- 20 Feb 2013 16:10
#14177504
Of course it is very difficult to speculate, and there seems to be a general consensus that a Revolution was inevitable by the 1780s
But I think it would be a stimulating endeavour to would proffer an argument and encourage an exchange.
OK, so I propose that wholesale reform was still a possibility in place of a dramatic revolution provided that the privileged orders had taken the following actions.
Local cahiers (grievances that could be submitted to the local administration) were made up of a multitude of common and individual complaints, many trivial and at times ridiculous, but the aspect of current society that aggrieved all peasants and commoners were tithes, the taille and the fact that the burden of taxation (especially heavy given the financial crisis plaguing France in the mid to late eighteenth-century) was heaped solely on the peasantry and urban labourers. Clergy enjoyed a full exemption from any tax on their property or land and the nobility had certain tax exemption (taille) and privileges. I think that had the aristocracy given up their exemptions from tax (as many were willing to do once the Estates-General was convened) that this would have been a major stepping stone to further reform and a move away from revolutionary fervour.
Secondly, there was great animosity between the growing bourgeois class and the nobility. Those of the Second Estate enjoyed enormous privilege when it came to filling army commissions and important government and administrative positions. The bourgeoisie were increasingly blocked from achieving high offices, although many were successful in becoming noblesse de robe (which shows that the bourgeois class were not intent on destroying the aristocracy - as many have contended, and going as far as to call it a 'bourgeois revolution' - but in fact wish to achieve that status themselves and enjoy the privileges that came with nobility) on the whole the bourgeois were growing in wealth and influence among the masses but were not occupying the positions befitting their place in society.
Had the aristocracy's privileged position been relinquished or reformed then revolution would almost certainly have been prevented, in my opinion.
A lot can be said about the obsolescence of the structure and functioning of the monarchical government and that the institution needed to be changed and it was only a matter of when revolution would break out. But I belief if the aforementioned class antagonisms had been erased then government could have been reformed gradually rather than smashed to pieces.
Even if this would not have saved the old regime then it was certainly the best chance it had. If the government had the determination and strength of will to reform the aristocracy (a disorganised and disparate bunch) then it certainly could have with ease, although the Church was far more formidable and better organised opponent).
But I think it would be a stimulating endeavour to would proffer an argument and encourage an exchange.
OK, so I propose that wholesale reform was still a possibility in place of a dramatic revolution provided that the privileged orders had taken the following actions.
Local cahiers (grievances that could be submitted to the local administration) were made up of a multitude of common and individual complaints, many trivial and at times ridiculous, but the aspect of current society that aggrieved all peasants and commoners were tithes, the taille and the fact that the burden of taxation (especially heavy given the financial crisis plaguing France in the mid to late eighteenth-century) was heaped solely on the peasantry and urban labourers. Clergy enjoyed a full exemption from any tax on their property or land and the nobility had certain tax exemption (taille) and privileges. I think that had the aristocracy given up their exemptions from tax (as many were willing to do once the Estates-General was convened) that this would have been a major stepping stone to further reform and a move away from revolutionary fervour.
Secondly, there was great animosity between the growing bourgeois class and the nobility. Those of the Second Estate enjoyed enormous privilege when it came to filling army commissions and important government and administrative positions. The bourgeoisie were increasingly blocked from achieving high offices, although many were successful in becoming noblesse de robe (which shows that the bourgeois class were not intent on destroying the aristocracy - as many have contended, and going as far as to call it a 'bourgeois revolution' - but in fact wish to achieve that status themselves and enjoy the privileges that came with nobility) on the whole the bourgeois were growing in wealth and influence among the masses but were not occupying the positions befitting their place in society.
Had the aristocracy's privileged position been relinquished or reformed then revolution would almost certainly have been prevented, in my opinion.
A lot can be said about the obsolescence of the structure and functioning of the monarchical government and that the institution needed to be changed and it was only a matter of when revolution would break out. But I belief if the aforementioned class antagonisms had been erased then government could have been reformed gradually rather than smashed to pieces.
Even if this would not have saved the old regime then it was certainly the best chance it had. If the government had the determination and strength of will to reform the aristocracy (a disorganised and disparate bunch) then it certainly could have with ease, although the Church was far more formidable and better organised opponent).