Explain why France was in turmoil by 1789? (8/10)
The failure of the reform process led to turmoil in 1789. Due to the practice of venality and
tax farming, tax revenue never actually reached the treasury. The financial crisis was mainly
present due to the expensive wars France took part in for 20 years: the 7 years War and the
American War of Independence (AWI). The AWI alone cost 1066 livres. Financial ministers
such as Necker were unable to raise loans due to the lack of confidence in the Crown since
there was no elected Parliament to guarantee loans. The financial situation was made worse
when Necker misreported figures. The King also had a role in this. He failed to provide the
support his reforming ministers needed, dismissing them when the nobles, whose support he
needed, disliked the reforms. This was seen from the start when Turgot proposed to abolish
the guilds and corvee. This indecisiveness and lack of assertiveness led to the paralysis of
government that contributed to the chaos of 1789. The King himself faced turmoil when his
authority was reduced by the calling of the Assembly of Notables and later the EG to
approve the reforms.
The ancien regime also caused a lot of problems for France. The divisions within society
built tensions. The 3rd Estate, who bore the burden of taxation, loathed the privileges of the
first two estates. They resented the Church for tithes and don gratuit, which was ¼ of the
income they were earning as the largest single landowner in France. They also felt the 2nd
Estate had unfair privileges, as well as demanding feudal dues from the peasants. The
bourgeois resented that they, though paying the most amount of taxes, still had no role in the
government. This resentment and dissatisfaction was encouraged by the Enlightenment,
who questioned the ideas the ancien regime was based on, such as the position of the
Church and the role of the King as God’s servant, influencing revolutionaries. This
contributed to the disorder and agitation present in 1789 leading to the Revolution.
Furthermore, an economic crisis prompted ordinary people to take action. The series of bad
harvests led to the increase of wheat prices, pushing up bread prices until a worker spent
88% of his income on bread, compared to the previous 50%. Other industries, e.g. textile,
also suffered, leading to unemployment. These food shortages led to attacks on grain stores
and the blame being put on the nobility for hoarding grain. These riots contributed to the
turmoil of 1789 and the need for change by the politicisation of the 3rd Estate as a result of
the inability to put food on the table, combined with the influences of the Enlightenment.
In conclusion, one of the most important reasons contributing to France’s turmoil was the
financial crisis as a result of wars and the special privileges of the 1st & 2nd Estates.
Perhaps if all Estates paid taxes the debt could have been controlled and there wouldn’t
have been a need for reforms in the first place. The King as a weak figure unable to
recognise the large need for change was significant as well, as change might have been
brought about sooner, preventing the situation from escalating.
The failure of the reform process led to turmoil in 1789. Due to the practice of venality and
tax farming, tax revenue never actually reached the treasury. The financial crisis was mainly
present due to the expensive wars France took part in for 20 years: the 7 years War and the
American War of Independence (AWI). The AWI alone cost 1066 livres. Financial ministers
such as Necker were unable to raise loans due to the lack of confidence in the Crown since
there was no elected Parliament to guarantee loans. The financial situation was made worse
when Necker misreported figures. The King also had a role in this. He failed to provide the
support his reforming ministers needed, dismissing them when the nobles, whose support he
needed, disliked the reforms. This was seen from the start when Turgot proposed to abolish
the guilds and corvee. This indecisiveness and lack of assertiveness led to the paralysis of
government that contributed to the chaos of 1789. The King himself faced turmoil when his
authority was reduced by the calling of the Assembly of Notables and later the EG to
approve the reforms.
The ancien regime also caused a lot of problems for France. The divisions within society
built tensions. The 3rd Estate, who bore the burden of taxation, loathed the privileges of the
first two estates. They resented the Church for tithes and don gratuit, which was ¼ of the
income they were earning as the largest single landowner in France. They also felt the 2nd
Estate had unfair privileges, as well as demanding feudal dues from the peasants. The
bourgeois resented that they, though paying the most amount of taxes, still had no role in the
government. This resentment and dissatisfaction was encouraged by the Enlightenment,
who questioned the ideas the ancien regime was based on, such as the position of the
Church and the role of the King as God’s servant, influencing revolutionaries. This
contributed to the disorder and agitation present in 1789 leading to the Revolution.
Furthermore, an economic crisis prompted ordinary people to take action. The series of bad
harvests led to the increase of wheat prices, pushing up bread prices until a worker spent
88% of his income on bread, compared to the previous 50%. Other industries, e.g. textile,
also suffered, leading to unemployment. These food shortages led to attacks on grain stores
and the blame being put on the nobility for hoarding grain. These riots contributed to the
turmoil of 1789 and the need for change by the politicisation of the 3rd Estate as a result of
the inability to put food on the table, combined with the influences of the Enlightenment.
In conclusion, one of the most important reasons contributing to France’s turmoil was the
financial crisis as a result of wars and the special privileges of the 1st & 2nd Estates.
Perhaps if all Estates paid taxes the debt could have been controlled and there wouldn’t
have been a need for reforms in the first place. The King as a weak figure unable to
recognise the large need for change was significant as well, as change might have been
brought about sooner, preventing the situation from escalating.
