What do you think?
Rate this book
A Concise History of the French Revolution
In this excellent introduction to the French Revolution, historian Sylvia Neely shows how particular political choices during that period led to reform, revolution, terror, and dictatorship. The profound transformations in government and society during the revolution forced the French to come up with new ways of thinking about their place in the world and led to what we know today as liberalism, conservatism, terrorism, and nationalism.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published December 24, 2007
10 people are currently reading
161 people want to read
About the author
Sylvia Neely
2 books1 followerProfessor at The Pennsylvania State University.
I am interested in European history during the revolutionary period, from the French Revolution through mid-century. Because of my research focus on Lafayette and on revolutions, comparative history appeals to me. Much can be learned by comparing political, intellectual, and cultural developments across national boundaries, especially in the early nineteenth century when national identities were forming. I am writing a book tentatively entitled An Introduction to the French Revolution. A continuing focus of my research is Lafayette's career in the French Revolution.
“I serve as the liaison between the College of the Liberal Arts and the Education Abroad office. In addition to promoting study abroad, I help students who are trying to decide which Penn State education abroad program would best fit their academic and career goals. I also work with faculty who wish to provide education abroad opportunities for our students.
I am interested in European history during the revolutionary period, from the French Revolution through mid-century. Because of my research focus on Lafayette and on revolutions, comparative history appeals to me. Much can be learned by comparing political, intellectual, and cultural developments across national boundaries, especially in the early nineteenth century when national identities were forming. I am writing a book tentatively entitled An Introduction to the French Revolution. A continuing focus of my research is Lafayette's career in the French Revolution.
“I serve as the liaison between the College of the Liberal Arts and the Education Abroad office. In addition to promoting study abroad, I help students who are trying to decide which Penn State education abroad program would best fit their academic and career goals. I also work with faculty who wish to provide education abroad opportunities for our students.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
September 13, 2010
This is a fabulous book - for one looking (like myself) for a reliable and sturdy refresher course on the French Revolution; and for its focus and intelligence and analytical clarity, albeit in brief format (a plus).
Neely writes without sentiment. She is generally sympathetic to Louis XVI (who does emerge as a surprisingly sympathetic figure here), and is clearly horrified by the excesses of the Terror. But her scalpel is used on all-comers.
According to Neely, the Revolution was not an inevitable consequence of vast historical forces, but came about because of specific factors that could have turned out otherwise. The principal factor was the economic crisis of the 1780's (government debt) and the political inability to deal with it through taxation. This led to a political and financial crisis, that was then compounded by the famine of 1789 (after two consecutive years of crop failure). She rejects what she calls the 'Marxist' view that the Revolution was the inevitable result of class conflict (that is, a Bourgeoise Revolution).
On the Terror -- she rejects Burke's claim that the Terror was due to the Enlightenment's rejection of religion, and also the view (of supporters of the Revolution) that it was to be blamed on the opponents of the Revolution -- who forced their hand. She then looks at François Furet's belief that the Terror emerged from the rhetoric of the early Revolution (which she finds wanting and reductionist; p. 219), and concludes instead that none of these later events would have taken place had it not for the War -- that it was the War (and the suspicions it fostered) that especially disordered everything and which eventually brought the country to the extreme dictatorship of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.
I can't judge of any of this, of course -- but I can at least say that the book is much better than Hibbert's (which is pretty useless), and positions the reader to tackle more ambitious works.
Neely has also written what looks like a fascinating account (and I have the book in front of me) of Lafayette and the Restoration. Lafayette, too, emerges as a central and sympathetic figure.
http://www.amazon.com/Lafayette-Liber...
This is a good place to repost my favorite French Revolution film - in case anyone's missed it --
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Danton/7...
Neely writes without sentiment. She is generally sympathetic to Louis XVI (who does emerge as a surprisingly sympathetic figure here), and is clearly horrified by the excesses of the Terror. But her scalpel is used on all-comers.
According to Neely, the Revolution was not an inevitable consequence of vast historical forces, but came about because of specific factors that could have turned out otherwise. The principal factor was the economic crisis of the 1780's (government debt) and the political inability to deal with it through taxation. This led to a political and financial crisis, that was then compounded by the famine of 1789 (after two consecutive years of crop failure). She rejects what she calls the 'Marxist' view that the Revolution was the inevitable result of class conflict (that is, a Bourgeoise Revolution).
