The Seven Years’ War was fought with Britain for reasons of expanding colonialist enterprises, presumably to garner more riches for the once wealthy state and absolute monarch. However, this war, even though brief in the historical scope of world events, was nonetheless a devastating blow to France’s already weakening economy, which was just seeing the first potential benefits and horrors of industrialization. In order to preserve these colonial interests and keep Britain at bay, more tax dollars were needed and it seemed that every week produced a new reason for high taxes on the French citizens. With a majority of the tax money actually going to this cause, and a constant need for more, the beginning of the end of absolutist monarchy appeared over the horizon. Even though this was the height of Enlightenment though it France, Louis was unsuccessful at positioning himself as an “enlightened absolutist” simply because in trying to create more opportunities for the citizens in terms of these proposed societal ideals, he created more of a bureaucracy around him, which did nothing but eat up more tax dollars.

The war and the subsequent tax hikes are to blame in large part, but the war against this system was being waged among the citizens. While the French military was away fighting the Seven Years War and solidifying Louis XIV’s interests abroad (at the cost of the taxpayers) there was no military force left behind. Thus, as one scholar notes in an essay, “liberal ideas associated with the Enlightenment created a particularly important focal point that galvanized military and constitutional reformers to advocate citizen’s armies as part of a new relationship between citizens and states” (Avant 41). This would eventually lead to the massive force that would take over during the culmination of anger and resentment at the monarchy—the French Revolution. The working class, tired of the effects of the taxes to support a war that they, as common citizens, had nothing to benefit in winning, staged their own coup, thus bringing an end to the French absolute monarchy, once and for all.

Although this may be a sketchy point to argue in this essay, part of the ultimate downfall of the monarchies in both France and Russia as it relates to war had just as much to do with the upper class, the nobility, as it did the peasantry. The war was intended to create vast riches for France (or more appropriately, Louis XIV himself), but even the massive taxation undertakings were too much for nobility that was already growing tired of the system as it was—with just one divinely mandated leader and no chance for mobility. According to one theory stated in a scholarly essay, “the French nobles, having been deprived of their political power under the royal absolutist system, had long ceased to perform their task as an intermediate constitutional power. A comeback was impossible because they had turned into an indolent and apolitical class or, a paralysed corps without movements and actions, and—even worse—without ideas. Powerless and economically isolated due to the dérogeance, French nobles lived an idle and useless life” (Ulrich 141). It is arguable that without the silent backing of some of the nobility in France between 1763 and 1789, the peasants might not have been so successful in overthrowing a monarchy that wasted their taxes on war. Since this nobility was idle (as opposed to actively involved in leading military pursuits and offensives), this made them too feel as though there would be nothing to gain from a long and expensive war. Ultimately, the downfall of the long line of absolutist rulers in France was a result of a series of abuses of power. With nothing for most of the average (and even many noble French) to gain from this battle, which some could says was based in pride—to being won out by the British—this was the last straw. Years of waste and obscene indulgences on the part of the French absolutist system were ended after one waste too many—the Seven Years War.

As this essay makes clear, there are many parallels between the Russian and French revolutions, especially in terms of the events that occurred to overthrow the absolutist monarch, Nicholas, in Russia with what happened in France. The most common factors would be: a) A long program of territory-grabbing led to financial insecurity and problems with the citizens as a result, and b) these wars would not be beneficial to any of the common citizens, thus sparking even more unrest over the taking away of rights, the more extensive system of taxation (albeit in a communist manner in this case), and ignoring the pleas of the people. As a side note, even though many of these deposing events were the result of war and the subsequent effects, each of these periods (both in French and Russian history) were marked by a strong political movement of the working class. In France, it was certainly the ideas of the Enlightenment, and in Russia, Marx brought about the same revolution-inspiring effects. One could easily posit the theory that neither of these movements would have gained so much momentum if not in the midst of wars and higher taxes (both in the human sense and economic) but that must be left aside for speculation another time.

The most remarkable difference in the events leading up to the overthrow in Russia versus France would be the absolutely devastating effect on the general population of the country during WWI. Unlike the French during the Seven Years War, the Russians during this period were able to clearly see the horrible impact of war for the purposes of land grabbing and this sparked revolutions throughout Russia during these years. Considering that “Russia took the heaviest causalities during WWI, 7.5 million by 1917” (Hunt 761) it is easier to see why the anger over war was directed at the absolute monarch, Nicholas. Although the average Frenchman had nothing to gain from the expensive and unwanted invasions abroad at the behest of the absolutist ruler, there was still some distance between the war and the final impact. They were angry because of the high taxes, in Russia, everything was enough to provoke anger—especially the war.

