What do you think?
Rate this book
The French Revolution: From Enlightenment to Tyranny
The French Revolution casts a long shadow, one that reaches into our own time and influences our debates on freedom, equality, and authority. Yet it remains an elusive, perplexing historical event. Its significance morphs according to the sympathies of the viewer, who may see it as a series of gory tableaux, a regrettable slide into uncontrolled anarchy—or a radical reshaping of the political landscape.
In this riveting new book, Ian Davidson provides a fresh look at this vital moment in European history. He reveals how it was an immensely complicated and multifaceted revolution, taking place in different places, at different times, and in different spheres; and how subsequently it became weighted with political, social, and moral values. Stirring and dramatic—and filled with the larger-than-life players of the period and evoking the turbulence of this colorful time—this is narrative history at its finest.
In this riveting new book, Ian Davidson provides a fresh look at this vital moment in European history. He reveals how it was an immensely complicated and multifaceted revolution, taking place in different places, at different times, and in different spheres; and how subsequently it became weighted with political, social, and moral values. Stirring and dramatic—and filled with the larger-than-life players of the period and evoking the turbulence of this colorful time—this is narrative history at its finest.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published July 14, 2016
244 people are currently reading
2924 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews
July 21, 2017
If Schama's Citizens is postgraduate level reading on the French Revolution, this would be approximately the equivalent of writing in crayon.
Davidson name checks Schama and Hibbert early on, sulking that their accounts of the French Revolution carry a tone of disapproval, which he feels is unjust. Yet Davidson never once engages with those accounts, which were infinitely more insightful, and written by men with far better understanding of the topic than him. Davidson invites a comparison between his book and those two, and the only judgment can be that those were worth reading, and his should never have gone to print.
Although Davidson continually asserts that his intention is to write an objective, balanced account of the French Revolution, his real aim is made apparent at the outset by his petulant snipe at Schama and Hibbert. Davidson believes that the Revolution was a catalyst for human progress, the genesis for recognizably modern concepts like democracy, secularism, rule of law, and rationality. This is not an objective account, but rather an attempt to rescue - but not rebut, for Davidson never engages with the theses of those he snipes at - the French Revolution from scholarly accounts that have exposed its fundamentally negative nature. The only use this book has is as an example of how someone's preconceived idea of what a historical event means can lead them to draw conclusions utterly at odds with the evidence before them.
One of Davidson's frequent absurdities is to suggest that the French Revolution brought about rule of law in Europe. This is of course nonsense, as the concept of rule of law was deeply entrenched in European political theory and practice. The Ancien Regime did a much better job of applying rule of law than the Revolutionaries ever managed; even the notorious lettres de cachet represented not a failure of rule of law, but a lack of due process. Davidson appears to confuse the modern ideals of justice, represented in trial by jury, due process, etc, as rule of law; this lack of comprehension is the whole problem with the book. Davidson has heard of various terms, like rule of law, but he doesn't quite understand them. He does admit "it was the Revolutionaries who progressively dismantled, piece by piece, their own system of the rule of law" but maintains nevertheless that somehow this descent into lawless tyranny contributed positively to human progress. Again, this is Davidson's problem: if he was truly engaged with and comprehended the concepts he is writing about, he would be able to see the French Revolution as a deviation from the rule of law.
In the same vein, Davidson repeatedly insists that the French Revolution was peaceful, not violent, even as he chronicles the brutality that infected it from the very beginning. He insists that the Tennis Court Oath is the real representative episode of the Revolution, not the Fall of the Bastille, and therefore the Revolution was peaceful and lawful (or at least orderly). Even accepting this, the Fall of the Bastille occurred less than a month later, and this episode of mob violence involved the murder of prisoners and of the mayor of Paris, and their heads were then proudly paraded around on pikes. This lawless mob violence afflicted the Revolution even past the Thermidorian Reaction that Davidson chooses to delineate its endpoint. Despite the frequent lynchings by lawless mobs, and the tens of thousands judicially murdered, Davidson maintains that the Revolution was inherently peaceful... somehow; he never even attempts to explain this wishful thinking.
In this, Davidson resembles a bit the events he's writing about. Davidson insists that the Revolution was rational, instituting scientific progress and sweeping away the Ancien Regime's superstition. This is, again, complete nonsense; the upper classes of the Ancien Regime participated in scientific endeavors, it didn't take a Revolution to foster scientific progress in France. But frequently one finds that the Revolutionaries were futilely legislating against reality. A typical instance is legislating a fixed exchange rate between paper currency and metal currency, while continuing to print paper currency. Other instances of madness included wage and price controls that worsened hunger and unemployment. And while the Revolutionaries mocked superstitious nuns seeing images of Christ in pieces of fish, the paranoid Revolutionary insistence that every misfortune, especially crop failures, were caused by counter-revolutionaries, is a far more outrageous departure from reason.
And so we reach Davidson's assertion that the Revolution was secular. Virtually the first act of the National Assembly was to require the Catholic clergy to swear an oath to the nation, promulgate its decrees from the pulpit, and forfeit Church property in exchange for a government paycheck. The Revolutionaries sought to co-opt the Catholic Church, and to transform it to serve the perceived needs of the Revolution; later it sought to establish its own Cult of the Supreme Being. Far from secularizing France, separating Church from State, it sought the exact opposite, to establish a national faith totally subordinated to the State. The brutal repression of the Church, both clergy and laity, is hardly a model for secularism. But secularism = good, national church = bad, French Revolution = good, therefore the French Revolution must have been secular. Again, Davidson's conclusions stem from his prejudices, evidence be damned. Davidson is at least honest enough not to pretend the Revolution didn't persecute Catholics, although he often seeks to justify it, and he does elide some major episodes of it.
In the appendices at the end of the book Davidson's ignorance and antipathy for Catholicism is laid bare when he ludicrously asserts that the reason the Revolution did not enact female suffrage was because of France's Catholic culture. This is his excuse for France's failure to enact female suffrage until 1944, and he goes on to say "in even more profoundly Catholic and therefore conservative European countries, it took even longer for women to gain the vote: Italy in 1946, Greece in 1952... Switzerland in 1971..." while claiming that Protestant countries enacted it sooner. A passage more damning of an author's own intellect could hardly be crafted by his enemies: Greece is, after all, Orthodox not Catholic, and Switzerland is majority Protestant not Catholic. Notably, arch-Catholic Ireland and Poland enacted female suffrage as soon as they gained independence in 1918; Catholic majority countries Belgium and Austria enacted it in 1919, Spain and Portugal in 1931 were comparatively laggardly; many of the Catholic Latin-American states enacted it sooner. Of the Protestant European states, Norway 1913, Denmark 1915, Netherlands 1917, Sweden 1921, and the UK 1928. There's no correlation here. Davidson's prejudice rides freely into absurdity.
It would be possible to list every single error of this kind Davidson makes, but the point has been labored already. This is pure propaganda, and poorly argued at that. Davidson would make for an inept high school teacher, it's a tragedy that any publisher trusted this crank enough to put his book into print.
Davidson name checks Schama and Hibbert early on, sulking that their accounts of the French Revolution carry a tone of disapproval, which he feels is unjust. Yet Davidson never once engages with those accounts, which were infinitely more insightful, and written by men with far better understanding of the topic than him. Davidson invites a comparison between his book and those two, and the only judgment can be that those were worth reading, and his should never have gone to print.
Although Davidson continually asserts that his intention is to write an objective, balanced account of the French Revolution, his real aim is made apparent at the outset by his petulant snipe at Schama and Hibbert. Davidson believes that the Revolution was a catalyst for human progress, the genesis for recognizably modern concepts like democracy, secularism, rule of law, and rationality. This is not an objective account, but rather an attempt to rescue - but not rebut, for Davidson never engages with the theses of those he snipes at - the French Revolution from scholarly accounts that have exposed its fundamentally negative nature. The only use this book has is as an example of how someone's preconceived idea of what a historical event means can lead them to draw conclusions utterly at odds with the evidence before them.
One of Davidson's frequent absurdities is to suggest that the French Revolution brought about rule of law in Europe. This is of course nonsense, as the concept of rule of law was deeply entrenched in European political theory and practice. The Ancien Regime did a much better job of applying rule of law than the Revolutionaries ever managed; even the notorious lettres de cachet represented not a failure of rule of law, but a lack of due process. Davidson appears to confuse the modern ideals of justice, represented in trial by jury, due process, etc, as rule of law; this lack of comprehension is the whole problem with the book. Davidson has heard of various terms, like rule of law, but he doesn't quite understand them. He does admit "it was the Revolutionaries who progressively dismantled, piece by piece, their own system of the rule of law" but maintains nevertheless that somehow this descent into lawless tyranny contributed positively to human progress. Again, this is Davidson's problem: if he was truly engaged with and comprehended the concepts he is writing about, he would be able to see the French Revolution as a deviation from the rule of law.
In the same vein, Davidson repeatedly insists that the French Revolution was peaceful, not violent, even as he chronicles the brutality that infected it from the very beginning. He insists that the Tennis Court Oath is the real representative episode of the Revolution, not the Fall of the Bastille, and therefore the Revolution was peaceful and lawful (or at least orderly). Even accepting this, the Fall of the Bastille occurred less than a month later, and this episode of mob violence involved the murder of prisoners and of the mayor of Paris, and their heads were then proudly paraded around on pikes. This lawless mob violence afflicted the Revolution even past the Thermidorian Reaction that Davidson chooses to delineate its endpoint. Despite the frequent lynchings by lawless mobs, and the tens of thousands judicially murdered, Davidson maintains that the Revolution was inherently peaceful... somehow; he never even attempts to explain this wishful thinking.
In this, Davidson resembles a bit the events he's writing about. Davidson insists that the Revolution was rational, instituting scientific progress and sweeping away the Ancien Regime's superstition. This is, again, complete nonsense; the upper classes of the Ancien Regime participated in scientific endeavors, it didn't take a Revolution to foster scientific progress in France. But frequently one finds that the Revolutionaries were futilely legislating against reality. A typical instance is legislating a fixed exchange rate between paper currency and metal currency, while continuing to print paper currency. Other instances of madness included wage and price controls that worsened hunger and unemployment. And while the Revolutionaries mocked superstitious nuns seeing images of Christ in pieces of fish, the paranoid Revolutionary insistence that every misfortune, especially crop failures, were caused by counter-revolutionaries, is a far more outrageous departure from reason.
And so we reach Davidson's assertion that the Revolution was secular. Virtually the first act of the National Assembly was to require the Catholic clergy to swear an oath to the nation, promulgate its decrees from the pulpit, and forfeit Church property in exchange for a government paycheck. The Revolutionaries sought to co-opt the Catholic Church, and to transform it to serve the perceived needs of the Revolution; later it sought to establish its own Cult of the Supreme Being. Far from secularizing France, separating Church from State, it sought the exact opposite, to establish a national faith totally subordinated to the State. The brutal repression of the Church, both clergy and laity, is hardly a model for secularism. But secularism = good, national church = bad, French Revolution = good, therefore the French Revolution must have been secular. Again, Davidson's conclusions stem from his prejudices, evidence be damned. Davidson is at least honest enough not to pretend the Revolution didn't persecute Catholics, although he often seeks to justify it, and he does elide some major episodes of it.
In the appendices at the end of the book Davidson's ignorance and antipathy for Catholicism is laid bare when he ludicrously asserts that the reason the Revolution did not enact female suffrage was because of France's Catholic culture. This is his excuse for France's failure to enact female suffrage until 1944, and he goes on to say "in even more profoundly Catholic and therefore conservative European countries, it took even longer for women to gain the vote: Italy in 1946, Greece in 1952... Switzerland in 1971..." while claiming that Protestant countries enacted it sooner. A passage more damning of an author's own intellect could hardly be crafted by his enemies: Greece is, after all, Orthodox not Catholic, and Switzerland is majority Protestant not Catholic. Notably, arch-Catholic Ireland and Poland enacted female suffrage as soon as they gained independence in 1918; Catholic majority countries Belgium and Austria enacted it in 1919, Spain and Portugal in 1931 were comparatively laggardly; many of the Catholic Latin-American states enacted it sooner. Of the Protestant European states, Norway 1913, Denmark 1915, Netherlands 1917, Sweden 1921, and the UK 1928. There's no correlation here. Davidson's prejudice rides freely into absurdity.
It would be possible to list every single error of this kind Davidson makes, but the point has been labored already. This is pure propaganda, and poorly argued at that. Davidson would make for an inept high school teacher, it's a tragedy that any publisher trusted this crank enough to put his book into print.
August 4, 2017
I found this book a few weeks ago at a local independent bookstore. I was looking for something new in the history line and this was about all I could find. I admit that my knowledge of the French Revolution is not very extensive so I thought this book might help the cause in more ways than one. It is a slim volume, only 252 pages of text, and a rather quick and easy read for such a complex subject. Now that I've finished the book I have to say that I think I now know more about the French Revolution than I ever thought I would. The book is a very concise and understandable survey of the years of that revolution up to the time of Napoleon's coup d' etat in 1799. It clearly corrects the popular understandings of this event as a chaotic bloodbath of ignorant sans culottes against the French nobility. While there certainly was extreme violence and a liberal flowing of blood most of that blood belonged to political rivals and members of the Revolution. On the whole the Revolution was begun as a rational removal of the King and the attempt to install a republic. Unfortunately, poverty, rampant inflation, economic chaos, and hunger incited the population to riots. These sans culottes were then used by Robespierre to seize power and then concentrate it in himself. To maintain this control Robespierre created The Terror and this set in play the forces resulting in his arrest and execution. In total the active Revolution lasted about 10 years from 1789 until Napoleon takes over in 1799. But the author makes a good case that the revolution really didn't end until de Gaulle resigned in 1969. The reputation of the French government for instability didn't end until de Gaulle's departure was followed seamlessly by a successor government without the necessity of the creation of yet another republic. This book provides a very good overview of the Revolution for anyone looking to start a study of this period of French history.
November 13, 2017
The author clearly has deep and detailed knowledge of the subject. However, he utterly fails at presenting it. The book does not present a coherent, let alone a linear trip through the tunnels of history. It is, instead, a loop of references to the Terror and Robespierre's fall, and uses the significant events of the Revolution as a means of discussing them.
This would not have been bad, had the author actually discussed these two things in detail. Instead, he baits us with the scent of cookies he never gets around to baking. When the relevant chapters are presented, they are not just short, but also devoid of significant detail.
All in all, the book was not a pleasant read and I will not be recommending it to anyone.
This would not have been bad, had the author actually discussed these two things in detail. Instead, he baits us with the scent of cookies he never gets around to baking. When the relevant chapters are presented, they are not just short, but also devoid of significant detail.
All in all, the book was not a pleasant read and I will not be recommending it to anyone.
November 24, 2025
This is a concise, cleanly chronological account of the French Revolution, which is exactly the kind of focused narrative I needed. The length is perfect for readers who want a solid, moderate grasp of events without committing to a massive tome. Davidson does present a clear thesis: that the Revolution’s greatest achievements and its darkest excesses sprang from the same source—the attempt to build a new political order while fighting wars, famine, and internal revolt. It’s a sensible idea, and he traces it consistently throughout the book.
That said, the writing can feel a bit dry, almost textbook-like, and I found myself getting bored about two-thirds of the way through. The narrative is efficient, but sometimes at the cost of emotional texture or dramatic tension. A little more atmosphere and character (and another 50 pages to let the story breathe) would’ve made it far more vivid and memorable.
Still, if you want a well-structured overview of the Revolution that keeps everything straight without drowning you in detail, this is a great place to start.
That said, the writing can feel a bit dry, almost textbook-like, and I found myself getting bored about two-thirds of the way through. The narrative is efficient, but sometimes at the cost of emotional texture or dramatic tension. A little more atmosphere and character (and another 50 pages to let the story breathe) would’ve made it far more vivid and memorable.
Still, if you want a well-structured overview of the Revolution that keeps everything straight without drowning you in detail, this is a great place to start.
August 31, 2016
In fluid prose Davidson recounts the tempestuous and often confusing story of the French Revolution. The canvas is crowded with figures but he's still able to make sure you hold onto the bigger picture.
February 11, 2023
A bourgeoise revolution.
I knew embarrassingly little about the French revolution before reading this take from Davidson. I found it to be mostly accessible but I got lost when we got into the weeds of all the political factions that happened after the initial evolution but still was happy I went through this. One of the main points of the author is that the French revolution was started as a bourgeoise revolution against the Ancien monarchy regime. It started as a revolution of rich lawyers and politicians. Before the actual revolution there three political bodies of government, The Estates General each representing the nobles, the catholic clergy and the commoners. The commoners were sick of taxes and there was rising antipathy for the King which probably leveraged political power into the middle bourgeoise class to start changes from within the government.
After the storming of Bastille, The Estates General formed the National Assembly which was the new political revolutionary body that was mostly ruled by the prior third estate of the commoners, or so they said they represented. The King agreed to the National Assembly with a constitution (that was never implemented) and even a state salary to the King. The National Assembly effectively abolished feudalism and monarchical rule and kept the King on a leash. A mob literally forced to King to move from Versailles to Paris where I guess they'd have more control over him or something.
Bonkers things started to happen. The National Assembly nationalized the catholic church and church property and tied government bonds to church assets. Just sit there with me for a moment and think about what a terrible idea that is on many, many levels. Aside from widespread clerical rebellion, this is an untenable economic foundation that obviously led to distrust and inflation, stoking more public discontent in largest population of Europe at that time. The state also wanted the clergy to take an oath of allegiance to the revolution and many, many did not which created widespread dissent. The other European powers got real worried about the French revolution happening and started trying to make war. So not only were the french revolutionary wars sparked but French civil war was happening during this time.
What eventually happened was a police state run by a single political party, the Jacobins, with Robespierre at its head. The Terror followed caused by anti-revolutionary panic. Robespierre was eventually guillotined himself but what followed was nearly one hundred years of political and social strife with 9-10 different constitutions written and dozens of different governments.
I feel like the history of revolutions often follow a familiar pattern: wealth inequality, cultural discontent and poverty leveraged into political dissent and revolution, old system cast away, provisional government, revolutionary government overreach, counter revolution, lots of really bad stuff like civil war and genocide, revolutionary government becomes a worse version of the government they replaced, revolutionary collapse and the cycle repeats.
I still know very little about the French revolution but this book wasn't a bad beginning point and I would like to learn more about this totally crazy series of events that probably affect the entire modern world.
I knew embarrassingly little about the French revolution before reading this take from Davidson. I found it to be mostly accessible but I got lost when we got into the weeds of all the political factions that happened after the initial evolution but still was happy I went through this. One of the main points of the author is that the French revolution was started as a bourgeoise revolution against the Ancien monarchy regime. It started as a revolution of rich lawyers and politicians. Before the actual revolution there three political bodies of government, The Estates General each representing the nobles, the catholic clergy and the commoners. The commoners were sick of taxes and there was rising antipathy for the King which probably leveraged political power into the middle bourgeoise class to start changes from within the government.
After the storming of Bastille, The Estates General formed the National Assembly which was the new political revolutionary body that was mostly ruled by the prior third estate of the commoners, or so they said they represented. The King agreed to the National Assembly with a constitution (that was never implemented) and even a state salary to the King. The National Assembly effectively abolished feudalism and monarchical rule and kept the King on a leash. A mob literally forced to King to move from Versailles to Paris where I guess they'd have more control over him or something.
Bonkers things started to happen. The National Assembly nationalized the catholic church and church property and tied government bonds to church assets. Just sit there with me for a moment and think about what a terrible idea that is on many, many levels. Aside from widespread clerical rebellion, this is an untenable economic foundation that obviously led to distrust and inflation, stoking more public discontent in largest population of Europe at that time. The state also wanted the clergy to take an oath of allegiance to the revolution and many, many did not which created widespread dissent. The other European powers got real worried about the French revolution happening and started trying to make war. So not only were the french revolutionary wars sparked but French civil war was happening during this time.
What eventually happened was a police state run by a single political party, the Jacobins, with Robespierre at its head. The Terror followed caused by anti-revolutionary panic. Robespierre was eventually guillotined himself but what followed was nearly one hundred years of political and social strife with 9-10 different constitutions written and dozens of different governments.
I feel like the history of revolutions often follow a familiar pattern: wealth inequality, cultural discontent and poverty leveraged into political dissent and revolution, old system cast away, provisional government, revolutionary government overreach, counter revolution, lots of really bad stuff like civil war and genocide, revolutionary government becomes a worse version of the government they replaced, revolutionary collapse and the cycle repeats.
I still know very little about the French revolution but this book wasn't a bad beginning point and I would like to learn more about this totally crazy series of events that probably affect the entire modern world.
September 7, 2021
A great inoffensive look on the French Revolution. This is a nice and concise summary of what happened, why it happened, and what became after it. I also enjoyed the epilogue, where Mr. Davidson described the legacy that it left on people, not only immediately after the era, but even up to today. A great account where the author is not biased in anyway. A solid book that is easy to read and digest.
June 5, 2017
A good introduction. Not too detailed, but covers all the high points. It should pair very nicely with Hilary Mantel's "a place of greater safety", which fills in a lot of the psychology and personality bits that this book is missing.
September 1, 2021
A brief, dry, and somewhat soulless survey of a whole lotta monstrous killin'.
There's an argument that killing in battle (or individual murder) is less bad than institutional murder because of the soullessness that the bureaucracy invariably brings. Davidson's brief 2016 history of the French Revolution is the historical version of that soullessness. While a serviceable history that hits all the high points of the French Revolution, there's a certain degree of remove from from the subject matter that renders the work a little stilted.
Whether that's a function of temporal distance or design, the result is that we get a fairly anodyne/muted rehash of the Revolution and Great Terror. It's almost clinical in nature as the facts of the French Revolution and Terror without any real critical analysis of their effects. This is not to say Robinson should have written a passion play history, but there's probably a middle ground between that and his approach. The result of this "neutral" approach is that a Revolution centralized in Paris by effete "intellectuals" that rarely had widespread support throughout the country ended up murdering a shit-ton of people and destabilized a country for over 100 years as France ping-ponged back and forth between republic, monarchy, empire, and back again. Robinson notes this at the end but still seems to view the Revolution (at least it's initial motivating impulses) favorably.
Unfortunately, the reader can't assess the relative value since we get very little on the intellectual underpinnings of the revolution (beyond that people in Paris were hungry and angry and had a lot of time to write) and almost immediately jump into the various councils and votes to overthrow the king. It's a very bureaucratic history of very bureaucratic murder apparatus.
There is value in the work, especially for anyone who has focused more time on the American Revolution, if for no other reason than it serves as a stark contrast. Would an American revolutionary movement have looked similar had it taken place IN England itself? Obviously one was a move for colonial independence from the Crown while the other was for a complete repudiation/supplanting of a monarchy. Davidson does a decent job highlighting how much of the French Revolution was really driven by Paris rather than a country-wide endeavor (again in contrast to the American version which had support in multiple colonies). This "urban revolution" necessarily alienated the outlying rural areas and when the ideals were supplanted by raw power grabs, you got a whole lot of killing. Also of value is the farcical nature of the "trials" occurring within the Terror itself. They will sound frighteningly familiar to anybody who has read about Stalin's purges or the various political show trials of leftist regimes.
Overall, a decent, if overly clinical, history of a tumultuous (and murderous) period that requires a *bit* more pathos to be of real value.
There's an argument that killing in battle (or individual murder) is less bad than institutional murder because of the soullessness that the bureaucracy invariably brings. Davidson's brief 2016 history of the French Revolution is the historical version of that soullessness. While a serviceable history that hits all the high points of the French Revolution, there's a certain degree of remove from from the subject matter that renders the work a little stilted.
Whether that's a function of temporal distance or design, the result is that we get a fairly anodyne/muted rehash of the Revolution and Great Terror. It's almost clinical in nature as the facts of the French Revolution and Terror without any real critical analysis of their effects. This is not to say Robinson should have written a passion play history, but there's probably a middle ground between that and his approach. The result of this "neutral" approach is that a Revolution centralized in Paris by effete "intellectuals" that rarely had widespread support throughout the country ended up murdering a shit-ton of people and destabilized a country for over 100 years as France ping-ponged back and forth between republic, monarchy, empire, and back again. Robinson notes this at the end but still seems to view the Revolution (at least it's initial motivating impulses) favorably.
Unfortunately, the reader can't assess the relative value since we get very little on the intellectual underpinnings of the revolution (beyond that people in Paris were hungry and angry and had a lot of time to write) and almost immediately jump into the various councils and votes to overthrow the king. It's a very bureaucratic history of very bureaucratic murder apparatus.
There is value in the work, especially for anyone who has focused more time on the American Revolution, if for no other reason than it serves as a stark contrast. Would an American revolutionary movement have looked similar had it taken place IN England itself? Obviously one was a move for colonial independence from the Crown while the other was for a complete repudiation/supplanting of a monarchy. Davidson does a decent job highlighting how much of the French Revolution was really driven by Paris rather than a country-wide endeavor (again in contrast to the American version which had support in multiple colonies). This "urban revolution" necessarily alienated the outlying rural areas and when the ideals were supplanted by raw power grabs, you got a whole lot of killing. Also of value is the farcical nature of the "trials" occurring within the Terror itself. They will sound frighteningly familiar to anybody who has read about Stalin's purges or the various political show trials of leftist regimes.
Overall, a decent, if overly clinical, history of a tumultuous (and murderous) period that requires a *bit* more pathos to be of real value.
April 6, 2019
The French Revolution was a great book before reading it I knew only little about the events that started it and the men and women involved who shaped it for better or for worse . After reading It I learned a nice bit about how it was a hudge step forward for social and human rights and how it paved the way for Napoleon and the empire! Only down side to this book or this part of history is that for me it was abit of a slow grind however Davidson did a great job at giving the reader the most informative and most interesting information about the Revolution without boring the reader who may know very little about it! A good read and recommend it!
November 9, 2020
Davidson's history is a well-written and helpful standard work for laypeople and non-specialists interested in the French Revolution. He also is about as conservative an interpreter as you'll find in mainstream among secular historians.
June 22, 2018
Френската революция – от идеалите до зверствата: http://knigolandia.info/book-review/f...
Няма да преразказвам хронологията на революцията, затова я има тая книга, но ще сумирам, че Иън Дейвидсън ясно описва как тези събития вадят на бял свят и най-доброто, и най-лошото от хората. От една страна, тя показва духа на Просвещението, на освобождението от религиозните окови и слепия страх от благородничеството, от друга, докарва на власт истински зверове, които извършват чудовищни зверства, истински терор срещу собствените съграждани.
Заграбването на безбройните имоти на католическата църква може да има икономически и революционен смисъл, но избиването на стотици и хиляди духовници и вярващи не може да бъде оправдано по абсолютно никой начин.
Издателство "Милениум"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/f...
Няма да преразказвам хронологията на революцията, затова я има тая книга, но ще сумирам, че Иън Дейвидсън ясно описва как тези събития вадят на бял свят и най-доброто, и най-лошото от хората. От една страна, тя показва духа на Просвещението, на освобождението от религиозните окови и слепия страх от благородничеството, от друга, докарва на власт истински зверове, които извършват чудовищни зверства, истински терор срещу собствените съграждани.
Заграбването на безбройните имоти на католическата църква може да има икономически и революционен смисъл, но избиването на стотици и хиляди духовници и вярващи не може да бъде оправдано по абсолютно никой начин.
Издателство "Милениум"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/f...
February 27, 2020
There's a lot that could be said about this book, but I don't have a lot of references to judge it by. Instead, I'll record some of my main takeaways:
Somewhere within the revolution an attempt to overthrow and change the entire cultural mythos of France and render it something new, enlightened, and secular. This didn't catch on with the people, since they still had connections with previous mythos, particularly with the church.
That's the charitable perspective. In reality, there was a wide gulf between the idealists and those who implemented it. The revolution was a cacophony of different voices all fighting for power and control, and it tore itself apart.
I'm sure I've missed a lot of nuance, it's clearly a deep topic that I've only just begun to approach.
Somewhere within the revolution an attempt to overthrow and change the entire cultural mythos of France and render it something new, enlightened, and secular. This didn't catch on with the people, since they still had connections with previous mythos, particularly with the church.
That's the charitable perspective. In reality, there was a wide gulf between the idealists and those who implemented it. The revolution was a cacophony of different voices all fighting for power and control, and it tore itself apart.
I'm sure I've missed a lot of nuance, it's clearly a deep topic that I've only just begun to approach.
August 7, 2025
I'm moving to Storygraph: @goodnight_moon
I learned a lot about the French Revolution. But there's a gap between this book and my two favorite concise histories of lengthy and major events (Revolutionary Russia, and The Cold War: A New History). To balance a sufficiently deep understanding without being overwhelmed, every sentence has to be packed with detail but finely curated for legibility. Entire years and trends are distilled into paragraphs, followed by specific moments that are either crucial happenings, or examples that perfectly encapsulate the experience. 300 pages covering decades somehow becomes must-read, entertaining and educational and inspirational in its craft of research and understanding and conveyance.
I thought the writing here was a little stilted. The book is well organized into chapters and trends but I didn't feel a solid grasp of the takeaways even as I read the sentences. A number of the snapshot moments felt randomly sampled rather than strategically placed.
It was eye opening how complicated (and maybe hypocritical?) the Revolution was, and just how unfinished the instability was when the Revolution "ended" - I can understand the decision to fixate on those 6 years as a specific chain of events, especially given the reputation of the French Revolution as a birthplace of ideas around democracy and republic. But the epilogue barely covered another 150 years of chaos, empire, reversion to monarchy, then to republic, to empire, to republic again. Revolutionary Russia embraced the instability stemming from the original Revolution through the entire history of the Soviet Union: I don't think that would have been inappropriate here. This story felt entirely unfinished (I get that is the point), and it could have been helpfully longer than 250 pages, and the wider lens may have pulled it out of the mud. The story of any nation's transition from monarchy to democracy / otherwise is what really interests me, and that transition clearly did not end with the fall of Robespierre.
It's a chilling reminder just how dangerously unstable (even when justified and necessary) revolution can be, and the importance of preserving democracy once it's established - how long would American democracy have taken without the Atlantic Ocean? Or the genocide of Native Americans through guns, germs, and steel that had nothing to do with actual superiority of the invaders? What if George Washington agreed to be king? Was the American Revolution actually not over until the defeat of the Confederacy? And now a startling percentage of us seem primed to flush it all down the toilet.
I learned a lot about the French Revolution. But there's a gap between this book and my two favorite concise histories of lengthy and major events (Revolutionary Russia, and The Cold War: A New History). To balance a sufficiently deep understanding without being overwhelmed, every sentence has to be packed with detail but finely curated for legibility. Entire years and trends are distilled into paragraphs, followed by specific moments that are either crucial happenings, or examples that perfectly encapsulate the experience. 300 pages covering decades somehow becomes must-read, entertaining and educational and inspirational in its craft of research and understanding and conveyance.
I thought the writing here was a little stilted. The book is well organized into chapters and trends but I didn't feel a solid grasp of the takeaways even as I read the sentences. A number of the snapshot moments felt randomly sampled rather than strategically placed.
It was eye opening how complicated (and maybe hypocritical?) the Revolution was, and just how unfinished the instability was when the Revolution "ended" - I can understand the decision to fixate on those 6 years as a specific chain of events, especially given the reputation of the French Revolution as a birthplace of ideas around democracy and republic. But the epilogue barely covered another 150 years of chaos, empire, reversion to monarchy, then to republic, to empire, to republic again. Revolutionary Russia embraced the instability stemming from the original Revolution through the entire history of the Soviet Union: I don't think that would have been inappropriate here. This story felt entirely unfinished (I get that is the point), and it could have been helpfully longer than 250 pages, and the wider lens may have pulled it out of the mud. The story of any nation's transition from monarchy to democracy / otherwise is what really interests me, and that transition clearly did not end with the fall of Robespierre.
It's a chilling reminder just how dangerously unstable (even when justified and necessary) revolution can be, and the importance of preserving democracy once it's established - how long would American democracy have taken without the Atlantic Ocean? Or the genocide of Native Americans through guns, germs, and steel that had nothing to do with actual superiority of the invaders? What if George Washington agreed to be king? Was the American Revolution actually not over until the defeat of the Confederacy? And now a startling percentage of us seem primed to flush it all down the toilet.
December 26, 2018
The French Revolution: From Enlightenment to Tyranny by Ian Davidson
One of the defining moments in history and a major influence on global politics, the French Revolution began with the best of intentions but paved the way to a bloody hell few involved at the start would have foreseen. The best and worst of people is on display here.
Davidson’s book is a short but solid history –a pleasant change of pace compared to the veritable tomes I’ve been reading of late. At 250 pages (excluding appendices) it covers the revolutionary years of 1788 to 1795 (with a brief chapter covering the aftermath). This is basically all the major events from the Estates General to just after the execution of Robespierre and everything in between.
Unlike some other analyses of this period, the author has tried to give simply facts and quotes in an interconnected telling of the events. This gives a good understanding of how things evolved and influenced each other (e.g. the growing rivalry between the Girondins and Montagnards cumulating in the purge of the Girondins) without a verbose academic style of writing. It gives a pretty good picture of just how chaotic the revolution was to Paris but also how it would wax and wane in the regional centres.
There is plenty of coverage on all elements you would probably want to read a book on here. This includes the politics, the economics, the human misery and triumph, the experimentation with systems of government and some amusing elements (decimal time and 10 month calendars anyone?)
I think the only real downside of the book was that because Davidson has tried to cover all the major players in a short space, some of the names and people tend to blend. A glossary of ‘who’s who’ might have helped here.
Speaking of glossaries and appendices, special mention to the use of them in this book. There are extra reference materials to look to that the author found useful, the numbers of coups, details on the royal family, notes on money and inflation, a glossary of people and basic information on those members of the Committee for Public Safety, a timeline of events. The lists go on –quite literally. Readers of my reviews will know that I favour timelines and the extra details being available, and this book delivers.
If you know little about the French Revolution, this is certainly an excellent book to get across it with plenty of material to continue your reading if you wish.
4/5 stars.
One of the defining moments in history and a major influence on global politics, the French Revolution began with the best of intentions but paved the way to a bloody hell few involved at the start would have foreseen. The best and worst of people is on display here.
Davidson’s book is a short but solid history –a pleasant change of pace compared to the veritable tomes I’ve been reading of late. At 250 pages (excluding appendices) it covers the revolutionary years of 1788 to 1795 (with a brief chapter covering the aftermath). This is basically all the major events from the Estates General to just after the execution of Robespierre and everything in between.
Unlike some other analyses of this period, the author has tried to give simply facts and quotes in an interconnected telling of the events. This gives a good understanding of how things evolved and influenced each other (e.g. the growing rivalry between the Girondins and Montagnards cumulating in the purge of the Girondins) without a verbose academic style of writing. It gives a pretty good picture of just how chaotic the revolution was to Paris but also how it would wax and wane in the regional centres.
There is plenty of coverage on all elements you would probably want to read a book on here. This includes the politics, the economics, the human misery and triumph, the experimentation with systems of government and some amusing elements (decimal time and 10 month calendars anyone?)
I think the only real downside of the book was that because Davidson has tried to cover all the major players in a short space, some of the names and people tend to blend. A glossary of ‘who’s who’ might have helped here.
Speaking of glossaries and appendices, special mention to the use of them in this book. There are extra reference materials to look to that the author found useful, the numbers of coups, details on the royal family, notes on money and inflation, a glossary of people and basic information on those members of the Committee for Public Safety, a timeline of events. The lists go on –quite literally. Readers of my reviews will know that I favour timelines and the extra details being available, and this book delivers.
If you know little about the French Revolution, this is certainly an excellent book to get across it with plenty of material to continue your reading if you wish.
4/5 stars.
July 6, 2019
Before reading this book, it had been a long time since I'd studied the French Revolution or read anything about it. So I was looking for a refresher, or maybe an introduction. This book does provide that. Davidson shows how turbulent the years of the Revolution were, and how the politics of the Revolution evolved and changed in just a few years. I now know more about Robespierre and some of the other central figures of the Revolution, and I have a fairly good understanding of the timeline.
I did find it difficult to keep some of the characters, factions, and shifting alliances straight, but I think that may be unavoidable for a reader like me with little background in the subject, given its scope and complexity. Overall I liked the book and learned from it, but I wish the narrative could have been a little clearer.
I did find it difficult to keep some of the characters, factions, and shifting alliances straight, but I think that may be unavoidable for a reader like me with little background in the subject, given its scope and complexity. Overall I liked the book and learned from it, but I wish the narrative could have been a little clearer.
May 4, 2023
A thorough and helpful look at an extremely chaotic time. The writing style is not colorful or dramatic, but focuses on the facts.
Basically, there was no unified plan when it came to the French Revolution. The result is tyranny, mass murders, and grief. If I was in a time machine, I would NOT want to be dropped in Paris, France during 1793.
Basically, there was no unified plan when it came to the French Revolution. The result is tyranny, mass murders, and grief. If I was in a time machine, I would NOT want to be dropped in Paris, France during 1793.
February 5, 2025
“The most brilliant and the most dangerous of the nations of Europe, and the one most liable to become in turn an object of admiration, of hatred, of pity, of terror, but never of indifference.”
Solid introduction on the topic, though if you do not have any other experience with the topic there might be points where you will be lost. The flood of names and places is overwhelming at times.
Solid introduction on the topic, though if you do not have any other experience with the topic there might be points where you will be lost. The flood of names and places is overwhelming at times.
September 19, 2020
While this is a very interesting book, I was often left perplexed with its non-traditional assessment of the French Revolution.
One starts with opening the book and reading the inside jacket cover:
“A vivid examination of this profoundly important – and often perplexing [perplexing, my emphasis] – historical moment that shaped the nature of the modern world. The fall of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 has become the commemorative symbol of the French Revolution. But this violent and random act was unrepresentative of the real work of the early revolution, which was taking place ten miles west of Paris, in Versailles. There, the nobles, clergy, and commoners of France had just declared themselves a republic, topping a rotten system of aristocratic privilege and altering the course of history forever. The Revolution was led not by angry mobs, but by the best and brightest of France’s growing bourgeoisie: young, educated, ambitious. … In a clear, dispassionate, and fast-moving narrative, Ian Davidson shows how and why the Revolutionaries, in just five years, spiraled from the best of the Enlightenment to tyranny and the Terror. This story reminds us that the Revolution was both the culmination of the finest principles of a new democracy – and awful warning of what can happen when idealism goes wrong.”
One can argue with whether or not the “real work” of the French Revolution was with the Bastille or with the National Assembly, but one finds it difficult to agree that the nobles, clergy, and commoners of France had just declared themselves a republic. Actually, the first French Republic was declared on 22 September 1792. One can also find it difficult to agree that the French Revolution was the culmination of the finest principles of a new democracy, unless one considers “liberté, égalité, fraternité” as pie-in-the-sky idealistic buzzwords, unanchored to anything possible on the ground. Indeed, by some liberty was viewed as license, and equality was viewed as bowing to little authority. Guiding many of the leaders, especially Robespierre, was Rousseau’s “Social Contract,” which was full of contradictions, hardly finest principles. It would appear to some that the seeds of destruction were baked in from the beginning, and the results should be no surprise, with the leaders, especially “The Twelve” in the Committee of Public Safety, straining to stay in front of the mobs they unleashed.
After the jacket cover, one views what appear to be some excellent maps (unfortunately, the location of the Bastille is not always included), which help one better understand the events of the Revolution. Also very helpful is a timeline which lists concurrent French, US, and European events.
After that one gets into the book. At this point the author begins to make more strong event cause-effect assertions that many students of the Revolution will find puzzling. OK, maybe it’s a glass half-full versus half-empty. And maybe it’s all right to say that Versailles was 10 miles west of Paris versus a more exact 12 miles southwest of Paris. However, when reads on page 27 there were 3,000 rifles that crowds captured at the Les Invalides, one should take a large grain of salt and correctly understand that the crowd captured 10 times that number of weapons, 30,000 muskets (not the more advanced rifles). Also on that page, one reads that the Bastille demonstrators “tried to negotiate with the Governor of the Bastille … in the hope that he would hand over some of his cannon to them. But there were a series of misunderstandings, and shots were fired.” This description curiously omits the earlier statement that the demonstrators wanted ammunition and gunpowder (which happen to be why most historians have the crowd heading to the Bastille). On page 28, the book mentions, “One study estimates a figure of 150,000 to 160,000 persons, or about 0.6 percent of the country’s population.” The actual percentage, based upon France’s population (28 million per page 15) should be 10 times that amount or 6%.
The book does introduce information I have not seen elsewhere and has led me to double-check some previous understandings. With the photo of Camille Desmoulins in the garden of the Palais Royal, I confirmed with a wiki search that the Café du Royal, upon the table of which Desmoulins was supposed to have urged the crowd “To arms, to arms,” was located within the garden(s). The book also throws some doubt upon the dates of other events, such as when the King’s brother Comte de Artois left Versailles (the evening of 15 July, as the book states, or 16, or 17, when he supposedly left France).
All in all, given the above, I believe the book may leave some laymen with an interesting read but with an unconventional (and not quite so) view of what happened during the French Revolution. But they’re forewarned, as on page 1 the author describes his view as “quite different.” IMHO, the book probably rates around 3.5 stars, but trying to be arithmetically "conventional," as a fellow author, I’ll generously round it up to a 4.
One starts with opening the book and reading the inside jacket cover:
“A vivid examination of this profoundly important – and often perplexing [perplexing, my emphasis] – historical moment that shaped the nature of the modern world. The fall of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 has become the commemorative symbol of the French Revolution. But this violent and random act was unrepresentative of the real work of the early revolution, which was taking place ten miles west of Paris, in Versailles. There, the nobles, clergy, and commoners of France had just declared themselves a republic, topping a rotten system of aristocratic privilege and altering the course of history forever. The Revolution was led not by angry mobs, but by the best and brightest of France’s growing bourgeoisie: young, educated, ambitious. … In a clear, dispassionate, and fast-moving narrative, Ian Davidson shows how and why the Revolutionaries, in just five years, spiraled from the best of the Enlightenment to tyranny and the Terror. This story reminds us that the Revolution was both the culmination of the finest principles of a new democracy – and awful warning of what can happen when idealism goes wrong.”
One can argue with whether or not the “real work” of the French Revolution was with the Bastille or with the National Assembly, but one finds it difficult to agree that the nobles, clergy, and commoners of France had just declared themselves a republic. Actually, the first French Republic was declared on 22 September 1792. One can also find it difficult to agree that the French Revolution was the culmination of the finest principles of a new democracy, unless one considers “liberté, égalité, fraternité” as pie-in-the-sky idealistic buzzwords, unanchored to anything possible on the ground. Indeed, by some liberty was viewed as license, and equality was viewed as bowing to little authority. Guiding many of the leaders, especially Robespierre, was Rousseau’s “Social Contract,” which was full of contradictions, hardly finest principles. It would appear to some that the seeds of destruction were baked in from the beginning, and the results should be no surprise, with the leaders, especially “The Twelve” in the Committee of Public Safety, straining to stay in front of the mobs they unleashed.
After the jacket cover, one views what appear to be some excellent maps (unfortunately, the location of the Bastille is not always included), which help one better understand the events of the Revolution. Also very helpful is a timeline which lists concurrent French, US, and European events.
After that one gets into the book. At this point the author begins to make more strong event cause-effect assertions that many students of the Revolution will find puzzling. OK, maybe it’s a glass half-full versus half-empty. And maybe it’s all right to say that Versailles was 10 miles west of Paris versus a more exact 12 miles southwest of Paris. However, when reads on page 27 there were 3,000 rifles that crowds captured at the Les Invalides, one should take a large grain of salt and correctly understand that the crowd captured 10 times that number of weapons, 30,000 muskets (not the more advanced rifles). Also on that page, one reads that the Bastille demonstrators “tried to negotiate with the Governor of the Bastille … in the hope that he would hand over some of his cannon to them. But there were a series of misunderstandings, and shots were fired.” This description curiously omits the earlier statement that the demonstrators wanted ammunition and gunpowder (which happen to be why most historians have the crowd heading to the Bastille). On page 28, the book mentions, “One study estimates a figure of 150,000 to 160,000 persons, or about 0.6 percent of the country’s population.” The actual percentage, based upon France’s population (28 million per page 15) should be 10 times that amount or 6%.
The book does introduce information I have not seen elsewhere and has led me to double-check some previous understandings. With the photo of Camille Desmoulins in the garden of the Palais Royal, I confirmed with a wiki search that the Café du Royal, upon the table of which Desmoulins was supposed to have urged the crowd “To arms, to arms,” was located within the garden(s). The book also throws some doubt upon the dates of other events, such as when the King’s brother Comte de Artois left Versailles (the evening of 15 July, as the book states, or 16, or 17, when he supposedly left France).
All in all, given the above, I believe the book may leave some laymen with an interesting read but with an unconventional (and not quite so) view of what happened during the French Revolution. But they’re forewarned, as on page 1 the author describes his view as “quite different.” IMHO, the book probably rates around 3.5 stars, but trying to be arithmetically "conventional," as a fellow author, I’ll generously round it up to a 4.
August 11, 2022
I gave up on page 125, about halfway through.
I have been reading a lot about the American Revolution lately and wanted to supplement my understanding by learning more about the French Revolution. This is the type of book people must be talking about when they say they do not enjoy history or non-fiction. It is as dry as toast.
Names are introduced with a bland, surface introduction to the person. Major events like the Tennis Court Oath and the flight of the king are described in textbook, forgettable language. This book will inform you but it will not entertain you. That's fine for an academic paper, but that's not what this is.
While this book describes the events of the revolution, it does not tell the story. This was an incredibly exciting and horrific time with colorful characters. How do you make it so BORING? Being able to tell the story within the history is what sets apart the best history writers and ignites that passion for history in the general public. To be fair, I read this on the heels of reading a John Adams biography by the late David McCullough and Ron Chernow's Washington bio. That probably set my expectations too high when it came to super enjoyable historical non-fiction.
Perhaps the issue is that this is a little book of only around 250 pages. That doesn't leave much room to add the interesting details and descriptions. I literally kept falling asleep trying to read this. Maybe I'll try another bigger book about the subject.
In summary - for me personally this was a chore to read, life is too short to read books you don't like and I am no wiser about the French Revolution.
I have been reading a lot about the American Revolution lately and wanted to supplement my understanding by learning more about the French Revolution. This is the type of book people must be talking about when they say they do not enjoy history or non-fiction. It is as dry as toast.
Names are introduced with a bland, surface introduction to the person. Major events like the Tennis Court Oath and the flight of the king are described in textbook, forgettable language. This book will inform you but it will not entertain you. That's fine for an academic paper, but that's not what this is.
While this book describes the events of the revolution, it does not tell the story. This was an incredibly exciting and horrific time with colorful characters. How do you make it so BORING? Being able to tell the story within the history is what sets apart the best history writers and ignites that passion for history in the general public. To be fair, I read this on the heels of reading a John Adams biography by the late David McCullough and Ron Chernow's Washington bio. That probably set my expectations too high when it came to super enjoyable historical non-fiction.
Perhaps the issue is that this is a little book of only around 250 pages. That doesn't leave much room to add the interesting details and descriptions. I literally kept falling asleep trying to read this. Maybe I'll try another bigger book about the subject.
In summary - for me personally this was a chore to read, life is too short to read books you don't like and I am no wiser about the French Revolution.
February 9, 2017
A very good intro to the French Revolution for those who haven't learned much on the subject. The book goes into all the main points of the Revolution although if you want more details many other books are listed in the bibliography which will suffice.
December 19, 2023
A solid book on a very confusing subject.
October 31, 2020
This is an excellent and workmanlike history of the French Revolution. This is both more difficult to do and less common than one might think. This is because there is a powerful tendency to distort the events, and the motivations, of the French Revolution to either flatter or condemn contemporary political events or groups. The events of the French Revolution were epochal and long lived. Indeed, the author believes that they did not really end until the resignation of DeGaulle in 1969 led not to a collapse of the Constitution but the continuation of the Fifth Republic. From the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to the Terror, to the hijacking of a constitutional order and it's degeneration into unconstrained populism and violence, and, finally collapse and authoritarianism in exchange for the restoration of Civil Order, the events of the French Revolution have had many sequels around the world, and so they are often used as a metaphor or a warning. Thus it is difficult to see the events of the Revolution in their own context.
Davidson does this very well. He narrates the events of the revolution chronologically and links their causes and effects as well as describes the personalities of the main participants. This is very easy to follow and quite clear. The author is also a journalist with the FT so the destabilizing effects of the inflation that followed the attempt to rescue the finances of the country through the massive issuance of assignats is also integrated into the storyline. This is key because the claims of the Revolutionaries to have provided liberty was significantly undermined by its total failure to provide material and ultimately personal security.
The author also polishes the lenses through which other historians have written about the French Revolution and this is very helpful given what I have said above. The author is impartial, pointing out the errors and omissions of both the right and the left about the factual events of the French Revolution. This was very interesting, and very helpful. Personally I learned a great deal from this both about the French Revolution itself and it's historiography. It is of course not as exciting or passionate as a more political history would be, but it is, as I say, quite good and workmanlike and this is refreshing.
Davidson does this very well. He narrates the events of the revolution chronologically and links their causes and effects as well as describes the personalities of the main participants. This is very easy to follow and quite clear. The author is also a journalist with the FT so the destabilizing effects of the inflation that followed the attempt to rescue the finances of the country through the massive issuance of assignats is also integrated into the storyline. This is key because the claims of the Revolutionaries to have provided liberty was significantly undermined by its total failure to provide material and ultimately personal security.
The author also polishes the lenses through which other historians have written about the French Revolution and this is very helpful given what I have said above. The author is impartial, pointing out the errors and omissions of both the right and the left about the factual events of the French Revolution. This was very interesting, and very helpful. Personally I learned a great deal from this both about the French Revolution itself and it's historiography. It is of course not as exciting or passionate as a more political history would be, but it is, as I say, quite good and workmanlike and this is refreshing.
October 24, 2024
A breezy but competent book, it's hard to imagine a better single-volume introduction. Other comparable books don't fit the bill. Citizens by Simon Schama is nearly three times longer, while Days of the French Revolution by Christopher Hibbert is, according to Goodreads readers, pretty tedious.
I had a lot of lightbulb moments reading this book. For example, Davidson does go a long way to explaining how France went from a theoretically absolutely monarchy in 1788 to a Republican police state in 1793, to the oligarchic Directory in 1795. These shifts of the pendulum are not simple and straightforward, and Davidson doesn't claim to have all the answers. He has comparatively little to say about the Directory or the rise of Napoleon, contending that the Revolution more or less ended with the death of Robespierre.
Another lightbulb moment was the part the sans-culottes played, which has always been obscure to me. I can see now why they have been lionized by Marx. In fact, I think that Marx's fiction, the proletariat that ineluctably rises up to disenfranchise the bourgeoisie is more or less based on the sans-culottes but with the working conditions and atomization caused by the Industrial Revolution.
I have never been enthralled by the French Revolution, but the only other books that touch on it (A Tale of Two Cities, a long biography of Napoleon) treat at it as either a nonsensical bloodbath or a John the Baptist period before the real action starts.
I think from here, it would be good to read Burke, Tocqueville, and others who were within spitting distance of the events they describe. I commend Davidson for spurring my interest.
I had a lot of lightbulb moments reading this book. For example, Davidson does go a long way to explaining how France went from a theoretically absolutely monarchy in 1788 to a Republican police state in 1793, to the oligarchic Directory in 1795. These shifts of the pendulum are not simple and straightforward, and Davidson doesn't claim to have all the answers. He has comparatively little to say about the Directory or the rise of Napoleon, contending that the Revolution more or less ended with the death of Robespierre.
Another lightbulb moment was the part the sans-culottes played, which has always been obscure to me. I can see now why they have been lionized by Marx. In fact, I think that Marx's fiction, the proletariat that ineluctably rises up to disenfranchise the bourgeoisie is more or less based on the sans-culottes but with the working conditions and atomization caused by the Industrial Revolution.
I have never been enthralled by the French Revolution, but the only other books that touch on it (A Tale of Two Cities, a long biography of Napoleon) treat at it as either a nonsensical bloodbath or a John the Baptist period before the real action starts.
I think from here, it would be good to read Burke, Tocqueville, and others who were within spitting distance of the events they describe. I commend Davidson for spurring my interest.
December 6, 2024
French political history often seems to be animated (and then cluttered) by motive: Marx on the left, Burkian conservatism on the right, all manner of idealisms that make a hash of everything in between.
A world history of the French Revolution might include these views, but Davidson’s account is restrained, skeletal and confined. He does well on the big picture, and his attention to complexity ensures that he does not extrapolate or proselytise unnecessarily.
Some may complain that he does not give enough attention to some of the social questions or consequences of the period, and I tend to agree; but also I wonder whether this is was part of his bare facts approach. Whether he was successful is hard to see. In the end every historian makes conclusions, and I’m not sure everyone would agree with these.
Overall: a decent read!
A world history of the French Revolution might include these views, but Davidson’s account is restrained, skeletal and confined. He does well on the big picture, and his attention to complexity ensures that he does not extrapolate or proselytise unnecessarily.
Some may complain that he does not give enough attention to some of the social questions or consequences of the period, and I tend to agree; but also I wonder whether this is was part of his bare facts approach. Whether he was successful is hard to see. In the end every historian makes conclusions, and I’m not sure everyone would agree with these.
Overall: a decent read!
October 15, 2020
Excellent fast-paced narrative of the events of the French Revolution. Not a supreme analytical effort although the Revolution’s baleful influence on subsequent French history even into the 1960s is well covered. This is a good introduction to get the chronology in place for those, like me, whose knowledge is fleeting at best.
August 5, 2022
Before reading this book I was vaguely familiar with the events of the French Revolution. This was a detailed history of the events of over 5 years that shocked the world and affected events for 150+ years. I found all the French names difficult to deal with, but I powered through and was "enlightened" for my effort. Do you see what I did there? :)
February 17, 2024
Read this as I knew pretty much nothing about the French Revolution, this book is a good resource if you're starting from scratch and want to read something that'll fill in the gaps but isn't too overwhelming or detailed, the actual reading pages of this book excluding notes etc puts it at about 270ish.
June 17, 2021
Sober and readable account of the French Revolution. Avoids the usual extreme political takes (which generally echo either Karl Marx or Joseph de Maistre).
Grounded in the realities of late 18th century France -- which was then still an agricultural economy where food shortages were common and social inequalities were stark. Corruption, paranoia, and brutality were _l'ordre du jour_ during the Revolution (not to mention before and after it).
Grounded in the realities of late 18th century France -- which was then still an agricultural economy where food shortages were common and social inequalities were stark. Corruption, paranoia, and brutality were _l'ordre du jour_ during the Revolution (not to mention before and after it).
November 12, 2020
An excellent, 30,000 foot view of the French Revolution. The account was impartial, but still allowed the extremely colorful characters' various personalities to shine through.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 190 reviews