'REVOLUTIONARY EUROPE, 1783-1815 (FONTANA HISTORY OF EUROPE)'

Fontana History of Europe

by George Rudé

Professor George Rude's reflections of the French Revolution, and the economic effects of the Revolution in France and the countries which it invaded. Professor Rude throws a brief glance at some of the legacies of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era. His reflections on nineteenth century nationalism, liberalism and democracy constitute some of the best passages of the book.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, French Revolution, Politics, War, Reference

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1964

About the author

George Rudé was a British Marxist historian, specializing in the French Revolution and "history from below," especially the importance of crowds in history.

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 2 out of 5]

انقلاب فرانسه یا انقلاب کیبر فرانسه یا مادر انقلاب ها ، پدیده بسیار بزرگ و عظیمی بود که در اواخر قرن هجدهم رخ داد ، اساس حکومت و رابطه دولت و ملت و ساختار حاکمیت را برای همیشه تغییر داد .امواج این انقلاب به قدری قوی بود که یکصد سال بعد به ایران رسید و اثری بر انقلاب مشروطه در ایران گذاشت .
این انقلاب با حمله مردم ابتدا با دست خالی و سپس با تفنگ هایی که از شهرداری گرفته بودند به زندان باستیل که نماد سلطنت و ظلم و جور آن بود و غیرقابل تسخیر به نظر می رسید شروع شد ، اما سقوط خون بار باستیل ، گل های زنبق ( نماد خاندان سلطنتی فرانسه ) لگد مال شده ، و سرهایی که به نیزه زده شده بود بیانگر عصری جدید در فرانسه و اروپا بود ، عصری که نزدیک به هشتاد سال طول کشید و فرانسه و اروپا را به خاک و خون کشید .
برای اولین بار در یک کشور دیکتاتوری مردم با هم متحد شدند و فریاد برادری ، برابری و مساوات سر دادند ، بر سر آرمانهای خود ایستادند ، کشتند و بسیار هم کشته شدند اما در پایان اساس حکومت مدرن را بنا نهادند ، اصل و اصولی که تا این لحظه هم در جهان آزاد حاکم است ، دموکراسی که بهترین نیست اما فعلا شیوه ای بهتر از آن کشف نشده است .
انقلاب فرانسه مباحثی را رایج کرد که تا آنزمان سابقه نداشت و الان هم برای مردم خیلی از کشورها آرزو به نظر می رسد ، مانند احزاب آزاد . حزبهای ژاکوبن و ژیروندن پس از سقوط باستیل به تدریج متولد شدند و هریک دارای ایدئولوژی های متفاوتی بودند . روزنامه های آزاد مانند روزنامه دوست مردم به سردبیری ژان پل مارا که فردی تندرو بود و مردم را به شورش و عزل لویی شانزدهم فرا می خواند و یا فرانسه آزاد به سردبیری کامی دمولن که به تبین و پایه گذاری ایدئولوژی حزب می پرداخت .
برای اولین بار زنان رهبری اعتراضات را بر عهده گرفتند و مسافت بین پاریس تا ورسای را پیاده و با ماهیتابه و قابلمه به دست طی کردند و از شاه و ملکه نان خواستند و شب هنگام به داخل کاخ حمله کرده و تا اطاق خواب لویی هم پیش رفتند و دست آخر شاه و ملکه و خاندان سلطنتی را چون گروگانی با خود به پاریس و کاخ تویلری آوردند .
چندی بعد به دنبال فرار ناموفق خاندان سلطنتی ، شاه و ملکه زندانی و سپس از سلطنت عزل و در جریان رای گیری علنی در مجلس به اعدام با گیوتین محکوم شدند و با جدا شدن سر آنها از بدن ، خودکامگان بر خود لرزیدند و به منظور خفه کردن انقلاب فرانسه با هم متحد و به فرانسه حمله کردند .
انقلاب فرانسه افراد بسیاری را به جهان معرفی کرد که بیشتر آنان تا این لحظه هم سرشناس مانده اند ، بریسو ، دانتون ، ربسپیر ، سن ژوست ، بارناو ، میرابو، فوکیه تنویل ...... و ناپلئون بناپارت . انقلاب فرانسه عبارت انقلاب فرزندان خود را می خورد را نه تنها بر سر زبان ها انداخت بلکه در عمل هم آنرا ثابت کرد ، دانتون و کامی دمولن توسط ربسپیر با گیوتین اعدام شدند ، ربسپیر قدرت را در درست گرفت ، در دوران وحشت او سی هزار نفر اعدام شدند ، آخر سر ربسپیر و سن ژوست توسط تنویل به اعدام محکوم گشتند و دو سال بعد هم خود تنویل اعدام شد !
در حقیقت انقلاب فرانسه آنقدر مطلب و شخصیت و تضاد آرا و مجموعه وقایع و علل وقوع و اثرات جهانی دارد که از دل آن میتوان چند ده جلد کتاب قطور منتشر کرد ، اما مشخص نیست که آقای جرج روده نویسنده کتاب چگونه با داشتن این حجم مطلب و اصرار بر بررسی تحولات زمان ناپلئون ، کتابی نسبتا سطحی و خسته کننده و فاقد اثر نوشته است . افراد در کتاب او می آیند و می روند بدون آنکه افکار انها برای مخاطب شناخته شود ، مثلا فرق بین دانتون و ربسپیر اصلا به آن پرداخته نشده است ، در حالی که این لحظه را می توان انحراف انقلاب و به افراط کشیدن آن دانست . نویسنده در جملاتی خبری سقوط باستیل را شرح داده ، در کتاب اثری ازشور و هیجان و بحث های داغی که پاریسی ها در کافه ها می کردند و این صحبتها تاریخ را شکل می داد نیست .
نویسنده نه تنها از جزییات بلکه از حوادث مهم مانند جریان اعدام لویی شانزدهم و ماری آنتوانت گذشته و کتابی نوشته که نه به انقلاب کبیر فرانسه درست پرداخته و نه به ابعاد جهانی آن.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Birthpangs of Modern Democracy
27 November 2015

