The French revolution was a revolution of all classes of society against the gov.

Can someone help me with this essay. I am struggling immensely seeing as I missed the lesson:
The French revolution was a revolution of all classes of society against the government. How far do you agree?
Would be extremely grateful seeing as my teacher isn't the nicest of guys and he'll have massive go at me for not knowing enough of the content. HELP!

 

There is a lot of info easy to find about the french revolution so I don't think I'm gonna answer all your questions here
But for starters I will help you with this: of roughly the three biggest classes France consisted of in those days (nobility, clergy and common people) the common folks (both civilians and peasants) were so mistreated by the Ancien regime (look that term up for sure) that, together with the spreading of the ideas of the Enlightenment, that was the trigger for the revolution. Of course some nobles were also discontent with the absolute way of ruling of the french king but most were more afraid for loss of their own privileges and wealth when the revolution came about to not fully support it. Same counts for the (pretty much all catholic in france) clergy. So no, the revolution was not supported by all classes of society.

 

You will need to be much more specific than that. The aristocrats were also a part of society. As they were part of the government.

 

Well the government had become an absolute monarchy, which always helps to get the nobility riled up too. Actually, they had rebelling thoughts long before the actual revolution came about. Of course most nobles just wanted to keep their privileges, power and wealth so when the real revolutionary shit hit the fan they worried what an equal society would mean for them personally.

 

To a point that may be right but I don't think it was a very significant part.

Also, the monarch needs the support of the nobles in any kind of feudal system.

If he doesn't have enough support the nobles will just take him down and replace him with someone of their choosing.

 

Those ideas went around in the decade(s) before the french revolution for sure. Actually, I've read many times that it was kinda like this: the nobility started it up with their discontent of the absolute rule and the beginning of the so called Age of Reason/Enlightenment and the common folks finished it when they actually started rebelling. Then you got the actual revolution for which many nobles were quite afraid of the impact because they saw they could only loose stuff.

 

The monarch was obviously an ignorant megalomaniac cause if you have a system like the 'ancien regime' you do indeed need the support of the aristocracy.

 

Of course this was quite the process .... it didn't happen in 4 weeks. And I can't rememeber it all (school was a long time ago ).

What I remember is this:

• There was miscontent among the aristocrats for several different reasons. One of them being that the state was broke and the monarch not the sharpest blade in the toolshed.
• The ideas of enlightenment were mostly developed/spread by philosophers and intellectuals. There may well have been some nobles among them but I doubt the number was significant. They just had a different agenda.
• The actual revolution was carried out by the bourgoisie and the workers.

 

I know everything you've said but thank you anyway.
The wording of the question suggests to me that you can only really answer if it was all the classes united in a sense or doing it on their own accord and for their own pride.
On the other side of the argument (against the hypothesis) I've put whether certain factors e.g bastille storming, october days, national assembly, tennis court oath etc were political or social; helps me distinguish if it was targeted at the government or not

 

Didn't their social circumstances depend on the political situation? Why would it be either political or social? And about the wording of your teachers question, I don't see how it have to suggest anything. My thoughts are that he wants you to tear the question apart to get a nuanced answer which you have to give in order to give a good answer. All classes were involved but there were multiple reasons to get into this revolution and not all classes were into it for the same ones (although they may have shared one or two reasons)

 

Yup. The state was broke and put impossible taxes on the middle class thus creating a socially imbalanced situation through political action.

It was basically political suicide by reason of not seeing the writing on the social wall.

 

actually it was supported by all classes speaking in general terms. even a lot of the aristocracy supported it. the fear of losing their wealth and privileges didn't come about till later with Robespierre and reign of terror. before that they thought they could make something better than what the situation was when the general estates came together. initially everyone thought the king will retain his power to a degree. it didn't immediately progress to a full-blown revolution.

 

I think change was supported by all classes but the revolution was not.

 

the change was inextricably linked to the revolution during that time. how do you separate the two out? the revolution wasn't just the mass violence and pillaging. french revolution has a much wider meaning, including, mostly, the reformative ideas and concepts that eventually culminated in the Napoleonic Code, and which are viewed as the driving force behind the whole revolution. and whereas a lot of the nobility supported ancien regime, another significant part of them actually supported those ideas. and it were those ideas that actually led to a window to open where mass insurrection became a possibility. if upper classes hadn't to a degree agreed with the revolutionary ideas, the working class would have all been put down by the military really fast right in the beginning and there would have been no possibility for such violence to occur.

so, when phrasing it like that, 'the french revolution was a revolution of all classes of society against the government', then it is absolutely true. upper classes had their own revolution going, but it wasn't quite what the lower classes were fighting for. the lower classes weren't aware of any ideals and didn't really care for anything beyond achieving better living conditions and improved paychecks, but that was not what the revolution was really about, although it played a big part. the revolution was an amalgamation of those two main trends: the ideas that started it and kept driving it, and the violent overthrow of any and every authority.

also, the clergy was not a class of society like you claimed. the clergy belonged to the estates general, which were french estates of the realm. that's very different from 'social class'. the social classes during that time in France were the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the tradesmen/craftsmen, the working class, and the peasantry. the last three can all be just defined as 'lower class' but they played slightly differing roles in the revolution so i think distinction applies.

to the OP: i suggest you find yourself something serious and do some in depth reading on this subject. it's a lot more complicated than it would seem at first glance. there are so many angles involved and so much essential material to be absorbed for wholly grasping this subject that flipping through a few superficial internet sources or getting a couple of viewpoints on it just won't cut it.

 

When we are talking about the classes during the time of the french revolution we are in fact talking about the 3 classes of the ancien regime. I think this is also ment in the original question to the OP since that is how they perceived it in that time and that is how we are still teaching it today.

Well, essentially by nitpicking But I think you explained the separation a bit yourself:

I agree, the wish for changes and the progressive ideas of a part of the nobility made the revolution possible but I think the french revolution did not start until the '3rd class' got into action.

Definately. That's why I wasn't planning on giving all the answers typed out :2thumbsup:

 

i don't agree. clergy can't be thought of as a social class no matter what era you're talking about. it was no more a social class than military was a social class. however, the way his teacher put it can be thought to be ambiguous, phrasing it 'class of society'. the OP should clarify with him on that one.

 

Louis XV had died in 1774. His exploits with mistrisses: La Pompadour and Du Barry had not been forgotten. But the old king was not for war and had sacked his war minister: Duc du Choseile when war was threatened over The Faulkland Is. confrontation in 1770.

Louis XVI was young, the old King was his grandfather. He was drawn into the war of the American Revoluition which busted the budget while bringing back little in return.

The Philopsers and the salons were excited and inspired by the American revolution and the Americans who were in Paris at that time on diplomatic missions and such.

In 1788, The French nation felt secure in its alliances with Burbon Spain and Hapsburg Austria and the "little Burbon" princes on the Italian pensiula.
It was Britian who was diplomaticly isolated. This diplomatic security allowed the French body public (as it were) to look inward at reform.

The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748 and Seven Years War 1755- 1763 were seen as expensive reverses for France. The Monarchy lost much prestige over military and diplomatic failures.