If the French Revolution, which took place from 1789 to 1799, had not occurred, the course of history would have been significantly altered. The Revolution was a pivotal moment that affected not only France but also Europe and the world, with its influences continuing to shape modern societies.
Had the French Revolution not taken place:
France: The French Revolution brought an end to feudalism and paved the way for individual freedoms. Without the Revolution, the French king would likely have remained an absolute figure, and the nobility would have retained their privileges.
The rise of new ideas rooted in liberalism, enlightenment, and democracy would have been suppressed. France’s political, social, and cultural development would have followed a different path, potentially delaying the emphasis on universal rights, the secularization of the state, and the concept of equality.
Europe: The French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic era spread revolutionary ideals across Europe, leading to significant political and social changes. Without the Revolution, the rise of modern nationalism may have been delayed, and the Holy Roman Empire might have continued to exist, hindering German unification. The reforms and modernization efforts implemented by the French in conquered territories, such as the abolition of feudal privileges and the introduction of legal reforms, would not have occurred.
Global Impact: The French Revolution inspired revolutionary movements across Europe and the Americas. The Haitian Revolution, which led to the first successful slave revolt, was one such example. Without the French Revolution, the spread of revolutionary ideals, human rights, and constitutional government may have been significantly slower. The United States might not have been able to purchase Louisiana from France, impacting American expansion.
It is important to note that some historians view the French Revolution as a violent and tumultuous period. Nevertheless, it remains a transformative event with a lasting impact on France and the world.
How would European politics have evolved without the French Revolution
Without the French Revolution, European politics would have evolved in a markedly different manner, particularly regarding the concepts of nationalism, democracy, and the balance of power among states.
Nationalism and State Formation: The French Revolution played a crucial role in the rise of nationalism across Europe. It challenged the legitimacy of dynastic rule and inspired various national movements.
Without this upheaval, the concept of nation-states may have developed more slowly, leading to a continuation of multi-ethnic empires like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire without significant nationalist challenges. The absence of revolutionary fervor might have allowed these empires to maintain their territorial integrity longer, delaying the unification of countries like Germany and Italy.
Political Ideologies: The Revolution introduced radical ideas about popular sovereignty, civil rights, and republicanism that spread throughout Europe. In its absence, conservative monarchies would likely have retained greater control over their populations. The ideological battle between liberalism and conservatism would have been less pronounced, potentially stymying social reforms and delaying the emergence of democratic institutions in many European nations.
International Relations and Warfare: The French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars significantly altered the European balance of power. Without these events, the Congress of Vienna might not have occurred in 1815, which aimed to restore stability through a balance of power among European states.
Instead, Europe could have remained fragmented under various monarchies without a concerted effort to create a stable international order. This might have led to more localized conflicts rather than large-scale wars driven by revolutionary ideologies.
Social Change and Reform Movements: The absence of revolutionary ideas would likely have resulted in slower social change. Reforms concerning feudal privileges, civil rights, and secular governance might not have gained traction until much later.
Consequently, social classes would remain more rigidly defined, preserving aristocratic privileges for an extended period. In summary, without the French Revolution, European politics would likely be characterized by stronger monarchies with less emphasis on nationalism and democracy.
The revolutionary ideals that inspired widespread change across the continent would be significantly muted, leading to a different trajectory for state formation, political ideologies, international relations, and social reform movements.
How might the social structure in France look today if the Revolution had not occurred
If the French Revolution had not occurred, the social structure in France today would likely be significantly different, characterized by a more rigid hierarchy and the persistence of aristocratic privileges.
Preservation of Aristocracy: Without the Revolution, the aristocracy would likely have maintained much of its traditional power, wealth, and social status. The nobility might still possess significant land holdings and exert considerable influence in politics and the economy.
Limited Social Mobility: The French Revolution promoted social mobility by dismantling the feudal system and opening opportunities for commoners to rise in society. Without the Revolution, social mobility would likely be far more restricted, with individuals largely confined to the social class into which they were born.
Economic Structure: The economic structure might still be heavily influenced by traditional landed elites, with less emphasis on industrialization and entrepreneurship. The rise of a strong middle class, which was fostered by the Revolution, would likely be stunted.
Influence of the Church: The Catholic Church might retain much of its pre-Revolution influence, playing a significant role in education, social welfare, and even politics. The secularization of society, which was accelerated by the Revolution, would likely have been delayed or limited.
Absence of Republican Values: The values of liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) that became central to French identity would likely be absent. Instead, the social order would be based on deference to authority and tradition.
Overall, the social structure of France today, without the French Revolution, would likely resemble a more traditional, hierarchical society with limited social mobility, significant aristocratic privilege, and a strong influence of the Church. The principles of equality and individual rights, which have shaped modern French society, would likely be far less prominent.
The period of the French Revolution is often primarily seen as a violent confrontation between two orders, the Third Estate and the nobility, with the execution of Louis XVI in 1793 being a focal point. The religious factor is somewhat relegated to the background. However, the clergy is also an order, at least as powerful as the nobility, and, more importantly, religion holds a central place in a deeply religious France and within a monarchy based on divine right. We will thus address the relationship between the French Revolution and religion, beginning with the situation before 1789.
Jansenism and the Revolution
The crisis of Jansenism left its mark on the France of the Ancien Régime, particularly through the papal response with the Unigenitus bull, which reignited Jansenism even within the Parliaments under the reign of Louis XV, where Jansenism and Gallicanism intertwined in opposition to papal influence. For a time, this “parliamentary party” gained momentum, even achieving the expulsion of the Jesuit rivals in 1764. However, Jansenism had to yield to the blows of Maupeou, who quashed the rebellion of the Parliaments in the early 1770s.
These various crises tore the French Church apart, and although Jansenism was ultimately defeated, it had nonetheless spread its ideas widely and was seen as one of the inspirations for the Revolution. As for the clergy, it found itself acting as “agents of the king.”
The French Clergy on the Eve of the Revolution
Officially, the clergy was considered the first estate of the kingdom, but the reality was more complex. By the late 1780s, there were an estimated 130,000 members of the clergy, about 2% of the French population. This included a regular clergy, two-thirds of which was female, and a highly unequal secular clergy, with bishops forming a “general staff” and a large number of parish priests, vicars, and chaplains making up the rest.
The clergy played a central role in society at all levels, starting with parish registers (a goldmine of sources for historians) and much of the education system. They also held a monopoly over charity and assistance. As an estate, the clergy enjoyed numerous privileges, both judicial and fiscal, and was one of the largest landowners in the kingdom.
However, the clergy was deeply divided on the eve of the Revolution, the most significant rift being between the upper and lower clergy, with the former enjoying far more privileges. One could even speak of a crisis within the French clergy, caused by these inequalities and the lingering effects of the Jansenist quarrel. One sign of this crisis was the sharp decline in clerical recruitment, both regular and secular, with monastic orders being the most affected.
In an atmosphere of desacralization of the monarchy, the clergy attempted to oppose all “bad books” by reinforcing censorship through several ordinances in the 1780s. The problem was that the king did not support them in this effort! It seems that, between the Church and the Enlightenment, the king had chosen the latter, even in education, which experienced “secularization” following the expulsion of the Jesuits, much to the dismay of the bishops.
Protestants and Jews
France was predominantly Catholic, but the existence of minorities should not be overlooked.
The situation of the Protestants was mixed, with persecution during the reign of Louis XIV followed by some optimism during the early reign of Louis XV. Ultimately, they continued to live in secrecy until two years before the Revolution, with the Edict of Tolerance in 1787.
Prejudices against Jews remained strong at the end of the Ancien Régime, and the issue of their emancipation was only raised in a few restricted circles. The clergy largely despised them, and mercantile and economic circles were resolutely hostile. Despite the influence of the Enlightenment and some improvements in the second half of the 18th century, Jews were still subject to severe discrimination on the eve of the Revolution.
Religious Practice in France
Religion played a central role in the collective life of Ancien Régime France, even setting the rhythm of life. However, secularization was gaining ground, particularly through the growing prevalence of secular festivals.
The situation seems more complex than has often been portrayed: France was generally thought of as deeply religious and devout, “broken” by the revolutionary rupture. It is difficult to present a unified picture: some regions remained highly devout, others much less so, and still others were influenced by a “poorly rooted” Protestantism. This diversity would later manifest itself in the reactions to the revolutionaries’ religious policies, especially regarding the process of dechristianization.
Thus, the religious situation in France on the eve of the Revolution was complex. The clergy was divided and relatively weakened, religious practice was uneven, the Protestant minority remained solid, and the influence of the Enlightenment was growing. It is, therefore, no surprise that this complexity would resurface when the Revolution broke out.
Cahiers de doléances: The Clergy, and Religion
Cahiers de doléances
The Estates-General were convened at the end of 1788 to meet on May 1, 1789. It was during this election campaign for deputies that the cahiers de doléances (grievance lists) were drafted, totaling 60,000, written by rural communities and urban professional groups.
Religion, especially the clergy, is a topic addressed in these cahiers but not among the primary concerns (only a tenth according to Mr. Vovelle). Notables from the West and Franche-Comté regions were highly critical of the clergy, who in these areas exerted strong control over the morals of rural populations. It was also in the West where demands for the abolition of the tithe and regular clergy were most common, despite these not being the regions where the tithe was highest or religious figures most numerous. Conversely, in the Southwest, where the tithe was at its highest, only its reform was requested.
As for the issues that foreshadow the future Outline of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the most radical measures of the Constituent Assembly (such as the complete sale of Church property), the demands were concentrated in a continuous zone stretching from the western Paris Basin to Brittany. In these regions, the notables of the Third Estate were the most anti-clerical, and it was also here that counter-revolutionary uprisings would be most significant.
However, the geography of the Cahiers de doléances differs when addressing more strictly religious matters (rather than ecclesiastical ones), such as the reduction of the number of religious holidays. The most vocal regions in this regard were the Mediterranean basin, as well as a Picardy/Lyonnais zone, including the Paris region. These areas would later be among the most affected by de-Christianization.
Regarding the clergy itself, the grievances partly reflect its internal divisions. Most of the clergy’s cahiers defended privileges, the religious monopoly, and condemned the tolerance edicts. However, a few voices from parish priests sought to improve their social status. They were supported in this by some of the village cahiers from the Third Estate.
Nevertheless, none of these Cahiers de doléances questioned religion itself as a whole.
“It was those damn priests who made the Revolution”
This famous quote is attributed to an anonymous aristocrat, and while it shouldn’t be taken literally, it aptly reflects the events of the spring of 1789. First, we must consider the role of the clergy (in its diversity) at the Estates-General, then examine the actions of its members from the opening of the Estates-General until the night of August 4, 1789.
At the Estates-General, the clergy was represented by 291 deputies (out of 1,139), the majority (more than 200) being parish priests. There were only 46 bishops representing the clergy. Most of the lower clergy members supported change (though there would later be opposition between Abbé Grégoire and Abbé Maury).
During the heated debates of the Estates-General starting on May 5, 1789, parish priests played an increasingly important role as the Third Estate resisted the decisions of the king and the pressures from the nobility and high clergy.
Following Mirabeau’s initiative on June 12, three and then sixteen priests left their order to join the Third Estate; among them was Curé Jallet, who, when reproached by the prelates for this defection, replied, “We are your equals, we are citizens like you…”
At the same time, on June 17, 1789, under the influence of Abbé Sieyès, the Estates-General transformed into the National Assembly. Two days later, the clergy, by a majority of its members, decided to join the Third Estate, while the nobility sided with the king. This led to the Tennis Court Oath on June 20, 1789, again with Abbé Sieyès playing a central role, alongside figures like Abbé Grégoire. However, the clergy’s adherence to this movement should be tempered, as it remained divided, especially among prelates, still attached to privileges. And in the rising context of insurrection, particularly in rural areas, members of the high clergy were not spared.
Night of August 4th
Events were accelerating, and the king was overwhelmed. On July 9th, the deputies proclaimed the National Assembly as “constituent.” On July 14th, 1789, the Bastille was stormed. The movement spread to the countryside, resulting in the Great Fear.
It was in this both turbulent and euphoric context that the famous night of the abolition of privileges occurred, although it had been well prepared in advance. During this all-nighter on August 4th, 1789, the clergy members were far from inactive, as they were part of the privileged class. However, there was sometimes an escalation of generosity from certain members of the old order or the nobility, with reciprocal proposals. For instance, the abolition of hunting rights was proposed by the Bishop of Chartres, to which the nobility responded with the idea of abolishing the tithe.
The consequences for the clergy were significant, with decisions affecting them both directly and indirectly. The abolition of feudal dues also impacted chapters and abbeys, and the abolition of privileges as a whole deprived the clergy (which officially ceased to exist as an order) of its fiscal privileges. The clergy was then more directly affected by the elimination of the casuel (payments by the faithful for religious services), proposed by parish priests, and, of course, the abolition of the tithe. The latter, even contested by Sieyès, had the most consequences as it required the state to provide for the clergy, who had lost most of their income necessary for conducting religious activities.
In the weeks and months following, there was still a sense of unity and some euphoria, aided by the context. Religious and revolutionary celebrations took place together, and priests assumed responsibilities, especially in municipal structures. The nobles were viewed with more suspicion than the priests. This “honeymoon” period lasted at least until the spring of 1790, despite some tensions and the emergence of real divergences during the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on August 26, 1789.
It was ultimately the Civil Constitution of the Clergy on August 24, 1790, that would ignite the situation…
Rise of Tensions
Looting of a church during the Revolution, c. 1793. Credit: Swebach-Desfontaines, Public Domain
Despite the dissolution of the clergy as an order and the participation of many parish priests in the first decisions of the Constituent Assembly, an anti-religious sentiment seemed to be growing in the country by the end of 1789. Indeed, “the happy year” was not as peaceful as it was long thought, and the elements that would constitute the religious crisis were coming into place.
