A People's History of the French Revolution

by Eric Hazan, David Fernbach (Translator)

The assault on the Bastille, the Reign of Terror, Danton mocking his executioner, Robespierre dispensing a fearful justice, and the archetypal gadfly Marat – the events and figures of the French Revolution have exercised a hold on the historical imagination for more than 200 years. It has been a template for heroic insurrection and, to more conservative minds, a cautionary tale. Looking at history from the bottom up, Hazan presents the revolution as a rational and pure struggle for emancipation. In this new history, the first significant account of the French Revolution in over twenty years, Hazan maintains that it fundamentally changed the Western world – for the better.

Genres: History, French Revolution, Nonfiction, France, Politics, European History, 18th Century

432 pages, Paperback

First published September 21, 2012

About the author

Eric Hazan is a writer, historian and founder of the independent publishing house La Fabrique. His most recent books in English include The Invention of Paris (2012) and A People's History of the French Revolution (2014).

Reviews

[johnny dangerously · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is dry. Really dry. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly dry it is. I mean, you may think there's a water scarcity problem in the Sahara, but that's just peanuts to this book.

It's highly informative, and I recommend it to someone who is already somewhat familiar with the politics of the period. The book also takes time to point out-- always interestingly-- when certain political moves and events were less unrealistic or surprising than we may think from a modern perspective. It has a good handle on leading the reader through its wealth of information without being condescending.

But my god, it is dry.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve been somewhat obsessed with the French Revolution for sixteen years now, so have read a fair few histories of the years 1789 to 1794. At first, I admit, Hazan’s seemed perfectly competent without adding anything notable. It did remind me just how many mob lynching took place from the very outset, I admit. Hazan tells the tale well, with an emphasis on the momentum of events that understandably restricts the analysis that can be included. There are occasional digressions, each titled excursus, however each is only a couple of pages long. A great strength of the book, in my view, is the heavy use of quotes from primary and secondary sources. I do love reading the revolutionaries’ own words, even if I’ve come across them before. (Hazan references Virtue and Terror for some of Robespierre’s writing, which I definitely recommend.) The weakness, to my mind, is focus on narrative over thematic analysis. If you’re already quite familiar with the events, there isn’t really a new angle to be found here.

Despite this, I enjoyed reading ‘A People’s History of the French Revolution’ during a delay-stricken six hour train journey on the day of a general election. It seemed apposite and, to be fair, I hadn’t read a narrative history of my favourite revolution for quite a while. Hazan’s description of de-Christianisation was a particular highlight. It also really helped that, like me, Hazan is at heart a Robespierre apologist. This interjection, for example:

Some will say that Robespierre forgot all these fine principles once he became the most influential figure on the Committee of Public Safety; that the apostle of liberty got rid of everyone who did not think the same as him; and the opponent of the death penalty chopped off thousands of heads. These are old charges, raised immediately after Thermidor, when it was necessary to legitimise the elimination of a man who personified the Revolution. ‘A blood-drenched tyrant’, we often read. The two terms merit examination.

He also has some interesting and original comments on the Terror, which reminded me somewhat of the much more in-depth In Defence of the Terror: Liberty or Death in the French Revolution (which I also recommend).

I simply venture the hypothesis that ‘the Terror’ with a capital T was a creature of the Thermidorians, with the aim of demonising what they had just overthrown. The notion of Terror was then taken up celebrated historians and thinkers of all persuasions…
[...]
It does not make much sense, then, to fix the start of the Terror on 5 September 1793, no more than to see it ending on 9 Thermidor of year II. The guillotine did not stop working on that day, quite the contrary: the White Terror of the Thermidorians was a massacre that rivalled anything carried out by the guillotine in previous months.

In short, this is a vivid narrative history and Hazan’s style is clear and engaging. However I suspect I’ll get more out of The Invention of Paris: A History in Footsteps.

[Gautam Bhatia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The repeated apologia for Robespierre and the Montagne can get grating after a point; but if you can bracket that, this is an important account, and complements Kropotkin's history nicely. The point that Hazan drills home well is that the French Revolution failed, in part, because of an urge to centralise and institutionalise its achievements, instead of letting the popular energy that had created the revolution take its course. Whatever the reason - wars on the continent, fear of losing the support of the middle/propertied class, or concern about unchecked violence - the Montagne cut itself off from the people that had sustained the Revolution, and that proved to be its own undoing when the reaction came.

