The Oxford History of the French Revolution

by William Doyle

Massacres were nothing new to the late eighteenth-century world, but the prospect of a government systematically executing its opponents by the cartload for months on end presented Europe with a new and unimaginable horror. The Reign of Terror and the French Revolution as a whole
transformed the meaning of political change and history itself. Written by a leading historian, this authoritative and comprehensive history draws on a wealth of new research in order to reassess the greatest of all revolutions.
Beginning with the accession of Louis XVI in 1774, William Doyle traces the history of France through revolution, terror, and counter-terror, to the triumph of Napoleon in 1802, along the way analyzing the impact of these events in France upon the rest of Europe. He explores how a movement
which began with optimism and general enthusiasm soon became a tragedy, not only for the ruling orders, but for millions of ordinary people all over Europe. They were the ones who paid the price for the destruction of the old political order and the struggle to establish a new one, based on liberty
and revolution, in the face of widespread indifference and hostility. Highly readable and meticulously researched, The Oxford History of the French Revolution will provide new insights into one of the most important events in European history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, French Revolution, France, European History, World History, Politics

466 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

William Doyle is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Bristol.

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

British academic writing at its best, for me. Doyle takes an obviously enormous subject and sets it out in clear, economical and often wryly funny prose and manages to make it readable, concise and as thorough as an introductory volume is going to get. You do not need any prior knowledge of the French Revolution to tackle this volume. However if you do have a bit I promise you it still offers an excellent refresher: it is not just a long series of names, dates and major events designed to give you a timeline. There's wikipedia for that, y'all. It manages to give its narrative enough depth that you'll still learn something new, or look at events from a new perspective, while also not feeling like you're getting bogged down in minutiae that are completely beside the point except to specialists. I was familiar with the basic shape and structure of part of the Revolution that most people know a bit about- the part from the Tennis Court Oath to the end of the Terror- but I also knew very little about the Directory era that followed or Napoleon's first years. Those four years are really the key to understanding why Napoleon comes to power and why his regime takes the shape that it does. One of the more interesting recurring themes you find when you get deeper into French Revolution literature is the idea that the series of Revolutionary governmental experiments tried in those years were wartime regimes, shaped and radicalized hugely by that experience. The conversation on the subject usually focuses around the regicide and the heads rolling and the bread riots, but there are other dimensions. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite do not bring a Napoleon to the throne and allow the creation of an Empire. But many many other things do.

Anyway, good as an introduction, good to pull out chapters from for your class on the subject, good as a refresher, and good as an example of how to do academic writing on a subject that people have gone over with a thousand combs and still find something to say. The only thing I would say that was slightly disappointing is that the book is light on dealing with the historiography of the Revolution and all the major debates about it that are still being fought over now. I think it would be helpful to have a least a brief overview of the major thinkers on the Right and the Left just to orient people before they plunge into further reading.

[Josh Liller · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this because I was taking a college class on the French Revolution and Napoleon, although it was not assigned reading. This seems to be a pretty comprehensive history of the French Revolution. I particularly liked the first chapter giving a wide survey of the conditions in France pre-Revolution and the concluding chapter that analyzes the impact of the Revolution and the lasting effects it had on French society. Despite being a general history it is at times quite insightful.

However, while the content is good, the style is less so. Parts of the book make for really good reading while others seem to drag. There are a great many overlong paragraphs. Part of the narrative is chronological and part is in parallel; this can be a useful focus, but at times makes understanding the order of events confusing. The Revolution also had a complicated cast of characters that Doyle is unable to prevent from becoming confusing (though I suspect this would be a difficult task for anyone).

A good but at times difficult book.

[Vheissu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zhou Enlai was famously misinterpreted when asked by an American diplomat about the implications of the French revolution by responding, "It is too soon to tell." Foreign minister Zhou was referring to the 1968 street demonstrations in Paris, not the French Revolution or the Paris Commune of 1871. Nevertheless, the misquote is apt. It may take another 500 years to understand fully the consequences of the Revolution, the subject of hundreds if not thousands of histories and biographies. No other single event in European history has been more written about than the French Revolution, according to Doyle, mostly because its impact is still playing itself out today. Indeed, one of the most useful parts of the book, first written to commemorate the 20oth anniversary of the destruction of the Bastille, is Appendix III, "The Revolution and Its Historians," which provides an exhaustive bibliographic essay on almost every aspect of the Revolution. My Want To Read shelf has been updated accordingly.

The work is more of a textbook, albeit an excellent one, than a sweeping dramatic narrative, which is what I hoped to read (I've been spoiled by Robert A. Caro and Edmund Morris). The casual reader of history will likely not be interested; for students and scholars, on the other hand, the book is essential reading. As best I can tell, Doyle is a "post-revisionist" historian of the Revolution in that he emphasizes the cultural-intellectual causes and consequences rather than the economic, social causes characteristic of "classical" (e.g., Marxist) authors. He argues persuasively that the "revolution created revolutionaries, not the other way around," which is significant because every revolution since--Marxist or otherwise--was created by revolutionaries, not the other way around. The French Revolution provided the slogans, tactics, and justifications for Mexican, Bolshevik, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and many other revolutionaries.