It began with decisions like the temporary suspension of religious vows (October 28, 1789) and the nationalization of church property (November 2), while at the beginning of 1790, the citizenship of non-Catholics, Protestants, or Jews was being debated.
Then came the debate on religious freedom during the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August 1789. The discussions were heated, ultimately resulting in Article 10: “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”
As the end of the Constituent Assembly approached, some unsuccessfully tried to impose an article making Catholicism the state religion or the “national religion.” On April 12, 1790, Dom Gerle even requested that Catholicism be the only public religion, sparking an outcry, as the deputies sought instead to place all religions on equal footing.
The suspension of solemn vows aimed to attack the chapters, as the revolutionaries believed that freedom should not stop at the doors of the convents. The Jean-Baptiste Treilhard decree of February 13, 1790, allowed male and female religious members to be released from their vows and to leave their monasteries or convents, granting them a pension. Congregations were spared for the time being, although they were affected by the confiscation of their property, as was the case with all clergy assets. However, teaching orders were dissolved on August 18, 1792.
Civil Constitution of the Clergy
The major decision on the religious question was undoubtedly the passing of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. This aimed to organize the Catholic Church, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Assembly began considering the matter as early as August 1789. This Committee was strengthened in February 1790 by patriotic priests due to rising tensions within its ranks.
From April onwards, discussions centered on a proposal by Martineau, a Gallican Catholic, who sought to clarify the procedures for appointing priests and to eliminate privileges, particularly those stemming from Rome. The nation was to compensate clergy members. This raised the issue of the Pope, who was not consulted, intensifying tensions.
Despite these challenges, the proposal was passed on July 12, 1790, without significant difficulty, and the king accepted it on July 22. However, this did not quell the tensions—quite the opposite. Protests mainly came from bishops, who wanted to appeal to the Pope (who condemned the Constitution in March 1791) and called for a national council, a demand Robespierre rejected. But it was the constitutional oath that truly ignited the situation.
Constitutional Oath and the Explosion
The constitutional oath was a logical follow-up to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. It responded to the bishops’ refusal to implement the Constitution. On November 27, 1790, it was decided that public clergy officials were required to swear loyalty to the Nation, the Law, the King, and the Constitution. In the Assembly, only seven bishops, following Grégoire’s lead, took the oath. The Assembly members were surprised by the lack of adherence. By 1791, just over 50% of the clergy had taken the oath, with significant regional disparities.
This schism within the Church in France led to clashes and violence at the local level, directed at both constitutional clergy and those who resisted the oath, despite the Assembly’s efforts to enforce religious freedom while imposing the constitutional Church. Punitive expeditions, collective humiliations, and even stoning became common practices, not only among the Sans-Culottes.
On November 29, 1791, the activist refractory clergy were labeled “suspected of sedition”; on May 27, 1792, they became eligible for deportation. The fall of Louis XVI on August 10, 1792, triggered a large emigration of refractory clergy.
Dechristianization
“The French people recognize the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul” (1794 print). Credit: Wikimedia, Public Domain
Amid the growing tensions surrounding the Church, and localized violence (in the South) involving Protestants, there was a parallel rise in anticlericalism. The year 1793 marked the beginning of a period during which the rejection of Christianity was neither a spontaneous revolt nor a directive of the revolutionary government.
The phenomenon had been present in revolutionary celebrations since the Federation Festival on July 14, 1790. In the same spirit, the Festival of Regeneration, or Unity and Indivisibility of the French, held on August 10, 1793, was a fully secularized ceremony marking a key moment. However, the offensive occurred during the winter of the same year, initiated by politically active circles.
This period saw rural communities renouncing religious worship, or antireligious demonstrations, led by figures such as Fouché in Nièvre. Elsewhere, churches were transformed into Temples of Reason (as happened to Notre-Dame on November 10, 1793), priests were married, and religious books were burned in public displays. The most affected regions were the Paris area, the Center, the North, parts of the Rhône Valley, and Languedoc.
This dechristianization movement shocked even the Committee of Public Safety, and Robespierre, in a speech on November 21, 1793, harshly criticized “aristocratic atheism.” Following his lead, the Convention condemned “all violence and measures against religion.” Nevertheless, dechristianization continued in rural areas until the spring of 1794.
The end of the dechristianization period saw the rise of Robespierre’s deist influence and the emergence of the Cult of the Supreme Being, following other revolutionary cults. The year 1795 also witnessed the first law separating Church and State.
Honoré-Gabriel Riquetti, Count of Mirabeau, was a writer and a political figure at the start of the French Revolution. After a tumultuous youth marked by romantic escapades, he was elected, despite being a noble, as a deputy for the Third Estate in 1789. He quickly made his mark with his eloquence and sought to establish the principle of a constitutional monarchy based on the English model, with power shared between the king and the Assembly. Although distrusted by many deputies, he became president of the Constituent Assembly but was largely ignored by King Louis XVI, who paid handsomely for his advice.
Mirabeau’s Tumultuous Youth
Born in the Gâtinais at the Château de Bignon, the future Count of Mirabeau was the fifth child and second son of Victor Riqueti, Marquis de Mirabeau, and Marie Geneviève de Vassan. Heir to the family name after the death of his elder brother, he was born with a clubfoot and two molar teeth. At the age of three, he contracted confluent smallpox, which left deep scars on his face due to the careless application of an eye ointment, further adding to his natural unattractiveness.
He was a turbulent, undisciplined child but highly intelligent with a prodigious memory. His father recognized his abilities but claimed he had an inclination toward evil. In 1767, he enlisted him in the army but refused to purchase him a commission.
In July 1768, Mirabeau secretly left his garrison and took refuge in Paris.
This escape led to his first imprisonment at the citadel on the Île de Ré. He was released when he requested to join the Corsican expedition, where he distinguished himself. Upon his return, he reconciled with his father (October 1770), and in 1771, he was received at court.
A new dispute arose between him and his father, who wanted to force him to work. At that time, he married a wealthy heiress, Émilie de Marignane (1772), but did not receive any dowry. Harassed by creditors, he was imprisoned in the Château d’If. In May 1775, Honoré was transferred to the Fort de Joux, where the less strict surveillance allowed him to visit the town.
There, he met the Marquis de Monnier, who was married to Marie-Thérèse Richard de Ruffey, the daughter of a president of the Chamber of Accounts of Burgundy. This was the beginning of Mirabeau’s affair with the woman he immortalized as Sophie. Mirabeau fled to Switzerland, then to Holland with Madame de Monnier, who managed to join him. Their respite was brief. They were arrested in Amsterdam in May 1776. Transferred back to France, Mirabeau was imprisoned at the Château de Vincennes in June 1777, where he wrote two famous works: Letters to Sophie and Letters de Cachet.
Mirabeau was released in 1780 after three and a half years in detention. His wife Émilie obtained a legal separation, and in 1786, Mirabeau returned to Berlin on a secret mission.
Mirabeau: Revolutionary Leader
Upon the announcement of the convocation of the Estates-General, Mirabeau launched a fierce campaign in Provence against the aristocracy’s privileges and, despite being a noble, was triumphantly elected as the representative of the Third Estate for the Seneschal of Aix. Linked to the Duke of Orléans, he asserted himself at the Estates-General with his exceptional oratory skills, making people forget his “grand and striking ugliness.
On June 17, 1789, the deputies of the Third Estate declared themselves the National Assembly, gathered in the Tennis Court, and vowed to draft a constitution for the country. On June 23, 1789, he allegedly delivered the famous statement: “We are here by the will of the people, and we shall only leave by force of bayonets,” refusing the king’s order to dissolve the new assembly. He then succeeded in having the principle of inviolability of deputies adopted.
Becoming a popular idol, he fueled unrest with an army of publicists and played a major role in drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Mirabeau also passed a new tax, the patriotic contribution of a quarter of incomes, and arranged for the nationalization of church property. At this point, Mirabeau appeared to be the man capable of achieving a reconciliation between the king, the aristocracy, and the Revolution, as desired by La Fayette. But while his eloquence captivated the Assembly, his private life scandalized it, and his political ambitions alarmed it.
Mirabeau’s Duplicity and Death
Troubled by the excesses of the Revolution, Mirabeau drew closer to the court and Louis XVI. His first memorandum to the king, dated May 10, 1790, concluded with the words: “I promise the king loyalty, zeal, energy, and courage of which people may have no conception.” Now an advocate of constitutional monarchy, Mirabeau sought to reconcile this idea with revolutionary principles. He defended the king’s right to an absolute veto against the majority of the National Constituent Assembly, which voted for a suspensive veto. Mirabeau hoped to become a minister mediating between the National Assembly and the king. However, in November 1789, the Assembly dashed his ambitions by declaring that no member of the Constituent Assembly could become a minister.
Through the Count of La Marck, Mirabeau sent notes to Louis XVI on organizing the counter-revolution and, with La Fayette—whom he disliked—tried to secure the king’s right to control war and peace in the new constitution. His proposals to maintain the throne and end the Revolution were never fully heeded by the king, who trusted him no more than La Fayette, commander of the National Guard.
His duplicity did not go unnoticed by some revolutionaries, who denounced his corruption.
Despite these complications and some animosities within the Assembly, Mirabeau regained his popularity, became a member of the Paris departmental directorate, and was elected president of the Constituent Assembly on January 30, 1791. Exhausted by a life of excess and work, he died suddenly on April 2, 1791. His body was laid to rest in the Panthéon but was later removed after the discovery of the iron chest, which contained his correspondence with the king. With his death, the Revolution lost one of its key figures and its most powerful orator. His Oratory Works and the Correspondence between the Count of Mirabeau and the Count of La Marck were published posthumously.
The First White Terror during the French Revolution was a violent anti-Jacobin reaction during the Thermidorian Reaction (1794–1795). After Robespierre’s fall on 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794) and especially after the failure of the revolutionary attempts on 12 Germinal (1 April 1795) and 1 Prairial (20 May 1795), the royalists, or “whites,” led a violent repression against the Jacobin sans-culottes. This White Terror, the counterpart to the “red” Terror of the sans-culottes during the “Robespierrist” regime, persisted intermittently throughout the Directory.
A Divided Revolutionary France
Although the White Terrors were less deadly than the revolutionary terror, the excesses committed after Robespierre’s hasty execution without trial and after Napoleon’s second abdication were far from insignificant, even if they occupy only a modest place in official history. The most terrible inclinations of humanity were on display, mirroring the fall of the monarchy, showing not only the extremes of political passions but also personal vendettas exploiting the disorganization of the State to act freely without constraint.
To understand the White Terrors, one must return to the beginnings of the Revolution. The oppositions were not only political but also religious. Protestants, still numerous, especially in the Cévennes and southern France, were generally in favor of regime change (Rabaut Saint-Etienne was a Protestant pastor from Nîmes), whereas Catholics often leaned toward the Ancien Régime. Among Catholics, the Jansenists were more inclined toward the new order than the Jesuits, meaning religious disputes reinforced political conflicts.
In several southern cities, bloody clashes broke out between the two sides. This was particularly true in Nîmes, which had a significant Protestant community supported by their co-religionists in the Cévennes. Through somewhat dishonest maneuvers, Catholics managed to take control of the National Guard and appoint an aristocrat as mayor. The supporters of the Ancien Régime armed themselves with axes and pitchforks to hunt down Protestants, known as “black clothes.” They hoped for the support of the Guyenne regiment stationed in the city, but it remained loyal to the constitution.
Fights broke out between soldiers and the National Guardsmen, the former wearing the tricolor cockade, the latter the white cockade. A royalist armed insurrection erupted but was crushed by the army, which assaulted a tower where the rebels had barricaded themselves with a small cannon. Contrary to their expectations, the Catholics of Nîmes received no help from other southern cities; on the contrary, they antagonized the Protestant Cévennes, whose National Guardsmen camped on the outskirts of the city. These events in June 1790 led to massacres, interpreted differently depending on the side. The Catholic movement failed but left lasting scars on the collective memory.
Two early attempts to unite anti-Revolutionary forces connected to émigrés occurred in July 1790 and February 1791 in Vivarais (Jalès camp). In July 1792, an even more openly monarchist conspiracy formed around one of the authors of the previous attempts. The goal was to organize an uprising of southern Catholics, fueled by hatred of Protestants. The conspirators seem to have overestimated the strength of the antagonisms. In any case, their gathering was dispersed by the army, and many of the fugitives went underground, where they engaged in banditry.
Later, the nascent Republic faced a royalist insurrection in the West (Vendée, Brittany, Pays de la Loire, Normandy). These uprisings, motivated primarily by religious reasons (rejection of the constitutional clergy), secondarily by opposition to conscription, and finally by the abolition of communal lands (sold as national property, depriving the poorest rural inhabitants of their main resources), were much bloodier than the White Terrors.
In addition to these uprisings, starting in June 1793, after the fall of the Girondins, the Committee of Public Safety also had to contend with federalist revolts in Normandy (Caen), Bordeaux, Lyon, and the south, where the port of Toulon was handed over to the English. These revolts brought Girondins and royalists closer together, at least in Lyon and Toulon, united by their common hatred of the Jacobin Montagnards in power in Paris. It is important to note that not all southern inhabitants were pro-monarchy. The role of the Marseille volunteers in the fall of the monarchy in August 1792 and the popularization of the song that would become the French national anthem are significant reminders of this.
The intensity of opposing passions in the south partially explains the events of the White Terrors. While the Marseillais played a significant role in the storming of the Tuileries, and the young revolutionary hero Agricole Viala was killed by royalists in 1793 on the Rhône near Avignon, Marseille remained in the hands of moderates, who imprisoned and guillotined republicans even before the Girondins were overthrown. Later, the bloody repression of royalist and federalist uprisings sowed the seeds of future vengeance.
The period following Robespierre’s fall saw not only the rehabilitation of the surviving supporters of Danton, Hébert, and the Girondins but also the return from exile of some royalists who continued to hide while benefiting from relaxed surveillance to resume their old plots. This was particularly the case with Imbert-Colomès in Lyon; compromised in the bloody suppression of a food riot in 1789–1790, he had to flee after his house in Lyon was destroyed by a popular uprising. Far from being a time of calm, this period was one of heightened tensions. None of the involved parties, whether the remaining Montagnards or their rehabilitated adversaries, interpreted the fall of the “tyrant” the same way.
The Thermidorian Reaction
The Thermidorian Reaction was characterized by the abandonment of policies favoring the popular classes (such as the law of the maximum) and a relaxation of revolutionary discipline. However, those who brought down MaximilienRobespierre, out of fear of the guillotine, often due to their own excesses and plundering, had no intention of ending the Terror. They were carried further by events than they initially intended. Evidence of this is that the most fervent extremists of the Committees remained in place, at least for a time. Therefore, portraying the movement against “The Incorruptible” (Robespierre) as a movement against the Terror is, in part, a historical falsification; most serious historians of the Revolution have already corrected this biased view.
In the factional struggles that resurfaced, those currently holding power, often newly wealthy and free from fear, seized every opportunity. They thought their time might be limited, as the revolutionary spirit was far from subdued, as demonstrated by the events of Germinal and Prairial. During these days, riots twice invaded the Convention; a deputy (Féraud) was assassinated, and his head was presented on a pike to President Boissy d’Anglas.
Féraud, however, was a victim of mistaken identity—he had been taken for Fréron, the leader of the gilded youth! This helps explain the moral decline and the hatred the new elite felt toward the republicans. These “muscadins,” as they were called, wielded leaded clubs disguised as canes to beat anyone they suspected of being part of what they called the “tail of Robespierre.” It was in this context that the first “White Terror” began.
The press, having regained some freedom, fanned the flames. Moderate and royalist newspapers launched attacks on the terrorists, as did the Hébertist pamphleteers (like Gracchus Babeuf), at least until mid-November 1794, when the Babouvists reallied with the Jacobins. Louis Fréron, who had represented the Convention in the South alongside Barras in 1793, had distinguished himself there by his violence and thefts.
From September 11, 1794, he resumed publishing L’Orateur du Peuple, a reactionary propaganda outlet, in which he displayed a virulent anti-Jacobinism—entirely opposite to the ferocity he had previously directed at royalists. Fréron no doubt hoped to make people forget that, in the same newspaper in 1791, he had loudly dreamed of storming the Tuileries, toppling the monarchy, and wished for Marie-Antoinette to be tied by her hair to a horse’s tail, to suffer the fate of Frédégonde.
He also likely wanted to make people forget that he had boasted in his letters about having massacred dozens of counter-revolutionaries without trial in Marseille and Toulon, and that his role in the events of 9 Thermidor was primarily to avoid punishment for his crimes. Alongside this fanatic, now claiming he would burn down the Saint-Antoine district, royalist Méhée de Latouche published the pamphlet La Queue de Robespierre, and Ange Pitou spread royalist songs in the streets. These examples are just a small reflection of the many counter-revolutionary publications that appeared at the time (Le Messager du soir, Le Postillon des armées, L’Éclair, L’Historien, Les Nouvelles politiques, Le Véridique, Le Rôdeur, Le Précurseur, La Feuille du jour, Le Courrier républicain (poorly named), Le Gardien de la constitution (a constitution they dreamed of overthrowing), La Quotidienne…).
Verbal and physical violence against anyone even remotely resembling a Jacobin increased. In Paris, Tallien and Fréron organized gangs of muscadins. Two to three thousand of these dandies, made up of suspects released from prison after Thermidor, deserters, draft dodgers, journalists, artists, clerks, brokers, and small tradesmen, mostly living on the right bank and nicknamed “Collets Noirs” (Black Collars) due to their attire—a tight coat with a black velvet collar (mourning the death of Louis XVI), with 17 pearl buttons (in honor of Louis XVII), tails cut like a cod’s tail, breeches tight at the knee, and braided hair tied back by hairpins—paraded their rejection of the revolutionary order by waving their leaded clubs.
Gathered around singers and composers like Pierre Garat, François Elleviou, and Ange Pitou, dramatist Alphonse Martainville, and publicist Isidore Langlois, and led by adventurer the Marquis de Saint-Hurugue, they became increasingly openly anti-republican. They stirred up loud disturbances in the Palais Royal neighborhood, making noise in the streets while singing Le Réveil du Peuple, a counter-revolutionary song.
They met in royalist cafés, read the aforementioned newspapers, disrupted theater performances by heckling actors considered terrorists, imposing readings or songs, and attacking anyone whose readings, words, or appearance remotely resembled that of the Jacobins. They also hunted down busts of revolutionary figures, forcing the Convention to remove Marat from the Panthéon and throw him into a sewer on February 8, 1795. Finally, they multiplied clashes, some of which escalated into brawls, murders, and rapes of Jacobin women.
Fights between the gilded youth and republicans, Jacobin or otherwise, multiplied, particularly with soldiers on leave or at the Hôtel des Invalides. One notable incident took place on September 19, 1794, at the Palais-Égalité (Palais-Royal). Using these violent incidents as a pretext, the authorities closed the Jacobin Club in November 1794. Even Girondin Louvet de Couvray, who denounced both royalists and Jacobins in his newspaper La Sentinelle, was attacked by young royalists in his bookstore-printing shop at the Palais-Royal in October 1795.
The Jacobins, facing hostility from both moderate republicans and royalists, and the people of Paris, suffering from famine during the harsh winter of 1794-1795, partly due to the Convention’s liberal policy of ending the price cap on grain, responded by revolting. However, the insurrections of 12 Germinal and 1 Prairial Year III (1795) failed. The authorities ordered the disarmament of the terrorists, confining them to their homes; 1,200 Jacobins and sans-culottes were arrested. These were the last popular uprisings in Paris until the Revolution of 1830. Rather than be guillotined, the last Montagnards in prison committed suicide with a single knife, which they passed from one to another. Meanwhile, the Committees were purged of the remaining terrorists.
The Revenge of the Royalists
Massacres in Fort Saint-Jean, Marseilles, 17 Prairial, Year 3 of the Republic. Credit: Paris Musees Collections
Taking advantage of the Thermidorian reaction, with the return of refractory clergy and the influx of émigrés, for whom new legislative measures cautiously opened the door, spontaneous vengeance movements by royalists, families of victims of the Jacobin terror, and fanatical Catholics developed in 1795, particularly in the southeast of France, especially in the Rhône Valley. These movements targeted former Jacobins, sans-culotte militants (called “terrorists” or “mathevons” in Lyon), as well as Protestants. The recall of former Girondins led to the return of those who had handed Toulon over to the English.
Many individuals who had left well before the May-June 1793 crisis, true émigrés disguised as Girondins, took advantage of the opportunity to return, threatening purchasers of nationalized property and stripping them of the fruits of their labor. Delegates from the new Committee of General Security of Marseille even went aboard the British fleet to negotiate the restoration of the monarchy in exchange for the disarmament of French fleets and arsenals, a blatant act of treason. The Convention was soon forced to exclude émigrés and traitors to their country from benefiting from return laws.
Exploiting peasant reactions, popular revenge, and counter-revolutionary actions that created a climate of violence, monarchist leaders rallied around them discontented young men, former federalists, deserters, and criminals. The English agent Wickham, based in Switzerland, established a propaganda agency in Lyon that recruited counter-revolutionaries, such as Imbert-Colomès, and prepared a new insurrection with Précy, who had already commanded the federalist uprising in Lyon in 1793. They facilitated desertion and encouraged refusal to conscription to weaken the republican armies. Republican generals were imprisoned, others were dismissed or demoted, as was the case with Bonaparte, while armed bands liberated arrested émigrés.
The Companies of Jehu (or of Jesus) and of the Sun hunted down and massacred anyone who fell into their hands: Jacobins, republicans, former administrators, soldiers idling in the streets, relatives of soldiers at the front, without distinction of age or gender, constitutional priests, and Protestants (for socio-economic and political reasons as much as religious ones). Victims were sometimes attacked in their homes, in front of their families, or in the streets, or even in prisons.
In Lons-le-Saunier, Bourg, Lyon (where around a hundred suspects were reportedly slaughtered in the city’s jails), Roanne, Saint-Étienne, Aix, Marseille, Toulon, Arles (where both sides accused each other of atrocities), Eyragues, Montélimar, Beaucaire (where large amounts of sulfur were thrown into dungeons to try to burn prisoners alive), Tarascon, l’Isle, and Salon (where locals intervened to prevent an attempt on the prison), the violence was brutal and unchecked.
Municipal and departmental authorities, infiltrated by former émigrés, often acted as accomplices to these actions, as did representatives on mission (such as Chambon, who ordered the arrest of all suspects, hypocritically placing them under the protection of the law, then released arrested murderers and armed members of the Company of the Sun). No longer content with merely sawing down Liberty Trees, most victims bore the marks of multiple wounds from firearms, blades, or clubs, showing the determination of their killers.
Other bands were denounced, including the “Triqueurs,” the “Vibou,” or a group of Chouan national guardsmen in the Gard, who united noble émigrés and popular elements. Using denunciation lists, these groups attacked former administrative agents and correspondents of popular societies. The coordination center for these bands was in Lyon.
Considering that prosecutions against the perpetrators of massacres were nearly nonexistent and that identifying victims was difficult, it is estimated that 3% of the perpetrators were nobles, 14% were notables and village mayors, 12% were merchants and members of liberal professions, and 44% were artisans and shopkeepers. Peasants played an important role in the atrocities committed along the roads, with some transforming into highway robbers under the guise of political unrest.
On the other hand, the victims mainly came from the popular classes—artisans and laborers in Tarascon, sans-culottes from Marseille, and workers from the Toulon arsenal, who paid the price for their revolutionary engagement. 42% of the victims were soldiers, gendarmes, volunteers, or conscripts, 34% were former administrators and Jacobin officials, and 12% were constitutional priests, such as the parish priest of Barbentane, who was thrown into the Durance River, bound hand and foot.
It is important to emphasize that this white terror, unlike the Jacobin terror, was not institutionalized. It operated outside any legal framework, without recourse to a tribunal, without the apparatus of justice, and outside the law. Those who claimed to be restoring order began by taking justice into their own hands, thus disregarding any authority, even though they claimed to be fighting for legitimate authority—a frequent contradiction in troubled times. Finally, justice was powerless to punish the guilty because witnesses were either complicit or paralyzed by fear and claimed they had seen or heard nothing.
Although this First White Terror primarily raged in the Rhône Valley and southern France, this was no coincidence. In addition to social antagonisms (the struggle of the canuts against the silk merchants in Lyon), religious quarrels fueled political opposition. The memory of the repression of royalist and federalist uprisings and the proximity of the border, which facilitated infiltrations, also explain the concentration of this disordered outbreak of violence.
The collapse of the Jacobin power structures and the weakness of the Thermidorian authorities left ample room for the Revolution’s most determined opponents. Alongside local supporters of the royalist cause—muscadins, refractory clergy, and relatives of those executed since 1793—the bulk of the royalist forces in Lyon consisted of nobles, priests, or adventurers from outside the city, refugees or clandestine arrivals from abroad. Most notably, the insurrectionary days in Paris during Germinal and Prairial had sparked fears of a Jacobin resurgence.
When the sans-culottes of Toulon revolted at the end of Floréal, perhaps manipulated by royalist provocateurs, and marched on Marseille to free detained patriots, fear gripped the moderates, who feared a repeat of the September 1792 massacres. They organized a preventive counter-revolution. Unable to calm the tensions, the people’s representative in Toulon, Brunet, shot himself, while in Aix, another representative, Isnard, a former Girondin orator, urged his audience to dig up their fathers’ bones to use as clubs to strike down the Jacobins. Isnard even authorized the creation of a Company of the Sun in Brignoles!
The First White Terror in Provence
In Beausset, the disarmed sans-culottes from Toulon were attacked, slashed, and gunned down by Isnard’s soldiers. The prisoners, taken to Marseille, were exterminated—either after being sentenced or spontaneously by a furious crowd storming Fort Saint-Jean, which served as a prison. Some prisoners, already starving, were reportedly killed by the fumes of burning sulfur and straw lit outside their windows. Cannon blasts broke down the cell doors, and others were set on fire where prisoners had barricaded themselves. To complete their horrific task, the executioners did not hesitate to rob these unfortunate souls of their belongings, both before and after killing them, with the active complicity of the fort’s commander, named Pagez!
The number of victims of these counter-revolutionary orgies, in which watchmakers and jewelers drunk on brandy participated under the leadership of the son of a tavern owner named Robin (a sort of reverse “September Massacres”), is estimated at 200, possibly even 600, including several women. The report noted that most of the dead were so disfigured they were impossible to identify! Several military depositions condemned the behavior of the people’s representative, Cadroy (from Le Véridique newspaper), who not only protected the assassins but even encouraged them. Graves with quicklime had been prepared at Marseille’s lazaret to bury the bodies several days before the massacre, and no food was prepared for the prisoners the next day, proving the massacre was premeditated.
Marseille was, unfortunately, not the only place where prisons were stormed. In Aix, on 23 Floréal, Year III (May 12, 1795), according to the municipality, around thirty prisoners perished under the attackers’ blades. In Tarascon, on 6 Prairial (May 25, 1795), 24 prisoners, mostly artisans and a former canon, met the same fate, reportedly thrown from the castle towers into the Rhône River or onto the rocks that shredded them.
Again in Tarascon, on 2 Messidor (June 20, 1795), the agitated crowd repeated their actions: 23 more individuals, including two women, were thrown out of windows at around 3 a.m. On the night of 2 to 3 Messidor, the fort of Eyragues also received grim visitors, leaving behind an unknown number of corpses. In Roanne, 94 prisoners, including three women, were massacred by about twenty men, likely from Lyon. As the prisoners defended themselves and even killed some of their assailants, the attackers set fire to the prison.
Armed insurrections, following the spirit of the Paris sections’ uprising on 13 Vendémiaire, supported these chaotic crowd movements. One such uprising occurred in the Drôme, led by a certain Job Aimé and the Marquis de Lestang. Their army failed to capture Avignon’s castle, where they allegedly intended to slaughter prisoners, and also failed at Montélimar. Eventually, troops recalled from the Italian army dispersed them. However, similar movements were stirring nearby regions, notably in Ardèche, Gard, and Lozère. An assault was even attempted on the Saint-Etienne arms factory. The suppression of the Parisian sections’ uprising calmed these military uprisings but did not stop the atrocities.
Aside from political crimes, many of the massacres were also driven by greed, revenge against members of certain communities, or old regional rivalries, often targeting Protestants or those who had acquired national property. Authorities, threatened by the violent fervor of opposing religious groups, sometimes redirected the violence onto former terrorists. These acts ranged from threats and insults to arbitrary arrests without warrants, murders of prisoners, personal attacks, looting, imprisonments, and individual executions (notably by stoning).
It’s difficult to ascertain the exact number of victims; not all were detained, and the number of prison murders was likely downplayed by administrators fearing Paris’s disapproval. Depending on the sources, Aix saw around sixty killed, Tarascon between 47 and 60, and between Orange and Pont-Saint-Esprit, during a prisoner transfer, 55 (or 14). The total number of lives lost during these days is estimated to be in the thousands, possibly ranging from 2,000 to 30,000!
These barbaric acts were witnessed by numerous spectators, much like the guillotine executions, following the long tradition of public shaming rituals like charivaris or farandoles. In Vaucluse, a convict exposed in the pillory was reportedly torn apart by the crowd, while another was allegedly buried alive. In Sisteron, Breyssand, a district administrator wrongly arrested and freed by the Committee of General Security, was re-arrested while hiding with his parents to escape his enemies’ wrath. He was assaulted with stones and sabers, left for dead, revived by his former constituents, only to be killed on his hospital bed, dragged through the streets, and dismembered on the banks of the Durance!
Of the 415 murders committed between Year III and Year V (1795-1797) in the Bouches-du-Rhône, Vaucluse, Var, and Basses-Alpes, 66% occurred in just three months, from Floréal to Messidor, Year III (April-June 1795). After the Jacobin uprising in Toulon on 28 Floréal and the Parisian insurrection on 1 Prairial, the killings reached their peak in Prairial, with 50% of the massacres taking place in Provence. From Haute-Loire to Bouches-du-Rhône, the killers hunted down Republicans, often identified by a justice of the peace or an innkeeper. Every day and night, Jacobins were assaulted, injured, and thrown into the Rhône.
Massacre of Jacobin prisoners in Lyon in 1795. Credit: Public Domain
In Lyon, the White Terror continued with a wave of violence, collective assassinations of former revolutionary leaders from Lyon, and the elimination of informers following the publication of the General List of Informers and the Denounced in February 1795. This lasted until the city was placed under siege in February 1798. In Saint-Étienne, after the release of numerous suspects, including local notables, and successive purges of the town hall and the departmental directory—which saw the arrival, between December 1794 and January 1796, of individuals compromised in royalist subversion—a hunt for Jacobins began in March 1795.
On March 12 and 13, 1797, muscadins (royalist supporters) armed to the teeth, spread terror through the streets of the city. They forcefully entered the Verrier tavern, a gathering place for Jacobins, killed three people, fatally wounded a municipal officer, Mory, and nearly killed another. On January 1, 1798 (12 Nivôse Year VI), the mayor, Jean-Baptiste Bonnaud, was struck in the head by two individuals at around 8 p.m., two days after sending the police to search the house of a businessman, Jovin, where a refractory priest had set up a clandestine chapel. The government eventually placed the city under siege on March 28, 1798, until April 22, 1800.
To end the abuses, the Convention sent Fréron back to the south. He returned with an anti-royalist report, which was published but should be read with caution, especially since he was suspected of embezzling public funds for personal gain, and his drastic shifts in allegiance left many perplexed. His opponents, including Isnard, accused him of resurrecting the Jacobin terror against federalists and royalists.
The Convention, in its final days, hardened its stance.
Several Jacobin generals who had been sidelined were recalled, including Rossignol and especially Bonaparte. Before dissolving to make way for the Directory, the revolutionary assembly had to overcome a royalist insurrection by several Parisian sections. Barras, who commanded the republican forces, relied on Bonaparte, who fired cannons—brought from the Sablons camp—on the insurgents on the steps of the Saint-Roch church in Vendémiaire Year III (October 1795). Afterward, the Directory was marked by a series of coups, with power, fragile and constantly under threat, alternating between striking the right and the left, targeting royalists first and then Jacobins.
During the Fructidor coup, the Directory triumphed once again thanks to Bonaparte’s intervention. He sent General Augereau to rid them of the royalists, who were deported to Guyana. However, the Directory eventually fell on 18 Brumaire (November 1799) under the blows of the same Bonaparte. Bonaparte finally pacified France, putting an end to the unrest that had continued to plague the country, which had mostly descended into mere banditry. Upon his return from Egypt, a few probable heirs of the First White Terror robbed the Mamluk Roustan, who believed he had been attacked by French Arabs. But the final embers of this turmoil were soon extinguished by the firm hand of the First Consul…
Charles X (1757–1836) was the last King of France from the House of Bourbon (1824–1830). Opposed to any attempts at reform during the Estates-General of 1789, he fled France after the storming of the Bastille, later living in Italy, Prussia, and Austria. As the leader of the Ultra-royalist party during the reign of Louis XVIII, he became king upon Louis XVIII’s death.
His reign was marked by the authoritarian and reactionary policies of his minister Villèle, which made him unpopular despite the victory at Navarino and the appointment of the more liberal Martignac ministry in 1828. The ordinances of July 25, 1830, which dissolved the yet-to-convene Chamber, altered the Charter, and suppressed freedom of the press, triggered the July Revolution of 1830 and Charles X’s abdication on August 2. He died in exile.
Tumultuous Youth of Charles X
Born on October 9, 1757, in Versailles, Charles-Philippe of France was the youngest son of Louis, Dauphin of France, and Maria Josepha of Saxony. Titled the Count of Artois, he was the grandson of Louis XV and the younger brother of Louis XVI and Louis XVIII. Married at the age of sixteen to Maria Theresa of Savoy, while leading a somewhat libertine lifestyle, he had two daughters who died in infancy and two sons, the Duke of Angoulême, who became Dauphin, and the Duke of Berry, assassinated in 1820. With a haughty demeanor and undeniable charm, he won the favor of the court, especially with the women.
His frivolous life, marked by numerous conquests, including the famous Madame de Polastron, reflected his lack of interest in studies and political debate. The scandals of his marital life and his excessive debts due to gambling and extravagant living were quietly handled by his brother, Louis XVI.
An Anti-Revolutionary Past
As early as 1787, the Count of Artois became notable for his conservative positions, opposing, for example, the convening of the Estates-General. During the 1789 French Revolution, advised by the king himself, he fled the country and, as an emigrant, rallied the nostalgic supporters of the Ancien Régime. After an unsuccessful attempt to land on the island of Yeu, he lost the leadership of the monarchist refugees following the exile of the Count of Provence (the future Louis XVIII). He had to wait until 1814 to return to the kingdom, where he was appointed lieutenant general by the king.
During the Second Restoration, his political influence grew considerably, especially after the assassination of his son, the Duke of Berry. He led the conservative opposition and, as the king weakened, gradually took control of the government, particularly since he was the heir to the throne.
Coronation of Charles X in Reims and Popular Enthusiasm
When Louis XVIII died from gangrene in both feet, the Count of Artois ascended the throne. A grandson of Louis XV and brother of two kings, Charles X was crowned in Reims on May 29, 1825, following the traditional ceremony. This old-fashioned coronation, full of piety and archaic symbols, sparked reactions from moderate political leaders, who feared a return to the values and customs of the Ancien Régime.
Nevertheless, upon his accession, the king enjoyed considerable monarchist enthusiasm and extraordinary popularity. Despite his age, he retained a certain charm. However, his days of romantic conquests were over, and the ostentatiously pious monarch only charmed for a brief time. His shallow education made him more focused on protecting his privileges than addressing popular demands.
A Conservative Reign
Invasion of Algiers, Attaque d’Alger par la mer 29 Juin 1830, Théodore Gudin. Image: Public Domain
In foreign policy, the French government struggled to reclaim distant territories that treaties had ultimately granted it. Despite efforts, the island of Saint-Domingue definitively gained independence in 1825. Slowly, ties between the French navy and the colonies were rebuilt, thanks to the Ministry of the Navy. However, attempts to annex Senegal, Madagascar, and French Guiana were unsuccessful. Military intervention thus refocused on Algeria (Invasion of Algiers, 1830) and Greece (Battle of Navarino, 1827).
Domestically, although Charles X initially promised to respect the 1814 Constitutional Charter, by 1825, he had implemented a number of conservative measures that quickly became unpopular. The Chateaubriand and Villèle government, in place since 1821, marked the end of moderate aspirations. Intellectuals like Thiers, Michelet, and Mignet harshly criticized the regime in their works.
Despite the short-lived liberal ministry of the Viscount of Martignac (1828–1829), the Ultra-royalists eventually prevailed. From 1829, the cabinet led by Prince de Polignac, who became president of the council, systematically undermined key principles of the Constitutional Charter. In response, the Chamber was dissolved twice, and the most moderate ministers resigned. The conflict between Charles X’s government and the deputies plunged France into a severe political crisis.
Ordinances of Saint-Cloud and Charles X’s Abdication
On July 25, 1830, facing political opposition, Charles X initiated a veritable coup d’état. He issued four ordinances, including suspending freedom of the press, dismissing the deputies, calling for new elections, and modifying the electoral system.
The Parisian uprising, fueled by politicians advocating a republican state, led to the revolt of the “Three Glorious Days” or the July Revolution. Unable to respond to popular demands, the king was eventually forced to abdicate, not in favor of his son, the Duke of Angoulême (who briefly became Louis XIX), but in favor of his grandson, the Duke of Bordeaux, later known as the Count of Chambord, or Henry V.
In the meantime, the Duke of Orléans, the king’s cousin, was initially appointed regent against his will by Charles X but was pressured by the deputies to accept the lieutenancy general of the kingdom. At the end of the July Revolution, he took power as Louis-Philippe I. Forced into exile, Charles X, titled Duke of Ponthieu, first sought refuge in Great Britain, Austria, and Prague before spending his final days in 1836 at a monastery in Gorizia, Slovenia. The brief reign of Louis XIX, Count of Marne, claimed the title of head of the House of France, but no Bourbon would ever return to the French throne.
Spanning from 1792 to 1804, the French First Republic was a regime established in France during the French Revolution, after the end of the monarchy. It ended with the establishment of the First Empire by Napoleon Bonaparte. It all began in 1792, when revolutionary France was in complete chaos. Surrounded by enemies, the constitutional monarchy declared war on Prussia and Austria but soon found itself threatened with invasion. On August 10, the National Assembly declared the removal of Louis XVI.
After the victory at Valmy, the new government abolished the monarchy and established the First Republic. Three political regimes would then succeed one another: the Convention, the Directory, and the Consulate. When the Reign of Terror was declared, France experienced its darkest hours. In 1795, a young army officer appeared and finally brought peace: Napoleon Bonaparte.
Why Was the French First Republic Established?
French Republic in 1801, at the time of the Consulate. Image: Wikimedia
In 1792, the Holy Roman Empire and the Austrian Empire were at war with France. Suffering from significant internal turmoil, the young constitutional monarchy was seeking legitimacy and stability. During the famous Battle of Valmy, the revolutionary army faced the Prussian troops marching toward Paris. France won its first victory against the European monarchies. Emboldened, the Convention abolished the monarchy and, on September 22, 1792, proclaimed the French Republic!
Who Successively Governed During the First Republic?
Following the removal of Louis XVI in August 1792, France desperately needed strong leadership. On September 21, 1792, the National Convention was elected by universal male suffrage. It quickly abolished the monarchy and established the First Republic. On October 26, 1795, after violent internal strife, the Directory replaced it. The Directory governed France until Napoleon Bonaparte’s coup d’état on 18 Brumaire (November 9, 1799). The Consulate was established and lasted until the proclamation of the First Empire on May 18, 1804.
How Did the First Republic Come to an End?
At the beginning of 1804, a royalist conspiracy was uncovered, and its instigators were executed. Napoleon, then First Consul for life, was more powerful than ever. With significant support, he strengthened his control over the various legislative chambers. These bodies granted him the title of Emperor of the French on May 18, 1804, through a Senate decree (the “senatus-consulte”). This marked the end of the First Republic and the birth of the First Empire. France entered an era of grandeur!
When Did the Second Republic Take Place?
After the First Empire, France saw the Restoration from 1815 to 1830 and the July Monarchy from 1830 to 1848. During the latter, Louis-Philippe I was proclaimed King of the French. In the early 1840s, France was severely affected by an economic and social crisis. Significant price increases led to uprisings that drove the monarch from power. The French Second Republic was established on February 24, 1848, and was later abolished on December 2, 1852, when Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte also became Emperor of the French.
French First Republic: Key Dates
August 10, 1792 – Storming of the Tuileries
A decisive day of the French Revolution, August 10, 1792, marks the abolition of the French monarchy. In response to the threat of foreign invasion, insurgents attack the Tuileries Palace. They seize Louis XVI, who had been under house arrest since his flight to Varennes. Shortly after, the National Assembly deposes the king and strips him of his powers. These political upheavals will lead to the “September Massacres” and the beginning of the first Reign of Terror.
September 22, 1792 – Abolition of the Monarchy
At the end of August 1792, the armies of King Frederick William II of Prussia advance into eastern France. European courts aim to overthrow the Revolution and restore Louis XVI to the throne. The victory of General Dumouriez at Valmy provides the revolutionary government with the legitimacy it lacked. The next day, the National Convention definitively abolishes the monarchy in France!
February 23, 1793 – The Convention Orders the Conscription of 300,000 Men
From 1792, France is opposed to the First Coalition, an alliance of several European powers. To confront this, the Convention orders the enlistment of 300,000 men across the entire territory on February 23, 1793. Each French department provides its share of “volunteers,” single men or widowers, for the Republic’s army. This authoritarian mass conscription will lead to the War in the Vendée by March 1793.
March 10, 1793 – Creation of the Revolutionary Tribunal
After the peasant uprising in the Vendée, the National Convention establishes the Revolutionary Tribunal. This body is tasked with “judging conspirators and counter-revolutionaries without appeal or recourse.” The Tribunal becomes the main instrument of the Terror. A famous quote by Danton resonates: “Let us be terrible, so that the people do not have to be.”
October 10, 1793 – Saint-Just Declares the Convention
On August 10, 1793, the Convention, dominated by the Montagnards, suspends the constitution. For Saint-Just, the youngest member of the Assembly, the Republic could not survive otherwise. He declares a true revolutionary dictatorship to restore order, led by the Committee of Public Safety. The decree adopted on October 10, 1793, states: “The government will be revolutionary until peace is achieved.”
November 6, 1793 – Philippe Égalité Dies on the Scaffold
Before the Revolution, Louis-Philippe d’Orléans, a prince of royal blood, was opposed to Louis XVI’s regime. In 1792, he is elected to the National Convention under the name Philippe Égalité, as princely titles are banned. When his son, the future Louis-Philippe I, defects to the enemy in April 1793, Philippe is suspected of complicity and arrested. He is tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal and guillotined on November 6, 1793.
November 24, 1793 – The Revolutionary Calendar is Published
The work of poet François Fabre d’Églantine, the revolutionary calendar breaks from France’s Christian heritage. Established by the Convention on November 24, 1793, it completely reorganizes the lives of citizens. Weeks now have ten days, no longer dedicated to saints but to the land. Months are named after seasons and each lasts thirty days. Sunday rest and religious holidays disappear, replaced by patriotic festivals called “sans-culottides.”
February 3, 1794 – The Convention Abolishes Slavery
Slaves were the great forgotten ones in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Since they were denied liberty and equality, they began revolting in Guadeloupe and Saint-Domingue in 1793. Finally, on February 3, 1794, the National Convention votes to abolish slavery in French colonies. It declares that all men, regardless of color, are French citizens and enjoy the same rights.
May 7, 1794 – The Cult of the Supreme Being
In 1794, Maximilien Robespierre dominates the Committee of Public Safety and the revolutionary assembly. Seeking to end the old regime, he supports the dechristianization of France. However, he knows that the people need religious symbols. On May 7, 1794, the Convention institutes the Cult of the Supreme Being, a nameless, faceless deity. Its festival coincides with Pentecost from the previous calendar.
June 10, 1794 – The Convention Decrees the Terror
On September 5, 1793, as France is besieged on all sides, the revolutionary government institutes the Terror. However, repression and the fear of the guillotine are not enough. On June 10, 1794, pushed by Robespierre, the Convention decrees the Great Terror! Trials are rushed, and the judicial protections of the accused are abolished. Nearly 40,000 people are arbitrarily executed during this period.
July 27, 1794 – End of the Terror
As France seems now secure, many deputies wish to end the Terror. They especially aim to enjoy the power and wealth they acquired during the Revolution. On July 27, 1794, Robespierre, then president of the Committee of Public Safety, and his supporters are arrested. They are guillotined the next day without trial. This marks the end of the Terror!
February 21, 1795 – Restoration of Freedom of Worship in France
After the Terror, the government seeks to reconcile the French with the Revolution. On February 21, 1795, the Convention restores freedom of worship, limited since the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in July 1790. The state thus authorizes the practice of religion, but it must be done without ostentatious signs. Moreover, the state is no longer responsible for managing places of worship.
July 14, 1795 – The Marseillaise Becomes the National Anthem
Written in 1792 during the wars against Austria, the Marseillaise was originally a revolutionary war song. An ode to liberty, it is also a patriotic call for general mobilization and the fight against foreign powers. On July 14, 1795, the Marseillaise becomes the national anthem of France, promoted by the Convention. In 1804, under the First Empire, it is replaced by the Chant du Départ.
October 5, 1795 – Bonaparte’s First Intervention
After Robespierre’s execution, the royalists eventually rebel. In Paris, clashes erupt between the army and rioters planning to attack the Tuileries Palace, the seat of government. On October 5, 1795, the young Republican officer Napoleon Bonaparte is summoned and tasked with quelling the insurrection. He succeeds by bringing in cannons to fire on the angry crowd.
October 26, 1795 – Beginning of the Directory
After three years, the National Convention gives way to the Directory on October 26, 1795. With this new regime, the government seeks to move past the Terror and the Revolution. Elections are held to choose the members of the two legislative chambers: the Council of Elders and the Council of Five Hundred. Thus begin four years during which the Directory works to reform France.
January 2, 1796 – Creation of the Ministry of Police
When the Revolution broke out, the royal police, which had failed to anticipate it, was overwhelmed and disappeared along with the monarchy. On January 2, 1796, the Directory creates the Ministry of General Police. To combat persistent insurgent unrest across France, the government seeks a strong law enforcement force. Unfortunately, crime does not decrease, and conspiracies continue…
September 10, 1796 – The Directory Crushes the “Babouvists”
In 1796, French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf instigates the “Conspiracy of Equals.” This attempted overthrow arises in a very difficult social context. The goal of “Babouvism” is to achieve the collectivization of land and production means. After a failed military uprising in Grenelle, the Conspiracy is exposed and arrested. Gracchus Babeuf is guillotined on September 10, 1796.
September 4, 1797 – Fructidor Coup
In 1797, new elections are held to renew a third of the two assemblies of the Directory. Citizens vote massively for moderate deputies, favorable to restoring the monarchy. On September 4, 1797, some Directory supporters, backed by Bonaparte, stage the Fructidor coup against the royalist parliamentarians. Many of them are arrested and deported, while the elections are annulled.
May 11, 1798 – The Coup of 22 Floréal Year VI
In April 1798, elections are held again within the Directory. The votes are highly favorable to the Jacobins, a political faction in decline since the fall of Robespierre. Although they hold the majority for a few more days, the current Directors decide to prevent their return. On May 11, 1798, in what amounts to a coup d’état, they pass a law that voids the elections.
November 9, 1799 – Coup of 18 Brumaire
At war and threatened by a royalist resurgence, the Revolution is on its last legs. On November 9, 1799, during the coup of 18 Brumaire, Napoleon Bonaparte ends the Directory. Through clever manipulation, he is appointed First Consul of the Republic and then head of the executive. Although France remains a republic for a few years, Napoleon Bonaparte becomes the sole leader. The Revolution is over.
December 13, 1799 – Birth of the Consulate
Following their coup, Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Ducos establish the Consulate with the constitution of Year VIII, on December 13, 1799. This new political regime is led by three consuls and significantly strengthens the power of the executive. The rights of man and citizen, as well as the defense of liberties, are absent from the text. As First Consul, Bonaparte is more powerful than ever and restores peace in the Republic.
January 18, 1800 – Creation of the Bank of France
Having made a fortune during the Revolution, Swiss financier Jean-Frédéric Perregaux opens the “Caisse des Comptes Courants” in Paris. A few years later, he proposes to Napoleon Bonaparte that his institution be granted the right to print banknotes. This would allow him to collect French savings and increase the amount of money in circulation. Bonaparte agrees and establishes the Bank of France on January 18, 1800.
May 19, 1802 – Creation of the Legion of Honor
To reward civil and military merits, Napoleon Bonaparte creates the National Order of the Legion of Honor on May 19, 1802. This distinction is intended to recognize those who have rendered “eminent services” to the Nation. It initially includes four classes, later expanding to five: Knight, Officer, Commander, Grand Officer, and Grand Cross. This act further enhances the prestige of the First Consul.
August 2, 1802 – Napoleon Becomes Consul for Life
In 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte has significantly strengthened his power over France. For bringing stability to the Republic, the Tribunate, one of the legislative chambers of the Consulate, seeks to grant him national recognition. The people are consulted, and an overwhelming majority votes in favor of this reward. Thus, on August 2, 1802, following political maneuvers, Bonaparte becomes Consul for life.
March 28, 1803 – Creation of the Germinal Franc
During the Ancien Régime, the currency unit was the livre tournois, which was replaced by the franc during the Revolution. On March 28, 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte creates the “germinal franc” and gives it a fixed value and weight. This decision aims to balance the nation’s commercial transactions. Strong and stable, the germinal franc becomes the reference currency in Europe during the Napoleonic wars.
March 21, 1804 – Publication of the Civil Code
Under the monarchy, each French territory had its own laws and local customs. On March 21, 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte promulgates the “Civil Code of the French.” From then on, the law is created by legislators, applied by judges, and governs social relations among all French citizens. The Civil Code is one of Bonaparte’s greatest contributions and has inspired many other countries since.
March 21, 1804 – Assassination of the Duke of Enghien
In early 1804, a royalist plot orchestrated by Georges Cadoudal is uncovered. The investigation, led by Fouché, results in the execution of Cadoudal. The Duke of Enghien, a French prince, is suspected—without solid evidence—of being part of the conspirators. He is kidnapped in the Grand Duchy of Baden, where he had taken refuge, quickly judged, and executed by firing squad in the moat of the Château de Vincennes at night.
May 18, 1804 – Coronation of Napoleon
After the death of the Duke of Enghien and other participants in the royalist plot, Napoleon Bonaparte emerges politically stronger. On May 18, 1804, the Senate approves the Tribunate’s decision to grant Napoleon Bonaparte the title of Emperor of the French. The First Consul thus legally obtains the imperial dignity and its hereditary nature through a symbolic text: senatus-consulte.
December 2, 1804 – Bonaparte Becomes Emperor of the French
On December 2, 1804, Napoleon I is crowned Emperor of the French at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. Pope Pius VII blesses the new imperial emblems: the ring, the sword, and the mantle, and anoints both Josephine and Napoleon. Napoleon then places the crown on his own head. Many French citizens approve of this coronation, seeing it as a way to forever repel the specter of royalty.
During the Battle of Valmy, the inexperienced but determined French revolutionary troops halted the advance of a coalition army toward Paris. This decisive French victory allowed the French Revolution to continue its course. The Battle of Valmy, which took place on September 20, 1792, is more precisely the first victory of the French army in the revolutionary wars that led to the overthrow of the monarchy, which had until then been held by the Bourbons. It pitted the revolutionary French forces against the Austrians, Prussians, and émigré forces. This victory would be crucial both politically and psychologically, as it would bolster the supporters of the Revolution and the new authorities.
Why Did the Battle of Valmy Take Place?
In 1792, France faced numerous threats. War had been declared against Francis II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, also known as Francis I of Austria, and anti-revolutionary forces had organized. Men from Prussia, Austria, and émigrés advanced into France to liberate Louis XVI. The Battle of Valmy occurred as these troops had been advancing for weeks into French territory and the road to Paris seemed open. The battle would pit revolutionary France against the Kingdom of Prussia, the Holy Roman Empire, and émigrés.
At 3 a.m., the Prussian and Austrian troops advanced toward Hans, between Sainte-Menehould and Valmy in what is now the Marne department. However, it was only around 7 a.m., once the fog had lifted, that the firing began. The French troops, regrouped near the mill of Saint-Saulve on the Valmy plateau, held their ground despite their small numbers and inexperience. The Austro-Prussian forces, expecting an easy victory, had to retreat. The French, aware of their limitations, did not pursue them. Thus, the Battle of Valmy is often referred to as a “simple cannonade.”
Did Dysentery Benefit France?
The invading forces were significantly weakened by dysentery, an infectious disease caused by consuming unripe fruit. However, the disease alone does not account for the French victory.
Meanwhile, the French were galvanized by patriotic songs and cheers. Generals Kellermann and Dumouriez displayed common sense as the enemy troops lacked logistical support.
Why Did the Mill of Valmy Become a Symbol of the Battle?
Commander Dumouriez, camping near Sainte-Menehould on a low plateau where the headquarters was located, asked Kellermann to settle in a basin of meadows with a few mounds, the highest being that of the Valmy mill.
A national subscription was launched to finance new work. Today, the mill is capable of producing flour. Below, the historical center of Valmy 1792 explains the stakes, events, and aftermath of this battle as well as the turmoil associated with the Revolution.
What Are the Consequences of the Battle of Valmy?
The Battle of Valmy is a political and moral victory for the French revolutionaries, who had been struggling until then. Militarily speaking, the supply lines and communications of foreign forces were cut off. The French forces positioned themselves on a plateau favorable to their artillery. Now, the French only needed to hold their ground while the enemy could no longer advance toward Paris. As early as September 21, 1792, after news of the victory reached Paris, the National Convention announced the abolition of the monarchy.
The Brunswick Manifesto is a document written on July 25, 1792, by the Duke of Brunswick, commander of the Prussian armies. Through this text, the duke demands that the Parisian revolutionaries cease their activities and restore Louis XVI to his powers. The manifesto also threatens severe punishments for any attack on the Tuileries Palace or any harm done to the royal family. To understand better, this letter was written three years after the start of the French Revolution.
Following the flight to Varennes, the King of France lost the trust of the French people. He was forced to accept a constitutional monarchy (a monarchy where the powers of the king are limited) and lived under surveillance at the Tuileries. He lost the absolute and divine power of his ancestors. Neighboring kingdoms could not accept that revolutionaries were taking power in France and supported Louis XVI.
War was declared in April 1792. On the advice of counter-revolutionary émigrés, the Duke of Brunswick wrote his manifesto, which was published on August 3, 1792, in the French press. The text angered Parisians, who stormed the Tuileries Palace on August 10, 1792. The monarchy was ultimately abolished, and the royal family was imprisoned before their trial.
