French Revolution Research Paper

They had to rely on the nobles in the areas to act in the interest of

Louis would make the nobles do many embarrassing things, such as dress him, and even take out his chamber pot after going to the bathroom. Nobles would also be honored to see the king wake up in the morning, and watch him eat, things that had never been seen done by nobles for any other leader in history. By making the nobles do things like this, it made them feel less highly about themselves, less powerful, and less likely to try to overthrow him.

not conform to their religious reform. This is one aspect of the Mid-Tudor crisis which then creates

The works of the Europe’s monarchs also laid a burden on the population due to massive tax imposition. According to them, there was increased warfare, and they needed to increase the size of their armies. The unhappy population became rebellious and held out uprisings in a desperate attempt to change the great power.

They new that they had no real power, and they also knew that the King was an absolutist ruler. This combined with the 'enlightenment', which was produced by the Philosophers like Rousseau, may have been considered to form the base of a revolution, but it would have never flourished without other factors. Many members of the nobility also held seats in Parlements, which were up for sale. This resulted in the important seats on the councils not being filled by people that are competent, but by people that have enough to please the monarch and their extravagant lives.

Like a majority of countries in Europe, nobles and wealthy aristocrats dominated France. Members of the king’s ministry, royal court, sovereign courts intendants, including bishops, and army officers were nobles and wielded much power. All members that were affiliated with the government were granted special privileges and benefits. “Nobles also possessed the lion’s share of the country’s wealth. They owned between a quarter and a third of the land and pocketed about a quarter of the total agricultural revenue. Through their position in the church they also enjoyed the usufruct of between 15 and 25 percent of that institution’s revenue.” This affluent class dominated France’s political and social structures, which instituted a major problem. King Louis XVI was blamed for mishandling these affairs, which led to greater political crises. When the monarchy bestowed nobility upon a member of society, he or she would remain a noble for the entirety of his of her life. This process became a reoccurring problem, as only members of the wealthy class were given these prestigious positions. Nobles were rewarded greatly for being amiable towards the king: “They [the Nobles] exercised seigniorial rights over most of the land they did not own… Most heavy industry was financed by noblemen, and even the world of banking and high finance was full of noble men of business… And finally, nobles dominated France’s cultural life. They filled the academies, national and provincial… Above all, they included exemption from the taille, the main direct tax, where this was levied on persons rather than land – perhaps three-quarters of the country.” This system also displayed the monarchy’s attitude towards the lowest tier of society. When awarding certain people with accolades, who only receive it because of their socioeconomic class, the government

The middle classes of the time found perhaps more grievances with the Ancien Régime than the peasants. The middle classes resented being lumped in the third estate with the peasants, and resented being excluded from positions of office, such as in the army, navy and diplomatic services. They were unable to openly criticise the government without risking harsh punishment; they lacked religious freedom; they wanted lower taxes for Free Trade.

The author David Andress wrote “The French Revolution A Complete History?” in an article for History Today. He begins by stating that the French Revolution is what you decide to believe. However, the events of the French Revolution are important to understand modern politics. The participants of the French Revolution had different viewpoints that would lead to a chaotic time in world history. The thesis of the paper and main arguments attempt to show that The French Revolution was a course of history in which each group of people try to fight for their ideas, but did nothing more than to establish a temporary ascendancy of one perspective leading to a time of fragmentation in France.

King Louis had mysteriously disappeared for all that the French knew at the time. The French thought he was captured in Varennes. This caused them to have a sense of unity among the community because now it was up to them to find King Louis. This commitment came with a strong sense of nationalism and pride for their country, something they were once lacking. The Patriots were happy because they wanted to have all of the power in the hands of the National Assembly instead of a king figure. King Louis banded the country together but his selfishness would begin the aggression of the Revolution. “Louis, will fail in his obligations to himself, to his subjects, and to all of Europe, if he does not case out the evil that besets us, no matter what

The French Revolution did not affect only on the French economy and politics. It also had a significant

The French Revolution was one of the most traumatic events in human history. Over seven million people may have died as a result.

During this period in French history, the nobility was starting to gain power and prestige, and this power presented the king with a problem: he needed to have strong nobles to strengthen his realm by extension. However, he still had to maintain power and his position of supremacy. Richelieu posits that the king must maintain a firm system of punishments and rewards:”Punishments and rewards are two quite necessary elements in the conduct of states. It is an ordinary allegation, but more true, and often repeated by all men, that rewards and punishments are the two most important tools of government available in a realm.” This system played on the honor obsession the nobility had, and strengthened the kingship at the same time. If one helped the king, they were rewarded with more honor and a higher position; if they resisted, they lost everything. This strengthened the kingship as well. Those he rewarded would be assets to the kingdom, while those he punished would serve as warnings to those who considered resisting.

Nationalism was stirred and the French were ready to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of capturing control from the monarchy and ruling

The author David Andress wrote the article “The French Revolution A Complete History?” for History Today. He begins by stating that the French Revolution is what you decide to believe. However, the events of the French Revolution are important to understand modern politics. The participants of the French Revolution had different viewpoints that led to a chaotic time in world history. The thesis of the paper and main arguments attempt to show that The French Revolution was a course of history in which each group of people try to fight for their ideas, but did nothing more than to establish a temporary ascendancy of one perspective leading to a time of fragmentation in France.

The French Revolution (1789-99) violently transformed France from a monarchical state with a rigid social hierarchy into a modern nation in which the social structure was loosened and power passed increasingly to the middle classes. There is considerable controversy over the causes of the Revolution. Marxist scholars emphasize material factors: as the population increased, food supplies grew short; land had become divided into such small parcels that most Frenchmen lived close to the subsistence level; and after 1776 agricultural recession forced property owners to exploit their sources of revenue. Marxists also maintain that commercial prosperity had stimulated the growth of a monied middle class that threatened the position of the