We tend to believe that revolutions are solely triggered by inappropriate political ruling. From a contemporary point of view valuing democracy as the best of all political regimes, there is a shared opinion that monarchy and absolutism were banned because of deep-rooted privileges granted to a ridiculously small part of the population, a theory coming from Christianity with no system of proof of its legitimacy. However, even though the French revolution in 1789 had a pivotal importance in human rights, it is nevertheless essential to mention that its first Republic lasted no longer than 12 years, before it became an Empire under Napoléon. Napoléon’s title was not questioned in France. He was a hero. However, the Parliament the republic had installed in order to avoid repeating mistakes of the past were destitute from all power. Napoléon was not different from Louis the 16th. Indeed, there was a frame to his power which he had earned. Napoléon was not born emperor, but does it justify a return to a system which, even though it could not have been referred to as a monarchy, was not far from its institutions? And why did the system collapse, if it were to come back to a similar type of leadership several years later, but one that was praised?
Here are two paintings, the first one portraying Louis XVI, a painting by Jean-Baptise-François Carteaux. The second one represents Napoléon “Bonaparte franchissant le Grand-Saint-Bernard”, by Jacque-Louis David.
It is undeniable that both painters have a very different look on the two leaders, Consul or monarch.
Out of all the reasons why the “monarchie absolue” was to fail was the plague of 1720 striking in Marseille. First of all, the political reaction to the plague in order to protect the population from it had a drastic impact on the way the government was seen. If the “third state” was paying taxes in exchange from protection from the nobility, these taxes were of no use here, as the government could not protect them from a disease. The action they took consisted of reducing the people’s freedom, by organizing lockdowns. Needless to say that if national lockdowns have a dreadful impact on 21stcentury’s household, the consequences were even more dire for 18th century people relying solely on themselves to survive, the government providing no type of insurance in order to help those in need.
The government asked people to burn wood inside of their houses to purify the air, which only led to wood shortages. So many people had died, and so many were banned from practicing their jobs, trade was slowed down because of new controls imposed by the municipalities.
Ultimately, famine, cold and disease led to political uprisings. The third-state, influenced by the great ideas of Rousseau, Voltaire and many other Enlightenment writers were given the impulse to start rebelling. Thousands of citizens congregated at the Château de Versailles asking for bread, to which Marie-Antoinette, queen of France, is known to have answered (even though we are not too sure of the veracity of these lines) “If they can’t have bread, they should eat cake”, digging their social differences and privileges even deeper.
In conclusion, the monarchy had to collapse and the plague occurring several decades earlier definitely had an impact on how events unfold. Napoléon was drastically different in his ruling of the country, however, he did not bear the blame for the plague on his shoulders.
Bibliography: https://www.pourlascience.fr/sr/histoire-sciencesla-medecine-entre-epidemies-et-politique-sous-la-revolution-20221.php https://www.en-attendant-nadeau.fr/2020/04/15/economies-morbidite-peste-marseille/ https://journals.openedition.org/cdlm/10903 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0078-0?WT.feed_name=subjects_sustainability https://www.herodote.net/5_octobre_1789-evenement-17891005.php