Just as the Revolution created the first revolutionaries (sorry Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson), it also created the world's first counter-revolutionaries (p. 408). The whole of Western politics has ever since been divided between those who see social change based on reason and individual freedom as possible and desirable (liberal Enlightenment), and those who see efforts to impose abstract notions of justice on an imperfect world as impractical and dangerous (conservative reactionaries). As even school children know, the terms "left" and "right" originated in the Revolution and persist today.

The French Revolution also forced monarchy, nobility, Roman Catholicism, autocracy, and slavery into permanent defensiveness, even if it didn't destroy them completely. Contemporary critics of the Saudi monarchy are the descendants of French Jacobins. By declaring popular sovereignty, the Revolution heralded the centuries-long quest for democracy as well as proliferating nationalism, neither of which has unblemished records since 1789. Doyle notes the rise of "popular forces with no interest in stability or social order" (p. 444) as one product of the sans-culottes in Paris, a characterization I find perfectively descriptive of the "Leave" voters in the UK and Trump supporters in the United States. Note, demagoguery and civic irresponsibility is a feature of both Left and Right.

In-between revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries are "anti-revolutionaries," those who are committed to the ideals of the Revolution and social change but not the policies promulgated by the various revolutionary regimes. While many Frenchmen came to despise the violence and economic incompetence of Revolutionary leaders, most overwhelmingly believed that restoration of the Ancien Régime was impossible and undesirable. Which brings us to the "Terror." Counter-revolutionaries believe that murder and mayhem are the concomitants of revolution, and indeed the revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were invariably violent. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, came to argue that violence is necessary and indeed justified because of the hostility of counter-revolutionary forces, not to mention the wars engendered by meddling foreign powers. "Resistance," Doyle argues, "made the Revolution violent." Anti-revolutionaries, on the other hand, simply blame the person of Maximilien de Robespierre for the excesses of the Terror and "skidding the Revolution off its rails." Terror really wasn't necessary.

But the French Revolution changed so much more than just all this. As Doyle argues, it ushered in the age of "total war," ultimately culminating in the bombing or Hiroshima, the genocidal predations of World War II, and unending civil wars in newly independent states. Consider: the Revolution produced mass conscription as well as voluntary military service, income taxes, professional militaries, and unprecedented demands for unconditional surrender. France's enemies on the Continent were forced to follow suit, which required above all appeals to nationalism. The result was civil war, wars of national liberation, and the destruction of Europe's four great empires at the end of World War I--Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans. The age of absolute monarchs was gone for good; only constitutional monarchies remain today, except for a handful (Saudi), which, as noted above, face deep-seated resentments and subversion.

All of this doesn't even begin to describe, much less explain, the global upheaval of the French Revolution and its ongoing aftershocks. I think in 500 years we may have a much better understanding of its true causes and consequences. Until then, it will remain a fascinating and mysterious event for amateur historians such as myself.

[Gina · Rating 1 out of 5]

for some reason i wanted to know about the french revolution. But i didn't want to know about the COUNTLESS PARLIAMENTS and CONSTITUTIONAL DRAFTS or WHATEVER ELSE WHAT HAVE YOU POLITICAL NONSENSE. A revolution is not about law, its about CRAZY HISTORICAL ADVENTURE AND DRAMA! Its supposed to be like A Tale of Two Cities, Madame Defarge, the storming of the Bastille, condemnatory knitting, and the beheading of the Aristocracy!... which comprised about 1% of this book [no mention of knitting]. I made it about 3/4 of the way through, god knows why. Oxford sucks

[Alexandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall this is a very readable book about the French Revolution. I'm not sure it would work for the complete novice - because I'm not, so I can't judge that anymore. But it gives a generally thorough overview of the French Revolution and, interestingly, its impact on the wider world; Ireland and Poland both get mentions as being inspired by the Revolution itself during the Revolution, and the rest of Europe by virtue of conquest, with Latin America being mentioned in passing. Haiti also gets a few mentions in terms of the uprising there inspired by the Revolution.

I have two complaints; one stylistic, the other content. The first is that some of the writing is a bit obscure, in that sentences could definitely have been better formulated to avoid confusion. The second is Doyle's attitude towards women. On the first page he mentions 'an empty-headed queen', and doesn't really walkabout Marie Antoinette much except in terms of being anti-revolution. On one of the last pages he mentions that equality between men and women was never going to be a thing, despite women's contributions to the revolution - which he's mentioned about once, with the Women's March to Versailles, which would be hard to avoid - but there he talks about women pushing matters to extremes, and Mme de Stael as 'Necker's busybody daughter' (!!), and Theroigne de Mericourt and Olympe de Gouges and Claire Lacombe only once each. I found this very disappointing. Of course you can't mention everyone in one book, but surely these women deserve more than just the one line dismissal of their contributions.

I would still recommend this a very good overview, keeping in mind that no single book is going to be perfect.

