This is very interesting! Popular perceptions of the French Revolution and reality have a vast gulf between them.
Monarchy as a form of government is not inherently centralized or not. It can be extremely decentralized, as under high feudalism in the 11th century in France - where lords were de facto independent and some even banned the king from traveling through their fiefs. Or it can be extremely centralized, as the Bourbon monarchy after the restoration in 1814 was, because obviously it did not dismantle the increased power that the Revolution bequeathed it.
The ancien regime did not fall because it was too strong, or too centralized, but because it was too weak. It could not force the nobles to give up their tax exempt status (which is what led to the summoning of the Estates General in 1789), as they shouted tyranny whenever the monarchy tried to reform (see the Maupoue coup), and it had to respect a patchwork of varying privileges and statuses by region. So it was unable to fully exploit the enormous resources in France.
The revolution swept all of that away. All local institutions, privileges and immunities were abolished. All local states were abolished, and France got its modern form with departements - which intentionally did not track regional lines as they wanted to destroy regional loyalties - which prefects appointed from Paris to implement the center's wishes. And considering the fact that they beheaded anyone who got in their way, they got their way. So that was very centralized.
If you are American, the best comparison would be if a given Congress illegally seized power from the executive, and then proceeded to abolish all states, state constitutions, state laws, and drew new, arbitrary lines, appointed officials for these areas and passed laws from Washington for all these areas.
I wouldn't say "trick', because the urban poor (the so called sans coulottes) and the peasants participated in at least parts of the revolution. (And the whole fact that we speak of 'a' Revolution is a bit of a misnomer, because it was a long period and some historians claim there were actually 4 separate revolutions.)
But the Third Estate that seized power in name of the 'nation' did consist of almost exclusively middle and upper class people - mostly officeholders, lawyers, magistrates. They also did some stuff that benefited the common people (land redistribution, abolition of guilds), but their methods were extremely centralized and quite tyrannical.
Wait, what? Centralizing tyrants?
Isn't a monarchy the definition of centralized power, and the revolution was ending that?
Or did you mean the ones revolting were centralizing tyrants?
This is very interesting! Popular perceptions of the French Revolution and reality have a vast gulf between them.
Monarchy as a form of government is not inherently centralized or not. It can be extremely decentralized, as under high feudalism in the 11th century in France - where lords were de facto independent and some even banned the king from traveling through their fiefs. Or it can be extremely centralized, as the Bourbon monarchy after the restoration in 1814 was, because obviously it did not dismantle the increased power that the Revolution bequeathed it.
The ancien regime did not fall because it was too strong, or too centralized, but because it was too weak. It could not force the nobles to give up their tax exempt status (which is what led to the summoning of the Estates General in 1789), as they shouted tyranny whenever the monarchy tried to reform (see the Maupoue coup), and it had to respect a patchwork of varying privileges and statuses by region. So it was unable to fully exploit the enormous resources in France.
The revolution swept all of that away. All local institutions, privileges and immunities were abolished. All local states were abolished, and France got its modern form with departements - which intentionally did not track regional lines as they wanted to destroy regional loyalties - which prefects appointed from Paris to implement the center's wishes. And considering the fact that they beheaded anyone who got in their way, they got their way. So that was very centralized.
If you are American, the best comparison would be if a given Congress illegally seized power from the executive, and then proceeded to abolish all states, state constitutions, state laws, and drew new, arbitrary lines, appointed officials for these areas and passed laws from Washington for all these areas.
I have no dog in that fight, but thank you for the info.
So the French Revolution was a rich man's trick?
I wouldn't say "trick', because the urban poor (the so called sans coulottes) and the peasants participated in at least parts of the revolution. (And the whole fact that we speak of 'a' Revolution is a bit of a misnomer, because it was a long period and some historians claim there were actually 4 separate revolutions.)
But the Third Estate that seized power in name of the 'nation' did consist of almost exclusively middle and upper class people - mostly officeholders, lawyers, magistrates. They also did some stuff that benefited the common people (land redistribution, abolition of guilds), but their methods were extremely centralized and quite tyrannical.
I was quoting the title of the documentary "Everything is a Rich Man's Trick," which is worth looking into.
But again, thank you.
Do you just know nothing about the French Revolution?
I haven't been in school in over 20 years. I'm not a history buff. I appreciate Antonio for filling me in.