. Even before the actual Great War broke out, there were a number of expensive and in many senses, needless land-grabbing efforts by the monarchy in Asia and Siberia. Although the tax system was different in Russia (as opposed to France) the effects of these costly efforts caused a long series of revolutions, beginning with Bloody Sunday and continuing on until a state of political equilibrium was reached—meaning more power to the common citizen Under the absolutist monarchy of Nicholas, the waste and non-necessity of the Great War was apparent. Since in this case, there was nothing for the average man to gain in war that was ravaging the commoners on every level, there was nothing left to do but take the steps necessary to revoke power from the monarchial institution that had so long kept the ordinary Russian people under its sway. Eventually, the citizens had their way and the wastes of constant wars and spending of both nations, which to the peasants served nothing but to weaken the state, came to an end. “By 1917, some two-thirds of the peasantry had taken steps to gain title to their land and 10 percent had acquired consolidated holdings” (Hunt 766).

Although simple war cannot be attributed to the overthrowing of despotic absolute monarchs in both France and Russia, they were the motivating factors in that they caused citizens to open their eyes to the levels of waste. These wars weakened the monarchs in every sense politically, economically, and socially, and in both cases, were the beginning of the end for France and Russia’s “divinely-chosen” leaders.

Other essays and articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :•  The Historical and Societal Functions of World Revolutions  •  A Comparison and Analysis of the French Versus Russian Revolutions   •    France’s Pre-revolutionary Financial Crisis: The Lead-up to the French Revolution

Works Cited

Avant, Deborah. From Mercenary to Citizen Armies: Explaining Change in the Practice of War.International Organization 54.1 (2000): 41

Lynn, Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, R P. Hsia, and Bonnie G. Smith. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. 760-766.

Ulrich, Adam. Nobility and modern monarchy—J.H.G. Justi and the French debate on commerciall nobility at the beginning of the Seven Years War. History of European Ideas 29.2 (2003): 141.

During the Russian Revolution, women’s rights were of far greater concern to the Bolsheviks than to those in France during the French Revolution. In addition to being a large part of the revolutionary literature and a strong working force, the most revolutionary aspect of women and their families came in 1918 just after the revolution of 1917. At this point the Bolsheviks, after only a year in power, submitted the New Family Code which gave women and families protections not seen anywhere on the globe at the time, let alone in France during its revolution. The New Family Code encompassed everything from marriage, alimony, divorce, abortion, land rights and most importantly, stated that women’s civil status was equal to that of men. When one considers that in France before the Revolution, citizenship and larger benefits associated with it were given to men because they were capable of military service, this is seen as all the more revolutionary on the part of Russia. This highly revolutionary declaration by the Bolsheviks could be, in part at least, to the fact that women were not only the economic backbone to the expanding industrial economy (since by 1918 %60 of factory workers were female) but women were also important to raising the population numbers after the devastation after the Great War. Women were active in the 1905 Bread Riots and as the revolutions in Russia grew more numerous and heated, their role only increased. It is also important to note that Russian women were part of the literature of revolution.

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels had strong views regarding the position of women and saw that it was a waste that they were tied to domestic chores and housework. They believed that women, as wage earners, should be able to find independence from their husbands but it was argued by Engels and Marx that capitalism was not the best way to achieve this and argued that only through socialism could they find the type of balance most suited to them. Even though these measures by the Bolsheviks were far more revolutionary than any passed in France during its revolution ending in 1794, the fact remains that is was something of a failed experiment. The grand vision of a perfect world for women was overshadowed by a general lack of follow-through and many projects to support and continue the program were under-funded and fell flat. Still, however, Russia was the first to grant such far-reaching rights to women and families and this aspect of their revolution, perhaps more so than others, makes the Russian Revolution of 1917 (and its immediate aftermath) far more revolutionary than France’s.

