In surveying these developments, we will focus on several themes that are central to the experience of the French Revolution.
Violence: What exactly was the role of violence in the revolution? To what degree was it integral and indispensable to clearing a path to political change? How were different types of violence employed during this period and to what end? Maximilien Robespierre justified the use of force to overthrow the monarchy in August 1792 by asking his opponents, “Do you want a revolution without a revolution?” In other words, all who supported the revolution had, by definition, assented to violence. The revolution’s opponents thought in the same way. Francois de Charette commanded the Catholic and Royal Army in the Vendée that mounted an insurrection against the revolutionary republic. In 1796, after he was captured by republican authorities, the following occurred at his trial:
It was remarked to him that he had caused the death of a great many persons. Yes, he replied, omelets are not made without breaking eggs.
Both Robespierre and Charette, then, lived in a world where political violence was widely perceived as an acceptable and even necessary tool.
Ideas: The French Revolution was characterized by many different types of violence, but it was also very much about ideas. The revolution set loose or generated a multitude of competing beliefs about how the world was and how it ought to be. What were these beliefs? What were their philosophical underpinnings? How were they related to the Enlightenment? Why were revolutionary ideas—which were purportedly based on universal truths—often applied in only a limited manner? Here, we ought to think about the way the revolution applied to the poor, women, enslaved people, religious minorities (especially Jews and Protestants), and others.
Feelings: During this period, the French people (as well as others caught up in the storm of revolution and the changes of the Napoleonic period) were not guided merely by ideas; their feelings also played an enormously important role in the ebb and flow of events. These were emotional times. While honor, loyalty, and love moved people to action, the revolution was frequently distinguished by anxiety, fear, and what looked like paranoia. Where did these feelings come from? Were they irrational or was there some “reason” to them? What role did they play in the revolution?
Citizenship: At the beginning of our story, we will see that the French people were the subjects of a king, who, theoretically, was the source of all sovereignty (i.e., all legitimate authority). The revolution radically changed the status of the French people by turning them into citizens of a state. In other words, the nation, not the king, was now sovereign. While they were still subject to the laws and the government, these laws and government required the people’s consent. As we shall see, though, as the revolution persisted, it constantly redefined who was a citizen and who wasn’t. At the same time, it repeatedly revised the role of citizens and their relationship to the state.
The French Revolution, Napoleon, and the World: The event we are studying in this class is always referred to as the “French” Revolution, but historians have long recognized the many links between events in France and the rest of the world during this period. Even before they take this class, a number of my students seem to know that the debts contracted by the French crown while fighting alongside the colonists during the American Revolution created a fiscal crisis that helped spark upheaval in France. However, the connections between the French Revolution (as well as Napoleon) and the rest of the world go far beyond this one instance. Throughout this period, France influenced the fates of North and South America, the Caribbean, India, the Middle East, and the rest of Europe. At the same time, these parts of the world undeniably affected France. What precisely were these connections and what were their significance?
History 114: The French Revolution and Napoleon 