What do you think?
Rate this book
The French Revolution and Napoleon
The years from 1789 to 1815, the years of the Revolution and of Napoleon, effected one of the greatest and most difficult transitions of which history bears record, and to gain any proper sense of its significance one must have some glimpse of the background, some conception of what Europe was like in 1789... One thing, at least, it was it was not a unity. There were states of every size and shape and with every form of government. The States of the Church were theocratic; capricious and cruel despotism prevailed in Turkey; absolute monarchy in Russia, Austria, France, Prussia; constitutional monarchy in England; while there were various kinds of so-called republics – federal republics in Holland and Switzerland, a republic whose head was an elective king in Poland, aristocratic republics in Venice and Genoa and in the free cities of the Holy Roman Empire... The Old Régime In Europe - The Old Régime in France - Beginnings of the Revolution - The Making of the Constitution - The Legislative Assembly - The Convention - The Directory - The Consulate - The Early Years of the Empire - The Empire at Its Height - The Decline and Fall of Napoleon
186 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 1917
361 people are currently reading
329 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
June 14, 2017
I have to admit that price is very much a factor when it comes to some of the books I read. This particular book is 100 years old, and therefore in the public domain. That means that Amazon can sell it for almost nothing on Kindle. I bought it for a dollar.
And I got my money's worth. It may be 100 years old, but this compact history of the French Revolution is still very readable. It may not include all the recent fashionable scholarship on the subject, but it does provide a very clear and enjoyable narrative of the major events of the era.
And I got my money's worth. It may be 100 years old, but this compact history of the French Revolution is still very readable. It may not include all the recent fashionable scholarship on the subject, but it does provide a very clear and enjoyable narrative of the major events of the era.
April 12, 2021
I picked this up after seeing the reprint available on Amazon. I have been teaching a course in which Napoleon's relationship to the French Revolution has been a key component, and this looked like an affordable supplementary text to help students understand the French Revolution. I'm glad I read it first, as it would not have been suitable for the purposes I had hoped, but I found it an eminently readable account of the French Revolution that was as interesting for the perspective it gave on American scholarly sensibilities in the progressive era.
I haven't read anything else by Hazen, but he strikes me as a generally judicious historian who can still be read 100 years later with profit. The sections on the Old Regime, the coming of the revolution, the drafting of the constitution, and the Convention are all serviceable, and well told -- I happily read the entire book in four days whenever I had a chance. That said modern historians would certainly quibble with some of the underlying argumentation. In Hazen's interpretation, the Bourgeoisie (meaning the urban upper classes) are itching for a social revolution and more power, though not necessarily in the same way that Marx would argue. That view has been demolished by scholarship in the 1970s and 1980s. He also has limited sympathy for Jacques Neckar, and even less for Colonne that seems driven by personal prejudice rather than an acceptance of the difficult position they found themselves in as they managed France's dwindling finances. He can show some sympathy towards Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, but still sees them as largely responsible for their fate. He hints at sympathy for the Girondistes in as much as he sees the Mountain as too dependent on Paris and not sufficiently concerned with the broader French population. Likewise he hints at sympathy for Danton, who he sees as a moderating force among the Jacobins. Robespierre by contrast leaves him cold, as does the Duke of Orleans -- though curiously Hazen does not emphasize, in fact he does not even call attention to the fact that the Duke cast the deciding vote for Louis XVI's immediate execution.
Once the Convention drafted its second constitution paving the way for the Directory, Hazen shifts focus to Napoleon, who first appears when Barras summoned the young general to put down the Vendemaire Uprising. As such, for Hazen, the history of the Directory is first and foremost about Napoleon's efforts to position himself to seize power. Despite having taught it, I can't call the French Revolution and Napoleon's rise my speciality, so perhaps Napoleon was more conniving in this period than I have been lead to believe by other writers, but Hazen is not one to give Napoleon the benefit of the doubt. He acknowledges the Napoleon's administrative achievements in the early years of the Consulate, and cannot help but recognize his talent as a military commander. Yet, for Hazen, Napoleon is first and foremost a despot. Any notion that Napoleon was a defender of the revolution, at least in Napoleon's own mind, is coincidence and expedience, which just doesn't seem entirely fair, though Hazen is hardly the only person to make that argument. Hazen also doesn't even entertain the possibility that Napoleon's decision to declare himself Emperor could be seen as a recognition of the problematic position France was in, surrounded as it was by enemies committed to the old regime order. That said, non-specialist that I am, I found Hazen's overall narrative of the Napoleonic Wars informative, just as I did the portion dedicated the the Revolution, even if his interpretation is outdated.
I mentioned at the outset that reading Hazen is interesting because of what it betrays about Americans' view of themselves at the beginning of the 20th C, in what is now called the progressive era. He has no doubts that the revolution was necessary, and that democracy is the way of the future, and has absolute faith in that truth, in a way that an historian writing right now would find difficult. Indeed at one point he goes so far as to say that despots might get in the way, but will ultimately be defeated. Would that scholars today could feel so confident. In closing, I recommend this book, it is eminently readable, but I would caution those tempted by the low price of the reprint from stopping with it. At the very least, I would suggest supplementing it by reading a modern account of the French Revolution, perhaps William Doyle's _The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction_.
I haven't read anything else by Hazen, but he strikes me as a generally judicious historian who can still be read 100 years later with profit. The sections on the Old Regime, the coming of the revolution, the drafting of the constitution, and the Convention are all serviceable, and well told -- I happily read the entire book in four days whenever I had a chance. That said modern historians would certainly quibble with some of the underlying argumentation. In Hazen's interpretation, the Bourgeoisie (meaning the urban upper classes) are itching for a social revolution and more power, though not necessarily in the same way that Marx would argue. That view has been demolished by scholarship in the 1970s and 1980s. He also has limited sympathy for Jacques Neckar, and even less for Colonne that seems driven by personal prejudice rather than an acceptance of the difficult position they found themselves in as they managed France's dwindling finances. He can show some sympathy towards Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, but still sees them as largely responsible for their fate. He hints at sympathy for the Girondistes in as much as he sees the Mountain as too dependent on Paris and not sufficiently concerned with the broader French population. Likewise he hints at sympathy for Danton, who he sees as a moderating force among the Jacobins. Robespierre by contrast leaves him cold, as does the Duke of Orleans -- though curiously Hazen does not emphasize, in fact he does not even call attention to the fact that the Duke cast the deciding vote for Louis XVI's immediate execution.
Once the Convention drafted its second constitution paving the way for the Directory, Hazen shifts focus to Napoleon, who first appears when Barras summoned the young general to put down the Vendemaire Uprising. As such, for Hazen, the history of the Directory is first and foremost about Napoleon's efforts to position himself to seize power. Despite having taught it, I can't call the French Revolution and Napoleon's rise my speciality, so perhaps Napoleon was more conniving in this period than I have been lead to believe by other writers, but Hazen is not one to give Napoleon the benefit of the doubt. He acknowledges the Napoleon's administrative achievements in the early years of the Consulate, and cannot help but recognize his talent as a military commander. Yet, for Hazen, Napoleon is first and foremost a despot. Any notion that Napoleon was a defender of the revolution, at least in Napoleon's own mind, is coincidence and expedience, which just doesn't seem entirely fair, though Hazen is hardly the only person to make that argument. Hazen also doesn't even entertain the possibility that Napoleon's decision to declare himself Emperor could be seen as a recognition of the problematic position France was in, surrounded as it was by enemies committed to the old regime order. That said, non-specialist that I am, I found Hazen's overall narrative of the Napoleonic Wars informative, just as I did the portion dedicated the the Revolution, even if his interpretation is outdated.