On the Terror -- she rejects Burke's claim that the Terror was due to the Enlightenment's rejection of religion, and also the view (of supporters of the Revolution) that it was to be blamed on the opponents of the Revolution -- who forced their hand. She then looks at François Furet's belief that the Terror emerged from the rhetoric of the early Revolution (which she finds wanting and reductionist; p. 219), and concludes instead that none of these later events would have taken place had it not for the War -- that it was the War (and the suspicions it fostered) that especially disordered everything and which eventually brought the country to the extreme dictatorship of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.
I can't judge of any of this, of course -- but I can at least say that the book is much better than Hibbert's (which is pretty useless), and positions the reader to tackle more ambitious works.
Neely has also written what looks like a fascinating account (and I have the book in front of me) of Lafayette and the Restoration. Lafayette, too, emerges as a central and sympathetic figure.
http://www.amazon.com/Lafayette-Liber...
This is a good place to repost my favorite French Revolution film - in case anyone's missed it --
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Danton/7...
February 8, 2014
Great introduction and overview. See ACs review.
Filled in many gaps in my understanding and made clear to me why certain things are unclear to me. Whatever my personal failings, in fact it’s because they’re largely unclear to everyone.
When I think of the Russian revolution, certain things come immediately to mind along with a rough narrative. Lenin, 1917, Marxism-Leninism, the Winter Palace.
The French revolution is much more blurry with no real narrative. A few names: Robespierre, Danton, Marat. 1789. Les Lumières. The Bastille.
In fact what I took from this book (which may not be what Neely intended) is that the revolution was organic, contingent, unplanned and took place at two distinct levels: the political and the popular.
At a political level, European wars led to government debt which the government tried to finance by levying extortionate taxes. Attempts to force through these taxes led to increasing involvement and empowerment of the representatives of the Third Estate (the first two being the nobility and the clergy; the third being everyone else). The Third Estate subsequently declared itself the National Assembly and forced the clergy and nobility to submit to it. There was no intention at this time to abolition nobility or monarchy, simply to install constitutional rather than absolute monarchy. One reason no single figure dominates the history of the period is that the National Assembly – fearing the concentration of power - passed a “self-denying ordinance” preventing its members from being re-elected. Power trickled from the hands of Louis XVI to the people. (One has the distinct impression that if he had been a more brutal man, history would have been very different).
At a popular level, taxes, poverty and two consecutive years of catastrophic harvests and famine led to bread riots culminating in crowds storming the Bastille on July 14th 1789.
This pattern repeats itself. The King’s flight to Varennes was halted by crowds; crowds stormed Tuileries Palace; constitutional monarchy collapsed and the Convention declared the Republic in 1792.
In 1793 a crowd converged on the Convention demanding “war on tyrants, hoarders and aristocrats.” The Committee of Public Safety rose to power and The Terror began.
Who forms these crowds? Who leads them? What are their aims? Not clear. But Robespierre is not standing there, neither is Danton. It seems a pure eruption of Rousseau’s General Will. Hard to read all this without a Tolstoyan feeling that history is being made by dark and deep oceanic currents while we point at spume and flotsam and impute motive power to it. The ideas of the philosophes well up here and there but no clear ideology directs the revolutionary period from 1789-92; rather theory and praxis arise from one another and from contingent events. A young Tübingen seminarian named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel watched this history unfold and began to think.
Filled in many gaps in my understanding and made clear to me why certain things are unclear to me. Whatever my personal failings, in fact it’s because they’re largely unclear to everyone.
When I think of the Russian revolution, certain things come immediately to mind along with a rough narrative. Lenin, 1917, Marxism-Leninism, the Winter Palace.
The French revolution is much more blurry with no real narrative. A few names: Robespierre, Danton, Marat. 1789. Les Lumières. The Bastille.
In fact what I took from this book (which may not be what Neely intended) is that the revolution was organic, contingent, unplanned and took place at two distinct levels: the political and the popular.
At a political level, European wars led to government debt which the government tried to finance by levying extortionate taxes. Attempts to force through these taxes led to increasing involvement and empowerment of the representatives of the Third Estate (the first two being the nobility and the clergy; the third being everyone else). The Third Estate subsequently declared itself the National Assembly and forced the clergy and nobility to submit to it. There was no intention at this time to abolition nobility or monarchy, simply to install constitutional rather than absolute monarchy. One reason no single figure dominates the history of the period is that the National Assembly – fearing the concentration of power - passed a “self-denying ordinance” preventing its members from being re-elected. Power trickled from the hands of Louis XVI to the people. (One has the distinct impression that if he had been a more brutal man, history would have been very different).
