolution that only made the revolution to progress. It's important to stress those other despotic leaders like Joseph II of Austria, Tzar Catherine of Russia, and Fredrick the great of Prussia had firm control over the army and there was no disloyal element within the army. It's partly why Catherine was able to crush the peasant's revolt before it could spread throughout Russia.

Like the peasants (with the exception of Britain), France had also developed a highly enlightened middle class who nursed bitterness at being excluded from top political jobs. Indeed it is France where the middle class was most numerous, most prosperous and most desirous of change. Such were learned men and professionals like Robespierre, Desmoulin, Camille and Stanislus who championed the revolution during its course. One can therefore argue that whereas the oppressed masses of Europe desired change, they did not have the leaders to mobilize them hence an insight as to why a revolution occurred in France than elsewhere in Europe.

Apart   from Britain, France by 1789 had a centralized administration. Paris was the locus (centre) of .administration with a population of over half a million people. These became the Paris revolutionary mob that cheered and supported the revolution when it began. Centralization also explains why the effects of natural disasters forced the masses to flock to Paris yet in other parts of Europe centralization was either still rudimentary or entirely lacking. In these areas unrest in the villages does not necessarily disturb the centre (capital) and disorder in the centre had little impact m the countryside unlike France.

The influence of England has also been advanced' to explain the unique occurrence of the French revolution. The British political system was reformed long time by the revolution of 1668. The Frenchmen therefore had to struggle to attain what the British had successfully achieved more than a century ago. On the other hand, whereas other despotic powers like Russia, Austria and Prussia were also vulnerable to the English influence like France, they were (and are) geographically far from England than France. This made France to have more of the English influence and hence the revolution of1789.

The American war of independence of 1776-1783 also explains why France experienced a revolution single handedly. It contributed to bankruptcy which forced Louis xvi to summon the estate general meeting. Besides there was no foresight and proper planning for the war. Spain and Britain had a sound economy and financed the war using state funds but France borrowed from the Bourgeoisie (because of financial bankruptcy) who spear headed the revolution to recover their money, which Louis had failed to repay.

NB. Although Britain lost in the America war of independence and France succeeded in assisting the Americans to regain their independence, Britain could not experience a revolution since she had a genuine reason of defending her Imperial interest in America. France had no proper justification in the war. Moreover Louis xvi's myopia made him fail to realize that the oppression and injustice he was fighting in America needed to be stopped in France. This is why veteran soldiers of American war of independence led by Lafayette supported the French revolution when it started in 1789.

The weaknesses and character of Louis xvii shield high in explaining why France hosted a revolution alone in 1789. He was physically weak, undecided and a non-reformist leader. This is what made the estates General meeting of May 1789 to explode into a revolution. Even after the explosion, he failed to use force at the right time since he had even lost control over the army. If Louis xvi had the ability and determination of Tzar Catherine II who ruthlessly suppressed the peasants revolts of 1795 (at Pugachev), the French revolution would have been averted.

Louis xvi's administration was very loose. He was either a sleep or hunting during crucial state meetings. He was therefore not well versed with the problems of his people. This made him an isolated king to be ejected by the revolution of 1789. This was not the case in Prussia where Fredrick the great made tours and regular inspection throughout the country. He was in touch with the common man that many times he physically ploughed the field as an exemplary leader. This increased' his popularity that averted a revolution of the French type.

Russia, Austria and France had the influence of women in the state affairs before the French revolution. However out of all of them, the influence of Marie Antoinette in France was negative while those of Catherine II of Russia and Marie Theresa of Austria were positive. For instance while Marie Theresa (Antoinette's mother) of Austria was a reformer who was very popular, Marie Antoinette was so unsympathetic to the Frenchmen, a non-reformer and thus very unpopular. This also added to the unpopularity of Louis xvi which caused the 1789 revolution.

NB. Marie Theresa who ruled Austria from 1740-1780 was the mother of Marie Antoinette, the queen of ice. Joseph II who succeeded her was her son and a brother of Marie Antoinette. Joseph tried to advice sister not to over involve herself in French politics and at one time wrote a lengthy letter in which he warned her to ………Have nothing to do with public affairs and think only in deserving the king’s affection and confidence.

The works /writings of philosophers were widely read throughout Europe. Suffice to note is that philosophers never wanted a revolution of the French type since it would jeopardize their wealth. Voltaire stood for a reformed despotism that was practiced in Prussia, Russia and Austria but not in France. For instance Tzar Catherine of Russia had improved the economy using ideas of the philosophers. She even invited Diderot and discussed her economic reform programs with him. These moves were contrary in France because Louis dismissed the financial reforms proposed by Turgot and Necker which were based on Diderot's writings. Thus, much as it appears parallel that philosophers wrote for the whole Europe, France experienced a revolution alone in 1789 due to neglect of philosophical ideas, contrary to other states.

Lastly, philosophers enjoyed a wider and public reception in France than elsewhere because she had the widest middle class who wanted change. Secondly, in spite of censorship there were many ways and media through which their ideas circulated in France. These were liberal pamphlets, journals, shops, Lodges, saloons and recreational places. In these places the ideas of philosophers were analyzed and interpreted by the middle class to the peasants.

Attachments

No attachments