The French Revolution: A Beginner's Guide

Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Publications)

by Peter Davies

Blending narrative with analysis, Peter Davies explores a time of obscene opulence, mass starvation, and ground-breaking ideals; where the streets of Paris ran red with blood, and when even the efficient guillotine was unable to despatch enough "counter-revolutionaries" for the needs of the Terror. Davies brings the subject up to date by considering the legacy of the revolution and how it continues to resonate in today’s France. Dr Peter Davies is senior lecturer in History at the University of Huddersfield

Genres: History, French Revolution, Nonfiction

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Peter Davies was formerly a news journalist and the editor of SA Sports Illustrated. He is currently a presenter on South Africa's paychannel MNET.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Peter Davies says at the start of this book that he is trying to write a neutral and objective history. In this he has utterly failed. One could argue that given how charged and political the french revolution, it is the mark of an amateur historian to assert that this is even possible. Undeniably, it is the mark of an untrustworthy one to lie about it.

The problem is that Davies repeatedly makes clear value judgements on different stages of the Revolution. For example, that 'the Directory had a noble and sensible aim: to create order and stability', and that 'historians have been unkind to it's (because it aligns with his political views). He talks about how the Thermidorians were 'forced' into the White Terror and then doesn't describe it AT ALL. However, he is only too happy to spend pages on the Jacobin Terror, and asserts that they were enacting an 'economic terror ' by establishing a maximum price for essential goods. I'm not kidding, this is actually the reason he gives for it being a terror.

I don't begrudge Davies for having these opinions. He is allowed to have opinions and this is review is not a political polemic. What he IS guilty of is writing a beginners guide to a subject, claiming to be neutral, and then deliberately omitting facts/using emotive language to support his own viewpoint, which seems here to be broadly that of a classical liberal. We can clearly tell that he is pro-Directory, pro-Thermidor, anti-Jacobin, and anti-Marxist. THIS IS NOT THE MARK OF A NEUTRAL HISTORY. I should not be able to deduce Davies' specific beliefs.

He mentions lots of different perspectives in this book, but this isn't to be objective - rather, it's to more convincingly push his own opinion. He spends pages thoroughly criticising the views he doesn't like (the Marxist one) and then insists that we should 'balance the debate ' (ie the scholarly consensus) on the Directory and 'congratulate the Directory...for returning the country to moderation and stability'.

This book is a polemic to Davies' personal values. He is allowed to have these values. He is not allowed, as a historian (and person) of integrity, to present his values as objective fact, still less as cultivated neutrality. This is a deceptive book which I fear will deceive many readers.

Davies cites two considerably superior historians than him in this book which I would recommend reading instead - Cobban and Hobsbawm. Hobsbawm is himself left wing and utilises a Marxist framework to interpret the FR, but is brutally honest about deficiencies in Marxist analysis and in calling out the authoritarian Terror of the Jacobins. Cobban didn't have any political biases that I could see, although you might disagree. Spare yourself the ode to 'moderation and stability' and read something a bit less dry.

[Alexandra ᥫ᭡. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Straightforward, I would recommend additional research on the French Revolution to gain a better understanding. As the book title suggests, "A Beginner's Guide", it provides a solid foundation to start. My IB history teacher assigned our class this book. ⚜️

[Aaron Bolin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice quick summary of the sequence of events, but a lot of the connective tissue needed to make the narrative compelling and informative was missing.

[Karla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this summary of the French Revolution was amazing. I bought this book at Shakespeare and Company and went through it while wandering around the streets of Paris.

[Umer Rashid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book .

[Ollie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid, concise overview

[Deniss Ojastu · Rating 3 out of 5]

A compact overview of the French Revolution (the end of the 18th century). The author does a good job listing the facts and clearly defining the different periods, while taking a neutral, rational approach to the analysis of this important historical event.

However, the book is rather dry and does not read as a coherent narrative - facts are followed by analysis, then new facts, new analysis etc. The last chapters are more interesting - especially in terms of highlighting the legends which have arisen after the French Revolution.

All in all, I would recommend this book.

[Matt]

I finished reading this and thought I was more confused by the French Revolultion. It did a nice job telling players, and most stroies, but it miised the transitions, how this group led to this group, etc. And it really seemed to miss what was the underlying reason why the people were so frustrated. The Washington and Lafayette book did a better job describing that and I almost feel like I would undertstand that book better, just from the perspective of people.

[Tascha Folsoi]

Nice overview. This guy really does a pretty good job of being unbiased. It's not a people's history, but without bending too far in any direction, it provides enough information to get an idea of the the motivations and aspirations of the various sides/factions.

[Nadine · Rating 2 out of 5]

more like an intermediate guide ... some interesting info. on the historiography of the french revolution and current opinions of it. I skipped many paragraphs.