[Kristy · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I’m a history major and I love reading books about life in times long gone. I’m not an expert on the French Revolution, but I do have a bit more knowledge about the subject than the average (American) person. But this book gave me some trouble. Don’t get me wrong, Eric Hazan’s A People’s History of the French Revolution is full of interesting information and facts, but it is not written for people who have an interest in history but rather people who study history.

At times it felt like I was reading a textbook and I almost reverted to my student habit of taking notes and making flow charts just so I could have a clearer picture of what I had just read. This is not something I want from a book I picked up because of a casual interest in the subject. At times the writing was engaging and held my interest, but other times it was dry and it was difficult for me to not skim over the chapter. I really wanted to enjoy this book, and I tried so hard to get into it, but more often than not I would put the book down every 10-15 pages because I would find myself seeing the words but not reading and absorbing what was written.

The reason I rated it at 3 is because it does have loads of great information and it is well organized. This book would be a great resource for a student working on a research paper, as a recommended text on a class syllabus, or for someone who has more than a casual interest in French history.

**NetGalley provided me with an advanced reader copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.**

[Randall Wallace · Rating 3 out of 5]

At the onset of the French Revolution, “only the nobles were allowed to keep ferrets.” “The richest people – the senior clergy and high nobility – were practically untaxed.” The 1978 Declaration of Rights had a significance that was “immense” because “it signaled the end of the ancient regime. It said that “all citizens are equally admissible to all public dignities, positions and employments” and with “the principle of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation” the edifice of kingship by divine right was dismantled.” Louis XVI first became no longer “king of France” but “king of the French.” “The republican army had the advantage of numbers. France was at this time, in terms of population, the largest European country outside of Russia. More than a million men could be raised from the National Guard alone.” The term “Jacobins” was originally a term to mock them but Jacobins “reveled in it.” Martial law during the Revolution was “used to repress many popular movements in Paris.”

San-culottes you might think were those who objected to wearing culottes, however they were men who worked for a living, had no valets, and lived the simple life. Most belonged to the artisan class. “The sans-culottes clearly detested the aristocrats.” The King was soon executed when the death penalty was voted for 387 to 334. This established the Republic. “The trial and execution of the king represented a major defeat for the Gironde (liberal Republicans originally part of the Jacobins but had conflicted with the more radical Montagnards).” The Brit poet Wordsworth approved of the French Revolution. “In October 1793, the law established equal rights for sons and daughters, extending this for children born out of wedlock. It became impossible to favor one child over another or to disinherit them.” “Foundlings, who made up one third of all births in Paris, became ‘natural children of the patrie’.”

Robespierre Not all Bad: “As far as ‘tyrant’ goes, Robespierre was never a dictator.” He became isolated and was “brought down.” “As for ‘blood-drenched’, there were many instances when Robespierre intervened to save lives.” The author called him “neither a dictator or a cruel man”.

The Terror happened from summer 1793 to summer 1794 when there were mass shootings in Lyon and drownings in Nantes and it was not uncommon to have 15-20 men or women guillotined on a day in Paris. Think of the Terror as a creation of the Thermidorians who were demonizing what they had just overthrown.

This was a good book; I’m glad I read it, however I learned quite a bit more (especially of the Terror) from reading Jeremy Popkin’s book of the French Revolution: “A New World Begins” which I’ll review soon when I get time – I’ve got to review more Israel/Palestine and Islamophobia books first.

[Elliott · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really dense text, but for it Hazan manages to earn the designate: "A People's History." While it is true there are not many letters, or accounts by say the average Frenchman or French woman at the time, Hazan largely makes up for the deficiency in showing what the average Frenchman or French woman did during the Revolution which is something not often seen. He draws particular note to the struggle of the lower classes to procure a basic sustenance, and how the Girondin free-market idea to this problem failed and failed miserably (which is particularly relevant in today's deregulation fanaticism). He is also sympathetic to the two leaders most disparaged by historians: Robespierre, and Marat which I found refreshing, but he is never hesitant to identify their failings either. Of particular interest for American audiences is his portrait of Lafayette who is subjected to some well needed tarnishing for his rather disturbing actions.
I fault the book for its density and flow-which is understandable for such a complex event such as the French Revolution, but which did prevent my enjoying it further.