At a popular level, taxes, poverty and two consecutive years of catastrophic harvests and famine led to bread riots culminating in crowds storming the Bastille on July 14th 1789.
This pattern repeats itself. The King’s flight to Varennes was halted by crowds; crowds stormed Tuileries Palace; constitutional monarchy collapsed and the Convention declared the Republic in 1792.
In 1793 a crowd converged on the Convention demanding “war on tyrants, hoarders and aristocrats.” The Committee of Public Safety rose to power and The Terror began.
Who forms these crowds? Who leads them? What are their aims? Not clear. But Robespierre is not standing there, neither is Danton. It seems a pure eruption of Rousseau’s General Will. Hard to read all this without a Tolstoyan feeling that history is being made by dark and deep oceanic currents while we point at spume and flotsam and impute motive power to it. The ideas of the philosophes well up here and there but no clear ideology directs the revolutionary period from 1789-92; rather theory and praxis arise from one another and from contingent events. A young Tübingen seminarian named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel watched this history unfold and began to think.
February 15, 2014
This book presents a great overview of an important part of history. Neely creates a narrative that skips along, almost novelist-style, yet while presenting dates and facts, along with an assessment of motives and results. She occasionally discusses how others have interpreted certain events and lends her analysis and why that might differ.
Regardless, the Revolution, occurring over a decade, shows just why revolutions are fraught with dangers. Getting rid of one regime does not automatically lend itself to creation of a new constitution that is fair to all and implemented by just men. Competing factions were at work from the start, and those who ended up in power used that power to eliminate those who would disagree to an extend that their disagreement resulted in any threat to the current regime. The guillotine was very active, particularly AFTER the usurpation of power by the new brokers. Often 80, 100 or more lost their heads at a singular event.
History is a great teacher, and it helps reflect on current events. For example, the basic cause of the Revolution was the growing income inequality in the country coupled with a grossly unfair tax system, all exacerbated by the country's penchant for war in foreign countries. (During this period, England, Spain, France and others were competing for control of territories in the Caribbean, among other places - and control tended to seesaw back and forth.)
First, nobles were exempt from most taxes, and the middle and lower classes had to carry the burden. Second, nobles were generally given stipends for various things, which added to the tax burden. And third, the Catholic Church was the official church of France, and in that regard, the monarchy paid priests, bishops, et al, and also provided the real estate. Couple this with years where food production was low due to weather factors, and you have a growing discontent.
In addition, King Louis XVI, although a generally benevolent king, was hard pressed to take decisive actions when called for. His inability to make timely decisions resulted in actions being made or forced upon him by those in his service who had their own political biases. This often contributed to a national rumor mill that fed conspiracy theories.
Ultimately, it was the growth of factions that organized and gained followers that led to the deposing of Louis in what can only be described as a bloodless coup. It was generally after that coup that the blood of thousands of good people was let, as described above. In addition, as an Convention of elected people involved themselves in the writing of a new constitution, they felt compelled to rule the country until a final constitution could be put into place. Of course, as they enjoyed their power, the constitution was regularly put aside. Certain serious developments were adopted, however, including a somewhat more balanced tax system that included the nobles and the rich, and the Church was divested of its power and its real estate.
An interesting development evolved as France engaged into incursions into various foreign countries during this time to take over territory, often led by power hungry generals. And this required manpower, so able bodied young men were conscripted throughout the country, leading to an even further burden on the less fortunate of the realm.
It was fascinating (as well as horrifying) to see how the eventual turning of events finally led to a new country that could take its place in the world.
The bibliography is substantial, and the accompanying maps and timeline were very helpful resources. I highly recommend this, particularly as a introduction to this historical event.
Regardless, the Revolution, occurring over a decade, shows just why revolutions are fraught with dangers. Getting rid of one regime does not automatically lend itself to creation of a new constitution that is fair to all and implemented by just men. Competing factions were at work from the start, and those who ended up in power used that power to eliminate those who would disagree to an extend that their disagreement resulted in any threat to the current regime. The guillotine was very active, particularly AFTER the usurpation of power by the new brokers. Often 80, 100 or more lost their heads at a singular event.