[booklady · Rating 5 out of 5]

Doyle's history is excellent. I especially liked that he started his history well before the revolution, explaining the agricultural, geographical and cultural aspects which contributed to the frenzied atmosphere required for a revolution, as well as the historical, religious and philosophical features usually given. Something as monumental and devastating as it was doesn't just happen without there being a whole host of factors which unsettle a country and lead to such a conflagration.

The other thing I really liked was that Doyle continued his history past the end of the Terror (July 1794), which many assume is the official conclusion of the revolution. The Reign of Terror came to a halt with the death of Robespierre, but the actual revolution ground on for another four painful years of war, factional in-fighting over constitutional issues, starvation, guillotine, religious persecution, financial instability and general misery for the French people until 'king' Bonaparte came on the scene to provide France with a new pseudo-monarch, return to Catholicism as the state religion and governmental system which many considered all-too-similar to that of pre-revolutionary France. What had it all been for?

Doyle also didn't shy away from who were the greatest losers in the revolution: the church and the poor. What was left of the Catholic church after the revolution was a shadow of what she was in her pre-revolutionary days and not just all the burned-out churches and desecrated statues, great works of art and relics--although the value of those will never be known. For all the French Catholic church, (like the British Catholic church in the early 1500s) had a reputation for being so corrupt, it was actually the church leadership who had been corrupted by power and wealth. Her true wealth was in the vast majority of the population, the poverty-stricken yet devout, clergy and laity alike. For it was they who bore the greatest sufferings from the revolution, and in every way imaginable. Parish priests who refused to deny their faith or swear to hate the nobility were murdered, tortured, imprisoned or deported. The people also suffered depending on to what extent they protested as at Lyon or Vendée, which was the epicenter of the largest counter-revolutionary uprising of the French Revolution. Often though, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One last thing, minor yet significant. Doyle gave a sympathetic portrait of Robespierre. Others I have read were more cold, aloof, dictatorial, tyrannical, extremist and evil. Doyle gives Robespierre the benefit of the doubt and points to tightening circumstances and rapidly escalating tensions to show these reduced his choices which led to his inevitable downfall. It's a theory worth pondering.

It was the worst of times for so many.

[Rindis · Rating 3 out of 5]

William Doyle is one of the leading English-language experts on the French Revolution, and his book from Oxford University Press is what you'd expect: A concise, clear overview of about three decades in France, concentrating on 1788 through 1799. Having just read his Origins of the French Revolution, much of the early parts was very familiar to me, but not duplicated. Doyle has different emphases in this book.

As a general one-volume history this is mostly a recounting of events, and largely constructs a chronology of the forces at play. There's not a lot of close examination of the people involved, which would help... but the book's pretty big already. As befits a 'first stop' book, there's no real thesis, or spin to the book... nor much emotion either. The horrors of the Terror are downplayed fairly notably here. Possibly with a fair amount of justification, as he does take a brief look at the statistics of how many people were executed (many more outside of Paris, than in, where the Terror resides in the imagination). Similarly, Robespierre comes off fairly well compared to popular imagery. I imagine the look he gives is more fair to both than many accounts, but at the same time, it is an extremely detached view, and does not go into the emotions the Terror evoked in those caught up in it.

I also note that he has a nice essay on the history of thoughts on the French Revolution buried in Appendix 3. This is not as long as the one that leads Origins of the French Revolution, and it is much more general, as he starts with nearly contemporaneous writings reflecting on it, instead of in the 1930s. He identifies three general lines of thought among historians, and traces them through two centuries. It's a handy guide to the intellectual environment almost any prominent history of the Revolution was written in. He ends with a look at current scholarship, and recommends a number of biographies of principle figures, and other subjects.

This book really does demand some knowledge of the general period, as Doyle does not spend much time looking at many of the people involved, so if you don't know of them already, you can get lost. This is true of the period as a whole as well, but he does do a good job introducing a lot of the forces at work, and giving some sense of the state of France under Louis XVI, so that is more solid ground, though he also skims over the internal politics of the Revolution, which is easily the biggest omission. Essentially, it's a central reference work where you can find where more detailed treatments fit in the whole.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published during its bicentenary, this book is an excellent history of the French Revolution from a British perspective. In fact the author, the English historian William Doyle, is also one of the most illustrious representative of the revisionist trend.

Packed full with details, in about 400 pages he offers a portrait of France back then before tackling how events unfolded, the various factors that not only kickstarted it but, most importantly, threw it into the direction we all know. In a word: how the vague political ideals of the philosophes gave birth to such terrorist violence that would ultimately transform the whole of Europe? From the economic crisis to religious questions and the role played by foreign powers, William Doyle exposes here what he describes as a tragedy without precedent.

Making it end in 1802 with the peace of Lunéville and Amiens (Bonaparte's triumph, then) such an analysis will delight whose avid of understanding such an event. French readers especially (as I am) more often than not still influenced by Marxist historiography (whatever one think about it) will find here a great source for thought. The thing is, we close this book with a terrible question in mind: considering how society were evolving under Louis XVI and, above all, the massive political, societal and intellectual upheavals of the time, was such a Revolution even necessary?