[Jack Garton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m a sucker for anything that starts with A People’s History, because why not? So many history books are insanely biased towards upholding some current political narrative or drawing an arc that supports those in power, or just uninterested in the stories of those who weren’t rich and powerful. I think history is much messier than that, so I like books that look at events from the perspective of unlucky, poetic, beautiful, grubby normal lives.

Ironically, the French Revolution gave us on one hand the enshrinement of the rights of the individual while at the same time legitimizing the individual’s right to be used as chaff for the wars of capital. I find it endlessly fascinating how it’s both the most liberating and enslaving political event in modern Western history. The rhetoric of Danton and Robespierre are still inspiring today, and our struggles are still so similar. You’ll hear a thousand times about the Reign of Terror, but this book will also tell you about the women marching together and breaking in to the palace to win the battle for affordable bread.

[Leif · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impassioned historical defense of the French Revolution, couched in terms of historical accuracy and linguistic fidelity to the speeches, words, and records that remain accessible. Hazan engages in a close conversation with fellow historians and presents his material as already partially known to his reader, which can be alienating if you're not already in possession of some impressions about the wide cast of characters and spread of events. At the same time, however, you have a sense of a real contribution being made here to the historical revalidation of the Revolution today. A good and worthy history with sustained passages of insight and passion.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quick review: Filled in a valuable hole in my education since I knew very little about the Revolution. The writing was good but the author had a habit of introducing new people with just their last name and I wondered if I had already heard the name mentioned in previous chapters and I should be aware of a relevance. But no, it turned out that he was just introducing a new person with their last name casually and apparently doing a good job of confusing me.

Politically he is a Robespierreist and that hasn't been a terribly popular position in historiography, so be aware that.

[Natú · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot recommend this book enough; as someone with (as I realized reading this book) virtually no knowledge of the French Revolution, I found this history to be gripping and detailed, evocative without romanticization, and with a healthy forwardness about the French Revolution's place within historiography, frequently pausing to reflect on the various interpretations of different people, events, and so on.

My main bone to pick with Hazan's analysis, or maybe its more confusion on my part about his intentions, is his relationship with historical materialism and dialectics. Hazan makes a noticeable effort to place the actions of the players in this history, both the Robespierres and the unnamed sans-culottes, within a framework of material conditions that shape the development of the revolution and society. He also presents the trajectory of the history in a decidedly dialectical manner, highlighting the contradictions which move it forward quantitatively towards qualitative ruptures. He even marks the events of 9 Thermidor as the end of the revolution by arguing that it constitutes a break in the continuity of the revolution.

However on the other hand, he is rather insistent on rejecting 20th-century Marxist readings of the French Revolution that it is a flat-out bourgeois revolution, arguing that given the contemporary mode/relations of production, it is anachronistic to refer to the middle classes which formed the governing revolutionary cliques as "bourgeois" in the Marxist sense. While this is a fair point, I think he misses the mark by failing to understand that Marxist analysis is not limited to class contradictions following the industrial revolution. Class conflict is the motor that drives history, and the case of the French Revolution is no different. We know, in addition, that even the ruling classes are filled with rivalries, conflicting interests, varying degrees of political engagement, and so on. The plurality that made up the revolutionary bourgeois stratum of the French Revolution is no less an example of a class for a lack of unity, and the existence of classes necessitates the existence of class conflicts.

This quibble aside, I loved the book. I found the intermittent excursus sections to be rich reflections on the nature of historiography, with these sections largely focused on clarifying Hazan's own interpretation of the revolution and its key players and events, as well as his reflections on the practice of ordering a historical narrative and all that this implies. While I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject of the French Revolution or historiographical practice, I thought Hazan made a noble effort to clarify the considerations behind the narrative he produced, allowing the reader to reflect on the process of creating a "history" and the events within it.