I mentioned at the outset that reading Hazen is interesting because of what it betrays about Americans' view of themselves at the beginning of the 20th C, in what is now called the progressive era. He has no doubts that the revolution was necessary, and that democracy is the way of the future, and has absolute faith in that truth, in a way that an historian writing right now would find difficult. Indeed at one point he goes so far as to say that despots might get in the way, but will ultimately be defeated. Would that scholars today could feel so confident. In closing, I recommend this book, it is eminently readable, but I would caution those tempted by the low price of the reprint from stopping with it. At the very least, I would suggest supplementing it by reading a modern account of the French Revolution, perhaps William Doyle's _The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction_.
April 6, 2019
Good info, but this was pretty dry. Very textbook-y.
June 27, 2017
In order to understand how today's borders and democracy are formed in Europe, it is necessary to know the French Revolution and the developments that followed. This book very well describes political, religious, economic and social events that took place at that time. During the royal period, the French peasants were under incredible tax burden. The royal family lived in the Palace of Versailles and had huge expenses. As far as we learned from the book, 500 people worked only under the service of the queen. The peasants had to give one-tenth of their income to the church, besides the taxes they gave to the state. Four fifth of their income went to taxes and the church. The physical power of the angry peasants in economic difficulties and the intellectual power of the bourgeois sect, started the French Revolution. The king was not removed at once. His authority was lessened. Meanwhile, many nobles escaped to other states. King Louis 16 was like a hostage. The king was not going to stay within the bounds set for him. He escaped but was caught and finally was guillotined. Meanwhile, many factions were struggling to become a leading power in the new Republic. The strongest of them were Jacobins and Girondists. The Jacobins took power, arrested many clergymen, created a new religion, forbade heaven and hell, and even invented a new calendar. They removed the bells of the churches, they made weapon and coin by melting them. The church spheres were torn down as because they higher than other building and broke the equality. The Jacobins were very cruel. They brutally sent the dissidents to the guillotine. If it was thought that there is sufficient evidence, witnesses do not need to be rested. The arrest of a person meant that he would definitely go to the guillotine. The French Revolution had removed the king but brought a more brutal rule. Everybody had to wait for their turns to be arrested. The action against the Jacobins succeeded when their rulers Robespierre were arrested and eventually executed. There is now a milder climate in France. Today, many 3rd world and African countries have to make their own French Revolution. Many repressive regimes still in power in these countries. From time to time there are counter-coups but the new administration continues to do the same. Even the powers that came to power with democratic elections become oppressive over time and cannot tolerate any opposition. Institutions are filled with partisans, competence is pushed to the second plan. Though it has been a long time, there are a lot of lessons to be learned in the French Revolution: It is very important for the separation of religion and state affairs, not to exploit the powers of production and labor by the state for the welfare and peace of the country, After the Revolution, France had a new leader: Napoleon Bonaparte. After the battles in which he showed his military genius, he became the leader of France. He achieved many things other than his military success: He improved the system of taxation, brought order into the national finances. He founded Bank of France. The system of national education in part reorganized. Roads improved, canals were cut, ports were dredged. He was declared as the Emperor of the France at the age of 35. Bonaparte has waged many wars for many years and has achieved tremendous successes. Many places added to the territory of France. But against the supremacy of the land, he lost war against the British at sea. He suffered a great defeat in the Russian campaign. Other European states that have been encouraged, united and defeated Napoleon. They sent him to exile. Later on, even though he tried to fight again he was defeated once for all and took his place in the dusty pages of the history.
January 17, 2022
Old Regime Europe
- state and church - theocratic
- capricious/cruel despotism in Turkey
- absolute monarchy in France, Russia, Austria, Prussia
England
- constitutional monarchy in England
- 3 great events in English history- acquisition of Canada and India - establishment of Parlimentary system of government - beginnings of Industrial revolution
- 1714 - House of Hanover- attempts of Stuart kings to make monarchy all powerful and supreme - parliment prevailed
- 1701 - altered line of succession to George I (1714-1727 - german - no english) - George II (1727-1760) - both Georges interest in money
- Ministers relied upon party of Whigs (who carried through revolution of 1688 - and favoured sovereignty)
- 7 Year War (1756-1763 raged on in Europe, America, Asia) - England and Prussia were 2 conspicuous beneficiaries
- England - William Pitt (Earl of Chatham) - head of ministry (1757-1761) - energetic and patriotic- triumph complete when Wolfe defeated Montcalm upon the Plains of Abraham
- Peace of Paris - England acquired France, vast stretches of Nova Scotia, Canada, Florida from Spain, India
- George III - least wise and most obstinate monarch - mother said "George, be a king" - sought to become more forceful - disrupted the Whigs- supplanted by the Tories (more favourable to kingship)
- Lord North (minister, 1770-1782) - obedient to King
- George III led to civil war - Whigs vs Tories- Whigs won and Lord North resigned - republican and constitutional and limited monarchy governing principles gained in the new world
- England was seen as decaying - their 7 year war victory was seen as won by the incapacity of Louis XV, not their strength - they were still feared though
Italy
- Italy - unimportant - fallen Empire- not United but a collection of stated and fallen to Spaniards, Austrians and French - Italians seen as timid
- "the day will come... when the Italians will be born again, audacious on the field of battle" - Alfieri - seeds of new Italy were forming
Germany - Austria and Prussia
- Germany - collection of states (360), 2 important being Prussia and Austria - the Empire was weak but not the state - no strong unity
- Austria - old famous - ruled by House of Hapsburg - no patriotism just Bohemians, Hungarians, Milanese, Netherlands, Austrians proper with each unity
- Prussia - new but gaining formidable reputation - ruled by House of Hohenzollern - formed in 1701 - Brandenburg heart of Prussia - warlike
- Frederick the Great's reign (1740-1786) - Prussia had no natural boundaries - his heart hardened by his father- invaded Silesia from Austria's Maria Theresa - "if there is anything to be gained by being honest, honest we will be; and if it is necessary to deceive, let us be scoundrels" , led to 2 Silesian wars
- Prussia - Great Elector (1640-1688) inherited <4000 men and bequeathed 24,000 to his successor - Frederick II inherited 38,000 and bequeathed 83,000 (while Prussia had population of 2 million compared to 24 million of Austria)
- Frederick the Great - won the 7 Year War with England as ally - coalition of France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, other German states relegated Frederick the Great to only Brandenburg- but he overran Saxony - won battle of Rossbach in 1757 (with 20k army, he defeated 55k French and German army) - he suffered a defeat at Kunersdorf against Austrians and Russians - he held off until enemy willing to make peace- Saxony forced to relinquish but kept Silesia - developed his land, absolute monarchy - partially dismembered Poland (FTG "act was that of brigands")
- Frederick William II - succeeded Frederick the Great
Russia
- Slavic people related to the Poles, the Bohemians, the Serbs and other eastern Europe- orthodox Greek Christianity prevailed