History is a great teacher, and it helps reflect on current events. For example, the basic cause of the Revolution was the growing income inequality in the country coupled with a grossly unfair tax system, all exacerbated by the country's penchant for war in foreign countries. (During this period, England, Spain, France and others were competing for control of territories in the Caribbean, among other places - and control tended to seesaw back and forth.)
First, nobles were exempt from most taxes, and the middle and lower classes had to carry the burden. Second, nobles were generally given stipends for various things, which added to the tax burden. And third, the Catholic Church was the official church of France, and in that regard, the monarchy paid priests, bishops, et al, and also provided the real estate. Couple this with years where food production was low due to weather factors, and you have a growing discontent.
In addition, King Louis XVI, although a generally benevolent king, was hard pressed to take decisive actions when called for. His inability to make timely decisions resulted in actions being made or forced upon him by those in his service who had their own political biases. This often contributed to a national rumor mill that fed conspiracy theories.
Ultimately, it was the growth of factions that organized and gained followers that led to the deposing of Louis in what can only be described as a bloodless coup. It was generally after that coup that the blood of thousands of good people was let, as described above. In addition, as an Convention of elected people involved themselves in the writing of a new constitution, they felt compelled to rule the country until a final constitution could be put into place. Of course, as they enjoyed their power, the constitution was regularly put aside. Certain serious developments were adopted, however, including a somewhat more balanced tax system that included the nobles and the rich, and the Church was divested of its power and its real estate.
An interesting development evolved as France engaged into incursions into various foreign countries during this time to take over territory, often led by power hungry generals. And this required manpower, so able bodied young men were conscripted throughout the country, leading to an even further burden on the less fortunate of the realm.
It was fascinating (as well as horrifying) to see how the eventual turning of events finally led to a new country that could take its place in the world.
The bibliography is substantial, and the accompanying maps and timeline were very helpful resources. I highly recommend this, particularly as a introduction to this historical event.
September 1, 2011
A Concise History of the French Revolution is an overview of the French Revolution - its origins, major events and major figures. Unlike some "short history" books about the revolution, Sylvia Neely says truly focused on giving the reader a chronological, fairly no-nonsense overview of events. The trim volume, which contains about 250 pages of reading material, does not get sidetracked by focusing on certain events or people over the others, which is a benefit to those who really want to read a short introduction to the entire revolution. It should be noted that concise truly means concise - there are not paragraphs describing the background of Robespierre, or pages detailing every battle, or a chapter dedicated to the fate of the royal family. Some readers may find the lack of extensive detail frustrating, and may want to know more than Neely provides. However, in my view this book is best used as a short introduction to the revolution, something to read before moving on to more detailed and focused works.
Neely's views on the French Revolution may be new for some readers. For example, she believes that the French Revolution being described as "the peasants uprising against the nobles for their rights" is an oversimplification that ignores the facts behind France's nobility system, exactly what rights for the people were proposed by the first Constitutional Committee, and the type of person who was initially involved in the new government of France. Although I didn't always agree with some of her points, I was satisfied with the amount of footnotes and annotations she used in this book. Neely also provided a select English bibliography and a concise timeline of major events. I should note that while I did enjoy the general overview the book provided, the writing before the actual revolution was almost textbook dry. This was likely because it was necessary to provide the gritty details about France's tax system and other political information in order to explain the beginning of the revolution, but it was a bit hard to get through.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking for an introductory read about the French Revolution, as well as anyone who wants to read a "newer" view on the origins and politics of the revolution itself.
Neely's views on the French Revolution may be new for some readers. For example, she believes that the French Revolution being described as "the peasants uprising against the nobles for their rights" is an oversimplification that ignores the facts behind France's nobility system, exactly what rights for the people were proposed by the first Constitutional Committee, and the type of person who was initially involved in the new government of France. Although I didn't always agree with some of her points, I was satisfied with the amount of footnotes and annotations she used in this book. Neely also provided a select English bibliography and a concise timeline of major events. I should note that while I did enjoy the general overview the book provided, the writing before the actual revolution was almost textbook dry. This was likely because it was necessary to provide the gritty details about France's tax system and other political information in order to explain the beginning of the revolution, but it was a bit hard to get through.
I would recommend this book to anyone looking for an introductory read about the French Revolution, as well as anyone who wants to read a "newer" view on the origins and politics of the revolution itself.
January 23, 2011
Excellent. Clear, well-written, interesting. Everything a history book should be.
May 9, 2021
A sound and un-sensational introduction to the revolution.
October 6, 2024
Probably the most concise and accessible history of a topic most authors spend a thousand pages on.
