Final Draft History CW

8/2/2019 Final Draft History CW

1/12


2/12

Was Brissot the main cause of the outbreak of the Revolutionary Warsin Europe in 1792?

Brissot can be argued to be the main cause of the outbreak of war in

1792; however there were other factors of equal and more importance whichcontributed to the outbreak, explored by Traditionalist, Marxist and Revisionisthistorians. The view that Brissot was of great importance in the outbreak ofwar is maintained by Revisionist historians such as Blanning, who deemsBrissots persuasive oral skills and his personal desire for war as a strongcause. Other Revisionist historians such as Von Sybel reinforce that withoutBrissots intervention peace would have remained throughout Europe but itwas not the sole cause of war. A contrasting view is that ideologicaldifferences between France and other European countries as a result ofFrances revolutionary legislation such as the Declaration of Rights of Manand the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, threatened European systems and

so incited war. This is known as the Traditionalist view, and is taken on byA.J.P Taylor and Hauser, who state that the war had ideological andlegislative origins and was not necessarily for physical gain or prestige.Although this is disputed by Rud, who views the Flight to Varennes by theRoyal Family as an important catalyst for war as the French viewed it asconfirmation of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinettes treason, which led toAustrian and Prussian intervention to save the monarchy and the monarchslives. By extension, Herman believes Austria and Prussia had much to gainfrom a successful war with France, such as territory previously lost andupholding Leopolds anti-revolutionary beliefs, so war was in fact inevitable by1792. A further factor for consideration is the domestic, both political andeconomic, problems that faced contemporary France. Her split between therevolutionaries and the anti-revolutionaries as well as the factions within them,combined with the national debt of nearly eight million livres is credited byMichon to be a cause of war in order to distract the French people andEuropean powers from the vulnerability and the crumbling power of France.Soboul builds upon this and believes that Brissot was to blame, manipulatingthe situation in France to suggest that war would re-establish the credit of thefailing assignats and would not only improve the economy and securecontracts with the army but a successful war would improve the morale of theFrench people and with faith being restored in the new Assembly would

create a secure and unified France; thus forming the Marxist point of view.To a certain extent the new and reformist ideologies of France by 1792,seen by the Traditionalist school of thought, certainly challenges that Brissotwas a cause of the outbreak of war, and suggests that war was inevitable withor without Brissot and his manipulation of ideology. The Revolution in Francein 1789 swept away the Ancin Regime and thus an entire social structureafter the formation of the National Assembly on June 17th; and decrees suchas The August Decrees, The Civil Constitution of the Clergy and TheDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were enforced. This newera had wider reaching consequences than purely in France, with manyEuropean nations worried that the Revolution would set a precedent to follow,

leading to the loss of privilege and an antagonised aristocracy throughoutEurope. However these historians as a collective were writing immediately

- 2 -


3/12

after the events of the French Revolution and so they themselves were livingin a time of huge change which took great influence in their writing. This biasin experiencing such events, and the ramifications of them led to the popularopinion of the time: to blame ideology and the revolution itself as a cause ofthe war.

This original documentation, taken from The Decree Abolishing the FeudalSystem on August 11th 1789:

is an example of the legislation decreed and is highly useful in demonstratinghow obvious and immediate the changes in France were, with taxationchange to come in immediate effect when the legislation was published, andso would understandably initially be met with some hostility and refusal ofacceptation. Its high reliability from being an official document onlystrengthens its usefulness as it is free from any bias or personal views and yetaccurately demonstrates what the French people were expected to accept.

Furthermore the source suggests how legislation such as this wouldhave had a substantial effect on all the people of France, with the taxation

now equal and applicable to all due to privileges being revoked; although thereaction of the different Estates would not be similar due to the contrast of the

- 3 -


4/12

Third Estates gain in equality and the First and Seconds loss of privilege.However it lacks true insight to the position of people in France to therevolution and change in ideology, only alluding to them, so assumptions notfact can be made thus reducing its usefulness in understanding the true causeof the war in 1792. Also, the effect of the legislation on other countries who

still followed the Ancien Regime and the aristocracy who felt threat threatenedby the potential loss of privilege as a result is not stated. This fear of potentialloss of privileges was intensified after events in 1792 such as the Flight toVarennes, which after the Kings failed attempt to flee France with the Royalfamily, led to greater loss of faith in the King and greater calling for a Republicopposed to a Constitutional monarchy. The prospect of a Republic threatenedthe standing of European monarchs such as the Holy Roman EmperorLeopold II, Frederick William II of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia,which inspired the construction of documents such as The Padua Circular andThe Declaration of Pillnitz, known as the period of counter-revolution.Although its official nature and lack of opinion allow for unbiased factual

information which when combined with further primary sources can in factprovide a full and informed opinion on the cause of the Revolutionary Wars.