- conquest of Constantinople
- originally called Principality of Muscovy - was conquered by the Moguls in (barbarians from Asia) in 13th century - submitted to the Great Khan - dressed oriental fashion - threw off Moguls but themselves conquered Siberia
- House Romanoff came to throne in 1613
- Peter the Great (reigned 1689-1725) - grew up in foreign quarter of Moscow - Europeanized Russia - conquered Baltic provinces from Sweden and secured a long coastline - sent Russians to England, Holland, Venice etc - he himself travelled as Peter Mikailovitch to England, Holland - inquired and absorbed their culture, technology - got called back to Russia for revolt from old Regime
- Czar - Peter the Great reformed Russia- economic, fashion, manhood - ordered dancing - army became more powerful, navy got created - factories established, mines opened, canals were cut - language more simplified
- St Petersburg - new capital in the Baltic by Peter, different from stiffly conservative Moscow - workers dug with sticks, food insufficient- died by the thousands and replaced - tens of thousands drafted to work - every landowner required to build residence of a certain size/style - certain level of stone required in shipment for building purposes - Peter transferred the government to this city
- Peter - left an army of 200k men after his reign - opened contact with other European countries via Baltic- was followed by series if mediocre rulers
- Elizabeth (1741-1764) - Russia part of the 7 Year War
- Catherine II (1762-1796) - europeanized Russia - German princess - wife of Czar Peter III - became empress and ruled 34 years - intimate with Voltaire, Diderot and other French philosophers - enlightened despot of her century
- Catherine's foreign policy - 3 countries (Sweden, Poland and Turkey) stood between Russia and Europe - Peter conquered Sweden, Cath successfully conquered Poland - gained Crimea and the northern shores of the Black Sea from the Caucasus of the Dniester - Russia could count on being a factor considered in any arrangement of the Balkan peninsula, in any determination of the Eastern question
Early Europe
- Early Europe was autocratic- poor outrageously taxed- no personal liberty- serfdom - contemporary writers prophesized revolution was impending from excessive expenditures for armies, extravagant courts, wars, sumptuous buildings
- States extended their boundaries regardless of the rights of its people and the rights of other state leaders - "he who gains nothing, loses", Catherine of Russia - fragrant violation of international agreements- old Regime disloyal to its own principles like respect for established order
- Maria Theresa (Austria) had explicit rights to Silesia in the Pragmatic Sanction - Frederick the Great aided by French monarchs took it anyways
- Partition of Poland - in 1772 Prussia, Austria, Russia attacked Poland by taking advantage of its weak government, to save their own cupidity- later was 2 additional partitions (1793 and 1795)
- force and will, the will of the sovereign
- old Regime in Europe rudely shattered by overthrow of old Regime in France - dominate next quarter of the century
Old French Regime
- during revolution, France and Europe divided between conservatives and reformers - became from feudal system to democratic - feudal system - class division & acknowledged privileges of classes above lowest - democratic - removal of class distinctions, abolition of privileges, equality
- prevalence and oppressiveness of privilege
- monarch - King (claimed to rule by will of God - not consent of people) - absolute monarch - "this thing is legal because I wish it - Louis XVI - could imprison people by order aka "lettre de cachet" without trial
- Louis XVI - housed in splendors of Versailles - the lavish court composed 18k people, 16k were servants of the king - Queen Marie Antoinette alone had 500 servants, 400 shoes a week - Louis XVI spent 100million in today's money during his reign (1774-1789)
- King - assisted with 5 councils (5 fingers of the king) - 40 governments (didn't really govern) - 36 generalities
- French old Regime- disunity - 285 different customary laws, not written laws - some provinces had free trade while others didn't - tariffs imposed were a reminder of middle ages - states-rights feeling
- huge expenditures - high debt - 600 million and new loans were taken
- Direct tax - tax on personal property and income - nobles and clergy were exempt - and nobles who weren't were taxed less than commoners (the third estate) - predicted half of wealth was taken via direct taxes
- Indirect tax - imposed by private individuals (farmers of taxes) - paid a lump of sum to states and taxed people - e.g. salt tax or "gabelle" - Everyone over 7 was required to buy 7 pounds of salt including poor people - houses could've been searched - 20k ppl annually imprisoned & 500 annually condemned to death the day before revolution - 7 pound salt must be used for cooking, more salt needed for preservation purposes - also excise on wine - taxed in long line from producer to consumer
3 Classes in Old French Regime
- 3 classes of orders - clergy, nobility and third estate - privileges differed from each other and amongst one itself - privileged whole was 600k, unprivileged were 24 million
- Clergy - owned 1/5 of land in France - proceeds (taxes) went to church - church = state within state - within church, higher positions were sons of nobles while lower (thousands of parish priests) were sons of third estates - third estate proests exclaimed that their lot "made the very stones and beams of their miserable dwellings cry aloud" - privileged order of clergy were divided in 2 classes
- Nobility - divided into nobility of the sword (old military nobility of feudal origin) and nobility of the robe (new nobility, secured its ranks from the judicial offices its members held)
- Nobility of the Sword - consisted of nobles of the court and provinces
- nobles of the court - lived in splendour- allowed courts to be administrated by bailiffs and stewards
- nobles of the province - nnered in the hundreds of thousands - lived among the peasants but could not rise higher except army
- had the rights to hunting - peasants couldn't hunt but hunting could damage their crops
- Nobility of the sword resented nobility of the robes
Third Estate
- bourgeoisie, upper middle class and peasants
- ranging from rich bankers to beggars I'm the streets
- Bourgeoisie - lawyers, physicians, teachers, merchants, bankers etc - favoured a political reorganization
Literature about the old regime
- Literature criticized French regime - circulated multifarious ideas
- Montesquieu - opened the campaign against French monarchy, "Spirit of Laws" - analysis of various forms of government - discovered English government on the whole was best (constitutional monarchy - allowed for personal liberty)
- emphasized separating 3 powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial)
- Voltaire - had been thrown into prison
- pen was far mightier than the sword - he was most brilliant of journalists
- his ideal government was benevolent despotism- not a democrat - he would rather be ruled by 1 lion than 100 rats
- was more destructive than constructive
- Jean Jacques Rousseau- was constructive than destructive - author of "Social Contract" which started with the opening line "man was born free and is everywhere in chains" - all men are free and equal
- disagreed with Montesquieu regarding praising England government for ensuring freedom
- "The English think themselves free, but they are mistaken, for they are free only at the moment in which they elect the members of Parliament"
- Rosseau demanded ppl make the laws themselves directly - made no provisions safeguarding minority rights which the majority might wish to infringe - leads to majority tyranny
- 2 ideas stood out in high relief - sovereignty of the people and political equality of all citizens (2 democratic principles that were subversive of the states of Europe as then constituted)
Beginnings of the Revolution
- financial situation after participating in American revolution led to incurred debt under the reigns of Louis XVI and Louis XV - forced them to appeal to the people by summong their representatives
- Louis XVI (reigned from 1774-1792)
- falls into 3 periods:
- brief attempted reform from 1774-1776
- relapse for the next 12 years into the traditional methods of the Bourbon monarchy
- the hurricane
Louis XVI