I have to say that I quite like these books, namely because they give a fairly detailed, but concise, rundown of various periods of European History. The funny thing about history is that it tends to be a continuous flow of cause and effect, yet it seems to be fairly easily compartmentalised into various periods. The topic of this book is a classic example because while the French Revolution certainly didn't occur in a vacuum, can easily put it into a compartment where we are able to write a book about this specific period. Of course, as with most history, we need to have an understanding of the background events that led up to this specific period, and a history book is certainly not worth its salt unless we explore its effect upon our own world.

The first thing that I discovered as I was reading this book was that it was actually produced by my alma-matar – the University of Adelaide. This, I have to say, was pretty cool. Okay, when I studied the French Revolution at university it was pretty much a rush job (namely because we had to cram a lot into one semester), however when I was in high school we did look at it a lot more deeply (our European History course consisted of three parts – the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and Europe at War). Mind you, before I returned to high school all I knew about the French revolution was that it happened and all I knew about Napoleon was that he was some French dude that conquered Europe and had an unfortunate experience when he marched his army into Russia. However, after that first semester everything suddenly came together – Napoleon and the French Revolution actually went hand in hand.

The funny thing that I came to realise about the French Revolution as I was reading this book was that you could almost say that it was a rerun of the entire Roman Republic and Empire condensed into a period of twenty-five years. In fact Napoleon even based his civil code upon Roman Law (which is not all that surprising). The entire revolution began with an uprising of the middle class with the support of the lower classes. We then go into a populist period known as the Jacobean period, which was overseen by Robespierre and the guillotine was used as a tool of control quite freely (another thing I knew about the French Revolution before I returned to high school was that the guillotine was incredibly popular). After Robespierre found himself sitting under the blade of the guillotine the revolution took a much more conservative route, to the point that it looked like the monarchy was going to be restored, so in comes Napoleon, launches a successful coup-de-tat, and proceeds to conquer Europe. However this wasn't going to last as his Grand Empire was eventually destroyed by an invasion of the barbarians at the fringes, and the entire empire was then divided up among the victors.

While I could say a lot more about Napoleon, I will leave it here and instead refer you to my blog post Napoleon's Final Hour – what if he lost at Austerlitz. Actually, mentioning Austerlitz I have to say that this book said very little about that very important battle. Basically it was a paragraph mentioning that two armies met at this village in Austria (modern day Czechoslovakia) and Napoleon won. That, I have to say, was really disappointing, considering that one battle was what ended up changing the course of European history. However, I guess the writer saw things somewhat differently and considered that Austerlitz was a minor part of a much larger picture. Still, the question needs to be raised – what if Napoleon lost (and that was always a possibility)?

I guess I should say a few things about revolutions as a whole. The two revolutions that seem to be studied to death (at least in a European context) are the French and Russian revolutions. Sure, there were other revolutions but it was these two revolutions that effected the most change upon society as a whole (and as I mentioned I am looking at a European context – the American revolution, while mentioned, generally isn't studied in a course on European history). The thing about revolutions is that they tend not to be nice – there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. While the bolsheviks took over Russia without a drop of blood, the after effects of that even in October 1917 was still quite bloody. Mind you, I can't say that the French revolution was any less bloody, but I guess that is the nature of removing governments by force.

