The country was run by absolute monarchy, an increasingly unpopular form of government in that time, had a very skewed distribution of wealth among the people and to make matters worse, was facing a financial crisis. These less than optimal conditions coupled with Louis’ weak ruling style eventually caused the discontent of the people to go over the top and led to what we all recognise as the French Revolution. Now comes the question, was it really inevitable? Perhaps if Louis were a little more decisive and less indulgent in his own lavish lifestyle, then maybe the French Revolution could have been prevented. The 3 largest factors that actually led to it in the first place were firstly, the pre-existing unequal social structure of France at the time, enlightenment ideas developed by philosophers from the Renaissance, and of course, France’s long chain of incompetent leaders, which of course ended tragically during King Louis XVI’s reign.
In 1588, Phillip launches the Spanish Armada in an attempt to punish Protestant subjects who had rebelled against Phillip, but this fleet was defeated. Historically, autocratic leaders have both helped and hurt their countries and their people over their authority. Louis XIV was the most powerful ruler in French history. In his view, he and the state were one and the same. “L’etat c’est moi.” means I am the state, which he stated.
These ideas and questionings staged the fight for equality from the third estate, with the help of the social elites (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) that contributed to the break down of the social order. One of the most effective events that occurred to lead up of the revolution was the formation of the Estates General. Under Louis XV, France became bankrupt due to heavy borrowing and could not cover the costs to run the country, so the King called a meeting of representatives of the three social classes of France. The calling of the Estates General required the electing of two deputies and the drawing up dossiers of grievances to be presented at the meeting at Versailles. These “grievances” however, were not demands,
As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies. Foreign policy had been dreadful for England since Charles had become King due to large scale operations such as the Cadiz Expedition failing miserably. As such, it was becoming increasingly more expensive to fund. Due to this Charles demanded more
The reign of Lloyd George saw a number of fluctuations. Lloyd George won overwhelmingly in 1918 as ‘the man who won the war’. How is it that he fell from power in 1922 never to return to the premiership? A multitude of problems struck both Lloyd George and his government; some of which were his own faults whilst others were political circumstances beyond his control. These problems progressively mounted so high that they obscured Lloyd George's successes and toppled him from power, ultimately helping the Conservatives engineer his downfall.
One of the greatest inhibiting factors on the development of warfare in the eighteenth century was the limitations of purpose: mercantilism and a lack of ideological and religious purpose meant that dynastic rulers were typically limited in their ambitions, resulting in a reduced rate of development in other areas of warfare. Although the French Revolutionary Wars represented a dramatic change in the purpose of warfare, this area was revolutionised further during the Napoleonic Wars. Whilst the French Revolutionary leaders were primarily concerned with defending French borders and reinforcing the changes made by the revolution, Napoleon wanted to expand French influence and achieve total domination over Europe. The evidence of this can be clearly seen in his campaigns across Europe and into Egypt in 1798 and Russia in 1812, as well as in his Continental System, which was intended to cut off British trade links and ensure French superiority over European trade. The repercussions of this ambition were, of course, immense, both within France and on
It is very difficult to find a period in time when France was not involved in a war. Each and every war, however, played an important role on establishing authority in France. Some battles led to a powerful monarch, other infuriated the people leading to riots and rebellions. One key war that France took part in, The Thirty Years War, was the starting point that led to a series of power struggles like of which the world had never seen before. Cardinal Richelieu, minister of France, made his country a powerful presence in the Thirty Years War.
The French’s hatred for the English lead them to help the Americans break free from British rule. When Louis XVI came to power, the country was already in huge debt, and him and his wife, Marie Antoinette, only made it worse by spending money on unnecessary luxuries. As the Revolution drew nearer, the cost of bread, which was a key part of the French diet, was extremely high. The French citizens were outraged and started riots in the streets of Paris. The inefficient tax distribution didn’t help the cause.
Source 1 highlights the main factor in this controversy, the Flight to Varennes, and underlines its significance as the ‘most immediate consequence’ in Louis reign as King. The Flight itself on the 17th June 1791 showed that the king could not work with the National Assembly and that it proved he didn’t support the revolution. Sutherland reveals in the source that the Flight directly led to the failure of the Monarchy stating it had ‘momentous and extensive consequences’. He also emphasises the ‘decline in popularity of the King’, that ‘showed he could no longer be trusted’, and
There are also a couple of larger factors that led to Napoleon's downfall. Napoleon made some big military mistakes near to the end of his reign as emperor. His campaign in Spain failed horribly and turned Italy against him. Also the campaign in Russia was a huge failure. Napoleon's soldiers were not prepared for the Russian winter.