- was feeble minded and unfit to rule as King (no good education etc)
- began ruling at 20 with Queen Antoinette who was 19, and weren't ready
- in the beginning of his rule, he was subject under the influence of Turgot, wisest of his statesmen - and also influenced by Queen Antoinette
Marie Antoinette
- daughter of great Empress Maria Theresa of Austria
- married Louis XVI in the hope the alliance was cemented between Austria/France - French people didn't like her - her privileged background couldn't allow her to understand the temperament of French people, nor the spirit of the times
- grew up in Vienna - education was woeful - she was misjudged
Turgot
- abolished artificial restrictions and regulations - made his province prosperous - had to face problem of annual deficit - announced "no bankruptcy, no increase of taxation, no more borrowing" - planned to extricate national finances by 2 processes:
- effecting economies in expenditures
- developing public wealth (so that the receipts would be larger) - achieved by introducing regime of liberty into agriculture, industry, and commerce
- abolished trade guilds (which restricted production by limiting number of workers in each line, and by guarding jealously the narrow, inelastic monopolies they had established) - masters of guilds became his bitter enemies
- abolished odious tax, the "royal corvee" (which required peasants to work on roads without pay) - all work should be with pay and tax ought to be levied at landowners - both privileged and unprivileged
- Louis XVI succumbed to pressure and let Turgot go - big mistake
- fall of Turgot gave warning not to affect privilege classes
Necker - succeeded Turgot
- risen from poverty to great wealth
- published a financial report showing income and expenditures of the state - this was never done before as this was secret
- was overthrown
- The Parlement of Paris - demanded a convocation (assembly) of States Generals - about taxes be imposed by those who can pay them - recalled Necker to head ministry
- The States General:
- was a 3 chamber body - but 2 of 3 were privileged and could veto the 3rd estate - more members to the 3rd estate chamber was posed - didn't address the fact that 9/10 of the ppl weren't heard - demanded voting as individuals, not by chambers
- States Generals met on May 5, 1789 - the third estate as well as many privileged with commoners by origin - universally drew up instructive criticism of Old Regime - all described ills of uncontrolled government, establishing a constitution (defining rights of the king and of the people) - states-generals should meet regularly - an optimistic hopefulness regarding the king summoning the states-general
- King Louis XVI - despite receiving gratitude, avoided making of a constitution in his speeches - shirked responsibility
- crucial question about separating chambers or uniting chambers needed to be settled
- Third Estates - declared itself the National Assembly - a revolutionary proceeding
- a session in a neighboring building to the hall (a tennis court) - raised their president Bailly - took the famous Tennis Court Oath - "never to separate, and to reassemble wherever circumstances shall require, until the constitution of the kingdom shall be established"
- King Louis XVI - declared their estate actions illegal and unconstitutional - declared three orders should meet separately and verify their credentials - 3rd estate were entrapped and told to withdraw until Mirabeau (noble) rose and said "we shall not leave except at the point of bayonet" - King "they wish to remain do they? Well, let them"
- demanded nobility and clergy to with with Third Estate in a single assembly - appointed a committee on the constitution - National Assembly adopted the title Constituent Assembly
- attempted to suppress Assembly and soldiers appeared near Versailles and Paris
- Necker ordered to leave
Storming of the Bastille - Paris was on the side of the Assembly - shops were pillaged where arms were to be found
- 14th July was declared national holiday and a new flag, the tricolor, red, white and blue was adopted in place of the white banner of the Bourbons, studded with fleur-de-lis.
- Paris gave itself a new form of municipal government, superseding old royal form, and organized new military force - the National Guard - Louis XVI came to Paris and formally ratified these changes - similar changes made all over France.
- impatient peasants who wanted feudal dues suppressed took matters in their hands and burned chateaux, unpopular tax collectors assaulted, millers hanged etc. - feudalism was abolished practically not legally
- during historic session, nobles, judges priests, discarded their privileges - wanted end to feudalism - royal palace officially proclaimed by Assembly
- years later, some friction arose by some thinking the sketched programmed rough legislation was real legislation and were disappointed - counter-revolutionaries arose
- Marie Antoinette stiffened- Duke of Orleans (cousin of King) wanted to take advantage of the revolution for his own benefit
Making of the Constitution
- Declaration of the Rights of Man - imitation of America's usage - opponents declared it useless and a waste of time and be focused on more pressing problems - however oppostion lost
- Principles start first - purely dogmatic text - Declaration not a fulfillment, but ideal (not guarantee of rights) - articles refined until accepted by King in 1791 - form of government was to be monarchical - king be limited to constitutional ruler - receive salary - more restrictions than before - avoided being like Britain to avoid bribery
- though couldn't make laws, King could stop them, except if third legislator approves - could appoint ministers/heads of cabinet departments but forbidden to select member of legislatures - head of navy and able to appoint and receive ambassadors - but legislators decide on peace or war
- Legislature - 745 members - 2 year term - no second chamber like England and avoided states rights feelings like America
- distinguished between active and passive citizens (not equality) - established new privileges - propertied men were chosen by their like - jury
- France became decentralized
- assignats currency sucked
- Civil Constitution of the Clergy - France split bet. allegiance to state and allegiance to church
- King and Queen were caught trying to escape
- state and church - theocratic
- capricious/cruel despotism in Turkey
- absolute monarchy in France, Russia, Austria, Prussia
England
- constitutional monarchy in England
- 3 great events in English history- acquisition of Canada and India - establishment of Parlimentary system of government - beginnings of Industrial revolution
- 1714 - House of Hanover- attempts of Stuart kings to make monarchy all powerful and supreme - parliment prevailed
- 1701 - altered line of succession to George I (1714-1727 - german - no english) - George II (1727-1760) - both Georges interest in money
- Ministers relied upon party of Whigs (who carried through revolution of 1688 - and favoured sovereignty)
- 7 Year War (1756-1763 raged on in Europe, America, Asia) - England and Prussia were 2 conspicuous beneficiaries
- England - William Pitt (Earl of Chatham) - head of ministry (1757-1761) - energetic and patriotic- triumph complete when Wolfe defeated Montcalm upon the Plains of Abraham
- Peace of Paris - England acquired France, vast stretches of Nova Scotia, Canada, Florida from Spain, India
- George III - least wise and most obstinate monarch - mother said "George, be a king" - sought to become more forceful - disrupted the Whigs- supplanted by the Tories (more favourable to kingship)
- Lord North (minister, 1770-1782) - obedient to King
- George III led to civil war - Whigs vs Tories- Whigs won and Lord North resigned - republican and constitutional and limited monarchy governing principles gained in the new world
- England was seen as decaying - their 7 year war victory was seen as won by the incapacity of Louis XV, not their strength - they were still feared though
Italy
- Italy - unimportant - fallen Empire- not United but a collection of stated and fallen to Spaniards, Austrians and French - Italians seen as timid
- "the day will come... when the Italians will be born again, audacious on the field of battle" - Alfieri - seeds of new Italy were forming
Germany - Austria and Prussia
- Germany - collection of states (360), 2 important being Prussia and Austria - the Empire was weak but not the state - no strong unity