All in all, despite this book's relative length, to me, it read comfortably, bringing to life the figures and scenes of the French Revolution, and forming a coherent and cohesive narrative out of the cacophony of individual moments, without shying away from the implications of doing so in a historiographic sense. I have no hesitation in recommending this book to anyone interested in learning more about the French Revolution, or, like me, getting your first in-depth introduction to it.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 5 out of 5]

a great read. Readers who know little about the subject might find it heavy going at times, since there is a lot of information crammed into a rather short space, but it is very lucid and well written. Sadly, it only gets as far as the Fall of Robespierre. Refreshingly for an author who is very much from the Left, there is no simplistic marxist reading about the rise of the bourgeoisie to straightjacket things into. Quite the opposite, in fact. Very informative, it makes the reader want it to go on and on

[Mohamed Majdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il y a trop d'information dans ce livre. Je pense que j'ai pas pris une grande chose en général. Il a exposé la révolution française a travers les groupes politiques qui ont essayé de limiter la monarchie.

[Kendra Ramada · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned some stuff but probably would have been helpful to have more of a foundation of French History, as the book relies on you knowing a good deal about French politics and government.

[Nick Jones · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had been reading Eric Hazan’s fun book about Paris and I looked up what else he had written and I saw there was a book about the French Revolution and there was a copy in the city library. I put the Paris book aside because it is a book that can be dipped into and turned to this one. I’ve read bits and pieces about the French Revolution, but never a full study: I’m a bit vague, for instance, on the overall narrative. Hazan is not an academic or professional historian: I presume this is a work of love. There isn’t any original research and I know it has been criticised for drawing on many antiquated sources and ignoring recent ideas...but I lack the expertise to have any view about this. (And I’m not the first person to complain about the inclusion of “People’s” in the English title, which is a bit of pointless and misleading marketing included by the English publisher/translator.) The book is a narrative history following events from before the Revolution until July 1794, but it is largely history as one damn thing after another. As an old fashioned narrative history about famous people doing things it is just a bit lifeless: there are a lot of famous names who do things, but there isn’t much explaining their motivations or characters – it feels as though we are expected to already know about the characters of the central actors, such as Danton or Robespierre, and fill out the figures in the narrative with our knowledge: maybe the French reader can do this, but the foreign reader won’t necessarily have the knowledge, especially if this is the first work about the Revolution they have read. And then there are all the less well known figures who often end up being little more than names. But the book doesn’t really work as a broader exploration of the causes of events: if the historian’s job is not only to tell us what happened but to put the events into some sort of system of understanding, Hazan’s book fails to do that. Hazan finally makes a tumultuous period of French history seem a little dull: lots of things happen but not for any particular reasons.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hazan seeks to reframe the French Revolution as being moved by the overall people of France rather than single people. He deposits that the Revolution was inevitable from the time that French aristocracy started English-style enclosures of peasant land in the 1760s, coupled with the rise of city dweller financiers funding most of the building of the rapidly expanding cities of France. He argues that much of the big movements of people helped push the Revolution in certain directions. For instance, peasants and workers throughout France took advantage of the chaos to attack and burn landlord holdings, which the National Assembly then unleashed troops to crush. He argues that the Terror was as much a reflex of the people pushing for an end of royalist and feudal classes, though it also was a means of centralizing power. Much of the impulses of the revolution was the result of real shortages of food driven by a corrupt system. Hazan does not pretend to take a objective view, instead arguing for a revolutionary understanding. The people of the “fourth estate” pushed up against the middle class third estate runners, and eventually were turned on by the third estate.

Key Themes and Concepts:
-Louix XVI destroyed feudalism by mismanagement and driving the economy to ruin, leading to mass hunger.
-Revolutionary peasants and the urban san coulats forced the rich urbanite political parties to act.
-Bourgeoisie as a class not formed yet (though I find this argument to be dubious.)
-Fourth Estate pushed for communism and true democracy and against the establishment of capitalism, though they did not use those words. the price of provisions, equality of consumption, and democracy in the sections’.
-Robespierre was a tragic figure, trying to play the middle and save lives, but eventually was felled by the same process he was apart of in order to maintain order by the Jacobins.