Controversial, yes; but how stimulating!

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't read this out of personal choice, but was taking a college course on the French Revolution. It is a good introductory volume for anyone wanting to dig further into the revolution. William Doyle is obviously very knowledgeable about this subject, thus creating a good scholarly piece. Although I'm personally not interested in this sect of history, I would recommend it to anyone who is wanting to learn more about this time period, and the events surrounding the French Revolution.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author does a very bad job of keeping the narrative clear and driving forward. It's often difficult to read and difficult to keep track of all the different political bodies within and without France during the French Revolution.

However, its thoroughness is the greatest strength of the book. Although reading this book once hardly qualifies me as an expert in the topic, I feel as if my knowledge of the event has increased tenfold. It's more of a history book than a nonfiction read, but it was very informative.

I'd probably suggest someone interested in the topic would seek out a book that is more readable.

[Justin Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

July 14th is not just the day this post was written. It marks a momentous event in the history of France: the storming of the Bastille. Known as “Bastille Day” in France, this event was in conjunction with perhaps the most important event (to some historians at least) in Western history: the French Revolution.

I took a class on the French Revolution that just finished and I had to read this book for the class. While most are familiar with the basic storyline of the French Revolution, it was actually a much more convoluted event then people realize. Here are some thoughts:

The introduction to the book must begin in the ancien regime (the monarchy and estate system of feudalism) and its construction. In France prior to 1789, the class system consisted of three different groups of people, or “estates.” The First Estate was the nobility. To be in this estate meant that you had a pedigree that allowed you to be there; meaning that you couldn’t become a nobel unless you had nobel blood flowing through your veins. The Second Estate was the clergy. Obviously, the clergy were a part of the Roman Catholic Church who played a dominant role in French society. The Third Estate was the peasantry. The thought behind social classes at this time was that God placed you in your class and the king on the throne. To break out of your lot in life was to defy God Himself.

The way things turned into calamity is complex. Essentially, the first two estates were the most wealthy, but were exempt from taxes. The peasantry bore the brunt of the taxation for the entire country (which really defies logic if you ask me). Further, the peasantry found itself in an awkward position when the middle class, or the “bourgeoisie”, arose from the lawyers and doctors. They were wealthy, paid very high taxes, but were excluded from the nobility.

Enter King Louis XVI. The King found himself embarrassed by his father’s failure in the Seven Years War. On top of that, the treasury was greatly diminished at the same time. To make up for the losses during the war, King Louis sent French troops to aid the American Revolution, also draining the treasury. King Louis also married the extremely unpopular Marie Antoinette. The palace at Versailles was an ornate system of pretension. When an unlucky (or providential depending on how you look at it) famine occurred, the people were up in arms against the fat king. There was a call for the Estates General which was a meeting of all three estates. In the meeting, the three estates would vote on various issues (this particular one was about taxation due to the dwindling treasury) but mostly the first two estates would team up to garner more votes than the peasantry. Since the peasantry consisted of about 93% of France at the time, they called for representation by numbers. Of course they were excluded for further negotiations. Relegated to a tennis court, the Third Estate and some from the Second gathered to proclaim the “Tennis Court Oath” where they ultimately would revolt against the nobility and the king.

Things got out of hand quickly and it culminated in the storming of the Bastille. The Bastille was a prison and housed weapons and powder. By taking it, the people demonstrated they would not bow to a tyrannical government.

By establishing a temporary government, work soon began on a constitution. The product of these talks was a constitution with a preamble called “The Declaration of the Rights of Man.” In later years, the government never could establish itself firmly. Problem after problem arose, with the whole continent of Europe threatening war at one point. The revolutionists actually won against their European brothers in the brief war with France. The revolution sought to undermine every monarchy in Europe and was seen as a grave threat that needed to be dealt with.

There were a small number of pro-royalist peoples who wanted a parliamentary system with a King as the monarch as in England. A faction called the Jacobins who were anti-royalists called for the king to be put on trial instead. When he did go to trial, he was convicted and executed by the guillotine. Maximilien Robespierre ascended to a position of power and was paranoid of the various factions that sought to squash the revolution. In order to stop them, he organized the “Committee on Public Safety” and systematically began executing political enemies in the “Great Terror.” The bloodshed ended when Robespierre himself wanted to become dictator, and was sent to the guillotine himself; an ironic end to the man who instituted the Great Terror.

The Revolution ended only when Napoleon ascended to the throne in the early 19th century.

Here are some thoughts on the take-aways from the revolution:

1. France was highly influenced by the Enlightenment. Voltaire, Rousseau, and other Enlightenment thinkers really created the groundwork for revolution in France. The Enlightenment begins with the idea that man is essentially good, good enough to bestow upon him the ideals of liberty and equality. This blossomed into the ideals that closely aligned themselves with the revolution: that is, the natural order bestowed by God is actually not a natural order at all, if all men are equal and possess within themselves liberty.

2. The French Revolution began on the basis of the Enlightenment which was vastly different than other revolutions happening in Europe. In England, the English underwent what was called the “Bloodless Revolution.” But England’s revolution began on a basis that was influenced by the Reformation. One can understand the difference plainly when taking into consideration the “Great Terror” and political turmoil that surrounded France during the time of the revolution. Thousands lost their lives before the chaos ceased, and it only did when a dictator bent on subjugating all of Europe to the will of France ascended to the throne (Napoleon).

3. The revolution in France would go on to create a lasting legacy throughout the world. Indeed, every revolution since the French Revolution has been influenced by it. The upheaval of tyrannical governments where people are not content on letting themselves be ruled by that tyranny is somewhat of a mainstay in history post 1789. Thinking of all the revolutions that happened in the early 19th century in both Europe and Latin America and extending into the present with the Islamic coups (such as in Egypt some years ago), one can see what impact the French Revolution presented to many cultures since.

The French Revolution was a defining moment in history and deserves to be studied. Unfortunately, it’s really complicated. This book has all these names and political parties that are very hard to understand if you’re not French or speak the language. The Girodans, the Jacobins, the Sans Culottes.. Try keeping them all separate from each other. Nonetheless, a good textbook for a worthy subject.

[Stephen Gregory · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tour de force which takes the reader through the twists and turns of La Révolution with engaging prose, at just the right level to feel educational but equally approachable. Would highly recommend to anyone looking to read up on the titular subject.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

To most historians, the French Revolution is the key event defining the emergence of the modern world in which we live today. Its bicentenary in 1989 was the occasion for a slew of books that examined its causes, personalities, and consequences from several different ideological and chronological perspectives. Among the most prominent was William Doyle’s survey of the French Revolution. A noted historian of the period, Doyle offered something provided in few other works produced that year: a narrative that ranged from the accession of Louis XVI to the Treaty of Amiens and Napoleon Bonaparte’s confirmation as First Consul in 1802. In doing so, he offered an analysis of the origins, events, and historical impact of the Revolution within a single interpretive framework, one that serves as a starting point for anyone seeking an introduction to this historically critical event.

Doyle’s analysis begins with a survey of France under Louis XVI. Here he portrays a country under strain, governed by a monarchy ill-equipped to face the challenges before it. Though he identifies the cause of the Revolution as the economic crisis created by the bad harvests of the 1770s and 1780s, these exposed many of the long-term systemic problems of the French government. Uppermost among them was the ineffectual king, Louis XVI, a man whose vacillation and weakness Doyle frequently highlights as key to the ineffectual response to the events that followed. He also takes the times to describe the rich intellectual ferment of the time, as the Enlightenment provided many of the ideas and concepts that were introduced in an effort to address the problems plaguing the country.

The core of Doyle’s account, though, is the period between 1789 and 1794. This period takes up nearly half of the book, containing as it does the pivotal events of the Revolution itself. One of the great strengths of Doyle’s presentation of these years is his inclusion of events outside of Paris, which provides a more comprehensive understanding of the revolution as a national event and how the reaction of the provinces influenced events within the capital. Yet his account makes clear that it was the Paris commune that was the single most important factor driving events, as representatives continually were forced to make decisions with the reactions of the Paris mob uppermost in their considerations. The men who emerged as leaders during this period were the ones who could win over these crowds, yet Doyle makes it clear that men such as Robespierre were more often driven by events than driving them themselves.

Doyle concludes his history with the Directory, the emergence of Bonaparte, and the contemporary impact of the Revolution upon Europe. His incorporation of a European perspective is another of the book’s strengths, illuminating the role of international affairs on the Revolution while also providing a fuller account of its broader impact outside of France itself. By this point military affairs were a paramount consideration, aiding to both the government’s survival and the exportation of revolutionary ideas. Yet curiously Doyle does not dwell on this part in his conclusion, which nonetheless explains just how the Revolution came to shape so much of the political landscape, down to the very concepts and language used today.

The comprehensive and insightful nature of Doyle’s examination is one of the main reasons why, two decades after its publication, his book remains the best single-volume study of the French Revolution. Though somewhat dry in its presentation, it nonetheless gives readers a clear narrative of events and a framework for understanding the origins and developments of the revolution, both within France and Europe. For anyone seeking to understand such a pivotal event in history, this is a good place to start.

[William Bahr · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, from one of the leading revisionist historians of the French Revolution, has received high praise from a number of historians and newspapers, saying it’s the most authoritative and comprehensive history of the French Revolution. That it may be; however, the book has a number of opportunities for improvement in its next edition:

1. Many passages and phrases are in French and beg immediate translation.
2. The author has a tendency to expand upon interesting but less important facts to the detriment of flow.
3. Characters are briefly introduced, then show up in snippets many pages later, which, for full comprehension of the points made, either requires the reader to have a more than fairly good memory or frequently access the index. Thus, it’s often quite a challenge to connect the dots of information sprinkled throughout the book.
4. Some characters are included in the index, only to have the briefest of descriptions. Eg, on page 422, this is the only information one finds about Mmm de Staël in a somewhat difficult to follow sentence: “Meanwhile, whereas at the highest level the closet [sic] influence of political wives like Mme Roland and Mme Talien, or Necker’s busybody daughter Mme de Staël, continued the well-established traditions of the old regime, the unprecedented atmosphere of early revolutionary Paris threw up new and unusual figures.”
5. One finds a number of nonparallelisms throughout the book. Eg, most of the time there is no line separation between paragraphs; however, without apparent reason, this is not always the case. As well, many paragraphs are quite lengthy. At random, I found one that goes on for four pages.
6. While some subjects receive great coverage, others, such as the Storming of the Bastille are very quickly glossed over. Eg, the suggestion is made that the Storming was part of a continued search for armaments. Actually, the crowd had already collected some 30,000 muskets. What they were hoping to obtain at the Bastille was gunpowder and ammunition.
7. The book contains relatively few illustrations, with opportunities for “a picture is worth a thousand words” on a number of blank pages.
8. The book contains no Bibliography. The combination of its mostly chronological listing of historians and it Notes section is a somewhat inadequate substitute.

The book does contain, at least for me, a lot of “Wow, I didn’t know that’s!” Just one example: the Girondins went to guillotine singing the “Marseillaise.” As well, the author provides a fairly good listing of the factors as to end of the Terror with the Thermidorian Reaction. This listing includes external factors reducing the need for drastic measures (such as the guillotine) to suppress “traitors” to end the war: 1. On 1 June 1794, the British failure to prevent a major grain convey from arriving from America. 2. Also, in this same naval battle [the Glorious First of June], the British sinking of the French ship Vengeur [du Peuple] was spun not as a total defeat but an example of heroic defense with its crew going down with the ship rather than surrender. Actually, the “kind” British were able to rescue only half the crew before it sank. 3. On 26 June 1794, more importantly, came the victory at the Battle of Fleurus, which removed the last Austrian threat and opened the way for a renewed invasion of Belgium.

Bottom-line, as a fellow author, I'd say the book is an excellent, informative read, with opportunities for improvement in its next edition.

[Adam Glantz · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent stab at one of the most complex events in world history: the French Revolution, which, of course, was actually a series of revolutions concatenated by historians. The best part of the book is the end, in which the author assesses the essence and legacy of the French Revolution(s) in clear and compelling terms. And I'm grateful for his decision to begin the account with a survey of ancien regime France and the circumstances that gradually led to the calling of the fateful Estates-General in 1789, rather than assuming foreknowledge. At the same time, readers interested in military history will be sorely disappointed by the dearth of information on this topic, and all readers will have to struggle with a tidal wave of the names of protagonists who came and went during the course of the Revolution(s), something that might have been ameliorated by the occasional helpful reminder from the author.

There are many sources of the French Revolution(s), but I was struck by the small number of factors that kept the revolutionary epoch in motion for years. Though there were circumstances beyond anyone's control (particularly the weather and its impact on harvests), revolutionary leaders repeatedly failed to come to grips with the economic problems that destroyed the ancien regime: inflation was catalyzed by the reckless printing of paper currency and even politically-motivated interventions never seemed to adequately address the urban provisioning needs that would have kept the population satisfied. Second, though reform was clearly needed in the Gallican Church, revolutionary leaders went well out of their way to antagonize Roman Catholics and thereby make the new political experiments anathema to thousands of people. Similarly and finally, though war may ultimately have been inevitable, at least because of the natural rivalry of France with Britain on the sea and Austria on land, the separate motives of the Girondins and royalists coalesced around the perverse project of actively seeking war, with all the problems it entailed for the economy, domestic order, and France's international reputation. I believe these three factors explain a lot, from the descent into the Terror to the Directory's need to constantly balance royalists against Jacobins.

[Pedro · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has just the right level of detail for someone fairly ignorant about the subject who wants to learn a lot. However, it's not structured in a helpful way. Instead of being a chronological narrative, some chapters span a lot of time, and others less, with plenty of overlapping, which is a bit confusing for someone who doesn't have a clear overall picture of the events before reading it. The writing style is strange in some parts.

Although this is probably the book you should read if you will read only one book on the subject, you will probably have to read it more than once. Alternatively, you might want to read something introductory. That could be another, shorter book, with a better narrative, or an encyclopedia article that gives a clear outline of the revolution. That said, this books seems to be very well researched, and the author's approach seems to be the right one. Instead of seeing all as if there was a grand plan, or social forces, he sees events as emerging from the actions of real people, and not of "social forces", "class struggles", etc. When he makes economic observations, he's not in his element, though. There's an appendix that discusses the several historical approaches to the study of the revolution, and the different views and interpretations of it. This appendix is a must read, and it almost justifies the purchase of the book by itself.

In conclusion, if you're interested on the subject, you should read this book. However, if your knowledge of the events is not great, I advise you to read something lighter, shorter, with a better narrative first. R. M. Johnston's book is in the public domain, and seems to be the right book for that. It's old, and probably dated. However, the narrative seems to be chronological and clear (I haven't finished it yet), and the writing is plain and agile. And if there are errors or omissions, they can be corrected afterwards, by reading the book I'm reviewing, or other books.

[Eddy · Rating 2 out of 5]

At around 400 pages, and covering over a decade of events in France, this is definitely a densely packed read which doesn't ever slow down to allow the reader to catch up. With so many sweeping changes over such a relatively short period of time, the book somehow both goes into excruciating detail on many aspects of the Revolution, but also glosses over many events and people with nothing but a passing reference as though the reader is already intimately familiar with even the most minor of actors in what it calls a great drama.

Ultimately, it is a solid read about the idealism of one of modern history's first major revolutions as well as the pitfalls and missteps taken by a people oftentimes consumed with a lust for power and a lack of anything resembling a national consensus. Just be sure to have access to Google at hand in order to get the background information and context needed for many of the passing references.

And while the book does a decent job of focusing on the military aspect of the Revolution, I feel like more could have been said of the rise and rule of Napoleon. To be fair though, this is nothing that the book specifically sets out to do, so be aware.

[J.C. Paulk · Rating 5 out of 5]

What can I say? I love this book. For a subject as sprawling and intricate as the French Revolution, Doyle does a more than handy job of streamlining the details without turning it into Cliff's Notes. While some of his theories are a bit dated and have been surpassed by newer ones, that is easily overlooked. A thoughtful survey of one of the seminal events in Western history is what remains.

[Roy Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of French Revolution from a liberalish perspective

[Marty · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very readable and enjoyable general introduction to the French Revolution.

Especially welcome is the appendix with a detailed historiagraphy for further reading on different aspects of the topic.

[Rui Ferreira · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a curious reader, I found The Oxford History of the French Revolution to be a thorough and essential account of one of history’s most transformative periods.

Doyle’s detailed approach makes it incredibly rich but at times dense—I struggled to keep track of all the names and events. (Also, was it just me, or did “hitherto” appear a lot? I almost started counting!)

Such a powerful story! The Revolution was a seismic upheaval that dismantled monarchy, feudalism, and privilege. Brutal and chaotic, yet driven by a reckoning with injustice, it was fueled by Enlightenment ideals, economic desperation, and the will of the Third Estate. Though Napoleon and the return of monarchy later undermined many of its ideals, society never truly reverted. The echoes of liberty, equality, and secularism still resonate, even if only among a minority today.

What struck me most was the people’s determination, suffering, and belief in change. Figures like Danton, Robespierre, and Babeuf weren’t just historical names—they were flawed, ambitious, and sometimes tragic individuals navigating chaos. Doyle captures this human element well, showing how history isn’t just shaped by ideas but by real people.

By the end, I couldn’t help but wonder—did the Revolution fulfill its promise, or does history simply repeat itself in new disguises? The famous line from The Leopard came to mind: “Everything must change so that everything can stay the same.” Even if the Revolution didn’t achieve all it set out to, it undeniably reshaped France, the world, and those who still believe in the principles of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.

A truly fascinating read - its story is so powerful that any account of it would be compelling, though in this case, it translates into a sometimes heavy read, best suited for those who enjoy in-depth historical analysis. Now, what should I read next—any recommendations?

[Joe Banks · Rating 5 out of 5]

When the new revolutionary calendar was introduced in France it numbered the days and years again from the date – 22nd September 1792 – when the French Republic had been declared, it renamed the months and days and rationalised the year to twelve months of thirty days and the week to ten days. The French Revolution was full of such deliberate departures from the past, and in the superb Oxford History of the French Revolution William Doyle examines how in just a few years France tried to shed a millenium of accumulated feudal custom and privilege and replace it with a new order based upon reason and enlightenment ideals. Opening with an overview of France under the Bourbons, it narrates the sudden and sometimes savage shifts in power which transformed France from a dynastic-state to a nation-state, and finally into a military dictatorship.

The book opens with a description of the coronation of Louis XVI. Purely customary as it was – the king ruled by the grace of god after all – men still wept openly when the doors of Rheims cathedral were opened to reveal the young monarch. The author alludes to the long and haphazard process by which the formalities, customs and regalia of the coronation had developed. This, he reflects, was much like the administration of the territories over which Louis XVI now ruled – heterogeneous, traditional and disordered. Most of the country was owned, taxed and indeed governed by an elite of the higher ranks of the clergy and the aristocracy. It was in all senses a plutocracy. Even minor nobles and the middle-class were excluded although not to the extent of Jews and Protestants. The peasants – eighty percent of the population – were in many cases little better than chattels of the landowners, subject to church tithes and the hated corvee, whilst in the cities hunger and disease were endemic. Both taxes and food prices were high as France faced a financial crisis. The war in America was successfully concluded in 1783, but the debt of the war ultimately proved too much for France to maintain. Against this background it was seen as crucial to bring the three estates – clergy, nobility, and commoners – together to agree a plan to save France from bankruptcy and collapse.

The most thrilling section of the book deals with the early part of the revolution, from the calling of the three estates to the Thermidor coup. These dramatic years saw the fall of the Bastille, the women’s march on Versailles, the attempted escape and execution of King Louis, the purge of the Girondins, the desperate struggle of the forces of the first coalition, the massacre on the champs de mars, revolutionary terror, the trial of Danton, counter-revolution in the Vendee, the murder of Marat, and finally Robespierre, dying already of a self-inflicted pistol wound, being bundled onto the guillotine. The part of the book dealing with this period is extremely compelling and, despite the obvious chaos of the period, the author makes these events and how they were connected very clear without ever being too simplistic. After 1794, the rule of the Directory and Napoleon’s rise to power are dealt with along with the situation in French-occupied Europe, and although they are explained as clearly and as skilfully, it is probably a wise decision on the part of the author to limit each of these to a single chapter, as in these years the revolutionary government became moribund and undemocratic and was finally taken over by Napoleon, initially as First Consul and then as Emperor – marking, for most people, the end of the revolution.

This book emphasises the importance of ideas to the revolution and one in particular, outlined in the Rights of Man and the Citizen: ‘The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation’. The author astutely links the vagueness of statement to the instability of the various governments which acted as custodians of political sovereignty. The French revolution was a product of the enlightenment and as such ideas and ideals are key to understanding its successes and its failures, something the author has done well to grasp with an excellent second chapter on enlightenment opinion and the final chapter on the revolution’s legacy.

This book takes a balanced view of the revolution, it is eager to praise the changes for the better and is critical of the old regime in France, but it also outlines many of the problems which ultimately undermined the revolution. Nothing symbolises its flaws more than the failure of the Republican calendar: starting again at Year I did not erase the past or make people forget about the King or the priests, people still wanted to worship on Sundays and celebrate the old Catholic holidays even if Fabre d’Eglantine’s poetic new names for the months and days made it hard to work out when these should be. Supposed good ideas must also have some connection with reality – thus a calendar of three-hundred and sixty days is immediately compromised on a planet which orbits its star every three hundred and sixty-five.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very sedately paced analytical book. Last chapter in which all the threads are drawn together is especially good.

[Kevin Moynihan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The only book one needs to understand the French Revolution.

[R.M.F. Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

When asked the question, what did you do during the French Revolution? Talleyrand, Napoleon's chief minister, replied: "I survived..."

Upon reading this weighty tome, the reader could be forgiven for expressing similar sentiments. Authoritative, often dense, but well written and researched in parts, Doyle's work is an excellent introduction for the layman.

To be sure, there are times when a glossary of key terms would be infinitely beneficial, and often, you could be forgiven for skipping over sections, but...this remains one of my favourite histories on the subject.

A historical event of such magnitude was always going to present the student with complexities, reams of data, and various permutations of what was what and who was who.

The stand out chapters are those dealing with the French Revolutionary wars. It is here, that Doyle cuts loose and flexes his muscles, presenting us to look down the path that would eventually prove to be the Revolution's undoing - a nation perpetually at war, inevitably concludes with a soldier leading it. And as soldiers prefer order, discipline, and clear directives, it is small wonder that Napoleon should became the Revolution's 'undertaker.'

Part frustrating, part insightful, but never dull. Doyle's French Revolution is not a bad place to start if you're interested in a complex historical event with far reaching outcomes.

[Jamie Makin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Doyle tells us in his introduction that he was surprised to find that this book has become a standard text on the revolution as it was intended to be a popular work to coincide with the bicentenary of 1989.
This may be false modesty on his part but this book certainly did not strike me as courting the popular history market with its scholarly prose and lack of illustrations. Far more striking is the astounding amount of research and insight contained on every page of the book. When you consider Doyle is writing about one of the most contentious, important and complex events in human history his achievement is even more astonishing.
This is rightfully regarded as the best overview of the revolution in English and Doyle's conclusion that the revolution can only be seen as a tragedy is as enlightening as it is sobering.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a revolutionary perspective of the French Revolution. Doyle tries to be objective and lay out the events without bias. He treds a fine line in this attempt, but, with such an diverse list of sources, he almost succeeds. It was not what I wanted, however. I wanted a intentionally biased history to feel the emotions in this era, even if it was a Royalist. Fortunately, we have some of those available on ebooks. They are contempoary, but so what? You can taste the revolutionary or Royalist attitude in every paragraph.

Nonetheless, a solid work by Doyle, and I highly recommend it.

[Collin Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very humanizing approach the the French revolution, especially where Robespierre and the Reign of Terror are concerned. Dismantles the many factors of revolution and players in the game in a very engaging way.

My only real complaint is the excessive use of the word "hitherto". It's ridiculous how often Doyle uses this word, there are several chapters where it is appearing several times per page.

[Claire Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this, having bought it many years ago in a second-hand shop, in preparation for A Place of Greater Safety, and to be honest it was a bit of a slog. If it hadn't already been on my shelves, I might have chosen a different primer on the French Revolution, but at least now I know *something* about the subject!

[Trish · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent primer on the French Revolution.