- Austria - old famous - ruled by House of Hapsburg - no patriotism just Bohemians, Hungarians, Milanese, Netherlands, Austrians proper with each unity
- Prussia - new but gaining formidable reputation - ruled by House of Hohenzollern - formed in 1701 - Brandenburg heart of Prussia - warlike
- Frederick the Great's reign (1740-1786) - Prussia had no natural boundaries - his heart hardened by his father- invaded Silesia from Austria's Maria Theresa - "if there is anything to be gained by being honest, honest we will be; and if it is necessary to deceive, let us be scoundrels" , led to 2 Silesian wars
- Prussia - Great Elector (1640-1688) inherited <4000 men and bequeathed 24,000 to his successor - Frederick II inherited 38,000 and bequeathed 83,000 (while Prussia had population of 2 million compared to 24 million of Austria)
- Frederick the Great - won the 7 Year War with England as ally - coalition of France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, other German states relegated Frederick the Great to only Brandenburg- but he overran Saxony - won battle of Rossbach in 1757 (with 20k army, he defeated 55k French and German army) - he suffered a defeat at Kunersdorf against Austrians and Russians - he held off until enemy willing to make peace- Saxony forced to relinquish but kept Silesia - developed his land, absolute monarchy - partially dismembered Poland (FTG "act was that of brigands")
- Frederick William II - succeeded Frederick the Great
Russia
- Slavic people related to the Poles, the Bohemians, the Serbs and other eastern Europe- orthodox Greek Christianity prevailed
- conquest of Constantinople
- originally called Principality of Muscovy - was conquered by the Moguls in (barbarians from Asia) in 13th century - submitted to the Great Khan - dressed oriental fashion - threw off Moguls but themselves conquered Siberia
- House Romanoff came to throne in 1613
- Peter the Great (reigned 1689-1725) - grew up in foreign quarter of Moscow - Europeanized Russia - conquered Baltic provinces from Sweden and secured a long coastline - sent Russians to England, Holland, Venice etc - he himself travelled as Peter Mikailovitch to England, Holland - inquired and absorbed their culture, technology - got called back to Russia for revolt from old Regime
- Czar - Peter the Great reformed Russia- economic, fashion, manhood - ordered dancing - army became more powerful, navy got created - factories established, mines opened, canals were cut - language more simplified
- St Petersburg - new capital in the Baltic by Peter, different from stiffly conservative Moscow - workers dug with sticks, food insufficient- died by the thousands and replaced - tens of thousands drafted to work - every landowner required to build residence of a certain size/style - certain level of stone required in shipment for building purposes - Peter transferred the government to this city
- Peter - left an army of 200k men after his reign - opened contact with other European countries via Baltic- was followed by series if mediocre rulers
- Elizabeth (1741-1764) - Russia part of the 7 Year War
- Catherine II (1762-1796) - europeanized Russia - German princess - wife of Czar Peter III - became empress and ruled 34 years - intimate with Voltaire, Diderot and other French philosophers - enlightened despot of her century
- Catherine's foreign policy - 3 countries (Sweden, Poland and Turkey) stood between Russia and Europe - Peter conquered Sweden, Cath successfully conquered Poland - gained Crimea and the northern shores of the Black Sea from the Caucasus of the Dniester - Russia could count on being a factor considered in any arrangement of the Balkan peninsula, in any determination of the Eastern question
Early Europe
- Early Europe was autocratic- poor outrageously taxed- no personal liberty- serfdom - contemporary writers prophesized revolution was impending from excessive expenditures for armies, extravagant courts, wars, sumptuous buildings
- States extended their boundaries regardless of the rights of its people and the rights of other state leaders - "he who gains nothing, loses", Catherine of Russia - fragrant violation of international agreements- old Regime disloyal to its own principles like respect for established order
- Maria Theresa (Austria) had explicit rights to Silesia in the Pragmatic Sanction - Frederick the Great aided by French monarchs took it anyways
- Partition of Poland - in 1772 Prussia, Austria, Russia attacked Poland by taking advantage of its weak government, to save their own cupidity- later was 2 additional partitions (1793 and 1795)
- force and will, the will of the sovereign
- old Regime in Europe rudely shattered by overthrow of old Regime in France - dominate next quarter of the century
Old French Regime
- during revolution, France and Europe divided between conservatives and reformers - became from feudal system to democratic - feudal system - class division & acknowledged privileges of classes above lowest - democratic - removal of class distinctions, abolition of privileges, equality
- prevalence and oppressiveness of privilege
- monarch - King (claimed to rule by will of God - not consent of people) - absolute monarch - "this thing is legal because I wish it - Louis XVI - could imprison people by order aka "lettre de cachet" without trial
- Louis XVI - housed in splendors of Versailles - the lavish court composed 18k people, 16k were servants of the king - Queen Marie Antoinette alone had 500 servants, 400 shoes a week - Louis XVI spent 100million in today's money during his reign (1774-1789)
- King - assisted with 5 councils (5 fingers of the king) - 40 governments (didn't really govern) - 36 generalities
- French old Regime- disunity - 285 different customary laws, not written laws - some provinces had free trade while others didn't - tariffs imposed were a reminder of middle ages - states-rights feeling
- huge expenditures - high debt - 600 million and new loans were taken
- Direct tax - tax on personal property and income - nobles and clergy were exempt - and nobles who weren't were taxed less than commoners (the third estate) - predicted half of wealth was taken via direct taxes
- Indirect tax - imposed by private individuals (farmers of taxes) - paid a lump of sum to states and taxed people - e.g. salt tax or "gabelle" - Everyone over 7 was required to buy 7 pounds of salt including poor people - houses could've been searched - 20k ppl annually imprisoned & 500 annually condemned to death the day before revolution - 7 pound salt must be used for cooking, more salt needed for preservation purposes - also excise on wine - taxed in long line from producer to consumer
3 Classes in Old French Regime
- 3 classes of orders - clergy, nobility and third estate - privileges differed from each other and amongst one itself - privileged whole was 600k, unprivileged were 24 million
- Clergy - owned 1/5 of land in France - proceeds (taxes) went to church - church = state within state - within church, higher positions were sons of nobles while lower (thousands of parish priests) were sons of third estates - third estate proests exclaimed that their lot "made the very stones and beams of their miserable dwellings cry aloud" - privileged order of clergy were divided in 2 classes
- Nobility - divided into nobility of the sword (old military nobility of feudal origin) and nobility of the robe (new nobility, secured its ranks from the judicial offices its members held)
- Nobility of the Sword - consisted of nobles of the court and provinces
- nobles of the court - lived in splendour- allowed courts to be administrated by bailiffs and stewards
- nobles of the province - nnered in the hundreds of thousands - lived among the peasants but could not rise higher except army
- had the rights to hunting - peasants couldn't hunt but hunting could damage their crops
- Nobility of the sword resented nobility of the robes
Third Estate
- bourgeoisie, upper middle class and peasants
- ranging from rich bankers to beggars I'm the streets
- Bourgeoisie - lawyers, physicians, teachers, merchants, bankers etc - favoured a political reorganization
Literature about the old regime
- Literature criticized French regime - circulated multifarious ideas
- Montesquieu - opened the campaign against French monarchy, "Spirit of Laws" - analysis of various forms of government - discovered English government on the whole was best (constitutional monarchy - allowed for personal liberty)
- emphasized separating 3 powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial)
- Voltaire - had been thrown into prison
- pen was far mightier than the sword - he was most brilliant of journalists
- his ideal government was benevolent despotism- not a democrat - he would rather be ruled by 1 lion than 100 rats
- was more destructive than constructive
- Jean Jacques Rousseau- was constructive than destructive - author of "Social Contract" which started with the opening line "man was born free and is everywhere in chains" - all men are free and equal
- disagreed with Montesquieu regarding praising England government for ensuring freedom
- "The English think themselves free, but they are mistaken, for they are free only at the moment in which they elect the members of Parliament"
- Rosseau demanded ppl make the laws themselves directly - made no provisions safeguarding minority rights which the majority might wish to infringe - leads to majority tyranny
- 2 ideas stood out in high relief - sovereignty of the people and political equality of all citizens (2 democratic principles that were subversive of the states of Europe as then constituted)
Beginnings of the Revolution
- financial situation after participating in American revolution led to incurred debt under the reigns of Louis XVI and Louis XV - forced them to appeal to the people by summong their representatives
- Louis XVI (reigned from 1774-1792)
- falls into 3 periods:
- brief attempted reform from 1774-1776
- relapse for the next 12 years into the traditional methods of the Bourbon monarchy
- the hurricane
Louis XVI
- was feeble minded and unfit to rule as King (no good education etc)
- began ruling at 20 with Queen Antoinette who was 19, and weren't ready
- in the beginning of his rule, he was subject under the influence of Turgot, wisest of his statesmen - and also influenced by Queen Antoinette
Marie Antoinette
- daughter of great Empress Maria Theresa of Austria
- married Louis XVI in the hope the alliance was cemented between Austria/France - French people didn't like her - her privileged background couldn't allow her to understand the temperament of French people, nor the spirit of the times
- grew up in Vienna - education was woeful - she was misjudged
Turgot
- abolished artificial restrictions and regulations - made his province prosperous - had to face problem of annual deficit - announced "no bankruptcy, no increase of taxation, no more borrowing" - planned to extricate national finances by 2 processes:
- effecting economies in expenditures
- developing public wealth (so that the receipts would be larger) - achieved by introducing regime of liberty into agriculture, industry, and commerce
- abolished trade guilds (which restricted production by limiting number of workers in each line, and by guarding jealously the narrow, inelastic monopolies they had established) - masters of guilds became his bitter enemies
- abolished odious tax, the "royal corvee" (which required peasants to work on roads without pay) - all work should be with pay and tax ought to be levied at landowners - both privileged and unprivileged
- Louis XVI succumbed to pressure and let Turgot go - big mistake
- fall of Turgot gave warning not to affect privilege classes
Necker - succeeded Turgot
- risen from poverty to great wealth
- published a financial report showing income and expenditures of the state - this was never done before as this was secret
- was overthrown
- The Parlement of Paris - demanded a convocation (assembly) of States Generals - about taxes be imposed by those who can pay them - recalled Necker to head ministry
- The States General:
- was a 3 chamber body - but 2 of 3 were privileged and could veto the 3rd estate - more members to the 3rd estate chamber was posed - didn't address the fact that 9/10 of the ppl weren't heard - demanded voting as individuals, not by chambers
- States Generals met on May 5, 1789 - the third estate as well as many privileged with commoners by origin - universally drew up instructive criticism of Old Regime - all described ills of uncontrolled government, establishing a constitution (defining rights of the king and of the people) - states-generals should meet regularly - an optimistic hopefulness regarding the king summoning the states-general
- King Louis XVI - despite receiving gratitude, avoided making of a constitution in his speeches - shirked responsibility
- crucial question about separating chambers or uniting chambers needed to be settled
- Third Estates - declared itself the National Assembly - a revolutionary proceeding
- a session in a neighboring building to the hall (a tennis court) - raised their president Bailly - took the famous Tennis Court Oath - "never to separate, and to reassemble wherever circumstances shall require, until the constitution of the kingdom shall be established"
- King Louis XVI - declared their estate actions illegal and unconstitutional - declared three orders should meet separately and verify their credentials - 3rd estate were entrapped and told to withdraw until Mirabeau (noble) rose and said "we shall not leave except at the point of bayonet" - King "they wish to remain do they? Well, let them"
- demanded nobility and clergy to with with Third Estate in a single assembly - appointed a committee on the constitution - National Assembly adopted the title Constituent Assembly
- attempted to suppress Assembly and soldiers appeared near Versailles and Paris
- Necker ordered to leave
Storming of the Bastille - Paris was on the side of the Assembly - shops were pillaged where arms were to be found
- 14th July was declared national holiday and a new flag, the tricolor, red, white and blue was adopted in place of the white banner of the Bourbons, studded with fleur-de-lis.
- Paris gave itself a new form of municipal government, superseding old royal form, and organized new military force - the National Guard - Louis XVI came to Paris and formally ratified these changes - similar changes made all over France.
- impatient peasants who wanted feudal dues suppressed took matters in their hands and burned chateaux, unpopular tax collectors assaulted, millers hanged etc. - feudalism was abolished practically not legally
- during historic session, nobles, judges priests, discarded their privileges - wanted end to feudalism - royal palace officially proclaimed by Assembly
- years later, some friction arose by some thinking the sketched programmed rough legislation was real legislation and were disappointed - counter-revolutionaries arose
- Marie Antoinette stiffened- Duke of Orleans (cousin of King) wanted to take advantage of the revolution for his own benefit
Making of the Constitution
- Declaration of the Rights of Man - imitation of America's usage - opponents declared it useless and a waste of time and be focused on more pressing problems - however oppostion lost
- Principles start first - purely dogmatic text - Declaration not a fulfillment, but ideal (not guarantee of rights) - articles refined until accepted by King in 1791 - form of government was to be monarchical - king be limited to constitutional ruler - receive salary - more restrictions than before - avoided being like Britain to avoid bribery
- though couldn't make laws, King could stop them, except if third legislator approves - could appoint ministers/heads of cabinet departments but forbidden to select member of legislatures - head of navy and able to appoint and receive ambassadors - but legislators decide on peace or war
- Legislature - 745 members - 2 year term - no second chamber like England and avoided states rights feelings like America
- distinguished between active and passive citizens (not equality) - established new privileges - propertied men were chosen by their like - jury
- France became decentralized
- assignats currency sucked
- Civil Constitution of the Clergy - France split bet. allegiance to state and allegiance to church
- King and Queen were caught trying to escape
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 15, 2014
Those poor French bastards! My God! So, I became interested in the French revolution after I read Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, which was fantastic by the way. In Tale of Two Cities there is a specific period were characters in Paris are talking about 50 - 63 heads being chopped off a day. It sounded like Hell on Earth atop complete anarchy, which meant that I had to learn more about this time frame.