November 24, 2012
The French Revolution is one of those fairly significant gaps in my knowledge of history that I’ve felt, for some time, I really ought to fill in. I knew the basics but had never read a good, complete book on the subject. This one was okay. It was short, and yet difficult going at some points anyway, perhaps because it had been almost condensed to the point that personalities and anecdotes were all but eliminated; the book was really a bit like a lengthy encyclopedia article. I did learn things, though. Perhaps the most important takeaway was that the French Revolution wasn’t really a sudden event, but instead a gradual breakdown of the old order followed by lengthy failure to establish any solid replacement.
Neely’s contrast with the writing of our American Constitution was highly instructive: like France’s Bourbon monarchy, the Articles of Confederation weren’t really working and couldn’t really right themselves, so both more or less delegated authority to a committee to figure something out. Our Constitutional Convention essentially got together, wrote a Constitution among themselves, then said “here, take it or leave it.” The French assembly (in fact, more than one of them over the course of the whole affair) probably lacked quite so clear a charter; they hung around and hung around, and they met openly and were repeatedly influenced by the shifting moods of the Parisian public. The biggest mistake was, probably, publicizing a suspension of the old order before having, let alone being ready to implement, a replacement. The result I think was kind of a vicious cycle in which things became more disordered and chancy, and factions saw less point in compromising to preserve an already-vanishing order and more hope of winning all the marbles if they just became more strident and pushed harder, thus further destabilizing what sense of order remained, etc., etc.
Small wonder, really, that France made the seemingly odd decision to accept Napoleon as emperor a mere years after deposing the Bourbon monarchy.
Neely’s contrast with the writing of our American Constitution was highly instructive: like France’s Bourbon monarchy, the Articles of Confederation weren’t really working and couldn’t really right themselves, so both more or less delegated authority to a committee to figure something out. Our Constitutional Convention essentially got together, wrote a Constitution among themselves, then said “here, take it or leave it.” The French assembly (in fact, more than one of them over the course of the whole affair) probably lacked quite so clear a charter; they hung around and hung around, and they met openly and were repeatedly influenced by the shifting moods of the Parisian public. The biggest mistake was, probably, publicizing a suspension of the old order before having, let alone being ready to implement, a replacement. The result I think was kind of a vicious cycle in which things became more disordered and chancy, and factions saw less point in compromising to preserve an already-vanishing order and more hope of winning all the marbles if they just became more strident and pushed harder, thus further destabilizing what sense of order remained, etc., etc.
Small wonder, really, that France made the seemingly odd decision to accept Napoleon as emperor a mere years after deposing the Bourbon monarchy.
April 13, 2012
Delivers on the promise made in the title. It is definitely concise, though I felt there were certain parts which could have been expanded upon a little more, especially the Terror section. The most informative, and easiest to process, section for me was the summation of the Ancien Regime. I understand later events were much more complicated, but I wish the entire book flowed as well as this portion. Great book overall!
September 27, 2011
I am pairing this with The Scarlet Pimpernel.
This was OK. It was informational, but just not very engaging and I read it more because I "had" to rather than "wanted" to.
However, now I really want to read a book about Robespierre and Marie Antoinette.
This was OK. It was informational, but just not very engaging and I read it more because I "had" to rather than "wanted" to.
However, now I really want to read a book about Robespierre and Marie Antoinette.
December 1, 2010
Not quite as gripping as Pipes Concise History of the Russian Revolution, but still an excellent book. I learned a lot.
Amazing, some of the similarities between both Revolutions.
Amazing, some of the similarities between both Revolutions.
March 26, 2024
I got interested in the French revolution after watching Ridley Scott's, Napoleon. (Now that is an odd movie, especially for Scott [Alien, Blade Runner {#2 on my list}, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, etc. because it's tone changes, sometimes it's a romance, then childlike, then serious with the battles, then silly with Joaquin Phoenix's perplexing take on the role of Napoleon, a murderous dictator! WHATEVER...)
I'd started to read Simon Schama's, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, which was wonderful--only read two chapters but the writing was alive, interesting, hey, a page turner--but at 650 pages and a Mexican vacation coming up, I switched to this one. (I'll get back to Schama someday.)
Well, Neely's is pretty much one item after another. Not a lot of pizzazz, not any, really. So it's slow but covers what-can-only-be-described as the sheer madness of the Frenchys and their revolution. Whoa! All you can think while reading their story is that they'd all gone crazy. The revolution was probably only 3-4 years, yet they had many different governments, leaders, wars, riots, everyone thought everyone else was against them, paranoia ran rampant...