However, these changes were not taken lightly in France, with the ThirdEstate grateful for the abolishment of the Tithes and other taxes but felt thechanges did not go far enough. Whilst in comparison King Louis XVI refusedto give his consent initially as he did not want to lose his own privileges butwas also aware of his support from the First and Second Estate was crucial,and they did not wish to lose their privileges and power. As a result of this,stated here by T. W. Blanning explaining Rankes view:

The source is clearly illustrating here how in France prior to 1792 that therewas a lack of civilian cohesion to the idea of revolution, and despite the

August Decrees and Civil Constitution if the Clergy among other decreespassed, which were not received entirely well in France nor in other rivalcountries. There was a clear divide between those who were benefiting fromthe decrees, largely the Third Estate who no longer had to bear the majority oftaxation and had the right to fair trial and humane punishment; and those whobenefited from the Ancin Regime, the First and Second Estates. However,the more privileged orders lacked numbers and now, the legality to confrontand control the revolution after the constitutional crisis, with a counter-revolution, supported by countries such as Austria where allies and those whosupported the Ancin Regime resided. This presentation of the cause of thewars is fairly reliable due to the reputation of a renowned historian such as

Ranke, whos viewpoint has been concluded from in depth research, althoughas Traditionalist historian, his work may be subject to confirmation bias with

- 4 -

The war was a clash, not so much between states as between principles: between themonarchical conservatism of the old regime and Republican Liberalism of the

Revolution.

T.W.C Blanning, academic historian, on Ranke, in Origins of the FrenchRevolutionary Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_II_of_Prussiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_II_of_Prussia


5/12


6/12

Conversely, another school of thought used to explain the causes ofthe war in 1792 is the Marxist. This view takes its name and the foundationsof its beliefs from the teachings of Karl Marx; it was a popular movementamong many historians writing during the 1960s as a result of the Cold Warand the on-going war between Communism and Capitalism in Europe. This

school of thought takes on the interpretation that Brissot and his supportingBrissotins were the cause of the war, choosing to incite war for capitalistreasons: for self-gain and to raise money for France. This secondary source,written in 1988 in the midst of the Cold War explains that Brissot and theGirondins saw war as inevitable not an option, serving a multitude offunctions.

They faced little challenges to their plans for war due to his favourableand influential role as, as well as his well-chosen ploy of masking his ownpersonal avocation for war with the idea increasing the value of the assignats,

a widespread economical problem in France at the time. With no surprise thisroused enthusiasm, and so historians such as Soboul see that despite theGirondins power hungry nature driving the want for war, it is the idea of abetter financial situation and prospect of increased bourgeoisie status as aresult suggesting Capitalism and its downfalls as the true cause of the war.However, the time the source was written must be taken into account whenevaluating its accuracy in explaining the war and the causes of it. Soboulwriting in the 1980s would have strongly been influenced by the Marxistmovement and so may not be giving a full account of Brissots reasons norother reasons for war, concentrating on the struggles of middle classdominance over the upper class.

However, as a recognised historian he would have read and analysedmany other sources, both primary explaining contemporary opinions on thecause of the war and secondary, enabled like his own, with the ability ofhindsight. Soboul however may have chosen to fit his own Marxist theory to fitthis particular era of history, which is evident in his later comments on theappeal specifically to the bourgeoisie, for army supply contracts, thus servinga personal interest. This further suggests that although the war was fought asa whole against Europe, there was divided opinion among all for the reasonfor war both obviously and hidden.

