13 Causes of the French Revolution Explained
Reading Time: 14 minutes There was no one cause of the French Revolution. Multiple political, economic, social, and intellectual forces were at work, including fiscal bankruptcy, a caste system that seemed increasingly unnatural to many French citizens, soaring food prices and scarcity, rising disbelief in traditional analyses of society, and more. Tensions had been mounting for years. As historian Simon Schama put it: “The old regime was strong enough to oppress, but too weak to reform.” Without any one of these causes, the revolution might have been avoided. But combined, they made the crisis in France seem unavoidable.
Some of the most powerful causes were intellectual. Philosophers and economists had introduced French citizens to new schools of thought that challenged the traditions of absolutism, aristocratic privilege, and faith in monarchy. Jean Jacques Rousseau asked who should be considered sovereign: The king? God? Or did the people have the ultimate power? In times of economic and political stability, such provocative questions might have had little impact. But when a poor harvest sent France’s faltering economy into a tailspin and the government proved unable to address the crisis, faith in the ancien régime evaporated. Requests for reform were met with political resistance. Anger mounted and ultimately exploded into a revolution.
Absolute monarchy
Absolutism in France evolved over centuries. By the time of Louis XIV, almost all political power was centered in the monarchy. The institution justified its total rule by claiming to govern by divine right, or the will of God. Louis XIV even declared, “L’état, c’est moi.” (“I am the state.”) While representative bodies existed in France, they were rarely consulted. This effectively left the vast majority of Frenchmen voiceless.
The problem was that absolutism created a government that was remote from its people. Laws, taxes, reforms… these were decreed from on high. There was little regard for local circumstances. Ministers and judges were responsible to the monarch, not to the people. There were almost no checks on royal power. Finally, when things went wrong, no one was sure who was to blame. The effect of these conditions was widespread frustration and mistrust of the government.
When Louis XVI inherited an impossible financial situation and a hostile people in the late 1700s, absolutism proved too rigid to save itself. It had been centuries since the people had any real voice in their government. By this time, the average person regarded the king’s power as arbitrary and self-interested. When the crisis hit, absolutism lacked a mechanism for peaceful change, making revolution even more likely.
Rigid social hierarchy (the Three Estates)
France had been divided by law into three estates for centuries before 1789: the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), and everybody else (Third Estate). By law, custom, and privilege, the first two Estates constituted a tiny fraction of the population that enjoyed most of the advantages of French society: legal favors, honors, and easy access to high office. The vast majority – peasants, workers, the middle classes – made up the Third Estate. They shouldered all the responsibilities of society but received few of its benefits.
The imbalance did not stop with wealth. Nobles and clergy had their own courts. They alone could hold certain offices. They paid fewer taxes and were exempt from many obligations. Talent and birth were irrelevant: social advancement meant moving from one estate to another. One pamphleteer in 1789 asked, “What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing.” The question expressed the anger of millions.
Gradually, that anger turned into resentment. Lawyers and businessmen chafed at their ceilings on advancement. Peasants suffered and resented their dues and the aristocrats who levied them. At the root was the Estates system itself. To many, France had become a static society where privilege of birth trumped talent and the power of tradition blocked all reform. When a crisis hit, it would not be appeased by minor changes in the social hierarchy. It demanded the system’s end.
Unfair tax system
Before 1789, France had an unjust tax system. Gradually, more of the tax burden was shifted onto the members of the Third Estate. Nobles and clerics successfully maintained most of their widespread exemptions. The commoners who were left to pay taxes did so through several different means: the taille, an unpopular direct tax; indirect taxes on commonly used items; and feudal payments to their local lord. Meanwhile, the members of the First and Second Estates often paid little or nothing into the government. The ability to avoid taxation often corresponded with who had the most wealth.
The tax system was inefficient and confusing. Taxes varied from region to region, were usually collected by private tax farmers, and were corrupt. Anyone who attempted reform was stymied by the wealthy elites who did not want their exemptions challenged. As finance minister, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot stated decades earlier, it was impossible for the government to continue functioning without taxing everyone; he tried to reform the system but was blocked and quit.
Taxation caused resentment and hopelessness. The people were aware that the monarchy allowed privilege to continue, but asked those who paid the most taxes for more and more money. By the late 1780s, taxation itself was seen as the major problem that would soon bubble over.
Loss of faith in traditional institutions
One by one, the old sources of authority lost the public’s respect. By 1789, the King, the Church, and the Courts were widely perceived as oppressive, corrupt, insensitive, and out of touch. Justice was costly and delayed, noble immunity made the upper classes seem above the law, and clerical wealth made the Church seem hypocritical. By 1789, fewer and fewer were willing to defend these institutions.
The image of the King as protector was compromised by the opulent living conditions at Versailles and by the tardy justice dispensed by his courts. Pamphleteers made the monarchy emblematic of profligacy; France was fed up with paying the bills for nobles while they themselves went hungry and were in debt. “The court,” wrote one critic in the late 1780s, “has become a theater of excess while the nation starved.”