It was as if a mad genie had been let out of his bottle. There are a lot of different estimates for the number of people killed during the revolution but it's probably around 600,000 (my guess); others say 1,000,000 and another 2,500,000 Frenchy soldiers killed in all the Napoleonic wars, which ran til 1815. Napoleon kept going with his invasion of Russia which meant that 300,000 more soldiers died there.
Highlights???
"Conservatives charged that the Enlightenment had led people astray by weakening their faith in tradition and religion and by placing entirely too much confidence in the abilities of human beings to reason and improve the world." Sound familiar to the USA now?
Robespierre on the Dechristianization campaign. "Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular." Pretty familiar, eh?
Revolutions ain't pretty...
I'd started to read Simon Schama's, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, which was wonderful--only read two chapters but the writing was alive, interesting, hey, a page turner--but at 650 pages and a Mexican vacation coming up, I switched to this one. (I'll get back to Schama someday.)
Well, Neely's is pretty much one item after another. Not a lot of pizzazz, not any, really. So it's slow but covers what-can-only-be-described as the sheer madness of the Frenchys and their revolution. Whoa! All you can think while reading their story is that they'd all gone crazy. The revolution was probably only 3-4 years, yet they had many different governments, leaders, wars, riots, everyone thought everyone else was against them, paranoia ran rampant...
It was as if a mad genie had been let out of his bottle. There are a lot of different estimates for the number of people killed during the revolution but it's probably around 600,000 (my guess); others say 1,000,000 and another 2,500,000 Frenchy soldiers killed in all the Napoleonic wars, which ran til 1815. Napoleon kept going with his invasion of Russia which meant that 300,000 more soldiers died there.
Highlights???
"Conservatives charged that the Enlightenment had led people astray by weakening their faith in tradition and religion and by placing entirely too much confidence in the abilities of human beings to reason and improve the world." Sound familiar to the USA now?
Robespierre on the Dechristianization campaign. "Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular." Pretty familiar, eh?
Revolutions ain't pretty...
December 2, 2020
The French Revolution gets so many references that I finally got irritated and tried to read a history of it. But everything I tried to read was too much for someone who didn't know the basic events and personalities beyond what you can glean from Les Miserables or A Tale of Two Cities.
This truly is a concise history, that walked me through what led to it, what happened, and how it ended (or at least, how Bonaparte took power). It's fairly academic in tone but it's pretty straightforward and makes it easy for the truly uninformed to become less so. Highly recommended if that's your situation. On to Citizens by Simon Schama!
This truly is a concise history, that walked me through what led to it, what happened, and how it ended (or at least, how Bonaparte took power). It's fairly academic in tone but it's pretty straightforward and makes it easy for the truly uninformed to become less so. Highly recommended if that's your situation. On to Citizens by Simon Schama!
November 24, 2021
Lots of details. Lessons for how things can get out of control. Written like a newspaper reporter would. Great book if you like details of each step of how history took place with why how and who at each step. This detailed work is why history in high school can only spend a small part of class on just this one part of history with so many other parts of history to learn around the world. There is just not enough time to get the details written in this great book
June 13, 2017
Probably the best overview of the French Revolution you'll get in <300 pages. It's a clear and understandable introduction to a very complicated period of history, without glossing over what makes it so interesting. If you want to start learning about the French Revolution, or you want a refresher, this is the book you should read.
November 18, 2019
Good concise history of revolution. Thanks to the author.
February 24, 2020
It's a solid history book - very informative and neutral in tone - but the writing style could have been more compelling to bring the events to life.
December 30, 2023
does what it says on the tin
January 6, 2017
Here's a shout-out to escapist fiction readers & thinkers who relish world building, dystopic, suspenseful, sociological thrillers and passionate, misbehaving riff raff. Read A Concise History of the French Revolution It has it all, and it is real. You will grow smarter and understand the human condition.
August 13, 2016
The operate word is concise. Now I know I want to know more aboiut the French Revolutions and particularly why the U.S. was so enanmored with it with all the violence. I would appreciate any reading suggestions for this period of history.
May 5, 2017
A Concise History of the French Revolution is a very informative book, and I learned a lot, but it was quite dry, and moved slow as molasses. However, this is expected of a deeply educational book such as this one
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews