Friday, November 9, 2012


Brian Perez
Blog 8

                Many definitions are used to categorize and define the different types of political violence. David Samuel’s definitions can be used to accurately categorize the French Revolution as a true revolution.
                The French Revolution took place from approximately 1787 and 1799. By the end of the remarkably bloody ten years of fighting and executions, Napoleon Bonaparte was the head of France instead of Louis XVI. The Revolution began largely because of the large income gap between the upper and lower classes. The country had a crushing debt on account of the financial aid they provided to the rebels in the American Revolution. The peasantry bore the brunt of the debt while the upper class paid nothing in taxes ("Britannica Academic Edition"). The situation was perfect for a revolution of epic proportions to occur.
                The first part of David Samuels’s definition of a revolution is “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state (David 269).” The French Revolution was certainly armed conflict, and took place within the sovereign state of France. The insurgents in this case were the members of the lower class. According to the Tennis Court Oath, the rebels pledged “not to separate… until the constitution of the kingdom is established.” Therefore, the opponents of the rebels were the members of the current regime, or the state.
                To be a revolution, both the insurgents and the state must “claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population (David 269).” While a part of the peasantry refused to join in the Revolution initially on account of religious beliefs, the attacks on the nobility and the redistribution of land eventually convinced a majority of the lowest class to support the revolution. Since the peasantry was the bulk of the French population, a significant proportion of the population supported the insurgents ("Histclo.com"). The opposition to the rebels consisted of the relatively wealthy bourgeoisie, the clergy, and the aristocracy. These groups amount to a respectable fraction of the population. While members of this group did not do much physical fighting against the insurgents, the two opposing sides in the French Revolution both had significant numbers in support of their respective causes.
                The last aspect of a true revolution occurs when “authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change (David 269).” This aspect is critical in distinguishing revolutions from civil wars. The first part of the characteristic is definitely accurate. King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette were both executed by the rebels and the monarchy was abolished. Members of the rebellion take control of the state in the form of the Committee of Public Safety, followed by the Directory. Under the Directory, a constitution was drawn up and France’s first bicameral legislature was established. Had this been the end of the Revolution, all aspects of the definition would have been addressed and fulfilled. The absolute monarchy that existed in the 1780’s would have been replaced with a republic. However, in 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte staged a coup that led to him being crowned emperor ("Napoleon.org"). The difficulty here is in determining whether a transition from a monarchy to a dictatorship counts as “wholesale political change.” While the regimes may not have been extremely different in practice, the transition was radical. Therefore, the state did undergo an extreme political change. All aspects of a revolution can be identified in the French Revolution.
                The Samuels definition of a revolution is an accurate and comprehensive one. Specific details are included to distinguish revolutions from other forms of political violence. The French Revolution, which is a textbook example of a revolution, is well defined and categorized under this definition.




Works Cited
"French Revolution." Britannica Academic Edition. N.p.. Web. 8 Nov 2012
"French Peasantry." Histclo.com. N.p.. Web. 8 Nov 2012.  
"FROM LIFE CONSULSHIP TO THE HEREDITARY EMPIRE (1802-1804)." Napoleon.org. N.p.. Web. 8 Nov 2012. 
David, Samuels. Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc, 269. Print.  

1 comment:

  1. Over the summer, I really got into reading several classic books, and I began A Tale of Two Cities. I was then thrilled when the Dark Night Rises turned out to be a reflection of the French Revolution itself! Commissioner Gordon even quotes Dickens at Bruce's funeral! Like the Batman movie, the French Revolution was a messy and confusing affair. The rise and fall and rise again nature of liberalism led to many horrific actions, and yet was necessary in order to enact real change. My question is this. Why was so much violence needed? The American Revolution was anything but bloodless, and yet cooler heads prevailed. What did France lack?

    ReplyDelete