The church was equally suspect to many by 1789. While the priests who served at the local parish level were often poor and lived simplistic lives, bishops and Cardinals were very wealthy and politically connected. They owned about 10 percent of French land and collected tithes from most of the population. People were tired of seeing their wealth go to support these higher-ups in the name of God. Then there was the Catholic Church’s history of persecuting religious minorities. Writers like Voltaire satirized clerical abuses of power and intolerance. He had many devoted followers who read his books and spread his message of church skepticism.
Increasingly, by 1789, people did not trust one segment of society to police itself. When citizens stopped believing in the justice of the monarchy, the goodwill of the Church, and the fairness of the courts, then loyalty was replaced with doubt.
Enlightenment ideas
Beginning in the late seventeenth century and continuing throughout the eighteenth century, intellectuals of the Age of Enlightenment began to criticize absolute monarchy, inherited privilege, and traditional authority. Enlightenment thinkers instead looked to reason, law, and consent to justify power. Books, salons, pamphlets, and coffee houses spread these criticisms as well as new ways of thinking about politics and society to the elites – and eventually the general population – of European society.
One of the most influential voices of the Enlightenment came from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that power ought to be derived from the “general will” of the people. Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Ideas like these allowed people to see inequality and the denial of political rights as created by society, rather than as natural.
In addition to Rousseau, philosophers such as Montesquieu called for the separation of powers, while Voltaire ridiculed intolerance and religious privilege. Criticism of traditional authority reduced reverence for the monarchy and fostered the growth of the Liberal movement, which called for change. By the time of the Revolution in 1789, the Enlightenment had given the French people’s grievances language and legitimacy.
Example of the American Revolution (1775–1783)
The American Revolution had provided a living example that political change could occur. To many French citizens, it had shown that people could oppose a king, defeat an empire, and create a government of rights instead of privilege. The American Revolution was no longer speculation discussed in the salons; it was a tangible example of how power could be remade.
France played a profoundly ironic role in these events. By providing troops and naval support to the American Revolution, the French monarchy under Louis XVI helped the colonists overthrow British rule. Assisting in the destruction of one monarchy, France reaffirmed the expectation that its own citizens would not defy their king. Furthermore, the cost of the war plunged France further into debt. Perhaps most importantly, the average French person became familiar with the discourse of revolution: liberty, documented rights, and consent of the governed.
France sent soldiers to fight in America. Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, returned to France emboldened by limitations on governmental power and a declaration of rights. Pamphlets written by Enlightenment authors like Thomas Paine flooded the French consciousness. By the late 1780s, the American Revolution led many French citizens to believe that revolution was possible in France as well.
Massive debt from wars (especially aiding the American Revolution)
The financial cost of the wars fought by France in the 18th century especially brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy. France fought numerous wars throughout the 18th century, including the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years’ War. Loans, not reforms, financed these wars, which created huge interest payments that the French Government would eventually have to pay back. Just before the French Revolution began, debt servicing accounted for more than half of government expenditures.
Ironically, the cost of supporting the American Revolution bankrupted France. The French government poured money into ships, armies, and weapons to ensure America’s success against its British rival. In the short term, it helped them achieve their goal of weakening Britain; however, it would backfire, causing turmoil in France. Finance Minister Jacques Necker wrote, “The state is threatened with bankruptcy.” A warning that was feared by ministers and creditors.
Reform did not help solve France’s financial situation. Many remedies were put forward to save the financial situation, but with no tax on the privileged and a king who flip-flopped on reforms, nothing was solved. France lost all credibility with its people and with foreign creditors, and the monarchy could no longer control the situation.
The Nobility’s resistance to reform
Elite resistance doomed attempts at tax reform in the 1780s. While France faced fiscal insolvency, significant portions of the nobility refused to give up centuries-old exemptions. Taxes were perceived not as mutual sacrifice for the common good, but as naked aggression against status. Reform came too little, too late.
The resistance took many forms. Much of it flowed through the parliaments, elitist high-jurist institutions packed with nobility. These groups saw themselves as the ultimate protectors of the realm’s laws. The Parlement of Paris vetoed royal edicts designed to eliminate privilege. One judge said such reforms endangered “the fundamental constitution of the kingdom.”
Repeated ministers like Étienne Charles de Loménie de Brienne told the nobles that this path would lead to destruction. But once again, compromise had become impossible. Even Louis XVI couldn’t browbeat the nobility into submission. By putting privilege above everything else, they helped lay the groundwork for revolution.
Affair of the Diamond Necklace (1785)
The Affair of the Diamond Necklace undermined the monarchy’s moral credibility and fueled accusations of corruption. It involved an incredibly expensive diamond necklace commissioned for Marie Antoinette’s court. Despite not being involved, the queen bore the brunt of public blame.
Jeanne de la Motte, a masterful confidence trickster, convinced Cardinal de Rohan that the queen wanted to secretly acquire the necklace. Letters were forged and clandestine meetings arranged. After the scheme was discovered, the ensuing scandal became a public trial fed by a vicious press.
The courts absolved Marie Antoinette, but public sentiment did not. Books painted her as vulgar and selfish. People already suspicious of the court had their doubts confirmed. In the words of one commentator, the trial “ruined the queen in the eyes of the people.” The affair exposed a royally out-of-touch court and decreased the precious time left for peaceful reform.
Weak leadership
One man faced the mounting crises of the late 1780s with chronic vacillation and a lack of follow-through: Louis XVI himself. Despite inheriting an indebted, unequal, and turbulent kingdom, he could rarely make up his mind to do the right thing. Perhaps nobly intending but stubbornly indecisive, Louis frequently procrastinated needed reforms, backed down on policies, or inexplicably fired promising ministers.
The paralysis of Louis’s leadership was nowhere more evident than in his attempts to reform France’s finances. Sensible advisors like Jacques Necker recommended taxing the privileged and increasing government transparency. However, Louis seemed to support initiatives only to back down when the nobility complained. Inaction bred confusion, leading to the perception that the crown simply lacked the will to act. Louis XVI, as one person put it, would “will everything and decide nothing.”
Compounding his leadership faults was Louis’s obliviousness to public opinion. His frequent refusal or inability to speak during France’s defining moments only underscored his detachment from his increasingly alienated capital. When a leader’s power is based on trust, that trust cannot falter. By 1789, many no longer trusted the king to rule.
Weak leadership was only one factor that caused the French Revolution. However, it was the final straw that prevented France from righting itself. In a country predicated on strong leadership, the absence of leadership meant disaster.
Rising food prices and bread shortages (1788–1789)
Harvest failures and speculation drove up food prices from distress to desperation. The weather harmed grain crops throughout most of France in 1788. Hail, drought, and a harsh winter hurt yields amid continued population growth. Bread accounted for most calories in the diet of common people, so even modest price hikes were deeply felt.
The cost of bread in Paris doubled in some areas by 1789. Meanwhile, wages stagnated, and families were forced to spend more on food. Rumors of hoarding and price gouging abounded, real or imagined, and ire was directed toward grain merchants and officials believed to care more about speculation than survival. “The people,” one Parisian said, “are living on the edge of hunger, watching the rich eat.”
Shortages of bread became political. Crowds formed around bakeries. Markets were pillaged, provoking riots in towns and cities. Hunger bred no patience or fear.
Widespread poverty and urban unrest
Mass hunger and unemployment gave rise to riots, strikes, and political agitation by 1788–1789. Hard times had worn artisans, laborers, and servants down to the point of desperation. Closed workshops, low wages, and thousands on the streets were common in Paris, Lyon, Marseille, and other cities. Poverty was redefined from something personal and private into something shared and public.
The result was anger and action in the streets. Bread riots broke out when prices increased or shortages were rumored. Workers struck when employers refused or could not pay enough to feed their families. Pamphlets and street talks tied everyday distress to political causes, channeling economic anxiety into political change. “The people no longer complain in whispers, but in shouts,” one chronicler noted.
All of this created new openings for leaders and leadership. Police were overwhelmed, and no one expected the army to risk murdering hungry people by firing into crowds. In reality, many soldiers sympathized with the rioters anyway.
Revolution was fueled by poverty. The actions of urban residents sparked the French Revolution and ensured it would be fueled by demands for political change from below as much as from above.
Calling of the Estates-General (1789)
Meeting the Estates-General politicized widespread discontent. France’s financial meltdown led Louis XVI to call the Estates-General in 1789, the first such meeting since 1614. It was intended as a financial fix. Instead, it fanned the flames of discontent. France’s cities and villages compiled lists of grievances, or cahiers de doléances. Thoughts and ideas previously unspoken could now be voiced.
The Estates-General institutionalized division. The three estates met and voted independently, leaving the First and Second Estates in the majority. Commoners recognized the fundamental injustice of such an arrangement. As the Abbé Sieyès put it: “What is the Third Estate? Everything.” Increasingly, they believed they should rule.
Amid negotiation and deadlock, the Third Estate formalized its new authority. Claiming to represent the people of France, they renamed themselves the National Assembly. When they took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing to draft a constitution, the monarchy and the ruling system’s authority were directly challenged.
The Estates-General didn’t start the French Revolution. But it released the forces of revolution. Once widespread discontent had been given representation, there was no stopping the Revolution’s progress.
How These Forces Converged into the French Revolution
The causes of the French Revolution can not be narrowed down to one mistake, scandal, or idea. The Revolution was caused by structural problems that suddenly met crises. Absolute monarchy, social stratification, and inequitable taxation fueled public rage, while Enlightenment ideals and the American Revolution inspired visions of what power and authority could look like. The financial meltdown, failure to compromise among the elites, and collapse of trust created a pressure cooker for revolutionary change.
By the late 1780s, economic struggles became politicized. Increasing bread prices, urban poverty, and unemployment sparked unrest. The inability of weak leadership to quell the financial crisis, as well as the Affair of the Diamond Necklace, which undermined the monarchy’s legitimacy, led to protests when the Estates-General met. Grievances boiled over into resistance. As political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville noted, the Revolution was caused by not just misery, but “misery combined with hope.”
Looking at all of these causes together explains how the Revolution became inevitable. They were linked and compounded, smashing France’s ancien régime into history. The French Revolution was not an accident, but a predictably violent change to the world.
