Historians have disagreed about the significance of the war in the failure of the
constitutional monarchy in France in the years 1789-1792.
What is your view about the significance of the war in the failure of the constitutional
monarchy?
a. Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ
b. Explain the differences you have identified
c. Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and explaining your
judgements
The failure of the constitutional monarchy in 1792 marked the beginning of the French
Republic and initiated the spread of liberal ideas throughout Europe. Historians have a wide
range of interpretations as to the reasons for its failure. Vovelle argues that the countryside
crowd had particular significance as they represented much of the unrest in France with
rioting creating further economic problems which would exacerbate other factors in Paris.
However, others like Caiani, argue that it was Louis’ stubbornness to prevent change to the
rituals of the court and evolve them into the new constitutional monarchy which caused it
to collapse. This analysis was based largely on political factors such as the struggle between
the king and the National Assembly over sovereignty of power and the character of Louis
himself. However, it does not take into account the external factors of the influences of
foreign monarchs and war. This is an area of interpretation that I wanted to explore with my
core works of Furet, Rudé and Hardman each placing varying emphasis on the importance of
war. Rudé sees war as the main turning point which doomed the monarchy to fail. Furet
sees war as the very reason for accelerating the monarchy’s failure whereas Hardman
argues that war was the final nail in the coffin for the constitutional monarchy.
Rudé argued that had France remained peaceful ‘the revolution might have stopped its
course or, at least, not been carried far beyond the settlement of 1791’ (Rudé, p. 73). This
1
, suggests that the main turning point in the revolution that caused the end of the monarchy
was war because it was the only influence which kept the revolution going significantly
beyond the 1791 Constitution which still kept Louis as King of the French. This is in stark
contrast to Furet who argues that war was more of a catalyst. He disputes that it was the
main turning point by saying ‘between 1787 and the autumn of 1791 the unprecedented
fluctuations of the French upheaval were due entirely to internal reasons’ (Furet, p. 95). He
therefore puts no significance on the effects of a potential war during this period even
though thousands of emigrés had left France since 1789, fuelling fears they would return
with a foreign army. Furthermore, he argues that ‘it was the tension between the idea of
democracy and the extent of inequality retained by the Constituent Assembly in the new
body politic which formed the mainspring of the revolution’ (Furet, p. 99) clearly showing
the differing revolutionary ideals were the reason the constitutional monarchy could not last
and not war, disagreeing with Rudé. However, he does argue that war was a catalyst for the
revolution in ‘war with Europe would constitute the new form and intensification of the
revolutionary explosion’ (Furet, p. 102) revealing how he thinks that the intensification in
the revolution, mainly coming through the increased activity of the Parisian crowd and
clubs, was driven by war. Hardman disagrees however, arguing ‘war with Austria would
destroy the fragile basis of the constitutional monarchy’ (Hardman, p. 410) showing how he
doesn’t attribute war with being the turning point or damaging the monarchy as it was
already ‘fragile’ but was hugely significant in finishing it off. This is furthered by Hardman
arguing the main turning point for the failure of the monarchy was the inability to reform
the 1791 Constitution by emphasising that it put Louis in an impossible position that would
result in the monarchy’s downfall, as seen in ‘the only alternative to acceptance was
abdication’ (Hardman, p. 400). Hardman gives more sympathy to Louis’ situation by saying
‘All Louis’s opponents who came into close contact with him…ended up appreciating his
predicament’ (Hardman, p. 405) emphasising the seriousness of the circumstances which
the constitution put Louis in as even his enemies understood he had no room to manoeuvre.
This shows how Hardman believes it was not war which doomed the monarchy to fail but
rather failure to reform the Constitution, thus heavily disagreeing with Rudé.
2
constitutional monarchy in France in the years 1789-1792.
What is your view about the significance of the war in the failure of the constitutional
monarchy?
a. Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ
b. Explain the differences you have identified
c. Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and explaining your
judgements
The failure of the constitutional monarchy in 1792 marked the beginning of the French
Republic and initiated the spread of liberal ideas throughout Europe. Historians have a wide
range of interpretations as to the reasons for its failure. Vovelle argues that the countryside
crowd had particular significance as they represented much of the unrest in France with
rioting creating further economic problems which would exacerbate other factors in Paris.
However, others like Caiani, argue that it was Louis’ stubbornness to prevent change to the
rituals of the court and evolve them into the new constitutional monarchy which caused it
to collapse. This analysis was based largely on political factors such as the struggle between
the king and the National Assembly over sovereignty of power and the character of Louis
himself. However, it does not take into account the external factors of the influences of
foreign monarchs and war. This is an area of interpretation that I wanted to explore with my
core works of Furet, Rudé and Hardman each placing varying emphasis on the importance of
war. Rudé sees war as the main turning point which doomed the monarchy to fail. Furet
sees war as the very reason for accelerating the monarchy’s failure whereas Hardman
argues that war was the final nail in the coffin for the constitutional monarchy.
Rudé argued that had France remained peaceful ‘the revolution might have stopped its
course or, at least, not been carried far beyond the settlement of 1791’ (Rudé, p. 73). This
1
, suggests that the main turning point in the revolution that caused the end of the monarchy
was war because it was the only influence which kept the revolution going significantly
beyond the 1791 Constitution which still kept Louis as King of the French. This is in stark
contrast to Furet who argues that war was more of a catalyst. He disputes that it was the
main turning point by saying ‘between 1787 and the autumn of 1791 the unprecedented
fluctuations of the French upheaval were due entirely to internal reasons’ (Furet, p. 95). He
therefore puts no significance on the effects of a potential war during this period even
though thousands of emigrés had left France since 1789, fuelling fears they would return
with a foreign army. Furthermore, he argues that ‘it was the tension between the idea of
democracy and the extent of inequality retained by the Constituent Assembly in the new
body politic which formed the mainspring of the revolution’ (Furet, p. 99) clearly showing
the differing revolutionary ideals were the reason the constitutional monarchy could not last
and not war, disagreeing with Rudé. However, he does argue that war was a catalyst for the
revolution in ‘war with Europe would constitute the new form and intensification of the
revolutionary explosion’ (Furet, p. 102) revealing how he thinks that the intensification in
the revolution, mainly coming through the increased activity of the Parisian crowd and
clubs, was driven by war. Hardman disagrees however, arguing ‘war with Austria would
destroy the fragile basis of the constitutional monarchy’ (Hardman, p. 410) showing how he
doesn’t attribute war with being the turning point or damaging the monarchy as it was
already ‘fragile’ but was hugely significant in finishing it off. This is furthered by Hardman
arguing the main turning point for the failure of the monarchy was the inability to reform
the 1791 Constitution by emphasising that it put Louis in an impossible position that would
result in the monarchy’s downfall, as seen in ‘the only alternative to acceptance was
abdication’ (Hardman, p. 400). Hardman gives more sympathy to Louis’ situation by saying
‘All Louis’s opponents who came into close contact with him…ended up appreciating his
predicament’ (Hardman, p. 405) emphasising the seriousness of the circumstances which
the constitution put Louis in as even his enemies understood he had no room to manoeuvre.
This shows how Hardman believes it was not war which doomed the monarchy to fail but
rather failure to reform the Constitution, thus heavily disagreeing with Rudé.
2