For instance, the Brissotins support for war is clearly demonstrated inthis source:

- 6 -

The Girondins represented the interests of the rich commercial bourgeoisie. They

believed that the time has come to bring the revolution to a close, particularly in view

of the need to restore confidence in the assignats if business was to pick up again.

War, which the nobles wanted in order to bring about a national defeat and thusspark the counter-revolution had its appeal for the bourgeoisie too; army supplycontracts had always been a source of impressive profits.

An extract The Short History of the French Revolution 1789-1799, Albert Soboul


7/12

Additionally the source illustrates Brissots avocation for war as a means ofdefeating counter-revolutionaries, as an attack on privilege itself and onopposing European leaders. It also demonstrates Brissots talent formanipulation with his use of ideological change and equality, a popularopinion among the ordinary French people, as a reason and need for war.The changes in French society are suggested to be subject to the acceptanceby other nations, as without the revolution they were vulnerable to attack anddefeat and so needed a successful war to survive. Isnard further incites war,suggesting it is easily won due the reason for war being acceptable, and willbe seen even by their enemies to covert to. This source consequently hashigh validity in giving insight into the causes of the war, as it demonstratesaccurately the people encouraging war were and how they justified to thepeople of France its promotion. Moreover, being a primary source it is usefulas it clearly illustrates the forms of propaganda the French people weresubjected to and the reasons they were given for war at the time; thushighlighting the hidden agendas which their importance we know withhindsight. However as a primary source its integrity may be questionable dueto the source being likely bias with Isnard as a Brissotin being largelyinfluenced by Brissot and his opinions; therefore the entire speech may aconstruct of propaganda, illustrating one specific reason for Brissots support

for war, what the people want to believe, in order to gain support, let alone thetrue cause of the war itself and so reducing its usefulness. Isnard would havealso been most likely encapsulated by the Brissotins and so may be ignorantto the other causes of the war, thus reducing the source as a whole to highlyunreliable.

Further Marxists expand upon this view and see the war as not anopportunity to gain prestige and power, but as a means of keeping it.

- 7 -

Let us tell Europe that we shall respect all the constitutions of the various states; butthat if the cabinets of the foreign courts try to raise up against France a war of kings, we

shall raise up a war of the people against the kings (Applause). Let us tell them that

conflicts begin between peoples on the orders of despots resemble blows exchanged inthe dark by two friends set against each other by some evil intriguer; once day has

dawned, they throw away their weapons, embrace and then take revenge on him whodeceived them (Cheers and applause). In the same way, at the moment that the enemy

armies begin to fight with ours, the daylight of philosophy will open their eyes and the

peoples will embrace each other in the face of their dethroned tyrants and an approvingheaven and earth

Quote from a speech by the Brissotin Isnard, 1792.

T.C.W Blanning, academic historian, in Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars,

p 109 published 1986.


8/12

Michons statement here represents an example of this further view,addressing the opinion that war was more than personal gain for individualsthrough pride of winning, or of faith in the leadership of Brissot and theGirondins in a short and successful war; but that it would also act as adiversion from the social and economic problems that faced France at thetime. Despite innovative and more equal measures of taxation, seen inlegislation such as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, The Declaration of the

Rights of Man and of the Citizen and The August Decrees, each of whichbarred some form of privilege and provided freedom; they did not go farenough for the people of France to be truly happy nor did satisfy leaders suchas Brissot or the Girondins who wanted more. This is a view written with thebenefit of hindsight and further analysis of other texts and sources so can toan extent be a highly valuable source in the explanation for the cause of thewar in 1792.

Furthermore the King Louis XVIs initial refusal to accept the legislation,choosing to veto instead, caused more unrest within Paris and other areas ofFrance with many calling for a constitutional monarch originally, and the afterthe problems had increased in number and intensified, a Republic. The stateof finances in France were far from adequate at the time the war broke out in1792 either, the origin of the revolution itself suggested to be caused by theone to two thousand million livres national debt accumulated by 1789. Thisdebt was largely a result of inherited debt from King Louis XIV, however LouisXVI and Marie Antoinettes extravagant spending on a luxurious lifestyle,combined with poor harvests and involvement in multiple wars such as theSeven Years War and the American War of Independence, only worsened theproblem. The combination of the financial and social decline of Francetherefore can be seen to have inevitability ended in war not within France, butbetween France and other countries in order to bring together the people of

France, restore faith in her and as a distraction of the internal affairs. Thisbeing a fairly logical and rational conclusion to draw, suggests high validityfor the Michons work and that he in fact is able to see beyond the obviouscauses of the war such as ideology or Brissots influence, tracing it furtherback to underpin the underlying cause, increasingly the value of the source asa form of factual evidence. However, the contemporary nature of the time inwhich he was writing must be taken into account, with his writing at the time ofthe Marxism movement having a significant impact on way in which he mayview and then write about history, as well as influence from other historians ofthe time. As well as this, Michon does write in a neo-Jacobin tone as heviewed Brissot unfavourably so of course would be biased towards his sole

blame for the war, stating that the war was desired and provoked by theGirondins. This suggests that his work may be influenced by personal

- 8 -

There was no question of any threat from outside or of any aggression on the part of the

foreign powers. War was willed solely to act as a diversion from the social problemswhich were becoming more serious with every day that passed. For six months several

methods had been employed in an attempt to destroy the democratic party and not onehad succeeded; so this time the extreme remedy war was to be tried, for it would give

the government dictatorial powers and would allow it to eliminate its detested enemies.

For these groups the war was a grand manoeuvre of domestic politics.

An extract by George Michon,Essai sur lhistoire du parti Feulliant(Paris 1924) p 359.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen


9/12

antagonism towards the Girondins and Brissot and so not entirely trustworthynor notable.

The final interpretation of the cause of the European wars in 1792,taken upon more recently by modern historians known as the Revisionist viewwas developed by Alfred Cobban as a way to revive Marxism, and see the

war was caused as a collaboration of many events and factors opposed to asingle consolidating cause, such as Brissot. This recent school of thought areable with the hindsight and the work of other historians to review and improveupon, to provide a fuller more rounded account of the cause of war.

Rud acknowledges as a Revisionist, the importance of each individual factorin the cause of the war but also recognises their limits of influence, and soestablishes the idea that as a whole the different personalities of Brissot, theGirondins, Danton, Desmoulins, Marat and the Montagnards all played a partin the war, but inciting it for personal gain but he also suggests by not pushingagainst the idea of war or supporting Robespierre in his fight against it. Heseems to allude to the fact it is not always the active aggression of Brissotcalling for a war, until all of Europe is in flames but instead the passivemajority who merely went along with the idea if war. Furthermore he makesreference to the fact the true beginnings of the potential of war were not from1792 but earlier, when the abandonment of Robespierre and further powerwas given to the Assembly. Nevertheless, it is the people of France to whomhe sees to be at most to blame for the outbreak of war, with the workingclasses using the war as an opportunity, like so many others, to rise up andgain power. Thus, this view overlaps and lies parallel at times to the Marxist

school of thought, yet on a much less intense and wider scale. The true causefor war seems to have been lost among so many varied reasons and so Rudinfers that the war as an international conflict may not be as important as whatit represents, the apparent coming together of France as one united frontagainst its rivals, yet with underlying true incentive unclear. Rud, as aRevisionist can be highly trusted historian due to the nature of his approach tothe subject matter, choosing to read and improve upon prior ideas, buildingthem whilst avoiding their flaws but suggesting as a singular reason they donot work, yet as a part of whole do. Furthermore his work has high validity dueto his commenting directly upon individual avocations for war, yet alsoaddressing the effecting mass opinion and so lacks bias, and provides not

one but two views on the outbreak of war, thus being of great usefulness inattempting to establish the true cause of the war. This highlights the problem

- 9 -

As for the Brissot and those who came to be called the Girondins, it must be said that,although they were eloquent advocates of the war, they were not responsible alone or its

outbreak. In the Assembly the future Montagnards kept silent; the great opinion-makers,Danton, Desmoulins, and Marat, abandoned Robespierre as early as December.The fact

is that the international conflict was not only, nor even mainly, a bourgeois war. The king

wanted it as a last chance to reassert himself; the people seized upon it to give wider scopeto their liberating mission. They turned it into a war of liberation.

An extract taken from The French Revolution, George Rud, 1988


10/12

of the Marxist view, as they purely focus on Brissot and his supporters as acause, and so miss the obvious, that the majority of the French people werenot educated nor in these clubs nor did they ever dream of the opportunitiesBrissot would suggest war would achieve, thus not truly depicting the truecause of war as there must have been other underlying causes, for instance

social and economic problems.Additionally other Revisionists recognise the importance of individuals

other than Brissot in the cause of the war such as the army commandersLafayette and Dumouriez illustrated in this source:

Without the cooperation of Lafayette and Dumouriez and the support of thearmy, the Brissotins could never have waged war upon Austria and so theirdecision to condone war was of great importance in the cause of the war andit allowed it occur. The source illustrates that despite being for personal gainand privileges, the war was supported in order to end the Revolution whichdemonstrates the depth of hatred the anti-revolutionaries had for therevolution and support for the monarchy was still prevalent at the time, in spiteof events such as the Flight to Varennes. This is useful in understanding thatthe war was not always supported for the same reasons it was advocated, butthat revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries all supported the war, and sowas an inevitable climax to a number of different factors and so this takes the

sole blame of the war away from Brissot and so is highly valid in determiningthe cause or in fact, causes, of the war. Being a secondary Revisionistsource it is highly reliable, as would not only have been researched butpreviously constructed arguments for the cause of the war would have beentaken into account before coming to a conclusion. The importance of hindsightis also a factor in supporting the usefulness of the source as it means littlebias will have occurred, but also events of the time would have beenexamined and explained and so leading to a fuller and more accurate accountof the causes of the war, from more than one source or viewpoint.

After analysing various sources both contemporary and recent sourcesI am able to draw my own conclusion on the cause of the war in 1792, finding

myself supportive of the Revisionist school of thought and believe that therewas more than one overriding factor in the cause of the war; appreciating the

- 10 -

Army commanders such as Lafayette and Dumouriez also wanted war.

Lafayette, the first commander of the National Guard, had brought the King fromVersailles to Paris in the October Days and was responsible for the massacre of

the Champs de Mars. He had become disillusioned by the failure of theRevolution to produce political stability and wanted the authority of the King to

be strengthened. This could be done by waging a short, successful war againstAustria, which would also increase his prestige as a general. It would enable himto dictate his own terms to both the King and the Assembly.

The desire for war resulted in the cooperation of Lafayette and hisfollowers with the Brissotins, who also wanted war.

An extract from Gershoy, The Revolution and the Monarchy, 1789-92 p 57.8
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1/192-2044150-9152110/192-2044150-9152110?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Leo%20Gershoyhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1/192-2044150-9152110/192-2044150-9152110?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Leo%20Gershoy


11/12

historians view to recognise, criticise and build upon previous views on thecauses of the war in order to have the fullest understanding. The influencefrom individuals such as Brissots upon the French people or the ideologicaldifferences between France and its European rivals as a result of theEnlightenment movement and the legislation passed as a result I condone as

important, though a highly biased view due to the view being largely beingattributed to historians writing just after the events themselves and so may notentirely be a reliable nor full account. Moreover, I see the Marxist view ofpersonal gain and reestablishment of Frances economy to be a larger viewthat it was a collected influence of a collaboration of factors including theinfluence of other individuals such as Lafayette and Dumouriez, Prussia andAustrias own personal gain from war.

Word Count: 4, 079

- 11 -


12/12

Bibliography

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/abolfeud.html

Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars, T.W.C Blanning, on Ranke Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789-1989, Mark L. Haas.

The Short History of the French Revolution 1789-1799, Albert Soboul

Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars, T.C.W Blanning, p 109published 1986.

Essai sur lhistoire du parti Feulliant(Paris 1924), George Michon, p 359.

The French Revolution, George Rud, 1988

The Revolution and the Monarchy, 1789-92, Gershoyp 57.8

- 12 -
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/abolfeud.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1/192-2044150-9152110/192-2044150-9152110?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Leo%20Gershoyhttp://history.hanover.edu/texts/abolfeud.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1/192-2044150-9152110/192-2044150-9152110?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=Leo%20Gershoy

Final Draft History CW

Documents

Transcript of Final Draft History CW