Why Was the Brunswick Manifesto Written?
The Brunswick Manifesto was written in July 1792. What should we remember about the context of the time? The French Revolution began three years earlier with a succession of foundational events: the convocation of the Estates-General, the creation of a constituent assembly, and the storming of the Bastille, with the date of July 14, 1789, remaining symbolic. Faced with revolutionary pressure, Louis XVI was powerless. The Assembly proclaimed the end of the feudal system and privileges. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was also voted on.
In June 1791, Louis XVI felt that his power was slipping away. He refused to abdicate and decided to leave Paris to take refuge in eastern France. His escape was set for June 20 of that same year. The following evening, the king and his family were ultimately arrested at Varennes, in the Meuse.
In September 1791, a constitution limiting the powers of the king was adopted, thus establishing a constitutional monarchy. This marked the end of the absolute divine monarchy of the kings of France.
France declared war on Austria on April 20, 1792. Francis I of Austria, who was none other than Marie Antoinette’s nephew, allied with the Kingdom of Prussia to march on France. Generally, foreign kingdoms feared that the Revolution would spread beyond France. In June 1792, revolutionaries stormed the Tuileries Palace and threatened Louis XVI. They demanded that the king lift his veto on decrees concerning the deportation of refractory priests and the creation of a camp of national guards, but the sovereign refused to yield. The idea of frightening the revolutionaries then took root among royalists.
Who Is the Author of the Brunswick Manifesto?
Although the manifesto has been attributed to the Duke of Brunswick-Lunebourg (Charles-William-Ferdinand), it was actually written by émigrés favorable to the king who had chosen to flee the French Revolution. Between July 14, 1789, and 1815, approximately 140,000 French people went to various emigration zones such as Lower Canada (a British colony), England, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, the United States, and Russia.
It was Axel von Fersen, a Swedish count favored by Marie Antoinette, who initiated the Brunswick Manifesto.
He also participated in the flight to Varennes in 1791. In July, Axel von Fersen helped prepare a European coalition against the French Revolution and hoped for a swift victory and a return to absolute monarchy. More concretely, it was Geoffroy de Limon (a French politician) and Jean-Joachim Pellenc (a former secretary to Mirabeau) who wrote the text. Louis XVI, who knew that a manifesto was being drafted, sent Jacques Mallet du Pan to participate in it and avoid threats against the revolutionaries. However, his instructions were not followed, and the manifesto was sent on July 25, 1792. To this day, it is unknown whether the Duke of Brunswick actually signed the text that bears his name.
To Whom Is the Brunswick Manifesto Addressed?
The Brunswick Manifesto was published on August 3, 1792, in Le Moniteur universel, a French newspaper created in 1789 by Charles-Joseph Panckoucke. This media outlet was known for being a propaganda journal and the official organ of the government. The text is addressed to “the city of Paris” and “all its inhabitants without distinction.” More specifically, it targets the French population and the revolutionary forces aiming to depose Louis XVI. Here is an excerpt from the Brunswick Manifesto:
The city of Paris and all its inhabitants without distinction shall be required to submit at once and without delay to the king, to place that prince in full and complete liberty, and to assure to him, as well as to the other royal personages, the inviolability and respect which the law of nature and of nations demands of subjects toward sovereigns […]
What Threat Does the Brunswick Manifesto Pose?
The Brunswick Manifesto is unequivocal: it orders the revolutionaries to “return without delay to the path of reason, justice, order, and peace.” All inhabitants of Paris are “required to immediately and without delay submit to the king.” In addition to urging citizens to halt the revolution immediately, the text threatens the destruction of the capital and severe reprisals.
Their said Majesties declare, on their word of honor as emperor and king, that if the chateau of the Tuileries is entered by force or attacked, if the least violence be offered to their Majesties the king, queen, and royal family (…), they will inflict an ever memorable vengeance by delivering over the city of Paris to military execution and complete destruction, and the rebels guilty of the said outrages to the punishment that they merit.
It is in the second part of the manifesto that threats against the revolutionaries are found. In the first part, the writers explain why Prussia and its allies oppose the new form of governance established in France. Opponents of the Revolution are referred to as the “healthy part of the nation.” This text is a call to “end the anarchy within France.” Read the Brunswick Manifesto.
What Were the Consequences of the Brunswick Manifesto?
The publication of the Brunswick Manifesto did not have the intended effect, which was to frighten the revolutionaries into turning back to their king.
On the contrary, the Revolution immediately became more radicalized. After the manifesto’s publication on August 3, an assault took place on the Tuileries on August 10, 1792.
The revolutionaries seized the palace, which was the seat of executive power, and managed to defeat the 900 Swiss Guards. Louis XVI and the royal family sought refuge in the National Assembly, which chose to suspend the king. He and his family were transferred to the Feuillants Convent, a Parisian monastery, where they lived in deprivation for three days. On August 13, they were taken to the Temple prison.
At the same time, Paris became the epicenter of intense tensions: all enemies of the Republic were hunted down, and the prisons were filled with royalists and dissenters. In early September 1792, the most radical revolutionaries massacred more than 1,300 prisoners in various prisons as an act of revenge. The “September Massacres” took place notably at the Abbaye prison, the Force prison, and the Grand Châtelet prison. These summary executions also occurred in the provinces (Orleans, Reims, Versailles…) and resulted in over 150 deaths. The atmosphere was oppressive as the Austro-Prussian invasion continued.
On September 20, violence continued with the Battle of Valmy: the Prussians, who had crossed the Argonne (a natural region in northeastern France), attempted to march on Paris. Two generals, François Christophe Kellermann and Charles François Dumouriez, managed to stop the Prussian advance in the village of Valmy. This battle was the first victory for the French army in the context of the Revolutionary Wars.
The trial of Louis XVI began on December 11, 1792, and lasted until mid-January 1793. On January 21 of the same year, the king was guillotined at the Place de la Révolution (now Place de la Concorde).
The Marquis de Sade (1740–1814) was a writer and humanist of the Enlightenment era, a great lover of freedom, without taboos and the involvement of God. His work, which is both the theory and the illustration of what will be designated as “sadism,” forms the pathological counterpart of the philosophers and naturalists of his time.
The various regimes that rejected him made him “the most obscure of famous men or the most famous of obscure men.” His name still fascinates and captivates after more than two centuries because he dared to write what no one had ever dared.
—> Sadism, named after the Marquis de Sade, refers to the tendency to derive pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. The term originated from the extreme sexual and violent acts depicted in Sade’s writings.
Origin of the de Sade Family
Sade’s mother, Marie Eléonore de Maillé de Carman.Sade’s father, Jean-Baptiste François Joseph de Sade.
The de Sade family traces back well before 1177 in the region of Avignon; Laure de Noves, celebrated by Petrarch, married Hugues de Sade in 1325. This merchant family, ennobled by the pope in the 14th century, served the church and the army, thus increasing lands and lordships in the Luberon with Saumane and the magnificent castle of La Coste. While a branch known as “the Sade of Eyguières” produced a high-ranking naval officer during the American War of Independence, the Marquis comes from the branch known as “the Sade of Saumane.”
His grandfather, Gaspard, was Avignon’s ambassador to Pope Clement XI. His father, Jean Baptiste, was the first to leave the region to seek fortune in Paris. Attached to the Bourbons-Condé, he became captain of the dragoons, lieutenant of the provinces of Bresse, and married to a young Countess of Maillé related to Richelieu. Later, as chief counselor and confidant of the Duke of Bourbon, his diplomatic career ended quickly due to libertinism and unfortunate words against Louis XV’s mistress.
A permanent guest of the Hôtel de Condé, he alternated between girls and boys according to his desires but was arrested by the police. He did not understand this punishment since it was his will. He then turned to religion and watched over his son, whom he loved madly, while frequenting salons where he encountered Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Crébillon.
The Marquis de Sade: Heir to a Family of Libertines
Donatien Alphonse François de Sade was born on June 2, 1740, and grew up in the Hôtel de Condé with the future Duke of Bourbon, Prince de Condé, whose grandson would be shot in the moats of Vincennes in 1804, the duke’s brother, the Count of Charolais, a cruel man with peasants and servants, as well as the sister, Mademoiselle de Charolais, who at the age of fifteen already had many lovers.
At five years old, he was sent to live with his uncle, an abbot and vicar of the Archbishop of Toulouse, who maintained several women in his fiefdom of Saumane in Provence. Playing with the village children, he always asserted himself because he was the son and grandson of the local lords.
At the age of ten, at the Collège Louis Le Grand in Paris, he learned Latin and discovered a passion for the theater. In 1755, like all young nobles, he joined the elite regiment of the Chevau-légers of the king’s guard. He was a top-notch cadet who joined the corps under the command of Louis XVIII.
During the Seven Years’ War, he was a captain, conducting himself very well in the army but not in his private life, drawn to gambling tables, brothels, and the theater. Marked in his youth, Donatien was indeed the son and nephew of libertines!
A Wedding to Pay Off Debts
At twenty, he is a libertine; at twenty-three, he indulges in adventures and debts. Marriage with a young lady of the robe nobility, Renée Pélagie Cordier de Montreuil, daughter of the president of the Cour des Aides, is the only solution. The negotiations are tough, as no party wants a libertine and indebted son! Hosted for five years by the Montreuil family and endowed with a dowry of 300,000 livres, they will become the future heirs of castles in Normandy and Burgundy. But the marriage almost didn’t happen: Donatien struggles to leave his good friend in Provence and almost misses the presentation of his future wife at the court.
Married, he resumes his libertine habits, rents an apartment in Versailles, a small house on Rue Mouffetard, as well as another in Arcueil, and indulges in all his pleasures with young girls: sodomy, flagellation, and blasphemy. Louis XV forgives debauchery but not insults to religion: Donatien is arrested barely four months after his marriage, imprisoned in Vincennes while his wife is pregnant, and then exiled to Normandy until his authorization to return to Paris in 1764.
Because of his position as a lieutenant general, he mingles with society, goes out a lot, reunites with his mistresses, and resumes his practices. His father, who died in January 1767, leaves him the castles in Provence, but also the debts and the title of Count that Donatien refuses. He will forever remain Marquis de Sade; only his son Louis Marie, born in August 1767, will carry the title of Count.
Sade Involved in Dirty Business
The Marquis de Sade spent his time between Paris and Provence in the spring of 1768, impregnating his wife, abusing two prostitutes, and whipping a woman who filed a complaint despite receiving 2,500 pounds in compensation. The scandal erupted: 9 months in prison in Saumur, the Conciergerie, and Pierre Encize in Lyon. Released after a trip to Holland, he returned to Paris in the winter of 1769–1770 to discover his son, Claude Armand, born in June 1769. He tried to take care of him but could not resume a military function due to his bad reputation.
He only had time to see his daughter, born in April 1771, before being imprisoned again, this time for gambling debts. To get out of prison in November, he sold his captaincy and left Paris with his entire family for the Château de La Coste, ending his Parisian life. He didn’t mind; he never liked the court; he could live alone in another region. One might think he was calmed, but no, his obsessions would resurface.
In the spring of 1772, the Marquis invited local nobles to his castle for a theatrical performance. Remember, this passion would never leave him; he would write seventeen plays that he signed with DAF, acting as director, stage manager, costume designer, prompter, and actor. He loved to be applauded as an author and actor. In this play, before the nobles, he played alongside a charming young lady (his sister-in-law). Love at first sight happened three years ago. His wife said nothing; she deeply loved her husband.
In June, while he was in Marseille to settle money matters, he had a good time with prostitutes to whom he gave “Richelieu tablets.” These were simple aphrodisiacs, but the girls fell ill and filed complaints. Barely back at the castle, he was warned of his imminent arrest. He fled to nearby Italy with his valet and his young sister-in-law, who was also a canoeist. The scandal was immense!
Although his in-laws were outraged, his wife would not stop defending him because in September, the Marquis and his valet were accused of “poisoning and sodomy,” tried, and sentenced to death in absentia, leading to the scaffold where the Marquis was beheaded and his valet hanged, their bodies burned, and their ashes scattered. The girls would recant their confessions, but the damage was done, and dishonor was real.
—>The philosophy of sexuality advocated by the Marquis de Sade emphasized individual freedom and the pursuit of pleasure without moral constraints. He believed in the absolute sovereignty of the individual and rejected conventional notions of sexual morality.
The Marquis and his sister-in-law led a grand life in Italy, but soon their love story came to an end. Sade enjoyed the company of courtesans and could indulge his fantasies, especially after learning that Vivaldi, the great musician, was a priest and a womanizer! The young sister-in-law left him, and Sade and his valet went to Chambéry, then an Italian province, but were arrested in early December 1772 on denunciation by the family. Taken to the Fortress of Miolans, “the Bastille of the Alps,” he was comfortably housed (room, toilet cabinet, table, chamber pot, armchairs, meals delivered, etc.) and could walk around and talk to other prisoners (barons, lieutenants).
His wife tried to join him and devised an escape plan. On April 30, 1773, in the dead of night, three people fled on horseback. The Marquis passed through Bordeaux, then Spain, Cadiz, Zaragoza, Catalonia, and Languedoc, and found himself in Provence by the end of 1773. But confined, afraid to go out, he grew bored… until he left again disguised in Italy. He returned to Lyon in the fall of 1774 to reunite with his wife.
Letter from the Marquis de Sade to his wife from the dungeon at Vincennes.
With all her love, she tried to keep him close, but he had a demon in him; he had sex in his blood, and now he was again involved in a dirty affair. The Marquis had just hired a secretary and five young girls whose parents would file complaints of “abduction done without their consent and by seduction.” Rumors spoke of mutilated teenagers hidden at La Coste, money being paid by the Montreuil. But no documents were found; all the pieces of evidence had been destroyed. The Marquis then fled in July 1775 towards Gap, then Florence, under the name of Count de Mazan. First received by Cardinal de Bernis in Rome, he was introduced to Marie Antoinette‘s brother-in-law in Naples in early 1776, who offered him various jobs at the Court.
Back in France, he wrote his “Journey to Italy,” in which he recounted his discovery of castrati, which deeply shocked him; he became studious but still prey to his fantasies, which still got him into trouble. Thinking that in Paris he could go unnoticed, he walked right into the lion’s den! He was arrested in February 1777 and incarcerated in Vincennes. His wife fought so well that she succeeded in having his trial reviewed; he was transferred to Aix-en-Provence in early 1778, and he was retried on the Marseille case.
The judgment was overturned; he was only accused of “admonishment for debauchery and libertinage with a 50-pound fine and a ban from staying in Marseille for three years.” He thought he was free! No! Louis XV’s lettre de cachet was still effective; Louis XVI, horrified by the Marquis’s behavior, would not release him. Under heavy escort, he returned to Paris but managed to escape. Caught again a month later, he was bound, taken to Vincennes, and locked up in September 1778. Thirteen years of detention awaited him, turning him into a completely different man!
The Marquis de Sade’s Stay in Prison
The first page of Sade’s Justine, one of the works for which he was imprisoned.
Incarcerated at Vincennes, he spends his time reading (he will have no fewer than 500 books) and indulging in pastries. Nicknamed “Monsieur le 6” because of the number of his cell, he writes many letters proclaiming his innocence or railing against his stepmother, the police lieutenant, or even the governor of the prison. He becomes lucid and realizes that confinement serves little purpose other than degrading the man, embittering him, and making him even more angry.
His wife can finally visit him in July 1781, but he becomes jealous and furious, increasingly aggressive to the point of hitting everyone; she must justify her movements, becoming his scapegoat. Tired of reproaches and exhausted by the blows received, she retires to the convent near the present-day Pantheon, entrusting the children to her mother.
In February 1784, Vincennes closed its doors for lack of occupants. The three remaining nobles are transferred to the Bastille. Installed on the sixth floor of the Tower of Liberty, he can furnish his cell with furniture of his choice and his library of 600 volumes. Gripped by hallucinations and seeing erotic scenes, he begins to write and describe all his repressed desires. This is how “Aline and Valcour” and “Justine or the Misfortunes of Virtue” are written, where one reads, “Everything must be sacrificed for pleasure; it is much less amusing to be virtuous than vicious; vice amuses and virtue tires.”
He can no longer bear the Bastille after five years, but he is unaware of the upheavals in Paris. He screams and calls out to the people; the governor has him evacuated in the middle of the night to the hospital in Charenton, without clothes, without furniture, and especially without his books. It was almost like he regained his freedom because, twelve days later, the people took the Bastille and liberated the prisoners!
In his new prison, he feels lost; all his writings remain at the Bastille. When he learns that the people have taken this prison, he thinks of his masterpiece, “The 120 Days of Sodom,” which was certainly destroyed. Yet this document, passed from hand to hand, sold, and resold, will be published between 1931 and 1935. The original will go from France to Switzerland, to be soon recovered by the BNF and exhibited at the Museum of Letters and Manuscripts! If the Marquis knew…
Free at Last!
Le donjon de Vincennes: Sade was locked up here in 1777, then from 1778 to 1784, when he was transferred to the Bastille.
According to the will of the Nation, he is free and leaves Charenton with his two sons in April 1790. He is 50 years old, his vision is failing, he has gained weight, and he walks poorly. He wants to see his wife again, who refuses—she who loved him so much during their twenty-seven years of fidelity and who did everything for him. Worse, in June, she requests and obtains a separation of property and goods! His sons prefer Normandy, and his daughter is a nun!
He will not see them again; he does not understand! He finds himself alone, has no friends, and has frequented no circles—only servants and prostitutes. Sade settles near Saint Sulpice and only concerns himself with literature and stage plays, but success is not there; he loses his money. His first book, “Justine or The Misfortunes of Virtue,” published in 1791, is a hit because, as indecent and disgusting as it may be, everyone is clamoring for it: six editions in ten years!
“Sensible” Muse
Having remained alone for so long, he set up a household with a young woman of thirty-three, Marie Constance Quesnet, whom he called “sensible.” They would never separate again. He settled at the current location of the Galeries Lafayette under the name Louis Sade, abandoning the particle and the title of marquis. They would live happily and calmly without intimate relationships, only platonic ones. He himself noted that he had changed: “All of that disgusts me now, as much as it once inflamed me. Thank God, thinking of something else makes me four times happier.” He is transformed; she has become his muse.
Drawn to the French Revolution while his sons emigrate, he joins the Piques section, attends the Festival of the Federation, and writes a very relevant text for the return of the king from Varennes. Quickly becoming secretary of the section in 1792, he was appointed Commissioner of the Paris sections in the hospitals and thanks to him, the sick were able to benefit from a bed each, whereas previously they slept three to a bed.
Supportive of the democratic evolution of institutions, he is nevertheless against violence like that of August 10 and does not hesitate to write, “The violence of my writings is nothing compared to the current massacres.” Elected Vice President of the Piques section in the spring of 1793, he is happy and satisfied with this official recognition; he does not harm his in-laws who depend on this section, contenting himself with criticizing them, saying, “They are recognized beggars and villains whom I could ruin with a word… but I pity them and I return them contempt and indifference.” He does better; he puts them on a purge list. Sade is moderate, except in religion!
Robespierre, who advocated the institutionalization of the Cult of the Supreme Being, was imprisoned in early December at the Madelonnettes in the Marais. No one helps him; it is the beginning of the Reign of Terror. In January 1794, he was transferred to the Carmes and then to Saint Lazare. He fears being guillotined because the report on his conduct works against him. Sensible is still there, and his friends hide him in Doctor Coignard’s sanatorium, rue de Picpus, “a terrestrial paradise, a beautiful house with a superb garden,” but he is still not reassured.
On July 26, the Revolutionary Tribunal condemns him to death for the second time in absentia for “conspiracy against the Republic.” Curiously, they do not come for him that same day, but only the next day; he has already fled and escaped the guillotine. On July 27, Robespierre is overthrown by the Convention; the Terror ends, Sade is saved, and he is acquitted of all charges in October 1794.
Free, he takes Sensible to Provence, to the Château de La Coste; the property is in ruins, the roof is gone, and the windows and doors are broken and torn down. Disgusted, he sells the castle and some property, then returns to Clichy.
Writing Career
Disgusted, he no longer wants to hear about politics and devotes himself to his career as a man of letters. He published eight volumes of “Aline and Valcour” in 1795 and ten volumes of “La Nouvelle Justine ou les Malheurs de la Vertu” in 1797, which were great successes, but money was still lacking. To survive, he settles in Versailles and accepts a job as a prompter at the city theater. He struggles with the administration to release the sequestration of his property and leases in Provence. To top it all off, he learns of his death on August 29, 1799, through the Gazette! In 1800, he signed “les crimes de l’amour” with his name, written at the Bastille. He thinks he will peacefully finish his life by writing. Well no!
Napoleon Bonaparte calls him a monster; he hates this atheist libertine. In August, the police burned a complete edition of the Nouvelle Justine while preparing his arrest. They took advantage of Sade’s visit to his printer to seize the manuscripts awaiting publication and put him in solitary confinement at the police prefecture in early March 1801.
A month later, he is taken to Sainte-Pélagie, where he will remain for two years. To occupy his time, he creates a literary society with some inmates, but his behavior prompts complaints. Transferred in April 1803 to Bicêtre, “the Bastille of the Scum,” where the worst of the incarcerated are found (rapists, thieves, madmen, murderers), his family finally reacts: okay for the incarceration, but more dignified. He is transferred to the hospice in Charenton; he will never leave there again.
—>Some of the Marquis de Sade’s notable works include “The 120 Days of Sodom,” “Justine,” “Philosophy in the Bedroom,” and “Juliette.” These works explore themes of sexuality, power, and morality in graphic and often disturbing detail.
Theater Stage Manager in Charenton
Charenton, founded in 1641 and placed under the Ministry of the Interior in 1797, served as a type of prison for treating “the insane, dangerous individuals” whose crimes required concealment in the name of official morality. The pension there was substantial, enabling Sade to spend his final years there due to the income from his farms in Provence. As a marquis, he was exempt from the same treatments as the destitute, deemed criminals.
The staff was uncertain about the identity of the “old gentleman dressed in an old-fashioned manner” who spoke eloquently and appeared of noble birth. He freely roamed the park, facilitated by Director Coulmiers, who had almost become his friend; both shared the idea of treating madness through theater. They organized performances monthly, drawing audiences of over 200 people. Additionally, with Coulmiers’ approval, Sensible joined him as early as the summer of 1804.
The performances went smoothly; the actors executed their roles flawlessly, devoid of shouting or bursts of violence. Sade oversaw the staging, conducted rehearsals, and supervised all aspects. The post-performance dinners with the actors and select guests were highly successful. When certain guests learned that the lead actor, a witty and eloquent man, was the Marquis de Sade, they reacted with surprise, fascination, or terror, but never indifference.
Psychoanalysis emerged, yet few comprehended this new form of medicine; many disparaged it, including the newly appointed doctor in 1806, who adamantly rejected these innovations. He petitioned Minister Fouché to relocate Sade elsewhere, citing misconduct and excessive freedom (he particularly disapproved of the post-theater meals and applause). Sade remained unsettled, and searches occurred in June 1807, resulting in the seizure of manuscripts. The Emperor persisted in his interference; Director Coulmiers was dismissed and replaced by someone who prohibited theater performances. It marked the conclusion; Sade sensed it.
On December 2, 1814, the Marquis de Sade passed away shortly before noon. Sensible departed with tears in her eyes but remained at the hospice until her own demise in July 1832. The modest funerals occurred the next day. The Marquis’s remains were interred in the hospice cemetery without a name or date on the slab, contrary to his desire to be buried in Beauce, beneath a copse adorned with acorns, to vanish from this world.
The Notoriety and Descendants of the Marquis de Sade
But the name of the Marquis will never disappear. For about 80 years, it was forgotten and then revived thanks to the Surrealists and painters inspired by him, such as Man Ray, Dali, and Magritte. Paul Eluard wrote, “Three men helped my thoughts to free themselves: the Marquis de Sade, the Count of Lautréamont, and André Breton.” The authors paid homage to him in various ways. Influential figures like Victor Hugo, with his Notre Dame de Paris, Georges Sand, Eugène Sue, Lamartine, and Baudelaire, whose bedside book was “Justine,” were influenced by his writings. Even Simone de Beauvoir acknowledged his impact. Plays were dedicated to him, a Sade Prize was created, films were released, residences regained their splendor, and some became part of the heritage.
The descendants remained discreet, with notable names noted through alliances: Pierre de Chevigné, a resistance fighter, deputy, and Minister of War under the IVth Republic; Henri de Raincourt, president of the General Council of Yonne; Henri de Castries, a classmate of François Hollande at the ENA and CEO of Axa; and Philippes Lannes de Montebello, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
However, those born between 1947 and 1956 revived his work by saying, “We must dare to speak of Sade; the Marquis is, above all, the symbol of freedom. A free man transcends prisons; a free spirit transcends centuries.”
Ultimately, why has this man made such a mark on minds? Simply put, even though his private life was questionable, he was not discreet; his sexual life was more fantasized about than lived because, during his thirty years of confinement, he had to content himself with writing fantasies instead of fulfilling them. Sade is not rehabilitated; he remains “this eternal Spanish inn, in which everyone finds what they bring, sees what they want to see, and understands what they want to understand.”
The French Revolution of 1789 is famous for its ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. However, amidst the euphoria of political change, the revolution also witnessed a series of dark and harrowing events that left an unforgettable mark on history. Beyond the lofty goals and inspiring slogans, the period known as the French Revolution witnessed an unprecedented wave of violence, chaos, and persecution that scarred the nation and its people.
From the infamous Reign of Terror and mass executions by guillotine to lesser-known but equally shocking events such as the Witch Hunts and the Noyads of Nantes, you can learn about the darkest moments of this turbulent period. These events are a chilling reminder that even in the pursuit of justice and freedom, man’s capacity for brutality and bloodshed knows no limits.
The Reign of Terror: Bloodshed and the Guillotine
The execution of Robespierre on 28 July 1794 marked the end of the Reign of Terror.
There are two distinct phases that make up the Terror, a haunting period of the French Revolution. The first Terror unfolded between August 10 and September 20, 1792, as revolutionary forces aimed to quell any opposition that sought to restore the monarchy. The ruling Paris Commune introduced radical measures, resulting in the suspension of the king, arrests, the establishment of an extraordinary tribunal, and the exile of non-compliant priests.
This phase included the notorious September Massacres, during which over 1,000 individuals, including nobles, clergy, journalists, and deputies, met a violent end. The first Terror came to a close with France’s victorious defense against the Prussian invasion at Valmy on September 20, 1792.
The second Terror, initiated on September 5, 1793, marked a more pervasive and ruthless era. Driven by the need to address multiple threats to the Revolution, such as war, civil conflict in Vendée, economic crises, and political divisions, the Convention decided to prioritize “putting terror on the agenda.” The Montagnards, a radical faction led by Robespierre, assumed control of the Convention, culminating in the removal of the moderate Girondins in May 1793. Robespierre presented himself as the champion of virtue and the people’s sovereignty, employing committees like the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal to hunt down and eliminate “counter-revolutionaries.”
Law of Suspects broadened the criteria for suspicion, while the Law of 22 Prairial Year II expedited trials and denied the right to defense. In Paris and the provinces, thousands faced execution. The Terror extended beyond politics into a campaign of “dechristianization,” suppressing Catholicism and introducing Temples of Reason. Robespierre’s fall on 9 Thermidor Year II (July 27, 1794) signaled the end of the Terror and the Committee of Public Safety’s dictatorship, giving way to a more moderate period known as the Directory.
The legacy of the Terror is a complex and contentious matter. Approximately 17,000 were guillotined, and another 25,000 met their end through different means during this period.
The September Massacres: Carnage in Paris Prisons
The Salpêtrière hospital where 35 women were killed.
The September Massacres were a series of summary executions that occurred from September 2 to September 6, 1792, during the French Revolution. Approximately 1,600 lives were claimed in Paris and the provinces, including those of priests, nobles, journalists, Swiss officers, and common criminals. The massacres were a result of popular panic, driven by the fear of an aristocratic conspiracy and the threat of foreign invasion.
These events took place in the midst of a political, social, and military crisis during the revolution. The monarchy was overthrown in August 1792, and King Louis XVI and many suspects were imprisoned. Concurrently, France was at war with European powers seeking to restore the French monarchy. The fall of Verdun on September 2 heightened the fear in Paris as rumors circulated that prisoners were planning an uprising. Posters, newspapers, and speeches called for popular justice, leading groups of sans-culottes to head to the prisons, where improvised tribunals sentenced most detainees to death.
The victims, regardless of gender, age, or social status, were beheaded, stabbed, or mutilated. The violence extended to various prisons and provinces, resulting in hundreds of deaths. The September Massacres were a bloody and authoritarian episode of the French Revolution, reflecting social and political tensions as well as the desire to defend the Revolution against its enemies.
The outcomes of these massacres are subject to debate, with some condemning them as crimes against humanity, others justifying them as a historical necessity, and still others comparing them to violence in other revolutions or regimes. The September Massacres continue to raise questions about the limits of political violence and the essence of the French Revolution.
The War in the Vendée: A Brutal Civil War
War in the Vendée, First Massacre of Machecoul.
The War in the Vendée, spanning from 1793 to 1796, was a series of armed uprisings in western France. This conflict pitted royalist and Catholic peasants against republican revolutionary forces. It’s considered by some to be a genocide, claiming nearly 200,000 lives. The war’s causes were rooted in economic, social, political, and religious factors. The impoverished Vendée peasants, loyal to their Catholic faith, opposed revolutionary measures such as taxing them and subjecting priests to the Republic. The conscription of 300,000 men to fight against European monarchies triggered the rebellion in 1793.
Divided into three phases, the war saw early Vendée victories, a shift in power to the republicans, and a brutal crackdown leading to the Vendée’s eventual defeat. The conflict ended in 1796 with the Treaty of La Jaunaye, resulting in the deaths of nearly 200,000 people, devastating the region, and leaving lasting historical and political debates surrounding its classification as a “genocide.
The Lyon Massacres: “Lyon made war on liberty: Lyon is no more!”
Revolt of Lyon against the National Convention.
The Lyon Massacres (Siege of Lyon), a brutal chapter during the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, unfolded in Lyon between October 1793 and April 1794. The National Convention, the revolutionary government, ordered the violence and destruction as retaliation for the city’s defiance. The death toll is uncertain, but is estimated at around 2,000. The conflict’s origins trace back to political divisions arising from the 1789 Revolution, pitting Girondins (moderates supporting a constitutional monarchy) against Montagnards (radicals favoring the Republic). Lyon declared itself in insurrection, refusing to acknowledge the National Convention. In response, the Convention sent a massive army, laying siege to Lyon. After a grueling resistance, Lyon eventually capitulated in October 1793.
In a punitive move, the National Convention decreed the destruction of Lyon, renaming it “Ville-Affranchie” and imposing strict measures. Representative Joseph Fouché initiated a ruthless crackdown, establishing revolutionary tribunals that doled out death sentences without fair trials. Victims included people of all backgrounds, from nobles and priests to ordinary citizens, women, children, and foreigners. Many were executed, and historic buildings were demolished. The Lyon Massacres continued until the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in 1794, which marked the end of the Reign of Terror. A more moderate approach, amnesty, and city reconstruction followed, ultimately restoring Lyon’s name. The Lyon Massacres remain a tragic and deadly episode in the French Revolution’s history, stirring debates on the nature and boundaries of revolutionary violence.
The Noyades of Nantes: Drownings in the Loire River
The Drownings at Nantes in 1793, painting by Joseph Aubert (1882), Musée d’art et d’histoire de Cholet
The Nantes Drownings, also known as “Noyades de Nantes,” occurred during the French Revolution from October 1793 to April 1794. Jean-Baptiste Carrier, a representative on a mission for the National Convention, ordered a series of summary executions. The victims, numbering between 1,800 and 4,860, included Vendéens and Chouans who opposed the republic, as well as various other individuals.
The context of these drownings was the ongoing civil war in western France between royalist peasants and republican forces. The revolutionary government, fearing the war’s threat to national security, adopted a policy of Terror to eliminate enemies. Carrier, aiming to make Nantes an example, resorted to drownings as a faster and more cost-effective means of execution.
Victims included combatants, priests who rejected the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, nobles, citizens, women, children, and foreigners. Politically, the Nantes Drownings contributed to discrediting the Reign of Terror and played a role in Robespierre’s fall. Carrier was arrested and executed for crimes against humanity. Socially, the drownings brought immense suffering and trauma to the region’s residents and victims’ families.
The Law of Suspects: Accusations and Arrests
Law of Suspects, 1793.
During the height of the Reign of Terror, the National Convention passed the Law of Suspects on August 12, 1793, allowing for the arrest and trial of anyone considered an enemy of the French Revolution. A decree issued on September 17, 1793, added to it by broadening the definition of suspects and the procedures for their arrest.
The reasons behind the Law of Suspects were linked to the context of civil war and foreign war threatening the nascent Republic. Faced with the revolt of the Vendéens and federalists who supported monarchy and the Catholic religion and the coalition of European powers seeking to restore the Old Regime, the revolutionary government adopted a policy of Terror aimed at eliminating all opponents, real or perceived, to the Revolution. The Law of Suspects was one of the instruments of this policy, relying on surveillance committees, revolutionary tribunals, and the Committee of Public Safety.
The provisions of the Law of Suspects were inspired by Robespierre’s desire, as the primary leader of the Reign of Terror, to uphold republican virtue and purify society from corrupt elements. The law allowed for the arbitrary arrest of anyone who had “not consistently demonstrated their attachment to the Revolution” or who had “done nothing against liberty and nothing for it.”
The Destruction of Vendeans at Savenay: A Massacre in the Snow
Destroying the Vendéens at Savenay, illustration by Yan’ Dargent, 1866.
The Battle of Savenay is the name given to the confrontation that took place on the 22nd and 23rd of December 1793 between republican troops and Vendéen insurgents during the Vendée War. This battle, which occurred in Savenay, in the Loire-Atlantique region, marked the end of the Virée de Galerne, a bold expedition by the Vendéens across France, and resulted in the defeat and annihilation of the Catholic and royalist army.
The causes of the battle of Savenay are tied to the context of the Vendée War, an armed peasant revolt in western France, loyal to the monarchy and the Catholic religion, against the revolutionary government that imposed taxes, requisitions, and religious persecution on them. After winning several victories against republican forces, the Vendéens, led by commanders such as La Rochejaquelein, Charette, Bonchamps, Lescure, and d’Elbée, decided to cross the Loire in October 1793 to join the royalists in Brittany and Normandy and seek assistance from the English. This venture, known as the Virée de Galerne, ended in failure as the Vendéens did not find the expected support and were harassed by the reorganized republican army. The Vendéens had to turn back and attempt to return to Vendée, passing through Savenay.
The republicans’ determination to put an end to the Vendéen rebellion and set an example influenced the outcome of the Battle of Savenay. The republicans, under the command of generals Kléber, Marceau, and Westermann, had 18,000 well-equipped and disciplined soldiers, compared to only 6,000 Vendéens. The republicans surrounded the Vendéens in Savenay and engaged them in a merciless battle on December 23, 1793. The battle turned into a massacre as the republicans showed no mercy to the Vendéens, whom they considered “brigands.” The Vendéens were killed on the battlefield or executed after capture. Among the victims were several Vendéen leaders like d’Elbée, Fleuriot, and Sapinaud.
The consequences of the Battle of Savenay were both military and political. Militarily, it marked the end of the Virée de Galerne and the first phase of the Vendée War. It led to the destruction of the Catholic and royalist army, with around 4,000 casualties, and the dispersion of survivors who sought refuge in the woods and marshes. It allowed the republicans to regain control of the territory and prepare for the following bloody repression with the “infernal columns.” Politically, the battle of Savenay contributed to strengthening the Reign of Terror, which aimed to eliminate the enemies of the Revolution through force and law.
The Destruction of Hébertists and Dantonists: Political Purges
Jacques-René Hébert.
The Hébertists and Dantonists were two distinct groups within the radical faction of the French Revolution. The Hébertists, under the leadership of Jacques Hébert, were well known for their extreme revolutionary fervor and anti-religious stance. They played a significant role in the dechristianization campaign, advocating for the deconstruction of religious symbols and practices.
On the other hand, the Georges Danton-led Dantonists initially belonged to the more moderate Jacobin faction but later changed their views. They were associated with the Committee of Public Safety and played a role in the implementation of the Reign of Terror.
The downfall of these groups can be attributed to several factors:
Both the Hébertists and Dantonists had internal divisions and conflicts, which weakened their cohesion.
Maximilien Robespierre, a key figure in the Committee of Public Safety, sought to consolidate his power and viewed the Hébertists and Dantonists as threats to his authority.
France was facing severe economic and political challenges during this period, and the radicalism of the Hébertists and Dantonists was increasingly seen as a destabilizing factor.
The radicalism and extremism of these groups alienated public opinion, leading to a growing desire for more moderate governance.
In March 1794, Robespierre and his allies in the Committee of Public Safety initiated a purge of the Hébertists and Dantonists. They detained a number of their leaders, including Hébert and Danton, and ultimately put them to death by guillotine. This marked the end of the radical phase of the Revolution, as Robespierre’s faction tightened its grip on power.
The Execution of King Louis XVI: A Regicide in History
Execution of Louis XVI – German copperplate engraving, 1793, by Georg Heinrich Sieveking.
The execution of Louis XVI is the name given to the event that ended the life of the King of France on January 21, 1793, at the Place de la Révolution in Paris. This execution, the result of a controversial trial, marked a significant turning point in the history of the French Revolution and had significant political, social, and memorial consequences.
The causes of Louis XVI’s execution are linked to the context of civil war and foreign war threatening the nascent Republic. Faced with the uprising of the Vendéens and federalists who supported the monarchy and the Catholic religion, as well as the coalition of European powers aiming to restore the Ancien Régime, the revolutionary government adopted a policy of Terror, seeking to eliminate all opponents, real or perceived, to the Revolution. The king, who attempted to escape to Varennes in June 1791, was considered a traitor and an enemy of the nation. He was removed from his duties and imprisoned at the Temple prison under the name “Louis Capet.”
The manner of Louis XVI’s execution was inspired by Robespierre’s desire, the primary leader of the Reign of Terror, to establish republican virtue and purify society from corrupt elements. The king was tried by the National Convention, the legislative assembly elected by universal male suffrage. The trial lasted from December 11 to December 26, 1792, and focused on three charges: conspiracy against public liberty, attempted escape, and complicity with foreign powers.
The Cult of the Supreme Being: Dechristianization Campaign
The Festival of the Supreme Being, by Pierre-Antoine Demachy (1794) .
The Cult of the Supreme Being, established by Robespierre during the Reign of Terror in May 1794, aimed to infuse the French Revolution with a religious and moral dimension grounded in the acknowledgment of God and the immortality of the soul. It was a response to the civil war and foreign threats endangering the Republic. Robespierre, driven by the belief in virtue as the Republic’s fundamental principle, sought a metaphysical foundation for the policy of Terror. Inspired by Rousseau’s philosophy, he opposed atheism, which he considered aristocratic and barbaric, as well as the excesses of the Cult of Reason. Robespierre’s desire to promote republican virtue and cleanse society of corruption shaped the specifics of the Supreme Being cult.
The cult’s declaration on May 7, 1794, established its principles and set the stage for decadary festivals, replacing Christian Sundays, celebrating various Revolutionary entities and virtues. The first Supreme Being festival took place on June 8, 1794, featuring symbolic ceremonies, parades, and celebrations in Paris and across the country. However, the cult of the Supreme Being had profound political, social, and memorial consequences. It marked the peak of Robespierre’s influence but also contributed to his downfall as he made many enemies. The cult triggered reactions from European powers, uprisings by royalists, and intensified the Reign of Terror.
On a social level, it led to the execution of the king and numerous individuals, impacting people’s daily lives with calendar changes, currency alterations, and shifts in fashion.
The Conspiracy of Equals: Failed Utopian Revolt
Conjuration de Babœuf l’an IV.
The Conspiracy of the Equals, orchestrated by Gracchus Babeuf and his followers between 1795 and 1797, aimed to overthrow the revolutionary government during the Directory era and establish a communist society founded on equality of property and rights. This marked the first attempt at a social revolution in Europe but was thwarted, leading to Babeuf and his associates’ arrest, conviction, and execution.
The conspiracy’s origins were intertwined with the civil war and foreign threats challenging the young Republic, prompting the revolutionary government to employ the Terror policy to eliminate opposition. In the Manifesto of the Equals, Babeuf called for social equality, condemning the rich-poor divide and urging a popular uprising to abolish private property. The conspiracy sought to transform communism into a reality, relying on key figures and mobilizing support through Babeuf’s newspaper, “Le Tribun du Peuple.”
The plan was to seize strategic Parisian locations, proclaiming the “Republic of Equals” and establishing a temporary revolutionary dictatorship in preparation for the “administration of things” and communal property and labor. The consequences of the Conspiracy of the Equals encompassed political, and social dimensions. The trial of the conspirators unfolded in 1797, with Babeuf and Darthé sentenced to death. Socially, it reflected the working classes’ discontent and aspirations, foreshadowing 19th-century socialist and communist movements.
