Was the Terror an inevitable outcome of the French Revolution? | Dr Robert Priest

Summary

This video discusses the 'Reign of Terror' during the French Revolution, focusing on two main interpretations: circumstances and ideology. Circumstances suggest that extreme measures were a response to crises like wars and rebellions, while the ideology perspective argues that the radical beliefs of the Jacobins led to the violence. The video also highlights how historical interpretations are influenced by political contexts, with both conservative and liberal historians framing the events according to their ideological views, especially during the Cold War era.

Takeaways

• 🔪 The 'Reign of Terror' in the French Revolution lasted from September 1793 to 1794, marked by mass arrests, interrogations, and public executions, particularly by guillotine.
• 😨 Historians interpret the terror through two lenses: circumstances and ideology.
• 🌍 Circumstance-based interpretations suggest that the French government resorted to extreme measures due to crises like wars with European powers, internal rebellions, and civil war.
• 👥 Ideology-focused interpretations argue that the ideas of the Jacobins, who held power during the terror, led to the violent actions.
• 🏛️ The Jacobins, a revolutionary group, controlled most of the French government and were on the political left during this period.
• ⚔️ In the 1790s, conservatives and counter-revolutionaries blamed the terror on the revolutionary ideas, suggesting that these ideas disrupted the natural order and led to violence.
• 🕰️ In the late 20th century, liberal historians also linked the terror to ideology, comparing it to the suppression seen in the Soviet Union.
• 🌐 Those who emphasize circumstances in explaining the terror were often Marxist or aligned with the French Communist Party, defending the aims of both the Russian and French Revolutions.
• 📜 These Marxist historians viewed the terror as a deviation from revolutionary ideals, caused by external crises rather than inherent problems with revolutionary ideology.
• 📚 The script emphasizes that historical interpretations often have a political context and that understanding the historian’s perspective can help explain their conclusions.

Q & A

What was the 'Terror' during the French Revolution?

The 'Terror' was a period from September 1793 to 1794 during the French Revolution when the revolutionary government intensified the use of coercion, including mass arrests, interrogations, and executions, most notably by the guillotine, to deal with enemies of the revolution.

What were the two main interpretations of the causes of the Terror?

The two main interpretations of the causes of the Terror are circumstances and ideology. Circumstances suggest the revolutionaries were responding to external crises, while ideology focuses on the beliefs of the Jacobins and how their revolutionary ideas led to the violence.

How do historians who emphasize 'circumstances' explain the Terror?

Historians who emphasize circumstances argue that the Terror was a response to the unprecedented crises France faced, including wars with European powers, internal rebellions, and civil unrest, which pushed the government to resort to extreme measures.

What role did the Jacobins play during the Terror?

The Jacobins, a revolutionary group on the left, took control of most government organs in France during the Terror. Some historians believe that their ideological beliefs significantly influenced the violent measures adopted during this period.

How was the Terror interpreted politically in the 1790s?

In the 1790s, conservatives and counter-revolutionaries argued that the Terror resulted from the disruptive ideas of the French Revolution, which they saw as fundamentally flawed, leading to inevitable violence.

How did interpretations of the Terror evolve during the Cold War?

During the Cold War, liberal historians in post-war France argued that the Terror demonstrated how ideology, like that of the Jacobins, could lead to state suppression, comparing it to the coercion used by the Soviet Union.

What was the stance of Marxist historians regarding the Terror?

Marxist historians, often sympathetic to both the Russian and French revolutions, argued that the Terror was primarily a response to crises rather than an inherent problem with revolutionary ideology. They viewed it as a deviation from the revolution's goals.

Why do historians argue that historical interpretations of the Terror are political?

Historians argue that interpretations of the Terror are political because they often reflect the historian's political context and views. For example, interpretations emphasizing ideology tend to align with liberal criticism of state coercion, while those focusing on circumstances may align with leftist defenses of revolutionary movements.

What does the speaker suggest about reading historical interpretations?

The speaker suggests that when reading historical interpretations, it's important to consider the political and social context in which the historians were writing, as these factors influence their interpretations.

What key lesson does the discussion of the Terror offer regarding historiography?

The key lesson is that historical interpretations are not only based on evidence and facts but also influenced by the political and social context of the historians. Understanding this can help readers critically engage with different historical perspectives.

Outlines

00:00

📜 The Rise of Terror in the French Revolution

The period known as the 'Reign of Terror' occurred between September 1793 and 1794, when the French revolutionary government increased the use of coercion. This included mass arrests, interrogations, and executions, with the guillotine becoming infamous. Historians have generally provided two main interpretations for this terror: the influence of circumstances and the impact of ideology.