As the book says, revolutions don't happen in a vacuum, and further they don't happen because a part of society is agitating for change – if that was the case we would see a lot more of them than we do. Further, it is not necessarily an uprising of the lower classes that will push a country towards revolutions – there have been peasant revolts throughout the ages and they have always been put down, usually quite brutally. The thing with the French revolution (and you will discover the same with the American revolution) was that it was a revolt against the established order by the middle classes, however this would not have succeeded if they were unable to mobilise the lower classes and the military – without the military's support revolutions are doomed to fail (usually, but not always – the American Revolution is a case in point, as was the Russian revolution).

The other thing about revolutions is that they tend to be undone quite quickly. When it because evident that life after the revolution is actually quite harder than life before, there is suddenly a push to return to the old order – there is a romantic idea about revolutions and how they promise a better world that inevitably never arises. As such they tend to then move into a much bloodier stage as the new power brokers do whatever they can to retain power. In the case of Lenin and the Russian revolution he outlawed all opposing political parties, which in France you see the rise of the committee of public safety and the Jacobean terror.

Okay, I did say I wouldn't say any more about Napoleon, but I feel that I should say a couple of things before I close off this review. One thing that the book mentioned is that Napoleon actually has a very romantic element about him. Mind you, depending on which lense that you look at him he is either a tyrannical dictator who desires to subjugate the entire world, of he is this romantic figure that rides out to conquest with his army. For instance in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure you have a picture of Napoleon as this spoilt brat who throws a tantrum whenever he doesn't get his own way, and cheats if he finds himself on the losing side. This isn't the Napoleon of history, but rather the Napoleon of British Propaganda. The problem with Napoleon is that we see him too much in the light of a later European conquerer – Adolf Hitler. The thing is that the two men are nowhere the same – in fact Napoleon, while a general and a conqueror, was also a champion of equality – there were no concentration camps under Napoleon's rule.

As for the book, well , I have to say that I did quite enjoy it, even though it was a refresher of a period of history with which I am now quite familiar. Mind you, the author did use Anglicised terms, such as 'The Mountain' instead of Montaignards, which was a little confusing because when I wanted some more information on that particular political grouping I wasn't able to find it (Wikipedia kept on sending me to pictures of mountains). However Rude does explore the period quite throughly, and does paint a very detailed picture of this rather turbulent period of European history.

For those who are interested, I have written a counter-factual piece on my blog speculating what would have happened if Napoleon had lost at Austerlitz.

[Benjamin Curry · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good book to get your head around the succession of events in the French Revolution, from the dying days of the Ancien Regime to the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, placed in their broader European context. Apparently Rudé considered himself a Marxist, although it's clear he belonged to that camp of British empiricist historians that became fellow travellers of the Soviet Union. He calls himself a Marxist but he's essentially an empiricist. Still, by just laying out 'the facts' he gives you a good frame of reference for understanding the French Revolution.

[Simon Wood · Rating 4 out of 5]

A RUDE HISTORY OF NAPOLEONIC EUROPE

It's hard to imagine a popular publisher commission a twelve part history of Europe from the Reformation to World War 2 for the general reader these days, but in the 1960s that is what Fontana publishing did with their history of Europe. George Rude's contribution covers the period from 1783-1815 under the title "Revolutionary Europe" and in a readable prose explicates for the general reader the history of Europe during the turmoil and upheavals of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era.

The period itself is broken down into four parts, firstly the scene is set with an account of Europe in the early 1780's that considers the state of European developments at that time and the conflicts within as well as between Nations. The largest section of the book covers the French revolution itself and the variety of twists and turns it took prior to the rise of Napoleon. This is followed by an account of the myriad of effects that the revolutionary ideology had across Europe, and the Wars that were fought across the continent. Part of the revolutionary ideology was the recognition of talent without regard to status, so in effect you didn't have to be a member of the nobility/aristocracy to rise high in the service of the State. One such talented individual was Napoleon, and the fourth part of the book looks at his rise to power in the army, in France and across Europe as well as his eventual fall, resurrection and eventual exile to St Helena a sort of early 19th Century Guantanemo Bay for one.