Overall, in terms of scope and breadth of revolutionary legislation, Russia was more radical than France in terms of citizenship. One of the reasons why this is so radical must be seen outside of the American notion of democracy and rather seen as simply a great change (without bias). This is because before the revolution in October 1917, basic privileges of citizenship were completely uneven. One nobleman’s vote would count for up to 50 times what a peasant’s vote would and even though Russia’s strength still relied on the agricultural and industrial proletariat, they were almost completely excluded from affairs of state. In the Russia before the Bolsheviks, the nobility literally ruled everything in terms of citizenship and affairs of state and thus such a great broad and sweeping change such as the one that took place was entirely radical—especially since it toppled just about everything the country was based upon for the entirety of its history. While France also made some changes, the fact remains that they were still firmly rooted in the age-old patriarchal concerns of military and men. In order to be a citizen, young men had to participate in the military for a regulated term and although this granted the right to have more of a say in their government, this was only theory. In fact, the new French regime during and after the revolutions in France did not succeed in enacting sweeping change. Much of lawmaking and other acts associated with citizenship was still left in the hands of the nobility, thus they were hardly as successful or broad as the Bolsheviks. Still one particularly admirable aspect of the post-Revolutionary France that was present was that being a French citizen did not extend to your language, ethnic, or regional heritage, which in itself was very radical. Still though, the timeworn acts of money buying freedom (such as being able to buy your citizenship in the National Guard) only continued old patterns.

Like Russia, in France before the Revolution, there was belief that the changes should be made country-wide, however Russia was far les concerned with the issues of local distinction than France was and they were able to avoid petty local government squabbles and instead concentrate on bring the working poor to the top. Instead of a select group of nobility holding the power in Russia, the toilers, the peasants, and even women were able to enjoy larger protections and benefits are more bona fide members of the state. There is one problem that should be pointed out with this set-up in Russia. While this paper still contends that they were more radical in the scope of changes brought about, it must be noted that they did not strive to create a completely equal state. The former bourgeoisie and even to some extent peasants (since they owned some land) were not given as many rights as the proletariat and the nobility, clergy, and other people that were non-proletariat were excluded from citizenship. Again, it is difficult to think of this without judging in terms of American democracy but it is still fair to state that despite their exclusion of some elements of society, the Russians were far more radical in revolutionary action than the French.

Russia was more radical in terms of religion during its Revolution in 1917 than the French were years before but this is a rather close call, simply because religion was a more important affair of state in western Europe than it was in the East (although this is likely arguable) either during the 1700s or the 1900s. Like as in the case of the basis of many other world revolutions throughout history, it should be noted that the Russians even eliminated the clergy from the rights of citizenship and associated them with corruption and wealth. Overall, the goal in France was to eliminate the Catholic Church and they eventually went through three stages involving; control, suppression, and reconciliation. Most un-radical of their efforts was to force priest to take an oath to support the revolution and subsequently, many priest became part of the counter-revolution. In their attempt to turn to a statewide “rational religion” they attempted to eliminate traces of religion by changing the calendar, changing the inscription on tombstones to reflect a more “rational” approach to death, among other aspects. Robespierre even created his own Church of the Supreme, which seems more like an attempt for him to gain even more control than to explore religious principles. It almost seems as though the French tried to eliminate all traces of religion in such a hurry that the process was doomed to failure. Russia was more balanced in its approach to eradicating religion which was seen (according to Marx) as the “opiate of the masses” and the Bolsheviks reacted against more what religion stood for (cultural backwardness for example) than its very existence. The church was associated with corruption, therefore the Russians sought to root that out and that was part of the revolutionary process of eradication aside form just seeing it as not rational. Instead of attacking the churches directly, the Bolsheviks took a more balanced approach and realized that if they were harsh against the religious then they might be setting themselves up for a great “back-firing” later on from zealots. Instead, they tried to eradicate it through its institutions, the bourgeoisie being one of them. In sum, the Russian revolution in terms of religion was more radical because it sought to go underneath the power structure itself and work against the institutions of religious power and corruption. In France, the efforts to control religion only limited rights and caused a great deal of chaos and anger.

In closing, one must admit that the French and their revolution was better in terms of follow-through. The Bolsheviks had a number of large-scale plans and actions that died out by the 1930s and left the country broken. The French and their ideas of the republic and the new rights that were emerging from the revolution stayed and were not quickly replaced by something new. TheEnlightenment ideals that spawned the revolution have remained and even impact the world today, especially in terms of individual rights. While they ignored women for the most part, the French were more radical in terms of long-lasting ideological reformation of their country. While Russia went strong in the few years following the Bolshevik takeover, these changes were perhaps too quickly instituted and without the solid foundations necessary for truly effective, long-lasting change.