[hajduk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Other reviews are by dzopes as it's not dry at all. Punched the air when Louis got the chop.

[Angie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really did want to rate it higher, but I just can't. It's not very well written. Understanding this book absolutely requires a pretty strong understanding of the French Revolution--the "standard" history. It seems to be written for an audience that already knows everything the author does but wants to see it framed differently.

There's so much context missing that it's frequently impossible to determine the significance or implication of events. For example, the king escalates matters by firing the finance minister and appointing the baron de Breteuil. Who the is that? Why did this make people mad?

It's not just in the beginning--even near the end, the author mentions no less than four times a momentous event called "The Theot Affair." A description of this mysterious event is never given.

Even huge events are glossed over, like the storming of the Bastille. Literally one sentence is devoted to it and then the author basically says "well a lot of other people wrote about it."

It is also less a people's history than committee minutes drawn up into prose.

[Jordan H · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an unapologetically leftist overview of the French Revolution, it's valuable for the way it pushes back against several common political narratives (from the right and the left). However the overall structure of the book, which moves from episode to episode through various personal vignettes, can be somewhat difficult to follow.

The title is unfortunate and was changed from the original for publication in English to latch onto the "People's History" brand. The original translates as "A History of the French Revolution."

[E. Kahn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Based on the title I assumed this would be an introductory text. It's not. But it's not fine-grained enough for the enthusiast, and it's not an academic text, either.

I don't quite understand the purpose of this book but I didn't find anything egregiously wrong, just way too much stuff the casual reader will have to research on their own to figure out what the hell the author is talking about. So... two stars?

[Flowers4Algernon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This really isn’t a people’s history at all and is a fairly straightforward short chronological zip through the revolution and deals mainly with the principal protagonists eg Robespierre, Marat, Danton etc. It also gets a bit confusing at times and a fairly ‘dry’ old school historical text. Not what I expected at all

[csillagkohó · Rating 3 out of 5]

ik heb even moeten nadenken over het aantal sterren dat dit boek krijgt, want het was plezierig genoeg dat ik er een 4 aan wil geven, maar eerlijkheidshalve mogen het er een lichte 3,5 zijn (3 dus volgens de sterrenkunde van goodreads). een paar losse bedenkingen:

1) eerst over de stijl. ik snap de reviewer niet die zegt dat dit boek zo droog is als de Sahara. misschien ben ik gewoon een geschiedenisnerd die ook weleens graag een Wikipediapagina leest, maar ik vond dit echt een interessant geschreven kroniek, al is het weinig "sappig" over sommige bloederige episodes zoals de executie van Louis XVI. voor mij was dit vaak zelfs een pageturner. wat ik wel saai en lastig te volgen vond, waren de stukken over de oorlog(en). als je één veldslag hebt gezien heb je ze allemaal gezien.

2) het boek lijkt geschreven voor een Frans publiek met een basiskennis van termen, gebeurtenissen en personages uit de Franse geschiedenis. gelukkig heeft de Engelse vertaler dit deels overbrugd door extra voetnoten toe te voegen. ik zou daarom aan niet-Fransen aanraden om het eerder in het Engels te lezen, ook al kun je goed Frans.
het moet gezegd dat sommige delen nog altijd verwarrend waren en ik er Wikipedia enkele keren heb bijgehaald om te snappen waar een gebeurtenis precies op neerkwam. zo wordt de afzetting en opsluiting van de koning best rommelig beschreven. of, opnieuw, de oorlog; dit is een thema waarover het boek best veel overbodige details geeft (inclusief zelfs terreinkaarten), maar niet zoveel duidelijkheid over wat nu écht de reden was dat Frankrijk opeens in een soort militaire expansiedrang verwikkeld raakte. het blijft ook een beetje raar hoe vlot Hazan figuren zoals Danton opvoert alsof we al verondersteld zijn die op voorhand vrij goed te kunnen situeren. Robespierre lijkt mij algemene kennis maar voor Danton zat mijn middelbaar-geschiedenis echt wat te ver.

3) waar je niet naast kunt kijken, is dat Hazan onverbloemd partij kiest voor de revolutie en voor de persoon van Robespierre. in sommige passages kan dit vervelend worden. zelfs als je het eens bent met de argumenten, heb je soms gewoon zin in een niet-sloganeske weergave van wat er nu precies gebeurde - dan kun je er wel je eigen oordeel over vormen zonder het met de paplepel binnen te krijgen. that being said schrijf ik Hazan niet af als waardeloos omdat zijn boek ideologisch geladen is. uiteindelijk heeft zowat elk boek over dit soort onderwerp wel wat ideologische bias, al geven ze het niet altijd toe. meer nog, ik kan Hazan volgen in zijn idee dat de dominante visies in onze samenleving de "Thermidoriaanse" zijn: vergelijk de typische beeldvorming rond Robespierre eens met die rond Napoleon.
ja, je moet dit boek met een korrel zout lezen, net zoals je dat met een mainstream historicus zou doen, en tegelijk kan het als tegengewicht dienen voor de vooroordelen van diezelfde mainstream. je kunt ook (klassiek voorbeeld) Parenti niet lezen als de enige of de definitieve autoriteit over de USSR, maar hij benadrukt een resem aspecten die in veel geschiedschrijving worden geminimaliseerd. zo is Hazan interessant om te begrijpen waarom de Girondijnen op den duur gehaat werden: ze waren (anders dan de Jacobijnen) pro-oorlog en -expansionisme, voerden een economisch laissez faire-beleid dat de voedselprijzen omhoog katapulteerde, en hadden in het algemeen een dédain voor het betrekken van de volksmassa bij politiek. dit staat in contrast met de typische vage omschrijving van de Girondijnen als de "gematigde vleugel" van de revolutie, die het allemaal wat rustiger en rationeler aan wou doen.
TL;DR de partijdigheid van Hazan is soms weliswaar wat drammerig maar ik verkies ze boven een boek dat de (evengoed drammerige en ideologische) aanpak zou kiezen om vooral de "excessen" van de revolutie te belichten.

4) het veelvuldig gebruik van citaten geeft de tekst iets levendigs. het biedt een fascinerend perspectief en illustreert heel direct hoe de debatten in die tijd eruitzagen. anderzijds brengt het het risico mee dat het discours van de revolutionairen gezien wordt als een 1-op-1 weergave van de toenmalige realiteit, omdat zijzelf de plek van de verteller beginnen in te nemen.

5) ik las de review van het boek in The Guardian (https://shorturl.at/yCJK1) en had daarbij ook wat thoughts:
- een deel van de kritieken zijn heel juist: weinig focus op de bredere intellectuele en culturele rol van de Verlichting, weinig focus op pakweg de rol van vrouwen, en zoals gezegd veel expliciet pro-Robespierre-gedram.
- daarentegen niet akkoord met de kritiek dat het boek zich aan "great man theory" schuldig maakt. Robespierre en co zijn prominent, maar volksopstanden en -bewegingen zijn dat ook.
- op de kritiek dat Hazan te weinig recente bronnen gebruikt kan ik moeilijk commentaar geven, ik ben geen expert en heb nooit een ander boek over dit tijdvak gelezen. er worden wel een redelijk aantal verschillende boeken en ook oorspronkelijke archiefdocumenten geciteerd. het is niet zo dat Hazan enkel twee à drie niche bronnen telkens weer recycleert. het moet trouwens bemerkt worden dat hij geen historicus van opleiding is (wat niet alles wil zeggen, maar toch ook niet niets).

niet het beste boek om als eerste intro te lezen - wat ik wel gedaan heb - maar ja ik vond het dus alsnog best meeslepend en Hazan is een van mijn fav oude mannen uit parijs

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure what makes this a people's history... This is very much a story of "great men." Only managed to confuse. Raised more questions than it answered.

[Jimbers · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I dig deeper into the French Revolution, I had to include the People's History. I would be a bad socialist not to.

It is a fine summary but clearly very biased. It insufficiently communicates why people in the Vendee rejected the revolution, for example, chalking up the civil war to "counter revolution." I do still recommend it, with a critical eye. Its liberal use of direct quotation, efficient communication, and discussion of the histography, make for a great overview. I think I better understand the timeline now. The best parts were the chapters near the end, where you see case by case the political battles that lead up to the fall of the Dantonists and Robespierre himself. This book will help you understand the relationships between the different revolutionary factions and the finer details they cared about. You will know why people loved Marat, even if you will not agree with Hazan that you should.

If you have an eye for propaganda and can hold an idea in your mind without accepting it, this is worth a read. If you want to understand the current French Left's interpretation of the revolution (including their needless hate of Lafayette), this is worth a read. If you only have the time to engage with one work on the French Revolution, simply listen to Mike Duncan's Revolutions Season 3. It is better.

[Pete Stimpson · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘sans culottes – without breeches’

It’s a rapid ride from the end of the Bourbons to 9 Thermidor, I felt that this could have been longer in parts in order to properly paint the picture – particularly in understanding the pre-revolutionary phase. I read this alongside Simon Schama’s book on the same subject, which is highly detailed, and the Revolutions podcast – I think I might have struggled to keep up if I was only reading this volume. It does however give a really good account of the tumultuous Thermidor days.

It does work well as a reference book for the main events and one thing I did like were the ‘excursus’, moments of pause to offer different perspectives on some of the well-trodden themes in the revolution, particularly on The Terror and the reason that it had to end in a ‘fight to the death’. Hazan is a bit of an apologist for Robespierre and while his approach does offer something new, I’m not convinced that he is deserving of as much sympathy.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intimate look at France in the years leading up to, during, and the immediate post-aftermath the Revolution, terminating with Thermidor and the ascent of Napoleon, Hazan has managed to craft a work that is a deep look at all the constituent causes for the events of 1789 and after. While splitting focus between the intrigues of the nascent legislative Assemblies that made up the core of the early revolutionary government, and that of the Committee of Public Safety, Hazan makes good on the title's promise and openly recounts the often ignored mass action in reshaping France. From the storming of the Bastille, the burning of the chateaux, the crisis between country and church, the war in the Vendee, and other points, an effective narrative is presented that is easy to follow and digest even if one has only a brief passing with French history. Highly recommended.

[Nathaniel Flakin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit I have been shamefully ignorant of the Great Revolution up till now — I didn’t even know the different between the National Assembly, the Constituent Assembly, the Legislative Assembly, and the Convention. This was a really useful introduction to the different factions, leaders, and dates. However, I don’t really see how this qualifies as a “people’s history” (a title added to the English translation) because its main source is the parliamentary record. It is more like “a leaders’ history with a particular sympathy for Robespierre.” The book contains a few brief attempts to polemicize against Marxism that are amusingly weak — apparently the revolution cannot be considered bourgeois because its leaders did not use the term bourgeois very often! And things like that. I imagine this is not a great book for knowledgeable readers, but for me it was a good starting point.

[Alex Hoeft · Rating 2 out of 5]

Can’t believe I actually finished this book. It was a ROUGH read. If I knew approximately 0.0001% about the French Revolution before this book, I now know ... maybe 2%. That’s not for the author’s lack of trying: The book is jam-packed with information, but almost too much. It read like a textbook, completely devoid of the emotion that led me to want to read about the French Revolution in the first place. Tons of names that you’ll hear once on page 32 and then referenced again on page 200 as if you’re supposed to remember. This happened over and over and over again.

Overall, I’d say this read is for a more seasoned FR fan, definitely not a beginner (like moi). So after all this, I’m still seeking to learn about the history of the French Revolution...

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great survey of a complicated historical moment. Compared to some other single volume works on the French Revolution, especially older ones, Hazan focuses more on how power from below motivated the Revolution's most famous representatives and carried the day when the men giving speeches were feeling indecisive.

I also enjoyed the sprinkling of historiographical argument. There was just enough to give me an idea not just about the Revolution, but about the debate over what it meant and what its legacy should be.

[Mayor McCheese · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome fact-based narrative of the key events and people of the French Revolutions. Avoids the typical myths taught in high school history lessons such that Robespierre was only a character of evil or that there was a predetermined linear nature to the events or that the events can be neatly categorized for multiple choice testing purposes. Robespierre is humanized as someone, while rash and inflexible in the end, was both courageous and visionary at other times.

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 2 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.