Rude is pretty even handed throughout, and though he freely gives his opinion he also allows room for other views of the events of those decades. It's a good few years old, initially published in 1962, but stands up well against other books I have read on this period. There is a newer edition from Blackwell as well as this older Fontana edition but I have no idea whether it is the same text with a new introduction, or whether the body of the text has been updated to take into account new research and interpretations of the era. As the new edition was published 7 years after the death of Rude I suspect the former. Besides that the original paperback can be picked up cheaply second hand here while the Blackwell edition is somewhat more pricey. Recommended reading.

[Samuel]

Rudé plantea en este libro cual era la situación en Europa antes de la Revolución francesa y después, dedicando la mayor parte del libro a la Revolución francesa.
Me parece un buen libro como introducción a lo que es este periodo de la historia, no obstante y como es natural si te interesa la Revolución francesa en específico, este libro no deja de ser una visión rápida del mismo.
Lo más destacado desde mi punto de vista del libro y la parte que más me ha atrapado es la sucesión de gobiernos en la Revolución y la dura lucha por el poder así como el miedo constante a las clases bajas a las que nunca se les quiso dar poder.

[olivia · Rating 4 out of 5]

my favourite revolution man

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had been meaning to read a book or books on the French Revolution, Napoleon etc. for ages but never quite got round to it. What I wanted was a book that covered the whole period from 1789 to 1815. But it was very difficult to find books that dealt with both subjects (revolution and Napoleon) together.

I've been in a bit of a 'French mood' just lately what with reading a lot of Zola novels and contemplating reading some Proust - I might, I might not - I'm still not sure yet. Anyway, before reading this book I had recently read a short book on Napoleon and William Doyle's book on the French Revolution, however Rudé's book is what I was initially after. After reading these other books I realise now why the subjects are normally kept separate - they are very confusing and complicated subjects that are open to a lot of interpretation.

Rudé's book covers the French revolution, the impact it had on Europe and the rise and fall of Napoleon. It does what it sets out to do in 300 pages and given that it was written 50 years ago it is quite easy to read. The author assumes that the reader has a basic prior understanding of the events covered but not much more, which seems reasonable to me. It is an interesting single volume that gives a good summary of events spanning 30 tumultuous years. If you're after details then you should turn to more specific material with a narrower scope.

I picked my copy up in a second-hand bookshop and I'm glad I took the time to read it. It's no doubt out of date now but was an informative read.

[Arda · Rating 5 out of 5]

The preeminent British Marxist historian George Rudé, specialising in the French Revolution and 'histoire populaire', who stood out as one of the most prominent scholars in this movement, alongside with Georges Lefebvre and Chris Harman, gave a fresh insight in this book, to those who are already familiar with the Great Revolution in general, but also want to broaden their understanding of the events prior to it. I count myself fortunate for stumbling into this brilliantly organised, enlightening book while wandering around Geneva on a beautiful spring afternoon in 2010 when I stopped for a moment to take a closer look at the books at the cute bouqinistes there. I read this book almost four years ago, but, as I had long thought that I had either lent or simply lost this book and then have found it today all of a sudden, while seeking for some entirely different stuff, I decided to celebrate this fortuitous event, not with an all-round ceremony, but at least with a short review instead. So, I vehemently recommend this book to anyone interested in French Revolution.

[John Caviglia]

This classic of Marxist history became part of a current project to clean out dusty volumes from my bookshelves (this one originally bought remaindered, back in the days when such books—as if remainderdom were not enough—were mercilessly holed by a paper punch). But I could not flog my interest past chapter three, despite my fascination with the French Revolution (or perhaps, because of it, since the revolution itself was still nowhere in actual sight). Too much abstract “groundwork” for me, and not enough edifice. In any case, I’ll leave it unread (and unrated), and return to the bitter themes, unparalleled satire and verbal delights of Our Mutual Friend—part of the same project to lighten my bookshelves. Can’t believe I had so long let this Dickens languish unread.

[Jakab Ando · Rating 3 out of 5]

Muchos datos sociológicos muy interesantes y relato histórico entretenido, pero se nota, a mí parecer demasiado, la intención de presentar la Revolución como algo intrínsecamente positivo. O igual es que soy yo, que no me agradan en demasía los franceses.

[Donald Broussard · Rating 4 out of 5]

France in her history had seen her share of social uprisings from her people – most notably the Jacquerie under Charles V at the height of the Hundred Years’ War – but on the whole had not seen such severity in waves that hit all of Europe as was the case in 1789. The Enlightenmentbrought the 1780’s into a new social awareness that raged at monarchic systems.
George Rudé’s book is part of a Blackwell series on the history of Europe and as such covers a period of social unrest not solely limited to France. The aim of the work is well within the political scope of its author, for whom the Revolution epitomized the class struggle Marx and Engels wrote about in 1848. Thus Harvey Kaye writes in his introduction to this work that Rude “cultivated a Republican-Marxian ‘grand narrative’ in which he conceived the Revolution as a ‘merger of two distinct movements – the bourgeois and the popular –‘.” (p. xxiv)
The book examines the social context from which the Revolution sprang in terms of the classes that entered it. France in 1783 was in the midst of deplorable economic conditions (mainly resulting from the fruitless wars of Louis XIV and the indolence of his great-grandson Louis XV). These conditions exacerbated the differences in the feudal-oriented classes of France. The situation finally reached a point of financial ruin, resulting in the convocation of that archaic and ponderous body of old, the Estates-General. The Estates-General had first met in the Fourteenth Century as a means of allowing King Philip IV of France to browbeat the Pope, Boniface VIII, over the issue of the King’s right to collect ecclesiastical taxes. It later met under Charles VII to allow that king more tax revenues with which to fight the Hundred Years War. It had most recently been convened in 1614 during the minority of Louis XIII.

Just as the later revolutions of 1848 did not quite go as Marx and Engels had envisioned (after overthrowing the newly restored aristocrats in favor of the bourgeoisie, the Revolutions of 1848 had stopped short of the proletariat overthrow of the bourgeoisie), so too did the Revolution of 1789 neither occur nor conclude in a manner the original Deputies would have ever dared to consider. In this respect it also resembles the American Revolution, which it in part inspired. In no state of the time had a top-down central absolutist authority addressed the problem of social
equality. Writing from a Marxist perspective, Rudé sees 1789 Paris in much the same light as 1917 Moscow, and Robespierre as idealistic as Lenin. This also means he implicitly skirts the issue of the legality of the execution of the King – since all revolutionaries of 1789 felt the King was guilty before his trial began. Not for nothing had Mirabeau mused that the king must reign or he must die.


The scope of work ranging over such a broad period allows the author’s crisp perspective to convey the frenetic activity of Revolutionary Europe. Starting in France as in internal financial meeting, the Revolution grew into an ultra-national movement. The French had taken their ideas to be universally applicable, so they began to talk of bringing the wisdom gleaned from Rousseau and the Enlightenment to other parts of Europe. Not needing to spend an eternity on exploring the causes of the resulting tumult (since, as a Marxist, he knows these revolutions to be inevitable and
even justified occurrences anyway), Rude devotes his focus to the social tradition fostered in 1789.
This tradition did not end with the Terror; nor does Rudé’s examination. Napoleon himself professed admiration for the Committee of Public Safety – a committee which threw the doors of the officer corps open to men of military talent liked the famed Corsican general. Without Robespierre, there could be no Napoleon.

[Terry · Rating 1 out of 5]

The blurb on this book says it "brings to life" the era of revolution in Europe. More like it "puts to sleep" that era. Very dry history ponderously written. Paragraphs run on for two pages (small font!). The author is clearly an historian who eschews personalizing history (no heroes here!) and prefers to focus on big sociological trends and political movements, but he drains all drama (or melodrama) out of a very exciting period -- running from before the French Revolution through the fall of Napoleon. The leaders of the Revolution have no personality in this book--some barely get a mention--nor does Napoleon. The best section is toward the end, describing Napoleon's campaigns and ultimate downfall. For a more dramatic and engaging take on this era try Simon Schama's "Citizens," or Hilary Mantel's "A Place of Greater Safety."

[Mdaly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like this book. It explained the French Revolution very well and the subsequent rise and fall of Napoleon.
Although it was bit confusing at the start in that it covered the Revolution thematically rather than chronologically for the first few chapters so there was a bit of toing and froing.

[Stephen Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very informative read. Very detailed, The social, political, economic and religious ramifications of revolution in Europe. There are some good insights here.

[Georgia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful chronology of the 1789 revolution onwards. Observes through Tocqueville, Burke, Rousseau ...

Readable and informative.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was frustrated at first since this is as much analysis as history and I wanted straighter history. Rude tends to assume the reader’s already familiar with the general history of the revolution. But I warmed to it - the French Revolution’s confusing enough; without general European social and economic context prior, and assessment of its various and widespread impacts during and after, a straight narrative of facts primarily within France from 1789 to 1815 would probably leave a reader pretty unenlightened (bad pun – couldn’t help it). So this is a good analysis; now I have to find a more substantial history.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-written and detailed work of history.