Other essays and articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :   War and the Downfall of the Monarchies in France and Russia   •  The Historical and Societal Functions of World Revolutions  •   A Comparison of the French Revolution and American Revolution   •    France’s Pre-revolutionary Financial Crisis: The Lead-up to the French Revolution    •  Summary and Analysis of Das Kapital by Karl Marx

In addition, the very ideology behind monarchies before the French Revolution almost seemed to assist in the ruin of the economy since with the concept of divine right to rule, many rulers took the throne and saw little problem with spending vast amounts of resources on personal pleasure, grand palaces, and other examples of excess. Furthermore, being despots, these rulers (most notably the Sun King) did not have a group of legislators or advisors that had any real power and thus the finances of France were left to the decisions of the monarchs and nobility. In the wake of the Thirty Years’ War the economic crisis in France was reaching new heights. Population growth was slowing down, less goods were being produced and as a result, recession occurred. Furthermore, agricultural yields were also declining while taxes were growing steadily higher.

Along with massive unchecked spending on the part of the monarchs themselves before the French Revolution, there were a number of other issues that had a dramatic impact on the French financial situation. For one thing, the national debt was quite large in the years before the French Revolution. In addition to the fact that there were several bad decisions made by officials and advisors as they tried to improve the financial situation after the Seven Years’ War and the American Revolution, both of which almost decimated the treasury because of the size of the armies required. Besides the costs of the wars, King Louis XVI built a giant palace called Versailles which was a testament to unchecked spending with vast amounts of gold decorating the interior. Estimates suggest that over 7 to 10 percent of the national treasury was spent on the palace. “By 1685, the effort engaged 36,000 workers, not including the thousands of troops who diverted a river to supply water for fountains and pools. Royal workshops produced tapestries, carpets, mirrors, and porcelains” The King (and those before him as well) also had large courts and there was a large amount of money spent on entertainment and courtly expenses.

          Aside from the debt issues plaguing France in the years prior to the French Revolution, there was also the issue of provincial corruption which had a devastating effect on the financial situation of the already floundering French economy. Throughout the succession of rulers during the Bourbon reign, corruption among minor and regional authorities was a rampant problem, especially considering that the tax system wrung money out of the peasantry (which was a majority of the French population under the monarchial system) and went into the hands of nobles rather than back into state funds. Like many other revolutions with similar motivations, these financial issues were at the forefront. Although the Sun King held the reins of power, he was very dependent on the nobles and advisors surrounding him. Prior to the French Revolution, these people had a great deal of economic power and influenced the financial problems that were to grow even worse before the eventual revolution. Being a very large country, it would have been completely impossible for Louis to run the country himself and as a result there were hundreds of small provinces, each of which was watched over by noble officials. These officials had the power to collect taxes, enforce the laws set forth, the ability to make loans and collect interest, for example and this led to corruption. Without organized oversight and along with the courtly lifestyle which stressed extravagance, funds that might have been made available to the state were sucked out of the treasury. This was a double-fold problem; first of all, it drained needed resources from the country and made a number of aristocrats very rich. Secondly, this did little to improve the opinion peasants had toward nobles and the common people, who saw themselves as well as their country in general growing poorer, were beginning to mobilize. This mobilization of the common people in France would lead to a large-scale revolution and overthrow eventually.

Between corruption, excessive spending, depletion of the treasury after two large and expensive wars, it became clear that something had to be done before France was completely broke and before the people would (and did) engage in the French Revolution. In response to the mounting crisis and all-to-clear lead up to the French Revolution, Louis XIV appointed Charles de Calonne as the controller general of the France’s finances. Calonne had a very difficult decision to make. On the one hand, he knew that raising and creating new taxes was the only way to save the economy but also was aware that if he attempted to get the money from nobles or peasants, there would be a huge backlash either way. Seeing the possibility of a French Revolution, he also tried to obtain loans from banks throughout Western Europe but by the time this occurred, it was well known that France was in an economic freefall. To make matters more complex, Calonne found that the very system the economy was based on was flawed and open to corruption by even the most minor accountants. With such a grim situation, all that could be done was the institution of more and far higher taxes on the already poor peasantry.

In order to institute the changes prior to the French Revolution, Calonne organized a conference so that he could announce the dire financial state of France to the assembly. This gathering was called the Assembly of Notables and these “notables” were all people of the nobility who did not want to have to pay taxes themselves (especially since they had all enjoyed tax-exempt status simply because their titles). During this meeting Calonne told these nobles that either they would have to agree to much higher taxes on the peasantry or else they would have to give up their status as non-taxpayers. The nobles had no desire to do either, especially since there was already growing turmoil among the peasantry, and the one chance France might have had at greater financial stability disappeared as Calonne was let go as the advisor. Without the release of Calonne, the French Revolution might not have taken place as he was advocating more sound policies and fiscal responsibility.

Other articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :   A Comparison and Analysis of the French Versus Russian Revolutions   •   War and the Downfall of the Monarchies in France and Russia   •  A Comparison of the French Revolution and American Revolution  •  The Historical and Societal Functions of World Revolutions

Sources

Sewell, Wailliam Hamilton. Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. 1980. p.68

Pinkey, David H. The French Revolution of 1830. Princeton University Press. 1972.

 Neal, Lary. 1991. A Tale of Two Revolutions: International Capital Flows 1789-1819. Bulletin of Economic Research 43, no. 1:57-92.

While there are several similarities in these revolutions, there are also a few key differences. This comparison essay on the French and American Revolutions seeks to explore the parallels as well as the divisions that are present in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The political climate in France during its revolution was quite different than that in America simply because there was not a large war that had just ended in America (while in France the Seven Years War had nearly devastated the French monarchy’s coffers). Furthermore, although the lower and middle classes were generally the majority of the rebelling populace, there was far more upper class support for the revolution in France versus the participation of loyalists in America.

One of the most important similarities between both the American Revolution and French Revolutions was that there was a growing dissent among the people aimed at the monarchy and its associated elite and aristocrats. Even though they were powerful in both France and America at the start of each revolution, their strangleholds on both the people and economies of each nation were weakening. For instance, “In 1763 Britain was on the very pinnacle of worldwide power and her old enemies were seemingly prostrate. At the same time, however, the nation was beset with political instability and was stumbling on the edge of bankruptcy” (Jensen 4). The reaction against the British monarchy in America only served to further weaken it and although it may have been strong in other parts of the world, the continued resistance exemplified by events such as the Boston Tea party and other revolutionary acts against the crown were taking their toll.

By the time the American Revolution was strong and the war was beginning, Britain’s defenses were already down since they had so quickly lost the vast amount of power they had gained in the pre-revolutionary years. In France and in the case of the French Revolution, it was much the same and although some of the reasons differed for the revolution, on the whole, it was a very similar attack against the monarchy. “In the eighteenth century, the French bourgeoisie had become aware of the increasing disparity between its wealth and social usefulness, on the one hand, and its social prestige and opportunities on the other. It way was blocked and recognition of its worth was denied by a decaying class of parasitic, hereditary privileged, noble landowners. Its vitality was further jeopardized by a monarchy not only committed to antiquated aristocratic values, but also incapable of giving the country that firm yet benignly restrained direction under which the initiative of men of business might flourish” (Lucas 84). Just as in America, it was the middle and lower classes involved in the revolution and although the loyalists in America had a sound following, the demographics of the revolution were essentially the same.

Another important similarity between the two revolutions in France and America was their emphasis on Enlightenment thought. The Enlightenment, which started in France and is associated with writers such as Rousseau and Voltaire, caused those under the thumb of monarchies to begin to recognize the inequality inherent in such systems. People of all classes, especially the middle and lower classes, began to use these ideas to formulate an ideology of resistance and insist on the implementation of new measures that would guarantee the natural rights of all citizens. These ideas shaped the American Revolution and the success of it went on to also inspire the French as well. In France, “the war was an ideological war, but anyone who tried to see it as a straight clash between Revolution and counter-revolution would soon become confused. Partisans of the Revolution differed violently with each other, as did their opponents.

To different parties, the French Revolution might refer to specific events, like the capture of the Bastille, or to a vast personified force, or to an abstract cause for which the French or others might be fighting. It could mean taking titles away from dukes, giving bread to the poor, or mean the teachings of Jesus or Voltaire” (Palmer 10). This statement would also apply to America during its revolutionary period and acts of rebellion could be anything such as boycotting goods from Britain to violently attacking loyalist and British enterprises. The final result was that there “originated in the emergence of a new discourse on politics which grew up in opposition to the traditional ideology and practices of the old monarchy” (Sutherland 259) in both countries as Enlightenment ideals were put into practice . In the end, “the prime fruit of independence was the national republic, resting its claim to resolve the old problem of American legitimacy on several bases. One was the charisma of General Washington, embodying as he did the states had fought the war together. Another was the half-realized myth of an ultimate popular sovereignty, superior to both the republic and the separate states” (Countryman 283).

Like in the case of the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the years leading up to it saw increasing dissatisfaction with the absolute monarchy, especially in terms of his unwillingness to bring in a meaningful parliament or engage with demands of the citizens. On top of this, the Seven Years War had increased taxes by a huge margin and no one—not even those in the upper echelons saw the potential for personal yield. The nobility was becoming a useless old structure and the boredom of many of these idle aristocrats led to planning action. “In its French setting, then, the idea of “revolution” was inseparable from the condemnation of the past, which sharpened the will to exclude or eliminate those corrupt beneficiaries of the old order, the aristocrats” (Furet 65). What was perhaps most striking about the French Revolution was that it wasn’t merely a work’s revolt or a peasant’s rebellion—it was a wide-scale assault on the monarchy and the old values that were now stagnating in a world that was opening to industrialization. The difference between France and America was that in America there was not a period of protracted wars outside of the country going on that would weaken the economy and necessitate the need for additional funds. Even though there were battles in America with the Indians, mostly in the pursuit of land, these did not match the scope and cost of the Seven Years War that had driven the French nearly to bankruptcy. On the other hand, the British, the opponent to the Americans, were weakened because of outside (mostly colonial and land-grabbing) wars. The people in America were less impoverished than their French counterparts although the British government was coming close to breaking the bank through massive taxation.

There was also a difference in class participation in the Revolutions in America in France. In America, there were still a strong number of loyalists because they benefited from the great amount of favor they received from the British government. In France, however, even the nobles and aristocrats were angry at the monarchy because they were given less and less power. Although they still had money and a fair amount of control over local politics, they were almost figureheads instead of people with actual power. They saw that the king was limiting their role in government and they were part of the resistance effort as well. This is not to say that all of the nobility took part in reaction against the monarchy but the numbers of French aristocrats that were rebelling was significant. Still, the similarity of the rest of the population sponsoring the revolts was strong in both France an America.

From the top levels all the way to the lowest of laborers, everyone in France had a reason to want to prompt great change. The nobility wanted a greater stake in the future of the country, the middle classes wanted better representation and lower taxes, and the poor wanted to be able to earn a living and not be forced to give up well over half their earnings to a king they’d never seen for a war they’d never benefit from. While it seems that a majority of the focus of the French Revolution is on the plight and revolt of the working poor, the fact remains that this was a rebellion that was so effective because of this widespread support. Although there were certainly royalists among the rebellious French, their interests in crushing the revolt were equally self-centered. If they were lucky enough to enjoy a spot of favor with Louis XIV, certainly the lavish spoils that the monarch himself enjoyed were to be shared. With such nepotism, the introduction of an elected or mixed-class parliament would obliterate their security. Still, the ideas of theEnlightenment had gradually tricked down and soon enough, they may have had an influence on the agricultural poor. “Whether sentimentalist ideas had been widely enough disseminated to influence thelaboring poor in cities and in fields is an open question. There are indications that the topic of sentimentalism were familiar far down the social ladder” (Reddy 109).

In sum, these revolutions had more in common than it might appear despite the slight difference in time period and national histories. They were both reactions against an oppressive monarchy that taxed heavily and attempted to control its subject and they both reacted in part because of Enlightenment ideals. While there were different circumstances that effected the governments being rebelled against and there were different demographics of supporters, these revolutions had similar aims and achieved the similar result of a new republic and constitution as the final outcome.

Other articles in the History Archives related to this topic include : France’s Pre-revolutionary Financial Crisis: The Lead-up to the French Revolution   •   A Comparison and Analysis of the French Versus Russian Revolutions   •   War and the Downfall of the Monarchies in France and Russia   •  The Historical and Societal Functions of World Revolutions  •  The Influence of the Enlightenment on The Formation of the United States

References

Countryman, Edmund. People I Revolution and Political Society in New York 1760-1790 W.W. Norton, New York 1989.

Furet, F. “Democracy and Utopia.” Journal of Democracy. 9.1 (1998): 65

Lucas. “Nobles, Bourgeois and the Origins of the French Revolution.” Past & Present no. 60 (1973): 84

Jensen, Merrill. The founding of a nation: A history of the American Revolution Oxford University Press, 1968

Palmer, R.R.. The age of democratic revolution: A political history of Europe and America, 1760-1800Princeton University Press, 1959.

Reddy, William .. Sentimentalism and Its Erasure: The Role of Emotions in the Era of the French Revolution. The Journal of Modern History 72.1 (2000): 109

Sutherland. “Introduction.” French Historical Studies 16.2 (1989): 259