⚔️ Circumstances Leading to the Terror

Historians who emphasize circumstances argue that the revolutionary government responded to an unprecedented series of crises. France was at war with major European powers like Britain and Austria, facing rebellions in cities like Lyon and Marseille, and was embroiled in a civil war in the west. These extreme conditions led the French government to resort to severe measures to regain control.

💡 Ideological Roots of the Terror

Other historians focus on ideology, particularly the influence of the Jacobin Club, a left-wing revolutionary group that controlled the government during this period. These scholars argue that the beliefs of the Jacobins, who were in power, drove them to take extreme measures, suggesting that there was something inherent in their revolutionary ideals that led to the violence of the Terror.

🔍 The Politics Behind Historical Interpretations

The differing interpretations of the Reign of Terror have political roots. From the 1790s, counter-revolutionaries and conservatives viewed the Terror as a consequence of the French Revolution's ideological excesses, believing the revolution disrupted the natural order. This perspective aligned with a broader critique of revolutionary violence as a product of flawed ideas.

🕊️ Ideology and Politics in 20th-Century Historiography

By the late 20th century, the argument that the Terror stemmed from ideology shifted towards a liberal political stance. During the Cold War, critics of the Soviet Union argued that the French Revolution's Jacobin ideology foreshadowed the coercive measures seen in communist regimes, implying that ideology inevitably led to state oppression. This comparison linked past revolutionary violence to contemporary political debates.

⚖️ Defending the Revolution: The Marxist Perspective

Conversely, Marxist historians—often linked to the French Communist Party—argued that the Terror was a response to circumstances rather than an inherent flaw in the revolution. By defending the aims of both the French and Russian revolutions, they contended that the Terror was an aberration caused by external crises rather than a result of ideological extremism.

🔗 Politics in Historical Interpretation

The final point highlights that historical interpretations are influenced by the politics of their time. While historical arguments are based on facts and evidence, the political context shapes how historians view past events. Understanding the context in which historical interpretations are made is essential to grasp the nuances of historiography.

Keywords

💡Terror

The 'Terror' refers to a period during the French Revolution from 1793 to 1794, characterized by the revolutionary government's use of coercion and violence, including mass arrests and executions. It is a key theme in the video, as it represents the extreme measures taken during the revolution, such as the infamous use of the guillotine to suppress opposition.

💡Revolutionary Government

This term refers to the government in power during the French Revolution, which resorted to extreme actions, including the use of violence, to maintain control. In the context of the video, the revolutionary government is shown to have implemented the Terror as a reaction to both internal and external threats to the revolution.

💡Guillotine

The guillotine was a device used for beheading people and became a symbol of the violent repression during the French Revolution. It is mentioned in the video as the most infamous method used by the revolutionary government during the Terror to eliminate enemies of the revolution.

💡Circumstances

Circumstances refer to the external factors, such as war, rebellion, and civil unrest, that influenced the revolutionary government's decision to implement the Terror. Historians who support this explanation argue that the extreme measures were a necessary response to an unprecedented crisis, as highlighted in the video.

💡Ideology

Ideology in the video refers to the set of ideas held by the Jacobins, the revolutionary group in power during the Terror. Some historians argue that the Terror was not merely a response to circumstances, but a natural outcome of the Jacobins' revolutionary ideology, which justified the use of extreme measures to protect the revolution.

💡Jacobins

The Jacobins were a radical political group during the French Revolution, positioned on the left of the revolutionary spectrum. They gained control of the government during the Terror and are central to the ideological explanation of the violence, as their beliefs about protecting the revolution through extreme measures played a key role in shaping events.

💡Counter-revolutionaries

Counter-revolutionaries were those opposed to the French Revolution and its radical changes. In the video, they are associated with the early interpretation of the Terror as a product of revolutionary ideology, arguing that the revolution had disrupted the natural order, leading to violence and chaos.

💡Historiography

Historiography refers to the study of how history is written and interpreted. The video emphasizes that interpretations of the Terror are influenced by the politics of the time in which they were written. For example, conservative and counter-revolutionary historians of the 1790s viewed the Terror as ideologically driven, while Cold War-era historians saw parallels with Soviet violence.

💡French Civil War

The French Civil War, which took place during the revolution, is mentioned in the video as one of the internal crises that contributed to the circumstances leading to the Terror. It highlights the revolutionary government's struggle to maintain control, facing both foreign wars and internal rebellion.

💡Marxist Left

The Marxist Left refers to the political ideology that influenced historians in post-war France who defended the aims of the French and Russian revolutions. According to the video, these historians argued that the Terror was a response to the crisis rather than an inherent flaw in revolutionary ideology, aligning with their defense of socialist revolutions.

Highlights

The Terror during the French Revolution refers to the period from September 1793 to 1794, marked by mass arrests, interrogations, and the guillotine.

Two main interpretations of the Terror: it was either a response to crises (circumstances) or driven by ideology.

The circumstances argument suggests that the French government used extreme measures due to war, internal rebellions, and civil unrest.

Historians focusing on ideology point to the Jacobins, a leftist revolutionary group, as the ones in power who embraced extreme measures.

The ideological interpretation suggests that the ideas of the French Revolution, particularly those of the Jacobins, led to the Terror.

In the 1790s, counter-revolutionaries and conservatives argued that the Terror was caused by the Revolution's disruption of the natural order.

By the late 20th century, the ideological interpretation of the Terror became associated with liberalism, linking it to critiques of Soviet Union's violence and coercion.

Some post-war historians argued that the Terror demonstrated how ideology could lead to state suppression, drawing parallels to communism.

Those favoring the circumstances argument in post-war France often belonged to the Marxist left, defending the goals of the French and Russian revolutions.

Marxist historians argued that the Terror was a response to crises, not an inherent flaw in the Revolution's ideals or the Jacobins' ideology.

The circumstances interpretation emphasizes that the Terror was an aberration caused by external pressures, not a necessary outcome of the Revolution.

Both interpretations, circumstances and ideology, carry political implications and reflect the historians' contemporary context.

The argument that historical interpretations have a political dimension is crucial for understanding how the past is studied.

The post-war debate on the French Revolution was shaped by Cold War politics, influencing how the Terror was analyzed.

Readers should be aware of the political context when examining historical interpretations, as these influence the framing of events.

Transcripts

[Music]

when we talk about the terror in the

french revolution we're talking about a

period of about a year from roughly

september 1793 to 1794 where the

revolutionary government steps up its

use of coercion in the revolution and

what we mean by coercion here are things

like mass arrests interrogations and

increasingly the use of violence against

the revolution's enemies most famously

chopping people's heads off of the

guillotine

now when it comes to explaining the

terror they have traditionally really

been basically two sets of

interpretation circumstances

and ideology

for historians who stress the role of

circumstances the terror is essentially

something that the revolutionaries fell

into in response to an unprecedented set

of crises that were gripping the nation

france was at war with many of the major

powers in europe like britain and

austria there were rebellions against

the revolution in major cities like lyon

and marseille and there was pretty much

a full-blown civil war in the west of

the country so this was a situation

where the french government felt like

things were really spinning out of

control and so the circumstances

arguments would say they essentially

resorted to extreme measures to respond

to an extreme situation

historians who stress the role of

ideology on the other hand tend to look

at who was in power in this period and

that was essentially members of the

jacobin club this is a group of

revolutionaries who we might situate

roughly on the left of the french

revolution who had taken control of most

of the organs of government in france in

this period

and for historians who think that

there's something about the very ideas

of the revolution that leads to the

violence of the terror they look

specifically at the ideas of these

people the jacobins was there something

about what these people believed that

led them to engage in these extreme

measures now rather than answer this

question what i want to suggest is that

these interpretations have a politics

that helps us to understand the

historiography so

way back in the 1790s when the terror

first happened it was already the case

that to say that the terror was a

product of ideas was essentially a

political position it was most

associated with counter-revolutionaries

and conservatives in europe who wanted

to say that the french revolution had

disrupted the natural state of affairs

and

it was therefore no surprise that it had

led to the extremes of violence that we

see in the terror it showed that there

was something fundamentally rotten at

the heart of the revolution

now what's interesting is if we fast

forward all the way to the late 20th

century the argument that the terror was

rooted in ideology also has a politics

but it's a different politics it's the

politics of liberalism so in post-war

france during the cold war

those historians who are most opposed to

the excesses of the soviet union and the

soviet union's use of violence and

coercion tended to argue that the french

revolution itself was a moment where you

could see

ideology leading to state suppression

and when they made the argument that the

terror was rooted in jacobin ideology

they were also implicitly arguing in the

present day that there was something

inevitable about communist ideology

leading to state suppression

by the same token stressing the role of

circumstances in leading to the terror

has always been a political position as

well and so in post-war france it tended

to be associated with those on the

marxist left

they were keen

very often they were members of the

french communist party to in some way at

least defend the aims and ambitions of

the russian revolution and they are also

keen to defend the aims and ambitions of

the french revolution and to say that

the terror was purely a response to

circumstances or primarily a response to

circumstances was to say that there was

nothing inherently wrong

with the goals and ideals of the

revolution or indeed those radical

jacobins this was rather an aberration

it was a deviation from the course of

the revolution there was nothing

necessary about it it was just a

response to a crisis

so what i think this reminds us is that

historical interpretation always has a

politics as well i'm not trying to say

that these interpretations are purely

political there are facts there are

evidence on both sides but what it does

remind us is when we read historical

interpretations of different events in

the past we also need to understand the

context in which those historians were

writing

you