Having no idea what happened in the French Revolution (no idea that Marie Antoinette was part of the revolution (yes, I was that ignorant), nor that Napoleon participated in it towards the end) other than heads rolled, I picked up three different books, the other two were written in the 1800s and were a complete task to read or even understand. However, this book, having been written in 1917, was an absolute educational delight.
Hazen goes into detail (without going too deep into a boring rabbit hole), setting the stage prior to the revolution and hits each moment in history all the way up through the end of Napoleon. I loved it. It was educational, didn't dwell on side events or on any topic for too long and touched on everything for a perfect amount of time to hold my attention, because come one, it's the French Revolution and not too many people read this stuff for fun. But Hazen presents it in such a way that holds your interest.
Coming from a standpoint of complete ignorance, I walked satisfied, having just learned not only about the revolution itself (again, Hell on Earth) but about the most important man in history (TheLocal describes him as the second most important man in history http://www.thelocal.fr/20131216/napol...) who I can only say that Napoleon is Darth Vader incarnate. He was truly an amazing, egotistical, arrogant bastard-tyrant of a man responsible for an amazing amount of needless death. The book left me wanting to learn more about him and his conquests.
I do have to say though, that I actually wanted to learn more about the carnage that was involved with the Bastille and the guillotine and the level of brutality that was unleashed on the entire country, but Hazen didn't go there. If you're looking for blood and guts, the book is rather light on the subject so you'll have to look elsewhere.
I got mine for 99 cents on Barnes & Noble, but it's also free here online https://archive.org/details/frenchrev...
Having no idea what happened in the French Revolution (no idea that Marie Antoinette was part of the revolution (yes, I was that ignorant), nor that Napoleon participated in it towards the end) other than heads rolled, I picked up three different books, the other two were written in the 1800s and were a complete task to read or even understand. However, this book, having been written in 1917, was an absolute educational delight.
Hazen goes into detail (without going too deep into a boring rabbit hole), setting the stage prior to the revolution and hits each moment in history all the way up through the end of Napoleon. I loved it. It was educational, didn't dwell on side events or on any topic for too long and touched on everything for a perfect amount of time to hold my attention, because come one, it's the French Revolution and not too many people read this stuff for fun. But Hazen presents it in such a way that holds your interest.
Coming from a standpoint of complete ignorance, I walked satisfied, having just learned not only about the revolution itself (again, Hell on Earth) but about the most important man in history (TheLocal describes him as the second most important man in history http://www.thelocal.fr/20131216/napol...) who I can only say that Napoleon is Darth Vader incarnate. He was truly an amazing, egotistical, arrogant bastard-tyrant of a man responsible for an amazing amount of needless death. The book left me wanting to learn more about him and his conquests.
I do have to say though, that I actually wanted to learn more about the carnage that was involved with the Bastille and the guillotine and the level of brutality that was unleashed on the entire country, but Hazen didn't go there. If you're looking for blood and guts, the book is rather light on the subject so you'll have to look elsewhere.
I got mine for 99 cents on Barnes & Noble, but it's also free here online https://archive.org/details/frenchrev...
December 24, 2018
An excellent overview of the French Revolution and rise and fall of Napoleon. A perfect book to get a good understanding of this important period in the history of western nations. Summarizes a complex period without bogging the reader down with too many details but still highlights all the important characters and events from late 1700's France through the end of the Napoleon era in 1815.
This book was written in 1917 during ww1 and I doubt there are many books released in the 100 years since that can give the reader a better understanding of the events from this period in under 500 pages. 5 stars!
This book was written in 1917 during ww1 and I doubt there are many books released in the 100 years since that can give the reader a better understanding of the events from this period in under 500 pages. 5 stars!
May 3, 2020
Succinct & well-written history
This is a clearly written summary of the forces and events which precipitated the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon. It’s clear that volumes more could, and have, been written on the subject, but if you want a ‘summary course,’ this book is a good start.
This is a clearly written summary of the forces and events which precipitated the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon. It’s clear that volumes more could, and have, been written on the subject, but if you want a ‘summary course,’ this book is a good start.
August 29, 2017
How the French Revolution created Napoleon
This study explained how the French Revolution devolved into the terror of extremism and zealotry creating a fertile field for the genius of Napoleon. In readable perhaps summary form, the author simplified the extreme complexity of the revolution without sacrificing the the flawed evolution of the great experiment of the rights of man.
This study explained how the French Revolution devolved into the terror of extremism and zealotry creating a fertile field for the genius of Napoleon. In readable perhaps summary form, the author simplified the extreme complexity of the revolution without sacrificing the the flawed evolution of the great experiment of the rights of man.
January 1, 2019
A sweeping short history of a tumultuous time of the beginning of modern Europe
Wonderfully written and concise history of France of the late 18th century and the subsequent rise and fall of Napoleon. Even though written over 100 years ago, this book reads like a modern thriller. Highly recommended for readers who have a vague background of this period and are curious to know how these especially epic events shaped modern European history
Wonderfully written and concise history of France of the late 18th century and the subsequent rise and fall of Napoleon. Even though written over 100 years ago, this book reads like a modern thriller. Highly recommended for readers who have a vague background of this period and are curious to know how these especially epic events shaped modern European history
February 22, 2020
Good Quick Summary
The French revolution and the reign of Napoleon left an indelible mark on the history and path of Europe for more than a century after Waterloo. Written in 1917, Hazen covers the rise and fall of Napoleon at a high level, providing the reader with a survey of his 52 years, as well as setting the stage for the revolution by analyzing the Bourbon rule from about 1770. A good survey level history.
The French revolution and the reign of Napoleon left an indelible mark on the history and path of Europe for more than a century after Waterloo. Written in 1917, Hazen covers the rise and fall of Napoleon at a high level, providing the reader with a survey of his 52 years, as well as setting the stage for the revolution by analyzing the Bourbon rule from about 1770. A good survey level history.
November 30, 2021
Intriguing
For those, like myself, not overly familiar with the French revolution and it's connection with Napoleon, this is the perfect book. It offers a fascinating summary of those years that invites readers to delve deeper with further reading, should they desire. I couldn't put down this book
For those, like myself, not overly familiar with the French revolution and it's connection with Napoleon, this is the perfect book. It offers a fascinating summary of those years that invites readers to delve deeper with further reading, should they desire. I couldn't put down this book
Read
December 1, 2021100-year-old history of the French Revolution
I read this once before, before I read so many other, heavier histories of the time, but got so much more from it this time. Fewer than 200 pages, it reads more like an outline with all the important details that sometimes get lost in more detailed accounts.
I read this once before, before I read so many other, heavier histories of the time, but got so much more from it this time. Fewer than 200 pages, it reads more like an outline with all the important details that sometimes get lost in more detailed accounts.
September 13, 2024
Very good book, it is concise history of French Revolution and Napoleon, explains the causes that brought about the revolution, it’s effect not only on France but the rest of the World, and the enduring changes it was able to make and is making by applying the principles of equality and liberty in Governance.
August 13, 2017
Nice overview
Short concise overview of the French Revolution...The writing was wonderful...I went into this book with some knowledge of the French Revolution....after reading this book I a greater understanding of it
Short concise overview of the French Revolution...The writing was wonderful...I went into this book with some knowledge of the French Revolution....after reading this book I a greater understanding of it
August 6, 2018
History of France revisited
It was a great read. In a concise way it explained what the French Revolution was all about. Great reference for History students studying French History!
It was a great read. In a concise way it explained what the French Revolution was all about. Great reference for History students studying French History!
June 20, 2019
Excellent
Well written and explains much of the intricacies of the revolution. Would recommend to anyone with interest in this time frame and the psychological workings of men and government.
Well written and explains much of the intricacies of the revolution. Would recommend to anyone with interest in this time frame and the psychological workings of men and government.
July 24, 2021
A great learning experience.
I knew of the French Revolution in some detail, but less of the time of Napoleon. This is a well told history of an important period in Western history. Very readable, not overcooked with scholarship or slave to primary data.
I knew of the French Revolution in some detail, but less of the time of Napoleon. This is a well told history of an important period in Western history. Very readable, not overcooked with scholarship or slave to primary data.
July 14, 2018
Nice succinct, summary of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era, another time period about which I knew embarrassingly little. The book was written in the 1910s but holds up really well.
April 19, 2020
A great quick summary of one of the most significant events in the history of the French and the West.
August 20, 2021
Excellent introduction
To start an approach to the French Revolution and Napoleon, this book is perfectly a must! Pricesles, I recommended it.
To start an approach to the French Revolution and Napoleon, this book is perfectly a must! Pricesles, I recommended it.
January 19, 2018
This might be my favorite history book I’ve read in a long time. It captures much of the detail of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, without being bogged down in minutia. I learned a lot from this book. It is so well paced, it’s hard to believe this work is 100 years old!
June 21, 2018
Great concise history of what led to the French Revolution. I enjoyed the introduction to European history and how the power structures of the different reigns were organized and how these led to the restructuring of Europe through the revolution. Well documented.
August 5, 2020
The French Revolution and Napoleon is an unrepentantly brief introduction to, funnily enough, the French Revolution and the rise and fall of Napoleon. If you are looking for a gripping read which puts you in the streets of Paris during the revolution or in Napoleon's general staff, this book is not for you.
The book is at its best when describing the realities of France's Ancien Regime and the early years of the revolution, when things are moving forward but not at the ridiculous speed that would define the revolution's later years. During these initial chapters you will be made familiar with the major players, their motivations and the challenges they faced. As the revolution continues and the Overton window begins shifting violently, this contextual information, which gives the book a narrative and the reader a sense of familiarity, begins to lag behind and then disappear almost entirely. After a certain point, maybe 1793, the book begins focusing on history in a much broader sense. This is almost certainly a result of the page count and not entirely a bad thing, it just depends on what you are after.
If you are thinking of reading this book to improve your understanding of Napoleon as a person or a military genius, you will be disappointed. It covers a range of topics, giving you an insight into who he was and who other people thought he was, but it is far from even a short biography. In this book sentences are key. Battles, policies, enemies, allies and economics are all summarised in sentences, not pages. You will not know the details that compelled certain outcomes, just that those outcomes occurred.
With all of that said, this book is an incredible text for those who want a quick survey of the French Revolution and Napoleon's life. You are essentially introduced to every important event from 1789 to 1815. If you know nothing about the period it is a great resource to help you discover what you want to look into further, be it people, battles, campaigns or themes.
It isn't incredibly written, just average really, but there is enough character to it to keep you engaged. You might sometimes find yourself surprised about how certain events or people are described, the author is not afraid to lay adjectives on a character who hasn't even previously been introduced, but at the very least it keeps things interesting.
All in all, if you want a book that will introduce you to the period primarily through broad-strokes, with the occasional exploration of key concepts and events, this is a great book to read.
The book is at its best when describing the realities of France's Ancien Regime and the early years of the revolution, when things are moving forward but not at the ridiculous speed that would define the revolution's later years. During these initial chapters you will be made familiar with the major players, their motivations and the challenges they faced. As the revolution continues and the Overton window begins shifting violently, this contextual information, which gives the book a narrative and the reader a sense of familiarity, begins to lag behind and then disappear almost entirely. After a certain point, maybe 1793, the book begins focusing on history in a much broader sense. This is almost certainly a result of the page count and not entirely a bad thing, it just depends on what you are after.
If you are thinking of reading this book to improve your understanding of Napoleon as a person or a military genius, you will be disappointed. It covers a range of topics, giving you an insight into who he was and who other people thought he was, but it is far from even a short biography. In this book sentences are key. Battles, policies, enemies, allies and economics are all summarised in sentences, not pages. You will not know the details that compelled certain outcomes, just that those outcomes occurred.
With all of that said, this book is an incredible text for those who want a quick survey of the French Revolution and Napoleon's life. You are essentially introduced to every important event from 1789 to 1815. If you know nothing about the period it is a great resource to help you discover what you want to look into further, be it people, battles, campaigns or themes.
It isn't incredibly written, just average really, but there is enough character to it to keep you engaged. You might sometimes find yourself surprised about how certain events or people are described, the author is not afraid to lay adjectives on a character who hasn't even previously been introduced, but at the very least it keeps things interesting.
All in all, if you want a book that will introduce you to the period primarily through broad-strokes, with the occasional exploration of key concepts and events, this is a great book to read.
July 10, 2013
An undeservedly rosy outlook on mob rule. For whatever reason, the author is determined to look on the bright side of the French revolution, and to credit it with pioneering due the American revolutionists. I still think it is a good history if taken with a grain of salt.
January 5, 2015
A very dry read. I was expecting an engaging story about how Napoleon fired up the French Revolution, but there is a lot of dry political content about Europe in general which I didn't find engaging at all.
September 13, 2020
A concise history of French Revolution and Napoleonic war. The text is quite readable and enjoyable. The events happened during that period of time are coherently narrated. The logic is easy to follow. Highly recommended to anyone who seeks an introduction to that period of history.
January 10, 2024
Useful background knowledge, researching the subject of my next book, career criminal William Habberfield. This was the right level for my research - getting a not-too-detailed idea of the timeline of the French revolution and the rise of Napoleon.
August 28, 2013
Quite an explosive, readable history of Napoleon and the french revolution. Certainly dated (in the public domain) and some opinions are overstated but I found it a worthwhile read.
January 8, 2015
Good old fashioned history! with no apologies.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews