A Level Hist Q&a

PRINTED
AUTHORS: HERBERT MOYO AND COMFORT NHIRA
’’’WHY WAS BISMARCK MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE REVOLUTIONARIES OF 1848-49 IN ENDING
AUSTRIA’S INFLUENCE IN GERMANY?
The February 1848 overthrow of the Orleans Monarchy was much more than just a French phenomenon
as it precipitated revolutionary activity across Europe. In Germany, the Austrian chancellor Metternich
was finally overthrown. This was a significant victory for he had long been regarded as ... See More
‘A’ LEVEL
‘A’ LEVEL HISTORY QUESTIONS AND ESSAYS

HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE STRATEGIES USED BY LOBENGULA TO RESIST EUROPEAN PENETRATION
BETWEEN 1870 AND 1893?
1. The question requires a simple identification of the various strategies employed by Lobengula in
response to the encroachment of Europeans onto his territory
2. The candidate should then measure the effectiveness of those strategies in resisting the Europeans
3. The most reasonable conclusion...
1
DISCUSS THE RISE AND EXPANSION OF THE MUTAPA STATE. (NOV 2008)
The rise and ultimate expansion of the Mutapa State owed in part to the decline of Great Zimbabwe.
According to oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota migrated from the declining Great Zimbabwe and began
his conquests of the Korekore and Tavara of the Dande and Chidema areas It has been claimed that his
victims were so impressed by his military exploits that they nicknamed him Mwene Mutapa, ‘owner of
conquered lands’ or ‘master pillager’, hence the birth of the Mutapa dynasty. He then embarked on an
expansionist policy that resulted in the creation of a vast Mutapa empire which stretched from the
Zambezi valley into the Mozambique lowlands and towards the fringes of the Kalahari Desert. The
Mutapa’s control in these far away lands was probably peripheral and not regular.
It has been suggested by some including the archaeologist Peter Garlake that religion was also
significant to the rise and expansion of the Mutapa State. In as far as religion is an important component
of ideology, this suggestion is plausible. It is generally accepted that religion is part of statecraft and
plays an important role in reinforcing and maintaining political power. Parallels can be drawn from
contemporary European political systems that were bound together by a shared religion. In these states,
the political power of the rulers was reinforced by religious doctrines that claimed that kings had a
divine right to rule and was therefore not accountable to their subjects and should not be forcibly
removed from their positions.
There is a general consensus among historians that cattle ownership played a significant role in the rise
of the Mutapa State. The use of cattle as a source of social or political power among the Shona in
Zimbabwe in the distant and recent past is well documented (Mudenge, 1974, 1988) and also recounted
in Shona oral traditions. Indeed for the Mutapa state, the Portuguese refer to their importance in this
regard. The hypothesis is that cattle rich immigrant communities settled among a people who were not
so rich, but who were very keen to use cattle products or own more cattle herds. The immigrants used
cattle gradually to build up economic power, prestige and social dominance. At some stage they
translated that prestige and social dominance into political power.
It has also been suggested that the rulers’ control of external trade also contributed to the rise and
expansion of the state. Imported goods like glass beads and ceramics testify to the participation in long
distance trade. Trade goods obtained from far away places were also used in further developing and
building up a strong political power base. That was achieved by redistributing them among people who
may not have participated in long distance trade on a large scale. This fits in well with the contention
that 'luxury goods from a distant source are often distributed to reproduce a system of rank status or
offices within a polity' (Kipp and Schortman, 1989). G. Pwiti argues that if one of the reasons for the
2
collapse of Great Zimbabwe was the shift in the focus of trade to the north, then it is logical to credit the
early rulers of the Mutapa state with the introduction of large scale external trade in northern
Zimbabwe. The emerging Mutapas made alliances with Musengezi chiefs and assured them of continued
political power as well as access to cattle and trade goods.
Archaeological evidence from the excavated sites suggests mining was also important in the rise and
expansion of the state. Finished metal products as well as wastes from processing have been dug up and
these all point to mining activities. Mining led to the making of tools such as hoes and axes which were
all important for agricultural production as they facilitated the clearing of large tracts of land. Iron
spears and arrows were made to facilitate game hunting which augmented meat supplies as well ivory
for trade. The weapons manufactured also contributed to the rise and expansion by facilitating military
conquests of weaker groups like the Korekore and Tavara of the Dande and Chidema areas.
Agriculture was another economic activity that contributed to the rise and expansion of the state.
Farming was for the most part subsistence and labour intensive. Crops like sorghum, millet and rapoko
were grown on the family plots. The generally favourable climatic conditions ensured successful
harvests and resulted in the accumulation of surplus grain, animals and other forms of wealth. All this
stimulated the population growth that was so crucial in the emergence and growth of so large and
powerful a state such as the Mutapa. Agriculture not only enabled the subject peoples to produce for
themselves but for the state in order to pay tribute to their rulers. They paid the tribute either by way of
actual agricultural produce or through the provision of agricultural labour. It has been said that one day
out of each month, different parts of the state offered labour to the royal fields, the zunde (Mudenge,
1988, 164).
Trade also played a hugely significantly role in facilitating both the rise and expansion of the Mutapa
state. Trading activities were internal as when then Mutapa people traded among themselves
exchanging items like iron tools, pottery and agricultural produce. It also assumed an external character
like when they traded with other African groups and with the Swahili-Arabs and Portuguese. They
traded gold and ivory for luxury goods such as mirrors, cloth and even guns. Trade has often cited as the
main factor behind the growth and expansion of the state but it could not have been enough on its own
and it depended on other economic activities. As Randles rightly pointed out, trading activities require
that what is sold on the external market be procured in the first place. For the Mutapa state, this is
where agricultural production and livestock herding played an important role. According to Portuguese
documents, when the Mutapa needed gold for trade he would give his subjects cattle and they in return
would mine and supply the gold (Randles, 1979, 86).
It can therefore be concluded that the early development and growth of the Mutapa state was
facilitated by the successful integration of different economic activities. These included agriculture,
pastoralism, mining and trade.
3
ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE NGUNI INCURSIONS ON THE ROZVI STATE.
The Nguni incursions definitely increased violence within the Rozvi state. There is much truth to the
claim that the Ndebele economy relied heavily on raiding and the various Rozvi communities especially
those close to the Ndebele suffered as a consequence. From the arrival of the Ndebele in present day
Matabeleland up to the imposition of colonial rule in the 1890's, there was never a decade without
Ndebele raids into Rozvi territory. Mzilikazi and Lobengula pursued a consistent policy of raiding against
one or the other Shona communities. Apart from attacking the declining Rozvi, D. N. Beach cites
Ndebele raiding activities which greatly affected the Chirimuhanzu dynasty in the 1850's. These were
repeated during the 1860's when they raided the Kalanga during the 1860 - 1 drought. These were Rozvi
tributaries in the west. That same decade (1868) the north-western Ngezi dynasty of Rimuka was also
raided resulting in the flight of the Mashayamombe and Chivero rulers further north-east. In the 1870
the Ndebele raided across a 70km radius from the western Duma on the confluence of the Mutirikwi
and the Popoteke rivers to the upper Popoteke. Finally the Ndebele raided from the Chivi to Gutu
in1892 and from Mupfure to Chishawasha in 1893. These examples paint a picture of a consistent policy
of raiding and therefore suggesting its central significance to the Ndebele way of life.
Among other things, the Nguni incursions definitely weakened the state. According to D. N. Beach (1986.
p.51), the southern Shona became regular tributaries of the Ndebele. These included the Chirimuhanzu
on the Shashe River as well as the other Rozvi groups in the modern Shurugwi and Zvishavane districts.
Nguni groups like the Ndebele began to collect tribute from the Rozvi and that was evidence of the
weakening of the latter. Tribute was usually in the form of grain, animal skins, cattle and even young me
and women who were incorporated into the Ndebele state. As overlord of the Rozvi clans such as
Svabasvi, Lukiluba and Rozani, Mzilikazi exacted tribute. During Lobengula's tenure, Nemakonde and
Chivi were some of the Rozvi chiefs paying tribute to the Ndebele. Those who paid tribute were not
subjected to raids. Raids were more of punitive measures rather than the norm as evidenced by the
1893 raiding expeditions sent to punish Gomala in Masvingo for using Ndebele cattle to pay a fine
imposed by the European settler administration.
Another significant albeit negative aspect of the Nguni incursions was that they fomented and worsened
the rivalries among the Rozvi groups. The Ndebele did not fight all the Shona at once and they actually
allied with some Shona groups while fighting others. The generic term Shona is misleading as it is implies
a single, united and homogenous political entity which certainly did not exist in the nineteenth century.
There were many scattered and independent Shona groups which were as likely to fight each other as
much as they could fight the Ndebele. This explains why the Ndebele could fight against Chirisamhuru
and Tohwechipi in the early 1850s and then became Tohwechipi’s allies before the decade was up.
4
Chizema was also assisted by the Ndebele in his attempts to conquer southern Buhera. This also explains
why Mzilikazi had the Chaminuka medium killed while maintaining good relations with other Shona
mediums such as Nyamuswa, Wanewawa and Chikono. According to D.N. Beach, Mzilikazi even paid
tribute to these mediums.
The Nguni incursions broke the Rozvi state into much smaller and fragmented polities. Like the Mutapa
state before it, the Rozvi state collapsed under the weight of its vastness which could not be sustained
by its ‘feudal’ structures in the face of growing pressures from the Mfecane groups advancing from the
south. From about 1826, Rozvi were subjected to severe pressure from migrants fleeing from the
Mfecane disturbances south of the Limpopo. By 1838, as many as five Nguni groups had passed through
or settled in the region, each bombarding the Rozvi state and transforming the way of life of the local
people. Two of these groups, the Ndebele and the Gaza, however eventually settled permanently in
Zimbabwe and subjected several Shona groups to their rule. The new settlers introduced a system of
tributary control premised on the threat of military use. These newcomers not only dismantled the core
of the Rozvi ruling elite, but also scattered its varying factions in all directions. Mzilikazi’s Ndebele state
thus subjugated and or incorporated into Ndebele society some Rozvi houses. By the 1850s, Ndebele
rule stretched over the Zambezi, the Mafungavutsi plateau and Gokwe, with the Shona chiefs there
paying tribute to the Ndebele.
The Nguni incursions resulted in fundamental changes to Rozvi settlement patterns during the
nineteenth century. Many of the Rozvi communities abandoned the more open lowlands in favour of
hilltops that could be better defended from Nguni attacks. Archaeologists came to use "Refuge Period"
to refer to archaeological sites and artifacts loosely conceived as representing a widespread movement
of population to walled hilltop sites and hidden refuges as a result of the Mfecane and other
disturbances in the 19th century (e.g. Huffman 1971, 1974; Izzett 1980; Pikirayi 1993). Thus Huffman
(1971) referred to the Refuge Period as a wider phenomenon in northern Mashonaland with
characteristic pottery, while Izzett (1980) also refers to Refuge Period and "Refuge type pottery". Pikirayi
(2001) used "Refuge Tradition", "Refuge Culture" and "Refuge period" interchangeably
The Nguni incursions also resulted in the cultural and linguistic assimilation of the Rozvi by the Gaza.
Different Nguni groups raided the southern Rozvi groups in the 1820s and 1830s. These included the
Nguni led by Ngwana Masesenyane and Mpanga. They raided the Great Zimbabwe region and
incorporated some Rozvi groups before continuing with their northward advance (D. Beach p.50). In the
early 1860s, another Gaza Nguni group established its authority east of the Save River and exacted
tribute from the Rozvi in the area including the Duma. Their power also extended down to the Mwenezi
and Bubi areas. This enabled them to become masters of the Hlengwe and Tsonga who had been Rozvi
subjects in the past and led to their incorporation into the Gaza state as Shangaans.
5
The Nguni incursions also resulted in the cultural and linguistic assimilation of the Rozvi by the Ndebele.
The Ndebele assimilated or incorporated Rozvi people into their society to the extent that the amaHole
caste became the largest within the Ndebele caste system. Although prejudice existed it was not a
totally bleak scenario as this caste could also provide chiefs and also enjoyed the same state protection
accorded the Zansi and Enhla. If assimilation was forced on amaHole, it certainly was not forced on the
Mutevaidzi of Mberengwa who voluntarily adopted the Ndebele language, forged alliances with the
Ndebele and even copied Nguni practices such as ear piercing. For their part, the Ndebele adopted some
of the Shona religious practices including the shrine at Matopos (Njelele). Historians such as Ranger have
asserted that the cult priests of Njelele had sufficient authority among the Ndebele to organize
resistance to European rule in 1896.
The Nguni incursions also fostered innovation among the Rozvi especially in the area of weapons
manufacture. The Njanja have been cited as an example of how some of the Rozvi -Shona responded to
the Nguni menace through perfecting their skills in gun manufacture and repair. They also perfected
their technology of forging bullets and manufacturing gunpowder from the droppings of rock rabbits
(Mackenzie 1975: 218). The Madzivire branch of the Rozvi also improved the weapons-making skills.
According to Burke it took them only a night to forge bullets at short notice of the news of the approach
of the Matabele (Burke 1969: 170). These and other weapons obtained from the Venda and Portuguese
were useful in sustaining the long sieges of the Ndebele. The defeat of the Matabele at Nyaningwe in
1879 according to Beach had much to do with the rapid accumulation in the Mhari armoury of such
locally manufactured and Venda guns (Beach 1994: 164). The Mhari themselves had come to forge
different types of guns, common among them being kororo, and hlabakude (G. Marufu, M Matumbure
pers.comm.). Ellert (1984:57) elaborates the development of this gun industry arguing that the 19th
century Shona made copies of most of the imported guns which became known by their onomatopoeic
names as zvigidi and most of them were extensively and effectively used in the 1896-7 Chimurenga.
There is little doubt that the nineteenth century was a turbulent period on the Zimbabwean plateau
region owing to the various developments that took place. This situation was the end-product of the
Nguni incursions on Rozvi territory.
Prince Original Sibanda The truth that the ndebele economy relied on raiding have been over
exaggerated because the Ndebele only raided during migration and after they have established their
own state they began to practise other economic activities like crop cultivation,tra...See More
6
EXPLAIN THE MOTIVE BEHIND RHODES' COLONISATION OF ZIMBABWE AND EXAMINE THE ROLE
PLAYED BY HIS AGENTS IN FACILITATING THE COLONISATION OF THE COUNTRY.
The second half of the 19th century witnessed intense competition among the European states to
acquire colonies in Africa. Economics, strategic, prestige, supremacist and racism were some of the key
considerations that influenced the proponents of colonialism such as Cecil Rhodes. This essay aims at
discussing in detail these motives of Rhodes and also to show that his agents employed every possible
tactic including the unscrupulous to achieve their aims.
Economic considerations were a significant motive for Rhodes who was first and foremost a
businessman. The numerous reports and rumors of the possibility of an Eldorado or Second Rand in
Zimbabwe could not have failed to have an effect on a man who already had huge interests in the gold
and diamond mining industries in South Africa. Traders, hunters and prospectors such as George
Westbeech, Thomas Baines, Karl Mauch and Henry Hartley sent out reports which exaggerated
Zimbabwe's mineral wealth. Rhodes' imagination was fired up by the occassional gold finds such as that
of Tati in 1870 and by Hartley some 70 miles southwest of present day Harare. It is therefore not a
surprise that he formed the British South Africa Company (BSAC), a commercial company to facilitate
the colonisation of Zimbabwe.Neither is it a surprise that he bought all the mineral claims from his rivals.
It is also worth noting that the Rudd concession of 1888 which formed the basis for colonisation was a
mineral treaty.
Like many other capitalists of his era Rhodes also envisaged a colony like Zimbabwe fulfilling a vital
socio-economic function for the imperial country. The following quotation best illustrates this particular
aim of Rhodes:
"I was in London and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches which were
just a cry for 'bread' My idea is a solution for the social problem i.e. in order to save 40million
inhabitants of the UK from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesman must acquire new lands to settle
surplus population, to provide new markets for goods produced by them. I have always maintained that
the British Empire is a matter of bread and butter. If you wish to avoid civil war then you must become
an imperialist."
Rhodes was therefore motivated by the need to redress Britain’s' socio-economic problems of poverty,
unemployment, over-production and overpopulation which he regarded as a sure recipe for social or
civil strife. To his way of thinking, the solution lay in the acquisition of colonies that would provide
markets thus boosting worker incomes and also providing living space for redundant excess population.
7
Rhodes was also a dreamy racist whose fervent belief in European and especially British racial
superiority convinced him that colonisation was a vehicle for spreading British culture, Christianity and
civilization. The air of the nineteenth century was highly charged with the racist theories of Social
Darwinism where Europeans made themselves out to be a superior race whose mission was to rule and
therefore advance the Africans who they consigned to the bottom rungs of human development.
Rhodes was especially inspired by John Ruskin who gave a British interpretation to those racist-
supremacist ideas. Ruskin had found in him a devoted disciple who took literal view of his teachings
about racial superiority of the British over other races especially the Africans. He believed that British
culture was the epitome of civilization and that it would be a blessing for the world if more of it was
brought under British rule. This fervent belief was aptly captured in the following remark he made to his
close friend Starr Jameson:
“Have you ever thought how lucky we are to belong to the British race, the finest flower of civilization?”
In colonizing Zimbabwe Cecil Rhodes was evidently motivated by his fervent belief in the supremacy of
British culture and civilization and his desire to spread that same culture to the Africans.
Rhodes had agents like the former missionary John Moffat who played an important role in facilitating
the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Moffat was trusted by the Ndebele king Lobengula as a family friend and
he used his influence to secure for Rhodes the Moffat Treaty in March 1888. This was the treaty which
laid the basis for the British colonization of Zimbabwe. It was through this treaty that the British were
able to cancel out the Grobler Treaty that Lobengula had signed with the Boers of the Transvaal. Moffat
induced Lobengula to give up his freedom of action in foreign affairs by agreeing not to enter into any
treaty with any other ruler without the knowledge and consent of the British queen.
Another missionary-turned-agent who played a crucial role in advancing Rhodes’ plans for the
colonisation of Zimbabwe was Charles Helm. After being allowed to open the second mission station at
Hope Fountain in 1870, Helm soon gained a reputation among the Ndebele for honesty and
trustworthiness which he used to influence Lobengula to sign both the Moffat Treaty and the Rudd
Concession. He abused Lobengula’s trust in him by falsely portraying Rhodes as an honourable and
reliable man. He gave his support to the Moffat Treaty and the Rudd Concession which became the basis
for the colonisation of Zimbabwe.
Rochfort Maguire’s legal skills proved highly significant in facilitating Rhodes’ colonisation project.
Trained as a lawyer at Oxford alongside Cecil Rhodes, Maguire was ultimately responsible for drafting
the legal documents (namely the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession) on which the British queen based
her decision to grant Cecil Rhodes the Charter for the colonisation of the country.
8
Also of great importance was the part played by Francis Thompson as a translator for Rhodes’
representatives during the negotiations for both the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession. Nicknamed
the “white Zulu” or “Matabele Thompson”, Francis Thompson had achieved a considerable degree of
fluency in the Zulu language which enabled him to enter Cecil Rhodes’ payroll as a translator. He took
full advantage of Lobengula’s illiteracy to mislead him about the actual contents of the Moffat Treaty
and Rudd Concession. He told Lobengula that the Moffat Treaty was a friendship treaty and the Rudd
Concession was only a mineral concession to not more than ten Europeans who would abide by Ndebele
rules as they carried out their mining operations. There was a clause in the Moffat Treaty where
Lobengula supposedly gave up his independence in foreign affairs by agreeing not to enter into any
treaty with any foreign rulers without the knowledge and consent of the British queen. Likewise, he
supposedly gave the British a blank cheque to do anything they felt necessary to procure gold and other
minerals in his kingdom. Such misinformation by Francis Thompson played a significant role in swaying
Lobengula to grant concessions that ultimately facilitated the colonisation of this country by Cecil
Rhodes.
Hunters such as Henry Hartley and Frederick Selous also played a highly significant role as paid agents of
Cecil Rhodes in facilitating the colonisation of the country. Henry Hartley played his part in stimulating
and sustaining British interest in Zimbabwe by sending out exaggerated reports about the country’s
mineral wealth. Frederick Selous began his career in Zimbabwe as a big game hunter who earned
Lobengula’s permission to cut a road linking Matabeleland and Mashonaland (Hunters’ Road) to
facilitate the transportation of ivory. Colonialists often turned to the hunters whose intimate knowledge
of the country due to their hunting operations made them ideal guides. Frederick Selous’ biggest
contribution to the colonisation of Zimbabwe was through his role as the guide for Cecil Rhodes’ so-
called Pioneer Column which trekked into the country to colonise it in September 1890.
Traders like Leask, Fairbairn, Phillips and Tainton all played complimentary but very significant roles too.
These were just some of the many traders already at Lobengula’s court prior to the Rudd Concession
who were pressuring Lobengula for trading and land concessions. They facilitated Rhodes’ colonisation
project by selling him the concessions they had been granted by the Ndebele king.
It can thus be concluded by re-stating that Rhodes’ motives for colonizing the country included the
desire to acquire its mineral wealth, spread British culture and civilization and also establish a British
Empire stretching from Cape to Cairo. His many agents all played a crucial role to assist the colonisation
project especially by obtaining from the African rulers the treaties on which colonisation was based.
9
WHY WAS BISMARCK MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE REVOLUTIONARIES OF 1848-49 IN ENDING
AUSTRIA’S INFLUENCE IN GERMANY?
The February 1848 overthrow of the Orleans Monarchy was much more than just a French phenomenon
as it precipitated revolutionary activity across Europe. In Germany, the Austrian chancellor Metternich
was finally overthrown. This was a significant victory for he had long been regarded as the
personification of monarchical absolutism and everything else that was reactionary. The revolutionaries
attempted to follow up on that success by convening the Frankfurt Assembly as a prelude to German
unification. That revolutionary project raised high hopes but it failed spectacularly barely a year after
being launched. The revolutionaries who glaringly lacked the state machinery and the military capacity
to back their decisions soon realised that it was one thing to remove Metternich the individual and
something else to remove Austria the mighty state from pre-eminence in Germany. That pre-eminence
would only be ended in 1867 after the Austro-Prussian war of 1866.Ironically the man to end it would be
the conservative iron chancellor of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck. This essay shall attempt to show that
Bismarck succeeded where the revolutionaries failed because of his combination of shrewd diplomacy
and (more importantly) brute force.
To begin with Bismarck’s success was founded on the full support he enjoyed from the King of Prussia
which was the most powerful German state after Austria. He actually owed his position to the king who
had appointed him in 1862.The conservative base from which he operated controlled the instruments of
state power thus giving Bismarck’s policies complete state support. From such a vantage point he was
therefore able to by-pass parliament and collect taxes for army reform safe in the knowledge that he
had support from both the king and the rest of Prussia’s powerful conservative establishment. He was
also able to embark on the diplomatic manoeuvres which laid the basis for the war which culminated in
Austria’s defeat. He was also able to get the Prussian king’s approval for his schemes of expelling Austria
from Germany, the creation of the North German Confederation (all in 1867) and ultimately the
unification of Germany in 1871.
All that was in stark contrast to the 1848-49 revolutionaries whose every effort met with the brick wall
of monarchical and state opposition. The revolutionaries failed because unlike Bismarck they failed to
win the support of the Prussian king or any other German king for that matter. Their attempt to end
Austria’s influence or achieve unification stemmed from the very revolutionary ideals of parliamentary
rule and constitutionalism that were so inimical to the conservative monarchies that held power in the
various German states. They failed because their plan of action involved usurping power from the ruling
monarchical establishment or else refashion the monarchy to suit their own interests. The kings
however refused to be manipulated or assist the revolutionary cause. This explains why Frederick
William IV of Prussia refused to accept the throne of the united Germany (minus Austria) which the
10
revolutionaries had offered him. He sarcastically declared that he would not “pick up a crown from the
gutter.”
Bismarck ultimately succeeded because he had the necessary enforcement apparatus to implement his
policies unlike the revolutionaries. As leader Bismarck could count on the full co-operation of the state
machinery including the army. The situation was even made easier for him by the fact that he had a
personal friendship with senior military personnel namely Roon and Moltke. He worked closely with the
two to reform and modernise the army after having defied parliament and collected the necessary taxes
for that purpose. Bismarck was thus able to co-ordinate diplomacy and military strategy to defeat
Austria.
The same could not be said for the revolutionaries who possessed neither control nor access to any
enforcement machinery. There was no civil service or any other such structure in any of the German
states which the revolutionaries could call upon to implement their decisions. They did not control the
army and they did not even have its support and therefore could not possibly dislodge Austria which
jealously clung onto the pre-eminence achieved at 1815 Vienna Settlement. In any case the revolution
(or even the revolutionaries themselves) was just an effervescent and temporary political phenomenon
which had been propelled to the front stage by a temporary popular enthusiasm. Their staying power
was highly suspect and as such they had no solid power base of their own. That lack of a solid power
base forced them to rely on the armies that were controlled paradoxically by the very kings they sought
to upstage. In September 1848 they begged the conservative Prussian army to crush radical riots that
had broken out in Frankfurt itself. They even needed the Austrian army to crush a simultaneous Czech
revolutionary rising. The conservative armies acted out of self-interest rather than out of any sympathy
for the revolutionary cause. The situation was made painfully clear to the revolutionaries when the
same Prussia refused to engage Austria in war and climbed down from its position of seeking unification
in the face of Austrian threats. That was the so-called humiliation of Prussia at Olmutz in 1850.Even
without this the revolutionaries could not possibly end the influence of Austria while at the same time
seeking their help against the Czechs as already discussed here.
Bismarck succeeded because he employed military force and superior military force at that to defeat
Austria. When compared with that of Austria Bismarck’s Prussian army was a much better trained,
better organised and better equipped force. His army made fullest use of the their newly developed
needle-gun which enabled them to fire a superior five rounds per minute which was more than the
Austrians could offer with their cumbersome slow-firing weapons. Bismarck also profited from Prussia’s
better developed railway system which facilitated the faster and more efficient deployment of Prussian
troops to the battle sites. With such advantages Bismarck crushed the Austrians after just seven weeks
of fighting; so fast that Napoleon III of France who had been hoping to intervene at some later stage was
presented with an accomplished fact.
11
While Bismarck boasted of an army and a superior one at that the 1848-49 revolutionaries contrastingly
had no army to speak of not even a poor one. The best they could do was relying on the Prussian king to
bail them out and he was generally unwillingly to because he was in the first instance an enemy of the
revolution. This was a fact that became apparent in 1849 when a counter-revolution commenced in
Prussia Austria and other German states. He also refused to accept the revolutionary crown of a united
Germany and in a moment of truth he sent his troops to drive out what remained of the Frankfurt
Assembly late in 1849.In this way he destroyed all that had been left of the revolutionaries’ work.
Bismarck’s success also stemmed from his ability to combine military activity with shrewd diplomacy. He
employed a Machiavellian and opportunist strategy which at first included co-operation with Austria to
end Danish influence in Germany before turning against Austria at the opportune moment. He displayed
diplomatic skill in persuading the German Bund to sanction a joint Austro-Prussian rather than an all-
German war to expel Denmark from Schleswig and Holstein. He followed this up by successfully
negotiating Prussian and Austrian administration of Schleswig and Holstein respectively on behalf of the
German Bund. In this way Bismarck laid the basis for future confrontation with Austria. He went on to
secure a military alliance with Sardinia and also secured French and Russian neutrality. With all this in
place he deemed it time for confrontation with Austria. He provoked the war in 1866 by suggesting
reforms to the German Bund that Austria found unpalatable and by permitting into Schleswig refugees
from Austrian administered Holstein. This was in contravention of the Gastein Convention signed by
Austria and Prussia. Having employed such diplomacy he left the army to do the job of defeating Austria
in battle and this duly happened after just seven weeks.
Bismarck’s diplomatic capacity was way beyond anything that motley gathering of the 1848-49
revolutionaries could offer. The revolutionaries were clearly crippled by their lack of government office
and failure to control any state apparatus. Without these they could only talk enthusiastically making all
kinds of bombastic but empty declarations. By contrast Bismarck the statesman could negotiate with
Austria with Denmark France Russia or any other country and dispatch the army in any direction.
When all has been said and done one thing clear is that a solid power such as that provided by control of
government and military force is always required in such cases. However noble or popular your cause is
you cannot do much without these. This explains why Bismarck succeeded where the revolutionaries
failed.
12
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE CONGRESS SYSTEM BETWEEN 1815 AND 1823 SEEK TO DEFEND ANYTHING
OTHER THAN THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE MAJOR EUROPEAN POWERS?
Having defeated Napoleonic France in 1815, the major powers embarked on the also difficult task of
mapping the future of post-war Europe. As this essay shall show issues of self-interest inevitably
cropped up but the powers were none-the-less driven by common goals of achieving peace and stability
during the congresses they held between 1815 and 1823.
Self-interest was certainly served by the territorial arrangements agreed upon at the Congress of Vienna
in 1815. Austria re-asserted its authority in Italy and also gained the presidency of the newly constituted
German Bund. Russia got the congress to endorse its acquisitions of Finland from Sweden, Bessarabia
from Turkey and its control of Poland. The congress also acknowledged Prussia’s acquisition of
Pomerania from Sweden in addition to gains of the Rhineland and two-fifths of Saxony. Britain also
satisfied its thirst for colonies with gains of Mauritius, Guiana, Malta and Tobago from France as well as
Ceylon and the Cape from Holland among others.
It was also in the interest of the major powers to restore monarchical governments that had been
overthrown by the French revolutionaries. Austria particularly pushed for this return to ‘legitimacy’
because its own interests would be served by the restoration of the Hapsburg princes to their old Italian
kingdoms. The French Bourbons also favoured the policy as it not only restored them to their French
crown but it also restored their Bourbon cousins to Spain. Self-interest also led to the endorsement of
the Russian scheme for a ‘Holy Alliance’ of the monarchs directed against liberal and nationalist forces
wherever they would arise in Europe. Only Britain refused to join this anti-revolution crusade aimed at
perpetuating absolute monarchical rule. Thus restoring monarchs and suppressing revolutionary forces
were both self-serving schemes born out of the need for self-preservation.
Although self-interest was significant it was by no means the only consideration at the 1815 congress.
Achieving peace and stability was also an important concern. The territorial arrangements already
discussed were also undertaken with a view to achieving a balance of power which would leave no one
state too powerful and therefore capable of attacking others and disturbing the peace. That is why even
defeated France was treated with such leniency. It is worth noting that it was only pushed back to its
1790 boundaries after it had supported Napoleon’s ‘hundred days’ campaign and disturbed the peace
once more. That was the point that the congress decided it had been too lenient in allowing France to
keep its 1792 conquests therefore it had to be cut down to prevent it remaining too powerful. Liberal
and nationalist principles of the French Revolution were being suppressed because their capacity to
cause international conflict had already been witnessed. After more than twenty years of fighting a
13
France that was inspired by such ideals and hell-bent on spreading them all over Europe, the congress of
Vienna was justified in taking that hard-line stance against those forces.
The 1818 Congress of Aix la Chapelle was more concerned with addressing issues of general rather than
the self-interest of the major powers. Among other things the congress agreed on the sensible decision
of rehabilitating France by re-admitting it to the ranks of the great powers as an equal partner. The
Quadruple Alliance was therefore transformed into the Quintuple Alliance. The army of occupation
which France had suffered since 1815 was withdrawn. Such a conciliatory stance was especially
necessary in the interests of European peace. The congress also addressed itself to tackling the twin
evils of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Barbary pirates who threatened European shipping and trade on
the seas. They also discussed the revolt of Spain’s American colonies with Russia urging European
intervention to support Spain. Disagreements pitting Britain against the others arose over these issues.
Tackling the slave trade and the pirates would have required stationing naval squadrons with stop and
search powers over all ships. Only Britain had the naval capacity and other powers were wary of giving
Britain that kind of authority fearing it would only entrench its dominance. Conversely Britain was also
wary of placing its navy under international authority and so the slave trade and piracy continued
unabated. Russia’s interventionist schemes in America were opposed by Britain and Austria. Britain
evidently hoped the revolts would lead to the collapse of the Spanish empire therefore allowing it
access to trade markets it was excluded from. In all these developments there was clearly the motive of
self-interest but as shown especially by the issue of France, there was more to the congress than just
that.
Even the congresses of Troppau and Laibach (1820 and 1821 respectively) demonstrated a common
desire to work together to resolve common problems. It is important to note that although differences
usually arise among parties that does not necessarily indicate self-interest. It is only normal which is why
congresses were held to iron these out and once a majority decision was taken it bound even those who
held different views-that is what agreeing to differ is all about. Such differences did arise at the two
congresses over the revolts that had broken out in Spain, Portugal and Naples. Britain and France
opposed Austrian and Russian interventionist schemes on behalf of the governments. Austria was
eventually authorised to intervene in Naples by Russia, Prussia and Austria at Troppau. If anybody was
driven by self-interest it was Britain which sulked over the majority’s decision and told Austria that it
was intervening in its personal capacity not that of the congress.
The scenario was no different at the Congress of Verona called in 1822 to discuss the Spanish and Greek
issues. The usual disagreements over intervention arose and this time Russia was in support of the
Greek rebels against their Turkish masters while France sought to crush the rebels in Spain. As usual
Britain was opposed. Russia was restrained by the majority decision against intervention while France
was authorised to act in Spain although Britain objected. At the end of the day it was not so much of
14
self-interest but just differences of opinion manifesting themselves among powers that were none-the-
less committed to co-operating for the common good.
In conclusion, it can be observed that self-interest was not the only concern of the major powers. The
congresses revealed that they were also committed to working for peace, stability and other common
goals although differences did exist among them.
15
HOW FAR TRUE IS THE ASSERTION THAT THE NDEBELE PEOPLE RELIED ON RAIDING ALONE FOR THEIR
LIVELIHOOD?
There is so much truth to the claim that the Ndebele economy relied heavily on raiding and the various
Shona communities especially those close to the Ndebele suffered as a consequence. In this essay it will
be shown that from the advent of the Ndebele in the present day Matebeleland up to the imposition of
colonial rule in the 1890's, there was never a decade without Ndebele raids into Shona territory. This
essay will also show that how ever much significant raiding was, the Ndebele also relied on other
activities including, tribute, agriculture and trade. It will be made clear that although highly significant,
raiding alone does not fully explain the Ndebele economic way of life.
Both Mzilikazi and Lobengula pursued a consistent policy of raiding against one or the other Shona
communities from the time of their arrival from present day South Africa. Apart from attacking the
declining Rozvi, D.N.Beach cites Ndebele raiding activities which greatly affected the Chirimuhanzu
dynasty in the 1850's. This would be repeated during the 1860's when the Kalanga and Tswana
communities to the west were raided during the 1860 - 1 drought. That same decade (1868) the north-
western Ngezi dynasty of Rimuka was also raided resulting in the flight of the Mashayamombe and
Chivero rulers further north-east. The pattern continued during the 1870's when the Ndebele raided the
Shona communities across a 70km radius from the western Duma on the confluence of the Mutirikwi
in1892 and from Mupfure to Chishawasha in 1893. Thus the example cited above paints a picture of a
consistent policy of raiding and therefore suggesting its central significance to the Ndebele way of life.
Although important raiding was by no means the only factor in the Ndebele economy. Agriculture was
also significant. The Ndebele practised arable farming which yielded grains such as millet and
rapoko.Farming was a seasonal and labour intensive involving family on individual plots of land. Even
soldiers took time out to plant during the rainy season as the state had little to fear from external
enemies who were engaged in planting too. There were special fields belonging to the king in each
settlement. These were planted and harvested first and the produce given to the king. The importance
of the cops to the Ndebele was underlined by the (inxwala) first fruits ceremony presided over by the
king to mark the beginning of harvest.
16
The Ndebele were also pastoralists and cattle were important for political, social and economic
purposes. The national herd was owned or controlled by the king and he distributed them in a manner
that enhanced his position as head of state. Some he distributed to his indunas as an acknowledgement
of their loyalty or as a reward for services rendered. Some he gave out to regiments for food, some to
his wives for their personal use and as an inheritance for his sons. Cattle were also exchanged for
European goods such as guns and ammunition and for Shona produce and young people who were
incorporated into Ndebele society.
Tribute collected from subject Shona/Kalanga societies also contributed to the Ndebele economy.
Tribute was usually in the form of grain, animal skins, cattle and even young me and women who were
incorporated into the Ndebele state. As overlord of the Rozvi clans such as Svabasi, Lukuluba and
Rozani, Mzilikazi exacted tribute. During Lobengula's tenure, Nemakonde and Chivi were some of the
Shona chiefs paying tribute to the Ndebele. Those who paid tribute were not subjected to raids. Raids
were more of punitive measures rather than the norm as evidenced by the 1893 raiding expeditions
sent to punish Gomala in Masvingo for using Ndebele cattle to pay a fine imposed by the European
settler administration.
Trade was carried out with the Shona and Europeans and it was also a significant contributor to the
Ndebele economy. The Ndebele traded their cattle for the Europeans guns and ammunitions and for the
grain and other agricultural produce of the Shona.
Further income was generated through hunting activities carried out by the Ndebele themselves or by
the Europeans who had been granted concessions. Top of the list of the hunted animals were elephants
that were highly prized for the tusks, and meat. European hunters such as Frederick Selous and Henry
Hartley hunted extensively under license from Lobengula. The fact that Lobengula felt compelled to
allow them to hunt in Mashonaland when the herds of Matebeleland had become depleted is a
testimony to the significant contribution of hunting to the Ndebele economy.
Having examined all these aspects of the Ndebele society, it becomes evident that although important,
raiding was by no means the exclusive economic activity. Trade, hunting, tribute and agriculture were
also highly significant. Finally it was worth restating that raiding was not normally practised in the first
instance but usually as a punitive measure to settle political and other quarrels rather than as a means
of livelihood
17
mineral treaty.
aim of Rhodes:
an imperialist."
18
19
Rhodes.
20
21
HOW FAR, AND BY WHAT MEANS, WERE THE IDEALS OF LIBERTY, EQUALITY AND FRATERNITY
ACHIEVED IN REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE IN THE YEARS UP TO 1799?
The forced relocation of the king and National Assembly to Paris from Versailles was in contravention of
the principles of liberty and fraternity. When the women of Paris marched on Versailles, they brought
back the king and the National Assembly to Paris instead of the bread they had been demanding from
the government. The king and National Assembly became virtual prisoners of the radical elements in
Paris as a result of the forced relocations. They could no longer freely discharge their duties in Paris
where there was greater mob interference and influence in government business. Given this scenario it
was impossible to speak of political liberty and free expression as promised by the revolutionaries.
The peasants’ violence against the nobles was contrary to the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity.
The peasants displayed a lack of respect for property rights and impoverished the nobles and clergy
through their orgy of violence and looting. The nobles’ right to life was also compromised by the murder
that characterised the violence of the peasants during the so-called “Great Fear”. They were also
exasperated into emigrating from France. As a result they were estranged and became sworn enemies
of the revolution. That destroyed the chances of fraternity with the Third Estate.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy limited the church’s influence in state affairs and contravened the
principles of liberty and fraternity. Requirements that the clergy take an oath of loyalty to the
government were felt to be degrading. It fanned conflict between the church and state especially after
the majority of the clergy chose to reject the constitution. The Civil Constitution was the most significant
cause of the revolt in Vendee in 1793 and the consequent civil war.
The classification of French people into the broad categories of “active” and “passive” citizens as
contained in the 1791 constitution ran counter to the principle of equality. The government imposed
property and income qualifications and these prevented the majority from voting or standing as
candidates. Those who qualified to vote were classified as “active” citizens and those who did not were
termed “passive” citizens. Such measures led to the perpetuation of class inequalities. The much
advertised liberties that included the right of all to participate in politics either as voters or office-
bearers in the end just a sham.
The September massacres of 1792 demonstrated the strong current of intolerance of reaction and anti-
Jacobin views and made it clear that there was no liberty in revolutionary France. It was the
revolutionary government’s fears of counter-revolution which bred paranoia and heavy-handedness in
dealing with opponents. There was state-sanctioned violence designed to crush revolt and cow
opponents into submission. The result was high levels of intolerance and there could be no hope for
liberty without tolerance.
The introduction of the Reign of Terror from 1793 to 1794 removed any illusions that there could be any
liberty to express any counter-revolutionary and anti-Jacobin sentiments. Radical Jacobins like
Maximillien Robespierre made it clear that there was no question of equality and fraternising with
22
counter-revolutionaries and anybody else who did not share their Jacobin views. He spoke of terror as
necessary to frighten dissidents. The high levels of intolerance were contrary to the revolutionary ideals.
Even fellow revolutionaries were not spared imprisonment and execution if their views contradicted
those in power at the time. Mere jealousy or competition for power also produced serious violations of
liberty and equality. A special court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was established to try counter-
revolutionary suspects. The Law of Suspects was passed to criminalise support for royalists and
insufficient enthusiasm for the revolution. It was not clear what constituted insufficient enthusiasm for
the revolution and it was up to the Revolutionary Tribunal to decide. Given the clearly Jacobin
sympathies of that court, the Law of Suspects was inevitably used to punish anti-Jacobins. The Law of
Maximum which was passed in 1794 to criminalise the selling of goods above the prices prescribed by
government violated the liberal principles of freedom of commerce. When the Law of Twenty-Second
Prarial was passed in 1794 even members of the National Convention lost their immunity and could now
be hurled before the Revolutionary Tribunal on accusations of counter-revolutionary behaviour. There
were spirited attempts to de-Christianise France between 1793 and 1794. This followed the
overwhelming rejection of the Civil Constitution by the clergy in 1790. Churches were closed in many
parts of the country and priests were persecuted. There were attempts to introduce the “Worship of
Reason” and even a “Cult of the Supreme Being” to replace Christianity. That way the liberty of religion
was lost in revolutionary France. Other policies like the requisitioning of grain and other goods essential
to the war effort also violated the freedom of commerce. The introduction of mass conscription to
provide recruits for the revolutionary armies who had the urgent task of defending France from
imminent invasion also demonstrated the loss of freedom of choice. The government allowed
imprisonment, executions, torture and fines as punishment for those found guilty of reaction thus
demonstrated loss of various civil rights in France.
The permanent suspension of the highly democratic 1793 constitution was further evidence that
expressions of liberty, equality and fraternity were farcical. That constitution would have provided for
universal suffrage and that would have given all the right to freedom of expression and political
participation. The constitution was too radical and therefore unacceptable to the upper middle class and
moderate majority in the National Convention and their successors in the Directory.
The use of armed force to crush dissent showed that there was no liberty to challenge the Directory
from 1795 to 1799. The Jacobins were the first to taste the full wrath of the Directory after it ordered
troops led by Napoleon to crush their revolt in 1795. The turn of Simon Babeuf and his supporters came
afterwards. Babeuf was one of those who were executed for plotting to overthrow the Directory.
The annulment of unfavourable election results was common feature of politics during the Directory and
it demonstrated its anti-liberal and intolerant nature. In 1797 and 1798 the Directors cancelled election
results which showed Jacobin and Royalist gains to the legislature. They ordered fresh elections in order
to produce more favourable results to themselves.
The violent overthrow of the Directory and the subsequent introduction of the Consulate was further
evidence that France was still a long way off from embracing its own expressed principles of liberty,
equality and fraternity. In 1799, Napoleon induced three directors to resign and had the other two
23
arrested and jailed. Members of the Council of Five Hundred were either dispersed or arrested and the
remnant was coerced into voting the Directory out of existence. The support of the army helped
Napoleon to establish the Consulate in which he was a virtual dictator. He centralised power in his
hands, re-introduced press censorship and a system of spies to identify dissenting voices. He succeeded
in giving France order and stability but that was at the cost of their liberty.
In the final analysis, it becomes clear that liberty, equality and fraternity remained elusive ideals during
the years 1789 to 1799 despite the frequent promises and public protestations of the revolutionaries.
Intolerance, repression and suppression of civil rights were the outstanding features of the period and
this was due to fears of counter-revolution, competition for power and personal animosities among
other things.
24
DISCUSS THE RISE AND EXPANSION OF THE MUTAPA STATE. (NOV 2008)
The rise and ultimate expansion of the Mutapa State owed in part to the decline of Great Zimbabwe.
According to oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota migrated from the declining Great Zimbabwe and began
his conquests of the Korekore and Tavara of the Dande and Chidema areas It has been claimed that his
victims were so impressed by his military exploits that they nicknamed him Mwene Mutapa, ‘owner of
conquered lands’ or ‘master pillager’, hence the birth of the Mutapa dynasty. He then embarked on an
expansionist policy that resulted in the creation of a vast Mutapa empire which stretched from the
Zambezi valley into the Mozambique lowlands and towards the fringes of the Kalahari Desert. The
Mutapa’s control in these far away lands was probably peripheral and not regular.
It has been suggested by some including the archaeologist Peter Garlake that religion was also
significant to the rise and expansion of the Mutapa State. In as far as religion is an important component
of ideology, this suggestion is plausible. It is generally accepted that religion is part of statecraft and
plays an important role in reinforcing and maintaining political power. Parallels can be drawn from
contemporary European political systems that were bound together by a shared religion. In these states,
the political power of the rulers was reinforced by religious doctrines that claimed that kings had a
divine right to rule and was therefore not accountable to their subjects and should not be forcibly
removed from their positions.
There is a general consensus among historians that cattle ownership played a significant role in the rise
of the Mutapa State. The use of cattle as a source of social or political power among the Shona in
Zimbabwe in the distant and recent past is well documented (Mudenge, 1974, 1988) and also recounted
in Shona oral traditions. Indeed for the Mutapa state, the Portuguese refer to their importance in this
regard. The hypothesis is that cattle rich immigrant communities settled among a people who were not
so rich, but who were very keen to use cattle products or own more cattle herds. The immigrants used
cattle gradually to build up economic power, prestige and social dominance. At some stage they
translated that prestige and social dominance into political power.
It has also been suggested that the rulers’ control of external trade also contributed to the rise and
expansion of the state. Imported goods like glass beads and ceramics testify to the participation in long
distance trade. Trade goods obtained from far away places were also used in further developing and
building up a strong political power base. That was achieved by redistributing them among people who
may not have participated in long distance trade on a large scale. This fits in well with the contention
that 'luxury goods from a distant source are often distributed to reproduce a system of rank status or
offices within a polity' (Kipp and Schortman, 1989). G. Pwiti argues that if one of the reasons for the
25
collapse of Great Zimbabwe was the shift in the focus of trade to the north, then it is logical to credit the
early rulers of the Mutapa state with the introduction of large scale external trade in northern
Zimbabwe. The emerging Mutapas made alliances with Musengezi chiefs and assured them of continued
political power as well as access to cattle and trade goods.
Archaeological evidence from the excavated sites suggests mining was also important in the rise and
expansion of the state. Finished metal products as well as wastes from processing have been dug up and
these all point to mining activities. Mining led to the making of tools such as hoes and axes which were
all important for agricultural production as they facilitated the clearing of large tracts of land. Iron
spears and arrows were made to facilitate game hunting which augmented meat supplies as well ivory
for trade. The weapons manufactured also contributed to the rise and expansion by facilitating military
conquests of weaker groups like the Korekore and Tavara of the Dande and Chidema areas.
Agriculture was another economic activity that contributed to the rise and expansion of the state.
Farming was for the most part subsistence and labour intensive. Crops like sorghum, millet and rapoko
were grown on the family plots. The generally favourable climatic conditions ensured successful
harvests and resulted in the accumulation of surplus grain, animals and other forms of wealth. All this
stimulated the population growth that was so crucial in the emergence and growth of so large and
powerful a state such as the Mutapa. Agriculture not only enabled the subject peoples to produce for
themselves but for the state in order to pay tribute to their rulers. They paid the tribute either by way of
actual agricultural produce or through the provision of agricultural labour. It has been said that one day
out of each month, different parts of the state offered labour to the royal fields, the zunde (Mudenge,
1988, 164).
Trade also played a hugely significantly role in facilitating both the rise and expansion of the Mutapa
state. Trading activities were internal as when then Mutapa people traded among themselves
exchanging items like iron tools, pottery and agricultural produce. It also assumed an external character
like when they traded with other African groups and with the Swahili-Arabs and Portuguese. They
traded gold and ivory for luxury goods such as mirrors, cloth and even guns. Trade has often cited as the
main factor behind the growth and expansion of the state but it could not have been enough on its own
and it depended on other economic activities. As Randles rightly pointed out, trading activities require
that what is sold on the external market be procured in the first place. For the Mutapa state, this is
where agricultural production and livestock herding played an important role. According to Portuguese
documents, when the Mutapa needed gold for trade he would give his subjects cattle and they in return
would mine and supply the gold (Randles, 1979, 86).
It can therefore be concluded that the early development and growth of the Mutapa state was
facilitated by the successful integration of different economic activities. These included agriculture,
pastoralism, mining and trade.
26
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE DECLINE OF THE GREAT ZIMBABWE CIVILISATION BE ATTRIBUTED TO
ECOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE AREA?
Although the Great Zimbabwe area had rainfall patterns generally good enough to support the
cultivation of crops like sorghum, millet, beans, and squash and promote good pasturage for cattle and
sheep, droughts occurred from time to time. A drought occurring at a time the population had reached a
critical point in relation to its natural resources would have destroyed Great Zimbabwe’s ability to feed
itself. This problem would have been worsened by the fact that there was no technology by which the
state could transport sufficient food and other supplies over long distances and the only alternatives
would have involved dispersing the people or moving the state structure to another site. Either way the
result would have been the collapse of the state.
The progressive deterioration of the pastures for the livestock seriously undermined Great Zimbabwe’s
pastoral economy and contributed to its ultimate decline. Although the state was situated in a generally
grassy savanna region with reasonably good rainfall, the keeping of large herds of cattle in a densely
populated but fairly compact area would have destroyed the pasturage over time. Even if the rainfall
was generally good, the ability of the pastures to regenerate was also compromised by the droughts
which tended to occur at least once every five years. Since much of the area surrounding the state was
either too mountainous or too rocky, the people were probably forced to move much further away from
the state and ultimately abandoned in search of the proverbial greener pastures.
The population of the state has been estimated to have been in the region of eleven thousand but D.N.
Beach believed that further research would probably reflect a greater number. Whatever the figure it
appears that Great Zimbabwe probably grew too big to be supported by its environment and the
presence of so many people at “one spot would have seriously affected the ability of its site territory to
supply crops, crops, firewood, game, grazing and all other necessities of life.” (Beach: 1980. P.50).
Having so many people clustered would have also generated the unwelcome problems of disease, noise
and soil exhaustion. Consequently the women and men would have had to walk longer distances to their
fields as soil exhaustion took its toll and also because much of the area surrounding the state was either
too mountainous or too rocky to support cultivation. All this would have created competition for the
available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their supporters and
that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even before they became
exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it impossible for the state to
continue.
Although some historians believe that civil wars and succession disputes may have bedeviled the Great
Zimbabwe state resulting ultimately in its collapse, there is not much evidence to support this view. In
the absence of any records or much information from oral tradition, it seems likely that this conclusion
was reached after studies of later Shona states like the Mutapa and Rozvi whose social, political and
economic organisation was broadly similar to that of Great Zimbabwe. It seems reasonable to suppose
therefore that the civil wars and succession disputes that affected the latter two states would have
27
affected Great Zimbabwe as well. The well known tradition about Mutota’s emigration from Great
Zimbabwe in search of salt may also have been the result of succession disputes and the civil war that it
resulted in.
Historians have generally speculated that Great Zimbabwe could have fallen victim to the rivalry and
imperial ambitions of various members of the ruling elite. This is a view which is not easy to substantiate
given the fact that hardly any names of the ruling class and any dates have ever been advanced. Oral
tradition supplies the name of Nyatsimba Mutota as the aristocrat who emigrated from the state in
order to find salt which had become scarce at Great Zimbabwe. It is possible that this emigration may
also have been the result of his failure to achieve political power within the Great Zimbabwe state as
result of competition and his ambitions would have motivated him to move with his supporters
The decline of tradable items, the emergence and growth of the rival states and the progressive decline
of trade on the East African coast all conspired to undermine the trade of Great Zimbabwe with
disastrous consequences for the state’s continued existence. According to D.N. Beach, the Great
Zimbabwe area was never a major gold producing area itself although there were initially considerably
gold deposits especially of the alluvial variety. Those were probably sufficient to support the foundation
of the state but not enough to sustain it in the long term. Evidence shows that the ancient prospectors
were highly skilled in discovering and exploiting the gold deposits so much that, “little was left un-
exploited.”(A.J. Wills. p.25) Given this scenario the continued existence of Great Zimbabwe would have
probably depended on the ability of its rulers to control the trade in gold and other items produced
elsewhere. With time the Torwa and Mutapa states emerged to the south-west and North-west of Great
Zimbabwe and these undermined the former’s capacity to trade. They were able to achieve this by
taking over Great Zimbabwe’s trade routes and by attracting the Swahili-Arab merchants who had been
the Great Zimbabwe’s trading partners. What emerged was a scenario where Great Zimbabwe for whom
trade was the life-blood progressively lost that ability to trade
According to Shona oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota (c.1450-1480) led an expedition northwards from
Great Zimbabwe in the direction of the Mazoe River tributaries ostensibly to search for salt. Objective
might not have been salt per se but a general quest for natural resources that might have begun to
decline on the plateau owing to a combination of population pressure, over-hunting and even the
efficient exploitation of the alluvial gold reserves. Population growth may have produced a competition
for the available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their
supporters and that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even
before they became exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it
impossible for the state to continue.
The emergence of states such as the Torwa and Mutapa to the south and north of Great Zimbabwe
probably contributed a great deal to the collapse of the latter. Great Zimbabwe was fully occupied for
only about 300 years and the rise of the neighboring states of Torwa and Mutapa coincides with the
decline of Great Zimbabwe. These were also Shona states with similar political structures, customs,
religious beliefs and economic activities. Great Zimbabwe found itself having to compete with these
28
emerging states for control of international trade, economic resources and political domination and it
came off worse.
All in all, the decline of Great Zimbabwe was ultimately the outcome of so many factors. Although
ecological issues played a greater role, there were also other factors that included succession disputes,
decline in trade and the emergence of similar and rival states.
29
IN WHAT WAYS DID THE USE OF IRON TRANSFORM THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BASES OF EARLY
SOCIETIES IN PRE-COLONIAL ZIMBABWE?
One of the major economic effects of the use of iron was in facilitating the growth of agriculture in place
of the reliance on hunting and gathering. Iron mining and smelting was followed by the manufacture of
iron tools such as hoes and axes. These were far stronger than any of the tools that had been made
during the Stone Age and they enabled people to clear forests and cultivate the land much more easily.
Archaeologists have dug up carbonized seeds that clearly indicate the growing of grains such as
sorghum, millet, various beans and cowpeas. Agriculture ensured much greater food security than could
be achieved through a reliance on the environment to provide wild vegetables and fruits.
The use of iron facilitated the hunting of big game such as elephants, kudu and buffalo among others.
Iron-smiths manufactured much more powerful iron tools like axes, spear and arrow points and knives
that enabled them to kill the larger animals they had been previously unable to hunt with the less
powerful therefore less effective stone tools. The big game augmented meat supplies and also provided
hides. Of these the elephants were probably the most important because their tusks stimulated the
growth of ivory trade. In later Iron Age states like Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Rozvi and the Torwa the
ivory trade was an important source of wealth so much that men often risked the danger to hunt down
elephants to trade with the Swahili-Arab merchants and later the Portuguese who came into central and
southern Africa via the East African coast.
Apart from the pastoralism and agriculture discussed above, the use of iron helped to broaden the range
of economic occupations through stimulating the growth of manufacturing and trade. The need for iron
was in itself an incentive for the growth of mining which in turn stimulated the smelting and
manufacturing industries. Iron tools would have been traded for agricultural and other products by the
smelters and iron smiths who had become specialists in their field. Iron tools would have also facilitated
the digging up of gold which was in large demand on the East African coast and in Asia. The local
communities traded their gold with the Swahili-Arab merchants who brought them luxuries that
included Chinese and Persian porcelain, cloth, glass and beads. The discovery of many pre-colonial gold
mines is evidence of huge amount of gold extracted from the region for trade. ‘Conservative’ estimates
suggest that 7 to 9 million ounces of gold were extracted before 1890 and most of this probably dates to
the time of Great Zimbabwe. At current prices the gold trade would have been worth amounts in the
region of 2.6 to 3.4 billion American dollars. There were also parallel trades in ivory, textiles and other
goods.
30
The use of iron also stimulated the rise of trade in manufactured wares. Firstly the need for iron tools
acted as a catalyst for the emergence of a new class of entrepreneurs specializing in the manufacture of
iron tools. They would trade their manufactured wares for other goods they did not produce themselves
and these would have included food crops and livestock. Iron tools were also used in the payment of
tribute to the rulers and also as bride-price in the acquisition of wives. Iron tools such as spears and
arrows could also be used in fighting wars and they inevitably made the conflicts even deadlier than
they had been before.
The discovery and use of iron was also an important catalyst in the growth and further development of
copper and gold mining. This was achieved through the use of the much stronger and more reliable iron
tools. Iron tools like hoes and picks could be used to dig up the earth that could be very hard in some
places. It is perfectly clear that none of the stone tools would have accomplished these arduous tasks
because they were not as durable. The production of gold and copper became in turn a catalyst for the
thriving trade where Zimbabwean communities exchanged these items for ceramics, glass and brass
imports.
Another important economic consequence was the generation of increased wealth from greater
agricultural yields and trade in iron tools. It has already been discussed that the use of iron tools enabled
larger tracts of land to be cleared and cultivated. That in turn would have enabled greater yields to be
achieved creating surpluses that could then be traded within and with other societies. Through this
trade in agricultural and other products including the iron tools themselves, the societies were able to
build up greater reserves of wealth for themselves. This increased wealth was also reflected in the
greater importation of luxury items by states like Great Zimbabwe. The items included glass beads, glass
vessels, Persian and Chinese ceramics, coins from Kilwa, copper ingots and cowrie shells from the coast
One important social consequence of the economic developments discussed above was the emergence
of more permanent and settled communities. Agriculture in particular required that people remain in
one place at least long enough to cultivate and wait for the crops to mature so that they could be
harvested. In any case the harvests would have to be stored thus reducing the mobility of the
communities. Other economic activities like trade and manufacturing also created a situation where the
Iron Age societies accumulated much greater stores of property and wealth which would have been
difficult to consistently move around. That alone was a huge incentive for a more permanent and settled
way of life. Thus the axes and hoes which were products of the Iron Age were brought into action
cutting down trees and clearing the ground to facilitate the construction of permanent dwellings. The
round, thatched huts made out of tree poles and hard clay (daga) made their appearance replacing the
cave dwellings that were popular with the nomadic Stone Age communities
31
The economic developments brought on by the use of iron also led to population growth among the Iron
Age communities. Population growth was a both a cause and effect of the agricultural developments. As
it will be recalled that agriculture during this period was labour intensive and as such it made economic
sense to eschew any birth control practices and have larger families so that there would be more people
to engage in the cultivation of crops. As more crops were produced there was greater food security and
this abundance of food in turn stimulated population growth far greater than anything that had been
witnessed among the Stone Age communities who virtually depended on the environment to provide all
their food requirements. The unpredictability of the environment and animal movements would have
acted as a disincentive for having large families. Historians like D.N Beach have asserted that Stone Age
communities like the San actually acted to keep their population levels down by adopting measures that
included infanticide and abstaining from sexual intercourse.
Another important social consequence of the use of iron was the creation of classes among the Iron Age
peoples. It has already been discussed how the use of iron increased the wealth of the Iron Age
communities but it is also important to note that the wealth was never evenly distributed in any
community. Some people came to possess a greater share of the wealth than others and the reasons for
this were many and varied. Possessing skills in manufacturing iron tools enabled some people to trade
their wares and consequently generate greater wealth for themselves. Controlling trade and the land
that was used for agriculture or possessing political power were the other means which enabled
particular groups of people to achieve greater wealth and be differentiated from others as a class. Thus
class divisions emerged as a result of the differences in wealth and became more sharply accentuated
during the Iron Age. Archaeologists studying Great Zimbabwe which was an Iron Age state have
suggested that its class divisions were demonstrated through housing and diet differences among other
things. The ruling elite lived within the stone structures they built through their ability to control large
numbers of people and exploit their labour. The subject peoples lived in less fashionable mud huts
outside the stone enclosures. Cattle bones found in greater numbers within the stone enclosures and
the sheep/goat bones found outside suggest diet differences between the rulers and their subjects. The
lack of cooking vessels, grinding stones and the remains of elite goods found within enclosures such as
imported ceramics, glass and brass all point to few domestic activities inside and suggest a more
luxurious and easy way of life for the rulers.
Another important social consequence of the use of iron was the division of labour between the sexes.
Women became more and more domesticated as they were consigned to home duties that included
raising children, cooking, cultivating nearby fields, fetching water and wood. Men increasingly moved
away from the home mining gold and iron, herding cattle and engaging in local and international trade.
The broadening of economic occupations and the division of labour helped to create and intensify the
exploitation and subordination of women by their male counterparts. The economic tasks assigned to
women such as those outlined above had no economic or currency value attached to them. Thus even
though the female tasks were necessary they were considered to be inferior because they did not
generate any wealth. In this manner men began to consider themselves more important and superior to
32
women because it was their pastoral, mining, manufacturing and trading activities that generated
wealth for their communities rather than the raising of children, gathering of wild fruits and the fetching
of water and firewood that was performed by women.
The economic activities also stimulated the rise of the marriage system of polygamy. The nature of
agricultural production which was subsistence and labour intensive naturally demanded more personnel
to carry out the requisite tasks. This in turn stimulated the system of polygamy as male family heads
sought to increase their family sizes through having more children who would grow up to do the
required activities of clearing fields, cultivating and harvesting.
The use of iron not only created social stability but it also stimulated the emergence of large states like
Great Zimbabwe which became an important commercial and political centre. In addition to being in the
heart of an extensive commercial and trading network, the site was the center of a powerful political
kingdom, which was under a central ruler for about 350 years (1100–1450 AD). The site is estimated to
have contained perhaps 18,000 inhabitants, making it one of the largest cities of its day. Great
Zimbabwe covered over 1779 acres. The stone wall enclosures of the state are still standing to this day
and hut remains have been dug up by archaeologists. The two main geographical areas of stone wall
enclosures are the Hill Complex on the long, steep-sided granite hill that rises 262 feet above the
surrounding ground and the land below this hill where the Valley Enclosures and the Great Enclosure are
situated. The stone walls, up to 19.7 feet thick and 36 feet high, are built of granite blocks without the
use of mortar.
The emergence of these large states in turn gave rise to the unwelcome problems of urbanization that
included disease, noise and soil exhaustion. If for example it is true that the Great Zimbabwe state had a
population of 18 000 people settled on land area of 1779 then it was an urban settlement and naturally
it would have been affected by the usual problems associated with urbanisation. Having so many people
clustered together would have naturally created problems of human waste disposal and D.N. Beach
speculates that the picture of the state was blighted by flies feasting on human waste and smog coming
from the many cooking fires. Apart from this the need for fuel met through the cutting of trees would
have led to deforestation and the associated problems of soil exhaustion which had detrimental effects
on agricultural production and pastoralism.
All in all, it can therefore be concluded that the use of iron had both positive and negative effects on the
economic and social bases of the early societies in pre-colonial Zimbabwe.
33
ASSESS THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ORAL TRADITION, ARCHAEOLOGY AND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
TOWARDS THE RECOVERY OF ZIMBAWE’S PRE-COLONIAL HISTORY.
Oral traditions are verbal recollections of past events that supposedly occurred before the existence of
the informants. These are historical accounts that are transmitted from one generation to the next
through word of mouth. They can be in the form of praise poems and songs telling of the heroic deeds
of an ancestor, a clan or a whole community of people.
Oral traditions have been especially valuable in the reconstruction of much Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial
history particularly because the pre-literate societies did not leave behind any written records that could
be used as sources of history. In the case of the much earlier Iron Age societies even the biased
European accounts are non-existent because the Europeans had not yet arrived on the African scene to
observe and write about some events.
Oral traditions have been extremely useful in providing information about the foundation of the Great
Zimbabwe state. Shona traditions speak of the ancestors of the Shona as the builders of the impressive
stone structures at Great Zimbabwe and so many other sites around and outside present-day
Zimbabwe. The settler Europeans, colonialist historians and settler politicians of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries all disputed the claims of the Shona origin of Great Zimbabwe and chose to
attribute its construction to some mysterious, forgotten white tribe or the Arabs, Egyptians or
Phoenicians. The Shona claims made through oral traditions were subsequently verified by
archaeological findings.
Oral traditions have also been very valuable in providing historical information about the foundation of
the Mutapa State. It was founded by Nyatsimba Mutota who had migrated from Great Zimbabwe with
his followers to the Dande region. It is known from oral traditions that the Mutapa state was an off-
shoot of the Great Zimbabwe state which collapsed due to the shortage of salt and other resources. The
names of some of the Mutapa rulers are known to present generations through oral traditions for
example Mutota and his successor Matope. The origins of the Rozvi Empire have also been preserved in
the oral traditions. The names of the early emperors like Changamire Dombo are well known through
orature.
Even the nineteenth century histories of the Ndebele and Shona have been transmitted through oral
traditions and these have been useful in providing an African perspective and countering some of the
distortions of the nineteenth century European writers. Good examples of such distortions include
European claims that Ndebele-Shona relations were characterized by hostility. It has been claimed that
the Shona were helpless victims of perennial raids from the vicious and ruthless Ndebele. It was further
34
stated that the Ndebele economy was based almost exclusively on raiding. Oral traditions from both
groups have however counteracted such claims and asserted that the relations were for the most part
based on peaceful co-existence, trade and cultural exchange. Wars and raids did occur but even then
there were not as endemic and destructive as the European writers have suggested. Neither were the
Shona the helpless and passive victims they have been made out to have been. D.N. Beach has written
about Ndebele oral traditions about Shona raiding activities deep into Ndebele territory and the
atrocities that were allegedly perpetrated on Ndebele women. He has also profited from the use of
Shona traditions about a nineteenth century Rozvi ruler who was given the nickname Chibamubamu for
his skilful use of guns in resisting the Ndebele incursions into his territory.
Oral traditions have however proved incapable of providing adequate information about pre-colonial
states such as Great Zimbabwe. There is no accurate information about the names of the rulers of Great
Zimbabwe who have simply been referred to as mambo in many accounts. That is a dynastic title which
unfortunately does not shed any light on the individual identities of the rulers. One name that is well
known in the history of this state is that of Nyatsimba Mutota who supposedly deserted it with his
followers in order to find salt in the Dande region. This helped to bring about the demise of the state
and the rise of the Mutapa state.
Oral traditions have had their weaknesses either due to memory loss or deliberate bias on the part of
the informants and this has compromised the accuracy of the pre-colonial history recovered through
this source. Shona oral traditions speak of the violent and destructive activities of the Madzviti who
invaded from across the Limpopo River in the nineteenth century but the use of the term Madzviti does
not clearly establish the true identity of the Nguni invaders. It is known from Nguni traditions that
various Nguni groups including the Ngoni of Zwangendaba and Nyamazana, the Gaza led by Soshangane
and the Ndebele led by Mzilikazi all fled from Shaka and at various times attacked the Shona. The main
problem with Shona traditions is that all these have been indiscriminately lumped together as the
Madzviti. Coincidentally Madzviti is the Shona’s derogatory term for the Ndebele and this helped to
create an erroneous and distorted picture of the Ndebele as a perennially bloodthirsty and warlike
group who persistently wrecked havoc on the weak and defenceless Shona. Such distortions were seized
upon by colonial historians and white settlers to justify the destruction of the Ndebele kingdom and
foster ethnic tensions between the Ndebele and Shona.
Written records have also been used with great success in recovering some of Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial
history especially from the late fifteenth century onwards. Portuguese accounts have been a major
source of Mutapa history furnishing names of Mutapas, details about economic and social activities as
well as information about trade with Swahili-Arabs and the Portuguese themselves. Names such as
Mamvura, Matope, Gatsi Rusere and Nyahuma are all known from the Portuguese accounts. Twentieth
century historians such as D.N. Beach and S. Mudenge have all relied on Portuguese documents for
35
information on the Mutapa’s political organisation consisting of officials such as the captain of the gates,
stewards, chamberlain and the chief priests. Portuguese records have also proved significant in the
recovery of the political, social and economic history of the Rozvi.
The nineteenth century accounts by missionaries, hunters and traders have also been very important in
shedding light on the Ndebele and Shona on the eve of colonial rule. They shed light on Ndebele raiding
activities on the Shona possibly with exaggerations as to their impact. The letters of missionaries such as
Charles Helm, Robert and John Moffat give accurate dates concerning the founding of mission stations
as well as their activities and futile attempts to Christianize the Ndebele. It is known with certainty that
Inyathi and Hope Fountain missions were founded in 1857 and 1870 respectively. It is also known that
missionaries engaged in various tasks that included treating diseases like Mzilikazi’s gout, mending
wagons, writing books on Ndebele and Shona grammar among other things. It is also known how the
likes of John Moffat and Charles Helm abused Lobengula’s trust by secretly advocating the destruction
of the Ndebele kingdom and misled him into signing the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession in 1888.
These two treaties paved the way for the colonisation of Zimbabwe which officially commenced on the
twelfth of September in 1890.
Archaeology has been extremely important in generating knowledge about the Stone Age as well the
transition to the Iron Age. By digging up sites and examining remains of animals, rocks and other effects
archeologists have helped to reconstruct Zimbabwe’s stone age pre-colonial past that was characterized
by the use of simple stone and wooden tools for hunting small animals and digging up edible plant roots.
The discovery of ancient iron workings through archaeological excavations also helped to shed light on
the pre-colonial transition from the Stone Age to the Iron Age. Iron tools have been discovered and
these include the axes and hoes as well as spears which have enabled the Iron Age to be distinguished as
an era which was marked by the advent of agriculture rather than mere hunting and gathering of the
Stone Age. Cattle, sheep and goat bones were also excavated pointing to the emergence of pastoralism
during the Iron Age. Large settlements such as Great Zimbabwe were also discovered and this
demonstrated that unlike the nomadic and smaller communities of the stone age, the Iron Age was
characterized by larger and permanent, settled societies.
Archaeology also proved extremely important in solving the controversy concerning the identity of
founders of the Great Zimbabwe state. Shona traditions spoke of the ancestors of the Shona as the
builders of the impressive stone structures at Great Zimbabwe and so many other sites around and
outside present-day Zimbabwe. The settler Europeans, colonialist historians and settler politicians of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries all disputed the claims of the Shona origin of Great Zimbabwe and
chose to attribute its construction to some mysterious, forgotten white tribe or the Arabs, Egyptians or
Phoenicians. The Shona claims made through oral traditions were subsequently verified by
36
archaeological findings. The conclusions were that the building styles, pottery and material remains at
the site were consistent with the Shona way of life and thus pointed to Shona origins for the state.
While acknowledging the accuracy and significance of archaeology it must be noted that it has its
weaknesses. It has reduced the study of Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial history to the study of bones, waste
products, rocks and other artifacts. Archaeology has failed to supply names or details about the
languages spoken by the societies then for instance there are no names for any of the Stone Age
communities, the Great Zimbabwe people and language that have been recovered through
archaeological research.
In conclusion, the three sources have been very significant in the recovery of Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial
history. Although they have their limitations these have been reduced by using them in conjunction
rather exclusively relying on one source.
37
How far did Napoleon Bonaparte achieve his aims in domestic policy? June 2004
Napoleon was highly successful in his quest to achieve personal power following as demonstrated by his
success in achieving his empire after starting of as part of a triumvirate in the Consulate. In 1804,
Napoleon fulfilled his quest for personal power when he created his empire after destroying the
Republican Consulate which he had helped create after overthrowing the Directory in 1799. He had
started as part of a 3-man triumvirate in the Consulate after his overthrow of the Directory in 1799.
Even as First Consul he wielded so much power through direct and indirect control of the legislative
process, appointments of key officials and highly centralized control of the country. The creation of the
empire cemented his dictatorship by ensuring that he would not have to give up power as is the norm in
a republic. He could only hand it down to his descendants.
He also achieved great success in establishing stability and order in France after the chaos and instability
of the revolutionary period. Besides maintaining a strong police state under Fouche, Napoleon used
populist measures to fulfil his quest for order and stability in France. A good example is the codified and
uniform system of law (Code Napoleon) which confirmed the rights of private property and the land
settlement of the Revolution. This was complemented by the Concordat with the pope by which the
Church accepted the loss of its lands confiscated during the revolution from 1789. The Code Napoleon
and the Concordat were simply populist measures which revealed Napoleon’s ruthless determination to
entrench his personal power. The concordat won him the support of Catholic Christians after he
recognised Catholicism as the dominant religion in France. However it gave him power over the church
as he appointed the bishops. On the other hand the concordat also won him the support of the
bourgeoisie and peasants who were now re-assured of the permanency of their ownership of the
former lands of Church and nobility. In the words of David Thomson, “Bonaparte ensured, above all, that
there would be no counter-revolution - and this rallied middle classes and peasants alike behind the
Consulate."
Napoleon also achieved great success in his quest to crush all dissent to his own rule. He employed
repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on power by re-introducing spies, secret police,
censorship and the dreaded lettres de catchet. Thus imprisonment without trial which his predecessors
had abolished became a reality once more. With the restoration of censorship, newspapers, drama and
other forms of entertainment were carefully scrutinised for seditious content. Historian A. Guerard
states that Napoleon banned 60 out of the 73 newspapers that were in circulation. According to Vincent
Cronin, freedom of expression was severely suppressed to the extent that only four out of thousands of
newspapers, journals and articles were allowed to publish in 1811. Critics and dissidents were silenced
and kept under control by that censorship and by a strict police force headed by Fouche’. C. Jones also
states that only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture that images is that of an
autocrat entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
38
Napoleon was highly successful in his quest to bring the Church under the state’s control. He achieved
this through the Concordat with the Pope which was also important in reconciling the Church and the
state after the fall-out when revolutionaries first attempt to reduce religious influence before
attempting to destroy Christianity during the Reign of Terror (1793-4). The Concordat strengthened his
position as he won the support of the pre-dominantly Catholic Christians after recognising Catholicism
as the dominant religion in France. He also won the support of other Christians by recognising other
religions. The church not only accepted the loss of its property during the Revolution but more
importantly Napoleon got the power to appoint Bishops and pay their salaries too. Such developments
brought the church firmly under his control.
Napoleon achieved a large measure of success in promoting socio-economic development after the
uncertainties that had plagued the revolution. Napoleon also had a genuine desire to uplift the lives of
the French. Among various measures he adopted to achieve that was the promotion of education. Many
public schools were opened and he went as far as giving France a university. He also introduced his
celebrated ‘careers open to talent’ policymaking it possible for all people to employ their skills for the
betterment of the nation. He led the way by harnessing the expertise of different personalities from
different backgrounds and political persuasions including Bourbon loyalists, clericals and revolutionaries
in various projects. Examples include Talleyrand and Fouché who had all served previous
administrations. Lawyers from all kinds of backgrounds lent their expertise to the drafting of the famous
Code Napoleon. His crowning edifice was the Legion of Honour which was created to reward all those
who had served France with great distinction in their chosen field of endeavour. Such people were
bestowed titles and became the new aristocracy even though some of them came from the humblest
backgrounds.
In the final analysis napoleon was highly successful in achieving his aims in the domestic sphere whether
in gaining personal power or in promoting order and socio-economic development. Even if he ultimately
failed in his quest to ensure a lasting Bonapartist legacy in power, it was because of military defeat
outside France rather because of any domestic failures.
39
40
“The greatest achievement of Napoleon was a reform of the French law.” Critically examine this view
with reference to the Code Napoleon.
The Code was a huge achievement because of its success in giving France a written and uniform system
of law which cleared out legal confusion. Before there can be any talk of equality before the law, the law
must first of all be clearly articulated, laid down and uniformly applied. Before then, there had only been
a confused and uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were
uncertain, unevenly applied and unwritten. Civil Law was divided into three categories namely Personal
Status, Property and Acquisition of Property in accordance with the main ideals of the French Revolution
of advancing individual rights.
The Code was also a big achievement as it gave legal recognition to the expropriation and sale of the
nobles’ and churches’ lands that occurred during the revolution and re-assured the peasants and the
bourgeoisie of the permanency of their ownership. In the words of David Thomson, “Bonaparte
ensured, above all, that there would be no counter-revolution - and this rallied middle classes and
peasants alike behind the Consulate."
The Code was certainly the greatest achievement of Napoleon because it outlived his other
achievements and was even copied by many other European countries. While Napoleon was celebrated
as a conqueror, his great military victories were only temporary and they were even reversed by the
defeats he later suffered during his lifetime, even his empire was abolished but many aspects of the
Code have remained in use even to this day. France’s civil law still retains aspects of the code. It is still in
use in many European countries as well as former French colonies like Quebec and Louisiana.
It was also his biggest achievement because it was much more positive and progressive when compared
to some of his more repressive policies. Despite its shortcomings especially on gender inequality and
failure to afford workers protection from employers, the Code was still more positive especially in
comparison to repressive measures like his autocracy and press censorship. Napoleon cemented his
dictatorship by establishing his empire in 1804 and by 1811; he had closed down most newspapers to
silence any criticism of his rule.
Viewed from a socialist perspective the Code which was capitalist in outlook and emphasised the rights
of employers ahead of those of workers enterprise was not such a good development. The Code was
highly repressive as it banned labour unions and gave protection to employers who turned out to be
exploitative of their workers. Workers were left in a desperate position where they could not effectively
bargain for higher wages and better working conditions without representative bodies. Many books of
this period detail how workers suffered great exploitation and poor working conditions as government
41
turned a blind eye. The workers’ discontent that eventually led to the bloody civil war in 1848 was really
a legacy of the government’s failure to give them legal protection and the Code was partly to blame.
From a liberal and feminist point of view, the Code was a blow to gender equality and egalitarian
principles of the French revolution as it re-established male superiority over women. The Code was
retrogressive in as far it placed men at the head of the families and regarded women as inferior. It was
also retrogressive in as far it decided that property should be inherited by the eldest son. All of this
represented a reversal of the progress of the revolution which had established equality between the
sexes and in the division of property among surviving children. According to David Thomson, "the
authority of the father over his wife, his children, and the property of the family was strengthened, as
against the revolutionary tendency towards equality of persons and equal division of property."
In conclusion, while Napoleon was famous for many achievements including his military victories, the
Code stands out as the greatest due to its lasting impact in France and Europe. Despite its shortcomings
it compares favourably to the repressive measures that he also came up with during his 15-year reign.
42
How far did the establishment of the empire of Napoleon 1 mark the end of revolution in
FRANCE?
The bourgeoisie made a grand entrance onto the French political scene by masterminding that famous
revolution which started in 1789. With their rallying call for liberty, equality and fraternity, France and
indeed Europe appeared to be on the threshold of a new political and social dispensation where all
people could live together in a climate of equality, dignity and mutual respect. It would also be possible
for anyone to rise to any position solely on merit regardless of circumstances of birth or any other form
of privilege. For all its high-sounding and well-meaning ideals, the revolutionary episode seemed to
succeed only in bringing out all that was negative about the French and Europeans in general especially
as it unleashed the twin evils of civil and international conflict. The ensuring chaos set the stage for the
advent of the empire of Napoleon 1. Ruling with an iron fist in France and waging war in Europe,
Napoleon’s reign has attracted mixed reviews from historians and critics over the centuries. He has been
praised for reforms that left a lasting positive imprint on the socio-political landscape of France and
Europe. Concepts such as the ‘careers open to talent’ and the Code Napoleon are prime examples of
such reforms. Some have however poured cold water over his achievements claiming instead that the
advent of his empire spelt the death sentence for the revolution and all the good it stood for. While
there maybe some truth in those assertions, it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that he
completely destroyed the revolution. This essay seeks to show that Napoleon 1 did not end the
revolution however much his reign was negative.
It is necessary to clarify what the revolution really was before Napoleon is brought to judgement. What
should we consider as the true meaning of the French Revolution-do we define it in terms of its ideals of
liberty, equality and fraternity? Or do we also consider the actual events that transpired from 1789
onwards? If we decide to judge Napoleon from the standpoint of the ideals then those who argue that
his advent signalled an end to the revolution have a strong case. The very fact of establishing an empire
effectively denied other people the opportunity to rise to the highest political position in the land. The
revolution had destroyed the monarchical or dynastic political system and by restoring it Napoleon had
re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It is therefore impossible to talk of the equality of
opportunities when Napoleon had restored a nepotistic and hereditary system that benefited only his
family line and not necessarily the man best qualified as envisaged in the revolution’s ideal of equality of
opportunity. Napoleon ultimately showed neither respect for the people’s revolutionary right to choose
their rulers nor his self-proclaimed concept of ‘careers open to talent’.
Furthermore it is really impossible to talk of his respect for the revolutionary principle of liberty when
Napoleon created an empire complete with all the apparatus for the repression and suppression of all
dissent. He revived the hated ministry of police which he had earlier abolished in 1802. By 1810 he had
virtually restored the infamous lettres de catchet complete with its provisions for arbitrary arrest and
43
imprisonment without trial. Spies and other state agents flourished once more. Censorship of the press
and other correspondence destroyed the right to free expression. In view of such policies, it is not easy
even for Napoleon’s most ardent supporters to acquit him of the charge of destroying individual
liberties and therefore the revolution itself.
Napoleon also ignored the principle of fraternity. All men were brothers according to the revolutionary
gospel. The revolutionaries had even come up with a declaration of fraternity by which they promised to
assist all those Europeans intending to free themselves from monarchical absolutism. This concept was
an illusion that could not be possible in Napoleon’s Europe where wars of conquest and subjugation
were the order of the day. When Napoleon’s Grand Army defeated the Austrians in Belgium and Italy,
French rule simply substituted that of the Austrians. There was obviously no fraternising between the
French master and his new subjects and that was a cold reality no amount of propaganda could ever
change. Even Napoleon’s ‘continental system’ which prohibited commerce between Britain and
continental Europe showed no fraternal respect for fellow Europeans. It was the work of a bully driven
by the selfish objective of economically crippling Britain irrespective and regardless of the consequent
suffering of all Europe.
Napoleon violated so many aspects of the revolutionary principle of equality but to say that he ended
the revolution is to ignore the many aspects of his rule that actually furthered the revolutionary cause.
His introduction of a codified and uniform system of law for France (Code Napoleon) actually furthered
the revolutionary business started by his revolutionary predecessors. Before there can be any talk of
equality before the law, the law must first of all be clearly articulated, laid down and uniformly applied.
This important task only talked about by Napoleon’s predecessors was only carried out at his instigation.
The Code gave France a recognisable body of written law. Before then, there had only been a confused
and uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were uncertain,
unevenly applied and unwritten. It goes without saying that where laws are not certain, not codified and
uniformly applied there cannot be equal treatment and any equality before the law.
By including in his legal code provisions recognising or confirming the gains made by the peasants and
bourgeoisie from 1789 onwards, Napoleon demonstrated a desire to consolidate rather than end the
revolution. Reference is being made here to Napoleon’s recognition of the revolutionary confiscation of
the nobles’ and church lands. Instead of returning them to their former owners, he gave legal
recognition to their sale to the peasants and other classes. He even went further than the so-called real
revolutionaries by reconciling the church to that accomplished revolutionary fact through the
Concordat.
44
Even if we concede that the revolution should be defined merely in terms of the 1789 ideals of liberty,
equality and fraternity, it would only be fair to examine the conduct of those revolutionaries who
preceded him before we proceed to judge Napoleon I. So many atrocities were committed in the 1790s
in the name of the revolution especially during the ‘Reign of Terror’ of Robespierre and company. As
many as forty thousand people were executed or died and in excess of five hundred were summarily
detained during that period. Such atrocities did much more than anything Napoleon could have to
destroy liberty and equality yet there has not been a single word written or spoken questioning the
revolutionary credentials of the perpetrators. Now if that brutal period is universally acknowledged to
be part of the revolutionary epoch and if people like Robespierre are unquestionably accepted as
revolutionaries, it boggles the mind that there are some who regard Napoleon as having ended the
revolution. He undoubtedly violated the principle of liberty but there is equally no doubt his
predecessors had done likewise.
Napoleon violated the principle of fraternity but so did his predecessors. It is worth remembering that
the wars and subjugation of other European states commenced before Napoleon’s rule and were in fact
started by the so-called revolutionaries. Thus in 1792 when France went to war with Austria, Prussia,
Holland and later England there was no fraternity between the French and fellow Europeans. Napoleon
violated that which had been violated and because of that there should not be any line of demarcation
between the revolution and his reign. If the revolution is to be defined in terms of ideals then he did not
end it-either it had already been ended or it had never materialised in the first place.
Principles aside, the case against Napoleon still does not hold as such a claim presupposes the existence
of a clearly defined revolutionary agenda which was then destroyed by Napoleon. There was no one
group of revolutionaries and no single coherent sequential revolutionary agenda which all
revolutionaries adhered to or had to adhere to. The practical politics of the revolution were really a
matter of trial and error made up as France went along. Revolutionary personalities and factions came
and went each pursuing its own policies that it supposed to be revolutionary and each accusing others
of being counter-revolutionary. Thus Robespierre and fellow Jacobins instituted their brand of policies
that were extremely brutal and destroyed individual liberties because the considered them necessary. If
Napoleon behaved differently from the Jacobins or any other of his predecessors, that does not
necessarily make him counter-revolutionary. The only revolutionary common denominator was the
basic consideration that French political and social institutions needed a drastic overhaul. There never
was and never could be any consensus on the practical implementation of that overhaul and as such
nobody could say that the Jacobin way or the Girondist way was the revolutionary way and Napoleon’s
way was an anathema. Furthermore liberty, equality and fraternity could never be granted absolutely
and unconditionally. Napoleon I obviously had his own limits dictated by practical considerations and
45
those were not necessarily the same as those of his predecessors. That some historians and critics have
found his ways to be in bad taste does not make him any less revolutionary.
As with all human beings, Napoleon I had his shortcomings but his rule actually ushered in a new era in
which the revolution was not only consolidated but more importantly given its practical form and
meaning. Any critic should never lose sight of the fact that it was Napoleon who proclaimed the concept
of ‘careers open to talent’. He went on to give this a living definition by instituting educational and the
legal reforms already discussed in this essay. Those were reforms his predecessors had only talked about
but spent themselves in warding off real and imagined enemies of the revolution. Their greatest
contribution to the revolution was in sweeping away the Ancien Regime with its concept of ‘the divine
right of kings’ and system of privileges for the clergy and nobility. But that is where their relevance
ended and that is the point at which the baton in the revolutionary relay had to be handed to Napoleon
I.
In the first place there was nothing amiss with the establishment of his empire. It was all part of the on-
going revolutionary drama as it was only established with the consent of the majority of Frenchmen who
unanimously and unreservedly endorsed it in a plebiscite. It was a dynastic dictatorship but it was
established in the exercise of democratic rights which is what the revolution was all about.
Having said all this it remains to restate that Napoleon I was no disciple of liberty, equality and
fraternity. Nobody ever was and if all are to be judged on that score then there were neither
revolutionaries nor a revolution in France. As an individual, Napoleon did so much to consolidate the
revolution and give it practical form and meaning. For that reason his advent did not destroy it
46
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE NOBILITY IN FRANCE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF MODERATE
REFORM UP TO 1793?
Moderate reform policies may be defined as the political, social and economic policies reforms in France
which resulted in substantial gains for the hitherto disenfranchised Third Estate. They resulted in the
empowerment of the Third Estate without completely destroying the political and economic influence of
the monarchy and its traditional allies in the church and the nobility. Such reforms included the
introduction of a constitutional monarchy, the Declaration of Rights and the Civil Constitution among
other things. By 1792, the moderate reforms had failed and were replaced by increasingly
uncompromising radical changes. There were so many factors that explain the failure of the moderate
course including the character of the nobles who generally maintained a stubborn resistance to change.
This essay will explore these and other issues in greater detail.
The nobles found it hard to accept the loss of their land, political, economic and social privileges. Nor
could they accept the political ascendancy of the Third Estate in politics, the violence directed at them
and their property. Led by the king’s brothers many of them fled France, assembled an army and plotted
with foreign governments to overthrow the revolutionary government. Their attempts to reverse
moderate reforms such as the constitutional monarchy backfired and resulted in even more radical
reforms like the abolition of the monarchy, execution of Louis xvi and the establishment of a republic in
1792.
The nobles’ played a huge role in the failure of the constitutional monarchy which was a moderate
experiment through their vocal opposition, mass emigrations and attempts at armed resistance. In 1789,
France had been transformed into a constitutional monarchy when the Third Estate’s revolt against the
government resulted in the formation of the formation of the National or Constituent Assembly. It was
dominated by the Bourgeois element of the Third Estate. It was a political power sharing reform which
led to the political empowerment of the Third Estate. The National Assembly took over law making
functions leaving Louis xvi with only executive functions. The Monarchy’s absolute power was broken as
was the nobles’ monopoly over government, judicial, military and even clerical positions. The moderate
reform from Absolute to Constitutional Monarchy was formally ratified in the 1791 constitution which
set out the legal extent and limits to the king’s power and set up the Legislative Assembly as the law
making body.
The moderate experiment in the constitutional monarchy failed miserably and gave way to the radical
change to republican form of government in 1792. This was after nobles rejected it and chose to
emigrate from France in large numbers. Not only did they denounce the revolution and the reduction of
their own power, they conspired with other monarchical governments to launch military attacks on
France. They claimed to be fighting to restore the king to his former and rightful position as an absolute
ruler. From then on calls grew louder among the revolutionaries for the abolition of the monarchy and
creation of a Republic in France. The revolutionaries had come to the conclusion that the nobles’
stubborn refusal to share power in a constitutional monarchy was reason enough to get rid of them, the
king and create a republic where the Third Estate could wield exclusive and complete power.
47
The nobles’ continued opposition to the National Assembly contributed significantly to the failure of the
Declaration of Rights that had been passed in 1789. It had been passed to confer civil rights to all French
citizens regardless of class, gender and religion. All citizens were now entitled to rights of free
expression, worship, life, property, freedom from forced labour arbitrary arrest and imprisonment
without trial. The declaration had also been designed to create social equality and give human dignity to
the Third Estate which had suffered great indignities such as forced labour, arbitrary arrest and
imprisonment among other things. By 1793 this moderate reform had failed and its place was taken by
the radical, harsh and dreaded repressive policies of terror. Repressive pieces of legislation such as the
Law of Suspects, Law of Maximum and the Law of Twenty- Second Prarial were all passed by the
Committee of Public Safety and these destroyed whatever freedom the French had gained from the
Declaration of Rights. When the nobles began their campaign to enlist the support of foreign
governments to overthrow the revolution the French governments suspended civil rights and began a
policy of repression. They passed various measures like those outlined above as they sought ways of
countering the nobles and other counter-revolutionary threats.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy also flopped after strong opposition from the nobles. It was a
moderate reform designed as a compromise between religious practice and state supremacy in France.
The Church would be tolerated and given state recognition on condition bishops and priests swore
allegiance to the state. Their salaries would be paid by the state and the bishops would elected by the
same voters who chose other government officials.
The Civil Constitution never achieved any success after overwhelming opposition from the higher clergy
who were drawn the class of nobles. They rejected it because they felt it was humiliating, degrading and
violated their religious freedom. Far- reaching radical measures quickly followed with the clergy being
persecuted and churches being closed. A novel revolutionary calendar was introduced by the new breed
of radical and anti-clerical revolutionaries who took charge and waged a violent campaign to de-
Christianize France.
While the role of the nobles was highly significant it must be appreciated that they were not wholly
responsible for the failure of the moderate reforms. There were other significant factors including the
character of the king Louis XVI, divisions among the revolutionaries as well as the interference of other
European countries.
Louis XVI’s apparent bias in favour of the nobles and clergy was a significant factor in the failure of the
moderate reforms. The revolutionaries had initially chosen the moderate path of establishing a
constitutional monarchy out of the belief that they could work amicably with Louis XVI as head of state
with executive powers and a suspensive veto over proposed laws. However they started to think that
the experiment in the constitutional monarchy was a failure they had to abandon. Such perceptions
grew out of observations of his selective use of vote powers whenever the National Assembly and
Legislative Assembly passed laws that appeared to threaten the interests of the clergy and nobility. In
August 1789 Louis XVI used his veto against the National Assembly’s decision to abolish the feudal
privileges of the two estates. He also used it against the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen in
September 1789. These had been passed by the National Assembly to give civil rights to all French
48
citizens. Again in 1790, Louis XVI used the veto against the Civil Constitution which was passed to reduce
the power of the church and subordinate it to the state. Late in 1791, Louis XVI vetoed a decree to
impose the death penalty and confiscate the property of all noble and clerical émigrés who did not
return to France by the First of January 1792. Under such circumstances the National Convention felt
that the best course of action would be the abolition of the monarchy altogether. The adoption of that
radical decision signalled the failure of the moderate course of the constitutional monarchy.
Apart from the perceived bias, Louis XVI was also seen as tactless, unreliable and treacherous and all
these factors ultimately contributed to the failure of the experiment with the moderate constitutional
monarchy. His lack of tact was manifested by his opposition to the various measures passed by the
revolutionary governments as already been discussed above. Louis XVI did not endear himself to the
revolutionaries by attempting to flee France in 1791. This was a tactless move which demonstrated to all
that he was part of the government much against his will. It was treacherous enough to attempt to
escape but the alleged discovery of documents linking him to other monarchical governments was a far
worse treasonous act.
Moderate reforms ultimately failed as a result of serious divisions among the revolutionaries. It was
unfortunate for Louis XVI that the constitutional monarchy was established in an atmosphere that
became increasingly poisoned by the conflicts of the different factions in the revolutionary movement.
The most serious of these pitted the radical Jacobins against the moderate Girondists in a vicious
struggle for political supremacy. Moderate reforms only lasted as long as the Girondists held the
advantage in the National Convention but with the formation of the Radical Paris Commune and the
reverses in the revolutionary war, the Jacobins began to assert their influence in 1792. They had no
sympathy for the monarchical institution, the church or the nobles. Radical reforms followed their
ascendancy. These included the creation of a republic, closure of churches, persecution of clergy and
nobles and above all a Reign of Terror. It was never really a question of any shortcomings on the part of
Louis XVI; the Jacobins wanted a republic at all costs. Louis XVI’s failings were seized upon and gave
them a convenient excuse to get rid of him.
The revolution suggested possibilities of self-advancement for ambitious individuals like Robespierre
and this ultimately spelt doom for Louis XVI and any hopes of maintaining a moderate state in France.
Prior to the revolution the question of power was more clear-cut and there was any doubt that the
highest position belonged to the Bourbons and that it was hereditary. However the revolution changed
all that by advocating liberal and democratic concepts suggesting that anybody could rise to the highest
position if they had the popular support and ability. Consequently ambitious individuals like Robespierre
rose and began to plot a way to power. Such people worked tirelessly to discredit the monarchy in the
knowledge that its continued existence was a stumbling block that had to be destroyed if they were to
achieve complete personal power.
A tactless and stubborn pope created problems for Louis XVI by refusing to accept Civil Constitution and
his attitude was the biggest factor in its failure and led to radical measures thereafter. In 1790, the pope
rejected and condemned in very strong terms the civil constitution passed by the revolutionary to limit
the power of the Catholic Church and subordinate it to the state. He denounced it as a heresy and called
49
on all Catholics to resist it. The Pope’s decision weighed with most of the bishops and priests in France
who rejected the civil constitution and came to be known as refractory or non- juring priests. That
certainly put Louis XVI in a difficult position as head of state and Catholic on the other hand. He had a
dilemma deciding whether to act as head of state and approve the legislation or follow his religious
convictions and reject the new law. Either way it was a difficult situation and when Louis XVI chose to
follow the pope’s example in denouncing the civil constitution, he undermined his standing in the
revolutionary government. That gave his opponents yet another excuse to seek his ouster and eventual
execution in 1793. His downfall marked the end of the moderate course in France’s revolution.
The Pope’s decision influenced catholic countries such as Austria to oppose France’s revolutionary but
moderate government. The clergy also decision influenced the peasants to turn against the
revolutionary government. Foreign and civil war quickly followed the rejection of the civil constitution at
home and abroad. Faced with war, the revolutionaries abandoned moderation and adopted repressive
measures such as conscription, requisitioning and suspension of civil rights were adopted in a desperate
struggle for survival. They also attempted to completely destroy the church. Priests were persecuted
and many of them were forced into exile in the aftermath of the failure of the Civil Constitution.
The peasants also allowed themselves to be sucked into the revolutionary government’s quarrel with
the clergy. They made the mistake of viewing the civil constitution as an attempt to substitute human
authority for God’s. They rose in rebellion in places such as Vendee and Lyons in support of the clergy.
This only hardened the revolutionaries into far more violent and repressive measures. Blood flowed and
prisons were filled as the government turned to desperate measures in its quest to overcome all
opposition.
Foreign governments like Austria and Prussia interfered in France’s internal affairs and doomed
moderate reforms to failure. Austria and Prussia openly attacked the revolution, welcomed emigrant
nobles and clergymen who used these countries to plot the overthrow of the revolutionary government.
The Declaration of Pilnitz and the Brunswick Manifesto which were issued from Austria and Prussia
contained threats to destroy Paris if any harm ever befell Louis xvi. If anything this foreign interference
served to paint Louis xvi as a conspirator working with France’s enemies to destroy the revolution. This
strengthened the hand of radical Jacobins who suggested the abolition of the monarchy and the
execution of Louis xvi as the only way to save the revolution.
In conclusion, it should be restated that the revolutionary government initiated moderate reforms such
as the constitutional monarchy, the Declaration of Rights and the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. While
this essay attempts to show the nobles as the major factor, other forces such as the king, clergy,
peasants, foreign governments and the revolutionary government itself also contributed to the failure of
those moderate reforms.
50
Why, in spite of his abilities as a general, was Napoleon not able to achieve his vision of dominating
Europe?
Key factors include:
Disunity mutual suspicions and rivals beset Napoleon’s opponents so that they did not always combine
against him. This enabled Napoleon to engage them separately and for a long time he did not have to
come up against the collective might of Europe which would have been disastrous for him
The European states were very often ready to ally with him as against him-thus we see that at one
period or the other all except Britain did become his allies e.g. Austria which went on to provide him
with a wife and Russia which even enforced the Continental System against Britain until the fallout of
1811. Even Britain went so far as recognising Napoleon’s conquests and re-organisation of Europe in the
Treaty of Amiens (1802)
Inferior Military Organisation/composition -class was still the major criterion in the promotion and
organisation of the military command of most European states-thus generals and marshals were most
likely to be drawn from the nobility even though they were not always the most suitable. By contrast the
senior officers in Napoleon’s Grand Army were usually chosen on merit (careers open to talent) e.g.
Marshal Ney whose skill and courage earned him the nickname ‘the bravest of the brave’. Consequently
Napoleon was rewarded with skilled, courageous and loyal personnel who served him well and for a
long time gave the Grand Army that aura of invincibility
Inferior Military Tactics- while his opponents relied on conventional tactics, Napoleon frequently
improvised/devised fresh strategies to meet challenges as they arose. He employed quick marching and
quick manoeuvres that enabled him to take his opponents by surprise and thus achieve victory.
Examples include his quick and unexpected crossing of the snowy Alps in 1797 which caught the
Sardinians and Austrians ill-prepared thus leading to their defeat.
He crossed the Alps again in 1800 that time via the St. Bernard Pass. Once again the Austrians were
caught unawares by his speed and route for it had last been used by Hannibal during the era of the
Roman Empire
Napoleon would also out-manoeuvre the Austrians by quick marching in 1805. He was able to surround
them and defeat them at Ulm in Bavaria before crushing them together with the Russians at Austerlitz in
the ‘Battle of the Three Emperors’ that same year
Requisitioning Napoleon’s policy of requisitioning personnel and material resources from conquered
territories and allies enabled him to sustain a long drawn out military effort against the allies e.g. tribute
51
was extracted from the Italians ‘liberated’ from Austrian tyranny while his ally Saxony also provided
personnel and material support against Austria. Half of the six hundred plus army Napoleon assembled
for the Russian Campaign of 1812 were non-French soldiers conscripted form defeated or vassal states
Diplomacy Napoleon’s military victories and diplomatic skills facilitated the signing of separate peace
treaties at different periods with his enemies. Such treaties like Campo Formio (with Austria), Amiens
(with England), and Tilsit (with Russia) not only broke up alliances against Napoleon but also gave him
the necessary breathing space to re-organise and thus delay his eventual defeat
Appeal to Nationalist Sentiment Napoleon posed as a liberator for tyrannical foreign rule in some
conquered territories where he fought his enemies. He consequently won the moral and even material
support of the local populations which helped prolong his campaigns.
He posed as a liberator from Austrian tyranny in Italy and Germany, in Poland he posed as liberator from
Russian and Prussian oppression
CONCLUSION: It is important to note that Napoleon’s opponents were not always in alliance against
him-they were also rivals and were as likely to ally with him against each other as against him. The essay
question is somewhat misleading as it seems to imply that Napoleon had no allies of his own while
Europe allied against him. Finally it should be noted that Napoleon was successful for so long because of
his own skill and also because of the short-comings of his opponents as shown above.
52
To what extent should Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule in France from 1799 to 1814 be described as
“ruthless and dictatorial”?
To be Ruthless means to be cruel, harsh and oppressive. To be Dictatorial means personal rule,
autocratic, intolerant and tyrannical.
Napoleon was both ruthless and dictatorial because he established his highly autocratic, intolerant and
tyrannical rule in France in complete disregard for revolutionary ideals of democratic participation and
representative democracy. Although he was supposedly a part of a three-man triumvirate, Napoleon
was the only one who mattered as the First Consul. All executive power was vested in him and he had
direct and indirect control of the legislative process. It was direct in so far as the deliberations of the
State Council could only yield laws for France if he gave his consent. It was indirect but powerful all the
same in the sense that he was the only one with the authority to nominate members to the State
Council.
His political and administrative reforms demonstrated that he was driven by a selfish desire to secure
and sustain his own power. Napoleon’s rule was dictatorial because central and local government were
directly under his control. The government officials in the Senate, Tribunate, Mayors and Prefects were
chosen directly and indirectly by him and were expected to implement his policies. Napoleon was
dictatorial through his control of the Legislative process as laws were initiated by a Council of State
chosen by him. The laws would then be discussed and voted by the Tribunate and legislative body. All
these bodies were chosen by the Napoleon-appointed senate. They were however chosen from a list of
candidates elected by the voters. The fact that those elections were often stage-managed to ensure the
choosing of candidates loyal to Napoleon enabled him to impose his dictatorship over France.
Even the possession of that executive power was not enough to satisfy his boundless ambitions for
personal power as he wasted no time in having himself proclaimed Emperor of the French. That
followed hot on the heels of his earlier decision to convert himself to First Consul for Life. This self-
aggrandisement was followed by the soon-to-be-familiar plebiscite. The plebiscites were really
pageantries that merely confirmed accomplished facts giving them a veneer of democratic legitimacy.
Their outcome was probably pre-determined which is why they were held in the first place. Napoleon
thus became emperor which was a fact that flew in the face of revolutionary ideals of equality and
‘people’s power’. It was also a mockery of his oft-stated commitment to ‘careers open to talent’. France
was now compelled to put up with the dynastic succession of Bonapartes even if they were not
necessarily the best for the job.
53
The very fact of establishing an empire effectively denied other people the opportunity to rise to the
highest political position in the land. The revolution had destroyed the monarchical or dynastic political
system and by restoring it Napoleon had re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It also
ensured that the highest political position in the land could only be achieved by Napoleon and those in
his family line. The closest Napoleon came to sharing power ideal was by re-organising national
administration and appointing a Council of State prefects and sub-prefects for the departments he had
divided France into. However there was no real power-sharing as the administrators were his
appointees and therefore acted on his behalf and not that of the general population. It is therefore
impossible to talk of the equality of opportunities when Napoleon had restored a nepotistic and
hereditary system that benefited only his family line and not necessarily the man best qualified as
envisaged in the revolution’s ideal of equality of opportunity. Napoleon ultimately showed neither
respect for the people’s revolutionary right to choose their rulers nor his self-proclaimed concept of
‘careers open to talent’.
In true dictatorial fashion, Napoleon ruled by decree. He has been credited with the issuing of eighty
thousand letters and decrees over a fifteen year period. Though that figure might be somewhat
controversial, it does however serve to underline Napoleon’s excessive reliance on decrees to the extent
that they became an important source of the French law of that period. It also shows how much France
had come to be governed through the autocratic discretion of its emperor.
He was ruthless because he also employed repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on
power. To this end he re-introduced spies, the secret police, censorship and the dreaded lettres de
catchet. Thus imprisonment without trial which his predecessors had abolished became a reality once
more. With the restoration of censorship, newspapers, drama and other forms of entertainment were
carefully scrutinised for seditious content. The writer A. Guerard has claimed that Napoleon’s decree on
censorship led to sixty newspapers being outlawed out of the seventy-three that were in circulation.
According to Vincent Cronin, freedom of expression was severely suppressed to the extent that only
four out of thousands of newspapers, journals and articles were allowed to publish in 1811. Critics and
dissidents were silenced and kept under control by that censorship and by a strict police force headed
by Fouche’. C. Jones also states that only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture
that images is that of an autocrat entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
Even his so-called progressive policies were achieved through dictatorship and a ruthless determination
to cement his power. For example Napoleon used his dictatorial powers to give France a codified and
54
Consulate."
“It was more the weakness of the Directory than the character and ability of Napoleon that led to his
rise to power.” Discuss.
Napoleon’s control of the army and ability as a military leader were an extremely significant in his rise to
power. By October 1795, Napoleon had distinguished himself well enough to be appointed commander-
in-chief of all armies within the boundaries of France. Less than a year later in March 1796, he was also
appointed commander-in-chief of the French Army in Italy. It was in Italy where he would record the
military victories that won him fame and acted as a launch-pad for his political career.
In an age where national prestige was highly valued, Napoleon rose to prominence on the strength of
his military achievements. He offered France military success in the revolutionary wars especially against
Austria in the Italian campaigns and established French power in Italy and brought rewards that included
territorial enlargement, art treasures looted from Italy as well as reparations from the defeated
Austrians.
Napoleon’s control of the army which was cultivated by shared experiences in battles was essential as a
launch-pad for his political career and the command of armed force proved crucial. The army facilitated
his rise to power by crushing opposition on his way to achieving power. He used the army used to crush
a revolt by Council of Five Hundred against his proposal to assume power after abolishing the Directory
in 1799 and to arrest those who dared oppose him and his brother Lucien Bonaparte.
He also gained support because of his ability to put down insurrection and disorder within France.
Napoleon first came to prominence in December 1793 after master-minding the defeat of the British
garrison at Toulon which had been assisting counter-revolutionary elements in the civil war in 1793
Again in October 1795, he commanded the troops of Paris in crushing an royalist uprising against the
Directory.
His strong ambition was as important as his use of cunning in achieving power. Napoleon demonstrated
time and again that he was cunning enough to disregard the Directory and actively promote his own
55
credentials and claim to power. For example this came out clearly when he personally negotiated the
terms of the Austrians’ surrender in Italy without any recourse to the Directory. He also displayed guile
in becoming First Consul after outmanoeuvring the likes of Sieyes, Ducos and Barras with whom he had
conspired with to destroy the Directory. Before that he had been shrewd enough to build strategic
alliances with powerful people as demonstrated by his marriage to Josephine Beauharnais, a close
confidante of the powerful Director Barras. It has been alleged that this strategic marriage in March
1796 brought him ever closer to the higher echelons of power and won him powerful appointments like
the command of the army of Italy where he won some of his best remembered victories.
Napoleon was certainly assisted by the unpopularity of the Directory in his rise to power. Right from its
inception in 1795, the Directory had never been popular with the different sections of the French
population and consequently its survival was constantly threatened by diverse forces ranging from the
socialists led by Babeuf on the extreme left to the royalists on the extreme right. Its uncertain position
made it depend heavily on the goodwill of the army for its survival and at some point in 1795; it had to
be rescued from the royalists by Napoleon himself. This helped to strengthen his position while
weakening the Directory and once Napoleon and the army’s goodwill was withdrawn in 1799, the
unpopular Directory collapsed.
In September 1797, the unpopular Directory survived a coup planned by moderate and rightist members
of the legislative Councils of the Five Hundred and of the Elders by arresting the ring leaders and exiling
the rest to Guyana. This is known as the Coup d’état of the 18th Fructidor (after the revolutionary
calendar). The Directory staged another coup the following year when it annulled election results in 48
out of 96 departments in order to rid the legislative councils of Jacobins who had been elected in May
1798. The Directory’s recourse to annulling elections was clear testimony of its unpopularity which
Napoleon would capitalize on.
Napoleon’s rise to power was greatly assisted by the corruption of leading directors who conspired with
him to abolish the Directory in 1799. Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, a Director who had been prominent from
the beginning of the revolution in 1789, met with Napoleon and they planned the overthrow of the
Directory. The coup plan was elaborate and entailed the resignation of Directors Sieyès, Ducos, and
Barras as well transferring the Legislative councils from Paris to Saint Cloud, and the appointment of
Napoleon to the command of the army in Paris so that he could quell any possible opposition. On the
10th of November after some resistance from the Council of Five Hundred which was quickly put down
by the army, the Directory and the two legislative councils were overthrown and Napoleon achieved
power as First Consul in a three-men Consulate.
In all this Napoleon immensely profited from his fellow conspirators’ poor judgement in under-
estimating him. Prominent and powerful men like Sieyes conspired with Napoleon because they under-
56
rated him and believed they could capitalize on his popularity to achieve their own objectives. It is said
that Sieyes erroneously believed that after overthrowing the Directory, he would wield power in the
new Consulate and finally implement the constitution he had been working on for many years. Other
directors namely Ducos and Barras resigned their positions and conspired with Napoleon believing they
could control him but he outmaneuvered them all into becoming First Consul with the support of the
army.
Another important factor apart from Napoleon’s own abilities was the assistance he received from his
brother Lucien Bonaparte. It is no wonder Napoleon timed his return to France and his coup against the
Directory to coincide with Lucien Bonaparte’s appointment to the presidency of the Council Hundred in
October 1799. Lucien Bonaparte played a prominent role in persuading the Council of Five Hundred to
relocate to Saint Cloud from Paris, away from possible opposition to the coup plan. It is also said Lucien
held his nerve in the face of resistance from members of the council and summoned the soldiers to
arrest dissenting members. That was after Napoleon reportedly lost his nerve. It was only then that the
remaining deputies voted to abolish the Directory and elect Bonaparte, Sieyès and Ducos as consuls.
The Directory was also hard done by its failure to bring an end to the war with other European states. In
December 1797, European states formed the Second Coalition uniting Russia, Great Britain, and
eventually Austria to fight France until 1801. Napoleon capitalized on this war weariness on the part of
the French, promising to end the war as well as ensure order and stability in France which the Directory
had failed to provide.
57
3. The most reasonable conclusion should be that those strategies completely failed in the long term
because the European penetration continued to grow until colonisation was finally achieved in 1890
SOME OF LOBENGULA’S STRATEGIES INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:
1. Granting mineral concessions to Europeans- Karl Mauch and Henry Hartley were granted a concession
to mine for gold at Tati in 1870 (the Tati Concession, 1870). Thomas Baines was also granted a mineral
concession in 1876. The most important of these was the Rudd Concession that was granted to Charles
Rudd, Rochfort Maguire and Francis Thompson in their capacity as agents of Cecil Rhodes (the Rudd
Concession, 1888)
2. Granting hunting concessions- European hunters like Frederick Selous and Henry Hartley were
granted permission to hunt animas including big game like elephants which were highly prized for their
ivory. They were even given permission to construct a road linking Mashonaland and Matabeleland in
order to facilitate the transportation and movement of the hunters and their goods
3. Granting trading concessions- European traders like George Westbeech, Leask, Tainton and Philips
were all granted trading concessions. Lobengula evidently hoped to control the influx of Europeans by
granting these concessions to these few Europeans but this strategy clearly backfired as these
Europeans went on to sell their concessions to the powerful Cecil Rhodes who consolidated them and
used them together with his own Rudd Concession as a basis for requesting a Royal Charter from the
British queen to enable him colonise Lobengula’s kingdom on behalf of Britain
4. Granting land concessions- various groups of Europeans were granted land. First it was the missionary
organisations such as the London Missionary Society who were granted land to open a second mission
station at Hope Fountain in 1870. Powerful individuals like Edward Lippert also received land grants (the
Lippert Concession, 1890). Lobengula’s plan in granting the land concession was to make it difficult or
impossible for Rhodes to operate his mineral concession without coming into conflict with Lippert. It
was clearly a desperate attempt to cancel out the Rudd Concession granted to Rhodes’s agents.
However it ultimately failed because Lippert conspired to sell his concession to Rhodes whose hand was
strengthened by the addition of a land concession to the mineral concession already in his possession.
5. Permitting and accommodating missionaries- Lobengula continued Mzilikazi’s policy of

accommodating and co-operating with missionaries like John Moffat and Charles Helm. He granted
Helm permission to open the second mission station in the country at Hope Fountain in 1870. Lobengula
also took the missionaries’ advice to deal exclusively with Rhodes’ agents. That proved disastrous as it
led to the granting of the Rudd Concession in 1888
58
6. Signing “protection” treaties- a good example of such a treaty was the Grobler Treaty with the
Transvaal government in 1887. Lobengula singed this treaty in the hope that this would act as a
deterrent to other European countries and prevent them from seeking concessions or to control
Lobengula’s kingdom. Instead of stemming the flow of Europeans Lobengula’s strategy only succeeded
in bringing in the British who sought to outdo the Transvaal. They eventually persuaded Lobengula to
repudiate the Grobler Treaty and sign the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession in 1888.
7. Diplomacy with the British government- having realized the disastrous implications of the Rudd
Concession, Lobengula decided on a diplomatic offensive that involved writing letters and sending
emissaries to the British queen. Apart from a sympathetic “a king gives a stranger an ox, not his whole
herd” response from queen Victoria, Lobengula’s diplomatic initiative failed to prevent the queen from
granting Cecil Rhodes the Royal Charter to colonise Lobengula’s kingdom in 1889. Even Lobengula’s
quiet diplomatic strategy of restraining his restless army from attacking the so-called Pioneer Column
only succeeded in postponing but not preventing the Anglo-Ndebele conflict which eventually erupted
in 1893.
8. Peaceful co-existence- having tried and failed in everything else, Lobengula decided to live in peace
side by side with the nascent British state in Mashonaland. It was however an uneasy peace and the
three years from the British occupation of Mashonaland in 1890 were filled with tension and deliberate
provocation of the Ndebele by the British settlers. It was only a matter of time and Lobengula’s strategy
was shattered by a quarrel over the Shona which led to the Anglo-Ndebele war of 1893-4.
9. Playing off the Europeans against each other- this strategy had tried by various African rulers with
mixed results. It ultimately proved a failure for Lobengula as the Europeans he tried to set against each
other often co-operated against him instead. Edward Lippert who had been granted a land concession in
the vain hope of getting him into a conflict with Rhodes decided to sell it to the latter. The traders and
prospectors also sold out to Rhodes and consequently strengthened rather than weakened him.
59
“Unavoidable.” How far do you agree with this view of the outbreak of the French revolution of 1789?
Unavoidable because:
• of a severe financial crisis which demanded a radical re-organisation of the general economic system
and specific aspects such as taxation and land distribution
• the financial crisis required the kind of political decisions that neither Louis XVI or his noble and clerical
allies were prepared to allow or undertake
• the social inequalities could no longer be sustained in a country as enlightened as France had become
due the influence of the philosophes and the American War of Independence
• Louis XVI was a spineless error-prone ruler who made one blunder after the other until the Revolution
could no longer be prevented
• The political demands of the Third Estate particularly the Bourgeoisie could only be realised through
revolution
• Once Louis XVI called the Estates-General, it became difficult if not impossible to stem the fervour of
the Third Estate who were now effectively united, in one place and seeking real socio-economic and
political changes not merely the superficial
• Once the Nobles in the assembly of Notables failed to resolve the simmering financial crisis in 1788,
the revolution became only a matter of time
Avoidable because:
• Louis XVI could have taken the lead and instituted politico-social and economic changes
• The nobles and clergy who met as the assembly of Notables in 1788 had the opportunity to make
necessary recommendations to address the socio-economic and political problems France was facing
• Louis XVI could have mitigated the financial problems through reducing on high expenditure
• Louis XVI could have used force to break up the so-called National Assembly which opened the
floodgates of Revolution
• Louis XVI could have avoided congregating and raising the expectations of his restive Third estate
subjects by summoning the Estates-General
ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR ON REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE
Definition: Reign of Terror-period in France from 1793-1794 when the National Convention delegated
executive functions to a twelve member committee of Public Safety resulting in the suspension of
60
individual freedoms and the adoption of repressive measures designed to save the revolution from
internal and external opposition…
Key measures adopted during Reign of terror- Establishment of Revolutionary Tribunal to try all cases of
suspected counter-revolutionary activities and there was no appealing its verdict.
There was Conscription of unwilling citizens into the revolutionary armies. Grain and other important
goods were requisitioned to feed the revolutionary armies and fuel the war effort. Fines, imprisonment
and even death awaited those who refused to co-operate.
The Law of Suspects was passed in September 1793 to provide for the arrest of those accused of
counter- revolutionary activities. Supporting the monarchy, nobles and the clergy were all considered as
counter revolutionary offences.
The Law of the Maximum was passed early in 1794 to stop soaring prices of grain and other essential
goods. A maximum selling price for all essential goods was fixed and selling above that stipulated price
was a capital offence punishable even by death.
The Law of Twenty-Second Prarial was passed in June 1794 to effectively crush all counter-revolutionary
opposition. It permitted any kind of testimony against a suspect, denied a suspect legal representation
and even sought to give the Committee of Public Safety the right to send any member of the National
Convention to the Revolutionary Tribunal.
Use of Deputies-on-Mission. These were government officials who carried the terror into the provinces
and enforce obedience to the revolutionary government.
Methods of punishment included:
Death/executions -4% of all those arrested were ultimately executed/some by drowning/some by

shooting/most by the guillotine-about 3000 were executed in Paris alone, about 17 000 from the rest of
France and as many as 40 000 died also from the civil war in Vendee, from disease and also from
malnutrition in the prisons.
Imprisonment-the Revolutionary Tribunal acted imprisoned as many as 500000 suspected counter-

revolutionaries. Overcrowding, hunger and death occurred in the prisons.
Torture and exile were also employed-many of the nobles and clergy were banished into exile and even
stripped of their citizenship.
Fines were also prescribed for various offences including hoarding, escaping conscription and refusing to
accept payment in assignats (a currency whose value was pegged on the land that was seized from the
church and nobles)
Effects of terror on France
61
-Division/Polarisation between the church and the state-the strong alliance and mutual
interdependence that had characterized church-state relations during the days of the Ancien Regime
was replaced by open hostility.
There were attempts at De-Christianisation involving the closure of churches, the introduction of the
worship of reason and the cult of Supreme Being. These attempts to abolish Christianity provoked the
la-Vendee revolts against government by priests and peasants.
The terror also generated widespread Violence e.g. the so-called September Massacres when thousands
of prisoners were murdered in 1792 on the government’s orders. The government also tortured and
guillotined its opponents. Violence was also reflected in the civil war in Vendee, Toulon, Marseilles, Lyon
and Bordeaux.
The terror also bred Sectarian divisions and factionalism even among the revolutionaries e.g. the
revolutionary movement was split into the irreconcilable Jacobin and Girondists factions. The Clergy
even joined with the Peasants in resisting Jacobin moves to de-Christianise France. The Jacobins were
themselves rocked by internal squabbles which first pitted Robespierre and Danton against Herbert then
Robespierre against Danton.
There was also the Loss of liberty which followed the suspension of individual freedoms such as freedom
of expression, religion and the right to legal representation. The Law of Twenty Second Prarial and Law
of Suspects destroyed the individual freedoms
Hardship and Suffering also resulted from the Conscription and requisitioning of food and other supplies
and from the Law of Maximum which destroyed profitability in commerce. The persecution of clergy,
royalists and peasants also bred suffering as did the torture, imprisonment and death.
The terror also helped to save the Revolution even though this was achieved through the use of extreme
measures to suppress internal dissent and foreign opposition.
Finally the terror enabled the revolutionary government to successfully prosecute the war against the
coalition of European governments. The measures that enabled the revolutionary government’s success
included conscription, requisitioning and the Law of Suspects.
62
HOW SERIOUS A THREAT TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS PRESENTED BY ITS ENEMIES BOTH
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DURING THE PERIOD 1789-1793?
Revolution swept France like a sudden wild fire in 1789 mercilessly licking up the political, social and
economic structure long established in that country. Although the church, monarchy and the aristocracy
were its most prominent victims they were by no means its only ones. The revolution operated like
some kind of kaleidoscope such that even the bourgeoisie, peasants and workers long considered its
beneficiaries also had their turn to grieve. Even outside France the revolution quickly attracted the
wrath even of those countries that had initially been supportive. The picture of this period is that of a
revolutionary experiment that made enemies of virtually every group in France and nation in Europe
albeit at different times. All told, the purpose of this essay is to show that the threat posed to the
revolution by these internal and external enemies was so serious such that by 1793 France was not only
ablaze with civil war but also repelling foreign invasion from the Austrians, Prussians, Dutch and British
among others
Louis XVI and the entire monarchical establishment were natural enemies of the revolution because –
The revolution systematically destroyed royal authority first by reducing Louis XVI to a constitutional
monarch before eliminating the monarchy altogether in 1792
He was a threat to the revolution – because it is clear that he did not willingly consent to revolutionary
changes such as the abolition of the nobility’s privileges and the civil constitution of the clergy among
others
-he actually used his veto against the Legislative Assembly’s decision to deprive priests of their income if
they did not take the civil oath within a week in November 1791
-he also vetoed the decree that compelled the émigrés to return to France by 1January 1792 or face the
death sentence
-such actions suggested that he was an opponent of the revolution and sided with those that sought to
destroy it
-twice he attempted to flee France and that suggested that the revolutionaries were holding him against
his will
-the very presence of a king who was opposed to the internal developments was dangerous for the
revolution
-a king was a like a molecule around which counter-revolution both internal and external could
crystallise
-that was indeed the case as demonstrated by rebellions in the provinces e.g. in Lyons and Vendee and
the Brunswick Manifesto issued by the Austrians and Prussians in support of Louis XVI. They threatened
the revolutionaries with ‘fire and brimstone’ if Louis XVI was harmed in any way and if the Ancien
Regime was not restored to its former glory
63
-the king was seen to be a grave threat so much such that the revolutionaries took the monumental
decisions of abolishing the monarchy altogether and executing him in January 1793
-such actions together with other factors only served to harden opposition to the revolution thereby
proving that the monarchy was a serious threat even if posthumously
The church and nobility were also a threat because- materially and psychologically they suffered and lost
the most during the revolutionary upheavals e.g. they lost land and property. The nobility lost privileges
that included exemption from taxation and the church was practically reduced to a mere state agency
through the civil constitution of the clergy
The clergy and nobles posed a serious threat because– many of them fled into exile as émigrés from
where they conspired with foreign governments against revolutionary France and even raised an army
to invade France
-the clergy also became a nucleus of counter-revolution especially after a significant proportion of their
number rejected the civil constitution of the clergy which was also denounced by the pope
-the church was a serious threat because the revolts that flared up in Vendee and Brittany were largely
inspired by anger at the revolutionaries’ treatment of the church and religion
-the revolutionaries’ response of instituting the Reign of Terror is clear testimony of the gravity of the
threat posed by the church and nobility
-so many of them were victims of the terror as they were arrested, imprisoned and executed
The peasants were also enemies because - although they had derived some benefits there were many
aspects of the revolution they hated
-they detested conscription into the revolutionary army and the requisitioning of food which led to
hunger
-they also abhorred the civil constitution of the clergy and the subsequent attempts to destroy religion
They were a serious threat because - they provided the bulk of resistance in the provincial rebellions e.g.
in Vendee and Lyons
-Their determined resistance in defence of Catholicism hugely contributed to the revolutionaries’ failure
to de-Christianise France a project which was quickly abandoned
(4) The divisions and factionalism in the revolutionary movement were just as bad for the revolution as
the machinations of its opponents
-as an example H.Belloc writes about the Girondist faction’s struggle with the Jacobins which was so
serious to the extent that the former actually enlisted the support of the royalists in Lyons even though
it was an open secret that the royalists were opposed to the revolution. The Girondist-royalist alliance
64
had serious consequences in the Lyons uprising resulted in the capture of the town hall and the
establishment of an unelected and rebel municipal government
-another such municipal government was established in Toulouse in 1793 after an uprising
(5) External enemies included Austria, Prussia, Holland, Spain and England
Their opposition stemmed from the fact that the revolutionaries violated some European treaties e.g.
the annexation of papal territory, violation of the Scheldt Treaty and the abolition of the feudal rights of
the Austrian princes in Alsace
-in any case the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were a threat to the monarchical
governments of Europe (the revolutionaries actually promised support for rebellions aimed at
destroying monarchical rule in Europe)
These external enemies posed the biggest threat to the revolution because they actually captured some
strategic French towns including Longwy and Verdun in 1792 and even threatened to march onto Paris
which was vulnerable during that period
-they scored such important victories that Dumouriez who was acclaimed as the best French general felt
compelled to defect to the Austro-Prussian alliance in early 1793
-they also fomented internal rebellion against the revolutionary government especially in the frontier
regions
-they even teamed up with rebels e.g. the Spanish and English fleets teamed up with rebels in Toulouse
to defend the town against the revolutionaries
-they also hosted the émigrés and gave them assistance to plot the overthrow of the revolutionaries
Conclusion
-it is clear that the French revolution attracted both internal and external enemies
-internal enemies included the monarchy, nobility, church and even factions of the revolutionary
movement
-external enemies included the émigrés, the monarchical governments of Austria, England and Holland
-it is also clear that these posed a serious threat to the revolution when they operated singularly or in
tandem
-the threat was always greatest when the revolutionaries had to deal with so many enemies on different
fronts all at once
-the enormity of the threats is better appreciated when one takes into account the momentary
successes of the rebels and foreign invaders as well as the setting up of the Committee of Public Safety
65
-the revolutionary government was ultimately forced to adopt desperate measures such as the Reign of
Terror and that was clear evidence that the enemies were no pushovers.
66
HOW FAR WAS LOUIS XVI RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE MODERATE REFORM POLICIES IN
FRANCE FROM 1789 TO 1793?
Definition: Moderate reform policies-political, social and economic policies reforms in France which
resulted in substantial gains for the hitherto disenfranchised Third Estate without completely destroying
the political and economic influence of the monarchy and its traditional allies in the church and the
nobility.
An outline of the moderate reforms-Formation of the National/Constituent Assembly in 1789
It was dominated by the Bourgeois element of the Third Estate /was a political power sharing reform
which led to the political empowerment of the Third Estate. The National Assembly took over law
making functions leaving Louis xvi with executive functions/ the Monarchy’s absolute power was broken
as was the nobles’ monopoly over government, judicial, military and even clerical positions.
The moderate reform from absolute to Constitutional Monarchy was formally ratified in the 1791
constitution which set out the legal extent and limits to the king’s power and set up the Legislative
Assembly as the law making body.
change to republican form of government in 1792.
Declaration of rights of man and the citizen in 1789 passed by National Assembly to confer civil rights to
all French citizens regardless of class, gender and religion /all entitled to rights of free expression,
worship, life, property, freedom from forced labour arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial.
This moderate reform was designed to create social equality and give human dignity to the Third Estate
which had suffered great indignities such as forced labour, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment among
other things.
By 1793 this moderate reform had failed and in its place taken by the radical, harsh and dreaded
repressive policies of terror. Repressive pieces of legislation such as the Law of Suspects, Law of
Maximum and the Law of Twenty- Second Prarial were all passed by the Committee of Public Safety and
these destroyed whatever freedom the French had gained from the Declaration of Rights.
Civil constitution of the clergy in 1790 was a moderate reform designed as a compromise between
religious practice and state supremacy in France. The Church would be tolerated and given state
recognition on condition bishops and priests swore allegiance to the state. Their salaries would be paid
by the state and the bishops would elected by the same voters who chose other government officials.
The civil constitution never achieved any success and far- reaching radical measures quickly followed
with the clergy being persecuted/churches being closed and a novel revolutionary calendar being
introduced as a new breed of radical and anti-clerical revolutionaries took charge and waged a violent
campaign to de-Christianize France.
67
Louis xvi’s role in the failure- Louis xvi opposed some of the moderate reforms by using his veto powers
e.g. he vetoed the abolition of privileges of the nobles, the Declaration of Rights and the Civil
Constitution.
Louis xvi’s attempt to flee from France in 1791 was further testimony that he was a counter-
revolutionary and opposed to moderate reforms. It suggested that he was only part of the revolutionary
government against his will.
His behaviour lent weight to popular belief among the more radical elements of the Third Estate that he
was involved in a conspiracy with the monarchical governments of Austria, Prussia, Russia and England
to overthrow the Revolutionary government and restore the monarchy to France.
Even when Austria and Prussia threatened to destroy Paris to protect Louis that served to make him
look like a traitor who was working with the Revolution’s enemies. After all, his past behaviour included
vetoing the National Assembly decisions and attempting to flee to Austria.
Even when the royalist army general Dumouriez defected to the Austrians during the revolutionary war
in 1792 and when the nobles and the king’s own brothers fled to Austria and raised an army of émigrés
with a view of attacking France, the radicals pointed accusing fingers at Louis xvi. They were probably
doing what Louis xvi would have done if he had not been caught at Varennes as he attempted to flee to
France.
The last show was when documents were allegedly found at the palace implicating Louis xvi in
conspiracies with foreign governments against the revolutionary government.
Thus in 1793, Louis xvi was deposed and the moderate reform of the constitutional monarchy was
abolished in favour of the more radical Republican form of government in 1792. Louis was executed in
1793.The moderate civil Constitution of the clergy also gave way to radical measures of violence against
the clergy, closure of churches and the abolition of the Christian calendar which were all a prelude to
attempts to rid France of Christianity altogether.
But Louis XVI was not alone in causing the failure of moderate reforms
1792.
The Pope and the clergy should also shoulder the blame for the failure of the civil constitution-the Pope
denounced it as a heresy and called on all Catholics to resist it. The Pope’s decision weighed with most
68
of the bishops and priests in France who rejected the civil constitution and came to be known as
refractory or non- juring priests. The Pope’s decision influenced catholic countries such as Austria to
oppose France’s revolutionary but moderate government.
The clergy’s decision influenced the peasants to turn against the revolutionary government. Foreign and
civil war quickly followed the rejection of the civil constitution at home and abroad. Faced with war, the
revolutionaries abandoned moderation and adopted repressive measures such as conscription,
requisitioning and suspension of civil rights were adopted in a desperate struggle for survival.
opposition.
Factionalism within the revolutionary movement also played its part .The Revolutionaries were divided
into moderate Girondists and radical Jacobins. Moderate reforms only lasted as long as the Girondists
held the advantage in the National Convention but with the formation of the Radical Paris Commune
and the reverses in the revolutionary war, the Jacobins began to assert their influence in 1792. These
were revolutionaries who had no sympathy for the monarchical institution, the church or the nobles.
Radical reforms followed their ascendancy – a republic, closure of churches, persecution of clergy and
nobles and above all a Reign of Terror.
this essay attempts to show Louis xvi as the major factor, other forces such as the nobles, clergy,
HOW FAR WAS THE FINANCIAL CRISIS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTBREAK OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION?
69
Definitions: Financial Crisis-the bankruptcy/insolvency that affected the French Government in 1789 due
to factors such as overspending, over borrowing, an unequal taxation system which deprived the
government of adequate revenue and misplaced priorities like wasting money on costly foreign wars.
French revolution- this was a sudden economic, political and social change in France from 1789-99.
How Financial Crisis led to Revolution:
-It increased criticism of the monarchy from different quarters for example the philosophers and the
bourgeoisie
-Increased pressure on monarchy for solutions for example, from Church and Nobles
-Led to convening of Assembly of Notables (1787) and failure to solve the issue heightened criticism of
monarchy and pressure for reform of financial sector and even government.
-Led to convening of Estates-General over procedural issues opened the flood gates of revolutions.
Other causes/factors for revolution.
Economic grievances of the Third Estate (for example, inequitable taxation system/land shortage/low
wages/high unemployment)
Political grievances of the Third Estate- they resented their exclusion from political participation, from
government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over ‘Divine Right of Kings’, the
absolute power of Kings and lack of accountability to the nation as a whole. They were also angered by
the church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power.
The influence of Philosophers e.g. Rousseau and Montesquieu who advocated for political participation
by all sections of society, accountability of the monarchy and an end to absolution through the
separation of executive, judicial and legislative functions of government.
The influence of the American war of Independence-French soldiers were influenced by American
political ideas of democracy, accountability of leaders, political rights for all citizens and participation
which they were denied in France.
Economically, the war was expensive on France, draining the government revenues and contributed to
the financial crisis.
Social grievances of the Third Estate-included anger over forced labour, arbitrary arrests and detention
without trial, heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths, marriages
registration, subjection of peasants to nobles through rents, feudal dues.
Character of nobles and clergy-Nobles’ stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to
give up monopoly over political power, exemption to taxation, forced labour and feudal dues.
70
They were very selfish in demanding the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot
and Calonne.
They also displayed poor judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the financial crisis during the
Assembly of Notables in 1787.
They were also arrogant in refusing to sit and vote together with the Third Estate in the Estates General.
The hedonistic, ostentatious and even immoral lifestyle of wealthy upper clergy attracted intense dislike
from impoverished elements within Third Estate.
Character of Louis xvi-Procrastination-although he appreciated the need for reforms and even desired
them, he was slow in making the necessary political, economic and social changes that would have
saved the situation e.g. slow in making tax reforms/slow in convening Assembly of Notables/slow in
deciding procedure of the Estates-General.
Passive- he failed to take initiative or control of events and often found himself reacting to situations
rather than actually taking charge and making things happen e.g. he only convened Assembly of
Notables when faced with serious financial crisis/only fired ministers when under pressure from
nobles/only decided on ordering First and Second Estates to join National Assembly after pressure from
Third Estate/meekly accepted the revolt of the Third Estate in 1789 and even moved from Versailles to
Paris when pressured by Third Estate.
This passive lack of firmness encouraged the Third Estate to take matters into their own hand as they
knew they could get away with anything they did/so they moved from breaking up the Estates- General
to storming the Bastille/ marching on Versailles to declaring the rights of man and citizens etc.
Spineless- Louis XVI lacked the courage to resist the Nobles who opposed financial reforms and
pressured him to fire reform minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne /this only worsened
the financial crisis and led ultimately to Revolution.
He lacked the courage to use armed force to crush the revolt of the Third Estate during the Estates
General or during the storming of the Bastille or the march on Versailles. He gave the impression of a
weak, incompetent perhaps cowardly king who could never stamp his authority and the Third Estate
took full advantage to impose their own will in France with revolutionary consequences.
7. Poor harvests of 1788- this was a very significant factor as the consequent impoverishment of the
large peasant population in the Third Estate raised the political temperature already made volatile by
the financial crisis, political, economic and social problems outlined above. Given the fact that the
financial crisis and all the other political, economic and social problems were bedevilling France even
years before 1789, it is logical to conclude that because the revolution only came in 1789 shortly after
the poor harvests, this and not the financial crisis must be the main cause.
71
Conclusion
Financial crisis may have contributed to the outbreak of the Revolution to a great extent but there were
other equally more important contributory factors.
Morning historians. It's good to be back here after such a long time. As i have said before, my work
commitments as well as the number of messages from you (more than a 100 each day) will always mean
that your requests will not be attended to as quickly as you would want. That said please make use of my
phone number if you have a pressing issue, to phone not to whatsup. A few more questions on European
history questions then its on to Zimbabwean history...Thank you very much and have a good day. Stay
blessed by the ALMIGHTY JESUS CHRIST
72
To what extent did the domestic policy of Napoleon maintain the ideals of the revolution in France?
Napoleon’s highly autocratic rule and dictatorship was established in France in complete disregard for
revolutionary ideals of democratic participation and representative democracy. It is in respect of his
political and administrative reforms that it appears Napoleon was driven by the selfish desire to secure
It is difficult to doubt that a man, who destroyed the Directory, created and then destroyed the
Consulate before establishing his empire had an acute thirst for personal power. Although it was
supposedly a three man triumvirate, Napoleon was the only one who mattered as the First Consul. All
executive power was vested in him and he had direct and indirect control of the legislative process. It
was direct in so far as the deliberations of the State Council could only yield laws for France if he gave
his consent. It was indirect but powerful all the same in the sense that he was the only one with the
authority to nominate members to the State Council.
Not even the possession of that executive power could satisfy his boundless ambitions as he wasted no
time in having himself proclaimed Emperor of the French. That followed hot on the heels of his earlier
decision to convert himself to First Consul for Life. This self aggrandisement was followed by the soon-
to-be-familiar plebiscite. The plebiscites were really pageantries that merely confirmed accomplished
facts giving them a veneer of democratic legitimacy. Their outcome was probably pre-determined which
is why they were held in the first place. Napoleon thus became emperor which was a fact that flew in
the face of revolutionary ideals of equality and ‘people’s power’. It was also a mockery of his oft-stated
commitment to ‘careers open to talent’. France was now compelled to put up with the dynastic
succession of Bonapartes even if they were not necessarily the best for the job.
The creation of Napoleon 1’s empire established his personal rule and dictatorship in France and this
completely went against the revolutionary ideals of democracy. The very fact of establishing an empire
73
re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It also ensured that the highest political position
in the land could only be achieved by Napoleon and those in his family line. All this was clearly a
violation of the true meaning of revolutionary ideals of political participation for all and power sharing.
The revolutionaries had envisaged a New France where any man irrespective of class origin could rise to
the highest political position so long as he had ability. Their ideal France would also be one where all
could participate in politics by being elected or by electing their representatives. They had even tried to
put the power sharing ideal by creating first a National Assembly (1789-91) then a Legislative Assembly
(1791-92) then a National Convention (1792-94) and a bicameral legislative (1795-99). The closest
Napoleon came to realizing this power sharing ideal was by re-organising national administration and
appointing a Council of State prefects and sub-prefects for the departments he had divided France into.
There was no real power-sharing as the administrators were his appointees and therefore acted on his
behalf and not that of the general population. It is therefore impossible to talk of the equality of
As emperor Napoleon consolidated his personal power by stripping local government bodies such as
councils of their power and reducing them to advisory functions only. He also arrogated to himself the
task of appointing the mayors of the communes as well as prefects and sub-prefects of the
departments. All these apparently possessed so much power, the truth was that real power emanated
from the central authority which basically meant Napoleon himself. They only had as much authority as
he would allow them.
Napoleon ruled largely by decree. He has been credited with the issuing of eighty thousand letters and
decrees over a fifteen year period. Though that figure might be somewhat controversial, it does
however serve to underline Napoleon’s excessive reliance on decrees to the extent that they became an
important source of the French law of that period. It also shows how much France had come to be
governed through the autocratic discretion of its emperor.
He also employed repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on power. To this end he re-
introduced spies, the secret police, censorship and the dreaded lettres de catchet. Thus imprisonment
without trial which his predecessors had abolished became a reality once more. With the restoration of
censorship, newspapers, drama and other forms of entertainment were carefully scrutinised for
seditious content. The writer A. Guerard has claimed that Napoleon’s decree on censorship led to sixty
newspapers being outlawed out of the seventy-three that were in circulation. C. Jones also states that
only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture that images is that of an autocrat
entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
74
To a larger extent, he went against revolutionary ideals of social equality by re-creating a privileged class
of court nobles reminiscent of the court aristocracy of the Bourbon kings of the ancien regime.
Apart from stifling political and civil liberties Napoleon also embarked on what would be considered
today as an aggressive campaign to market him or even create a personal cult. He formed his own court
aristocracy and bestowed his own titles. Some people became princes, dukes and duchesses because
Napoleon had made them so. Awards such as the Legion of Honour were introduced and bestowed at
the emperor’s discretion. In this way Napoleon created a class of sycophants whose fortunes were tied
up with his own and had every reason to prop his despotism. Other egocentric measures included the
conversion of personal symbols into national ones. This was amply demonstrated when he dumped the
pike which was the revolutionary symbol of popular sovereignty and replaced with his eagle. His face
soon adorned coins while painters, sculptors and authors were all commissioned to celebrate the man.
Such ostentatious displays of geocentricism reminiscent of extreme left and right dictatorships of the
twentieth century have naturally placed more ammunition in the hands of Napoleon’s bashers.
and other correspondence destroyed the right to free expression which was one of the revolutionary
ideals. The immediate consequence of censorship was the shutting down of several publications, leaving
France with only 4 newspapers in 1811, out of the hundreds that had been in publication before then. In
view of such policies, it is not easy even for Napoleon’s most ardent supporters to acquit him of the
charge of destroying individual liberties and therefore the revolution itself.
In all fairness to Napoleon 1, it must be pointed out that he introduced plebiscites which gave the
general population a stake in political issues as they could vote and thus show that they accepted or
rejected Napoleon’s proposed decisions. Thus Napoleon 1’s policies, his harsh and repressive laws were
all based on public approval through majority yes votes in the plebiscites. Ordinary people thus
participated in politics and it was they who empowered Napoleon 1 by always giving him a resounding
yes vote. It is therefore clear that the empire, autocracy and dynastic rule were all established in France
by Napoleon with popular support.
The establishment of the Court Aristocracy was perhaps welcome and perhaps a logical and practical
implementation of the Revolutionary ideal of equality of opportunities and prospects for advancement
75
in one’s chosen career. Those who became nobles were recipients of Napoleon 1’s Legion of Honour
that had been designed as an incentive to reward those who excelled in their chosen fields. Napoleon1’s
nobility was not a bad thing as it was not restricted to a particular class of individuals but open to all
who achieved. It served to spur people to perform at their best in the hope of a reward for fulfilling the
Revolutionary ideal of equality of opportunities. Apart from the Legion of Honour and the Court
Aristocracy, Napoleon 1 complemented and maintained Revolutionary ideals through his policy of
Careers Open to Talent which allowed every man to follow any career based on merit rather than on i
Napoleon’s reforms in the education sector were positive beneficial and attempted to fulfil the ideals of
Revolution. He concentrated on developing secondary education laying special emphasis on science and
technical subjects in order to produce people capable of driving France’s scientific and technological
development.
Napoleon 1’s use of plebiscites was an important domestic policy which demonstrated a great desire to
fulfil revolutionary principles of giving people a democratic right of participation in politics. Plebiscites
were held to seek popular approval for some of the major political developments of Napoleon’s rule
including the extension of his tenure from first consul for 10 years to first consul for life and even the
establishment of the empire. His policies won overwhelming support in the plebiscites and this strongly
shows that even if he became a dictator, it was all done in a democratic therefore in line with
revolutionary ideals because there was the consent of the general male population.
Although it is clear that Napoleon wanted personal power, his domestic policies were also informed by
other and even altruistic motives. One such motive was to sort out the chaos and confusion that
prevailed in the legal which even his predecessors had talked of as an urgent necessity. He therefore
instituted his celebrated Code Napoleon to impose order, equality, uniformity and certainty to the legal
system which was just an uncertain hotchpotch of feudal customs, royal edicts of the Ancien Regime
and canon rules. Because most of it was not even written down, nobody could say with certainty what
the law really was in certain cases. Napoleon also gave legal recognition to the expropriation and sale of
the nobles’ and church’s lands that occurred during the revolutionary upheavals. He therefore put to
rest all anxiety and speculation over the issue. The code should be viewed for what it was-an urgent
solution to an urgent problem. It was not so much a question of scoring cheap political points as it was a
necessary development that any authority had to see to. It is no wonder that other European states
copied it and some of it has survived to the present day as part of French law.
76
By including in his legal code provisions recognising/confirming the gains made by the peasants and
Concordat.
77
Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to become Emperor of France? June 2009.
Napoleon was able to achieve his ambition of becoming emperor after gaining support from the
population through populist measures introduced during his time as First Consul. Some of the populist
policies he pursued included the legal reforms and the Concordat. According to David Thomson,
Napoleon won the support of the Bourgeoisie and peasants by introducing the codified and uniform
system of law for France (Code Napoleon) which “confirmed the rights of private property and the land
settlement of the Revolution.” Before the Code Napoleon, there had only been a confused and
uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were uncertain, unevenly
applied and unwritten. It goes without saying that where laws are not certain, not codified and
Napoleon also won the support of Catholic Christians after agreeing to the Concordat with the pope by
which he recognised Catholicism as the dominant religion in France. The concordat certainly established
mutually beneficial relationship between church and state as it gave Napoleon’s regime an air of
respectability among Catholic Christians. The state paid the priests' wages while Napoleon remained the
boss and appointed the bishops. On the other hand the Church was also reconciled to the loss of its
lands confiscated during the revolution from 1789. The concordat also won him the support of the
Consulate."
Directory. He was able to win support in transforming the republic into an empire by appealing to
different sections of the population as the only man who could preserve the new-found order and
safeguard the ideals of the Revolution.
Napoleon was able to become emperor because he used his position as First Consul to build up a
repressive state apparatus that served him well in crushing all dissent. As First Consul, Napoleon built a
formidable bureaucratic apparatus complete with secret police and a ubiquitous network of spies under
the control of the former Jacobin Fouché. All dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. The press was subject to
rigid censorship. Of 70 Paris journals only three remained. Napoleon set up a centralised bureaucracy
that has characterised France ever since. He established the system of Prefects. Charles Seignobles
comments:
78
"A centralized system of government agents, opposed to the regime of elective self-government created
by the Revolution. The nation had no longer any share in the conduct of its affairs or in the choice of its
local leaders. The French ceased to be citizens, to become once more subjects, no longer of the king, but
of the government."
Austrians.
It is important to understand that Napoleon’s ability to become emperor had been built on the
foundations of achieving power as First Consul in the Republican Consulate which he helped create after
overthrowing the Directory in 1799. Therefore any attempt to explain his success in creating the empire
must take into account the factors that enabled him to come to power in the Consulate in the first place.
alliances with powerful people as demonstrated by his marriage to Joséphine Beauharnais, a close
79
army.
80
81
“It was more the weakness of the Directory than the character and ability of Napoleon that led to his
rise to power.” Discuss.
Austrians.
Directory.
alliances with powerful people as demonstrated by his marriage to Josephine Beauharnais, a close
82
army.
83
The Directory was also hard done by its failure to bring an end to the war with other European states. In
December 1797, European states formed the Second Coalition uniting Russia, Great Britain, and
eventually Austria to fight France until 1801. Napoleon capitalized on this war weariness on the part of
the French, promising to end the war as well as ensure order and stability in France which the Directory
had failed to provide.
84
“WHY AND WITH WHAT RESULTS TO 1794, WAS LOUIS XVI EVENTUALLY OVERTHROWN?
Louis XVI was eventually overthrown because of perceptions among revolutionaries that he was biased
in favour of the reactionary nobles and clergy. Such perceptions grew out of observations of his selective
use of vote powers whenever the National Assembly and Legislative Assembly passed laws that
appeared to threaten the interests of the clergy and nobility. In August 1789 Louis XVI used his veto
against the National Assembly’s decision to abolish the feudal privileges of the two estates. He also used
it against the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen in September 1789. These had been passed by
the National Assembly to give civil rights to all French citizens. Again in 1790, Louis XVI used the veto
against the Civil Constitution which was passed to reduce the power of the church and subordinate it to
the state. Late in 1791, Louis XVI vetoed a decree to impose the death penalty and confiscate the
property of all noble and clerical émigrés who did not return to France by the First of January 1792.
these factors ultimately contributed to his overthrow. His lack of tact was manifested by his opposition
to the various measures passed by the revolutionary governments as already been discussed above.
Louis XVI did not endear himself to the revolutionaries by attempting to flee France in 1791. This was a
tactless move which demonstrated to all that he was part of the government much against his will. It
was treacherous enough to attempt to escape but the alleged discovery of documents linking him to
other monarchical governments was a far worse treasonous act.
Louis XVI’s perceived incompetence in handling critical issues was another factor which convinced his
detractors to dethrone him. Louis XVI failed in his capacity as head of state to deal with the various
cases of civil unrest that rocked France from 1789 to 1792. First there was the so-called “great fear”
period of peasant violence against noble landlords. In Paris mobs of poor people calling themselves the
sans-culottes continued to be a menace to both king and legislative bodies. These lent their support to
the Jacobins with catastrophic consequences for Louis XVI personally and for the monarchy in general.
Louis XVI lost more support over his handling of the war with other European countries. Although
France had declared war, its poorly organised armies were quickly put to flight by the Prussians and
Austrians. Some of the leading generals like Dumouriez defected to the Austrian enemy and that cast a
bad light on Louis XVI. Calls grew louder for the dethronement of Louis. The final straw was probably the
alleged discovery of documents that suggested he was working with monarchical governments to bring
down the revolutionary government of France. Soon after, he was placed under arrest. He was later put
on trial, condemned to die and subsequently executed in January 1793.
Louis XVI was ultimately a victim of the rivalries within the revolutionary movement that was
characterised by competing ideologies. It was unfortunate for Louis XVI that the constitutional
monarchy was established in an atmosphere that became increasingly poisoned by the conflicts of the
different factions in the revolutionary movement. The most serious of these pitted the Jacobins and the
Girondists in a vicious struggle for political supremacy. The Jacobins were avowed republican radicals.
The constitutional monarchy was doomed by their victory in 1792. They proceeded to abolish the
monarchy and establish a republic in September 1792. It was never really a question of any
85
shortcomings on the part of Louis XVI; the Jacobins wanted a republic at all costs. Louis XVI’s failings
were seized upon and gave them a convenient excuse to get rid of him.
and this ultimately spelt doom for Louis XVI. Prior to the revolution the question of power was more
clear-cut and there was any doubt that the highest position belonged to the Bourbons and that it was
hereditary. However the revolution changed all that by advocating liberal and democratic concepts
suggesting that anybody could rise to the highest position if they had the popular support and ability.
Consequently ambitious individuals like Robespierre rose and began to plot a way to power. Such people
worked tirelessly to discredit the monarchy in the knowledge that its continued existence was a
stumbling block that had to be destroyed if they were to achieve complete personal power.
The interference of other countries certainly doomed Louis XVI. Austria and Prussia both intervened in
the domestic affairs of France through Brunswick Manifesto and Declaration of Pilnitz. These were
statements threatening Paris and the revolutionary government with destruction if the king was harmed
in any way. Rather than scare the revolutionaries, such statements only served to increase Louis XVI’s
unpopularity and increase the determination to get rid of him. The monarchical governments worsened
things by offering asylum to the rebellious émigrés who used their new found bases to plot and launch
attacks on the revolutionary government. By 1792 these countries were at war with France. The alleged
discovery of documents linking Louis XVI to the foreign forces opposed to the revolution only hardened
the resolve to get rid of him.
contributed to subsequent dethronement in 1792. In 1790, the pope rejected and condemned in very
strong terms the civil constitution passed by the revolutionary to limit the power of the Catholic Church
and subordinate it to the state. That certainly put Louis XVI in a difficult position as head of state and
Catholic on the other hand. He had a dilemma deciding whether to act as head of state and approve the
legislation or follow his religious convictions and reject the new law. Either way it was a difficult
situation and when Louis XVI chose to follow the pope’s example in denouncing the civil constitution, he
undermined his standing in the revolutionary government. That gave his opponents yet another excuse
to seek his ouster and eventual execution in 1793.
Louis XVI’s continued association with the vengeful intransigent and rebellious émigrés harmed his
reputation and contributed significantly to his downfall. Not only did the émigrés reject the revolution
by emigrating from France, they also used their foreign bases to launch attacks on France. Their claims
to be fighting in the name of the king merely put Louis XVI in a difficult situation where he could easily
be portrayed as a counterrevolutionary by his enemies.
The abolition of monarchy and establishment of a Republic were the two immediate consequences of
Louis XVI’s overthrow. France became a republic and the National Convention assumed total political
control. The power and influence of the nobles and clergy was swept away and the Third Estate
assumed complete and exclusive political power. The National Convention was dominated by the
bourgeoisie.
86
Class conflict also increased in the wake of Louis XVI’s ouster. The increasingly influential Paris mobs and
their leaders in the Jacobin section of the revolutionaries initiated a campaign of repression directed at
the nobles and clergy. For their part, the nobles and clergy refused to reconcile themselves to the new
republic. They emigrated from France in large numbers and they used their new Austrian and Prussian
bases to denounce and launch attacks on republican and bourgeoisie government.
Intra-class conflict also increased. The divisions that had started showing in 1789 grew bigger within the
revolutionary movement. There was an escalation in the Jacobin-Girondist struggle for power. Jacobins
used their control of the Committee of Public Safety to put many Girondists on trial and subsequent
execution during the Reign of Terror of 1793 to 1794. Leading Girondists like Brissot were imprisoned
and Madame Roland was executed. Catholic peasants turned against secular Jacobin bourgeois
elements and teamed up with the clergy and nobles to wage a bitter and bloody civil war in many areas
particularly Vendee in 1793. The Jacobins responded by deploying the army and the harsh laws to
terrorise the rebels into submission.
Violence and intolerance worsened as alluded to above. The new government felt compelled to
introduce its infamous policy known as the Reign of Terror. This was a policy of violent repression
characterised by imprisonment, torture, executions, civil and international war. Normal legal processes
were suspended and the government resorted to summary justice. Suspects were denied legal
representation; there were mass conscriptions to beef up the army and requisitioning of food and other
materials to feed the army and a nation in state of war. Free trade was hampered by the introduction of
price controls under the Law of Maximum of 1794. Anyone caught selling grain above the stipulated
maximum price could face the death penalty.
Radicalism and extremism intensified. This was demonstrated by the adoption of repressive policies
such as the law of maximum already discussed above. The Law of Suspects criminalised any show of
support for the monarchy and denied suspects the right to legal representation among other things. The
earlier attempts to reduce the power and influence of the church were replaced by radical and extreme
attempts to destroy Christianity altogether. Churches were closed, priests were persecuted. A so-called
Revolutionary Calendar was also introduced. It aimed to remove any traces of Christianity contained n
the previous one and events were now dated from the establishment of the republic hence 1792
became Year One.
It can therefore be concluded that Louis XVI was eventually overthrown due to various factors. These
included aspects of his own character like his lack of tact and bias in using his veto to protect the
interests of the counter-revolutionary nobles and clergy. The intervention of other countries and the
rivalry among revolutionaries also contributed. It can also be seen that the consequences were
increased violence, repression and inter-class conflict among other things.
87
WHY DID THE INAUGURATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IN 1789 NOT PREVENT THE
EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI IN 1793?
The inauguration of the constitutional monarchy failed to save Louis XVI from execution because of
perceptions among revolutionaries that he was biased in favour of the reactionary nobles and clergy.
Such perceptions grew out of observations of his selective use of vote powers whenever the National
Assembly and Legislative Assembly passed laws that appeared to threaten the interests of the clergy and
nobility. In August 1789 Louis XVI used his veto against the National Assembly’s decision to abolish the
feudal privileges of the two estates. He also used it against the Declaration of Rights of Man and the
Citizen in September 1789. These had been passed by the National Assembly to give civil rights to all
French citizens. Again in 1790, Louis XVI used the veto against the Civil Constitution which was passed to
reduce the power of the church and subordinate it to the state. Late in 1791, Louis XVI vetoed a decree
to impose the death penalty and confiscate the property of all noble and clerical émigrés who did not
return to France by the First of January 1792.
these factors ultimately contributed to his execution. His lack of tact was manifested by his opposition
to the various measures passed by the revolutionary governments as already been discussed above.
Louis XVI did not endear himself to the revolutionaries by attempting to flee France in 1791. This was a
tactless move which demonstrated to all that he was part of the government much against his will. It
was treacherous enough to attempt to escape but the alleged discovery of documents linking him to
other monarchical governments was a far worse treasonous act.
Louis XVI’s perceived incompetence in handling critical issues was another factor which convinced his
detractors to dethrone him, abolish the monarchy and have him executed. Louis XVI failed in his
capacity as head of state to deal with the various cases of civil unrest that rocked France from 1789 to
1792. First there was the so-called “great fear” period of peasant violence against noble landlords. In
Paris mobs of poor people calling themselves the sans-culottes continued to be a menace to both king
and legislative bodies. These lent their support to the Jacobins with catastrophic consequences for Louis
XVI personally and for the monarchy in general. Louis XVI lost more support over his handling of the war
with other European countries. Although France had declared war, its poorly organised armies were
quickly put to flight by the Prussians and Austrians. Some of the leading generals like Dumouriez
defected to the Austrian enemy and that cast a bad light on Louis XVI. Calls grew louder for the
dethronement of Louis. The final straw was probably the alleged discovery of documents that suggested
he was working with monarchical governments to bring down the revolutionary government of France.
Soon after, he was placed under arrest. He was later put on trial, condemned to die and subsequently
executed in January 1793.
Louis XVI was ultimately a victim of the rivalries within the revolutionary movement that was
characterised by competing ideologies. It was unfortunate for Louis XVI that the constitutional
monarchy was established in an atmosphere that became increasingly poisoned by the conflicts of the
different factions in the revolutionary movement. The most serious of these pitted the Jacobins and the
Girondists in a vicious struggle for political supremacy. The Jacobins were avowed republican radicals.
88
The constitutional monarchy was doomed by their victory in 1792. They proceeded to abolish the
monarchy and establish a republic in September 1792. It was never really a question of any
shortcomings on the part of Louis XVI; the Jacobins wanted a republic at all costs. Louis XVI’s failings
were seized upon and gave them a convenient excuse to get rid of him.
and this ultimately spelt doom for Louis XVI. Prior to the revolution the question of power was more
clear-cut and there was any doubt that the highest position belonged to the Bourbons and that it was
hereditary. However the revolution changed all that by advocating liberal and democratic concepts
suggesting that anybody could rise to the highest position if they had the popular support and ability.
Consequently ambitious individuals like Robespierre rose and began to plot a way to power. Such people
worked tirelessly to discredit the monarchy in the knowledge that its continued existence was a
stumbling block that had to be destroyed if they were to achieve complete personal power.
The interference of other countries certainly doomed both Louis XVI and the constitutional monarchy.
Austria and Prussia both intervened in the domestic affairs of France through Brunswick Manifesto and
Declaration of Pilnitz. These were statements threatening Paris and the revolutionary government with
destruction if the king was harmed in any way. Rather than scare the revolutionaries, such statements
only served to increase Louis XVI’s unpopularity and increase the determination to get rid of him. The
monarchical governments worsened things by offering asylum to the rebellious émigrés who used their
new found bases to plot and launch attacks on the revolutionary government. By 1792 these countries
were at war with France. The alleged discovery of documents linking Louis XVI to the foreign forces
opposed to the revolution only hardened the resolve to get rid of him.
contributed to subsequent execution in 1793. In 1790, the pope rejected and condemned in very strong
terms the civil constitution passed by the revolutionary to limit the power of the Catholic Church and
subordinate it to the state. That certainly put Louis XVI in a difficult position as head of state and
Catholic on the other hand. He had a dilemma deciding whether to act as head of state and approve the
legislation or follow his religious convictions and reject the new law. Either way it was a difficult
situation and when Louis XVI chose to follow the pope’s example in denouncing the civil constitution, he
undermined his standing in the revolutionary government. That gave his opponents yet another excuse
to seek his ouster and eventual execution in 1793.
Louis XVI’s continued association with the vengeful intransigent and rebellious émigrés harmed his
reputation and contributed significantly to his downfall. Not only did the émigrés reject the revolution
by emigrating from France, they also used their foreign bases to launch attacks on France. Their claims
to be fighting in the name of the king merely put Louis XVI in a difficult situation where he could easily
be portrayed as a counterrevolutionary by his enemies.
It can therefore be concluded that Louis XVI was eventually executed despite the inauguration of the
constitutional monarchy due to various factors. These included aspects of his own character like his lack
89
of tact and bias in using his veto to protect the interests of the counter-revolutionary nobles and clergy.
The intervention of other countries and the rivalry among revolutionaries also contributed.
90
“Unavoidable.” How far do you agree with this view of the outbreak of the French revolution of 1789?
Unavoidable because:
• of a severe financial crisis which demanded a radical re-organisation of the general economic system
and specific aspects such as taxation and land distribution
• the financial crisis required the kind of political decisions that neither Louis XVI or his noble and clerical
allies were prepared to allow or undertake
• the social inequalities could no longer be sustained in a country as enlightened as France had become
due the influence of the philosophes and the American War of Independence
• Louis XVI was a spineless error-prone ruler who made one blunder after the other until the Revolution
could no longer be prevented
• The political demands of the Third Estate particularly the Bourgeoisie could only be realised through
revolution
• Once Louis XVI called the Estates-General, it became difficult if not impossible to stem the fervour of
the Third Estate who were now effectively united, in one place and seeking real socio-economic and
political changes not merely the superficial
• Once the Nobles in the assembly of Notables failed to resolve the simmering financial crisis in 1788,
the revolution became only a matter of time
Avoidable because:
• Louis XVI could have taken the lead and instituted politico-social and economic changes
• The nobles and clergy who met as the assembly of Notables in 1788 had the opportunity to make
necessary recommendations to address the socio-economic and political problems France was facing
• Louis XVI could have mitigated the financial problems through reducing on high expenditure
• Louis XVI could have used force to break up the so-called National Assembly which opened the
floodgates of Revolution
• Louis XVI could have avoided congregating and raising the expectations of his restive Third estate
subjects by summoning the Estates-General
91
Morning historians, Hope you're well. Here's a continuation on the philosophers. Pliz study this carefully
becoz we will have to debate whether these guys actually influenced the French revolution to any
significant extent:
Montesquieu (1689–1755)
• Most important work was The Spirit of the Laws (1748)
• Key argument is that there must be a separation of powers to prevent the abuse of power
• Montesquieu was born at a time when the Bourbon kings had absolute power that is executive,
judicial and legislative powers
• Montesquieu believed that such a system resulted in power being abused and people being denied
their rights hence the need to create a system of government where these powers are separated
• He argued that this was necessary to create a system of checks and balances where the executive
could be checked by the judiciary which in turn checked the legislature and vice-versa
• Montesquieu believed that the main purpose of government is to maintain law and order, political
liberty, and the property of the individual
• Montesquieu opposed the absolute monarchy of his home country and preferred the English system
as the best model of government
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 1712 – 1778
• Most important work- The Social Contract(published in 1762)
• The opening sentence “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains,” a declaration of his belief
individuals are oppressed by society
• The Social Contract is an important declaration of the natural rights of man
• It introduced the notion of the “consent of the governed” and the inalienable sovereignty of the
people, as opposed to the sovereignty of the state or its ruler(s)
• It is widely acknowledged as the foundational text in the development of the modern principles of
human rights that underlie contemporary conceptions of democracy
• Rousseau’s political philosophy is expressed as the principle of the general will
• Key argument is that any government gets its right to exist and to rule from “the consent of the
governed”
92
• Rousseau argues that power belongs to the people who should always express their collective or
general will
• The general will is the will of all the people together in the society or nation
• It aims to achieve the common good—meaning achieving what is best for the state as a whole
• The general will is expressed through the law which should always record what the people collectively
desire (the general will)
• The law should always be universally applicable to all members of the state
• Law is made to ensure that people’s individual freedom is upheld, thereby guaranteeing that people
remain loyal to the sovereign at all times
John Locke 1632–1704
• Most important work-Treatises of Government published in 1690 arguing that a social contract is
necessary to assure peace
• Spoke about the natural rights such as life, liberty and property that exist in the state of nature,
arguing these can never be taken away or voluntarily given up by individuals
• These rights are “inalienable” (cannot be surrendered)
• The social contract is an agreement among the people and more importantly an agreement between
them and the sovereign (preferably a king)
• The natural rights of individuals limit the power of the king, he cannot hold absolute power but he can
only act to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people
• Where the king violates these rights, the social contract is broken
• The people can exercise their right to revolt and establish a new government
• Limited role for the government which he says is only there to protect the “public good,” meaning to
protect property and encourage commerce
• Locke argued in favour of a representative government such as the English Parliament which had a
hereditary House of Lords and an elected House of Commons
• Favoured government by adult male property owners
• Had no faith in ordinary property-less classes like workers and peasants- only property owners should
have the right to vote
• Legislative arm of government should have supreme authority
93
• Executive and Judiciary should be subject to the legislature
• Less than 100 years after Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, Thomas Jefferson used his
theory in writing the Declaration of Independence
• Locke argued for freedoms of thought, speech, and religion
• Rights to property the most important natural right
• He argued that owners may do whatever they want with their property as long as they do not
interfere with the rights of others
• Born on the eve of the English Civil War, Locke sided with the Protestant Parliament against the
Catholic King James II in the Revolution of 1685
• That Revolution reduced the power of the king and made Parliament the major authority in English
government
Voltaire 1694 – 1778
• He is best known for his satirical work Candide
• Voltaire believed that an enlightened monarch was the best agent for bringing change He saw the
Church as a static and oppressive force that could only be useful to counterbalance monarchs who could
be oppressive.
• during those times of extremely high rates of illiteracy
• He believed that it was in the king's interest to improve the education and welfare of his subjects
• He campaigned for freedoms of religion, expression, right to a fair trial and separation of church and
state
• He believed that the French bourgeoisie to be too small and ineffective as an agent of change
• He attacked the aristocracy for being parasitic and corrupt
• He had no faith in the common people of the Third Estate who he regarded as ignorant and
superstitious
• Voltaire distrusted democracy, which he saw as propagating the idiocy of the masses
94
Influence of the Philosophes
Note. Before any examination of the philosophes is undertaken, it is necessary to understand the
Enlightenment period and its ideas as these shaped the thinking of the philosophes
• The Enlightenment was an intellectual and cultural philosophical movement of the 18th century that
emphasized the use of reason to critically examine long-accepted doctrines and traditions and that
brought about many humanitarian reforms.
• It stressed reason, logic, criticism and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith and the superstition
which generally characterised religious beliefs.
• Enlightment thinkers created a new worldview stressing the importance of empirical observation in
revealing the truth behind human society, the individual and the universe.
• Enlightenment thinkers held strong belief that the history of humanity was one of continued progress
as long as it was supported by rational thought rather than by dogma and superstition.
• Enlightenment thinkers also argued for the use of education and reason as means of improving human
life and character.
• This belief that the universe could be changed brought Enlightenment thinkers into direct conflict with
the political and religious establishment.
• Enlightenment thinkers from all over Europe and North America were given the name philosophes,
which is the French for philosophers.
• They crafted, debated and spread their ideas which were contained in many books including the
Encyclopédie.
• Enlightment ideas generated a second kind of renaissance or widespread intellectual awakening

among the middle and upper classes including the nobles, lawyers, higher clergy and landed aristocracy.
• The Enlightment ideas led to demands for political, social and economic changes especially in France.
Enlightment Ideas
• Separation of powers.
• Political participation and representation for all.
• Power resides in the nation and not God.
• Rulers are accountable to the nation.
• Church is separate from the state.
• Freedom from servitude/serfdom.
95
• Civil/Individual rights
Politics and Religion
• Enlightenment thinkers argued for freedom of thought, religion and politics.
• Philosophes were generally critical of Europe’s absolutist rulers like France’s Bourbon monarchy but
there were inconsistencies in their actions as some had close relationships with monarchical rulers for
example: Voltaire who strongly criticized the French kings visited Frederick II of Prussia while Diderot
travelled to Russia to work with Catherine the Great
• Revisionists have criticized Rousseau for his apparent support for authoritarian rule.
• Enlightenment thinkers were largely against nationalism and favoured international and cosmopolitan
thinking.
• Philosophes were hostile to the Catholic Church whose pope, priests and practices they criticised
• However some embraced religion as necessary and were even religious like Rousseau while Locke
worked out a new form of rational Christianity; others became deists.
Afternoon historians another response to another question for which there have been many requests.
maybe after two more then Napoleon the France 1815-1870
96
Revolution swept France like a sudden wild fire in 1789 mercilessly destroying up the political, social and
among others
Louis XVI was a very serious threat to the revolution because he acted in ways that suggested that he
was opposed to the revolution and encouraged his supporters within and outside France to oppose it.
Louis XVI and the entire monarchical establishment were natural enemies of the revolution because The
revolution systematically destroyed royal authority first by reducing Louis XVI to a constitutional
monarch before eliminating the monarchy altogether in 1792. He was a threat to the revolution because
it is clear that he did not willingly consent to revolutionary changes such as the abolition of the nobility’s
privileges and the civil constitution of the clergy among others. He actually used his veto against the
Legislative Assembly’s decision to deprive priests of their income if they did not take the civil oath within
a week in November 1791. He also vetoed the decree that compelled the émigrés to return to France by
1January 1792 or face the death sentence. Such actions suggested that he was an opponent of the
revolution and sided with those that sought to destroy it. Twice he attempted to flee France and that
suggested that the revolutionaries were holding him against his will. The very presence of a king who
was opposed to the internal developments was dangerous for the revolution.
A king was a like a molecule around which counter-revolution both internal and external could
crystallise. That was indeed the case as demonstrated by rebellions in the provinces. The most serious of
the revolts occurred in Vendee and Lyons. There was the Declaration of Pilnitz and the Brunswick
Manifesto issued by the Austrians and Prussians in support of Louis XVI. They threatened the
revolutionaries with ‘fire and brimstone’ if Louis XVI was harmed in any way and if the Ancien Regime
was not restored to its former glory. The king was seen to be a grave threat so much such that the
revolutionaries took the monumental decisions of abolishing the monarchy altogether and executing
him in January 1793. Such actions together with other factors only served to harden opposition to the
revolution thereby proving that the monarchy was a serious threat even if posthumously
The clergy were a serious threat because they opposed the civil constitution and incited the peasants
into civil unrest which resulted in civil war and the Reign of Terror. The church and nobility were also a
threat because materially and psychologically they suffered and lost the most during the revolutionary
upheavals e.g. they lost land and property. The nobility lost privileges that included exemption from
97
taxation and the church was practically reduced to a mere state agency through the civil constitution of
the clergy
The clergy and nobles posed a serious threat because many of them fled into exile as émigrés from
to invade France. The clergy also became a nucleus of counter-revolution especially after a significant
proportion of their number rejected the civil constitution of the clergy which was also denounced by the
pope. The church was a serious threat because the revolts that flared up in Vendee and Brittany were
largely inspired by anger at the revolutionaries’ treatment of the church and religion. The
revolutionaries’ response of instituting the Reign of Terror is clear testimony of the gravity of the threat
posed by the church and nobility. So many of them were victims of the terror as they were arrested,
imprisoned and executed
The peasants were a serious threat because they joined the clergy and other royalists in a revolt which
the government only suppressed with great difficulty. The peasants were also enemies because
although they had derived some benefits there were many aspects of the revolution they hated. They
detested conscription into the revolutionary army and the requisitioning of food which led to hunger.
They also abhorred the civil constitution of the clergy and the subsequent attempts to destroy religion.
They were a serious threat because they provided the bulk of resistance in the provincial rebellions in
Vendee and Lyons. Their determined resistance in defence of Catholicism hugely contributed to the
revolutionaries’ failure to de-Christianise France a project which was quickly abandoned
Revolutionaries seriously undermined their own revolution through their persistent bickering and in-
fighting. The divisions and factionalism in the revolutionary movement were just as bad for the
revolution as the machinations of its opponents. Belloc writes about the Girondist faction’s struggle with
the Jacobins which was so serious to the extent that the former actually enlisted the support of the
royalists in Lyons even though it was an open secret that the royalists were opposed to the revolution.
The Girondist-royalist alliance had serious consequences in the Lyons uprising resulted in the capture of
the town hall and the establishment of an unelected and rebel municipal government. Another such
municipal government was established in Toulouse in 1793 after an uprising
The pope was a significant threat to the revolution through his exhortations to the Catholics to resist the
civil constitution. In 1790, the pope rejected and condemned in very strong terms the civil constitution
passed by the revolutionary government to limit the power of the Catholic Church and subordinate it to
the state. He denounced it as a heresy and called on all Catholics to resist it. The Pope’s decision
weighed with most of the bishops and priests in France who rejected the civil constitution and came to
be known as refractory or non- juring priests. That certainly put Louis XVI in a difficult position as head
of state and Catholic on the other hand. He had a dilemma deciding whether to act as head of state and
approve the legislation or follow his religious convictions and reject the new law. Either way it was a
difficult situation and when Louis XVI chose to follow the pope’s example in denouncing the civil
constitution, he undermined his standing in the revolutionary government. That gave his opponents yet
another excuse to seek his ouster and eventual execution in 1793. His downfall marked the end of the
moderate course in France’s revolution.
98
moderate government. The clergy also influenced the peasants to turn against the revolutionary
government. Foreign and civil war quickly followed the rejection of the civil constitution at home and
abroad. Faced with war, the revolutionaries abandoned moderation and adopted repressive measures
such as conscription, requisitioning and suspension of civil rights in a desperate struggle for survival.
They also attempted to completely destroy the church. Priests were persecuted and many of them were
forced into exile in the aftermath of the failure of the Civil Constitution.
Foreign governments seriously undermined the revolution by attacking France, providing refuge for
French rebels and armed them to attack France. External enemies included Austria, Prussia, Holland,
Spain and England. Their opposition stemmed from the fact that the revolutionaries violated some
European treaties by annexing papal territory and abolishing the feudal rights of the Austrian princes in
Alsace. In any case the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were a threat to the
monarchical governments of Europe (the revolutionaries actually promised support for rebellions aimed
at destroying monarchical rule in Europe)
which was vulnerable during that period. They scored such important victories that Dumouriez who was
acclaimed as the best French general felt compelled to defect to the Austro-Prussian alliance in early
1793. They also fomented internal rebellion against the revolutionary government especially in the
frontier regions. They even teamed up with rebels e.g. the Spanish and English fleets teamed up with
rebels in Toulouse to defend the town against the revolutionaries. They also hosted the émigrés and
gave them assistance to plot the overthrow of the revolutionaries.
In conclusion it is clear that the French revolution attracted both internal and external enemies. Internal
enemies included the monarchy, nobility, church and even factions of the revolutionary movement.
External enemies included the émigrés, the monarchical governments of Austria, England and Holland. It
is also clear that these posed a serious threat to the revolution when they operated singularly or in
tandem. The threat was always greatest when the revolutionaries had to deal with so many enemies on
different fronts all at once. The enormity of the threats is better appreciated when one takes into
account the momentary successes of the rebels and foreign invaders as well as the setting up of the
Committee of Public Safety. The revolutionary government was ultimately forced to adopt desperate
measures such as the Reign of Terror and that was clear evidence that the enemies were no pushovers.
99
REFORM UP TO 1793?
1792.
making body.
100
European countries.
101
102
opposition.
Morning, I have been forced to go backwards because of popular demand. I have received plenty phone
calls calling for the following two essays. However as I said call me on 0773 511 907 if you want a speedy
response:
103
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS CAUSED BY ERRORS OF COMMISSION RATHER THAN BY ERRORS OF
OMMISSION? HOW VALID IS THIS VIEW?
Louis XVI committed the mistake of being extravagant as that worsened the financial crisis and
eventually led to the revolt of the Third Estate in 1789. The Monarchy spent one-twelfth of all revenue
generated at entertaining itself and the nobles at the Versailles. The Monarchy also wasted money on
expensive foreign wars like the American war of independence. All of that extravagance came against
the background of an inequitable taxation system which saw the wealthy nobles and clergy being
exempted from paying most of the taxes. Correspondingly, the Third Estate had to shoulder the tax
burden. They paid a variety of taxes that included land and salt taxes. They also had to pay rent and
other feudal dues to their noble and clerical landlords. Louis XVI’s extravagance was therefore very sore
to the long-suffering and over-burdened Third Estate. It was ultimately a costly error of commission as it
triggered the financial collapse of 1789 and started the train of events that led to revolution.
The ruling class omitted to distribute land more equitably among the three estates and that eventually
turned out to be a costly error of omission for them. In an agro-based economy like that of France, land
was the main source of wealth. Fifty per cent of it was owned by the Church and Nobles while the other
half was owned by the Third Estate. That was evidently an unfair and inequitable considering that the
nobles and church amounted to only three per cent of the population. By contrast, the Third Estate far
out-numbered the other groups and constituted ninety-seven per cent of the population. Not
surprisingly, the Third Estate especially the peasants experienced shortages of land that forced them to
live and farm on church and nobles’ land. They had to pay rent and perform labour and give up part of
their produce. Their resentment of this unfair situation added to their long list of grievances against the
ruling elite and helped to spark the revolution in 1789. It came as no surprise when the revolutionary
government moved to confiscate land from the church and nobles in 1789 and put it up for sale and re-
distribution to the Third Estate. That was a situation the ruling class could have avoided had they been
wiser in the beginning.
Louis XVI committed the mistake of agreeing to relocate to Paris in 1789. When the women of Paris
marched to Versailles ostensibly to demand bread from the king, he and the National Assembly agreed
to relocate to Paris from Versailles. From that moment on the king and the assembly which had
assumed legislative functions were subjected to pressure from the vocal and increasingly violent mobs
of Paris. Very often those mobs invaded the sessions of the assembly and the king’s palace. They
hackled members of the assembly and subjected them to heavy pressure to adopt their preferred
course of action regardless of the consequences. Policies became increasingly radical from then on. Both
king and assembly increasingly lost of control of the situation which came to be dominated by intolerant
radicals. That prepared the way for the advent of the Jacobins whose policies led to greater violence
repression and intolerance in France. In hindsight, it can therefore be argued that agreeing to relocate
to Paris was therefore a costly error of commission by both king and National Assembly.
Louis XVI committed the error of sending troops to America as that helped to awaken the Third Estate to
democratic ideas. The American war of Independence (1776-1783) presented the French government
with the perfect opportunity to assist the American rebels against their British masters and so gain
104
revenge for their loss to Britain in the earlier struggle for supremacy in Canada. In the event the French
soldiers who participated in that war were influenced by American political ideas of democracy,
accountability of leaders and universal civil rights. It became something of a paradox to them that they
were fighting to assist Americans to gain rights which they were denied in France. That stirred their
consciousness and hunger for the same rights in their own country. It came as no surprise that veterans
of the American war like Lafayette played a leading role in the early stages of the French revolution.
Sending troops to America was therefore a costly error on Louis XVI’s part.
Sending the troops was also a costly financial mistake. France was already starting to feel the effects of
economic mismanagement in the late 1770s when Louis XVI decided to drain the treasury and send
French soldiers to assist the Americans against their British masters. The war might have helped Louis
XVI to avenge France’s earlier loss of Canada to Britain but it was a victory that did not come cheap. It
worsened the government’s financial position and provoked a storm of protests from different sections
of the population. The Third Estate pushed for a reform of the taxation system and called for a reduction
in government expenditure. They wanted to see a more equitable system where the nobles and church
paid more taxes. Naturally enough these demands were resisted by the church and nobles. That bred
the conflict that led ultimately to revolution in 1789.
Convening the Estates-General was a mistake (of commission) which gave the hitherto disorganised and
disparate third Estate the platform to organise the revolt. Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in
1789 in the hope that it would help him redress the economic crisis and other political and social
problems bedevilling France. It was a huge step to take given the fact that no French king had convened
the Estates-General in the one hundred and seventy-five years before Louis XVI decided to. French kings
before had probably felt confident of their abilities as autocratic rulers with “divine right” to even seek
the assistance of the Estates-General in deciding issues. Convening the Estates-General was probably a
reflection on Louis XVI’s unsuitability as a powerful, assertive and self-confident ruler. His decision
brought together in one place the disparate elements in the Third Estate who wanted political and social
change but had been too far away from each other and too disorganised to mount any effective
campaign or course of action. Louis XVI thus brought them together and thus laid the foundation for
their successful revolt against him.
The ruling class committed the mistake of doggedly refusing to give political rights to the Third Estate.
The France of the ancien regime was an absolute monarchy where the king wielded absolute powers,
gave political privileges to the nobles and excluded the entire Third Estate from politics. The king had
power to declare war and make peace, power of life and death over his subjects appoint ministers,
army, judicial officers and all other government officials. It was believed that his authority came from
God (Divine Right) and therefore he ruled as he saw fit, unchallenged and not accountable to his
subjects. King chose his ministers all government officials from the class of nobles. In other words les
(Second Estate) had monopoly over government positions. Third Estate including highly educated and
wealthy bourgeoisie were excluded from political positions and political participation.
Third Estate especially the wealthy and highly educated bourgeoisie deeply resented the monopoly
enjoyed by the nobles over government, judicial, military and even clerical positions enjoyed by the
105
nobles. They also resented their own exclusion especially as they believed that their education and
wealth entitled them to a share of the political power. They also resented the monarch’s privilege to
absolute executive, legislative and judiciary authority which could not be questioned or challenged
under the principle that he had a God given privilege to such power. The persistent refusal by the ruling
class to extend political participation to the bourgeoisie section of the Third Estate was a costly error of
commission that ultimately led to the revolution in 1789.
The nobles and clergy committed the mistake of refusing to assume a greater share of taxation. There
was an inequitable taxation system which allowed the church and nobles to be exempted from paying
most of the taxes. On the other, the Third Estate was forced to shoulder most of the tax burden. They
were unhappy about having to pay so many different taxes including the taille (land tax) and gabelle
(salt tax). In addition they also had to pay rents to noble landlords and tithes to the church. The Nobles
and church refused to take up a greater share of the tax burden and pressured the king into firing
government ministers who suggested that they pay more in order to mitigate the effects of a growing
financial crisis. A combination of inequitable taxation, extravagance on entertainment and foreign wars
and over borrowing all contributed to a financial crisis in France which had become unbearable by 1789.
The nobles and clergy’s continued refusal to pay more even when the financial situation became
desperate merely suggested that they were selfish and heartless. Consequently the Third Estate felt
revolting against the government was the only way to compel the first two estates to assume a fair
share of the tax burden. The nobles and church’s stubborn refusal to pay more was a costly error of
commission as it led to the revolution that resulted in the loss of their political, economic and social
privileges.
Pressuring the king to fire reform-minded ministers was another costly mistake by the nobles and clergy.
Although Louis XVI was supposed to be an absolute ruler with the power to do as he pleased, he was in
practice a cowardly king who could not resist the demands of his noble and clerical allies. Not only did
these classes enjoy a monopoly over political positions and participation, they often pushed the king
into making poor decisions so they could protect their own privileges against the demands of the Third
Estate. They refused to take up a greater share of the tax burden and pressured the king into firing
ministers who suggested that they pay more. Those fired included Necker, Turgot and, Calonne. Firing
these prevented France from enacting reforms that would have eased the financial crisis and prevented
the Third Estate from revolting in 1789.
Louis XVI omitted to use force against a rebellious Third Estate and that was a costly mistake. Louis XVI
lacked the courage to resist the Nobles who opposed financial reforms and pressured him to fire reform
minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. That only worsened the financial crisis and led
ultimately to Revolution. Even when the Third Estate revolted and broke away to form the National
Assembly in 1789, revolution could have been still prevented had he taken the decision to use force to
crush them. Even rebels like Mirabeau conceded that a show of force would have broken their defiance
of the king. It was not forthcoming and a spineless Louis XVI “advised” the First and Second estates to
disband and join the rebellious Third Estate in their so-called National Assembly. That first act of
defiance of royal authority went unchallenged and it simply bred further acts of defiance. The Bastille
prison was stormed by the rebels in July 1789 again without a response from the king. The significance
106
of the collapse of the prison for so long the symbol of the king’s power was not lost on the French
people. It cast Louis XVI as a weak, incompetent perhaps cowardly king who could never stamp his
authority and the Third Estate took full advantage to impose their own will in France with revolutionary
consequences.
Louis XVI committed the mistake of siding with the First and Second Estates in the issue of the Estates-
General’s procedure. From the vantage point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own
character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the
time. His first weakness was to allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put
down his foot on the issue his decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two
estates, he set the stage for the revolt of the Third Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling
over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The
Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the National Assembly and invited the other estates to
join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end before it had achieved anything. The National
Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation and in this way all who joined it undermined
or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority.
In conclusion, there were so many mistakes that Louis XVI and his allies in government committed and
these led ultimately to the revolution in 1789.
107
WHY DID LOUIS XVI CONVENE THE ESTATES-GENERAL IN 1789 AND WHY DID IT NOT SOLVE HIS
PROBLEMS?
For all its real and supposed grandeur, the France of Louis XVI found itself inextricably tied up in the
socio-economic difficulties which were manifested in the financial bankruptcy that plagued the kingdom
in the late 1780s. This was without doubt a perilous situation otherwise Louis would not have taken the
path no other Bourbon had dared use for almost two centuries-he took the ill-fated decision of
summoning the Estates-General. That ancient body failed to present any clean set of proposals to the
king; such was its fractious nature that members tore at each other like mad dogs over procedural
issues. These dissensions only helped to further incite an already excitable populace with the result that
all political and social hell suppressed until then broke loose. Like a raging torrent it swept away
absolutism, aristocratic privileges and the system that was known as the ancien regime .Right up to the
guillotine Louis definitely rued his decision to summon the Estates-General that invariably opened the
revolutionary floodgates. Yet this need not have been so had the character of the king been different.
Various factors prevented the Estates-General from helping Louis XVI. Not least of all was his failure to
effectively stamp his authority over proceedings and resolve the controversial question of its mode of
operation.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in an attempt to find a solution to the crippling financial crisis.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to find a solution to the urgent problem of the
economic crisis. As highlighted above, the king was mired in serious financial difficulty which resulted in
bankruptcy. The causes of France’s insolvency were many, varied and deep-rooted. The government’s
expenditure far out-weighed the treasury’s income from all the country’s taxable sources. The king’s
court is said to have accounted for about one twelfth of the state’s total expenditure. The state engaged
in habitual extravagance like in supporting the American rebellion against British rule in the 1770s. The
situation was worsened by the fact that some classes were exempt from paying most of the taxes
because of the system of privileges. The result of the system of privileges was that the bourgeoisie and
peasants (all Third Estate) shouldered the tax burden while the clergy and nobility (First and Second
estates respectively) were largely exempt. There was an urgent need to raise more taxes and as such
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General with one eye on the vast but barely tapped economic resources
of the first two estates. Finding a solution to France’s economic woes was a huge task that required
more than piece-meal measures hence there was need for a body of the magnitude of the Estates-
General
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General out of a genuine desire to resolve France’s political, economic
and social problems. Although historians have generally been harsh and unkind in their judgement of
Louis XVI, there is a general consensus that he had good intentions for his country. He might have lacked
spine and he might have been incompetent but he sincerely desired to address and redress the
problems France faced. He undoubtedly understood the deep-rooted nature of France’s problems and
as such it would be naïve to think that he convened the Estates-General to solve just one problem of
bankruptcy. The convening should be seen in terms of his persistent desire to reform France. It was not
his first move as his earlier measures had included the appointment of reform oriented ministers like
Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These ministers had made definite moves in the direction of addressing
108
economic, political and social problems for example they initiated cuts in court spending, freed serfs on
royal lands and created provincial assemblies with the intention of giving greater power to local
government. Calonne had even summoned the Assembly of the Notables in 1787 in an abortive attempt
to coax them into giving up their privileges of tax exemption among other things. Convening the Estates-
General should be viewed in the context of the failure of Louis XVI’s earlier measures. It should be
construed as the ultimate act of desperation-a last resort
The overwhelmingly negative attitude of the privileged classes towards reform over the years left Louis
XVI with the little choice but to convene the Estates-General. Over the years Louis XVI had attempted
reform through his ministers but had always found the privileged estates to be a stumbling block. It was
frustration with that opposition eventually prompted him to summon the Estates-General and have the
estates fight it out amongst themselves. The privileged classes had opposed various government
measures like local government reform and attempts to make taxation more equitable. They even
demanded the sacking of ministers who dared initiate reforms no matter how superficial if they felt they
would affect their privileged status
Louis XVI was forced to convene the Estates-General as a result of the pressure from various sections of
the French population. There is little doubt that Louis XVI was under immense pressure to resolve the
crisis in France in 1789. The First Estate demanded a solution to the financial mess because they stood
to lose all the money they had loaned the state. The Assembly of Notables were similarly affected. The
industrial bourgeoisie wanted a solution to the predicament they had been placed in by the commercial
treaty signed with England in 1786. It crippled their businesses by facilitating cheaper English imports.
Ordinary people felt the pinch of the poor harvest of 1788, high unemployment and looked to the state
for relief. They registered their discontent through riots and other forms of disorder. It was therefore
against this background of things going wrong on so many fronts that the well-meaning Louis found
himself under pressure to find solutions
The Estates-General failed to solve his problems because of deep-seated divisions. There was no
cohesion or unity of purpose within the Estates-General: the polarisation pitted the First and Second
estates against the Third Estate which was numerically superior and stood on its own. Sectarian
interests took precedence leading to the impasse over procedure. As long as the conflict over procedure
was not resolved, the Estates-General could not even begin to help the king. There were two options.
The first option would have been sitting and voting as separate estates and the second was combining
all estates and voting as individuals. The First and Second estates favoured the first option which would
have given them a majority of two to one when it came to voting. The Third Estate preferred the second
because they had an advantage as they had more representatives. Valuable time was lost in this impasse
and it led to the revolt of the Third Estate thus dooming the Estates-General and ultimately the king
himself.
The Estates-General failed to help Louis XVI because it quickly broke up after the revolt of the Third
Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis
XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the
National Assembly and invited the other estates to join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end
109
before it had achieved anything. The National Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation
and in this way all who joined it undermined or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority
The king’s character also prevented him from receiving any help from the Third Estate. From the vantage
point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-
General’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the time. His first weakness was to
allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put down his foot on the issue his
decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two estates, he set the stage for the
revolt of the Third Estate. The Third Estate defied him and now claimed to be serving another master
even more important than the king himself. That new master was the nation and not Louis who had
summoned the Estates-General in the first place. Louis’ even bigger mistake was his failure or
unwillingness to use force and crush the revolt. The Third Estate now realised they could get away with
it and they were emboldened to take further acts of defiance. The final self-inflicted blow was Louis’
acceptance of the revolt and the subsequent resolutions of the ‘National Assembly’. That way he helped
to systematically destroy his own authority
In conclusion, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to resolve the urgent financial crisis and
other deep-seated problems bedevilling France. Pressure from various quarters also forced his hand. a
combination of factors including the wrangling within the Estates-General, revolt of the third estate and
Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure to help him solve his problems.
110
Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to become Emperor of France? June 2009.
Napoleon was able to achieve his ambition of becoming emperor after gaining support from the
population through populist measures introduced during his time as First Consul. Some of the populist
policies he pursued included the legal reforms and the Concordat. According to David Thomson,
Napoleon won the support of the Bourgeoisie and peasants by introducing the codified and uniform
system of law for France (Code Napoleon) which “confirmed the rights of private property and the land
settlement of the Revolution.” Before the Code Napoleon, there had only been a confused and
uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were uncertain, unevenly
applied and unwritten. It goes without saying that where laws are not certain, not codified and
Napoleon also won the support of Catholic Christians after agreeing to the Concordat with the pope by
which he recognised Catholicism as the dominant religion in France. The concordat certainly established
mutually beneficial relationship between church and state as it gave Napoleon’s regime an air of
respectability among Catholic Christians. The state paid the priests' wages while Napoleon remained the
boss and appointed the bishops. On the other hand the Church was also reconciled to the loss of its
lands confiscated during the revolution from 1789. The concordat also won him the support of the
Consulate."
Directory. He was able to win support in transforming the republic into an empire by appealing to
different sections of the population as the only man who could preserve the new-found order and
safeguard the ideals of the Revolution.
Napoleon was able to become emperor because he used his position as First Consul to build up a
repressive state apparatus that served him well in crushing all dissent. As First Consul, Napoleon built a
formidable bureaucratic apparatus complete with secret police and a ubiquitous network of spies under
the control of the former Jacobin Fouché. All dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. The press was subject to
rigid censorship. Of 70 Paris journals only three remained. Napoleon set up a centralised bureaucracy
that has characterised France ever since. He established the system of Prefects. Charles Seignobles
comments:
111
"A centralized system of government agents, opposed to the regime of elective self-government created
by the Revolution. The nation had no longer any share in the conduct of its affairs or in the choice of its
local leaders. The French ceased to be citizens, to become once more subjects, no longer of the king, but
of the government."
Austrians.
It is important to understand that Napoleon’s ability to become emperor had been built on the
foundations of achieving power as First Consul in the Republican Consulate which he helped create after
overthrowing the Directory in 1799. Therefore any attempt to explain his success in creating the empire
must take into account the factors that enabled him to come to power in the Consulate in the first place.
alliances with powerful people as demonstrated by his marriage to Joséphine Beauharnais, a close
112
army.
113
114
PRESENTING YOUR ESSAY:
Let us remember the basic rules of writing essays and follow these for example:
(1) A short introduction highlighting key issues to be discussed and make your position on the question
clear e.g. The American War of Independence contributed to a great extent to the outbreak of the
French Revolution, or Peasant Grievances were only a minor issue in the factors leading to the French
Revolution.
(2) Topic sentences in other words the first sentence of each paragraph should contain your argument
or main idea e.g. The American War of Independence was a highly important economic cause of the
French Revolution by draining the treasury and increasing government borrowing.
(3) As a general rule, the rest of the paragraph should provide evidence for the argument raised in the
topic sentence. There should not be any different arguments or new ideas. Reserve those for other
paragraph. So it should be One paragraph, One Idea.
(4) Length of the essay is not important. You may have been told 4 pages or even 6 will do but the truth
is that length is not the most important issue for your success. What is far more significant is how much
information you present, how many valid arguments you make. So a candidate who offers ten valid
arguments in 2 pages will score more than the one who offers 5 such arguments in 5 pages. Therefore
keep your sentences as short and clear as possible, avoid big words that would have the examiner
reaching out for a dictionary.
(5) Familiarise yourself with key words/phrases used in the topic. In the French revolution, such
words/phrases include Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Moderate, Radical, Bourgeoisie,
Peasant, Third Estate, Sans Culottes etc.
(6) Answer the question that has been asked by the examiner and avoid the tendency to re-fashion the
question into the one you were hoping to be asked.
For example the question may read “HOW FAR DID THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION?” instead of the one you had crammed
which reads “TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE CHARACTER OF LOUIS XVI WAS THE
MAJOR CAUSE OF THE CRISIS OF 1789 IN FRANCE?”
Some cunning students will immediately write: “The American War of Independence was not as
important a factor when compared to the character of Louis XVI.” Thereafter the student will just
discuss the character of Louis XVI instead of the American War which happens to be the focus of the
question.
Let us examine both questions:
115
HOW FAR DID THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE
FRENCH REVOLUTION?
When answering this question you may find that you know so much more about how other factors
contributed to the outbreak of the French revolution that you want to write about those instead of the
AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE that has been asked. Avoid that temptation and focus on what you
have been asked to do. Only after you have exhausted the issue can you then go on to discuss your
favourite other factors like:
(1) Character of Louis XVI. (2) Character of Nobles and clergy. (3) Poor harvest of 1788. (4) Political
grievances of Third Estate. (5) Influence of the philosophers, (6) Economic grievances of the Third Estate
(7) Financial bankruptcy. (8) Social grievances of The Third Estate.
Even if you find this challenging there are at least three ways (which means at least three paragraphs) in
which you can look at the American War as a cause and this is because you were able to define the
French Revolution.
According to your definition of the French Revolution you highlighted three main aspects that are
Political Change, Economic Change and Social Change. Political changes must have political causes, social
changes, social causes and economic changes, economic causes. This approach will enable you to discuss
the American war as a political cause, economic cause and social cause. So there is indeed a lot to write
even though that is not the question you were hoping for.
Introduction: Revolution broke out in France in 1789 and various reasons were cited including the
influence of the American War of Independence to which France had contributed soldiers and money to
help defeat Britain in 1783. As this essay shall show, the American war was a highly important cause
because it had political, economic and social implications for the Revolution which was a political,
economic and social phenomenon. This essay shall also discuss other factors to demonstrate that the
Revolution was not the end-product of just the American War of Independence and a single issue no
matter how important, can not be more important than all the factors combined.
The American War of Independence was a highly significant social cause of the French revolution
because it helped to sharpen the social grievances of the Third Estate. French soldiers who participated
in that war were exposed to new American ideas about social justice and equality of all before the law. It
became a paradox that they were fighting to help the Americans achieve social rights they did not enjoy
back home. The France they lived in was one which was characterized by social injustices and
inequalities. While the upper classes enjoyed social privileges like freedom from forced labour, from
arbitrary imprisonment without trial, the Third Estate were angered by forced labour, arbitrary arrests, a
heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths registration, subjection of
peasants to nobles through rents and feudal dues. After that war, demands for social equality became
louder in France.
116
The American War of Independence was a highly significant political cause of the French revolution
because it helped to sharpen the political grievances of the Third Estate. French soldiers who had
participated in the American war of Independence in 1783 were influenced by American political ideas
of democracy, accountability of leaders and participation for all citizens. It was an irony that they were
in America helping the Americans’ fight to achieve a political dispensation that did not exist in France.
What France had was an absolute monarchical system in which the absolute king chose to share his
power with a small class of nobles while the rest of the people including the educated bourgeoisie
suffered from political exclusion. The American war of Independence helped produce political
grievances of the Third Estate which included demands for an end to their exclusion from political
participation, from government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over ‘Divine Right
of Kings, the absolute power and lack of accountability to the nation. They were also angered by the
church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power.
The American War of Independence was also a highly significant economic cause of the French
revolution because it helped to precipitate the financial bankruptcy that led to Revolution in 1789. It is
widely acknowledged that the revolution owed so much to the economic crisis that was partly inspired
by the extravagance of Louis XVI. Louis XVI wasted money by involving France in costly foreign wars like
the American War of Independence and all this extravagance contributed immensely to a financial crisis
which he tried to solve in 1789 by summoning the Estates-General. Disagreements over the procedure
or mode of operation of that Estates-General led to the Third Estate’s revolt against Louis XVI sparking a
further political and social crisis that is now referred to as the French Revolution. The American War was
therefore very significant because the financial crisis it helped to produce led Louis XVI into convening
the ill-fated Estates-General whose disagreements led directly to the Revolution. So serious had the
financial crisis become that Louis XVI did what no French king had done in 175 years when he convened
the Estates-General.
At this point you have the chance to discuss your other factors including the one you crammed about
Louis XVI’s character or the influence of the philosophes.
Also note that you should try and compare these other factors with the American war to decide which
was more significant. Here is an example.
The Revolution owed so much to the contribution of philosophes such that even without the American
war, French people had already been exposed to these new political and social ideas as taught by
Rousseau and Montesquieu. Rousseau was one of those who rejected the monarchy’s claims about the
divine source of political power and argued that people in any society were the true source of all
political power. He further asserted that those who held political power did so by agreement and
permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied accountability and also the need to govern
in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of all people in politics and that they could
remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising power in their interests. Montesquieu also
made his contribution by teaching about the separation of powers, thus implying that there must be a
constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy. So in 1789, the Third Estate revolted against Louis XVI
117
and began the French Revolution. Even if the American war contributed it is worth noting that such
political and social ideas had already become known in France through the philosophes.
The poor harvests of 1788 also played their part in contributing to revolution. The Third estate
particularly the peasants and workers who already suffered under heavy tax burdens, arbitrary arrests,
forced labour and a host of other socio-economic ills could not bear the strain of high food prices and
hunger brought on by the bad harvests. Not only did they engage in wholesale acts of violence especially
against the noble land-owners but they organized a march from Paris to Versailles comprising mostly of
women, in one of the famous efforts of the revolution in 1789. This was an act which was governed less
by political and social ideologies as it was an instinctive reaction fuelled by the desire to survive.
Even the financial crisis was not the singular product of France’s costly involvement in the American War
of Independence as it was the outcome of various shortcomings including extravagance elsewhere and
the refusal to adopt more prudent economic reforms. While it is true that France was bankrupt in 1789,
this was not just because of French involvement in the American War as there were other structural
economic weaknesses; the most important being an inequitable taxation system where the wealthy first
and second estates were exempted from paying most of the taxes while the Third estate including poor
peasants had to pay. Louis XVI and his reform minded ministers including Calonne had realised this and
attempted to get the nobles and clergy to pay more only to meet fierce resistance. The structural
economic deficiencies were worsened by the extravagance of the Monarchy amid reports that Louis XVI
spent 1/12 of all government revenue on luxuries that included entertainment for the court nobles and
over a thousand pairs of shoes for Queen Marie Antoinette’s wardrobe.
In conclusion the American War of independence has been shown to be hugely important as it was a
political, economic and social cause of the French Revolution. However, it has been shown that a single
issue no matter how significant was not more important than the sum total of factors that included the
poor harvests, contribution of the philosophes and the structural weaknesses of the French economic
system. All in all, the American war was less important as a cause than the combination of the different
political and socio-economic factors.
118
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE CHARACTER OF LOUIS XVI WAS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF
THE CRISIS OF 1789 IN FRANCE?
Introduction: In 1789, France’s Third Estate (bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) refused to
continue being part of the Estates-General and chose to defy Louis XVI by re-constituting themselves as
the National Assembly. They gave themselves the political right to act and speak on behalf of the nation
and thereafter set in motion a chain of events in 1789 which saw the undermining and destruction of
the long existing political, economic and social order dominated by an absolute King, the Church and the
nobles. That crisis of 1789 also known as the French Revolution was largely the result of Louis XVI’s
character including his incompetence, indecision, extravagance and spinelessness when confronted by
difficult situations. This essay will discuss these aspects of Louis XVI in detail as well as other factors in
order to show that although his character played the major part, there were other important factors to
the crisis of 1789.
Indecision, procrastination and prevarication were major faults in Louis XVI’s character which
contributed in a big way to the crisis of 1789. Louis xvi took his time in making a decision over the
procedure to be followed by the Estates –General .When he eventually decided that they should sit
separately and vote in blocs, this angered the Third Estate into open rebellion. Louis xvi apparently
lacked the capacity to make a decision and stick to it, for example, he ordered the Estates to deliberate
separately only to backtrack and order the first and second estates join the third estate in their National
Assembly after the Third Estate had defied him.
The crisis of 1789 owed so much to the extravagance of Louis XVI. Louis XVI spent 1/12 of the total
government revenue on luxuries and entertainment for the nobles at the expensively built palace of
Versailles. Some historians have claimed that Louis XVI’s queen Marie Antoinette had more than one a
thousand pairs of shoes meaning that she had the luxury of changing shoes everyday for more than a
decade. Louis XVI also wasted money by involving France in costly foreign wars like the American War of
Independence and all this extravagance contributed immensely to a financial crisis which he tried to
solve in 1789 by summoning the Estates-General. Disagreements over the procedure or mode of
operation of that Estates-General led to the Third Estate’s revolt against Louis XVI sparking a political
and social crisis that is now referred to as the French Revolution.
Louis XVI’s spinelessness or cowardly nature also contributed immensely to the crisis of 1789. Historians
generally agree that Louis xvi was a well-meaning King who saw the need for political, economic and
social reforms to improve the well-being of the French as a whole. Even though he saw the need for the
abolition of some of the social and economic privileges of the church and nobles, he lacked the courage
and decisiveness to force the two estates to give them up. He appointed reform-minded ministers such
as Necker Turgot and Calonne who all demanded that the nobility and clergy assume a greater share of
the tax burden to improve France’s financial situation. But he was too much of a coward to resist the
two estates that simply refused to give up their privileges, pay more taxes and simply demanded that
Louis XVI fire the ministers.
119
Louis XVI was also guilty of short-sight and poor Judgment which all contributed in a big way to the crisis
of 1789. He was so determined on humiliating the old enemy Britain to the point that he sent troops to
assist their rebellious American subjects in their fight for independence. Not only did the French
involvement in the American war of independence cost France and worsen its financial crisis, it also
produced a political consciousness among its soldiers of democratic ideas and civil rights which led to
the demands for the same being made upon his government. Participating in America was therefore a
political, economic and social mistake. Louis XVI made other errors of judgment when he decided on a
separate sitting and the bloc voting procedure for the Estate-General which gave the Nobles and Clergy
a two to one voting advantage over the Third Estate. This was a mistake that sparked the revolt of the
Third Estate and ultimately the French Revolution.
Having noted all this, it would however be inaccurate to ascribe the crisis of 1789 solely to the character
of Louis XVI as there were other important contributing factors.
The philosophes and the American war of Independence were both highly important in generating new
ideas about political and social equality which threatened the very basis of Louis XVI’s power along with
that of the First and Second estates who had always been allies of the monarchy. Philosophers like
Rousseau and Montesquieu advocated for political participation by all sections of society, accountability
of the monarchy and an end to absolution through the separation of executive, judicial and legislative
functions of government. French soldiers who had participated in the American war of Independence in
1783 were influenced by American political ideas of democracy, accountability of leaders and political
participation for all citizens. The sum total of the philosophes and American war of Independence was
that they produced political grievances of the Third Estate which Louis XVI could not satisfy without
destroying the foundations of his own power. The Third Estate now demanded an end to their exclusion
from political participation, from government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over
‘Divine Right of Kings’, the absolute power of Kings and lack of accountability to the nation as a whole.
They were also angered by the church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power. The crisis
of 1789 therefore stemmed from the Third Estate’s demands for political and social rights which Louis
XVI could not grant without destroying his own power.
The crisis of 1789 was also the product of the social grievances of the Third Estate which had nothing to
do with Louis XVIs character faults and could not be addressed without undermining Louis XVI’s own
position and that of the nobles and clergy that had always been allies of the monarchy. The Third Estate
were angered by so many issues including forced labour, arbitrary arrests and detention without trial, a
heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths, marriages registration,
subjection of peasants to nobles through rents, feudal dues. So much has been said of nobles and
clergy’s stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly over political
power, exemption to taxation, forced labour and feudal dues. It has also been said that they were very
selfish in demanding the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne.
While it is also true that they also displayed poor judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the
financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in 1787 and arrogance in refusing to sit and vote
together with the Third Estate in the Estates General, this was all because they sought to protect their
120
own interests. It was this desire to protect their own interests against the determination of the Third
Estate to gain social and political rights which produced the crisis of 1789.
It must also be noted that the crisis of 1789 was the result of poor harvest of 1788 and a financial crisis
which had its roots in monarchical spending before Louis XVI’s ascension to the French throne. The poor
harvests in 1788 were a general European phenomenon that caused hardships through food shortages
and high prices for many Europeans not just France. The financial crisis can also be traced back to the
extravagance of previous Bourbon kings in France including Louis XIV who had constructed the
magnificent but costly palace of Versailles and involved France in costly wars against fellow European
countries. It was unfortunate for Louis XVI that he had had to deal with the impact of such factors
leading to the resultant crisis of 1789.
In conclusion, Louis XVI contributed immensely to the crisis of 1789 but there were other ancillary
factors as demonstrated above. While it the political, economic and social issues had been building in
France over time, they only produced a crisis in 1789 because of Louis XVI’s short-sightedness,
ineptitude as well as cowardice when confronted by tough choices such as dealing with nobles and
clergy’s refusal to make concessions.
As part of our on-going series to familiarise students with the documents that are part of the history we
have to study, today we are looking at the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). Please go
through the document carefully debating and asking yourself what it meant for the French Revolution.
(1) Was it political, social, economic or all of these? (2) Did it represent the moderate or radical phase of
the Revolution? What was its overall impact in terms of the aims of the Revolutionaries?
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (August 1789)
The Representatives of the French people, organized in National Assembly, considering that ignorance,
forgetfulness, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public miseries and the corruption
of governments, have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred
rights of man, so that this declaration, being ever present to all the members of the social body, may
unceasingly remind them of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, and
those of the executive power, may at each moment be compared with the aim and of every political
institution and thereby may be more respected; and in order that the demands of the citizens, grounded
henceforth upon simple and incontestable principles, may always take the direction of maintaining the
constitution and welfare of all.
121
In consequence, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices
of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and citizen:
Articles:
1. Men are born free and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only on public
utility.
2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of
man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
3. The sources of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no body, no individual can exercise
authority that does not proceed from it in plain terms.
4. Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others; accordingly, the exercise of
the rights of each man has no limits except those that secure the enjoyment of these same rights to the
other members of society. These limits can be determined only by law.
5. The law has only the rights to forbid such actions as are injurious to society. Nothing can be forbidden
that is not interdicted by the law, and no one can be constrained to do that which it does not order.
6. Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part personally, or by their
representatives, and its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All
citizens, being equal in its eyes, art equally eligible to all public dignities, places, and employments,
according to their capacities, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.
7. No man can be accused, arrested, or detained, except in the cases determined by the law and
according to the forms it has prescribed. Those who procure, expedite, execute, or cause arbitrary
orders to be executed, ought to be punished: but every citizen summoned were seized in virtue of the
law ought to render instant obedience; he makes himself guilty by resistance.
122
8. The law ought only to establish penalties that are strict and obviously necessary, and no one can be
punished except in virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offense and legally applied.
9. Every man being presumed innocent until he has been pronounced guilty, if it is thought
indispensable to arrest him, all severity that may not be necessary to secure his person ought to be
strictly suppressed by law.
10. No one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation
does not upset the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man;
every citizen can then freely speak, write, and print, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this
freedom in the cases is determined by law.
12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen requires a public force; this force then is instituted for
the advantage of all and not for the personal benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.
13. A general tax is indispensable for the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of
administration; it ought to be equally apportioned among all citizens according to their means.
14. All the citizens have a right to ascertain, by themselves or by their representatives, the necessity of
the public tax, to consent to it freely, to follow the employment of it, and to determine the quota, the
assessment, the collection, and the duration of it.
15. Society has the right to call for an account of his administration by every public agent.
16. Any society in which the guarantee of the rights is not secured, or the separation of powers not
determined, has no constitution at all.
123
17. Property being a sacred to and inviolable right, no one can be deprived of it, unless illegally
established public necessity evidently demands it, under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.
[Source: Frank Maloy Anderson, ed., The Constitution and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the
History of France, 1789-1907 (New York: Russell and Russell, 1908), pp. 59-61.]
This is my take on the Civil Constitution of the Clergy:
124
HOW, AND WITH WHAT RESULTS, DID THE CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY CONSTITUTE A
TURNING POINT IN THE SUPPORT BASE OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES?
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was passed by the revolutionary government in 1790 with the aim of
reducing the power and influence of the church. It also aimed at subordinating the church to the state.
The revolutionary government sought to achieve these aims by taking over the responsibility of paying
the clergy’s salaries. The bishops would now be elected by the same voters who elected other
government officials and they had to be approved by the government rather than by the pope. Finally it
was decided that the clergy take an oath of loyalty to the government. Not surprisingly, the civil
constitution was strongly opposed by the pope and soon most clergymen rejected it. Other Catholic
countries also condemned it. Perhaps the most worrying thing for the government is the way in which it
soon antagonised the peasants who had been an important component of the revolutionaries’ support
base. This essay seeks to explore the civil constitution and show how it weakened the support base of
the revolutionaries as it alienated the Catholic constituency that had been sympathetic all along. The
essay will also show how the civil constitution had far-reaching consequences that included civil and
international war.
The Civil Constitution narrowed the support base of the revolutionaries by antagonising the peasants
and civil war was the ultimate result. Prior to the civil constitution, the outbreak of the revolution had
united different sections of the Third Estate. The peasants who constituted just over ninety per cent of
the French population were by far the largest component of the revolution’s support base. There was so
much uniting the Third Estate including demands for political and civil rights. The civil constitution
changed all that and drove a wedge among the revolutionaries. This was because the peasants who
remained devout Catholics were ultimately influenced by the pope and clergy to reject the civil
constitution. Peasants were incited into revolting against the government especially in places such as
Vendee, Lyons, Marseille and Bordeaux. When the government responded with military force the
situation degenerated into civil war in 1793.
The Civil Constitution alienated Louis XVI and increased conflict between the executive and legislative
arms of the revolutionary government. Even before the passage of the civil constitution, the king and his
colleagues in the revolutionary government were already at loggerheads. The National Assembly
accused the king of bias in the use of his veto to protect the interests of the reactionary nobles and
clergy. The civil constitution worsened things and certainly put Louis XVI in a difficult position as head of
state on one hand and devout Catholic on the other. He had a dilemma deciding whether to act as head
of state and approve the legislation or follow his religious convictions and reject the new law. Either way
it was a difficult situation and when Louis XVI chose to follow the pope’s example in denouncing the civil
The Civil Constitution alienated sympathetic elements within the clergy and sowed the seed of civil war
that broke out three years later. In 1790, the pope rejected the civil constitution and condemned it in
very strong terms. He denounced it as a heresy and called on all Catholics to resist it. The Pope’s
125
decision weighed with most of the bishops and priests in France who rejected the civil constitution and
came to be known as refractory or non- juring priests. The Pope’s decision influenced Catholic countries
such as Austria to oppose France’s revolutionary but moderate government. The pope and clergy’s
decision influenced the peasants to turn against the revolutionary government. Foreign and civil war
quickly followed the rejection of the civil constitution at home and abroad. Faced with war, the
requisitioning and suspension of civil rights were adopted in a desperate struggle for survival. They also
attempted to completely destroy the church. Priests were persecuted and many of them were forced
into exile in the aftermath of the failure of the Civil Constitution.
The Civil Constitution alienated foreign sympathy for the revolution and resulted in tension and
ultimately contributed to the international war beginning in 1792. When the revolution broke out in
1789, there was so much international sympathy and enthusiasm. In Britain prominent people
welcomed it in the belief that France would undergo its own political and social transformation very
much like the one Britain had undergone more than a century earlier. That transformation had resulted
in the creation of a constitutional monarchy and the extension of political participation to ordinary
people. The poet William Wordsworth spoke glowingly of how it was “bliss” to be alive during the
outbreak of the revolution. The passage of the civil constitution however started a chain of events that
led France away from the moderate course to that of radical and violent changes. It began with the
rejection of the civil constitution by the clergy and the revolt that it inspired. The government was
ultimately forced into the harsh, repressive measures of the so-called Reign of Terror. Foreign
sympathisers or supporters of the revolution were horrified into withdrawing their support by the high
levels of repression and the mass executions as the government sought to crush dissent.
In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that the civil constitution certainly undermined the support
base of the revolutionaries. This happened through the alienation of the peasants who were by far the
largest group in France, the alienation of sympathetic clerical elements as well as people in other
countries like Britain. The consequences included civil and international war.
Morning dear historians. I think you have had sufficient time to go through the Civil constitution of the
Clergy. Now to the next step. Below is a question from one British examining board and a student's
response. after that you have the chief examiner's response and comments on the student's answer.
Please read carefully and learn from both. On another date, i will be posting my own analysis of the
matter. Please keep in mind what we are trying to achieve here: a complete and thorough
understanding of what the French Revolution was all about. That is the only way people can become
what they must become, namely, to be A grade history students.
126
Explain why the Civil Constitution of the Clergy provoked opposition within
France in the years 1790 to 1791. (12 marks)
The civil constitution of the clergy was passed to remove exterior influences from the governance of
France. It stated that all land owned by the church would become state controlled, and French priests
would be paid by the state and all church law (probate, moral, divorce) would be controlled by the
government. It left Rome controlling only the Doctrine of the Church which clearly angered the Pope
and prompted him to issue un-cooperatory orders to all French priests.
One of the key reasons that this constitution created and provoked opposition was that it challenged a
long standing tradition and caused moral dilemma for numerous citizens. They could support the
constitution and become good citizens of France or they could oppose it and remain loyal to Rome.
Examples of this can be found by looking simply at the King, Louis XIII. The religious settlement had gone
against everything he believed and so took sacrament from non-juror priests.
Another cause of tension was the apparent attack on regional identities that had been closely tied to
religion. Areas such as the Vendée grew increasingly anti-revolutionary so they saw it as a tool by which
Paris had removed their beliefs.
Thirdly, the Civil constitution created the start of the counterrevolution movement.
Priests unwilling to sign to the constitution, (non-jurors) preached messages of hate about the
revolution, warning people not to jeopardise their mortal souls by supporting it.
In conclusion the Civil Constitution of the Clergy provoked immense tension by giving French citizens a
reason to deny the revolution. It also surfaced the clear schisms that were being created between Paris
and the other regions, who were becoming disillusioned by a revolution they had initially supported.
Principal Examiner’s Comments
This answer gives three, clearly set out reasons as to why the Civil Constitution of the Clergy provoked
opposition and each is well explained:
It challenged tradition and provoked a moral dilemma
It imposed a centralisation that was resented
It threatened religious beliefs and led some priests to encourage anti-revolutionary sentiment
There is a concluding paragraph which provides an ‘overall’ (summative) reason – ‘a reason to deny the
revolution’ showing some depth of understanding in the linkage of the factors. The depth of
127
understanding shown and the drawing together of factors in a conclusion has led to an award at Level 4
- 12 marks.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790)
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The reorganization of the Church which followed upon the
confiscation of its vast possessions is an excellent illustration of the spirit of the National Assembly The
demand for complete uniformity and simplification is especially pronounced in the reform of this most
venerable institution of France, the anomalies of which were hallowed not only by age but by religious
reverence. The chief articles are given below, and indicate how completely the Assembly desired to
bring the Church under rules similar to those which they were drawing up for the state. The National
Assembly, after having heard the report of the ecclesiastical committee, has decreed and do decree the
following as constitutional articles:
Title I.
Article I. Each department shall form a single diocese, and each diocese shall have the same extent and
the same limits as the department…
Article IV. No church or parish of France nor any French citizen may acknowledge upon any occasion, or
upon any pretext whatsoever, the authority of an ordinary bishop or of an archbishop whose see shall
be under the supremacy of a foreign power, nor that of his representatives residing in France or
elsewhere; without prejudice, however, to the unity of the faith and the intercourse which shall be
maintained with the visible head of the universal Church, as hereafter provided.
Article XX. All titles and offices other than those mentioned in the present constitution … are from the
day of this decree extinguished and abolished and shall never be reestablished in any form.
Title II
128
Article I. Beginning with the day of publication of the present decree, there shall be but one mode of
choosing bishops and parish priests, namely that of election.
Article II. All elections shall be by ballot and shall be decided by the absolute majority of the votes.
Article III. The election of bishops shall take place according to the forms and by the electoral body
designated in the decree of December 22, 1789, for the election of members of the departmental
assembly…
Article VI. The election of a bishop can only take place or be undertaken upon Sunday, in the principal
church of the chief town of the department, at the close of the parish mass, at which all the electors are
required to be present.
Article VII. In order to be eligible to a bishopric, one must have fulfilled for fifteen years at least the
duties of the church ministry in the diocese, as a parish priest, officiating minister, or curate, or as
superior, or as directing vicar of the seminary.
Article XIX. The new bishop may not apply to the pope for any form of confirmation, but shall write to
him, as to the visible head of the universal Church, as a testimony to the unity of faith and communion
maintained with him…
Article XXI. Before the ceremony of consecration begins, the bishop elect shall take a solemn oath, in the
presence of the municipal officers, of the people, and of the clergy, to guard with care the faithful of his
diocese who are confided to him, to be loyal to the nation, the law, and the king, and to support with all
his power the constitution decreed by
the National Assembly and accepted by the king…
Article XXV. The election of the parish priests shall take place according to the forms and by the electors
designated in the decree of December 22, 1789, for the election of members of the administrative
assembly of the district.I. Bishoprics and cures shall be looked upon as vacant until those elected to fill
them shall have taken the oath above mentioned.
129
Title III
Article I. The ministers of religion, performing as they do the first and most important functions of
society and forced to live continuously in the place where they discharge the offices to which they have
been called by the confidence of the people, shall be supported by the nation.
Article II. Every bishop, priest, and officiating clergyman in a chapel of ease shall be furnished with a
suitable dwelling, on condition, however, that the occupant shall make all the necessary current repairs.
This shall not affect at present, in any way, those parishes where the priest now receives a money
equivalent instead of his dwelling. The departments shall, moreover, have cognizance of suits arising in
this connection, brought by the parishes and by the priests. Salaries shall be assigned to each, as
indicated below.
Article III. The bishop of Paris shall receive fifty thousand livres; the bishops of the cities having a
population of fifty thousand or more, twenty thousand livres ; other bishops, twelve thousand livres…
Article V. The salaries of the parish priests shall be as follows : in Paris, six thousand livres; in cities
having a population of fifty thousand or over, four thousand livres; in those having a population of less
than fifty thousand and more than ten thousand, three thousand livres; in cities and towns of which the
population is below ten thousand and more than three thousand, twenty-four hundred livres. In all
other cities, towns, and villages where the parish shall have a population between three thousand and
twentyfive hundred, two thousand livres; in those between twenty-five hundred and two thousand,
eighteen hundred livres; in those having a population of less than two thousand, and more than one
thousand, the salary shall be fifteen hundred livres; in those having one thousand inhabitants and
under, twelve hundred livres…
Article VII. The salaries in money of the ministers of religion shall be paid every three months, in
advance, by the treasurer of the district…
XII. In view of the salary which is assured to them by the present constitution, the bishops, parish
priests, and curates shall perform the episcopal and priestly functions gratis.
130
Title IV
Article I. The law requiring the residence of ecclesiastics in the districts under their charge shall be
strictly observed. All vested with an ecclesiastical office or function shall be subject to this, without
distinction or exception.
II. No bishop shall absent himself from his diocese more than two weeks consecutively during the year,
except in case of real necessity and with the consent of the directory of the department in which his see
is situated.
III. In the same manner, the parish priests and the curates may not absent themselves from the place of
their duties beyond the term fixed above, except for weighty reasons, and even in such cases the priests
must obtain the permission both of their bishop and of the directory of their district, and the curates
that of the parish priest…
VI. Bishops, parish priests, and curates may, as active citizens, be present at the primary and electoral
assemblies; they may be chosen electors, or as deputies to the legislative body, or as members of the
general council of the communes or of the administrative councils of their districts or departments.
How are you historians? Compliments of 2014 and may the JOY, HARDWORK, PERSERVERANCE,
ACHIEVEMENT, SUCCESS, HAPPINESS and the ALMIGHTY'S PEACE OF MIND follow you all the days of
your life. Having said that I think the beginning of the year should be a time of real introspection, a
serious soul-searching where historians ask themselves whether they are sufficiently preparing and
equipping themselves to get A.s in the subject. There is something that I found disturbing in my
interactions with students last year and I think we need to rectify that. The thing is most students do not
own or have never even seen a copy of the history syllabus. Similarly they have never seen any of the
documents they make reference to when they have to answer questions. For example, a student has
never seen the Civil Constitution of the Clergy or even Napoleon's Concordat. They simply rely on a few
passing comments by authors or the opinion of teachers who in most cases have not had sight of these
documents!!! So i propose that we get to basics and start by getting sight of some of these valuable
documents. That way we will get rid of strange views that I have come across for example people
arguing that the revolution owed very little if anything to the Philosophes. How do you make such an
argument when you have never even read Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws or Rousseau's Social
Contract. I'm pretty sure you would see these gentlemen's firm stamp on the revolution if ever you read
their work. Okay so its back to basics and I will start by sharing some of these documents so that you
131
read them and make informed arguments. Remember Cambridge and Zimsec are asking you and not
your teachers or any of the authors to present well-reasoned and informed arguments in your
examination essays. That said, Happy 2014!!!
132
the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Neither is it a surprise that he bought all the mineral claims from his
rivals. It is also worth noting that the Rudd concession of 1888 which formed the basis for colonisation
was a mineral treaty.
aim of Rhodes:
an imperialist."
133
134
Rhodes.
135
136
IN WHAT WAYS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, DID SOUTHERN RHODESIA BENEFIT FROM THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND?
Southern Rhodesia benefitted from the construction of transport and communications infrastructure.
One of the major developments in this regard was the construction of a system of trunk roads to link
Southern Rhodesia to other important centres of the Federation. The transport system within Southern
Rhodesia was greatly improved by the construction of wide tarred roads. These replaced the
cumbersome and less spectacular strip-roads that had been a feature of the road network in the pre-
Federation era. There were also developments in the railway sector with the opening of a new railway
line in 1955 to link Salisbury with Lourenco Marques in Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique). Perhaps
the proverbial cherry on the cake was the construction of the Federal airport in Salisbury. The first
civilian airplane flights became a reality in 1956 from the airport which at the time boasted the longest
runway in the world.
Southern Rhodesia also benefitted a great deal from the financing and construction of large-scale
projects One such large-scale project was the hydro-electricity scheme at Kariba whose annual
production of 2011 million kilowatt hours of electricity went a long way in meeting Southern Rhodesia’s
industrial, mining, agricultural and domestic energy requirements. The hydro-electricity project which
was officially opened in May 1960 represented a huge achievement for the Federal government as it
called for the mobilization of resources far beyond the capabilities of the territorial government of
Southern Rhodesia. The benefits of the construction of Lake Kariba went far beyond the mere
generation of electricity to meet the Federation’s energy requirements as there were other significant
by-products. Tourism in Southern Rhodesia was significantly boosted as people came from different
parts of the world to view what was then the largest man-made lake in the world. An important fishing
industry soon developed with kapenta, bream and tiger fish being the most popular catches. This
provided employment in addition to catering for the protein requirements of the colony’s people. The
project had initially been earmarked for the Kafue River on the Northern Rhodesian side of the Zambezi.
Moving it to Kariba therefore represented a huge victory for Southern Rhodesia and a defeat for
Northern Rhodesia. Other large scale projects included the university college of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
which was constructed in Salisbury and opened in 1957
Southern Rhodesia was the biggest beneficiary of the Federal government’s programme to improve the
education sector. The colony’s tertiary education was greatly enhanced with the construction of
polytechnic colleges in the main urban centres. The crowning moment was the opening of the University
College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury in 1957. University education therefore became locally
accessible and this significantly reduced Southern Rhodesia and its Federal partners’ dependence on
South Africa and other countries to provide this service.
Southern Rhodesia reaped the largest benefits of economic integration Greater economic integration
was achieved partly by removing tariffs and other barriers to facilitate the freer movement of goods,
services and labour. This movement most certainly benefitted Southern Rhodesia which had a far more
137
diversified agricultural, manufacturing and mining economy. Although Northern Rhodesia’s copper
industry experienced a boom partly because of the power supply from Kariba and Nyasaland benefitted
from the cash remittances of its people working in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, the latter reaped
the larger share of the economic benefits. This was achieved by exploiting the cheap labour from
Nyasaland and raw materials from Northern Rhodesia’s copper mining industry to drive Southern
Rhodesia’s diverse mining, agriculture and manufacturing industry. These territories also provided a
market for Southern Rhodesia’s finished goods.
Its industries were revitalized and boosted by the cheap labour from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Providing adequate and cheap labour had always been a huge headache for the successive
administrations of Southern Rhodesia from the advent of colonial rule in the late nineteenth century.
The integration of the three territories facilitated the easier movement of people from Northern
Rhodesia and especially Nyasaland which had a large mass of unemployed people to find work in the
diversified mining, farming and manufacturing industries of Southern Rhodesia.
It also received the biggest share of the Federal budget. The settler politicians of Southern Rhodesia
made the most of their numerical advantage in the Federal government to ensure that Southern
Rhodesia got by far the largest chunk of the Federation’s income tax revenue. Southern Rhodesia was
entitled to sixty per cent compared to the seventeen per cent each that was allocated to Northern
Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is no wonder that southern Rhodesia developed at a faster rate than its
counterparts and attracted angry protests and the nickname “bambazonke” meaning grab all.
The Federal Constitution ensured that Southern Rhodesia achieved political domination. Right from the
onset Southern Rhodesia had a numerical advantage over the other two members of the Federation
which assured its domination of the Federal politics. It had eighteen members of parliament compared
to eleven for Northern Rhodesia and seven for Nyasaland. The first Federal Prime Minister Mr. Godfrey
Huggins was from Southern Rhodesia and Salisbury was chosen ahead of Livingstone and Lusaka in
Northern Rhodesia as the Federal capital. All these developments gave Southern Rhodesia a political
advantage over its partners which was used to channel most of the infrastructural developments to
Southern Rhodesia.
Southern Rhodesia received the biggest share of the Federal assets when the Federation was dissolved
in 1963. The Federal assets were shared out in the ratio of fifty-two per cent for Southern Rhodesia,
thirty seven per cent for Northern Rhodesia and eleven per cent for Nyasaland at its dissolution. Already
the recipient of a whooping sixty per cent of the Federal government’s income tax revenue, Southern
Rhodesia also claimed the lion’s share of the Federal government’s equipment when it collapsed in
1963. This included war planes and other military equipment for the squadrons and parachute
commandos. This was certainly a big boost for the Rhodesian Front government which quickly found
itself in a military conflict with the African nationalist parties which lasted from 1966 to 1979 when a
ceasefire was finally signed. Apart from this Southern Rhodesia retained all the infrastructural
developments on its soil including the University, roads, railway and airport.
138
On the other hand it was not all rosy for Southern Rhodesia as the territory also inherited the greatest
chunk of the Federal debt. Also the huge mining companies abandoned Salisbury and relocated to
Lusaka in Zambia. In the words of the prominent historian Terence Ranger, “Sheer survival was the first
consideration for Southern Rhodesia in 1963.”
The benefits for Southern Rhodesia’s Africans were rather limited as they remained marginalized in the
political set-up. Although Southern Rhodesia had a monopoly of political power through its numerical
advantage in the Federal parliament these benefits were an exclusive preserve of its white minority. The
Africans remained marginalized in the political setup as they could only contribute only two out of
Southern Rhodesia’s share of eighteen parliamentarians. They were further hindered from political
participation by a very narrow voting franchise whose property, wealth and literacy requirements
prevented a great number of them from registering as voters. The Federation therefore perpetuated the
whites’ stranglehold on political power.
Southern Rhodesia’s majority African population still had to live under harsh, repressive laws and other
forms of social discrimination despite Federal promises of racial integration and partnership. Despite
promises of greater racial integration and co-operation, the Federation failed to bring about any
significant improvements to the social status of Africans as some of the harshest and most
discriminatory laws remained in place. Hated pieces of legislation such as the Land Apportionment Act
(1930) and the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951) remained in full force depriving Africans of farming
land in the best farming regions of the country and ensuring that they remained poverty stricken and
dependent on the whites. Pass laws also remained in place and restricted the Africans’ freedom of
movement. All told the Africans remained in that same position of social inferiority as ever before.
The larger share of the economic benefits were enjoyed by Southern Rhodesia’s whites and blacks
continued to be disadvantaged. Despite receiving the greater share of the infrastructural investments
and economic developments, Africans remained disadvantaged and the Federation was completely
successful in its racist objective of maintaining the economic benefits in white hands. In fact the
Federation was described by its Prime Minister Godfrey Huggins as a partnership where Europeans
would be the riders and Africans the horses. Various measures were adopted to perpetuate the
marginalisaton and exploitation of Africans. One such measure was the differential wage structure
whose main consequence in 1956 was an average African wage of £70 a year compared to the European
average of £800. Even in the high paying Copper belt region of Northern Rhodesia, the highest paid
African earned £540 annually while the lowest paid European got £1858. Ownership of the economic
enterprises and key positions in companies was almost exclusively European; Africans were brought into
the system in their capacity as lowly paid labourers.
In conclusion Southern Rhodesia benefitted a great deal in political and economic terms from the
establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. However these benefits were largely
restricted to the minority white population and the black majority continued to suffer political,
economic and social injustices.
139
WHAT MEASURES WERE TAKEN BY THE SETTLER GOVERNMENTS TO FRUSTRATE AFRICAN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITIES BETWEEN 1894 AND 1951?
1. This is a straightforward question requiring the candidate to outline the settler government’s policies
that were designed to frustrate African economic activities as a way of forcing them to submit to the
colonial capitalist system as labourers
2. A knowledge of various African activities is essential e.g. crop cultivation, pastoralism, mining, tool
making, hunting and gathering, trade, tribute and raiding
3. It will be important to examine the settler government’s policies to hinder the above and other
African economic activities
SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES TO CONSIDER INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Expropriation of land- the Europeans started the process of grabbing the Africans’ land in 1890 when
they occupied a part of Mashonaland. More land was forcibly taken away from the Africans in 1894 after
the defeat of the Ndebele in the Anglo-Ndebele war of 1893-4. The land-grab was followed up by the
creation of reserves for Africans in the Gwayi and Shangani areas that were arid and infertile. Given the
fact land was the mode of production for the Africans whose most important economic activity was
Agriculture it is not difficult to understand that the land-grabbing and subsequent creation of reserves
severely frustrated and undermined the Africans’ way of life.
2. Confiscation of cattle- apart from pegging out huge farms for themselves on land that had been taken
away from the Ndebele in 1894, the Europeans also went on to loot large herds of the Ndebele cattle.
Pastoralism was also an important economic activity and cattle were significant as a form of wealth.
They were used to pay the bride-price, for trade, for meat and milk as well as for ritual purposes. The
expropriation of large herds of African cattle had negative results for the Africans leaving many of them
poorer and unable to live a self-sufficient life. Many were ultimately forced to sell their labour rather
cheaply to the Europeans on their farms and mines in order to survive.
3. Forced labour- the Europeans often resorted to forcing Africans to work for them on their farms and
mines. Such measures removed Africans from their independent and traditional economic pursuits of
agriculture and pastoralism and prevented them from being self-reliant. The practice of forced labour
was extremely brutal to the point that it became a major African grievance leading up to the first
Ndebele-Shona uprising popularly known as the First Chimurenga/Umvukela of 1896-7
4. Taxation- different kinds of taxes were imposed on the Africans by the settler governments in a clear
attempt to uproot them from their traditional agricultural and pastoral way of life and get them to
participate in the money-based colonial and capitalist economy as manual labourers. There was a Hut
Tax, a Poll Tax and even a cattle tax among others and all these had to be paid in cash in order to induce
the Africans to take up paid employment on the European farms, mines and manufacturing industries.
5. Discriminatory and oppressive laws- perhaps the best known was the Land Apportionment Act first
passed in 1930 and amended so many times afterwards. This divided the country’s land into African and
140
European areas. Europeans were given 48 million acres in the prime farming regions that were closest to
transport and telecommunications infrastructure while over one million Africans were allocated only 21
million acres of mostly arid and barren land far removed from the markets and transport and
telecommunications facilities. Overcrowding and a severe deterioration in African agriculture quickly
followed and the settler government attempted to redress the consequent environmental degradation
by passing the equally discriminatory and oppressive Native Land Husbandry Act in 1951. This law
further frustrated and undermined African economic activity and way of life by imposing limits on land
owned, cattle owned as well as prohibiting tree cutting which was a source of firewood for rural energy
requirements. The Maize Control Act discriminated against African farmers causing their produce to be
classified as inferior to that of the Europeans and therefore attracting a lower purchase price. The
Masters and Servants Act as well as the Industrial Conciliation Act were some of the oppressive pieces of
legislation that prevented African workers from effectively organizing themselves in trade unions that
could negotiate with employers for higher wages and better working conditions.
6. Having outlined and discussed the measures stated above, it will remain for the candidate to conclude
that the combination of all those measures succeeded in frustrating and progressively destroying African
economic activities
141
“THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE TRANSVAAL PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE COLONISATION OF
ZIMBABWE.”DISCUSS
1. The question requires a knowledge of the factors that led to the colonisation of Zimbabwe and these
include the desire by Cecil Rhodes (and the British government ) to encircle the Transvaal government in
order to prevent it from extending its rule further north into the interior of the continent
2. The next step would be to situate the issue of the Transvaal and weigh it against other factors in order
to show whether it was the more or less important factor in the colonisation of Zimbabwe
3. The colonisation of Zimbabwe should be seen as the outcome of Rhodes and the British government’s
struggle with the Transvaal government. The British government colonised Zimbabwe to prevent the
Transvaal from colonizing it and spreading its power northwards. The Transvaal had to be contained
because the alternative would have been that the British Cape Colony in the south would be cut off from
British colonies further north in Africa
4. It was a race that pitted the British against the Transvaal to dominate the interior of Africa and
whoever would be first to colonise Zimbabwe would encircle the other.
5. The British were envious of the Transvaal’s vast mineral wealth(diamonds and gold) and they hoped
to gain control of it by encircling and isolating the Transvaal
6. The timing of the British colonisation in 1888 came after the Transvaal’s moves to colonise Zimbabwe
in 1887 as evidenced by the Grobler Treaty. This clearly suggested a British desire to encircle the
Transvaal.
OTHER IMPORTANT REASONS FOR COLONIZING ZIMBABWE APART FROM THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE
TRANSVAAL INCLUDE:
1. The mistaken belief that Zimbabwe was the home of vast gold deposits (a second rand) much greater
than those found in the Transvaal
2. Zimbabwe was also occupied because it was strategic to Cecil Rhodes’ grand vision of creating an
unbroken chain of British colonies stretching from Cape to Cairo
3. It was also occupied in response to the missionaries’ long standing calls to crush the Ndebele power
and facilitate the spread of Christianity which had failed to make headway despite the opening of the
Inyathi and Hope Fountain mission stations in 1859 and 1870
4. It was occupied in response to the prevailing European world outlook which was colonialist. Territorial
expansion added to the power and prestige of the European countries
142
Concession, 1888)

143
in 1893.
144
ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE NGUNI INCURSIONS ON THE ROZVI STATE. (NOV 2007)
145
146
147
Examine Britain’s role in the collapse of the Congress System
From the onset, Britain stood apart from the other European powers and opposed the Russian-
sponsored scheme to thwart the spread of liberalism in Europe. With the exception of Britain, the
architects of the Vienna Settlement were conservative absolute rulers who felt threatened by (French)
revolutionary ideas such as nationalism and liberalism. Moreover Russia and Austria were multi-national
empires whose very existence was threatened by nationalism such that any concession to that principle
would be an act of suicide. The Russians, Austrians and Prussians had conservative rulers still firmly
convinced of their ‘divine right to rule’ and they had not fought the French for so long only to concede
their right to rule and that of their empires to exist at the congress table. Thus the Russians clung onto
the Poles and the Finns among other nationalities while the Austrians did likewise to the Slavs, Serbs,
Magyars and Italians in their multi-national empire. The Russian king Alexander even proposed a ‘Holy
Alliance’ of Christian monarchs devoted to the suppression of nationalist and liberal forces wherever
they reared their heads. Although he privately declared it a “loud sounding nothing” Metternich whole-
heartedly endorsed on behalf of the Austrian emperor. It occurred to him that it could be useful for
suppressing opposition to monarchical rule. Only Britain refused to join what its representative
Castlereagh described as a “piece of sublime mysticism and non-sense”.
While there appeared to be a general desire to address issues of common rather than self-interest at the
Congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818, Britain once again stood isolated from the other powers on various
issues. Having agreed with other powers on re-admitting France to the ranks of the great powers as an
equal partner, Britain differed with them on the issue of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Barbary pirates
who threatened European shipping and trade on the seas. The congress also discussed the revolt of
Spain’s American colonies with Russia urging European intervention to support Spain. Disagreements
pitting Britain against the others arose over these issues. Tackling the slave trade and the pirates would
have required stationing naval squadrons with stop and search powers over all ships. Only Britain had
the naval capacity and other powers were wary of giving Britain that kind of authority fearing it would
only entrench its dominance. Conversely Britain was also wary of placing its navy under international
authority and so the slave trade and piracy continued unabated. Russia’s interventionist schemes in
America were opposed by Britain and Austria. Britain evidently hoped the revolts would lead to the
collapse of the Spanish empire therefore allowing it access to trade markets it was excluded from.
Even at the congresses of Troppau and Laibach in 1820 and 1821, Britain opposed Austria and Russia
over revolts in various European states. The two congresses were called to discuss the revolts that had
broken out in Spain, Portugal and Naples. Britain ganged up with France to oppose Austrian and Russian
interventionist schemes on behalf of the governments of those states after they had requested
assistance in dealing with their rebellious subjects. Austria was eventually authorised to intervene in
Naples by Russia, Prussia and Austria at Troppau. Britain sulked over the majority’s decision and told
Austria that it was intervening in its personal capacity not that of the congress.
148
The British attitude was no different at the Congress of Verona called in 1822 to discuss the Spanish and
Greek issues. The usual disagreements over intervention arose and this time Russia was in support of
the Greek rebels against their Turkish masters while France sought to crush the rebels in Spain. As usual
Britain was opposed. Russia was restrained by the majority decision against intervention while France
was authorised to act in Spain although Britain objected. At the end of the day the British stance of non-
intervention in the affairs of other states rendered the whole concept of the congress system
ineffective. As the British representative Canning put it when the congress broke down due to
disagreements, “things are getting back to a wholesome state again-every nation for itself and God for
us all.” Such statements demonstrated how much Britain opposed the collective efforts of the congress
system.
Having observed all this, it would however be unfair to attribute all the blame for the congress system’s
collapse on Britain.
Conservative countries like Russia and Austria should shoulder some of the blame as they sought to turn
the congress into an instrument for protecting their own political philosophies. As already discussed
above, these powers sought to turn the congress system into a “holy alliance” to protect themselves
against liberal ideas. Britain was justified in resisting their scheme because it was a constitutional
monarchy in line with some of the liberal principles the other absolutist states wanted to supress. The
congress system was bound to collapse someday because it had been created by European states whose
political ideologies and interests were not only fundamentally different but also in conflict as well. As
such, heaping the blame on Britain alone is to miss the full picture of a congress whose collapse was a
collective responsibility.
Russia’s Tsar Alexander and Austria’s Metternich should shoulder a big chunk of the responsibility of
making Britain hostile to the congress system due to their huge appetite for interfering in other states’
affairs. It was clear that the two states had found in the congress system, a useful instrument for
intervening in other states to save monarchical rulers against their own subjects. It was intervention at
all costs even if the subjects had justifiable grounds for opposing their rulers as was the case in Naples
and Spain where there were demands to grant or respect the charters which the rulers were clearly
violating. Britain therefore worked for the collapse of the congress system only because it had been
provoked by the selfishness of the Austrians and Russians.
In conclusion, while it can be observed that Britain played a prominent role in bringing down the
congress system, that was only after the realisation that it was now being used by the other powers to
pursue their agendas which were diametrically opposed to theirs.
149
Which of the following best describes the Vienna settlement of 1815, fear, compromise or greed?
Fear
(1) Of French aggression hence stripping France of its conquests and returning it to its 1792 and then
1790 boundaries
(2) Of French aggression hence the creation of buffer states around France’s borders
(3) Of French aggression hence the banishment of Napoleon and the Bonapartist dynasty from the
French throne
(4) Imposing a crippling indemnity and army of occupation on France
(5) Of liberalism and nationalism hence the decision to restore monarchical rulers
(6) Of future wars hence the decision to have periodic congresses to peacefully resolve conflicts before
they degenerate into warfare
Compromise
(1) Compromise with Napoleon hence the decision to allow him to keep a monarchical title at Elba and
pay him a salary
(2) Compromise with liberal values hence the decision to temper the return of the Bourbons to France
with a constitutional charter
(3) Compromise with absolutist, Christian values hence the Holy Alliance
Greed
(1) Stripping France of all its conquests
(2) Imposing a crippling indemnity on France which was only paid up three years later in 1818
(3) Britain took most of France’s overseas territories
(4) Russia rewarding itself with Poland and Bessarabia
(5) Prussian demands for all of Saxony which were subsequently denied by the other powers
Conclusion
150
The Vienna Settlement was to a large extent a compromise because there was a serious attempt to
balance conflicting interests including the need to punish France for its aggression while at the same
time ensuring it did not become to weak as to fail to defend itself should it be attacked.
There was also an attempt to balance between the need for victorious countries to reward themselves
with territories taken from the vanquished while at the same time avoiding a situation where any one of
them became too powerful that they could easily attack the others in future
There was also an attempt to balance between treating France leniently so as to prevent it from
becoming a permanent enemy of Europe while at the same time punishing it for the aggression which
had resulted in more than 20 years of continued warfare
There was also an attempt to balance between restoring the values of monarchical absolutism and
accommodating some of the principles of liberalism
151
“THE FEAR THAT FRANCE WANTED TO EXPORT ITS REVOLUTION WAS UNJUSTIFIED.” HOW FAR IS THIS
TRUE OF FRANCE’S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE YEARS FROM THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF MAN
(1789) TO THE FALL OF THE DIRECTORY (1799)?
The 1789 Declaration of the Rights spoke of rights as universal to all people implying French support for
revolutions elsewhere and that justified European fears about French intentions. The National Assembly
voted to grant civil rights to all its citizens. More significantly and ominously for other European
countries was the fact that it spoke of these rights as natural, inalienable and universal to all human
beings. There was an implicit promise of support for revolutions carried out elsewhere in order to
achieve those rights. Consequently there was great excitement all over Europe over the outbreak of the
French Revolution. In Britain, celebrated poets like William Blake welcomed the revolution and spoke of
it as the “dawn of a blissful era”. Given such excitement and implications of the declaration of rights, the
monarchical governments of Europe had every reason to fear that France would want to export its
revolution.
The 1791 Edict of Fraternity was explicit in its promise of support for people wishing to overthrow their
monarchical governments and therefore the fears over French intentions were highly justified. The edict
was issued in 1791 by an overzealous French government and it contained pledges of assistance to
people all over Europe in their endeavours to overthrow monarchical rule and achieve civil rights for all.
The French government followed up the edict with the proclamation of its doctrine of the “Sovereignty
of the People”. They stated that all political power belonged to the people and rulers had to act in the
best interests of their people. They were to be accountable to their people and could be removed by
them. At that point the French Revolution ceased to be a purely French phenomenon, its focus had
become European. According to C.A. Leeds “The French Revolution thus became of European concern.”
Europeans were completely justified in their fears about French intentions which were no longer secret.
1790 Civil Constitution of the Clergy was also cause for general European concern because it threatened
long-held international Christian values of Catholicism. The civil constitution was passed to limit the
power of the church and bring it under state control. It also undermined the pope’s authority by taking
away his power to appoint archbishops and giving it to French voters. The civil constitution was
overwhelmingly rejected by the pope and the French clergy not just because of the restrictions on
Catholic independence and authority but also because it suggested that religion could be subordinated
to human control. Church independence and influence had been based on the notion that it was free
from human or government interference and answerable only to God. Although the civil constitution
was a domestic issue, it had the potential of escalating if other Catholic countries imitated the example
of the revolutionaries of France. The pope and the Catholic Church had every reason to fear that France
could seek to spread its revolutionary ideas about the role of the church.
The 1792 French declaration of war on other European states justified fears about French intentions as
that marked the start of the revolutionary wars that helped to carry the revolutionary message to other
countries. The declaration was sparked in part by the selfish desire for conquest, partly by the desire for
greatness and international prestige and partly by the natural instinct for self-preservation against its
enemies French aggression inevitably brought it into conflict with countries like Austria, Prussia,
152
Holland, Spain and Britain among others. Whatever the cause, European countries were justified that
the one outcome of the wars would be the spread of the French revolutionary ideas. They were certainly
spread by French soldiers who posed as liberators from monarchical tyrants in the countries they
conquered.
In 1793 the French government began to use the “Doctrine of Natural Frontiers” to justify its aggression
against fellow European countries giving rise to fears that French territorial expansion would be
accompanied by the spread of its revolutionary programme all over Europe. This doctrine was used to
justify France’s “right” to extend its territory to the Rhine, Pyrenees and the Alps which it claimed to be
its natural boundaries. Since it could only acquire these territories at the expense of Prussia, Holland,
Spain and Austria, the natural consequence was conflict with these countries. It was a war that would
drag on for over twenty years and quite often France used revolutionary propaganda to win this war.
Revolutionary propaganda was used to great effect when the French launched their campaign to wrest
control of Italy from the Austrians. The Italians are said to have welcomed Napoleon’s army as liberators
from harsh Austrian rule.
The 1793 violations of the Scheldt treaties demonstrated France’s revolutionary approach to
international relations which was reason enough for Europe to fear French intentions. The Scheldt
Treaty provided for Dutch neutrality in wars and closed the area to warships. The Dutch controlled city
of Antwerp had also been closed to international trade. These were the internationally agreed
provisions France violated by opening up the Scheldt to warships and Antwerp to international trade.
Those actions raised European fears about French aims and led to war with Holland and Britain.
French conquerors spread revolutionary propaganda and also implemented administrative changes to
give effect to revolutionary principles. European fears about France’s desire to revolutionise Europe
were therefore justified by such activities. The slogans of French soldiers included catch-phrases like
“liberty, equality and fraternity”. They also spoke of “Peace to the peoples and war against tyrants”. The
French government lost no time in implementing the revolutionary programme by issuing instructions to
French generals to suppress feudalism and confiscate aristocratic and church property in all conquered
territories.
The aggressive policies of the Directory (1795-99) also justified European fears that France was re-
fashioning Europe in its own revolutionary image. The Directory pursued aggressive policies of making
direct conquests and creating client states dependant on France. There were direct annexations of
Belgium and the creation of affiliated states like the Batavian Republic. France proceeded to make
administrative changes in these conquered states. Feudalism was also abolished in line with the
revolutionary principles of granting civil rights and legal equality.
On the other hand, French policies could be seen as the outcome of other factors not connected with
any desire to export its revolution. Their policies were also dictated by factors like the natural desire for
self-preservation and international prestige from territorial conquests and expansion.
French aggression could have been more about the natural hunger for glory and national prestige than
out of the desire to spread the revolution and in that case, European fears were misplaced. Wars of
153
conquest had always been an important feature of European politics. Prior to the French Revolution,
France had fought with Britain and lost the battle for supremacy in Canada. They went on to avenge the
loss and gain some measure of prestige by assisting American rebels in their fight for independence
from Britain from 1776 to 1783. During the revolution, the French government also declared war on
other European countries and that policy may be viewed as the continuation of the expansionist agenda
that had always characterised European relations. There were other simultaneous wars of conquest like
the partitions of Poland by Prussia, Russia and Austria. Russia and Turkey had also clashed as Russia
sought to gain territory at Turkey’s expense. The French aggression against other states was probably
conceived in the same vein of acquiring territory and the resultant prestige. The European countries had
every reason to fear French aggression not so much because it would lead to the spread of the
revolution but simply because it meant loss of valuable territory and prestige.
French war designs were dictated by survival instinct rather than revolutionary zeal. From 1792 France
pursued an aggressive expansionist policy. That led to the conquest of Belgium and the violation of
international treaties like the one concerning the Scheldt. While Europe had every reason to fear France,
they need not have feared that exporting the revolution was a top priority. France acted aggressively
more out of the need for self-preservation as it felt it was surrounded by hostile monarchical
governments opposed to the abolition of monarchical absolutism. Austria and Prussia had already
demonstrated their opposition to the political developments in France by offering refuge to rebellious
nobles and clerics as well as issuing the Brunswick Manifesto and Declaration of Pilnitz which threatened
war on France if the king was harmed in any way. Thus for France it simply became a question of striking
first in a struggle to preserve themselves from inevitable attacks to destroy them. It was therefore not
so much about exporting any revolution as it was about self-preservation.
It is also possible that all talk about revolution was in the main just propaganda to win what were
essentially wars of territorial aggrandisement. It is a fact that those aspiring for domination the world
over have always used propaganda to hide their true aims. They even promise their target audience
reforms of various kinds. Very likely the French revolutionaries were no different in this respect. When
the French revolutionaries attacked the Austrians, they promised liberty, equality and fraternity to win
over their Italian subjects. They were indeed welcomed by the Italians as liberators from harsh Austrian
rule. However, Napoleon never truly implemented the much promised liberty. In any case it had never
been truly implemented in France itself. Instead, Napoleon proceeded to levy taxes, conscript soldiers
and loot Italian art treasures and sent them to France. Given this scenario, Europeans were only justified
in fearing that French aggression would lead to French territorial gains rather than to the spread of its
revolution.
In conclusion, it can be seen that France pursued an aggressive foreign policy characterised by
diplomatic and military confrontation with other European states. Although French aggression was
characterised by high levels of propaganda about spreading the revolution, European countries need not
have feared. French foreign policy was guided more by the natural desires for territorial aggrandisement
and world domination. These were desires every European country possessed and in any case
revolutionary ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity were incompatible with French desires for “natural
frontiers” and international prestige.
154
HOW SUCCESSFULLY DID LOUIS NAPOLEON III ATTEMPT TO SECURE SUPPORT WITHIN FRANCE FOR
HIS RULE BETWEEN 1848 AND 1870?
The success of the February 1848 revolution against Louis Philippe’s Orleans monarchy served to split
the revolutionaries into two rival camps that embarked on a short but vicious struggle for power in June
that year. The defeat of the socialist faction facilitated the holding of presidential elections that sought
to give permanence to the newly established Second Republic. The anxieties and tensions generated by
the ‘June Days’ only caused France to entrust its destiny to Louis Napoleon in the belief that he was the
man to guarantee order, security, restore material prosperity and as well as revive national prestige. But
he was a schemer who swore loyalty to the Republic and its constitution while conspiring and awaiting
the opportune moment to strike and establish his imperial rule. From 1848 right up to 1870 he
employed various methods to secure support for his rule and these included propaganda, armed force,
repression as well as political, social and economic reforms. Perhaps one measure of the success of
these and other methods is that his empire survived throughout this period without much hint that it
was under any mortal threat within France although there was increasing republican opposition from
the 1860s onwards. The aim of this essay is to argue that Napoleon was on the whole successful in
securing support for his rule and that especially with ordinary people than with politicians and other
interest groups.
Napoleon III was on the whole successful in obtaining the support of the middle and propertied classes
through the adoption of measures that not only guaranteed property rights but also promoted big
business. As already shown, he had successfully projected himself as the man who could maintain order
and stability as well as guarantee property rights in France. This was especially important for the middle
and all propertied classes including the industrial and commercial interests who had fears of a socialist
revolution such as the one that had been attempted in June 1848. After his 1848 victory in the
presidential elections he wasted no time in initiating various measures designed to promote business
interests and therefore maintain their support for his rule. Large loan banks were set up to provide
capital for industrial and other developments. Thus large scale projects such as the Suez Canal in Egypt
were undertaken with French capital and expertise. There was also spectacular growth in the railways
where there had only been 1800 kilometres of railway in 1848. That had risen to 17 500 kilometres by
1870. Napoleon also negotiated favourable trade agreements for French companies with Britain,
Belgium, Holland, Sweden and the Zollverein of the German states. Finance was also provided for the
clearance of slums and development of urban real estate. The city of Paris probably benefited the most
as it was beautified with new buildings and the construction of wide and spacious avenues. So much had
been achieved by the mid-1850s that Napoleon found it fitting to stage an international exhibition in
1855. The event which showcased the technological achievements and beauty of the remodelled French
cities attracted so many visitors. There were of course complaints from some commercial interests and
industrialists over the free trade that exposed them to foreign competition but that did not detract from
the overall success of Napoleon’s programme nor his popularity among these classes. The success of
Napoleon’s measures in guaranteeing him the support of these classes has even been acknowledged by
his opponents and critics including the Duke of Broglie and Karl Marx. Writing in his memoirs, the duke
155
conceded that their hopes of removing Napoleon after the expiry of his presidential mandate were
destroyed because:
“…there were now added to the blind votes of the crowd the support of all the commercial and
industrial interests…” Karl Marx corroborated this view and added that the bourgeoisie supported the
establishment of Napoleon’s Second Empire as a better alternative to the re-establishment of either
Bourbon or Orleans monarchies.
Napoleon also successfully consolidated the support of the working and ordinary classes of French
people. He had first won liberal support in 1848 by cleverly exploiting the appeal of the Napoleonic
Legend through the publication of romanticised accounts of the career and aims of his uncle Napoleon
Bonaparte. He claimed that his uncle would have given France and indeed Europe liberal institutions had
he not been thwarted by Britain. Napoleon III then proceeded to project himself as the heir to his
uncle’s legacy who would in time give to France and Europe those liberal institutions. The general
amnesty that allowed the return of all who had been exiled since 1851 for their opposition to his coup of
that year was announced in 1859 as a prelude to the ‘liberal empire’ of the 1860s. It will be remembered
that at its inception, the Second Empire was extremely centralised and above all authoritarian. The
imperial constitution gave Napoleon III complete control of the armed forces and appointment of
ministers who were responsible only to him. Parliament, the judiciary and other government officials
had to swear to an oath of allegiance to him. He alone could declare war or make peace in addition to
initiating legislation. Napoleon III changed all that in the 1860s when he conceded parliament’s right to
respond and debate his imperial speech and to the appointment of ministers from the party with the
majority in the Legislative Assembly. He also agreed that membership to the senate should be elective
rather than by his nomination. Ministers were also allowed to sit in the assembly and be accountable to
it. Freedoms of expression among others were restored following the relaxation of censorship. Thus
Napoleon III had fulfilled his promise to liberalise his empire hence the new dispensation was known to
many as ‘the liberal empire’.
His somewhat aggressive foreign policy also seemed to be a fulfilment of his promise to spread
liberalism to Europe. He won support for the Crimean War against Russia in 1854 as Russia was the
staunch defender of the 1815 Vienna Settlement that had subjected France to over thirty years of
humiliating peace and disgrace in Europe. His next step was support for Piedmont against Austria in
1859 which he followed up with mediation in the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. All these activities were
well received by liberals and advocates of national glory who not only saw the advancement of
liberalism (in Italy) but also the humiliation of the defenders of the hated Vienna Settlement and the
consequent revival of French prestige.
156
Workers and other ordinary people continued to give support to the man whose useful reforms went a
long way in ameliorating their lives over the years. He railed against the Legislative Assembly’s decision
to disenfranchise three million ordinary people and forcibly re-enfranchised them in 1851. The workers
were quite satisfied with their emperor who started public works to provide employment. Railways,
roads, canals, harbours were constructed as a result. Relief measures were implemented when poor
harvests and floods caused suffering and Napoleon III often visited disaster areas. Savings banks and
mutual aid societies were also promoted to assist workers. They were also given the right to form trade
unions and to strike in 1868. They seemed happy to approve every measure he undertook by giving their
overwhelming support in all the plebiscites he held. The first was to seek approval for the coup in 1851,
then for the establishment of the empire in 1852 and then for the ‘liberal empire’ in 1870. Napoleon III
was certainly grateful for their support and accordingly spoke of them as “the only sovereign whom I
recognise in France.”
Even the Catholic Church appeared to support his rule especially as he conciliated it with favourable
domestic and foreign policies. Although there would be some sore points such as Napoleon’s support for
Piedmont in 1859 and the ill-fated Mexican campaign of the 1860s he retained clerical support
throughout. On the domestic scene, Napoleon III gave back the clergy control over education through
the Falloux Law in 1850. The previous year he had satisfied clerical demands for the defence and
protection of the pope from Italian patriots bent on uniting the country by seizing papal territories. He
dispatched troops to Rome who remained there until the Franco-Prussian war in 1870.
That Napoleon did face opposition does not detract from the fact that he was on the whole successful in
his quest for support. It is true that he had to use force to push through his agenda for the extension of
his rule to ten years from the mandatory four year term. It is also true that he employed repressive
measures such as press censorship, disbanding the National Guard and giving himself control over
parliament, government officials and the armed forces. Such measures suggest that he did not succeed
in winning over political bodies and interest groups such as the republicans who opposed him
throughout his reign. It is also true that no one is capable of pleasing everybody and therefore securing
total support. In other words he had his detractors but more importantly he still succeeded in capturing
majority support especially from the ordinary people whom his royalist opponents called the ‘blind
voters’. He however regarded them as the ‘only sovereign whom I recognise in France.’
All told, Louis Napoleon was successful in securing support for his rule between 1848 and 1870 despite
the opposition of vested interests such as the republicans and monarchists. The overwhelming support
received in the plebiscites and the mere fact that the empire survived without any significant internal
threat until military defeat by Prussia all points to support for Napoleon.
157
“HE OFFERED FRANCE ORDER AND SECURITY AGAINST SOCIAL UNREST.”HOW FAR DOES THIS VIEW
EXPLAIN THE SUCCESS OF NAPOLEON III FIRST IN BECOMING PRESIDENT OF FRANCE AND THEN IN
ESTABLISHING THE SECOND EMPIRE?
Louis Napoleon modelled himself on his famous uncle Napoleon Bonaparte and consequently believed
that he was destined to rule France. As early as 1836, he attempted to seize power in Strasbourg and
only succeeded in getting himself arrested and exiled to America. His second attempt in 1840 ended in
similar fashion only this time he was given a life sentence at the fortress of Ham. Yet in December 1848
he polled an overwhelming seven and a half million votes compared to the one and a half million of his
nearest rival. This change in his fortunes could be explained in the French electorate’s fear of the social
unrest that was posed by the socialist elements. They turned to Louis Napoleon as the man who would
guarantee order and stability. But his success was not simply founded on his ability to ensure order.
Surely the socialist elements would not have given him their support if that was all he stood for. Had it
simply been about that one issue it would have been logical to vote the tried and tested Cavaignac the
man who had crushed the socialist insurrection that June. Louis Napoleon meant different things to
different sections of the French populace which is why all of them believed him to be their man. As this
essay shall show he was a champion of order to the propertied classes, a champion of workers’ interests
while the very fact of his famous name held out the promise of military conquest and national glory to
those interested. This essay shall show that his use of force was the single most important factor behind
his success in establishing the Second Empire in December 1852.
Napoleon III’s success in becoming president stemmed in part from the general belief that he could give
France order and security after the chaos and violence that had rocked France in June that year. The
1848 presidential elections were held in a climate of fear and general insecurity as a result of the
violence that had gripped France as workers and other socialist elements waged a vicious and bloody
uprising aimed at turning France into a socialist state. The provisional government had declared a state
of emergency and used the army to quell the rising in two days of brutal massacres which have gone
down in history as the ‘June Days’. Dennis Richards puts the number of workers and their supporters
killed at ten thousand. D. Thomson estimates that a further eleven thousand were either summarily
executed or imprisoned in the aftermath of the fighting. Just as Napoleon Bonaparte had stepped in to
stabilise France after the violence and uncertainty of the ‘Terror’ and inefficiency of the Directory in
1799, Louis Napoleon III now proposed to stabilise France in the aftermath of this ghastly scenario. The
bourgeoisie and other propertied classes wholeheartedly endorsed him as the man who would
safeguard their property rights against the ‘red peril’ of the socialists that filled so many of them with
fear.
Napoleon III was regarded in many circles as the best hope for order and security because of his famous
ancestry and because he had not been involved in the June disturbances. Napoleon III benefited from
his famous name which was associated by many ordinary people with orderly and efficient government.
158
Just because he now promised the same order and efficiency that ordinary Frenchmen associated with
his legendary uncle, they considered him to be the right man for the job. He was also held to be ideal
because out of the three candidates he alone had not been involved in any way with the June
disturbances that had tarnished his rivals. General Cavaignac was hated especially among the workers as
the ‘butcher’ who mercilessly used his troops to massacre their colleagues in June. Larmatine was hated
as part of the provisional government that had declared a state of emergency and handed over all
executive authority to Cavaignac to butcher the socialists. Thus Napoleon III was the only one with a
clean slate and without enemies. He was therefore the best hope for order.
Napoleon III however had much more than his promise of order and security to thank for his success.
There were so many other important factors not least of all the appeal of his name and his willingness to
use force among other things.
There is certainly no denying the significant role played by his famous ancestry. It was enough to many
ordinary and politically naïve people that he was the nephew of the great Napoleon Bonaparte
especially at this time when there was a growth of ‘The Napoleonic Legend’. He was fortunate enough
to have come at a time when many Frenchmen were bored with over thirty years enforced peace and
emasculation imposed by the Vienna Settlement. Even the tame cautious policy of Louis Philippe did
nothing to assuage the longing for the exciting and glorious era of the Napoleonic conquests that had
made France great and feared throughout Europe. Louis Philippe had unwittingly contributed to the
nostalgia for the Napoleonic era by completing the Museum of Victories in Paris, naming streets and
bridges after Napoleon’s battles and victories. He had even brought back Napoleon’s remains for
reburial in France. As a result of the legend politically unsophisticated peasants are said to have hung
posters of Napoleon Bonaparte on their walls because they fondly imagined that he had seized land
from the church and nobles and given it to them. Napoleon III contributed further to the legend which
he also exploited by publishing his Des Idée’s Napoleoniennes (The Napoleonic Ideals). In this book, he
romanticised his uncle’s career and claimed he would have given France and Europe liberal institutions
had he not been prevented by Britain. He claimed that he would fulfil his uncle’s programme if elected.
Many voters did even know Louis Napoleon III who had spent most of his life in exile and in prison.
Professors van Jaarsveld and Theo van Wijk had a point in claiming that many “voted for a name, not for
a man or a programme” and that name symbolised to them “their revolt against the humiliation of
1815.”
Napoleon III secured the Catholic vote on the strength of his promises to restore the church to its
former prominence in state affairs. The church desired to reassert its control over education among
other things. Once elected, he wasted no time in agreeing to the necessary law to empower the church
in that direction. He also dispatched troops to Rome to restore and protect the pope who had been
159
displaced by the patriots of Italian unification. He thus ingratiated himself with the church and laid the
groundwork for his accession to the imperial throne in 1852.
the man would definitely initiate policies to improve their lot. It was not simply a question of their
intense hatred for Cavaignac the ‘butcher of June’ whose savagery had destroyed their hopes of socialist
revolution. Although that alone would have sufficed the also backed Napoleon III as he had outlined
proposals to improve their welfare in a pamphlet shrewdly entitled L’Extinction du Pauperisme (The
Extinction of Pauperism). He proceeded to make good on his promises by quickly initiating rail, road,
harbour and canal construction as well as sanitation programmes to improve the welfare of workers. He
posed as the champion of the common people by turning against a law that the Legislative Assembly
had passed to effectively disenfranchise three million ordinary people. By appearing to champion
workers’ rights to work and vote Napoleon III was assured of their support which he would need to
establish and legitimise his Second Empire.
Napoleon III also benefited from the complacency of the Bourbon and Orleans loyalists who under-
estimated and consequently found him the most acceptable of the candidates. It has been claimed by D.
Richards among others that that Napoleon III had made such a poor impression as a deputy in the
Legislative Assembly that some of the monarchists came to regard him as a weakling they would be able
to control once elected. Thiers even encouraged his candidature as a “noodle that anyone could twist
around his finger.” They felt he would be easier to handle than Cavaignac who was a military strongman
and Lamartine who was an eminent scholar and politician.
It is well and good to talk about his appeal and promises of order and security in explaining his victory in
the presidential elections but it is most definite that he would never have succeeded in his quest to be
emperor had it not been for the use of force.
In the first place he had only been able to hang on to his presidency by overthrowing both Legislative
Assembly and constitution shortly before the expiry of his four-year mandate. He used the soldiers to
dissolve the assembly, restore universal suffrage and call on the nation to approve a new constitution
that made him president for another ten years. Force was used to quell the uprising of socialists and
republicans and five hundred were killed in Paris. As many as twenty seven thousand were arrested, ten
thousand of whom were exiled from France. 7 500 000 approved the changes in a plebiscite while 1 500
000 voted no.
Thus force enabled the change to this new constitution which left him emperor all but in name. He
became dictator with control over the parliamentary bodies, armed forces and government officials
whom he had the prerogative of appointing. Consequently it was no surprise when senate ‘proposed’
160
that he become emperor as it was packed full of his supporters. It was equally not surprising that a
plebiscite overwhelmingly approved the proposal in December 1852. He had sufficiently bullied his
opponents by then.
Napoleon III’s success in becoming president owed to various factors including the perception that he
was the best hope for order and security for a country that had just witnessed so much chaos and
violence. His accession to the imperial throne however owed more to his willingness to use armed force
as discussed in this essay.
161
WHY AND WITH WHAT SUCCESS, DID THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT LEAD TO THE SUPPRESSION OF
NATIONALISM IN EUROPE BETWEEN 1815 AND 1830?
Mindful of the more than twenty years of war they had endured, the European powers sought to create
a permanently peaceful and stable Europe. To achieve that, they crafted the Vienna Settlement where
the European states were territorially balanced so that there was none too strong and none too weak. In
addition, they agreed on the formation of a Holy Alliance committed to suppressing revolutionary
nationalist agitation which was held to be a serious threat to the general peace. Finally they agreed to
the holding of periodic congresses to deal with threats to the peace as situations arose. They certainly
paid little regard to nationalism in the territorial re-adjustments they made and even to destroy it
through the Holy Alliance. As this essay shall show they were on the whole successful in suppressing it
between 1815 and 1830.
The architects of the Vienna Settlement were driven by the need to create an atmosphere of permanent
peace and stability and this often led to the disregard for nationalism. To achieve that they agreed on
territorial arrangements geared at creating a balance of power where it was envisaged that no one state
become too weak and none too powerful so that it could attack other states and endanger the peace.
Thus Belgium was transferred from Austria without any due consideration to the nationalist aspirations
of the Belgians because the over-riding consideration was to ensure that the Dutch would protect them
from French aggression. For the same reason Austria was allowed to re-assert it authority in Italy.
With the exception of Britain, the architects of the Vienna Settlement were conservative absolute rulers
who felt threatened by (French) revolutionary ideas such as nationalism and liberalism. Moreover Russia
and Austria were multi-national empires whose very existence was threatened by nationalism such that
any concession to that principle would be an act of suicide. The Russians, Austrians and Prussians had
conservative rulers still firmly convinced of their ‘divine right to rule’ and they had not fought the French
for so long only to concede their right to rule and that of their empires to exist at the congress table.
Thus the Russians clung onto the Poles and the Finns among other nationalities while the Austrians did
likewise to the Slavs, Serbs, Magyars and Italians in their multi-national empire. The tsar even proposed
a ‘Holy Alliance’ of Christian monarchs devoted to the suppression of nationalist and liberal forces
wherever they reared their heads. Although he privately declared it a “loud sounding nothing”
Metternich whole-heartedly endorsed on behalf of the Austrian emperor. It occurred to him that it
could be useful for suppressing opposition to monarchical rule.
The diplomats at the Congress of Vienna were also motivated by selfish considerations which led to the
sacrifice of nationalist aspirations in some cases. There was certainly a case of victors helping
themselves to spoils taken from the vanquished or exercising vindictiveness. Hence the Austrians took
back the Italian states. Russia also used the opportunity to formalise its acquisition of Finland and
Bessarabia both captured in earlier wars against Sweden Turkey respectively. Denmark was punished for
remaining too long in Napoleon’s camp and was compelled to hand over Norway to Sweden
162
The Vienna Settlement was on the whole successful in its quest to suppress nationalism from 1815 and
well into the 1820s and. Austria invoked the ideals of the Holy Alliance to crush nationalist agitation in
the German states that had broken out between 1819 and 1820. This was done through the
enforcement of measures such as inquisition into the nationalist secret societies, censorship and strict
supervision of the universities. These measures were known as the Carlsbad Decrees. The 1820-21
congresses of Troppau and Laibach also authorised Austria to crush similar agitation that had arisen in
the Italian states of Naples and Sicily. Even the Greek revolt against the Turks in 1821 was for the time
being fruitless because a combination of Holy Alliance ideals of denying support to nationalists and
concerted opposition from Britain and the other powers prevented Russia from aiding the Greeks. On
their own the Greeks could not overcome their Turkish overlords.
Nationalism did eventually triumph in 1827 but only because the major powers had permitted it to. The
1827 Treaty of London agreed to by Britain, Russia and France made Greek independence possible. It is
hardly likely that the powers acted because of a sudden liking for nationalism. It was more likely a case
of Russia assisting their fellow Slav and Orthodox brothers against the tyranny of the non-Christian Turks
and attempting to expand its influence in Central and Eastern Europe. Britain and France most likely
tagged along to prevent unilateral Russian action that would lead to Russian aggrandisement in Central
and Eastern Europe. In 1830, Greece was eventually declared to be independent under the joint
protectorate of Britain, France and Russia. What therefore emerges is a scenario where nationalism was
suppressed and succeeded only where it was permitted to by the major players of the Vienna
Settlement.
The Greek case was to be the only real success for nationalism up to 1830. Revolts fared up across
Europe especially in the Italian states and in Poland but these were ultimately unsuccessful in their
objects of expelling foreigners and achieving nationhood. Although shaken and temporarily driven back
the Austrians and Russians recovered sufficiently to re-impose themselves in Italy and Poland
respectively. Even the Belgian revolt was a year away from success and that victory of 1831 is outside
the scope of this essay.
Achieving peace and stability through the creation of a balance of power among the European states,
preserving the multi-national empires of Austria and Russia were key considerations of the Vienna
Settlement. Nationalism was sacrificed and successfully so, to those considerations throughout the
period discussed in this essay.
163
HOW FAR AND WHY DID THE AIMS OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES IN FRANCE CHANGE FROM THE
MEETING OF THE ESTATES- GENERAL IN 1789 TO THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI IN 1793.
The initial moderate aim to establish a constitutional monarchy changed in 1792 to the more radical aim
of the republicanism. The revolutionaries began by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming
the National Assembly. They now claimed to speak and act on behalf of the entire nation of France in
political, economic and social issues. They switched their attention to the drafting of a constitution that
would provide for limitations on monarchical authority and power-sharing. The subsequent creation first
of a Legislative Assembly and then of the National Convention all demonstrated their aims of
establishing a constitutional monarchy. The moderate course was brief and by 1791France was well on
the way to far more radical policies. In 1792 the anti-monarchy sentiment was strong enough to lead to
the proclamation of a Republic. The king was arrested, tried and condemned to die in December that
year.
Various factors explain the radical shift in the revolutionaries’ aims. One significant issue was the growth
of influence of radical Jacobin revolutionary elements that drew their support from the powerful mobs
of Paris. They consolidated their strength by making use of the brute force of the mobs to disrupt
sessions of the Legislative Assembly as well as the National Convention. They even incited the mobs to
effect the arrest of 73 Girondists who were members of the National Convention. This and other failings
of their opponents enabled them to take charge of the revolution and create the Republic they fervently
desired. They were also aided by the failings of Louis XVI and the nobles and clergy. On numerous
occasions, Louis XVI used his veto against legislation that seemed to threaten the interests of the nobles
and clergy. The radicals were thus able to portray him as a biased ruler who only wanted to protect his
allies’ interests at the expense of the majority of the nation. Things got worse for him following the
alleged discovery of documents linking him to Revolutionary France’s enemies. His attempt to flee
France in 1791 as well as the Austrian and Prussian declarations of support all seemed to confirm his
treachery. All these were enough to lead to his dethronement, abolition of the monarchy and creation
of the Republic.
The revolutionaries’ initial moderate aim of political participation and power-sharing gave way in 1792
to the drastic desire for complete and exclusive power. In the beginning the revolutionaries’ aim of
obtaining a share of political power was evidenced by formation first of the National Assembly, then the
Legislative and finally the National Convention. These were created to exercise legislative functions
while the monarchy was allowed to continue exercising executive power. Through them Third Estate
came to participate in politics alongside the nobles and clergy. By 1791there was persecution of
monarchy, nobles and clergy as well as repressive laws. All this culminated in the abolition of the
monarchy and the creation of republic which demonstrated that the revolutionaries now wanted
complete and exclusive power to themselves. The Jacobin Regime of 1793 to 1794 passed the Law of
Suspects which criminalised expressions of support for the monarchy, nobles and clergy. A person could
be sentenced to die for speaking out in support for the monarchy and this kind of intolerance was
testimony to the radical shift in the aims of the revolutionaries.
164
Initial aims of limiting the power and influence of the church in politics and government soon gave way
in 1792-3 to the uncompromising aim of completely destroying the church and Christianity. In the
beginning, the revolutionaries tolerated the church and passed the Civil Constitution of the clergy. This
law was designed to limit power of church by subjecting to the revolutionary government’s control. This
was to be achieved by having their salaries paid by the government which also expected them to take an
oath of loyalty to it. The revolutionaries soon abandoned this moderate course embarked on a mission
to close all churches and persecute priests. The radical attempts to completely destroy the church and
Christianity culminated in the introduction of Revolutionary Calendar and other religions. This change
was the end-product of several factors that included the clergy and the pope’s stubborn refusal to
accept the civil constitution. The growth of a radical atheist and anti-Christian movement led by Herbet
during this period also contributed.
The 1789 aims of achieving individual liberty and social rights gave way to high levels of repression and
intolerance. It was evident that achieving civil rights was a top priority for the revolutionaries in 1789.
This was even expressed in the popularising of the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity. The
revolutionaries moved to put to effect by abolishing the privileges of the nobles and clergy in August
1789. They followed that up with a Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. This gave legal, economic
and social rights to all French citizens. In 1791 the civil liberties were formalised in the new Constitution.
That desire for universal liberty soon gave way to an intolerance and repression characterised by laws
against émigrés and the arrest of Girondists in 1792. The September (1792) Massacres of perceived
counter-revolutionaries and the harsh laws of the Reign of Terror all demonstrated a complete
abandonment of the initial aims of universal civil liberties. The shift stemmed from among other things
the revolutionaries’ growing fear of internal and external enemies. As indicated above, they had come
to the conclusion that the monarchy, nobles and clergy could not be trusted. They had to be suppressed
or destroyed and that could only be achieved through extreme repression and the suspension of civil
rights. There were also external enemies that included the Austrians, Prussians and British who had
invaded France early in 1793. The revolutionary government felt it necessary to introduce repressive
laws to scare their local supporters as well as raise armies and resources to drive them out. The
government introduced mass conscription and requisitioning which took away individuals’ rights to
refuse to serve in the army and also forced them to give their food and other material resources to the
government.
By 1792 initial aims of achieving democracy had been superseded by increasing autocracy and
dictatorship. The creation of National Assembly and Legislative Assembly as representative bodies to
share power with the monarchy all testified to the desire to achieve democracy in France. Further
measures included the declaration of rights and introduction of the vote. The crowning moment was the
passing of the 1793 Constitution which provided for universal suffrage. However that constitution was
not implemented and repression and intolerance began to set in. Initial targets of state repression were
the monarchy, nobles and clergy. Late in 1792, repression had become universal and even those in the
Third Estate were not spared. The September 1792 Massacres claimed more victims among them than it
did among the first and second estates. The change owed to the government’s heightened fears of
counter-revolution after peasants had combined with the clergy to stage revolts around the country but
165
especially in Vendee. Another factor was the Girondist-Jacobin struggle for power. This led to desperate
measures as each group sought to destroy the other in order to achieve total and uncontested power.
The invasion of France by European countries that included Prussia, Austria and Britain also led to the
adoption of repressive measures to starve the invaders of any local support from malcontents. A law of
suspects was introduced to deal with those who offered state enemies any kind of assistance. A special
court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was introduced in 1793 to try suspected cases of counter-
revolution. Suspects were denied legal representation and its decisions were often arbitrary such that so
many innocent people lost their lives.
In conclusion it can be restated that the revolutionaries initially had moderate aims that included
power-sharing, democracy and civil rights. By 1791, these aims had started to change as evidenced by
increased repression. There was even a desire for complete and exclusive political power. There were
many factors that caused the change. Some of them had to do with anger over the character of the king,
nobles and clergy who appeared stubborn, unrepentant and treacherous to the cause of the revolution.
166
“THE FEAR THAT FRANCE WANTED TO EXPORT ITS REVOLUTION WAS UNJUSTIFIED.” HOW FAR IS THIS
TRUE OF FRANCE’S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE YEARS FROM THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF MAN
(1789) TO THE FALL OF THE DIRECTORY (1799)?
The 1789 Declaration of the Rights spoke of rights as universal to all people implying French support for
revolutions elsewhere and that justified European fears about French intentions. The National Assembly
voted to grant civil rights to all its citizens. More significantly and ominously for other European
countries was the fact that it spoke of these rights as natural, inalienable and universal to all human
beings. There was an implicit promise of support for revolutions carried out elsewhere in order to
achieve those rights. Consequently there was great excitement all over Europe over the outbreak of the
French Revolution. In Britain, celebrated poets like William Blake welcomed the revolution and spoke of
it as the “dawn of a blissful era”. Given such excitement and implications of the declaration of rights, the
monarchical governments of Europe had every reason to fear that France would want to export its
revolution.
The 1791 Edict of Fraternity was explicit in its promise of support for people wishing to overthrow their
monarchical governments and therefore the fears over French intentions were highly justified. The edict
was issued in 1791 by an overzealous French government and it contained pledges of assistance to
people all over Europe in their endeavours to overthrow monarchical rule and achieve civil rights for all.
The French government followed up the edict with the proclamation of its doctrine of the “Sovereignty
of the People”. They stated that all political power belonged to the people and rulers had to act in the
best interests of their people. They were to be accountable to their people and could be removed by
them. At that point the French Revolution ceased to be a purely French phenomenon, its focus had
become European. According to C.A. Leeds “The French Revolution thus became of European concern.”
Europeans were completely justified in their fears about French intentions which were no longer secret.
1790 Civil Constitution of the Clergy was also cause for general European concern because it threatened
long-held international Christian values of Catholicism. The civil constitution was passed to limit the
power of the church and bring it under state control. It also undermined the pope’s authority by taking
away his power to appoint archbishops and giving it to French voters. The civil constitution was
overwhelmingly rejected by the pope and the French clergy not just because of the restrictions on
Catholic independence and authority but also because it suggested that religion could be subordinated
to human control. Church independence and influence had been based on the notion that it was free
from human or government interference and answerable only to God. Although the civil constitution
was a domestic issue, it had the potential of escalating if other Catholic countries imitated the example
of the revolutionaries of France. The pope and the Catholic Church had every reason to fear that France
could seek to spread its revolutionary ideas about the role of the church.
The 1792 French declaration of war on other European states justified fears about French intentions as
that marked the start of the revolutionary wars that helped to carry the revolutionary message to other
countries. The declaration was sparked in part by the selfish desire for conquest, partly by the desire for
greatness and international prestige and partly by the natural instinct for self-preservation against its
enemies French aggression inevitably brought it into conflict with countries like Austria, Prussia,
167
Holland, Spain and Britain among others. Whatever the cause, European countries were justified that
the one outcome of the wars would be the spread of the French revolutionary ideas. They were certainly
spread by French soldiers who posed as liberators from monarchical tyrants in the countries they
conquered.
In 1793 the French government began to use the “Doctrine of Natural Frontiers” to justify its aggression
against fellow European countries giving rise to fears that French territorial expansion would be
accompanied by the spread of its revolutionary programme all over Europe. This doctrine was used to
justify France’s “right” to extend its territory to the Rhine, Pyrenees and the Alps which it claimed to be
its natural boundaries. Since it could only acquire these territories at the expense of Prussia, Holland,
Spain and Austria, the natural consequence was conflict with these countries. It was a war that would
drag on for over twenty years and quite often France used revolutionary propaganda to win this war.
Revolutionary propaganda was used to great effect when the French launched their campaign to wrest
control of Italy from the Austrians. The Italians are said to have welcomed Napoleon’s army as liberators
from harsh Austrian rule.
The 1793 violations of the Scheldt treaties demonstrated France’s revolutionary approach to
international relations which was reason enough for Europe to fear French intentions. The Scheldt
Treaty provided for Dutch neutrality in wars and closed the area to warships. The Dutch controlled city
of Antwerp had also been closed to international trade. These were the internationally agreed
provisions France violated by opening up the Scheldt to warships and Antwerp to international trade.
Those actions raised European fears about French aims and led to war with Holland and Britain.
French conquerors spread revolutionary propaganda and also implemented administrative changes to
give effect to revolutionary principles. European fears about France’s desire to revolutionise Europe
were therefore justified by such activities. The slogans of French soldiers included catch-phrases like
“liberty, equality and fraternity”. They also spoke of “Peace to the peoples and war against tyrants”. The
French government lost no time in implementing the revolutionary programme by issuing instructions to
French generals to suppress feudalism and confiscate aristocratic and church property in all conquered
territories.
The aggressive policies of the Directory (1795-99) also justified European fears that France was re-
fashioning Europe in its own revolutionary image. The Directory pursued aggressive policies of making
direct conquests and creating client states dependant on France. There were direct annexations of
Belgium and the creation of affiliated states like the Batavian Republic. France proceeded to make
administrative changes in these conquered states. Feudalism was also abolished in line with the
revolutionary principles of granting civil rights and legal equality.
On the other hand, French policies could be seen as the outcome of other factors not connected with
any desire to export its revolution. Their policies were also dictated by factors like the natural desire for
self-preservation and international prestige from territorial conquests and expansion.
French aggression could have been more about the natural hunger for glory and national prestige than
out of the desire to spread the revolution and in that case, European fears were misplaced. Wars of
168
conquest had always been an important feature of European politics. Prior to the French Revolution,
France had fought with Britain and lost the battle for supremacy in Canada. They went on to avenge the
loss and gain some measure of prestige by assisting American rebels in their fight for independence
from Britain from 1776 to 1783. During the revolution, the French government also declared war on
other European countries and that policy may be viewed as the continuation of the expansionist agenda
that had always characterised European relations. There were other simultaneous wars of conquest like
the partitions of Poland by Prussia, Russia and Austria. Russia and Turkey had also clashed as Russia
sought to gain territory at Turkey’s expense. The French aggression against other states was probably
conceived in the same vein of acquiring territory and the resultant prestige. The European countries had
every reason to fear French aggression not so much because it would lead to the spread of the
revolution but simply because it meant loss of valuable territory and prestige.
French war designs were dictated by survival instinct rather than revolutionary zeal. From 1792 France
pursued an aggressive expansionist policy. That led to the conquest of Belgium and the violation of
international treaties like the one concerning the Scheldt. While Europe had every reason to fear France,
they need not have feared that exporting the revolution was a top priority. France acted aggressively
more out of the need for self-preservation as it felt it was surrounded by hostile monarchical
governments opposed to the abolition of monarchical absolutism. Austria and Prussia had already
demonstrated their opposition to the political developments in France by offering refuge to rebellious
nobles and clerics as well as issuing the Brunswick Manifesto and Declaration of Pilnitz which threatened
war on France if the king was harmed in any way. Thus for France it simply became a question of striking
first in a struggle to preserve themselves from inevitable attacks to destroy them. It was therefore not
so much about exporting any revolution as it was about self-preservation.
It is also possible that all talk about revolution was in the main just propaganda to win what were
essentially wars of territorial aggrandisement. It is a fact that those aspiring for domination the world
over have always used propaganda to hide their true aims. They even promise their target audience
reforms of various kinds. Very likely the French revolutionaries were no different in this respect. When
the French revolutionaries attacked the Austrians, they promised liberty, equality and fraternity to win
over their Italian subjects. They were indeed welcomed by the Italians as liberators from harsh Austrian
rule. However, Napoleon never truly implemented the much promised liberty. In any case it had never
been truly implemented in France itself. Instead, Napoleon proceeded to levy taxes, conscript soldiers
and loot Italian art treasures and sent them to France. Given this scenario, Europeans were only justified
in fearing that French aggression would lead to French territorial gains rather than to the spread of its
revolution.
In conclusion, it can be seen that France pursued an aggressive foreign policy characterised by
diplomatic and military confrontation with other European states. Although French aggression was
characterised by high levels of propaganda about spreading the revolution, European countries need not
have feared. French foreign policy was guided more by the natural desires for territorial aggrandisement
and world domination. These were desires every European country possessed and in any case
revolutionary ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity were incompatible with French desires for “natural
frontiers” and international prestige.
169
IN WHAT WAYS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, DID SOUTHERN RHODESIA BENEFIT FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND?
Southern Rhodesia benefitted from the construction of transport and communications infrastructure.
One of the major developments in this regard was the construction of a system of trunk roads to link
Southern Rhodesia to other important centres of the Federation. The transport system within Southern
Rhodesia was greatly improved by the construction of wide tarred roads. These replaced the
cumbersome and less spectacular strip-roads that had been a feature of the road network in the pre-
Federation era. There were also developments in the railway sector with the opening of a new railway
line in 1955 to link Salisbury with Lourenco Marques in Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique). Perhaps
the proverbial cherry on the cake was the construction of the Federal airport in Salisbury. The first
civilian airplane flights became a reality in 1956 from the airport which at the time boasted the longest
runway in the world.
Southern Rhodesia also benefitted a great deal from the financing and construction of large-scale
projects One such large-scale project was the hydro-electricity scheme at Kariba whose annual
production of 2011 million kilowatt hours of electricity went a long way in meeting Southern Rhodesia’s
industrial, mining, agricultural and domestic energy requirements. The hydro-electricity project which
was officially opened in May 1960 represented a huge achievement for the Federal government as it
called for the mobilization of resources far beyond the capabilities of the territorial government of
Southern Rhodesia. The benefits of the construction of Lake Kariba went far beyond the mere
generation of electricity to meet the Federation’s energy requirements as there were other significant
by-products. Tourism in Southern Rhodesia was significantly boosted as people came from different
parts of the world to view what was then the largest man-made lake in the world. An important fishing
industry soon developed with kapenta, bream and tiger fish being the most popular catches. This
provided employment in addition to catering for the protein requirements of the colony’s people. The
project had initially been earmarked for the Kafue River on the Northern Rhodesian side of the Zambezi.
Moving it to Kariba therefore represented a huge victory for Southern Rhodesia and a defeat for
Northern Rhodesia. Other large scale projects included the university college of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
which was constructed in Salisbury and opened in 1957
Southern Rhodesia was the biggest beneficiary of the Federal government’s programme to improve the
education sector. The colony’s tertiary education was greatly enhanced with the construction of
polytechnic colleges in the main urban centres. The crowning moment was the opening of the University
College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury in 1957. University education therefore became locally
accessible and this significantly reduced Southern Rhodesia and its Federal partners’ dependence on
South Africa and other countries to provide this service.
Southern Rhodesia reaped the largest benefits of economic integration Greater economic integration
was achieved partly by removing tariffs and other barriers to facilitate the freer movement of goods,
services and labour. This movement most certainly benefitted Southern Rhodesia which had a far more
170
diversified agricultural, manufacturing and mining economy. Although Northern Rhodesia’s copper
industry experienced a boom partly because of the power supply from Kariba and Nyasaland benefitted
from the cash remittances of its people working in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, the latter reaped
the larger share of the economic benefits. This was achieved by exploiting the cheap labour from
Nyasaland and raw materials from Northern Rhodesia’s copper mining industry to drive Southern
Rhodesia’s diverse mining, agriculture and manufacturing industry. These territories also provided a
market for Southern Rhodesia’s finished goods.
Its industries were revitalized and boosted by the cheap labour from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Providing adequate and cheap labour had always been a huge headache for the successive
administrations of Southern Rhodesia from the advent of colonial rule in the late nineteenth century.
The integration of the three territories facilitated the easier movement of people from Northern
Rhodesia and especially Nyasaland which had a large mass of unemployed people to find work in the
diversified mining, farming and manufacturing industries of Southern Rhodesia.
It also received the biggest share of the Federal budget. The settler politicians of Southern Rhodesia
made the most of their numerical advantage in the Federal government to ensure that Southern
Rhodesia got by far the largest chunk of the Federation’s income tax revenue. Southern Rhodesia was
entitled to sixty per cent compared to the seventeen per cent each that was allocated to Northern
Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is no wonder that southern Rhodesia developed at a faster rate than its
counterparts and attracted angry protests and the nickname “bambazonke” meaning grab all.
The Federal Constitution ensured that Southern Rhodesia achieved political domination. Right from the
onset Southern Rhodesia had a numerical advantage over the other two members of the Federation
which assured its domination of the Federal politics. It had eighteen members of parliament compared
to eleven for Northern Rhodesia and seven for Nyasaland. The first Federal Prime Minister Mr. Godfrey
Huggins was from Southern Rhodesia and Salisbury was chosen ahead of Livingstone and Lusaka in
Northern Rhodesia as the Federal capital. All these developments gave Southern Rhodesia a political
advantage over its partners which was used to channel most of the infrastructural developments to
Southern Rhodesia.
Southern Rhodesia received the biggest share of the Federal assets when the Federation was dissolved
in 1963. The Federal assets were shared out in the ratio of fifty-two per cent for Southern Rhodesia,
thirty seven per cent for Northern Rhodesia and eleven per cent for Nyasaland at its dissolution. Already
the recipient of a whooping sixty per cent of the Federal government’s income tax revenue, Southern
Rhodesia also claimed the lion’s share of the Federal government’s equipment when it collapsed in
1963. This included war planes and other military equipment for the squadrons and parachute
commandos. This was certainly a big boost for the Rhodesian Front government which quickly found
itself in a military conflict with the African nationalist parties which lasted from 1966 to 1979 when a
ceasefire was finally signed. Apart from this Southern Rhodesia retained all the infrastructural
developments on its soil including the University, roads, railway and airport.
171
On the other hand it was not all rosy for Southern Rhodesia as the territory also inherited the greatest
chunk of the Federal debt. Also the huge mining companies abandoned Salisbury and relocated to
Lusaka in Zambia. In the words of the prominent historian Terence Ranger, “Sheer survival was the first
consideration for Southern Rhodesia in 1963.”
The benefits for Southern Rhodesia’s Africans were rather limited as they remained marginalized in the
political set-up. Although Southern Rhodesia had a monopoly of political power through its numerical
advantage in the Federal parliament these benefits were an exclusive preserve of its white minority. The
Africans remained marginalized in the political setup as they could only contribute only two out of
Southern Rhodesia’s share of eighteen parliamentarians. They were further hindered from political
participation by a very narrow voting franchise whose property, wealth and literacy requirements
prevented a great number of them from registering as voters. The Federation therefore perpetuated the
whites’ stranglehold on political power.
Southern Rhodesia’s majority African population still had to live under harsh, repressive laws and other
forms of social discrimination despite Federal promises of racial integration and partnership. Despite
promises of greater racial integration and co-operation, the Federation failed to bring about any
significant improvements to the social status of Africans as some of the harshest and most
discriminatory laws remained in place. Hated pieces of legislation such as the Land Apportionment Act
(1930) and the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951) remained in full force depriving Africans of farming
land in the best farming regions of the country and ensuring that they remained poverty stricken and
dependent on the whites. Pass laws also remained in place and restricted the Africans’ freedom of
movement. All told the Africans remained in that same position of social inferiority as ever before.
The larger share of the economic benefits were enjoyed by Southern Rhodesia’s whites and blacks
continued to be disadvantaged. Despite receiving the greater share of the infrastructural investments
and economic developments, Africans remained disadvantaged and the Federation was completely
successful in its racist objective of maintaining the economic benefits in white hands. In fact the
Federation was described by its Prime Minister Godfrey Huggins as a partnership where Europeans
would be the riders and Africans the horses. Various measures were adopted to perpetuate the
marginalisaton and exploitation of Africans. One such measure was the differential wage structure
whose main consequence in 1956 was an average African wage of £70 a year compared to the European
average of £800. Even in the high paying Copper belt region of Northern Rhodesia, the highest paid
African earned £540 annually while the lowest paid European got £1858. Ownership of the economic
enterprises and key positions in companies was almost exclusively European; Africans were brought into
the system in their capacity as lowly paid labourers.
In conclusion Southern Rhodesia benefitted a great deal in political and economic terms from the
establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. However these benefits were largely
restricted to the minority white population and the black majority continued to suffer political,
economic and social injustices.
172
HOW MUCH DID THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY OWE TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF FOREIGNERS?
Italians just like foreigners had no doubt heard about the splendour that was the Roman Empire that
had been achieved through the conquest of almost the entire world known in those days. All that was
however just a romantic past and the reality for all Italians in the 1800s was the fragmentation of their
nation and Austrian domination. That all changed in 1870 when the evacuation of French troops paved
the way for the completion of unification. For many, it was a dream come true although it was not along
the republican lines some had desired. That dream was the result of contributions by the Italians and
foreign assistance. As this essay shall show, foreign aid was a necessary supplement to the indigenous
effort.
France under Napoleon III probably made the biggest contribution out of all the foreign powers.
Napoleon III not only encouraged Piedmont to provoke Austria into war but he assisted in the actual
fighting in 1859. That war led among other things to the expulsion of Austria from Lombardy which was
then incorporated into Piedmont. In 1860, Napoleon III agreed to the plebiscites that resulted in the
further incorporation of Parma, Tuscany, Romagna and Modena. Napoleon III’s was an immensely
significant contribution because the incorporations gave birth to the Kingdom of Italy that was
proclaimed in 1861 under the rule Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont. Napoleon also helped arrange the
Piedmont-Prussian anti-Austrian alliance that led to Piedmont’s acquisition of Venetia in July 1866. Italy
was therefore partially united through Napoleon’s contributions. His contributions were however
tainted by his unilateral peace with Austria which prevented the incorporation of Venetia into Piedmont
as earlier agreed. It was also his continued military support for the pope that prevented the
incorporation of Rome and therefore the completion of unification.
Prussia under Bismarck also made a vital contribution to the cause of unification. It has already been
stated above that Prussia entered into an anti-Austria alliance with Piedmont. Prussian military
supremacy more than made up for Piedmont’s poor showing in the ensuing war of 1866 and facilitated
Piedmont’s acquisition of Venetia. Italians also had Prussia to thank for its war with France in 1870 that
led to the withdrawal of French troops from Rome thus removing the last obstacle to unification. So in
the end Prussia’s contribution was crucial perhaps just as much as that of France. In the end it did not
matter much that Bismarck was motivated by self-interest rather than any sympathy for the Italians
unlike Napoleon IIII.
England also played a part in the drive towards unification. England not only gave moral support but
more importantly helped to prevent other powers from intervening in the conflicts that ultimately
contributed to unification. It was the English fleet that protected Garibaldi during his successful Sicilian
campaign and prevented either Austria or France from intervening. England also suggested and
173
supported the plebiscites that led to Piedmont’s incorporation of Parma, Modena, Tuscany and
Romagna in 1860.
Even Napoleon Bonaparte contributed. The Napoleonic conquests of Italy during the 1790s and early
1800s were very significant for the development of a national consciousness and desire for national
unity among the Italians. One thing that will always be remembered about Napoleon Bonaparte is how
he posed as a liberator from Austrian tyranny and implanted among Italians the French revolutionary
idea of nationhood for all peoples. Even if it was to facilitate his own rule he gave the Italians a foretaste
of unity by breaking down the traditional separatism, reducing the number of states and even
establishing his so-called Kingdom of Italy. He also introduced the progressive Code Napoleon and
modernised administration all of which especially impressed the educated Italians. In the negative sense
the spirit of nationalism also grew in response to his own tyranny that had replaced that of the
Austrians. The nationalist aspirations that Napoleon Bonaparte had stirred were not to be doused by
anything not even the reactionary settlement agreed upon at Vienna in 1815. He also inspired his
nephew into assisting the cause of Italy as already discussed.
However much the foreigners contributed Italian unification would never have been possible if the
Italians themselves had not willed it and also worked to achieve it. In this context, attention must be
paid to the various movements, individuals and statesmen who all contributed to make unity possible.
Victor Emmanuel II and Camillo Cavour of Piedmont made the greatest contribution of all Italian
statesmen to the cause of unification. Their first contribution was by way of equipping Piedmont to
assume the leadership of the unification drive much the same way as Bismarck had equipped Prussia to
take the lead in Germany. Unlike Bismarck however, they gave Piedmont liberal political institutions
which were not only envied in other Italian states but also provided the constitutional blueprint for the
united Italy. They also succeeded in modernising the economy and re-organising a state army to prepare
it for the wars that would facilitate unification. They were shrewd enough to appreciate that Italy could
not free itself and they employed the skilful diplomacy to court the necessary foreign assistance. They
arranged alliances with France and later Prussia that led to the expulsion of Austria from Italy to pave
the way for partial unification in 1861 and 1866.They were able to induce Garibaldi to recognise
Piedmont’s leadership of the Italian cause and therefore to surrender his conquests of the Sicily and
Naples to facilitate partial unification. They also forestalled his planned attack on Rome as that would
have antagonised France and ruined all they had achieved thus far. Their patience finally paid off when
the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 necessitated the evacuation of French troops from Rome and left the
way open for its incorporation to consummate unification.
174
The courage and military exploits of Giuseppe Garibaldi are also part of that story of Italian unification.
Described by Mazzini as the man ‘with a heart of a lion and the brains of an ox’ for his bravery and
rashness, Garibaldi led his volunteer army of ‘red shirts’ to the conquests of Naples and Sicily in 1860.
He unselfishly surrendered these to Piedmont to facilitate their incorporation into the Kingdom of Italy.
He even linked up his forces with those of Piedmont to defeat the papal forces at Castelfirdado and
would have advanced on Rome had he not been prevented by Cavour.
Giuseppe Mazzini inspired many including Garibaldi to work for unification. Mazzini has been widely
acclaimed the prophet of unification for his role in infusing many Italians with a national consciousness
through his Society of Young Italy (La Giovanna Italia).He led a Roman Republic that had been
established after the exploits of Garibaldi who was his disciple. It turned out to be short-lived as the
French intervened to restore the pope in 1849. He however continued to inspire many from his different
places of exile and he lived long enough to see Italy united although it was not along the republican path
that he had envisaged.
Having said all this it remains to reiterate that Italians would not have succeeded in uniting their country
without outside help. Foreign aid was a necessary supplement to their own efforts which were not
enough however significant.
175
“THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT REFLECTED THE TRIUMPH OF THE POLICIES OF THE MOST REACTIONARY
FORCES IN EUROPE.” HOW FAIR IS THIS VERDICT?
France was finally defeated in 1814 by the coalition of European states and the victors immediately set
upon the task of deciding the destiny of post-war Europe. In the ensuing Vienna Settlement, France was
stripped off its conquests, territories re-distributed among the victors and old rulers restored where
Napoleon had displaced them. A ‘Holy Alliance’ was even formed to fight all revolutionary forces
including nationalism and liberalism. All these developments served to confirm the triumph of the most
reactionary forces. While that cannot be doubted it is however necessary to state that reaction meant
among other things a return to the concept that power was best exercised by the kings. Reaction was
not necessarily anti-change but it was about going back to the kings as the ones who should implement
it rather than by popularly elected rulers as prescribed by the French Revolution. This essay shall show
that the verdict was correct assessment of the Vienna Settlement and argue that reaction was not
necessarily negative as suggested by many historians.
France was stripped off its conquests and that was one demonstration of the triumph of reaction. It was
stripped of Belgium, Holland and Italy among others and pushed back to its 1790 boundaries in order to
restore the pre-revolutionary European status quo. This was also done to create a balance of power
where France would not be too powerful to once again threaten the European peace.
It was also reaction when the territorial re-structuring immensely benefited the reactionary powers.
Austria more than compensated for the loss of Belgium to Holland by re-establishing its authority in Italy
and in Germany where it was awarded the leadership of the Bund that had been created in place of
Napoleon’s Confederation of the Rhine. Napoleon had created it to replace the Holy Roman Empire.
Russia re-established its hegemony in Poland and also gained Finland from Sweden and Bessarabia from
Turkey. Prussia received the Rhineland and also got Pomerania which had belonged to Sweden. The
congress also settled the old colonial disputes in Britain’s favour. Britain gained Mauritius, Guiana, Malta
and Heligoland from France in addition to the Cape and Ceylon which were obtained from Holland.
Reaction also triumphed when the congress took the decision to restore the monarchical governments
that had been swept aside by the French revolution and Napoleon. In France itself, the Bourbons were
restored as were the Hapsburg princes in the Italian states. The Bourbons were restored to Spain and so
too was the old Portuguese dynasty. This was not a surprise move considering that the settlement was
drawn up by monarchical governments who had combined to defeat the French upstart. It was an act of
self-preservation to restore like-minded rulers. It is true that the Holy Roman Empire was not restored
and the restored rulers did not retain their old absolute powers in countries like France where a
somewhat liberal charter was drawn up to guide Bourbon rule. That however did not imply that the
reactionary congress had decided to accept liberalism or the revolutionary changes, it was simply
176
because it was impossible to undo all the changes. It was also because they accepted that some of them
were actually desirable and some of the old institutions like the Holy Roman Empire were no longer
feasible.
The reactionary forces were also having a field day when the tsar Alexander I of Russia successfully
pushed through his scheme for a ‘Holy Alliance’ of ‘Christian rulers’ dedicated to fighting the nationalist
and liberal forces that had been unleashed by the French Revolution and Napoleon. Such ideas
endangered monarchical rule multi-national empires like those of Russia and Austria by asserting the
people’s right to nationhood and to choose their governments. It was such a big boost to reaction when
all but Britain, Turkey and the pope agreed to the Holy Alliance which was for a long time in its aims.
To sum up it is important to appreciate that reaction did not necessarily imply a return to the pre-
revolutionary and pre-Napoleon European status quo. Reaction was not necessarily anti-change but it
was a return to hereditary monarchical rule and the principle that all change should come from them
and not from liberal or nationalist forces as prescribed by the revolution. It is therefore correct to
conclude that the Vienna Settlement reflected the triumph of the most reactionary forces which was not
necessarily a negative thing as the question appears to suggest
177
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS October/November 2007
1 Why did the slave trade, from and within East and West Africa, continue into the second half of the
nineteenth century?
The key word here is 'Why' and answers will need to cover the reasons for the continuation of the slave
trade from and within both regions to earn a mark in one or other of the three top mark bands. Use
Marking Band Descriptions to distinguish between the three top bands. Omission of one of the two
regions will effectively halve the possible marks. Lack of a reasonable balance between the two will
significantly lower the possible total mark. Some of the reasons apply equally to both regions (e.g. the
difficulty of mounting an effective naval blockade to stop the export of slaves; or the need for cheap
slave labour to cultivate plantation crops like palm trees in Dahomey and the states of the Niger Delta;
or cloves in Pemba and Zanzibar; or the fact that it was easier for Europeans than for Africans to adjust
to abolition of trade in slaves). Most important of all the reasons was the fact that, so long as a demand
for slave labour existed both the slave trade and the institution of slavery would continue. Other
reasons applied much more to one region than the other (e.g. Islam's greater tolerance of slavery and
the slave trade applied much more in East Africa where non-Muslim Africans were enslaved to work on
clove plantations in Zanzibar and Pemba; or for transport to Muslim lands around the Indian Ocean and
the Pacific).
2 Compare and contrast the aims and achievements of Tewodros II and Johannes IV as rulers of Ethiopia.
The most acceptable approach to this, and other 'compare and contrast' questions, will be a running
point by point comparison with reference to different aspects of the aims and achievements of the two
rulers. Answers which consist of separate accounts of the achievements of the two rulers and leave the
Examiner to identify the similarities and differences will deserve much less credit. A summary of the
aims of each ruler would make a good introduction. These were similar: to revive and consolidate the
power of the emperor and unite the country under his control, and to create and maintain a large, well
trained and well equipped standing army to protect the country against foreign and domestic enemies.
Johannes was much more successful than Tewodros in achieving these basic aims and the fact that he
learned much from the mistakes of Tewodros points to contrasts between the two. Johannes favoured a
federal rather than a centralised system of government. He used diplomacy and marriage alliances
rather than force to win the support and allegiance of the provincial bases. He avoided confrontations
with the church and the clergy and tried to repair the damage done by Tewodros' church reforms.
Above all Johannes used his army successfully against foreign enemies – the Egyptians, the Italians and
the Mandists from the Sudan – rather than against opponents from inside Ethiopia.
His handling of Menelik was in stark contrast to that of Tewodros, and the conclusion of the answer
might emphasise the relative stability of his legacy to Menelik in contrast to the situation left by
Tewodros to his successor.
For a mark in one of the three top mark bands answers should be fairly evenly balanced in their
treatment of the two rulers. Answers which consist of two separate accounts with no more than a token
178
attempt at comparison/contrast in the conclusion: Maximum 11–13 marks. If such answers are also
unbalanced, maximum 8–10 marks.
3 Account for Samori Touré's success in building the Mandinka Empire. Analyse its main political,
economic and social features.
Samori built on foundations already laid by Dyula traders with whom he had close links; but his military
skills, acquired when serving in the Sise army, were the main factor behind his success as an empire-
builder. He broke away from the Sise army and became an independent warlord in 1857. His main
military conquests were made between 1867 and 1881 but others followed until 1888. He also used
diplomacy and marriage alliances to expand his territory. He established his capital at Bissandugu in
1873. As the Empire grew, a sound economic base (links with Dyula traders) and religious factors (Islam)
helped him consolidate his gains. (See Tidy and Leeming, Vol.1, pp62-65 for details).
Main features
Political: The Empire enjoyed efficient government and administration. Samori's military and religious
strengths were reflected in his system of government. Military and religious personnel – 'Sofas' and
'Qadis' – held prominent positions. Samori, though head of state, was not a despot.
He was helped by a Council of Advisers, each of which was responsible for a particular sector (justice,
finance, foreign relations, etc.) The Empire was divided into 10 provinces. Samori, the
'Almami', ruled the three central provinces. Provinces were sub-divided into cantons, 126 in all.
Cantons each consisted of 20 villages. In conquered regions former rulers were allowed to retain some
influence under the provincial head, an army official. The army, with highly trained and well equipped
cavalry and infantry units, was recruited from all parts of the Empire to help unify the state.
Social: 'Islam' was used as a unifying factor within the Empire. The principle of promotion on merit
enabled people of humble origin to hold important posts.The Tijanniya Brotherhood, to which Samori
belonged, emphasised equality. Birth and ethnicity counted for little. Great weight was attached to
education, and Koranic schools existed throughout the Empire. Other religions besides Islam were
tolerated until the late 1880s when Samori attempted enforced conversions.
These led to the outbbreak of the 'Great Rebellion' of 1888–1889 and had to be abandoned.
Economic: Samori never forgot his origins as a Dyula trader and he owed much to Dyula support and
wealth. In return the Dyula were guaranteed freedom to trade throughout the Empire in stable
conditions. Gold, horses and firearms were amongst the main items of trade. Agriculture was highly
organised. The 'Almami's Fields' were a feature of every village and provided the basis of the army's
food supply.
179
N.B. Material on Samori's struggle with the French and on the downfall of the Empire will not be
relevant here. Marks should be evenly divided between the two parts of the question
4 Why was the Berlin West Africa Conference convened in 1884? How did its decisions affect the
colonial powers and Africa?
Why convened? Essentially because the acceleration of the partition of Africa since c.1876 was
threatening to get out of control and cause war between the European powers. Bismarck called the
conference in an attempt to avoid such a war.
Conference decisions – The main decisions were:
− the establishment of guidelines for future annexation of African territory. These included the
establishment of 'Spheres of influence' for the major powers attending the Conference and the doctrine
of 'effective occupation'. The latter stated that before claiming new colonial territory a power should
demonstrate that it had established effective occupation in the territory;
− colonial powers were committed to abolish slavery within any newly acquired territory;
− free navigation was to be guaranteed on the Niger and Congo rivers.
Effects of its decisions
The results of the 'doctrine of effective occupation' was to speed up the rate of partition as the powers
strove to protect their 'spheres of influence' by establishing effective occupation prior to annexing new
territory. Within 20 years of the Conference most of Africa had lost its independence and its peoples
were being exploited. Boundaries of new colonies were arbitrarily drawn and ethnic divisions were often
ignored.
− abolition of slavery remained largely an unfulfilled promise as 'forced labour' replaced it in many
colonial territories.
For a mark in one of the three top mark bands expect balanced coverage of both parts of the question.
Use Marking Band Descriptions to decide on appropriate marks for weaker answers, and to distinguish
between the top bands.
5 With reference to either East or West Arica show how, and explain why, Christian missions and
missionaries were a force for modernisation and change.
Answers might begin with some reference to the limited number of converts except in Sierra Leone, and
southern Nigeria in West Africa, or Buganda in East Africa; and the doubts about how genuine many
conversions were. The appeal to Africans of some of the advantages that came with
Christian missions like formal western education and schools; western medicine , healthcare and
hospitals: and western skills in other areas like agriculture was another matter. These positive changes
180
which were introduced by Christian missions attracted the interest of many to whom the religious
message of Christianity meant little or nothing. (See Tidy and Leeming Vol.2, pp.175-180 for both East
and West Africa.) Candidates may also refer to the role of the missions in encouraging their home
governments to colonise territory where they were working (e.g. in Buganda in the 1890s and in parts of
southern Nigeria). Most missions and missionaries also believed that they had a responsibility to
improve the quality of life of Africans: this 'civilising mission' or 'white man's burden' was another
powerful motivating factor for encouraging colonisation.
In West Africa it would be relevant to mention that foreign Christian missions, by their style of
management and reluctance to share control of their churches, unwittingly triggered the emergence
and growth of independent African churches. Christian teaching often clashed with
African practices and culture (polygamy); and procedures leading to the ordination of Africans to the
priesthood were slow. Majola Agbebi in Nigeria was the outstanding example of an African who was
associated with the independent African church movement in West Africa. He was active in the African
Baptist Church, the United Native African Church and the African Bethel Church and finally became the
President of the African Baptist Union of West Africa.
A selection of the above points, (or others which are relevant) supported with specific examples, such as
the names of the various missions and leading missionaries that worked in the chosen region would earn
a mark in one of the three top bands. Refer to the Marking band descriptions for the mark of best fit.
6 Explain, with examples, the growth of independent African churches in Malawi and assess the
importance of this development.
The explanation of the emergence and growth of these churches is that (a) they were protests against
aspects of colonial rule in general; e.g. the alienation of African land for the use of foreigners and most
forms of colonial taxation; and (b), more specifically, they were a protest against the style of
management practised in almost all mission controlled churches: e.g. the slow speed of Africanisation;
delays in the ordination of Africans as priests and in the promotion of Africans within the church
hierarchy.
Examples in Malawi. Here their growth was associated heavily with protest against colonial rule
generally. The main leaders were: Eliot Kamwana who joined the Watch Tower movement
(Jehovahs Witnesses) which prophesied the early end of British rule and taxes in 1909 and was
successful in gaining converts around Livingstonia; Charles Domingo: he left the Livingstonia
Mission and joined the Watch Tower movement in 1909, and in 1910 the Seventh Day Baptist;
John Chilembwe went to the USA with Joseph Booth and returned as an ordained priest in 1900.
He founded his own Baptist Mission station and promoted black American ideas of improvement for
Africans. He also built an independent African church with a school and farm and advocated strict
hygiene to improve health. In 1909 he helped to set up the natives' Industrial Union.
181
European clothing was made compulsory for his followers. He led the 1915 anti-colonial Rising which
was directed particularly against the recruitment of Africans to fight for the British in the First World
War. The rising was badly organised and he failed even to protect his mission station. He was killed
whilst attempting to escape and became a martyr. Importance All were protest movements against
colonialism in general and against control of churches in Africa by outsiders.
They were early examples of African nationalism. Only Chilembwe resorted to rebellion. Others opposed
violence and recognised the importance of education as a means of raising African living standards and
fighting colonialism.
To gain a mark in one of the three top mark bands answers must respond to both parts of the question.
Answers which lack examples will not get beyond the 8–10 mark band.
7 Compare and contrast the Ndebele-Shona Rising (1896–1897) and the Maji Maji Rising (1905–1907)
with reference to their causes and results.
The best answers will take the form of running comparisons/contrasts between the two risings from the
point of view of (a) their causes and (b) their results. Separate accounts of the two which fail to identify
similarities and differences will deserve no mark higher than 8–10.
There is a wealth of material that could be used and, for a mark in one of the three top mark bands,
coverage of both causes and results should be fairly comprehensive. Most candidates are likely to write
more on the causes than on the results, but the two parts should be reasonably balanced in content.
There will probably be more on similarities than on differences but both should appear in each part of
the answer. Both risings were examples of post-pacification primary resistance against the colonial
power and both also showed some progressive, forward-looking features. Both were mass movements
which cut across ethnic boundaries. This was most striking in the Maji Maji Rising. Both were influenced
by millenarian, spiritual leaders. Other causes common to both risings may be mentioned and should be
assessed on merit.
In the case of results an obvious similarity lies in the heavy loss of life on the African side.
Common to both also was the discredit which defeat brought upon traditional African religions.
There was also acceptance of the fact that armed resistance was never going to succeed in driving out
the colonial powers. In both cases, in spite of the defeat of the Africans, the risings brought them some
concessions in the shape of reform and modification of the harsh rule practiced by the colonialists
before the risings. This was particularly the case with German rule under Governor
Rechenberg after Maji Maji
Answers with the right approach to a 'compare and contrast' question, coupled with different kinds of
balance noted above and an adequate amount of supporting detail should earn a mark in one of the
three top mark bands. Make use of the Marking Band Descriptions to arrive at an appropriate mark for
weaker and less complete answers, and to distinguish between the top bands.
182
8 ‘Railway building in Africa led to both economic growth and exploitation.’ Show the truth of this claim
with reference to the history of any one region (Central, East or West) of Tropical Africa before 1914.
Whichever region is chosen a reasonably accurate description of the railway network of the region will
be essential as an introduction and a base on which to build the rest of the answer.
Equally important is the need for specific examples of the economic activities which the railway network
served in the region. These would include the agricultural products and mineral resources which were
being developed and/or exploited and the best candidates should be expected to try to differentiate
between genuine economic development of local resources which brought benefits to local people as
well as to settlers, and exploitation of both local resources and local people largely in the interests of the
colonial power. If East Africa is the chosen region it is important to remember that the 'Uganda Railway'
brought about a boom in African farming without which the railway would not have been able to pay its
way before 1914. In East Africa, therefore, it is clear that the railway led to genuine development before
1914 which brought benefits and prosperity to African peasant farmers. It was not until after WW1 with
the arrival in Kenya of many more white settlers that this situation changed and led to more exploitation
than genuine development. Cash crops for export replaced subsistence crops and food for local people
became scarce. More settlers led to land alienation on a large scale. By way of contrast, in Central Africa
(Southern Rhodesia) there were more settlers and more exploitation of Africans from a much earlier
date.
Another aspect of railway building in British East Africa was the arrival of Asian immigrants mainly from
India. Initially many of these were labourers who came to build the railway. Many stayed on to become
retail traders and were joined by others. The influx of Europeans and Asians eventually did well at the
expense of many Africans.
Whatever region is chosen for this question a selection of points can be made on each side of the
argument and candidates who produce a balanced answer with an assessment compatible with the
evidence produced will deserve a mark in one of the three top mark bands.
9 When and why did the British adopt the system of Indirect Rule as the favoured system of
administration for their African colonies? What were the strengths and weaknesses of this system?
No precise date can be given for the change but the timing was spread over the last years of the
nineteenth century, and the early years of the twentieth century. The reasons for the change were many
and included the racial theories associated with Social Darwinism. There were also several practical and
pragmatic reasons like financial considerations, and a shortage of British officials to serve in tropical
regions. Lugard, 'the father' of Indirect rule, argued that it was the best way to prepare Africans to
assume responsibility for self-government and independence. This list of reasons is not exhaustive and
other reasons given by candidates should be considered on merit.
183
Strengths and weaknesses: Candidates who make it clear that indirect rule was not a rigid, monolithic
system but one that varied from colony to colony, depending on previous local conditions, will deserve
some credit. Within these variables the following points could be made:
Strengths
− the system was cheap to operate compared with assimilation which it replaced;
− in areas where the right kind of traditional system was in place (ideally one based on traditional chiefs
like the Emirs in the Sokoto Caliphate in N.Nigeria) the system worked well and led to a stable social and
political climate;
− in a situation where there was a shortage of British officials and administrators it was expedient as
well as more economical to use existing African personnel.
Weaknesses
− indirect rule encouraged stagnation and discouraged progress and reform;
− it alienated the educated African elite who were given no role in indirect rule;
− it led to serious protest and unrest in areas where there were no traditional chiefs and the
British authorities appointed 'warrant chiefs' to act as substitutes.
For a mark in one of the three top mark bands the two parts of the question should be reasonably
balanced. The points given above are not exhaustive but would be sufficient to justify a mark of 16+
when well developed.
10 Explain, with examples, the growth and activities of nationalist organisations amongst the educated
elite in British West Africa between 1890 and 1914.
Explanation Under the influence of Social Darwinism the British switched from a system of Assimilation
to Indirect Rule. The system had no role for the educated African elite who, for over half a century, had
come to hold positions of authority and responsibility in many fields – administration, the judiciary, the
church, business, medicine, journalism etc. By 1900 most educated Africans had been removed from
these positions. They resented this exclusion and the fact that traditional rulers now held positions of
power and influence in administration. Until c.1890 educated Africans had looked forward to the day,
not too distant, when their countries would be self-governing. Now they had to abandon these hopes
and fight to regain a role in the new system. Their aim was not self-government, still less independence.
They were early nationalists with limited aims which included:
− the reform of the system in such a way that they would regain a role within it;
− a campaign for what they saw as the rights of Africans to land and to protect it from alienation;
− the promotion of the rights of Africans and equality with Europeans in business and other fields.
184
Examples of organisations and activities
Organisations included:
− the Aborigines Rights Protection Society which was founded in 1897 with Casely Hayford as one of its
leaders. Its initial purpose was to oppose a proposal to promote a Crown Lands Bill which would permit
the alienation of African land for the use of Europeans. A delegation to London succeeded in having the
Bill withdrawn. Later in 1911 the organisation persuaded the British government to postpone the Forest
Bill until 1927.
− the People's Union of Lagos, founded by Herbert Macaulay, opposed the introduction of a water rate
in Lagos designed to benefit the British.
Activities included:
− participation in forms of 'cultural nationalism' aimed at making Africans aware of their culture, history
and legal rights. Leading figures were Casely Hayford and Atto Ahuma. (See Tidy and
Leeming Vol.2, pp.205-207 for further details.)
− use of the press to publicise their aims and activities.
185
What was the ‘House System’? Explain, with examples, the origins and importance of the system in
the city states of the Niger Delta.
Definition: The house states of the Niger Delta in the mid-nineteenth century were essentially
companies whose main function was the organisation and promotion of trade. When it was necessary to
switch to legitimate trade after the abolition of the slave trade they became more numerous and more
important.
Origin: The emergence of the ‘house system’ brought political, economic and social change to the Niger
Delta. Leaders needed economic and military skills which the traditional rulers did not always possess.
Many such ‘new men’ were ex-slaves who had risen by merit, for example Alali in Bonny and Jaja of
Opobo. Jaja adopted a new base east of Bonny, thus cutting off its trade.
He had strong links with Igboland in the interior and from there obtained slaves and palm oil.
Importance: Jaja dominated trade with the Europeans. He had a fleet of canoes and was soon joined by
most of the other house heads from Bonny. He also had the ability to preserve African culture and
traditions while taking advantage of the benefits that Western education and technology could bring,
eventually exporting legitimate products to Europe in his own ships. He refused to allow Christian
missions into his country and became such a threat to the British that they removed him from power.
He, and other ‘new men’, stimulated the imperialist aims of traders and missionaries who pressed for
the annexation of parts of West Africa where such rulers stood in the way of their objectives.
Answers in Bands 1, 2 and 3 need to address all 3 aspects of this question.
2 Assess the achievements of the Creoles in West Africa and explain why Britain changed its attitude and
policy towards them late in the nineteenth century.
Activities and achievements of the Creoles: They were freed slaves, known as ‘recaptives’ who settled in
Sierra Leone and then became influential all along the West African coastal regions.
Their achievements were mainly in education, the church (including missionary work), administration,
trade, literature, the press, medicine, and law.
Specific examples should be given of Creoles working in these fields: John Thorpe – first black lawyer;
William Davies and Africanus Horton – first black doctors of western medicine; Samuel
Ajayi Crowther – first black Protestant bishop; Samuel Lewis – first newspaper editor, first mayor of
Freetown, first African Oxbridge graduate and first black knight. Also candidates could mention A.B.C.
Sibthorpe, Samuel Johnson and Richard Blaize. The work of some or all of these notable Creoles should
be expanded upon.
Changes in Britain’s attitude and policy towards the Creoles: in the last decade of the nineteenth
century Britain became worried about the widespread involvement of Creoles in important posts and
186
key occupations. Instead of her previous policy of assimilation, Britain switched to indirect rule. Reasons
for this change included:
• Racist views associated with the spread of Social Darwinism;
• Governor Cardew’s belief that the Sierra Leone Creoles were responsible for the outbreak of the
Mende-Temne rising;
• The growing belief that it was, therefore, dangerous to practice a policy of assimilation.
Both parts of the question must be developed for a mark in the top 3 bands. 4 or more specific examples
should be given for a mark in one of the two top bands and 2 or 3 examples for a mark in bands 3 or 4.
3 What were the reasons for the Ngoni invasions of Central and East Africa? Assess the consequences of
these invasions.
Reasons for the invasions: The Ngoni were the Nguni speaking followers of Zwangendaba whose defeat
by Shaka in 1819 led the Ngoni to move north in search of new homes. They crossed the Zambesi in
1835 and entered Malawi and Tanzania after Zwangendaba’s death in 1848. There were 5 groups
including the Tuta, Gwangara, Maseko and Mpezeni. They were looking for places to settle; they
despised cultivation and loved war, and so were constantly raiding for cattle and looking for food crops
and people to be absorbed as soldiers, wives and slaves.
Results of the invasions: They were both negative and positive. They led to the defeat and near collapse
of the Rozwi, Undi and Chewa Empires. They constantly raided for cattle, food and prisoners.
Agricultural activity was disrupted over a wide area and slave trade increased. These destructive results
were balanced by more constructive ones like the rise of new and larger states and communities, for
example the Nyamwezi under Mirambo who controlled trade routes far into the interior of East Africa;
the consolidation of the Hehe and Sangu clans. The new states adopted the Zulu military systems which
were carried north by the Ngoni. Candidates may suggest other valid results.
The two parts of the answer should be reasonably balanced. Answers which are seriously unbalanced
will struggle to get a mark higher than Band 5 (11–13 marks)
4 What do you understand by the terms ‘informal empire’ and ‘formal empire’? When, how and why did
the latter replace the former in Tropical Africa?
Definitions: ‘Informal empire’ refers to the very limited amount of Africa under European rule in
1875 as most European powers were reluctant to annex, preferring profit from trade without the
responsibility and expense of administration. ‘Formal empire’ came about with the trend towards
protectionism in international trade and the increasing rivalry between the European powers to secure
187
the lion’s share of that trade for themselves. Formal empire meant effective occupation of territories,
confirmed by treaties with African tribal leaders, and is usually referred to as the
Scramble for Africa which took place between about 1875 and 1885
When, how and why?: This question requires a focus on the 4 triggers or accelerators which led to the
Scramble for Africa. These were: Leopold II’s activities in the Congo Basin after 1876; De Brazza’s treaty
with Makoko, signed in 1880 but not ratified by the French government until 1882; the British
occupation of Egypt in 1882; the Berlin West Africa Conference and Bismarck’s annexation of colonies in
Africa between 1884 and 1885. The conference laid down guidelines for future annexations of African
territory – only after effective occupation and recognised ‘spheres of influence’ for the various European
powers.
Candidates need to address both parts of this question for a mark in Bands 1 or 2. Candidates who do
not understand the two terms will struggle to get beyond Band 7. Candidates who do not mention the 4
accelerators are unlikely to get beyond Band 6.
5 With reference to specific examples, account for the emergence and growth of independent African
churches in West Africa and assess their importance in the region.
Reasons for the emergence and growth: Independent African Churches grew up as a protest against the
style of management of mission controlled churches and against certain unpopular aspects of colonial
rule. These reasons were the same in every part of Africa. They included the slow speed of Africanisation
in mission churches e.g. in the ordination of Africans to the priesthood and in the promotion of Africans
within the church hierarchy; the alienation of African land for use by foreign settlers; colonial taxation
policies; the use of forced African labour by colonial authorities.
Examples of churches and leaders in West Africa: Majola Agbebi who was associated with several
independent churches including the African Baptist Church (1888), the United African Native Church
(1891), the African Bethel Church (1901) and was President of the African Baptist Union of West Africa;
William Wade Harris, a Liberian Protestant evangelist, who converted many thousands of Africans to
Christianity. In 1913 he moved to the Ivory Coast where he enjoyed his greatest successes numerically.
Importance: Although local factors influenced Independent African Churches to some extent, their
importance was similar:
• All were examples of protest against colonialism and foreign control of churches;
• All were, therefore, early examples of African nationalism;
• In W. Africa, the leaders of these churches were against the use of violence to achieve their aims;
• All wanted better education in order to improve living standards and promote justice for Africans;
188
• All believed that Christianity in Africa must be based on African culture and African personality.
To gain a mark in one of the top 2 bands answers must respond to both parts of the question.
Those which do not refer to specific examples should not expect to get beyond Band 7.
6 Why did the efforts of Samori Touré to resist the European conquest of his territory fail, whilst those
of Menelik II succeeded?
Candidates may offer 2 separate sections, or ‘compare and contrast’ as they go along.
Samori Touré’s failure: he was unable to obtain large supplies of modern weapons, especially after he
was cut off from his supply route to Freetown; after 16 years of fighting against the French his followers
were weary, and they also resented some of the demands he made upon them (e.g. forced conversions,
scorched earth policy); his most serious error was to attempt to recapture Sikasso; the French forces
were always superior to his; he moved his power base to a geographical area he was less well able to
defend; he failed to gain allies from any of the neighbouring tribes.
Menelik’s success: he was militarily and diplomatically skilful as a leader; he had built up a well-trained
army equipped with modern weapons; he learnt from the mistakes of his predecessors and achieved
unity of the Ethiopians by diplomacy, marriage and cultural ties; he outwitted the
Italians in the Treaty of Wichali, and beat them resoundingly at the Battle of Adowa; he had a great
general, Ras Alula, while the Italians had poor military leadership in General Baratieri; the geography of
Ethiopia was difficult terrain for the Italian army which was weaker numerically than the Ethiopian army.
Good coverage of most of these points should be rewarded by a mark in Bands 1 or 2. Answers which do
not show a balanced treatment should not get beyond Band 5.
7 How far do you agree with the view that the establishment of European colonialism in Africa helped
the spread of Islam more than that of Christianity?
This is an open ended question. The best candidates may well argue that the claim is not true in every
part of Africa and show how both religions were affected by colonial rule. The most rapid spread of both
Islam and Christianity took place in the 25 years before 1914. Certain areas challenge the premise, for
example Sierra Leone, Yorubaland, the Niger Delta, Buganda and Malawi, where the spread of
Christianity was greater than that of Islam. In general, however, the view is valid and candidates should
be expected to explain why this was the case.
Reasons for Islam spreading more:
• Colonial powers, particularly Britain and France, were reluctant to allow Christian missionaries to work
in areas where Islam was already firmly established;
189
• In some parts of tropical Africa Islam had been established for centuries before the advent of
colonialism;
• The relative peace and stability brought by colonial rule created a climate favourable to the spread of
both religions;
• Once colonial rule began, Islam benefited from having no connection with a system which imposed
unpopular alien control in Africa.
When candidates identify areas where ‘exceptions prove the general rule’, an explanation should be
expected.
Candidates who make several of the points raised above and reach a conclusion consistent with the
evidence they have used will deserve a mark in Band 1 or Band 2.
8 Assess the view that ‘Africans who resisted Europeans were bound to fail; those who collaborated
were certain to gain’. Answer with reference to the history of Central and East Africa.
Good candidates should be expected to challenge the truth of this view as well as offering evidence to
support it. They might also point out that few Africans were consistently one or the other, seizing short-
term benefits and concessions whenever possible. In the long-term, all except Menelik II of Ethiopia lost
out to colonial rule.
Challenge view:
• Resisters not always losers, for example, after the Maji Maji rising the Germans modified significantly
their oppressive rule in German East Africa;
• Collaborators not always gainers, for example, Lewanika in Central Africa and Lenana in
British East Africa lost much land and ultimately fell under European control.
Support view:
• As resisters who failed, the examples of the Hehe, Nandi and Bunyoro might well be used, and the
eventual resistance of the Ndebele led by Lobengula after many years of
trying to make concessions in keeping with his sovereignty;
• For collaborators who gained, Lewanika of the Bulozi is the usual example – his short-term gains were
that he nominally retained his kingship and his kingdom.
Candidates offering a persuasive argument in line with the above and reaching a conclusion consistent
with their evidence should be given a mark in Band 1 or Band 2. If the view is not challenged to some
extent do not award a mark above Band 5.
190
9 What were the differences between the French colonial administrative systems of ‘assimilation’ and
‘association’? When and why did ‘association’ begin to replace ‘assimilation’?
Differences: The initial aim of the system of ‘assimilation’ was to absorb as many Africans as possible
into French culture and turn Africans into ‘black Frenchmen’. Those Africans who met specified
requirements would be granted French citizenship and be accepted as equal partners of the French. In
practice it was so difficult for Africans to meet the stringent requirements that very few succeeded in
qualifying for French citizenship. The exception was in the 4 Senegalese Communes of St. Louis, Dakar,
Rufisque and Goree, where birth was the only qualification required.
Under the system of ‘association’ Africans would be associated with Frenchmen in administering French
colonies, but not as equal partners. The French authorities appointed educated Africans in preference to
traditional African chiefs to posts of responsibility. Only when educated Africans were not available
would traditional rulers be used, and then only in low-ranking posts and as appointees of the French,
not as of right.
When and why the change: Change began in about 1900 for the following reasons:
• The high cost of maintaining the system of assimilation;
• The realisation that, in time, Africans might outnumber Frenchmen in the French Assembly;
• French businessmen disliked increasing competition from Africans working on equal terms;
• Opposition of Africans to becoming ‘black Frenchmen’, losing their own culture and traditions.
Candidates who identify the main differences between the two systems and accurately address
When? And Why? will deserve a mark in Band 1 or Band 2.
10 Analyse the similarities and differences in the ways European powers economically exploited and
developed their colonies in Tropical Africa.
Candidates should use their knowledge of the 3 main regions of tropical Africa in answering this
question. The best answers will take the form of running comparisons between the methods employed
in the different regions and by the various colonial powers. Examples of the 3 main approaches to
economic development should be identified and explained:
• African peasant agriculture (throughout most of West Africa);
• Settler controlled agriculture (mainly in parts of Central and East Africa);
• Concessionary grants to commercial companies (in parts of Central Africa).
191
The policies of at least Britain, France and Belgium should be considered. Some candidates might refer
to Germany and Portugal as well.
Essential to all methods of economic development and in all territories was the establishment of a
transport infrastructure – mainly railways in this period. Answers should also refer to specific examples
of agricultural, mineral and other products.
To merit a mark in Band 1 or Band 2 candidates should refer to 3 regions and 3 product types.
Answers referring to only 2 regions and 2 colonial powers should receive a maximum of Band 3
192
REFORM UP TO 1793?
1792.
making body.
193
European countries.
194
195
opposition.
196
HOW FAR AND WHY DID THE AIMS OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES IN FRANCE CHANGE FROM THE
MEETING OF THE ESTATES- GENERAL IN 1789 TO THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI IN 1793.
The initial moderate aim to establish a constitutional monarchy changed in 1792 to the more radical aim
of the republicanism. The revolutionaries began by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming
the National Assembly. They now claimed to speak and act on behalf of the entire nation of France in
political, economic and social issues. They switched their attention to the drafting of a constitution that
would provide for limitations on monarchical authority and power-sharing. The subsequent creation first
of a Legislative Assembly and then of the National Convention all demonstrated their aims of
establishing a constitutional monarchy. The moderate course was brief and by 1791France was well on
the way to far more radical policies. In 1792 the anti-monarchy sentiment was strong enough to lead to
the proclamation of a Republic. The king was arrested, tried and condemned to die in December that
year.
Various factors explain the radical shift in the revolutionaries’ aims. One significant issue was the growth
of influence of radical Jacobin revolutionary elements that drew their support from the powerful mobs
of Paris. They consolidated their strength by making use of the brute force of the mobs to disrupt
sessions of the Legislative Assembly as well as the National Convention. They even incited the mobs to
effect the arrest of 73 Girondists who were members of the National Convention. This and other failings
of their opponents enabled them to take charge of the revolution and create the Republic they fervently
desired. They were also aided by the failings of Louis XVI and the nobles and clergy. On numerous
occasions, Louis XVI used his veto against legislation that seemed to threaten the interests of the nobles
and clergy. The radicals were thus able to portray him as a biased ruler who only wanted to protect his
allies’ interests at the expense of the majority of the nation. Things got worse for him following the
alleged discovery of documents linking him to Revolutionary France’s enemies. His attempt to flee
France in 1791 as well as the Austrian and Prussian declarations of support all seemed to confirm his
treachery. All these were enough to lead to his dethronement, abolition of the monarchy and creation
of the Republic.
The revolutionaries’ initial moderate aim of political participation and power-sharing gave way in 1792
to the drastic desire for complete and exclusive power. In the beginning the revolutionaries’ aim of
obtaining a share of political power was evidenced by formation first of the National Assembly, then the
Legislative and finally the National Convention. These were created to exercise legislative functions
while the monarchy was allowed to continue exercising executive power. Through them Third Estate
came to participate in politics alongside the nobles and clergy. By 1791, there was persecution of the
monarchy, nobles and clergy as well as repressive laws. All this culminated in the abolition of the
monarchy and the creation of republic which demonstrated that the revolutionaries now wanted
complete and exclusive power to themselves. The Jacobin Regime of 1793 to 1794 passed the Law of
Suspects which criminalised expressions of support for the monarchy, nobles and clergy. A person could
be sentenced to die for speaking out in support for the monarchy and this kind of intolerance was
testimony to the radical shift in the aims of the revolutionaries.
197
Initial aims of limiting the power and influence of the church in politics and government soon gave way
in 1792-3 to the uncompromising aim of completely destroying the church and Christianity. In the
beginning, the revolutionaries tolerated the church and passed the Civil Constitution of the clergy. This
law was designed to limit power of church by subjecting to the revolutionary government’s control. This
was to be achieved by having their salaries paid by the government which also expected them to take an
oath of loyalty to it. The revolutionaries soon abandoned this moderate course embarked on a mission
to close all churches and persecute priests. The radical attempts to completely destroy the church and
Christianity culminated in the introduction of Revolutionary Calendar and other religions. This change
was the end-product of several factors that included the clergy and the pope’s stubborn refusal to
accept the civil constitution. The growth of a radical atheist and anti-Christian movement led by Herbet
during this period also contributed.
The 1789 aims of achieving individual liberty and social rights gave way to high levels of repression and
intolerance. It was evident that achieving civil rights was a top priority for the revolutionaries in 1789.
This was even expressed in the popularising of the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity. The
revolutionaries moved to put to effect by abolishing the privileges of the nobles and clergy in August
1789. They followed that up with a Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. This gave legal, economic
and social rights to all French citizens. In 1791 the civil liberties were formalised in the new Constitution.
That desire for universal liberty soon gave way to an intolerance and repression characterised by laws
against émigrés and the arrest of Girondists in 1792. The September (1792) Massacres of perceived
counter-revolutionaries and the harsh laws of the Reign of Terror all demonstrated a complete
abandonment of the initial aims of universal civil liberties. The shift stemmed from among other things
the revolutionaries’ growing fear of internal and external enemies. As indicated above, they had come
to the conclusion that the monarchy, nobles and clergy could not be trusted. They had to be suppressed
or destroyed and that could only be achieved through extreme repression and the suspension of civil
rights. There were also external enemies that included the Austrians, Prussians and British who had
invaded France early in 1793. The revolutionary government felt it necessary to introduce repressive
laws to scare their local supporters as well as raise armies and resources to drive them out. The
government introduced mass conscription and requisitioning which took away individuals’ rights to
refuse to serve in the army and also forced them to give their food and other material resources to the
government.
By 1792 initial aims of achieving democracy had been superseded by increasing autocracy and
dictatorship. The creation of National Assembly and Legislative Assembly as representative bodies to
share power with the monarchy all testified to the desire to achieve democracy in France. Further
measures included the declaration of rights and introduction of the vote. The crowning moment was the
passing of the 1793 Constitution which provided for universal suffrage. However that constitution was
not implemented and repression and intolerance began to set in. Initial targets of state repression were
the monarchy, nobles and clergy. Late in 1792, repression had become universal and even those in the
Third Estate were not spared. The September 1792 Massacres claimed more victims among them than it
did among the first and second estates. The change owed to the government’s heightened fears of
counter-revolution after peasants had combined with the clergy to stage revolts around the country but
198
especially in Vendee. Another factor was the Girondist-Jacobin struggle for power. This led to desperate
measures as each group sought to destroy the other in order to achieve total and uncontested power.
The invasion of France by European countries that included Prussia, Austria and Britain also led to the
adoption of repressive measures to starve the invaders of any local support from malcontents. A law of
suspects was introduced to deal with those who offered state enemies any kind of assistance. A special
court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was introduced in 1793 to try suspected cases of counter-
revolution. Suspects were denied legal representation and its decisions were often arbitrary such that so
many innocent people lost their lives.
In conclusion it can be restated that the revolutionaries initially had moderate aims that included
power-sharing, democracy and civil rights. By 1791, these aims had started to change as evidenced by
increased repression. There was even a desire for complete and exclusive political power. There were
many factors that caused the change. Some of them had to do with anger over the character of the king,
nobles and clergy who appeared stubborn, unrepentant and treacherous to the cause of the revolution.
199
international war.
200
201
DID THE JACOBINS DO MORE TO ASSIST OR TO THREATEN THE REVOLUTION?
Their ill-advised economic policies increased hardship and suffering and created widespread opposition
which threatened the survival of the revolution. Under their influence the revolutionary government’s
policies became considerably more radical and ill-advised. One such policy was The Law of the Maximum
passed in 1793 to control food prices. At first the law applied to only a limited number of grain products
but by September of 1793, it expanded to cover all foodstuffs and a long list of other goods. Selling
above the stipulated prices attracted fines, imprisonment and even executions. The Jacobins went as far
as establishing sans-culottes paramilitary forces to force farmers to surrender grain demanded by the
government. It was illogical and irrational from an economic point of view for the government to
attempt to fix prices because that only fuelled hoarding, the black market and consequent food
shortages.
The violence and repression of their reign alienated many foreigners who had initially sympathised with
the revolution and its objectives. When the revolution broke out in 1789, there was so much
international sympathy and enthusiasm. In Britain prominent people welcomed it in the belief that
France would undergo its own political and social transformation very much like the one Britain had
undergone more than a century earlier. That transformation had resulted in the creation of a
constitutional monarchy and the extension of political participation to ordinary people. The poet
William Wordsworth spoke glowingly of how it was “bliss” to be alive during the outbreak of the
revolution. The intervention of the Jacobins and their mob supporters in politics started a chain of
events that led France away from the moderate course to that of radical and violent changes. It
probably began with the arrest of seventy-three of the leading Girondists and the massacre of prisoners
in September 1792. Their violence and radicalism sparked uprisings in places like Vendee, Lyons,
Marseille and Bordeaux. That forced the Jacobin government into the harsh, repressive measures of the
so-called Reign of Terror. Foreign sympathisers or supporters of the revolution were horrified into
withdrawing their support by the high levels of repression and the mass executions as the government
sought to crush dissent.
Their relentless persecution of the nobles and clergy ensured that these groups remained permanent
enemies of the revolution who would work tirelessly to undermine it. The Jacobins enacted various laws
against the nobles and clergy. They enacted the Law of Suspects which criminalised any show of support
for these groups and denied suspects the right to legal representation. Their property was confiscated
and churches were closed at the height of attempts to de-Christianise France in 1793. Not surprisingly
these groups waged a bitter struggle against the government in many places especially Vendee. They
also fled to Austria and Prussia where they raised armies and conspired with those countries to fight
France and destroy the revolution. They seriously threatened the revolution so much so that the
Jacobins were forced to introduce the so-called Reign of Terror to redress the situation.
Their radical and uncompromisingly anti-monarchy rhetoric did so much to alienate foreign sympathy
for the revolution and won permanent enemies who dedicated their energies to destroying the
revolution. French soldiers fighting other European states tried spreading revolutionary and anti-
monarchy propaganda wherever they fought. Their slogans included catch-phrases like “liberty, equality
202
and fraternity”. They also spoke of “Peace to the peoples and war against tyrants”. By far the most
radical anti-monarchy statement had been contained in the Edict of Fraternity issued in 1791 before the
advent of the Jacobins to power. This was an explicit promise of material and moral support for people
in European countries who wished to overthrow their rulers and establish revolutionary governments
like that of France. Although the edict had been issued by the Legislative Assembly, the Jacobins
effectively adopted it when they spoke of fighting the “tyrants” in 1793. That kind of rhetoric certainly
scared the monarchical governments of Austria and Prussia ensuring they could only fight rather accept
the revolution in France.
Their persistent intolerance of other revolutionary groups prevented unity of purpose and bred divisions
that seriously undermined the revolution. By 1791, the revolutionaries were clearly divided and the two
main groups were the Jacobins and the Girondists. There were so many facets to the Jacobin-Girondist
struggle for supremacy. One of these was ideological as the Jacobins sought to impose centralisation as
a way of dominating the whole country. Their attempts were fiercely resisted in the provinces like
Vendee. The Jacobins enlisted the support of Paris mob to wrest control of the National Convention and
imprison seventy three leading Girondist deputies in 1792. Divisions among the revolutionaries
consequently increased and became more violent. The Girondist supporters in the provinces responded
to the Jacobin victory in Paris by rebelling against the new government. As the revolutionary in-fighting
intensified, counter-revolutionary elements like the nobles and clergy took advantage of the situation
and worked out an alliance with the peasants and Girondists. This alliance succeeded for a time in
wresting control of provincial cities like Toulon in 1793. When the alliance started to work with external
enemies of the revolution like the British in Toulon, it became clear that the revolution was under
serious threat. As civil war raged the Jacobins felt compelled to introduce the Reign of Terror with its
repressive measures to deal with the situation.
liberty to express anti-Jacobin sentiments. Radical Jacobins like Maximillien Robespierre made it clear
that there was no question of equality and fraternising with counter-revolutionaries and anybody else
who did not share their Jacobin views. He spoke of terror as necessary to frighten dissidents. The high
levels of intolerance were contrary to the revolutionary ideals. Even fellow revolutionaries were not
spared imprisonment and execution if their views contradicted those in power at the time. Mere
jealousy or competition for power also produced serious violations of liberty and equality. A special
court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was established to try counter-revolutionary suspects. The Law
of Suspects was passed to criminalise support for royalists and insufficient enthusiasm for the
revolution. It was not clear what constituted insufficient enthusiasm for the revolution and it was up to
the Revolutionary Tribunal to decide. Given the clearly Jacobin sympathies of that court, the Law of
Suspects was inevitably used to punish anti-Jacobins. The Law of Maximum which was passed in 1794 to
criminalise the selling of goods above the prices prescribed by government violated the revolutionary
principles of freedom of commerce. When the Law of Twenty-Second Prarial was passed in 1794 even
members of the National Convention lost their immunity and could now be hurled before the
Revolutionary Tribunal on accusations of counter-revolutionary behaviour. There were spirited attempts
to de-Christianise France between 1793 and 1794. This followed the overwhelming rejection of the Civil
203
Constitution by the clergy in 1790. Churches were closed in many parts of the country and priests were
persecuted. There were attempts to introduce the “Worship of Reason” and even a “Cult of the
Supreme Being” to replace Christianity. That way the liberty of religion was lost in revolutionary France.
Other policies like the requisitioning of grain and other goods essential to the war effort also violated
the freedom of commerce. The introduction of mass conscription to provide recruits for the
revolutionary armies who had the urgent task of defending France from imminent invasion also
demonstrated the loss of freedom of choice. The government allowed imprisonment, executions,
torture and fines as punishment for those found guilty of reaction thus demonstrated loss of various civil
rights in France.
They certainly assisted the revolution by deposing the counter-revolutionary king and establishing a
republic in France in 1792. Although the revolutionaries had allowed Louis XVI to stay on as king after
the outbreak of the revolution, he continued to behave in ways that suggested that he was a reactionary
who was committed to reversing the gains of the revolution. The more moderate national assembly and
legislative assembly had failed to take any action against him when he used his veto against laws to
abolish the privileges of the first two estates. He also used his veto against the Declaration of Rights and
the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790. In all this Louis XVI displayed a strong determination to
protect the interests of the minority nobles and clergy even if it meant undermining those of the Third
Estate which had been generous enough to let him remain as king and allow him a suspensive veto over
all legislation. The alleged discovery of documents linking him to foreign governments in seeking to
destroy the revolution prompted the Jacobins to dethrone him, abolish the monarchy and establish a
Republic in 1792. They had him executed in January 1793. Those were bold and decisive steps which
saved the revolution.
They assisted the revolution by creating an army that crushed the local and foreign enemies and laid the
foundations for the future success of the Directory. Carnot was appointed to the task of re-organising
the army so that it could meet the threat of local and foreign counter-revolutionaries. He decided on
mass conscription in order to provide recruits. Able-bodied men were trained and armed to fight. The
rest of the population had to contribute to the war effort by cooking, providing material assistance and
even carrying the baggage of the soldiers. Grain and other important goods were requisitioned to feed
the revolutionary armies and fuel the war effort. Fines, imprisonment and even death awaited those
who refused to co-operate. Carnot and the Jacobins managed to create an army that successfully
crushed the local rebels and drove out the Austrian, British and Prussian invaders. The same army was
later used to great effect by the Directory in launching its offensive campaigns which led to the
territorial expansion of France during the period 1795 to 1799.
The Jacobins also made an immense contribution to the revolution through various key measures
adopted during the Reign of terror. One such measure was the establishment of the Revolutionary
Tribunal to try all cases of suspected counter-revolutionary activities and there was no appealing its
verdict. There was also the Conscription of citizens into the revolutionary armies. The Law of Suspects
was passed in September 1793 to provide for the arrest of those accused of counter- revolutionary
activities. Supporting the monarchy, nobles and the clergy were all considered as counter revolutionary
offences. The Law of the Maximum was passed early in 1794 to stop soaring prices of grain and other
204
essential goods. A maximum selling price for all essential goods was fixed and selling above that
stipulated price was a capital offence punishable even by death.
The Law of Twenty-Second Prarial was passed in June 1794 to effectively crush all counter-revolutionary
opposition. It permitted any kind of testimony against a suspect, denied a suspect legal representation
and even sought to give the Committee of Public Safety the right to send any member of the National
Convention to the Revolutionary Tribunal. Government officials called Deputies-on-Mission carried the
terror into the provinces and enforced obedience to the revolutionary government.
The Jacobins also introduced various forms of punishment which assisted in saving the revolution. These
included the death sentence. Four per cent of all those arrested were ultimately executed; some by
drowning, others by shooting and most by the guillotine. As many as three thousand were executed in
Paris alone, about seventeen thousand from the rest of France. The civil war in Vendee, disease and
malnutrition in the prisons claimed another forty thousand victims.
Imprisonment was another form of punishment. The Revolutionary Tribunal imprisoned as many as
500000 suspected counter- revolutionaries. Overcrowding, hunger and death occurred in the prisons.
Torture and exile were also employed. Many of the nobles and clergy were banished into exile and even
stripped of their citizenship.
Fines were also prescribed for various offences including hoarding, escaping conscription and refusing to
accept payment in assignats (a currency whose value was pegged on the land that was seized from the
church and nobles)
Ultimately the terror helped to save the Revolution even though this was achieved through the use of
extreme measures to suppress internal dissent and foreign opposition.
Although the Jacobins threatened the revolution through some of their repressive measures, it can be
concluded that they actually did more to assist the revolution. They achieved this through various
measures of which the Reign of Terror stands out most prominently. The terror enabled the
revolutionary government to successfully prosecute the war against the coalition of European
governments. The measures that enabled the revolutionary government’s success included conscription,
requisitioning and the Law of Suspects.
205
“THE PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION ADOPTED BY THE EUROPEAN POWERS AT THE BERLIN
CONFERENCE (1884-5) AND NOT THE RUDD CONCESSION (1888) MADE THE OCCUPATION OF
ZIMBABWE INEVITABLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
1. Before choosing to agree or disagree, it is necessary to clearly articulate the major issues concerning
the Berlin Conference and define what is meant by the principle of Effective Occupation.
2. It is also important to clearly establish the link between Effective Occupation and the colonisation of
Zimbabwe.
3. It is also important to outline the major issues surrounding the Rudd Concession and then establish its
link with the colonisation of Zimbabwe.
4. There is also a need to define the meaning of “inevitable”.
SOME KEY ISSUES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. The Berlin Conference was convened essentially to avoid a general European war by finding peaceful
solutions to the problematic issue of the European partition of Africa that had gained momentum from
c.1876 and threatened to cause conflict among European nations
2. The main decisions of the Berlin Conference included:
- the establishment of guidelines for the future annexation of African territory
- one guideline was the establishment of “Spheres of Influence” for the major European powers in Africa
- another was the doctrine of “Effective Occupation” which compelled a European country to prove that
it had effectively occupied an African territory before claiming it as its own
3. The doctrine of effective occupation’s main result was the acceleration of the partition of Africa as the
European countries tried to protect their spheres of influence by establishing effective occupation prior
to annexing new territory.
4. Within 20 years most African states had lost their independence and were under harsh European rule.
5. The colonisation process was carried out in an arbitrary manner and the boundaries of the new
colonies were drawn up without any input and consideration of the Africans. The boundaries reflected
the bargaining and agreements among the European powers whose main interest was to share Africa
among them without conflict.
6. The Rudd Concession was concluded in October 1888 between Lobengula and Charles Rudd in his
capacity as Cecil Rhodes’s chief agent. Charles Rudd was assisted by Rochfort Maguire, Charles Helm and
Francis Thompson.
206
7. The agreement was a mineral concession which purportedly gave Rudd the exclusive right to exploit
all the minerals in Lobengula’s kingdom (taken to mean all of present-day Zimbabwe) and the full power
to do anything necessary to obtain them.
8. The Rudd Concession was the basis of Rhodes’ successful application for a Royal Charter to colonise
Zimbabwe on behalf Britain.
207
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE BERLIN CONFERENCE SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. The conference laid down guidelines on the establishment of spheres of influence and the doctrine of
effective occupation. These were two important concepts in the peaceful occupation of Africa and its
partition among European powers. (Peaceful among European powers. It is important to note that
Africans were sometimes violently brought under European rule)
2. The Conference made the occupation of Zimbabwe inevitable or unavoidable as it laid down rules for
the general partition of Africa as a whole. Once there were clear guidelines for the occupation of the
entire continent it was always going to be just a matter of time before Zimbabwe or any other part of it
would be occupied by a European power.
3. The Rudd Concession which led directly to the occupation of Zimbabwe was itself a product of the
Berlin Conference’s resolution that spheres of influence and effective occupation ought to be carried out
in order to demonstrate that an African colony was indeed the possession of a European power.
Therefore the Rudd Concession cannot be divorced from the Berlin Conference that had been held three
years earlier.
4. All that the Rudd Concession did was to simply establish the identity of the European power that
would colonise Zimbabwe but the matter of the occupation had already been established as a future
and inevitable fact by the Berlin Conference.
CONCLUSIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE RUDD CONCESSION MAY INCLUDE SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
ISSUES:
1. The Rudd Concession clearly established the identity of the European power (i.e. Britain) that would
occupy Zimbabwe and it was the definite document that le directly to the granting of the Royal Charter
that facilitated the occupation of Zimbabwe in 1890
2. On the other hand the Berlin Conference simply established the possibility or probability of the
colonisation of Zimbabwe or any other African territory at some future date but it did not make that a
definite and inescapable fact.
3. The argument in favour of the Berlin Conference is further weakened by the fact that Ethiopia was
never colonised as would have been the case if the Conference had made it an unavoidable fact that all
of Africa would be occupied.
4. In any case the Berlin Conference did not even lead to a scramble to occupy Zimbabwe- for three
years after the Conference there was no significant interest until 1887 when Paul Kruger’s Transvaal
state showed its interest by negotiating the Grobler Treaty. This was a local state which was ruled by
whites from the African rather than the European continent. It was only then that individuals of British
origin (i.e. Cecil Rhodes) made definite steps to occupy Zimbabwe via the Rudd Concession.
208
WHAT MEASURES WERE TAKEN BY THE SETTLER GOVERNMENTS TO FRUSTRATE AFRICAN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITIES BETWEEN 1894 AND 1951?
1. This is a straightforward question requiring the candidate to outline the settler government’s policies
that were designed to frustrate African economic activities as a way of forcing them to submit to the
colonial capitalist system as labourers
2. A knowledge of various African activities is essential e.g. crop cultivation, pastoralism, mining, tool
making, hunting and gathering, trade, tribute and raiding
3. It will be important to examine the settler government’s policies to hinder the above and other
African economic activities
SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES TO CONSIDER INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Expropriation of land- the Europeans started the process of grabbing the Africans’ land in 1890 when
they occupied a part of Mashonaland. More land was forcibly taken away from the Africans in 1894 after
the defeat of the Ndebele in the Anglo-Ndebele war of 1893-4. The land-grab was followed up by the
creation of reserves for Africans in the Gwayi and Shangani areas that were arid and infertile. Given the
fact land was the mode of production for the Africans whose most important economic activity was
Agriculture it is not difficult to understand that the land-grabbing and subsequent creation of reserves
severely frustrated and undermined the Africans’ way of life.
2. Confiscation of cattle- apart from pegging out huge farms for themselves on land that had been taken
away from the Ndebele in 1894, the Europeans also went on to loot large herds of the Ndebele cattle.
Pastoralism was also an important economic activity and cattle were significant as a form of wealth.
They were used to pay the bride-price, for trade, for meat and milk as well as for ritual purposes. The
expropriation of large herds of African cattle had negative results for the Africans leaving many of them
poorer and unable to live a self-sufficient life. Many were ultimately forced to sell their labour rather
cheaply to the Europeans on their farms and mines in order to survive.
3. Forced labour- the Europeans often resorted to forcing Africans to work for them on their farms and
mines. Such measures removed Africans from their independent and traditional economic pursuits of
agriculture and pastoralism and prevented them from being self-reliant. The practice of forced labour
was extremely brutal to the point that it became a major African grievance leading up to the first
Ndebele-Shona uprising popularly known as the First Chimurenga/Umvukela of 1896-7
4. Taxation- different kinds of taxes were imposed on the Africans by the settler governments in a clear
attempt to uproot them from their traditional agricultural and pastoral way of life and get them to
participate in the money-based colonial and capitalist economy as manual labourers. There was a Hut
Tax, a Poll Tax and even a cattle tax among others and all these had to be paid in cash in order to induce
the Africans to take up paid employment on the European farms, mines and manufacturing industries.
209
5. Discriminatory and oppressive laws- perhaps the best known was the Land Apportionment Act first
passed in 1930 and amended so many times afterwards. This divided the country’s land into African and
European areas. Europeans were given 48 million acres in the prime farming regions that were closest to
transport and telecommunications infrastructure while over one million Africans were allocated only 21
million acres of mostly arid and barren land far removed from the markets and transport and
telecommunications facilities. Overcrowding and a severe deterioration in African agriculture quickly
followed and the settler government attempted to redress the consequent environmental degradation
by passing the equally discriminatory and oppressive Native Land Husbandry Act in 1951. This law
further frustrated and undermined African economic activity and way of life by imposing limits on land
owned, cattle owned as well as prohibiting tree cutting which was a source of firewood for rural energy
requirements. The Maize Control Act discriminated against African farmers causing their produce to be
classified as inferior to that of the Europeans and therefore attracting a lower purchase price. The
Masters and Servants Act as well as the Industrial Conciliation Act were some of the oppressive pieces of
legislation that prevented African workers from effectively organizing themselves in trade unions that
could negotiate with employers for higher wages and better working conditions.
6. Having outlined and discussed the measures stated above, it will remain for the candidate to conclude
that the combination of all those measures succeeded in frustrating and progressively destroying African
economic activities
210
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE DECLINE OF THE GREAT ZIMBABWE CIVILISATION BE ATTRIBUTED TO
ECOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE AREA?
sheep, droughts occurred from time to time. A drought occurring at a time the population had reached a
critical point in relation to its natural resources would have destroyed Great Zimbabwe’s ability to feed
itself. This problem would have been worsened by the fact that there was no technology by which the
state could transport sufficient food and other supplies over long distances and the only alternatives
would have involved dispersing the people or moving the state structure to another site. Either way the
result would have been the collapse of the state.
The progressive deterioration of the pastures for the livestock seriously undermined Great Zimbabwe’s
pastoral economy and contributed to its ultimate decline. Although the state was situated in a generally
grassy savanna region with reasonably good rainfall, the keeping of large herds of cattle in a densely
populated but fairly compact area would have destroyed the pasturage over time. Even if the rainfall
was generally good, the ability of the pastures to regenerate was also compromised by the droughts
which tended to occur at least once every five years. Since much of the area surrounding the state was
either too mountainous or too rocky, the people were probably forced to move much further away from
the state and ultimately abandoned in search of the proverbial greener pastures.
The population of the state has been estimated to have been in the region of eleven thousand but D.N.
Beach believed that further research would probably reflect a greater number. Whatever the figure it
appears that Great Zimbabwe probably grew too big to be supported by its environment and the
presence of so many people at “one spot would have seriously affected the ability of its site territory to
supply crops, crops, firewood, game, grazing and all other necessities of life.” (Beach: 1980. P.50).
Having so many people clustered would have also generated the unwelcome problems of disease, noise
and soil exhaustion. Consequently the women and men would have had to walk longer distances to their
fields as soil exhaustion took its toll and also because much of the area surrounding the state was either
too mountainous or too rocky to support cultivation. All this would have created competition for the
available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their supporters and
that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even before they became
exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it impossible for the state to
continue.
Although some historians believe that civil wars and succession disputes may have bedeviled the Great
Zimbabwe state resulting ultimately in its collapse, there is not much evidence to support this view. In
the absence of any records or much information from oral tradition, it seems likely that this conclusion
was reached after studies of later Shona states like the Mutapa and Rozvi whose social, political and
economic organisation was broadly similar to that of Great Zimbabwe. It seems reasonable to suppose
therefore that the civil wars and succession disputes that affected the latter two states would have
affected Great Zimbabwe as well. The well known tradition about Mutota’s emigration from Great
211
Zimbabwe in search of salt may also have been the result of succession disputes and the civil war that it
resulted in.
Historians have generally speculated that Great Zimbabwe could have fallen victim to the rivalry and
imperial ambitions of various members of the ruling elite. This is a view which is not easy to substantiate
given the fact that hardly any names of the ruling class and any dates have ever been advanced. Oral
tradition supplies the name of Nyatsimba Mutota as the aristocrat who emigrated from the state in
order to find salt which had become scarce at Great Zimbabwe. It is possible that this emigration may
also have been the result of his failure to achieve political power within the Great Zimbabwe state as
result of competition and his ambitions would have motivated him to move with his supporters
The decline of tradable items, the emergence and growth of the rival states and the progressive decline
of trade on the East African coast all conspired to undermine the trade of Great Zimbabwe with
disastrous consequences for the state’s continued existence. According to D.N. Beach, the Great
Zimbabwe area was never a major gold producing area itself although there were initially considerably
gold deposits especially of the alluvial variety. Those were probably sufficient to support the foundation
of the state but not enough to sustain it in the long term. Evidence shows that the ancient prospectors
were highly skilled in discovering and exploiting the gold deposits so much that, “little was left un-
exploited.”(A.J. Wills. p.25) Given this scenario the continued existence of Great Zimbabwe would have
probably depended on the ability of its rulers to control the trade in gold and other items produced
elsewhere. With time the Torwa and Mutapa states emerged to the south-west and North-west of Great
Zimbabwe and these undermined the former’s capacity to trade. They were able to achieve this by
taking over Great Zimbabwe’s trade routes and by attracting the Swahili-Arab merchants who had been
the Great Zimbabwe’s trading partners. What emerged was a scenario where Great Zimbabwe for whom
trade was the life-blood progressively lost that ability to trade
According to Shona oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota (c.1450-1480) led an expedition northwards from
Great Zimbabwe in the direction of the Mazoe River tributaries ostensibly to search for salt. Objective
might not have been salt per se but a general quest for natural resources that might have begun to
decline on the plateau owing to a combination of population pressure, over-hunting and even the
efficient exploitation of the alluvial gold reserves. Population growth may have produced a competition
for the available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their
supporters and that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even
before they became exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it
impossible for the state to continue.
The emergence of states such as the Torwa and Mutapa to the south and north of Great Zimbabwe
probably contributed a great deal to the collapse of the latter. Great Zimbabwe was fully occupied for
only about 300 years and the rise of the neighboring states of Torwa and Mutapa coincides with the
decline of Great Zimbabwe. These were also Shona states with similar political structures, customs,
religious beliefs and economic activities. Great Zimbabwe found itself having to compete with these
emerging states for control of international trade, economic resources and political domination and it
came off worse.
212
All in all, the decline of Great Zimbabwe was ultimately the outcome of so many factors. Although
ecological issues played a greater role, there were also other factors that included succession disputes,
decline in trade and the emergence of similar and rival states.
213
CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE LATE IRON AGE ON
ZIMBABWEAN SOCIETIES.
An important political consequence of the Late Iron Age was the emergence of more permanent and
settled communities. Agriculture in particular required that people remain in one place at least long
enough to cultivate and wait for the crops to mature so that they could be harvested. In any case the
harvests would have to be stored thus reducing the mobility of the communities. Other economic
activities like trade, manufacturing also created a situation where the Iron Age societies accumulated
much greater stores of property and wealth which would have been difficult to consistently move
around. That alone was a huge incentive for a more permanent and settled way of life. Thus the axes
and hoes which were products of the Iron Age were brought into action cutting down trees and clearing
the ground to facilitate the construction of permanent dwellings. The round, thatched huts made out of
tree poles and hard clay (daga) made their appearance replacing the cave dwellings that were popular
with the nomadic Stone Age communities
The use of iron not only promoted economic and social stability but it also facilitated the emergence of
large states like Great Zimbabwe which became an important commercial and political centre. In
addition to being in the heart of an extensive commercial and trading network, the site was the center
of a powerful political kingdom, which was under a central ruler for about 350 years (1100–1450 AD).
The site is estimated to have contained perhaps 18,000 inhabitants, making it one of the largest cities of
its day. Great Zimbabwe covered over 1779 acres. The stone wall enclosures of the state are still
standing to this day and hut remains have been dug up by archaeologists. The two main geographical
areas of stone wall enclosures are the Hill Complex on the long, steep-sided granite hill that rises 262
feet above the surrounding ground and the land below this hill where the Valley Enclosures and the
Great Enclosure are situated. The stone walls, up to 19.7 feet thick and 36 feet high, are built of granite
blocks without the use of mortar.
The Late Iron Age also facilitated the rise of autocratic and personality-driven forms of political
organisation. It has already been noted elsewhere that the use of iron led to greater accumulation of
wealth by some individuals enabling them to acquire influence and political authority that enabled them
to dominate the less wealthy. Those fortunate enough to control iron production, trade and the land
were able to bring others under their authority in the states they created. They made them their
servants and made them fight their wars in exchange for economic rewards that included the use of the
land for agriculture. The less wealthy were also made to herd livestock in return for limited rights to milk
and meat. Economic control enabled some to achieve great personal power as emperors, kings or chiefs.
The Munhumutapa and Changamire who exercised autocratic power as emperors in the Mutapa and
Rozvi empires of the Late Iron Age are good examples. So great was the power and the personality of
the Munhumutapa that his vassal rulers had to light a fire from the one that burned at his headquarters.
It had to be kept burning as long as he was alive and ruled as a show of respect and submissiveness.
Another significant but negative political effect of the Late Iron Age was the rise in the incidence of wars
within and among the communities and states. The use of iron was in itself a catalyst for the outbreak of
even deadlier wars as the metal was used to manufacture weapons that were more effective in combat.
214
During this period wars were fought with the newly made iron spears and arrows. Communities and
states therefore engaged each other in battles with all the confidence that their stronger and more
effective weapons would enable them to kill their adversaries in greater numbers than was possible with
pre-Iron Age weapons. Wars also resulted from the succession disputes and the struggle for political
power that were a natural consequence of the formation of larger states that was a feature of the Late
Iron Age. Shona oral traditions abound with stories of the wars that accompanied the rise, expansion
and decline of large states such as Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa and the Rozvi empires. The issue is simple
enough: the use of iron stimulated more permanent and larger settled communities. These in turn led to
the creation of laws to regulate the relationships among people in them. This gave rise to greater
political authority which was entrusted to the wealthier, influential and respected members of society.
The need to have and control political power generated disputes that sometimes turned violent and
these were made even deadlier by the new weapons that were now being made of iron.
One of the major economic effects of the use of iron was in facilitating the growth of agriculture in place
of the reliance on hunting and gathering. Iron mining and smelting was followed by the manufacture of
iron tools such as hoes and axes. These were far stronger than any of the tools that had been made
during the Stone Age and they enabled people to clear forests and cultivate the land much more easily.
Archaeologists have dug up carbonized seeds that clearly indicate the growing of grains such as
sorghum, millet, various beans and cowpeas. Agriculture ensured much greater food security than could
be achieved through a reliance on the environment to provide wild vegetables and fruits.
The use of iron facilitated the hunting of big game such as elephants, kudu and buffalo among others.
Iron-smiths manufactured much more powerful iron tools like axes spear and arrow points, knives that
enabled them to kill the larger animals they had been previously unable to hunt with the less powerful
therefore less effective stone tools. The big game augmented meat supplies and also provided hides. Of
these the elephants were probably the most important because their tusks stimulated the growth of
ivory trade. In later Iron Age states like Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Rozvi and the Torwa the ivory trade
was an important source of wealth so much that men often risked the danger to hunt down elephants
to trade with the Swahili-Arab merchants and later the Portuguese who came into central and southern
Africa via the East African coast.
Apart from the pastoralism and agriculture discussed above, the use of iron helped to broaden the range
of economic occupations through stimulating the growth of manufacturing and trade. The need for iron
was in itself an incentive for the growth of mining which in turn stimulated the smelting and
manufacturing industries. Iron tools would have been traded for agricultural and other products by the
smelters and iron smiths who had become specialists in their field. Iron tools would have also facilitated
the digging up of gold which was in large demand on the East African coast and in Asia. The local
communities traded their gold with the Swahili-Arab merchants who brought them luxuries that
included Chinese and Persian porcelain, cloth, glass and beads. The discovery of many pre-colonial gold
mines is evidence of huge amount of gold extracted from the region for trade. ‘Conservative’ estimates
suggest that 7 to 9 million ounces of gold were extracted before 1890 and most of this probably dates to
the time of Great Zimbabwe. At current prices the gold trade would have been worth amounts in the
215
region of 2.6 to 3.4 billion American dollars. There were also parallel trades in ivory, textiles and other
goods.
The use of iron also stimulated the rise of trade in manufactured wares. Firstly the need for iron tools
acted as a catalyst for the emergence of a new class of entrepreneurs specializing in the manufacture of
iron tools. They would trade their manufactured wares for other goods they did not produce themselves
and these would have included food crops and livestock. Iron tools were also used in the payment of
tribute to the rulers and also as bride-price in the acquisition of wives. Iron tools such as spears and
arrows could also be used in fighting wars and they inevitably made the conflicts even deadlier than
they had been before.
The discovery and use of iron was also an important catalyst in the growth and further development of
copper and gold mining. This was achieved through the use of the much stronger and more reliable iron
tools. Iron tools like hoes and picks could be used to dig up the earth that could be very hard in some
places. It is perfectly clear that none of the stone tools would have accomplished these arduous tasks
because they were not as durable. The production of gold and copper became in turn a catalyst for the
thriving trade where Zimbabwean communities exchanged these items for ceramics, glass and brass
imports.
Another important economic consequence was the generation of increased wealth from greater
agricultural yields and trade in iron tools. It has already been discussed that the use of iron tools enabled
larger tracts of land to be cleared and cultivated. That in turn would have enabled greater yields to be
achieved creating surpluses that could then be traded within and with other societies. Through this
trade in agricultural and other products including the iron tools themselves, the societies were able to
build up greater reserves of wealth for themselves. This increased wealth was also reflected in the
greater importation of luxury items by states like Great Zimbabwe. The items included glass beads, glass
vessels, Persian and Chinese ceramics, coins from Kilwa, copper ingots and cowrie shells from the coast.
It can thus be concluded that the Late Iron Age had significant and far-reaching political and economic
effects on the Zimbabwean societies. These included the accumulation of greater wealth, diversification
of economic activities, the rise of larger and more permanently settled societies as well as the evolution
of more complex political systems.
FOR a long time, outgoing PM Morgan Tsvangirai, MDC leader Welshman Ncube and to some extent
outgoing DPM Arthur Mutambara, were adamant they would not participate in elections without
reforms.
216
DISCUSS THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF THE RELATIONS OF THE BETWEEN THE PORTUGUESE AND THE
MUTAPA STATE DURING 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES. (NOV 2009)
Mutapa-Portuguese relations were also characterized by intrigue and conspiracies that ultimately led to
conflict within the Mutapa and with outsiders. Portuguese attempts to Christianise the locals in the
1560s sparked conflict within the state as they opposed by traditional religious authorities who feared
the loss of their own influence over the rulers and subjects in general. They also bred a rivalry with
Swahili traders based at the court. The latter feared that this would result in the loss of their privileged
trading position in the state. The Swahili then conspired with the traditional religious authorities to have
the Portuguese priest Father Goncalo da Silveira assassinated in 1561. The murder only aggravated
tensions in the Mutapa state. It fuelled Portuguese demands for the expulsion of all the Swahili traders
from the state and the surrender of Mutapa gold mines to the king of Portugal. The Portuguese had
clearly found a pretext to conquer the state. Between 1569 and 1575 they organised three abortive
expeditions to conquer the Mutapa State and to control the gold.
In 1561 Gonçalo da Silveira, a Portuguese Jesuit missionary, visited Mutapa, where he quickly made
converts, including the Mutapa Negomo Mupuzangutu murdered. The presence of the Portuguese had a
serious impact that left the empire so weakened that it entered the 17th century in serious decline. By
the mid-17th century the Portuguese controlled Munhumutapa Empire.
Another significant aspect of the Mutapa-Portuguese relations was the persistence of violence. Even the
Portuguese documents mention a terrible wave of violence generated by the Portuguese prazo holders
and their Chikunda armies from the Zambezi against the various Mutapas who were politically and
militarily weak. There are references to attacks made on the people of Mukaranga, some of whom were
enslaved and forced to work in the gold mines by the Portuguese. They fled leaving the core of the state
largely depopulated. Some prazo holders seized areas of the land that belonged to the Mutapa and tried
to convert them into prazos. Some local rulers joined them, for example, the Nyachuru dynasty of the
upper Mazowe. Clearly the Mutapa State lost control of the plateau area around this time.
In 1561 Gonçalo da Silveira, a Portuguese Jesuit missionary, visited Mutapa, where he quickly made
converts, including King Negomo Mupuzangutu. However, the Swahili traders who lived there, fearing
for their commercial position, persuaded Negomo to have Silveira murdered. The presence of the
Portuguese had a serious impact that affected some of its trade and there had been a series of wars
which left the empire so weakened that it entered the 17th century in serious decline. By the mid-17th
century the Portuguese controlled Munhumutapa Empire.
Another aspect of Mutapa-Portuguese relations was the military co-operation between the two. In
c.1599, the Mutapa sought and received Portuguese assistance to fight Chikunda who led rebels in
attacking villages under Mutapa control. In 1607, Gatsi Rusere also sought Portuguese help to deal with
threats to his rule. That war dragged on for some years despite Portuguese assistance. Mutapa Gatsi
Rusere was eventually deposed from his throne and his capital taken over. In a desperate situation, he
surrendered all his mines to the Portuguese Crown so as to receive some assistance. Bocarro dates this
event to August 1607. A joint Mutapa Portuguese army then engaged the rebel Anconhe forcing him to
217
flee to Chizinga where he joined another rebel called Gurapaza. Bocarro reports that some of the
villages in Chizinga were attacked and razed but the Mutapa and the Portuguese forces were eventually
forced to retreat to the Mazowe River.
Portuguese military assistance was however obtained at the heavy cost of Mutapa submission and this
turned them into vassals or puppets of the Portuguese. Mutapa rebels like Mavura were forced to sign
treaties of vassalage to the Portuguese thus tying the Mutapa state to the Portuguese crown. The
Portuguese took this opportunity to advance their imperial interests by using slave labour to work on
the land they acquired under these treaties. This resulted in many armed conflicts in the area, causing
many Shona to flee to the south where Rozvi rule was being established. The Portuguese at Massapa
entered into a secret agreement with the Mutapa rebels of Chizinga. That led to a combined attack on
the Mutapa’s garrison at Massapa. The Portuguese were after the mines, particularly those of silver
reportedly located somewhere in Chikova in the Zambezi Valley. They had realised the weakness of
Mutapa Gatsi Rusere and even prepared a conquest of the whole state. The building of the forts such as
St. Estevaõ (by Dom Estevaõ) and St. Miguel (by Madeira) on the Zambezi between 1612 and 1614 must
be understood in this context. They even rejected some of the gestures of peace made by Mutapa Gatsi
Rusere.
Their relations were also characterized by trade. The Mutapa state was also rich in gold and ivory which
attracted first the Swahili, and then the Portuguese, from the Indian Ocean coastal ports. The
Portuguese, who came to know about the lucrative gold trade from the Swahili, started to collect
information relating to the location of gold mines, the quantity of gold produced, the nature of
exchange, the African rulers in charge of the gold mines as well as the nature and extent of their political
systems (Smith, 1983; Beach, 1980). The Portuguese built up Sofala as part of the grand strategy to tap
all the gold and ivory coming from the Mutapa state. Following their failure to establish a monopoly, the
Portuguese decided to penetrate the Zimbabwe Plateau interior.
There was also a cultural exchange that involved Portuguese attempts to Christianise the Mutapa. The
Portuguese had quickly realised that there was the close link between politics and religion of the
Mutapa state, they sought to penetrate it through religion. When father Gonzalo da Silveira arrived in
December 1560, he worked on converting the royal family to Christianity. He was largely successful in
this because the vast empire had become heavily riddled with conspiracies, coup plots, succession
disputes and civil wars to the extent that the reigning Mutapa probably wanted Portuguese help to hold
on to power. Apart from religion, there was intermarriage or at least sexual relations between the two.
Shona oral traditions and Portuguese documents have all testified to Portuguese men obtaining Shona
women as wives and concubines.
The nature of their interaction also resulted in the introduction of new crops among the Mutapa. Wills
(1985) argues that the maize crop was introduced by the Portuguese among the Shona from about the
16th century. It spread rapidly into areas formally dominated by traditional food crops such as finger
millet (rapoko or rukweza), bulrush millet (mhunga), and sorghum (mapfunde). To this day, maize
remains the staple food for the Shona.
218
The Mutapa also lost much land to the Portuguese after the introduction of the prazo system. The
Portuguese settlement in lower Zambezi resulted in the prazo system and forced some population
movements into the adjacent plateau areas. The worst affected in the Zambezi region were the Budya
and Sena-speaking Tonga who moved into Plateau areas vacated by the Mutapa State and built hilltop
fortifications. The movement of the Mutapa State into the Chidema lowlands was accompanied by a
military transformation meant to counter the Portuguese prazo holders. The Prazo system contributed
to further violence perpetrated by the Nyai, who emerged during the late 17th century and kept the
Portuguese at bay until the state declined in the late 19th century.
The trade interaction also led to the introduction of firearms and these increased armed conflicts and
made them deadlier in the Mutapa state. The Portuguese traded guns for Mutapa goods such as gold,
ivory and agricultural produce during the second half of the 16th century. This changed the nature of
warfare in the region where the bow and arrow and spears had been the main weapons. Theses had
been less deadly and destructive. Even settlement patterns began to change as communities abandoned
open low-lying dwellings in favour of stone buildings sited on hilltops that were difficult to access.
Firearms generated considerable violence in northern Zimbabwe as seen by the civil wars between the
Mutapa State and the rebel groups fighting to secede, and the Portuguese interference in the internal
politics of these states.
Prepared the way for the subsequent rise of the Rozvi by the weakening the Mutapa. The wars and
infighting that bedeviled the Mutapa state after the arrival of the Portuguese weakened the state. The
Mutapa dynasties fractured into autonomous states, many of which later formed the Rozvi Empire. The
Mutapa palace were taken over by the Rozvi whose Changamire (king) extended his control over the
mining areas. The Rozvi Empire did not however succeed in controlling an area as vast as the Mutapa
had done.
DISCUSS THE VIEW THAT, “TRADE AND RELIGION WERE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE AND
EXPANSION OF THE ROZVI STATE.” (NOV 2008)
Religion was not the only factor but it was significant to the rise and expansion of the Rozvi State. The
cause of the Rozvi rulers was helped by the fact that they shared the same religious values with other
Shona people who they incorporated and extended their rule over. The Rozvi believed in the worship of
a high god they called Mwari. They worshipped him through ancestral spirits. There were national spirits
(mhondoro) and family spirits (mudzimu). It was also accepted that the spirits of dead ancestors
possessed and spoke through living people who were called spirit mediums. Religion was a component
of the ideology of statecraft and it played an important role in reinforcing and maintaining political
power. Parallels can be drawn from contemporary European political systems that were bound together
by a shared religion. In these states, the political power of the rulers was reinforced by religious
doctrines that claimed that kings had a divine right to rule and was therefore not accountable to their
subjects and should not be forcibly removed from their positions.
219
Trade was carried out with other Shona groups and Europeans and it also contributed significantly to the
rise of the Rozvi. They traded their cattle for the Europeans guns and ammunitions. There was an
internal trade where they traded among themselves exchanging iron implements, animal skins and
pottery for the grain and other agricultural produce. Hunting activities also contributed to the external
trade conducted with the Swahili Arabs and Portuguese. Top of the list of the hunted animals were
elephants that were highly prized for the tusks, and meat. Other trade items included gold, beads,
mirrors and ceramics. Trade goods obtained from far away places were also used in further developing
and building up a strong political power base. That was achieved by redistributing them among people
who may not have participated in long distance trade on a large scale. This fits in well with the
contention that 'luxury goods from a distant source are often distributed to reproduce a system of rank
status or offices within a polity' (Kipp and Schortman, 1989).
The Rozvi were also pastoralists and cattle were important for political, social and economic purposes.
As with the Mutapa, there is a general consensus among historians that cattle ownership also played a
significant role in the rise of the Rozvi State. They took advantage of the dry grasslands, low trees and
excellent pastureland of Guruuswa to raise large heads of cattle, goats and sheep. The national herd was
owned or controlled by the king and he distributed them in a manner that enhanced his position as head
of state. Some he distributed to chiefs as an acknowledgement of their loyalty or as a reward for
services rendered. Cattle were also important for the payment of the bride-price and for trade. They
were exchanged for European goods such as guns and ammunition and as well as agricultural produce,
iron wares and pottery
Like other Iron Age states, agricultural activities were significant to the rise and expansion of the Rozvi
State. Iron mining and smelting was followed by the manufacture of iron tools such as hoes and axes.
These were far stronger than any of the tools that had been made during the Stone Age and they
enabled people to clear forests and cultivate the land much more easily. Archaeologists have dug up
carbonized seeds that clearly indicate the growing of grains such as sorghum, millet, various beans and
cowpeas. Farming was a seasonal and labour intensive involving family on individual plots of land.
Agriculture ensured much greater food security than could be achieved through a reliance on the
environment to provide wild vegetables and fruits.
The hunting of big game such as elephants, kudu and buffalo also contributed a great deal to the
economy of the Rozvi State. Iron-smiths manufactured much more powerful iron tools like axes, spear
and arrow points and knives that enabled them to kill the larger animals. The big game augmented meat
supplies and also provided hides. Of these the elephants were probably the most important because
their tusks stimulated the growth of ivory trade. For the Rozvi just like the other Iron Age states like
Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, and the Torwa, the ivory trade was an important source of wealth so much
that men often risked the danger to hunt down elephants to trade with the Swahili-Arab merchants and
later the Portuguese who came into central and southern Africa via the East African coast.
220
Tribute collected from subject Shona/Kalanga societies also contributed to the Rozvi economy. Tribute
was usually in the form of grain, animal skins and cattle. Tribute was highly significant on two fronts. On
one hand it demonstrated the loyalty of the Rozvi subjects and helped to cement the Changamire’s
political authority. Secondly it gave the Changamire rulers the economic resources like gold and ivory
they needed for external trade.
Pottery, blacksmithing, weaving and basketry were also important economic activities while the
specialized iron industry produced tools and weapons. Surplus products were for trading. Gold mining
and game hunting were however low key activities.
221
ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE NGUNI INCURSIONS ON THE ROZVI STATE. (NOV 2007)
222
223
Morning, morning beloved historians. Please don't skin me alive for the long absence. Election season is
upon us and for me that means lots of work far away from the city and the office-meaning i can't always
be responding to your queries. There are so many questions and I don't even know where to start. so i
will just start with the easiest. If it's an emergency you can call on the numbers I've provided but pliz
don't sms. Happy studying then!!! How far did the establishment of the empire of Napoleon 1 mark the
end of revolution in FRANCE?
The bourgeoisie made a grand entrance onto the French political scene by masterminding that famous
revolution which started in 1789. With their rallying call for liberty, equality and fraternity, France and
indeed Europe appeared to be on the threshold of a new political and social dispensation where all
people could live together in a climate of equality, dignity and mutual respect. It would also be possible
for anyone to rise to any position solely on merit regardless of circumstances of birth or any other form
of privilege. For all its high-sounding and well-meaning ideals, the revolutionary episode seemed to
succeed only in bringing out all that was negative about the French and Europeans in general especially
as it unleashed the twin evils of civil and international conflict. The ensuring chaos set the stage for the
advent of the empire of Napoleon 1. Ruling with an iron fist in France and waging war in Europe,
224
Napoleon’s reign has attracted mixed reviews from historians and critics over the centuries. He has been
praised for reforms that left a lasting positive imprint on the socio-political landscape of France and
Europe. Concepts such as the ‘careers open to talent’ and the Code Napoleon are prime examples of
such reforms. Some have however poured cold water over his achievements claiming instead that the
advent of his empire spelt the death sentence for the revolution and all the good it stood for. While
there maybe some truth in those assertions, it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that he
completely destroyed the revolution. This essay seeks to show that Napoleon 1 did not end the
revolution however much his reign was negative.
It is necessary to clarify what the revolution really was before Napoleon is brought to judgement. What
should we consider as the true meaning of the French Revolution-do we define it in terms of its ideals of
liberty, equality and fraternity? Or do we also consider the actual events that transpired from 1789
onwards? If we decide to judge Napoleon from the standpoint of the ideals then those who argue that
his advent signalled an end to the revolution have a strong case. The very fact of establishing an empire
re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It is therefore impossible to talk of the equality of
and other correspondence destroyed the right to free expression. In view of such policies, it is not easy
even for Napoleon’s most ardent supporters to acquit him of the charge of destroying individual
liberties and therefore the revolution itself.
Napoleon also ignored the principle of fraternity. All men were brothers according to the revolutionary
gospel. The revolutionaries had even come up with a declaration of fraternity by which they promised to
assist all those Europeans intending to free themselves from monarchical absolutism. This concept was
an illusion that could not be possible in Napoleon’s Europe where wars of conquest and subjugation
were the order of the day. When Napoleon’s Grand Army defeated the Austrians in Belgium and Italy,
French rule simply substituted that of the Austrians. There was obviously no fraternising between the
French master and his new subjects and that was a cold reality no amount of propaganda could ever
225
change. Even Napoleon’s ‘continental system’ which prohibited commerce between Britain and
continental Europe showed no fraternal respect for fellow Europeans. It was the work of a bully driven
by the selfish objective of economically crippling Britain irrespective and regardless of the consequent
suffering of all Europe.
By including in his legal code provisions recognising or confirming the gains made by the peasants and
Concordat.
Even if we concede that the revolution should be defined merely in terms of the 1789 ideals of liberty,
equality and fraternity, it would only be fair to examine the conduct of those revolutionaries who
preceded him before we proceed to judge Napoleon I. So many atrocities were committed in the 1790s
in the name of the revolution especially during the ‘Reign of Terror’ of Robespierre and company. As
many as forty thousand people were executed or died and in excess of five hundred were summarily
detained during that period. Such atrocities did much more than anything Napoleon could have to
destroy liberty and equality yet there has not been a single word written or spoken questioning the
revolutionary credentials of the perpetrators. Now if that brutal period is universally acknowledged to
be part of the revolutionary epoch and if people like Robespierre are unquestionably accepted as
revolutionaries, it boggles the mind that there are some who regard Napoleon as having ended the
226
revolution. He undoubtedly violated the principle of liberty but there is equally no doubt his
predecessors had done likewise.
Napoleon violated the principle of fraternity but so did his predecessors. It is worth remembering that
the wars and subjugation of other European states commenced before Napoleon’s rule and were in fact
started by the so-called revolutionaries. Thus in 1792 when France went to war with Austria, Prussia,
Holland and later England there was no fraternity between the French and fellow Europeans. Napoleon
violated that which had been violated and because of that there should not be any line of demarcation
between the revolution and his reign. If the revolution is to be defined in terms of ideals then he did not
end it-either it had already been ended or it had never materialised in the first place.
Principles aside, the case against Napoleon still does not hold as such a claim presupposes the existence
of a clearly defined revolutionary agenda which was then destroyed by Napoleon. There was no one
group of revolutionaries and no single coherent sequential revolutionary agenda which all
revolutionaries adhered to or had to adhere to. The practical politics of the revolution were really a
matter of trial and error made up as France went along. Revolutionary personalities and factions came
and went each pursuing its own policies that it supposed to be revolutionary and each accusing others
of being counter-revolutionary. Thus Robespierre and fellow Jacobins instituted their brand of policies
that were extremely brutal and destroyed individual liberties because the considered them necessary. If
Napoleon behaved differently from the Jacobins or any other of his predecessors, that does not
necessarily make him counter-revolutionary. The only revolutionary common denominator was the
basic consideration that French political and social institutions needed a drastic overhaul. There never
was and never could be any consensus on the practical implementation of that overhaul and as such
nobody could say that the Jacobin way or the Girondist way was the revolutionary way and Napoleon’s
way was an anathema. Furthermore liberty, equality and fraternity could never be granted absolutely
and unconditionally. Napoleon I obviously had his own limits dictated by practical considerations and
those were not necessarily the same as those of his predecessors. That some historians and critics have
found his ways to be in bad taste does not make him any less revolutionary.
As with all human beings, Napoleon I had his shortcomings but his rule actually ushered in a new era in
which the revolution was not only consolidated but more importantly given its practical form and
meaning. Any critic should never lose sight of the fact that it was Napoleon who proclaimed the concept
of ‘careers open to talent’. He went on to give this a living definition by instituting educational and the
legal reforms already discussed in this essay. Those were reforms his predecessors had only talked about
but spent themselves in warding off real and imagined enemies of the revolution. Their greatest
contribution to the revolution was in sweeping away the Ancien Regime with its concept of ‘the divine
right of kings’ and system of privileges for the clergy and nobility. But that is where their relevance
227
ended and that is the point at which the baton in the revolutionary relay had to be handed to Napoleon
I.
In the first place there was nothing amiss with the establishment of his empire. It was all part of the on-
going revolutionary drama as it was only established with the consent of the majority of Frenchmen who
unanimously and unreservedly endorsed it in a plebiscite. It was a dynastic dictatorship but it was
established in the exercise of democratic rights which is what the revolution was all about.
Having said all this it remains to restate that Napoleon I was no disciple of liberty, equality and
fraternity. Nobody ever was and if all are to be judged on that score then there were neither
revolutionaries nor a revolution in France. As an individual, Napoleon did so much to consolidate the
revolution and give it practical form and meaning. For that reason his advent did not destroy it
Did the domestic policies of Napoleon Bonaparte have any more important purpose than to sustain his
own authority?
The chaos that gripped France following the 1789 revolution gave way in 1799 to the rule of Napoleon
Bonaparte. Napoleon who first ruled as one of three consuls and eventually as emperor has been
praised and rightly so for reforms that left a permanent imprint on the socio-political scene in France.
Some of his achievements include the Code Napoleon, ‘careers open to talent’, the university and legion
of honour. Whether it is in politics or any other field of human endeavour, achievements have never
been enough to save anybody from the sometimes caustic criticism observers and commentators can
come up with. Napoleon is no exception in this regard and his detractors are at one in condemning him
for the dictatorship that destroyed individual freedom. So grave and venomous is the criticism that
some have taken a totally cynical view even of those of his reforms which brought tangible benefits to
France. Such critics choose to view him as a Machiavellian, a cynic whose true aim did not go further
than the selfish motive of entrenching and sustaining his personal power. It is the purpose of this essay
to contradict that view and portray Napoleon as a man driven by other altruistic motives as well.
It is in respect of his political and administrative reforms that it appears Napoleon was driven by the
selfish desire to secure and sustain his own power. It is difficult to doubt that a man, who liquidated the
Directory, created and then destroyed the Consulate before creating his empire had an acute thirst for
personal power. Although it was supposedly a three man triumvirate, Napoleon was the only one who
mattered as the First Consul. All executive power was vested in him and he had direct and indirect
control of the legislative process. It was direct in so far as the deliberations of the State Council could
only yield laws for France if he gave his consent. It was indirect but powerful all the same in the sense
that he was the only one with the authority to nominate members to the State Council.
228
Not even the possession of that executive power could satisfy his boundless ambitions as he wasted no
time in having himself proclaimed Emperor of the French. That followed hot on the heels of his earlier
decision to convert himself to First Consul for Life. This self aggrandisement was followed by the soon-
to-be-familiar plebiscite. The plebiscites were really pageantries that merely confirmed accomplished
facts giving them a veneer of democratic legitimacy. Their outcome was probably pre-determined which
is why they were held in the first place. Napoleon thus became emperor which was a fact that flew in
the face of revolutionary ideals of equality and ‘people’s power’. It was also a mockery of his oft-stated
commitment to ‘careers open to talent’. France was now compelled to put up with the dynastic
succession of Bonapartes even if they were not necessarily the best for the job.
As emperor Napoleon consolidated his personal power by stripping local government bodies such as
councils of their power and reducing them to advisory functions only. He also arrogated to himself the
task of appointing the mayors of the communes as well as prefects and sub-prefects of the
departments. All these apparently possessed so much power, the truth was that real power emanated
from the central authority which basically meant Napoleon himself. They only had as much authority as
he would allow them.
He also employed repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on power. To this end he re-
introduced spies, the secret police, censorship and the dreaded lettres de catchet. Thus imprisonment
without trial which his predecessors had abolished became a reality once more. With the restoration of
censorship, newspapers, drama and other forms of entertainment were carefully scrutinised for
seditious content. The writer A. Guerard has claimed that Napoleon’s decree on censorship led to sixty
newspapers being outlawed out of the seventy-three that were in circulation. C. Jones also states that
only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture that images is that of an autocrat
entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
Napoleon ruled largely by decree. He has been credited with the issuing of eighty thousand letters and
decrees over a fifteen year period. Though that figure might be somewhat controversial, it does
however serve to underline Napoleon’s excessive reliance on decrees to the extent that they became an
important source of the French law of that period. It also shows how much France had come to be
governed through the autocratic discretion of its emperor.
Apart from stifling political and civil liberties Napoleon also embarked on what we would consider today
as an aggressive campaign to market him or even create a personal cult. He formed his own court
aristocracy and bestowed his own titles. Some people became princes, dukes and duchesses because
229
Napoleon had made them so. Awards such as the Legion of Honour were introduced and bestowed at
the emperor’s discretion. In this way Napoleon created a class of sycophants whose fortunes were tied
up with his own and had every reason to prop his despotism. Other egocentric measures included the
conversion of personal symbols into national ones. This was amply demonstrated when he dumped the
pike which was the revolutionary symbol of popular sovereignty and replaced with his eagle. His face
soon adorned coins while painters, sculptors and authors were all commissioned to celebrate the man.
Such ostentatious displays of geocentricism reminiscent of extreme left and right dictatorships of the
twentieth century have naturally placed more ammunition in the hands of Napoleon’s bashers.
Although it is clear that Napoleon wanted personal power, his domestic policies were also informed by
other and even altruistic motives. One such motive was to sort out the chaos and confusion that
prevailed in the legal field which even his predecessors had talked of as an urgent necessity. He
therefore instituted his celebrated Code Napoleon to impose order, equality, uniformity and certainty to
the legal system which was just an uncertain hotchpotch of feudal customs, royal edicts of the Ancien
Regime and canon rules. Because most of it was not even written down, nobody could say with certainty
what the law really was in certain cases. Napoleon also gave legal recognition to the expropriation and
sale of the nobles’ and church’s lands that occurred during the revolutionary upheavals. He therefore
put to rest all anxiety and speculation over the issue. The code should be viewed for what it was-an
urgent solution to an urgent problem. It was not so much a question of scoring cheap political points as
it was a necessary development that any authority had to see to. It is no wonder that other European
states copied it and some of it has survived to the present day as part of French law.
A country deep in the throes of political, economic and social crises. A country that experienced periodic
outbursts of violence and chaos. A country whose desperate experiments with a Committee of Public
Safety, a Revolutionary Tribunal, a Directory and a Consulate had all failed to resolve the crisis. A
country so obviously requiring strong political will and urgent initiative to stabilise the situation. Then a
man stepped forward, richly endowed with the necessary willpower and arrogated to himself the
necessary political power to resolve the crisis. That country was France and the man was Napoleon
Bonaparte. He is a man to whom so much is owed by his country and yet all some cynics can say is that
he was driven purely by a hunger for personal power.
Even some of his repressive measures were most likely motivated by the need to ensure peace and
stability. It is always important to remember that he took over a country that was tottering on the brink
of civil conflict and in such a situation it was necessary to suspend some of the individual freedoms
hence censorship and the re-introduction of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial. He had
lived through the heady days of the early revolutionary days and was perceptive enough to see that
unbridled freedoms could unleash fanaticism and violence. That is something that characters such as
Marat and Herbet had been able to do through their publication of seditious newspapers inciting
230
violence in the name of the revolution. Expression and other freedoms were well and good if only they
could be exercised by responsible individuals but Napoleon’s France had not yet matured to that level.
Further evidence of Napoleon’s commitment to peace and stability was in the signing of the Concordat
with the pope. In reconciling the state and church he was correcting one of the most serious mistakes of
his revolutionary predecessors who had violently attempted to suppress and even destroy the church.
The settlement was an acknowledgement of the home truth that religion was an integral part of the
French and there could not be any peace without religious toleration. He was shrewd enough to induce
the pope to acknowledge the existence of other religious persuasions hence the wording of the
concordat which recognised Catholicism not as the exclusive religion but simply that of “the greater
majority of Frenchmen.” All this coming from a man who was not known for any fervent religious
convictions showed an active desire to at least restore order after all that religiously-motivated chaos of
the revolutionary era.
Napoleon also had a genuine desire to uplift the lives of the French. Among various measures he
adopted to achieve that was the promotion of education. Many public schools were opened and he
went as far as giving France a university. He also introduced his celebrated ‘careers open to talent’
policymaking it possible for all people to employ their skills for the betterment of the nation. He led the
way by harnessing the expertise of different personalities from different backgrounds and political
persuasions including Bourbon loyalists, clericals and revolutionaries in various projects. Examples
include Talleyrand and Fouché who had all served previous administrations. Lawyers from all kinds of
backgrounds lent their expertise to the drafting of the famous Code Napoleon. His crowning edifice was
the Legion of Honour which was created to reward all those who had served France with great
distinction in their chosen field of endeavour. Such people were bestowed titles and became the new
aristocracy even though some of them came from the humblest backgrounds.
The cows may indeed come home but only a few things will crystallise. Napoleon’s strong arm tactics
certainly gave him so much personal power which was necessary for the national good. Sustaining his
authority was a motive but it was just one among many.
Evaluate the nature and extent of opposition to the policies of Louis XVI in 1789.
When you look at the nature of the opposition you are looking at the ways in which the opposition was
manifested or demonstrated e.g. Was it violent? Was it through revolts? demonstrations? peaceful? Am
sure it should be easy enough to see that violence, revolts and demonstrations became key methods of
demonstrating that opposition to Louis XVI
When you are looking at the extent, you are investigating how far or how widespread the opposition to
Louis XVI was in 1789. I believe it was widespread because Louis XVI faced opposition from essentially all
231
the groups or classes in France. The Nobles and Clergy opposed him due to the financial crisis and
sought reforms. In 1787 they had pressured him into calling the Assembly of the Notables which
ultimately failed to solve the financial crisis. They pressured him to convene the Estates-General after
refusing to accept proposals by his ministers that they pay more taxes. They even opposed his
appointment of reform -minded ministers like Necker and Turgot and pressured him to fire these
ministers who had proposed that they pay more taxes. Louis also faced opposition from the entire Third
Estate who demanded political, economic and social changes
The Third Estate revolted against a government they felt to be tyrannical because of its adherence to the
doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings”. The Bourbon monarchy made use of the doctrine of the “Divine
Right of Kings.” This was a religious concept that stated that monarchical power was a God-given
privilege. It implied that people had no right to challenge or seek any explanations from the king over
the use of his power since he did not owe it to them. The people also did not have any right of seeking
his removal even if they were dissatisfied with him. Such a doctrine would have been suitable in a
theocratic or highly Christian state. The France of the late eighteenth century had become far more
secular and the ideas of philosophers like Rousseau captured the imagination of the bourgeoisie.
Rousseau was one of those who rejected the divine source of political power and argued that people in
any society were the true source of all political power. He further asserted that those who held political
power did so by agreement and permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied
accountability and also the need to govern in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of
the nation in politics and that they could remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising
power in their interests.
The Third Estate also regarded the government as tyrannical because of its persistence in excluding
them from politics. Much to their frustration, the bourgeoisie were excluded from politics along with the
rest of the Third Estate. This exclusion was maintained despite the bourgeoisie’s great wealth and
education. To them their continued exclusion had no justification. They regarded themselves as victims
of a tyranny which was founded on an alliance of the monarchy, nobles (Second Estate) and clergy (First
Estate). Their revolt in 1789 which led to the formation of the National Assembly was a revolt against a
tyrannical government which had failed to accept and accommodate them as equal and important
political players. To them it was tyranny for the government to decide on a procedure for the Estates-
General which was likely to safeguard the interests of the First and Second estates.
Political observers in the Third Estate found the king’s decision to fire reform-minded ministers as
tyrannical and something that had to be resisted. Ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne tried to
introduce financial and social reforms that would have improved the economy and ameliorated the
condition of the down-trodden peasants and workers in the Third Estate. They however faced stiff
resistance from the nobles and clergy who felt their privileged position to be under threat. The nobles
and clergy then conspired with the queen Marie Antoinette to pressure the spineless Louis XVI into
dismissing the ministers. Such arbitrary government decisions ended the Third Estate’s hopes of social
and economic change. The firing of Necker in 1789 inspired a revolt against the government and Louis
XVI was compelled to recall the popular minister of finance that same year.
232
The government’s injustices and continued repression of the Third Estate was another demonstration of
tyranny which roused them to finally revolt in 1789. The Third Estate suffered various social injustices
and repression under Bourbon rule in France. Among other things they were subject to forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. They were denied various civil liberties that included
freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and expression. They found this government-sponsored tyranny
particularly hard to accept when they compared their situation to that of the First and Second estates.
By contrast the nobles enjoyed so many social privileges. These included freedoms from forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. Their monopoly of political and economic power gave them
higher social status than the Third Estate. The clergy also enjoyed a privileged position. The government
allowed them control of education, births, deaths and marriages. The church also owned lots of land and
Catholicism was recognized as the official religion of France. The archbishops lived in luxury and the
immorality of some of them attracted the hatred of the Third Estate. All this gave the nobles and clergy
control over the lives of French society especially the peasants. It was a tyranny which was eventually
resisted with the violence of burning and looting in 1789. The government and the first two estates were
ultimately forced to give up their privileges in August 1789.
In 1789, the Third Estate revolted against a government whose inefficiency was manifested in its
extravagant policies. The king and his court were wasteful to the point of spending one-twelfth of all the
government revenue on luxuries for themselves. They also wasted a lot of money dragging France into
unnecessary foreign wars. One such was the intervention in the Anglo-American war of 1776. That
decision was costly as it aggravated the financial crisis in France and exposed French citizens to the
democratic and liberal ideas of the Americans. Soon enough Louis XVI’s government faced calls for the
extension of political and civil rights based on the American example. Spending so much on luxuries and
unnecessary foreign wars was reckless and highly insensitive given the poverty of the third estate which
was already burdened with high taxes.
The Third Estate were driven to revolt against a government whose inefficiency was also seen through
its taxation system which was not only inequitable but also prevented it from realising maximum
revenue generation from its people. There was an inequitable taxation system which allowed the church
and nobles exemptions from paying most of the taxes. This was despite their great wealth especially in
land ownership. On the other hand, the Third Estate was forced to shoulder most of the tax burden.
They were unhappy about paying so many different taxes including the taille (land tax), gabelle (salt tax).
The peasants also had to pay rents to noble landlords and tithes to the church. Allowing wealthy society
to escape paying taxes they could afford was highly irrational from an economic perspective and it was a
mark of inefficiency that deprived the government of revenue that it could have had and definitely
needed in the economically volatile period of the late 1700s. The Nobles refused to take up a greater
share of the tax burden and pressured the spineless king into firing ministers who suggested that they
pay more. A combination of inequitable taxation, extravagance on entertainment and foreign wars and
over borrowing all contributed to a financial crisis in France which had become unbearable by 1789.
Inequitable land distribution and feudal restrictions on economic activities of peasants were the other
aspects of government inefficiency which angered the Third Estate and finally drove them to revolt in
1789. Land was the main source of wealth in France as its economy was based on agricultural
233
production. Fifty per cent of it was owned by the church and Nobles. The Third Estate owned the other
half. The first two groups comprised only 3% of the population while the Third Estate (made up of the
bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) far out-numbered them and constituted 97% of the
population. Clearly the land distribution was grossly inequitable and impacted negatively on the Third
Estate especially the peasants. It was not surprising that they experienced shortages of land.
Consequently they were forced to live and farm on church and nobles’ land where they had to endure a
host of feudal restrictions which affected their ability to sustain themselves. Some of their feudal
obligations included paying rent, performing labour and giving up part of their produce to their
landlords. It has also been claimed that peasants who were tenants were not allowed to own grinding
mills, baking ovens and wine presses under the exacting system of feudalism. They were obliged to grind
their wheat into flour, bake their wheat to bread and press their grapes into wine in mills, ovens and
wine presses owned by their noble landlords. The government and its allies’ failure to address the Third
Estate’s demands for more land smacked of greed and insensitivity. Consequently it came as no surprise
when the peasants eventually revolted in 1789 and forced the National Assembly into seizing land from
the church and putting it up for re-sale.
The government’s failure to implement economic, social and political reforms that would have improved
the material conditions of the Third Estate should be seen as insensitivity which contributed to the
revolt in 1789. It has already been shown elsewhere in this essay that the Third Estate laboured under
political, social and economic restrictions that included lack of political participation, heavy taxes and
land shortages as well as lack of individual rights. It has also been shown that the government granted
political, social and economic privileges to the first two states that included political participation,
abundant land, tax exemptions and various individual freedoms. The government was so insensitive to
the plight and needs of the Third Estate as to maintain these restrictions despite their persistent
demands for reforms. It was no wonder then that the Third Estate seized the opportunity presented by
the convening of the Estates-General to revolt in 1789.
The government was also insensitive when it appeared to side with nobles and clergy against Third
Estate over the procedure of the Estates-General in 1789. When the Estates-General was convened
there were two options regarding its procedure. One option was for separate sitting of the estates
where each estate would have only a single vote. This option was favourable to the first two estates as it
would give them an advantage of two votes to the one vote of the Third Estate. The second option
would see combined sitting and the delegates voting as individuals. This was favoured by the Third
Estate who had more delegates and could possibly out-vote the other two. The king decided on the first
option and this appeared to mean that his sympathies lay with the first two estates. They may have
been other motives but the Third Estate only saw a case of insensitivity to their needs in his decision.
They responded by revolting and forming the breakaway National Assembly in June 1789.
The government’s failure to provide food assistance after poor harvests in 1788 suggested to the Third
Estate that it was insensitive to their needs. Adverse weather conditions in Europe resulted in poor
harvests which led to the further impoverishment of France’s peasants and urban workers in 1789.
Desperate, lacking food and incapable of paying taxes the Third Estate looked to their government for
assistance. The government failed to address the situation and restless women took the issue into their
234
own hands and staged their famous march to Versailles to demand bread from the king. In the rural
areas the food insecurity sparked an orgy of burning and looting from the nobles by peasants. The
ensuring chaos contributed significantly to the ultimate collapse of monarchical rule in France.
For today that's all my beloved colleagues. Just a few words of advice to anyone writing an exam:
(1) Don't allow anyone to tell you that you have to quote different scholars in your essay, infact you can
get an A without ever mentioning a single scholar. Trust me I have been a marker with Zimsec.
(2) Dont ever believe anyone telling you that your essay must be this or that number of pages long
because there is no examining board that ever mentions pages. If you can have an exhaustive essay
with all the sound arguments in one or twenty pages you will still get an A.
(3) you must make your argument very clear-show the examiner which side you are on...
So best wishes and its game on for all those writing!!!
The revolt of 1789 was against a gvt which was tyrannical,inefficient and insensitive
to the needs of the people.do you agree?
The general rule is that you can agree or disagree with any view presented in an A Level question. I know
that it is tempting to agree with this view of the ancien regime and Louis XVI because most historians
have painted a very negative picture but it is very possible to disagree with the sentiments expressed in
this question and still get an A. Your starting point is to provide a working definition of the terms used in
the question. For me Tyrannical means dictatorial, absolutist, autocratic and even cruel: none of these
words fit Louis XVI and his government in my view. This was Louis XVI who despite having the divine
right to rule which theoretically meant his word was law went on to call the Assembly of the Notables
and the Estates-general all with the aim of hearing their suggestions on how to deal with France's
problems. remember he was the 1st king to do so since 1614- a total of 175 years! How could a tyrant
with absolute power summon an estates-general? In any case we also need to define what is meant by
the people. It seems simple enough but we must do well to remember that in a country such as France,
the term applied to the 1st and 2nd estates in as much as it did to the 3rd estate. So can anyone stand
235
up and say Louis XVI and his govt were insensitive to the needs of the 1st and 2nd estates when these
two groups were the biggest beneficiaries of the political, economic and social dispensation in France?
Even then how could it be said that he was insensitive to the needs of the 3rd estate when he called
them to an estates-general which aimed at finding solutions including on matters affecting them? This is
the same govt which allowed the 3rd estate to breakaway and form the national assembly, this is the
same govt that was so sensitive that it refrained from attacking members of the 3rd estate when they
stormed the Bastille or marching on Versailles! If anything it should e said that the revolt was against a
king who was lacking in the tyranny needed to put down by force those who opposed him. The revolt
was against a govt that was too sensitive but maybe not fast in addressing the needs of the majority of
the French pipo.
236
HOW FAR, AND BY WHAT MEANS, WERE THE IDEALS OF LIBERTY, EQUALITY AND FRATERNITY
ACHIEVED IN REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE IN THE YEARS UP TO 1799?
The forced relocation of the king and National Assembly to Paris from Versailles was in contravention of
the principles of liberty and fraternity. When the women of Paris marched on Versailles, they brought
back the king and the National Assembly to Paris instead of the bread they had been demanding from
the government. The king and National Assembly became virtual prisoners of the radical elements in
Paris as a result of the forced relocations. They could no longer freely discharge their duties in Paris
where there was greater mob interference and influence in government business. Given this scenario it
was impossible to speak of political liberty and free expression as promised by the revolutionaries.
The peasants’ violence against the nobles was contrary to the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity.
The peasants displayed a lack of respect for property rights and impoverished the nobles and clergy
through their orgy of violence and looting. The nobles’ right to life was also compromised by the murder
that characterised the violence of the peasants during the so-called “Great Fear”. They were also
exasperated into emigrating from France. As a result they were estranged and became sworn enemies
of the revolution. That destroyed the chances of fraternity with the Third Estate.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy limited the church’s influence in state affairs and contravened the
principles of liberty and fraternity. Requirements that the clergy take an oath of loyalty to the
government were felt to be degrading. It fanned conflict between the church and state especially after
the majority of the clergy chose to reject the constitution. The Civil Constitution was the most significant
cause of the revolt in Vendee in 1793 and the consequent civil war.
The classification of French people into the broad categories of “active” and “passive” citizens as
contained in the 1791 constitution ran counter to the principle of equality. The government imposed
property and income qualifications and these prevented the majority from voting or standing as
candidates. Those who qualified to vote were classified as “active” citizens and those who did not were
termed “passive” citizens. Such measures led to the perpetuation of class inequalities. The much
advertised liberties that included the right of all to participate in politics either as voters or office-
bearers in the end just a sham.
The September massacres of 1792 demonstrated the strong current of intolerance of reaction and anti-
Jacobin views and made it clear that there was no liberty in revolutionary France. It was the
revolutionary government’s fears of counter-revolution which bred paranoia and heavy-handedness in
dealing with opponents. There was state-sanctioned violence designed to crush revolt and cow
opponents into submission. The result was high levels of intolerance and there could be no hope for
liberty without tolerance.
liberty to express any counter-revolutionary and anti-Jacobin sentiments. Radical Jacobins like
Maximillien Robespierre made it clear that there was no question of equality and fraternising with
237
counter-revolutionaries and anybody else who did not share their Jacobin views. He spoke of terror as
necessary to frighten dissidents. The high levels of intolerance were contrary to the revolutionary ideals.
Even fellow revolutionaries were not spared imprisonment and execution if their views contradicted
those in power at the time. Mere jealousy or competition for power also produced serious violations of
liberty and equality. A special court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was established to try counter-
revolutionary suspects. The Law of Suspects was passed to criminalise support for royalists and
insufficient enthusiasm for the revolution. It was not clear what constituted insufficient enthusiasm for
the revolution and it was up to the Revolutionary Tribunal to decide. Given the clearly Jacobin
sympathies of that court, the Law of Suspects was inevitably used to punish anti-Jacobins. The Law of
Maximum which was passed in 1794 to criminalise the selling of goods above the prices prescribed by
government violated the liberal principles of freedom of commerce. When the Law of Twenty-Second
Prarial was passed in 1794 even members of the National Convention lost their immunity and could now
be hurled before the Revolutionary Tribunal on accusations of counter-revolutionary behaviour. There
were spirited attempts to de-Christianise France between 1793 and 1794. This followed the
overwhelming rejection of the Civil Constitution by the clergy in 1790. Churches were closed in many
parts of the country and priests were persecuted. There were attempts to introduce the “Worship of
Reason” and even a “Cult of the Supreme Being” to replace Christianity. That way the liberty of religion
was lost in revolutionary France. Other policies like the requisitioning of grain and other goods essential
to the war effort also violated the freedom of commerce. The introduction of mass conscription to
provide recruits for the revolutionary armies who had the urgent task of defending France from
imminent invasion also demonstrated the loss of freedom of choice. The government allowed
imprisonment, executions, torture and fines as punishment for those found guilty of reaction thus
demonstrated loss of various civil rights in France.
The permanent suspension of the highly democratic 1793 constitution was further evidence that
expressions of liberty, equality and fraternity were farcical. That constitution would have provided for
universal suffrage and that would have given all the right to freedom of expression and political
participation. The constitution was too radical and therefore unacceptable to the upper middle class and
moderate majority in the National Convention and their successors in the Directory.
The use of armed force to crush dissent showed that there was no liberty to challenge the Directory
from 1795 to 1799. The Jacobins were the first to taste the full wrath of the Directory after it ordered
troops led by Napoleon to crush their revolt in 1795. The turn of Simon Babeuf and his supporters came
afterwards. Babeuf was one of those who were executed for plotting to overthrow the Directory.
The annulment of unfavourable election results was common feature of politics during the Directory and
it demonstrated its anti-liberal and intolerant nature. In 1797 and 1798 the Directors cancelled election
results which showed Jacobin and Royalist gains to the legislature. They ordered fresh elections in order
to produce more favourable results to themselves.
The violent overthrow of the Directory and the subsequent introduction of the Consulate was further
evidence that France was still a long way off from embracing its own expressed principles of liberty,
equality and fraternity. In 1799, Napoleon induced three directors to resign and had the other two
238
arrested and jailed. Members of the Council of Five Hundred were either dispersed or arrested and the
remnant was coerced into voting the Directory out of existence. The support of the army helped
Napoleon to establish the Consulate in which he was a virtual dictator. He centralised power in his
hands, re-introduced press censorship and a system of spies to identify dissenting voices. He succeeded
in giving France order and stability but that was at the cost of their liberty.
In the final analysis, it becomes clear that liberty, equality and fraternity remained elusive ideals during
the years 1789 to 1799 despite the frequent promises and public protestations of the revolutionaries.
Intolerance, repression and suppression of civil rights were the outstanding features of the period and
this was due to fears of counter-revolution, competition for power and personal animosities among
other things.
239
HOW SUCCESFUL WERE THE MISSIONARIES IN REALISING THEIR OBJECTIVES IN THE SECOND HALF OF
THE 19TH CENTURY
If its Zimbabwean then you have to include missionaries aims like (1) spreading Christianity which was
generally a failure in the 19th century because African religions remained strong and vibrant ( within the
Ndebele not even a single member of the Zansi or Enhla was known to have been converted. Even
though Mzilikazi and Lobengula all tolerated missionaries like Robert Moffat and Charles Helm they only
did so for diplomatic reasons out of the knowledge that they were connected to British imperialism.
They also accepted them because they could treat diseases such as gout which Mzilikazi and Lobengula
suffered from) (2) Missionaries sought to spread literacy and in the 19th century that too was largely a
failure coz they were hardly any Afircans who achieved literacy in meaningful numbers like what
happened in places such as South Africa, West Africa and even Malawi (Lobengula and his advisers
remained illiterate despite the 1st mission station at Inyathi being set up in 1857. Remember these guys
needed interpreters and only put clummsy x as a signature on documents such as the Moffat and Rudd
Concession treaties) (3) Missionaries also attempted to spread western culture which they regarded as
civilisation and equated to Christianity but in that too, they largely failed because African societies
continued to be very much Afro-centric being led by their own culutral leaders such as the Mwari and
Umlimu priests as well as mediums like Kaguvi, Nehanda, Mkwati etc. Missionaries like Robert Moffat
were so frustrated that they ended up being agents of colonialists like Cecil Rhodes. However they also
achieved some successes like (1) opening up mission stations-Inyathi was opened in 1857, followed in
1870 by Hope Fountain, others were also opened in Manicaland (Penhalonga), Emapndeni in Mangwe
etc (2) destroying African Independence-missionaries assisted colonialists like Cecil Rhodes to secure
treaties that led to the colonisation of the Ndebele and Shona. All in all, I think the missionaries were a
failure because their most important objective of spreading Christianity was not achieved. A frustrated
John Moffat said of the Ndebele, “they are a miserable people and it will be a blessing to the world
when their power is broken up”
240
HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE PART PLAYED BY THE THIRD ESTATE IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION UP TO
1793?
Definition-Third Estate consisted of the industrial, professional, commercial and intellectual classes
generally known as the Bourgeoisie. Workers, peasants and everybody else who was not a noble or
clergy also belonged to the Third estate. They made up 97% of the population.
Part played-they revolted against Louis xvi in 1789 by breaking away from the Estates-General to form
the National/Constituent Assembly. They vowed not to dissolve until after they had written a
constitution for France. The Revolt and formation of the National assembly was one of highly significant
actions by which the previously excluded and oppressed Third Estate grabbed a share of the political
power and participation. It was one of the actions by which Louis xvi was practically reduced from an
absolute to a constitutional monarch.
The march of women on Versailles and the forced relocation of Louis xvi and National Assembly to Paris
to Versailles were also highly significant actions by the Third Estate which served to emphasize the Third
Estate’s emergence as the dominant political force in France. Correspondingly Louis xvi was reduced in
stature and he increasingly fell under the dominance and direction of the Third Estate.
In 1789 the rise of the Third Estate and the corresponding decline of the monarchy, first and second
estates was further confirmed by further actions of the Third Estate that included the storming of the
Bastille, the abolition of the privileges of the clergy and nobles and seizure of the nobles and church
lands. Other highly significant actions confirming the new political, social and economic order included
the Declaration of Rights and violence against nobles and their property which led to the emigration of
the nobles and clergy from France into exile in countries such as Austria, Prussia and England. The
declaration of rights following the abolition of the political, social and economic privileges of the nobles
was also a highly significant and positive development in that for the first time political, social and
economic rights were given to all French people regardless of class, gender and religion. The Third Estate
had thus inaugurated a new era of social equality, human dignity and hope for all in place of the political
and social inequalities that had characterized the absolute monarchy of the ancient regime.
These positive measures were later given formal and complete recognition in the 1791 constitution
drawn up by the National/Constituent Assembly. France thus became a constitutional monarchy in
theory as well as in practice. The Third Estate had thus fulfilled Rousseau and Montesqieu’s dreams for
general political participation and separation of powers. This was achieved by creating a Legislative
Assembly to assume Louis xvi’s law-making powers and leaving him only executive functions.
But the Third Estate also displayed a violent, highly oppressive and divisive aspect through some of their
actions during the entire period. The vindictive peasants killed, destroyed and looted from the nobles
exhibited. Through the 1790 civil constitution the Third Estate oppressed and undermined the church by
forcing the clergy to take an oath of loyalty to the state which humiliated and brought them under state
subjection. The Third Estate which controlled the National Assembly, then the Legislative Assembly and
National Convention divided France instead of uniting the nation. The church itself was divided between
241
those willing to take the oath (constitutional/juring priests) and those who refused (refractory/non-
juring)
The Third Estate itself split into radical, anti-clerical elements and passionately catholic peasants who
rejected the civil constitution as an attempt to undermine to destroy Catholicism and Christianity.
France also found itself in conflict with the pope and other countries of Europe. In the end such
oppressive and divisive acts of the Third Estate bred the internal rebellion and civil wars in places such
as Vendee, Lyons, Toulon and Bordeaux.
They also bred the international war between France and a coalition of European countries including
Austria, Prussia, England, Holland and Spain beginning in 1792.
This atmosphere of civil and international war created a situation in France where the Revolutionary
Government found itself in a difficult position and it was forced to resort to far more violent and
repressive measures to save itself and the revolution.
Some of these violent and repressive measures included the abolition of the monarchy, the arrest and
death sentence of Louis xvi in 1792. This was prompted by fears that the king was conniving with the
Revolutionary government’s internal and external enemies to destroy the Revolution and restore the
political, social and economic conditions of the Ancien Regime.
The Third Estate introduced even more violence and repression in 1793 first through violent attempts to
destroy Christianity by closing churches, murdering priests and introducing a new calendar which was
supposed to be free of all the traces of Christianity associated with the old one.
That same year there were mass slaughters of real and imagined enemies of the Revolutionary
Government and that infamous period of domestic violence is referred to as the September Massacres.
Even worse violence and suppression of civil rights followed in 1793 when the Third Estate through the
National Convention introduced various laws including the Laws of Suspects and Maximum. The first
destroyed freedoms of opinion and expression and the right to a fair trial by criminalizing any show of
support for the monarchy and failure to show enough enthusiasm for the Revolution. Suspects were
hauled before the newly created Revolutionary Tribunal where they were denied legal representation
.The Law of Maximum hindered free trade by fixing maximum prices for essential goods and prescribing
death and imprisonment for offenders.
Other measures included military conscription and requisitioning to beef up the army and feed it so it
could deal with internal rebels and foreign armies.
As many as 60000 people lost their life during this period; about 500000 were imprisoned only to suffer
hunger, disease and even death in jails. This violent and oppressive phase of the Revolution was called
the Reign of Terror.
242
The Third Estate therefore played a highly significant role in the Revolution to 1793. Positive aspects
included achieving political power sharing and participation of all through the National then Legislative
Assembly and National Convention. They also the granted civil rights and economic empowerment of
the majority Third estate through the sale of land seized from the church and Nobles. Negative aspects
included violence, suppression of civil rights, grabbing total political power by abolishing the monarchy
and dragging France into a war with other European countries that lasted until 1815.
243
Napoleon's foreign policy was more defensive than aggressive. Discuss
See also this one from the Cambridge examination: “Provocative and aggressive”. Is this a fair comment
on Napoleon 1’s foreign policy between 1803 and 1813?
Some foreign policies to consider
Continuous warfare e.g. against Austria, England, Prussia, in Spain and Russia
Nepotism/the imposition of rulers in conquered territories
Redrawing the map/fashioning a new Europe and this included:
The destruction of old states/empires e.g. the Holy Roman Empire
The destruction of the power of other European states e.g. destroying Austrian power in Germany and
Italy
The creation of satellite kingdoms/reorganisation of states e.g. the creation of the Confederation of the
Rhine in place of the Holy Roman Empire, the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, the Cisalpine and
Batavian republics among others
Direct annexations to France e.g. Belgium and even Holland
Nepotism in the imposition of rulers in defeated/conquered territories e.g. Louis Bonaparte as king of
Holland, Joseph Bonaparte as king of Naples, Jerome Bonaparte as king of Westphalia among others
Diplomatic manoeuvres e.g. peace treaties such as the Campo Formio treaty(1797) with Austria which
led to Austria giving up Belgium to French occupation, France annexing left bank of the Rhine, Lombardy
becoming the Cisalpine Republic while Austria got Venetia. Also the Tilsit treaty with Russia (1807) which
gave Russian recognition of French gains in Western Europe in exchange for French promises of support
for expansion at the expense of Turkey among other things
Introducing his administrative system to conquered states e.g. the Code Napoleon
The continental system which was designed to cripple Britain economically and bring it to subjection
You are free to take any side in this question. If you choose to say they were defensive you could argue
(1) In fighting European countries, Napoleon was being defensive because the wars started in 1792 long
before Napoleon was in power. The revolution was already under the threat from Europe as shown by
the invasions of Toulon by the British in 1793 and by the invasion by the Prussians and Austrians of
France the same year. In fact Napoleon 1st achieved fame for successfully driving the British out of
Toulon in 1793.
(2) In taking the war to the Austrians in Italy, Napoleon was being defensive because he wanted to
destroy their power and their capacity to ever invade France again.
244
(3) He imposed his own relatives as rulers in conquered states as a defensive measure so that the states
would be friendly enough to France and not attack it.
(4) He decided on the continental system as a way of crippling Britain so that it would not attack France
or support any countries seeking to attack France.
(5) Even the Concordat with the Pope may have been designed to show France had the approval of the
Pope and the Catholic Church which Catholic countries like Austria and the Italian states respected so
they would not attack France.
(6) The peace treaties he signed with the states he defeated were also intended as a defensive measure
so there would be no more attacks on France although this ultimately failed.
On the other hand, he could be said to have been aggressive
He attacked because he wanted European Supremacy and Prestige for France- the consistent wars and
subjugation of other European nations, as well as the imposition of French political and administrative
ideals were probably born out of the desire to ensure French supremacy in Europe. After all the history
of Europe was largely a history of constant wars as the nations competed for territorial gains and
therefore supremacy
Personal Glory consistent warfare against all major European powers and even Continental System
designed to ensure personal supremacy
Also direct annexations, creation of satellite kingdoms, imposition of relatives as kings in conquered
territories and marriage alliances (with Austria) all designed to strengthen and perpetuate personal
power
The following quotations from Napoleon also suggest that he regarded himself as a man of destiny and
believed in his own greatness: “I was conscious of my own strength. I took pleasure in my supremacy”
(Napoleon writing about his formative years at the military school in Brienne)
“If I hang around for too long doing nothing, I am lost” (commenting on his inactivity after the successful
Italian and Austrian campaigns in c.1797. Napoleon believed constant successful military campaigns
were necessary to keep him in the public eye and eventually catapult him to political power)
At the end of it you weigh your arguments and decide which side is stronger. Best wishes.
245
WHY WERE THE SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE BETWEEN 1789- 1799 SO SHORTLIVED?
Some were short-lived because they had been intended to be temporary and accomplish a specific
mission. The National Assembly and the Committee of Public Safety are both good examples. The
National Assembly was established to oversee the drafting of a constitution for France. Once it
completed its task in 1791, it no longer had reason to exist and elections had to be held to create a new
government that is the Legislative Assembly. The Committee of Public Safety was created in 1793 with
the specific tasks of saving the Revolution(ary) government from internal and external threats, resolving
the financial crisis and food shortages. It accomplished its task in 1794 and therefore had to be
dissolved.
Some collapsed due to internal rivalries among revolutionaries. The Legislative Assembly, Committee of
Public Safety, National Convention and even the Directory were all victims to the ever-intensifying
struggles for power between moderate and radical revolutionaries. The radicals felt that the Legislative
Assembly was too moderate and did not push the revolution far enough. Consequently it had to be
dissolved after just a year to give way to the National Convention that would be more radical. The
Committee of Public Safety was short-lived (lasting from 1793 to 1794) because it had accomplished its
mission of saving the revolutionary government from internal and external threats posed by rebellious
peasants, clergy, nobles and foreign armies. The National Convention was a victim of the rivalries among
revolutionaries. Some felt it was cumbersome in its operations and lacked clearly defined structures of
executive power and had to be dissolved to pave the way for a Directory. The Directory did not last long
as it was destroyed by the treachery of some of the Directors who connived with Napoleon to ensure
that he gained political power.
Some of the governments ended prematurely as a result of corruption within. The case of the Directory
has been cited above. It was brought down by corrupt directors namely Sieyes, Ducos and Barras who
connived with Napoleon to bring him to power in 1799.
The lack of armed force with which to back their decisions was also a crucial factor in the quick downfall
of some of the governments. The Directory which had risen to power on the strength of soldiers
commanded by Napoleon quickly found itself on the receiving end of a coup he orchestrated with the
backing of the army. His troops stormed the Council of Five Hundred and arrested those who opposed
the dissolution of the Directory. Those who remained were forced into voting the dissolution of the
Directory.
Personal ambition was also a factor in the quick demise of some of the governments. Robespierre’s
unbridled quest for personal power ultimately destroyed the Committee of Public Safety. He turned that
government into an instrument of terror and repression as he sought to impose his authority till his
opponents decided to destroy him. They also decided to dismantle the Committee and establish a new
less repressive government. The Directory was also an unfortunate victim of Napoleon’s desire for
personal power. Helped by corrupt directors, he orchestrated its destruction in order to achieve power
in 1799.
246
Unpopularity also contributed to the quick collapse of governments such as the Directory. From the
beginning radical Parisians had opposed it. Royalists and Jacobins also opposed it. There was an
attempted uprising by a group led by Simon Babeuf in 1796. There was another attempt in Paris. The
directory was saved by troops commanded by Napoleon. All that demonstrated just how unpopular it
was and as a result there was no body to defend it from Napoleon in 1799.
All in all successive governments were generally short-lived due to various factors. Chief of these were
the conflicts among revolutionaries, personal ambitions as well as the fact that some had specific
mandates to accomplish.
247
international war.
248
ACCOUNT FOR THE DECLINE OF GREAT ZIMBABWE.
sheep, droughts occurred from time to time and they contributed to ... See More
249
"The Restored Bourbon monarchy in France had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing" Discuss the
validity of this statement with Charles X.
In summary, the issue here is that Charles X was ultimately overthrown because he had learnt nothing
from the french people's oppostion to monarchical absolutism in 1789 which led to revolution. In 1789,
French people rejected the notion of the divine right of kings where kings had absolute power derived
from God and decided on a political system of constitutionalism. This is what Charles X rejected when he
(in)famously declared that he "would rather chop wood than reign after the fashion of the king of
England" who was a constitutional ruler. So when Charles X came to power in 1824, he learnt nothing
about the rejection of monarchical absolutism and tried to bring it back. In 1830 he even issued
ordinances at St Cloud to remove pipo from the voters roll and dissolved the Chamber of deputies to get
rid of those deputies who threatened his absolutist tendencies. That is why he was overthrown in 1830
because he had learnt nothing about the third estate's demand for a share of political power. he had
forgot nothing about the divine right of kings, the close alliance between the monarchy and the clergy as
well the nobles. he therefore tried to restore that system of the ancien regime leading to his overthrow
Hello people. Somebody asked me about my Zimbabwean history posts, and the question is who or how
should we reference our work after using this page. Well, well the thing is You can cite the Likes of
D.N.Beach, T.O. Ranger and N. Bhebhe among others. I had the privilege to meet and learn from all
these so these essays are the product of my interactions, interviews and lectures with these
distinguished academics.
250
HOW FAR TRUE IS THE ASSERTION THAT THE NDEBELE PEOPLE RELIED ON RAIDING ALONE FOR THEIR
LIVELIWOOD?
There is so much truth to the claim that the Ndebele economy relied heavily on raiding and the various
Shona communities especially those close to the Ndebele suffered as a consequence. In this essay it will
be shown that from the advent of the Ndebele in the present day Matebeleland up to the imposition of
colonial rule in the 1890's, there was never a decade without Ndebele raids into Shona territory. This
essay will also show that how ever much significant raiding was, the Ndebele also relied on other
activities including, tribute, agriculture and trade. It will be made clear that although highly significant,
raiding alone does not fully explain the Ndebele economic way of life.
Both Mzilikazi and Lobengula pursued a consistent policy of raiding against one or the other Shona
communities from the time of their arrival from present day South Africa. Apart from attacking the
declining Rozvi, D.N.Beach cites Ndebele raiding activities which greatly affected the Chirimuhanzu
dynasty in the 1850's. This would be repeated during the 1860's when the Kalanga and Tswana
communities to the west were raided during the 1860 - 1 drought. That same decade (1868) the north-
western Ngezi dynasty of Rimuka was also raided resulting in the flight of the Mashayamombe and
Chivero rulers further north-east. The pattern continued during the 1870's when the Ndebele raided the
Shona communities across a 70km radius from the western Duma on the confluence of the Mutirikwi
in1892 and from Mupfure to Chishawasha in 1893. Thus the example cited above paints a picture of a
consistent policy of raiding and therefore suggesting its central significance to the Ndebele way of life.
Although important raiding was by no means the only factor in the Ndebele economy. Agriculture was
also significant. The Ndebele practised arable farming which yielded grains such as millet and
rapoko.Farming was a seasonal and labour intensive involving family on individual plots of land. Even
soldiers took time out to plant during the rainy season as the state had little to fear from external
enemies who were engaged in planting too. There were special fields belonging to the king in each
settlement. These were planted and harvested first and the produce given to the king. The importance
of the cops to the Ndebele was underlined by the (inxwala) first fruits ceremony presided over by the
king to mark the beginning of harvest.
The Ndebele were also pastoralists and cattle were important for political, social and economic
purposes. The national herd was owned or controlled by the king and he distributed them in a manner
that enhanced his position as head of state. Some he distributed to his indunas as an acknowledgement
of their loyalty or as a reward for services rendered. Some he gave out to regiments for food, some to
251
his wives for their personal use and as an inheritance for his sons. Cattle were also exchanged for
European goods such as guns and ammunition and for Shona produce and young people who were
incorporated into Ndebele society.
Tribute collected from subject Shona/Kalanga societies also contributed to the Ndebele economy.
Tribute was usually in the form of grain, animal skins, cattle and even young me and women who were
incorporated into the Ndebele state. As overlord of the Rozvi clans such as Svabasi, Lukuluba and
Rozani, Mzilikazi exacted tribute. During Lobengula's tenure, Nemakonde and Chivi were some of the
Shona chiefs paying tribute to the Ndebele. Those who paid tribute were not subjected to raids. Raids
were more of punitive measures rather than the norm as evidenced by the 1893 raiding expeditions
sent to punish Gomala in Masvingo for using Ndebele cattle to pay a fine imposed by the European
settler administration.
Trade was carried out with the Shona and Europeans and it was also a significant contributor to the
Ndebele economy. The Ndebele traded their cattle for the Europeans guns and ammunitions and for the
grain and other agricultural produce of the Shona.
Further income was generated through hunting activities carried out by the Ndebele themselves or by
the Europeans who had been granted concessions. Top of the list of the hunted animals were elephants
that were highly prized for the tusks, and meat. European hunters such as Frederick Selous and Henry
Hartley hunted extensively under license from Lobengula. The fact that Lobengula felt compelled to
allow them to hunt in Mashonaland when the herds of Matebeleland had become depleted is a
testimony to the significant contribution of hunting to the Ndebele economy.
Having examined all these aspects of the Ndebele society, it becomes evident that although important,
raiding was by no means the exclusive economic activity. Trade, hunting, tribute and agriculture were
also highly significant. Finally it was worth restating that raiding was not normally practised in the first
instance but usually as a punitive measure to settle political and other quarrels rather than as a means
of livelihood.
“THE NDEBELE-SHONA RELATIONS WERE IN THE 19TH CENTURY FAR FROM CORDIAL.” DISCUSS
Shone and Ndebele oral traditions as well as history textbooks abound with details of conflict between
the Ndebele and Shona. Every decade from the time of the Ndebele advent right up to European
colonization is full of stories of wars and Ndebele raids all of which paint a picture of endemic strife and
therefore far from cordial inter-ethnic relationships. While all this was happening, the Ndebele still
found time to trade, to form military alliances and cross-cultural exchange with the Shona. All that could
252
not have been possible if the atmosphere had been completely poisoned by inter-ethnic strife as
explicitly stated in the essay topic. This essay will review Ndebele-Shona relations and attempt to
demonstrate that the relations were in fact much more complex and cannot be categorized in such
simplistic terms.
Evidence of constant wars between the Ndebele and the Shona on one hand suggests far from friendly
relations between the two in the nineteenth century. During the 1850s the Ndebele under Mzilikazi
fought and defeated the Rozvi under Mambo Chirisamhuru. Consequently the Ndebele usurped the
Rozvi’s role of overlords of the Kalanga and other Shona groups in the western and southern parts of
Zimbabwe.
During the 1860s the Ndebele carried their war policy to north-western Shona groups such as the Ngezi
in the Rimuka area leading to the flight of the Mashayamombe and Chivero rulers. Even Tohwechipi the
son of the slain Mambo Chirisamhuru had to seek refuge in the Eastern Highlands. There was no letting
up during the 1870s when the Ndebele raided across a 70 kilometre radius from the western Duma on
the Mutirikwi and Popoteke confluences right up to the upper Popoteke River. In the 1890s, Chivi, Gutu,
Mupfure and Chishawasha all incurred the wrath of Lobengula’s Ndebele. Tensions were also sufficiently
high during the early days of European settler occupation for Lobengula to send troops to punish
Gomala’s people in present day Masvingo. These Shona people had allegedly used Ndebele cattle to pay
a fine to the settler administration. Looked from a different perspective, those wars may be taken as
evidence of intermittent quarrels between two basically friendly ethnic groups. There is evidence of
trade conducted by the two groups and even military alliances. All of these could only thrive in basically
peaceful and friendly conditions. The Shona traded their grain and other agricultural produce for
Ndebele cattle. Relations were sufficiently friendly for both Mzilikazi and Lobengula to entrust some
Shona groups with their cattle. These Shona were accorded the right to milk the cattle and even
slaughter them for meat. This explains why Gomala’s Shona people in Masvingo had Ndebele cattle
which they subsequently expropriated to pay a fine after cutting European telegraph wires. Trade was
conducted with the Rozvi of the Mwanesi to the Munyati regions too.
The wars fought were never permanent and did not prevent reconciliation or co-operation. This explains
why Tohwechipi who had fled to the Eastern Highlands in the early 1850s could be persuaded to come
back and assume his position among his people with Ndebele assistance. Important Rozvi families such
as the Mutinhima, Svabasi and Lukuluba houses certainly co-operated with the Ndebele. The likes of
Chivi and Nemakonde were all important allies of the Ndebele and only turned against them in the
1890s after the imposition of European rule. Even when wars were fought, the Ndebele did not fight all
the Shona at once and they actually allied with some Shona groups while fighting others. The generic
term Shona is misleading as it is implies a single, united and homogenous political entity which certainly
did not exist in the nineteenth century. There were many scattered and independent Shona groups
which were as likely to fight each other as much as they could fight the Ndebele. This explains why the
Ndebele could fight against Chirisamhuru and Tohwechipi in the early 1850s and then became
Tohwechipi’s allies before the decade was up. Chizema was also assisted by the Ndebele in his attempts
to conquer southern Buhera. This also explains why Mzilikazi had the Chaminuka medium killed while
253
maintaining good relations with other Shona mediums such as Nyamuswa, Wanewawa and Chikono.
According to D.N. Beach, Mzilikazi even paid tribute to these mediums.
Furthermore, evidence of cultural exchange belies claims of frosty relations. The Ndebele assimilated or
incorporated Shona people into their society to the extent that the amaHole caste became the largest
within the Ndebele caste system. Although prejudice existed it was not a totally bleak scenario as this
caste could also provide chiefs and also enjoyed the same state protection accorded the Zansi and
Enhla. If assimilation was forced on amaHole, it certainly was not forced on the Mutevaidzi of
Mberengwa who voluntarily adopted the Ndebele language, forged alliances with the Ndebele and even
copied Nguni practices such as ear piercing. For their part, the Ndebele adopted some of the Shona
religious practices including the shrine at Matopos (Njelele). Historians such as Ranger have asserted
that the cult priests of Njelele had sufficient authority among the Ndebele to organize resistance to
European rule in 1896.
The final perhaps more accurate picture of the nineteenth century Ndebele-Shona relations is a complex
one where trade, alliances, cross-cultural exchanges all interchanged with wars. Given this scenario, it
would be a gross distortion to present Ndebele-Shona relations as frosty for that was only one facet to a
multi-dimensional story. Finally it ought to be remembered that the Shona consisted of many groups
that were independent of each other hence it frequently happened that one group enjoyed a cordial
relationship while another was at war with the Ndebele.
254
“THEY PAVED WAY FOR THE BRITISH COLONISATION OF ZIMBABWE.” HOW FAR DO YOU AGREE WITH
THIS COMMENT ON THE ROLES OF MISSIONARIES, HUNTERS AND TRADERS IN 19TH CENTURY
ZIMBABWE?
Commenting on colonialism, Tewodros II a nineteenth century Ethiopian emperor said that “I know their
game. First it’s traders and missionaries. Then it’s ambassadors. After that, they bring the guns.” His
sentiments would be echoed by Jomo Kenyatta who also pointed out the close connection between the
bible of the missionaries and the flag of imperialism. The colonisation of Zimbabwe was no exception
and this essay shall demonstrate that to a large extent it followed the classic pattern of missionary,
hunter and trader activity before the imperial power came in.
British-born missionaries were first onto the nineteenth century Zimbabwean scene and not surprisingly
British imperialism followed. Robert Moffat was permitted by Mzilikazi to set up the first mission station
at Inyathi in 1859. Little did Mzilikazi and Lobengula know that Moffat and his son John would be
sending out treacherous reports regarding the Ndebele as a “miserable people” and “it will be a blessing
to the world when they are broken up.”
John Moffat went beyond mere rhetoric and rendered practical assistance to the cause of colonialism by
entering the paid service of Cecil Rhodes and negotiating treaties which laid the basis of colonialism. To
this end, he fully exploited old ‘family ties’ with Ndebele royalty and got Lobengula to assent to the
Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession both in 1888. The first circumscribed Lobengula’s power in foreign
policy issues while the second gave Rhodes’ agents complete mineral rights and full powers to procure
them in Lobengula’s territory. It was on the basis of the Rudd Concession that the British government
granted Rhodes a charter for the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Considering the fact that Lobengula virtually
surrendered his territory and independence for negligible returns, it is most likely that he was
misinformed with (Moffat’s connivance) as to the actual written terms of those treaties.
Lobengula followed Mzilikazi’s example and permitted the London Missionary Society (L.M.S) to open a
second mission under Charles Helm at Hope Fountain in 1870 and that too was a mistake which paved
the way for colonialism. Like the Moffats, Helm was firmly convinced that no substantial conversion of
the Ndebele to Christianity was possible without the undermining of Lobengula’s power and the
destruction of the Ndebele traditional structure. Just like John Moffat, Helm abused the trust Lobengula
had in him by potraying Rhodes as a trustworthy and reliable man. Helm persuaded Lobengula to sign
the Rudd Concession on which the colonisation of Zimbabwe was based.
The desire to colonise Zimbabwe was also touched off by the glowing and times exaggerated reports
that the country abounded with mineral wealth and natural resources and these can be attributed to
hunters and traders who visited the country. Thomas Baines was one such trader-prospector-cum artist
and he was given a concession by Lobengula to exploit gold reserves but failed owing to lack of capital.
His legacy mainly lies in the vivid but highly romantic paintings that potrayed a land awash with
elephants and other natural resources only waiting for Europeans to exploit.
Traders such as George Westbeech and Karl Mauch spread rumours about the abundance of gold
leading to suggestions that there could actually be a ‘second rand’ in Zimbabwe. Mauch was even
255
granted the Tati Concession in 1870 and this was bought from him by Cecil Rhodes in his relentless drive
towards colonizing Zimbabwe. Leask, Fairbairn, Philips and Tainton were some of the traders at
Lobengula’s court prior to the Rudd Concession and they aided colonialism by selling their own
concessions to Rhodes and persuaded Lobengula to sign with Rudd Lobengula’s tactics of playing off one
group of Europeans against the others therefore, came to nothing as Rhodes’ financial muscle not only
enabled him to buy concessions from his rivals, it also enabled him to get them to work for him in
persuading Lobengula to deal with him. This was true of the traders and the missionaries and it was
equally true of the hunters too.
Hunters like Henry Hartley and Frederick Selous also played their part in advertising Zimbabwe as a land
full of minerals and big game. Hartley spoke favourably of the mineral prospectus after discovering gold
70 miles south-west of present day Harare while Selous even cut a road between Mashonaland and
Matebeleland (Hunters’ Road) to facilitate the transportation of ivory. His biggest contribution to
colonialism was to be in the guiding of the ‘Pioneer Column’ in 1890 as it trekked in from South Africa to
assume control of Mashonaland on behalf Britain.
In the final analysis, it is evident that the colonisation of Zimbabwe owed to beliefs of abundant
economic resources and the various concessions obtained from the African rulers. It is also evident that
in all such beliefs and concessions obtained, there was the hand of missionaries, traders and hunters.
256
mineral treaty.
aim of Rhodes:
an imperialist."
257
258
Rhodes.
259
“HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CHAMELEON CATCH A FLY? IT STEADILY ADVANCES TOWARDS THE FLY AND
WITHIN REACH, IT DARTS OUT ITS TONGUE AND THE FLY DISAPPEARS. BRITAIN IS THE CHAMELEON
AND I AM THE FLY.” HOW ACCURATE IS THIS ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOBENGULA
AND THE BRITISH BETWEEN 1880 AND 1890
THE FIRST STEP IS TO UNDERSTAND WHY LOBENGULA CHOSE THE CHAMELEON AND FLY ANALOGY OR
METAPHOR.
A chameleon is a sly creature which moves slowly as it stalks its prey. In the process it uses its
camouflage to disguise itself and its intentions.
Its slowness is very deceptive and is meant to allow it time to get into the right position.
When it has found the right moment and position, it strikes swiftly, suddenly and accurately to destroy
its unsuspecting prey.
A fly is the insect that is preyed upon. Its small stature makes it weak and vulnerable to many other
creatures.
Although it is swift and fast of movement, it often falls victim to its predators because it never sees them
coming until it is too late.
Lobengula therefore meant that Britain (the chameleon) was very sly, moved with slow calculated steps
and camouflaged its real intentions to destroy Lobengula and his kingdom.
They only revealed their true purpose when it was already too late for Lobengula to do anything to save
himself. Britain was therefore a deadly monster that preyed on smaller and weaker kingdoms like the
Ndebele.
If Britain was the deadly chameleon then Lobengula and the Ndebele was the weak, vulnerable and
doomed fly whose destruction was inevitable.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS THEN ARISE FROM LOBENGULA’S OBSERVATIONS:
1. Was there ever a calculated British plan to destroy Lobengula’s power and turn his kingdom into their
colony?
2. If so, did the British ever hide their true intentions only to suddenly spring upon the unsuspecting
Lobengula and Ndebele?
3. Were the Ndebele and Lobengula naïve and unsuspecting victims of the British deception as implied
by the fly analogy?
4. If so or if not, were the British the only ones who took steps to destroy Lobengula’s power and
kingdom?
260
THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. By 1880 there was already an assortment of British people operating in the Ndebele kingdom
pursuing different interests like the missionaries, traders, hunters and concession seekers.
2. Missionaries like Charles Helm and John Moffat were abusing Lobengula’s trust, pretending to be
friends while they were actively and secretly encouraging the British government to destroy his kingdom
and bring it under British rule.
3. Men like Henry Hartley, Thomas Baines and Frederick Selous gave Lobengula the impression of being
innocent hunters, prospectors and concession seekers yet they took an active part in the colonisation
process. Selous even acted as the guide for Britain’s invading so-called “pioneer column” in 1890.
4. Missionaries like John Moffat and Charles Helm betrayed Lobengula by misrepresenting the actual
terms of the Moffat treaty and Rudd Concession they negotiated on behalf of Britain and Cecil Rhodes in
March and October 1888.
5. The British government played a double game with Lobengula- at first the British queen seemed to
side with Lobengula and advised him not to give “a stranger…a whole herd.” She was referring to his
negotiations with Cecil Rhodes and advising him not to give away to too much to the British mining
tycoon.
6. The queen subsequently made a u-turn by advising Lobengula to deal only with “one approved body”
and by this she meant Rhodes and his representatives.
7. The queen completed her betrayal of Lobengula by granting the charter (1889) that allowed Rhodes’
British South Africa Company (B.S.A.C) to colonise Mashonaland on behalf of Britain.
8. The British government allowed Rhodes to assemble a 200-strong “pioneer column” backed by a
military force for the colonisation of Mashonaland that was officially accomplished on September 12,
1890.
9. Even though there was no blueprint for the British colonisation, Britain certainly had a vague notion of
Lobengula’s kingdom and Zimbabwe as their sphere of influence. They certainly regarded it as their
gateway into the interior of Africa which had to be brought under their control someday.
10. Besides acquiring the mineral wealth, Rhodes had definite plans about colonizing Lobengula’s
kingdom as part of his grand scheme to paint the map of Africa red with British territories stretching
from Cape to Cairo.
11. Even if in the beginning, interest in Lobengula’s kingdom came from a British individual, Lobengula’s
assessment was probably accurate because Britain’s colonial interests ultimately followed on the work
its individuals just like any other colonial power. Thus there was no reason for Lobengula to distinguish
between the earlier initiative of individuals and the subsequent British role in destroying his kingdom.
261
12. Lobengula was certainly right about a British government which initially seemed to side with him
only to throw its full weight behind its agents led by Cecil Rhodes.
THE STUDENT’S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION WILL ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE FOLLOWING
OBSERVATIONS:
1. There was never a concerted, clear-cut programme of action by the British to deceive Lobengula- the
changing behavior of the queen and the eventual colonisation were all due to the changing
circumstances in European relations rather than to any long-drawn out and carefully laid out plans by
the British.
2. The 1880s commenced without any specific British policy regarding Lobengula. There were only
individual initiatives that were often ignored by an uninterested British government that kept on
refusing to commit itself to any action to colonise Lobengula’s kingdom.
3. The British probably would have continued to do nothing had it not been for the Boers from the
Transvaal government of Paul Kruger who negotiated the Grobler treaty of 1887 which sought to turn
the Ndebele kingdom into a Boer dependency and colony.
4. The British seemed to be content with the situation so long as no European power tried to colonise
Lobengula’s kingdom.
5. Even when the Boers moved in to obtain the Grobler treaty, the British response came from one
individual Cecil Rhodes who did not even live in Britain. He pushed for the signing of the Moffat treaty,
Rudd concession and the eventual occupation of Mashonaland in 1890.
6. Finally it would be grossly inaccurate to view Lobengula and the Ndebele as naïve, ignorant and
unsuspecting victims of a British colonial onslaught. They were certainly well aware of the events
happening all around them where one African kingdom after the other was succumbing to European
rule. Lobengula was definitely aware of the British gaining control of the Ngwato, Lozi and even Zulu
kingdoms and he should have known that Europeans would try to gain control of his kingdom too.
262
“THE PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION ADOPTED BY THE EUROPEAN POWERS AT THE BERLIN
CONFERENCE (1884-5) AND NOT THE RUDD CONCESSION (1888) MADE THE OCCUPATION OF
ZIMBABWE INEVITABLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
1. Before choosing to agree or disagree, it is necessary to clearly articulate the major issues concerning
the Berlin Conference and define what is meant by the principle of Effective Occupation.
2. It is also important to clearly establish the link between Effective Occupation and the colonisation of
Zimbabwe.
3. It is also important to outline the major issues surrounding the Rudd Concession and then establish its
link with the colonisation of Zimbabwe.
4. There is also a need to define the meaning of “inevitable”.
SOME KEY ISSUES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. The Berlin Conference was convened essentially to avoid a general European war by finding peaceful
solutions to the problematic issue of the European partition of Africa that had gained momentum from
c.1876 and threatened to cause conflict among European nations
2. The main decisions of the Berlin Conference included:
- the establishment of guidelines for the future annexation of African territory
- one guideline was the establishment of “Spheres of Influence” for the major European powers in Africa
- another was the doctrine of “Effective Occupation” which compelled a European country to prove that
it had effectively occupied an African territory before claiming it as its own
3. The doctrine of effective occupation’s main result was the acceleration of the partition of Africa as the
European countries tried to protect their spheres of influence by establishing effective occupation prior
to annexing new territory.
4. Within 20 years most African states had lost their independence and were under harsh European rule.
5. The colonisation process was carried out in an arbitrary manner and the boundaries of the new
colonies were drawn up without any input and consideration of the Africans. The boundaries reflected
the bargaining and agreements among the European powers whose main interest was to share Africa
among them without conflict.
6. The Rudd Concession was concluded in October 1888 between Lobengula and Charles Rudd in his
capacity as Cecil Rhodes’s chief agent. Charles Rudd was assisted by Rochfort Maguire, Charles Helm and
Francis Thompson.
263
7. The agreement was a mineral concession which purportedly gave Rudd the exclusive right to exploit
all the minerals in Lobengula’s kingdom (taken to mean all of present-day Zimbabwe) and the full power
to do anything necessary to obtain them.
8. The Rudd Concession was the basis of Rhodes’ successful application for a Royal Charter to colonise
Zimbabwe on behalf Britain.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE BERLIN CONFERENCE SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. The conference laid down guidelines on the establishment of spheres of influence and the doctrine of
effective occupation. These were two important concepts in the peaceful occupation of Africa and its
partition among European powers. (Peaceful among European powers. It is important to note that
Africans were sometimes violently brought under European rule)
2. The Conference made the occupation of Zimbabwe inevitable or unavoidable as it laid down rules for
the general partition of Africa as a whole. Once there were clear guidelines for the occupation of the
entire continent it was always going to be just a matter of time before Zimbabwe or any other part of it
would be occupied by a European power.
3. The Rudd Concession which led directly to the occupation of Zimbabwe was itself a product of the
Berlin Conference’s resolution that spheres of influence and effective occupation ought to be carried out
in order to demonstrate that an African colony was indeed the possession of a European power.
Therefore the Rudd Concession cannot be divorced from the Berlin Conference that had been held three
years earlier.
4. All that the Rudd Concession did was to simply establish the identity of the European power that
would colonise Zimbabwe but the matter of the occupation had already been established as a future
and inevitable fact by the Berlin Conference.
CONCLUSIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE RUDD CONCESSION MAY INCLUDE SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
ISSUES:
1. The Rudd Concession clearly established the identity of the European power (i.e. Britain) that would
occupy Zimbabwe and it was the definite document that le directly to the granting of the Royal Charter
that facilitated the occupation of Zimbabwe in 1890
2. On the other hand the Berlin Conference simply established the possibility or probability of the
colonisation of Zimbabwe or any other African territory at some future date but it did not make that a
definite and inescapable fact.
264
3. The argument in favour of the Berlin Conference is further weakened by the fact that Ethiopia was
never colonised as would have been the case if the Conference had made it an unavoidable fact that all
of Africa would be occupied.
4. In any case the Berlin Conference did not even lead to a scramble to occupy Zimbabwe- for three
years after the Conference there was no significant interest until 1887 when Paul Kruger’s Transvaal
state showed its interest by negotiating the Grobler Treaty. This was a local state which was ruled by
whites from the African rather than the European continent. It was only then that individuals of British
origin (i.e. Cecil Rhodes) made definite steps to occupy Zimbabwe via the Rudd Concession.
265
“THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE TRANSVAAL PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE COLONISATION OF
ZIMBABWE.”DISCUSS
1. The question requires a knowledge of the factors that led to the colonisation of Zimbabwe and these
include the desire by Cecil Rhodes (and the British government ) to encircle the Transvaal government in
order to prevent it from extending its rule further north into the interior of the continent
2. The next step would be to situate the issue of the Transvaal and weigh it against other factors in order
to show whether it was the more or less important factor in the colonisation of Zimbabwe
3. The colonisation of Zimbabwe should be seen as the outcome of Rhodes and the British government’s
struggle with the Transvaal government. The British government colonised Zimbabwe to prevent the
Transvaal from colonizing it and spreading its power northwards. The Transvaal had to be contained
because the alternative would have been that the British Cape Colony in the south would be cut off from
British colonies further north in Africa
4. It was a race that pitted the British against the Transvaal to dominate the interior of Africa and
whoever would be first to colonise Zimbabwe would encircle the other.
5. The British were envious of the Transvaal’s vast mineral wealth(diamonds and gold) and they hoped
to gain control of it by encircling and isolating the Transvaal
6. The timing of the British colonisation in 1888 came after the Transvaal’s moves to colonise Zimbabwe
in 1887 as evidenced by the Grobler Treaty. This clearly suggested a British desire to encircle the
Transvaal.
OTHER IMPORTANT REASONS FOR COLONIZING ZIMBABWE APART FROM THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE
TRANSVAAL INCLUDE:
1. The mistaken belief that Zimbabwe was the home of vast gold deposits (a second rand) much greater
than those found in the Transvaal
2. Zimbabwe was also occupied because it was strategic to Cecil Rhodes’ grand vision of creating an
unbroken chain of British colonies stretching from Cape to Cairo
3. It was also occupied in response to the missionaries’ long standing calls to crush the Ndebele power
and facilitate the spread of Christianity which had failed to make headway despite the opening of the
Inyathi and Hope Fountain mission stations in 1859 and 1870
4. It was occupied in response to the prevailing European world outlook which was colonialist. Territorial
expansion added to the power and prestige of the European countries
266
Concession, 1888)

267
in 1893.
268
CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CAUSES OF THE ANGLO-NDEBELE WAR OF 1893. WHICH GROUP WAS TO
BLAME FOR THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR?
What had started as an Anglo-Ndebele quarrel in 1893 over the Ndebele’s punitive raids into the
Victoria district exploded into full scale war that same year. Although the occassional Anglo-Ndebele
disputes over boundaries and control of the Shona were all factors, the main issue was most probably
the incompatibility of a colonizing European force and an independent African state such as the
Ndebele. This essay seeks to explain these and other causes of the Anglo-Ndebele war and to show that
the British were largely the guilty party.
The immediate cause of the war was the Ndebele raid into the Bere area of Victoria district in violation
of the ‘boundary’ set up by the settler administration to delineate Matabeleland and Mashonaland.
Chief Bere is said to have stolen cattle from the Ndebele who reacted by organizing a punitive raid. The
Ndebele reaction did not go down well with the British South Africa Company (BSAC) administration
who regarded Victoria and the rest of Mashonaland as part of their jurisdiction and the Shona as their
subjects. Although the Ndebele acknowledged the European presence in Mashonaland they still
maintained their ‘right’ to deal as they saw fit with the Shona who they still regarded as their subjects.
The whole issue generated the tensions which culminated in the BSAC killing some of the retreating
Ndebele party. The BSAC followed this with the arrest and murder of Lobengula’s peace envoys and thus
set the stage for war.
The Bere incident already discussed above might have sparked it but there were various factors that had
been building up towards war and one such was the general attitude of both towards the Shona. The
BSAC and white settlers who had taken possession of Mashonaland regarded the Shona as their source
of cheap labour. Their growing mining and farming operations depended on the labour that could only
be guaranteed by the stability of the Shona. It was this stability that was shattered by the Ndebele raid
on Bere in 1893 and on Gomala shortly before. It was this stability that had also been shattered by the
earlier raids on Chivi and Nemakonde. As far as the Ndebele were concerned, the fact of European
settlement made no difference to their perception of Mashonaland and the Shona people as their
raiding ground and subjects respectively. Even long before the European colonisation of Mashonaland,
European missionaries had voiced their disapproval of the ‘blood thirsty’ Ndebele campaigns against the
Shona. The myth of Ndebele tyrants savaging ‘defenceless’ Shona was firmly embedded on the
European psyche and was reason enough for war on its own.
The attitude of the Shona themselves only served to aggravate the situation and did so much to start the
Ndebele and the settlers on the path to war. In 1891 and again in 1892 Shona chiefs such as Chivi and
Nemakonde respectively took advantage of the European colonial presence to renege on their annual
payments of tribute to the Ndebele. Even the likes of Gomala and Bere had the audacity to expropriate
Ndebele cattle. Their behavior was based on the thinking that Europeans were more powerful than the
Ndebele would protect them from the latter. The Europeans were prepared to do so albeit for their own
selfish reasons while the Ndebele could not let such provocations go unpunished.
269
The mere fact of the existence of an independent African state was inimical to colonial interests and in
long run that alone was sufficient to warrant a war. Disappointed missionaries like Charles Helm, Robert
and John Moffat who were disillusioned by their failure to make any converts consistently advocated
the destruction of the Ndebele state. Robert Moffat foresaw a “blessing to the whole world if Ndebele
power was broken up” and believed that this would facilitate the spread of Christianity which was
evidently being held up by such a ‘backward and uncivilized’ state.
The BSAC administration had more material reasons for wanting a war that would destroy the Ndebele
state. For one, the expectations of a ‘Second Rand’ in Mashonaland proved illusory and confidence in
the BSAC was declining. The company thus envisaged a short and successful war that would either
maintain or even boast BSAC share prices. Already disillusioned by the failure to find significant gold
deposits in Mashonaland, the settlers began to convince themselves that the gold might after all be in
Matebeleland. They were also casting envious glances at the cattle, land and human resources of
Matebeleland which could only be obtained through war.
The BSAC also regarded the existence of the Ndebele state as an obstacle to an effective
communications link between their headquarters in Salisbury and the Cape. Plans were afoot for a
railway linking Salisbury to Mafikeng and it was not likely that Lobengula would consent to the railway
passing through his territory.
For their part, the Ndebele had never reconciled themselves to the fact of the British colonisation of
Mashonaland and this remained a sore point. To begin with, colonisation had been achieved through
the duplicity of Rhodes’ agents who had misrepresented the clauses of the Rudd Concession to
Lobengula. The British monarchy granted a charter enabling colonisation despite Lobengula’s fervent
protests and attempts to revoke the concession. Lobengula’s troops were all for a war to drive out the
settlers and Lobengula only just managed to hold them back. War was only a matter of time, it was
bound to come and come it did in 1893.
The British should shoulder much of the blame as they were largely instrumental in bringing it about. In
the wake of the Bere saga, the British settlers deliberately attacked Ndebele regiments clearly retreating
from Victoria district in compliance with European demands. The resultant killing of some of the
Ndebele military including leaders like Mgandani was a provocative act on the part of the whites but
even then Lobengula still exercised restraint.
While Lobengula emphasized his commitment to peace, the BSAC stepped up its provocations by
arresting and murdering Lobengula’s peace envoys to the Cape. Lobengula decided to send three envoys
including his own brother Ingubungubu in the aftermath of the Bere saga only for these to be
intercepted at Tati by the BSAC.
Moreover, the secret Victoria agreement where the BSAC promised land and mineral grants to white
settlers in Matebeleland in return for participation in anti-Ndebele war also reveals the culpability of the
British. According to Needham and others, white settlers were each promised 2469 hectares of land, 20
gold claims and a share of Lobengula’s cattle. Consequently as many as 800 settlers enlisted for service
and it remained for the BSAC to provoke the war.
270
In the long term, the British always thought of the war as a necessity. Mention has already been made of
how the missionaries had advocated war as a means of breaking Ndebele power and making its people
more receptive to the Christian message. The duplicity employed in acquiring the Rudd Concession
strained the relations and the British undoubtedly appreciated it as a source of future conflict.
If the Ndebele should have any blame then it should be for their apparent failure to appreciate that the
changing times had diminished their power over the Shona. By 1893, the British were the masters of
Mashonaland and the Ndebele insistence on the BSAC’s surrender of the Shona refugees from Bere was
thus ill-advised. Such demands could only be issued from a position of superiority that had since passed
out of the hands of the Ndebele into those of the European settlers. Ndebele activities in Mashonaland
therefore, came to be regarded as an intrusion by the BSAC and therefore, the cause of war.
It can therefore be concluded that the Anglo-Ndebele was caused by so many factors, chief of which was
the struggle for control of Mashonaland and the British desire to destroy Ndebele independence and
bring their state under their rule. The British should shoulder much of the blame for starting this war as
has been shown above.
271
“THE REVOLT OF 1789 WAS AGAINST A GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS TYRANNICAL, INEFFICIENT AND
INSENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
The Third Estate revolted against a government they felt to be tyrannical because of its adherence to the
doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings”. The Bourbon monarchy made use of the doctrine of the “Divine
Right of Kings.” This was a religious concept that stated that monarchical power was a God-given
privilege. It implied that people had no right to challenge or seek any explanations from the king over
the use of his power since he did not owe it to them. The people also did not have any right of seeking
his removal even if they were dissatisfied with him. Such a doctrine would have been suitable in a
theocratic or highly Christian state. The France of the late eighteenth century had become far more
secular and the ideas of philosophers like Rousseau captured the imagination of the bourgeoisie.
Rousseau was one of those who rejected the divine source of political power and argued that people in
any society were the true source of all political power. He further asserted that those who held political
power did so by agreement and permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied
accountability and also the need to govern in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of
the nation in politics and that they could remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising
power in their interests.
The Third Estate also regarded the government as tyrannical because of its persistence in excluding
them from politics. Much to their frustration, the bourgeoisie were excluded from politics along with the
rest of the Third Estate. This exclusion was maintained despite the bourgeoisie’s great wealth and
education. To them their continued exclusion had no justification. They regarded themselves as victims
of a tyranny which was founded on an alliance of the monarchy, nobles (Second Estate) and clergy (First
Estate). Their revolt in 1789 which led to the formation of the National Assembly was a revolt against a
tyrannical government which had failed to accept and accommodate them as equal and important
political players. To them it was tyranny for the government to decide on a procedure for the Estates-
General which was likely to safeguard the interests of the First and Second estates.
Political observers in the Third Estate found the king’s decision to fire reform-minded ministers as
tyrannical and something that had to be resisted. Ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne tried to
introduce financial and social reforms that would have improved the economy and ameliorated the
condition of the down-trodden peasants and workers in the Third Estate. They however faced stiff
resistance from the nobles and clergy who felt their privileged position to be under threat. The nobles
and clergy then conspired with the queen Marie Antoinette to pressure the spineless Louis XVI into
dismissing the ministers. Such arbitrary government decisions ended the Third Estate’s hopes of social
and economic change. The firing of Necker in 1789 inspired a revolt against the government and Louis
XVI was compelled to recall the popular minister of finance that same year.
The government’s injustices and continued repression of the Third Estate was another demonstration of
tyranny which roused them to finally revolt in 1789. The Third Estate suffered various social injustices
and repression under Bourbon rule in France. Among other things they were subject to forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. They were denied various civil liberties that included
freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and expression. They found this government-sponsored tyranny
272
particularly hard to accept when they compared their situation to that of the First and Second estates.
By contrast the nobles enjoyed so many social privileges. These included freedoms from forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. Their monopoly of political and economic power gave them
higher social status than the Third Estate. The clergy also enjoyed a privileged position. The government
allowed them control of education, births, deaths and marriages. The church also owned lots of land and
Catholicism was recognized as the official religion of France. The archbishops lived in luxury and the
immorality of some of them attracted the hatred of the Third Estate. All this gave the nobles and clergy
control over the lives of French society especially the peasants. It was a tyranny which was eventually
resisted with the violence of burning and looting in 1789. The government and the first two estates were
ultimately forced to give up their privileges in August 1789.
In 1789, the Third Estate revolted against a government whose inefficiency was manifested in its
extravagant policies. The king and his court were wasteful to the point of spending one-twelfth of all the
government revenue on luxuries for themselves. They also wasted a lot of money dragging France into
unnecessary foreign wars. One such was the intervention in the Anglo-American war of 1776. That
decision was costly as it aggravated the financial crisis in France and exposed French citizens to the
democratic and liberal ideas of the Americans. Soon enough Louis XVI’s government faced calls for the
extension of political and civil rights based on the American example. Spending so much on luxuries and
unnecessary foreign wars was reckless and highly insensitive given the poverty of the third estate which
was already burdened with high taxes.
The Third Estate were driven to revolt against a government whose inefficiency was also seen through
its taxation system which was not only inequitable but also prevented it from realising maximum
revenue generation from its people. There was an inequitable taxation system which allowed the church
and nobles exemptions from paying most of the taxes. This was despite their great wealth especially in
land ownership. On the other hand, the Third Estate was forced to shoulder most of the tax burden.
They were unhappy about paying so many different taxes including the taille (land tax), gabelle (salt tax).
The peasants also had to pay rents to noble landlords and tithes to the church. Allowing wealthy society
to escape paying taxes they could afford was highly irrational from an economic perspective and it was a
mark of inefficiency that deprived the government of revenue that it could have had and definitely
needed in the economically volatile period of the late 1700s. The Nobles refused to take up a greater
share of the tax burden and pressured the spineless king into firing ministers who suggested that they
pay more. A combination of inequitable taxation, extravagance on entertainment and foreign wars and
over borrowing all contributed to a financial crisis in France which had become unbearable by 1789.
Inequitable land distribution and feudal restrictions on economic activities of peasants were the other
aspects of government inefficiency which angered the Third Estate and finally drove them to revolt in
1789. Land was the main source of wealth in France as its economy was based on agricultural
production. Fifty per cent of it was owned by the church and Nobles. The Third Estate owned the other
half. The first two groups comprised only 3% of the population while the Third Estate (made up of the
bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) far out-numbered them and constituted 97% of the
population. Clearly the land distribution was grossly inequitable and impacted negatively on the Third
Estate especially the peasants. It was not surprising that they experienced shortages of land.
273
Consequently they were forced to live and farm on church and nobles’ land where they had to endure a
host of feudal restrictions which affected their ability to sustain themselves. Some of their feudal
obligations included paying rent, performing labour and giving up part of their produce to their
landlords. It has also been claimed that peasants who were tenants were not allowed to own grinding
mills, baking ovens and wine presses under the exacting system of feudalism. They were obliged to grind
their wheat into flour, bake their wheat to bread and press their grapes into wine in mills, ovens and
wine presses owned by their noble landlords. The government and its allies’ failure to address the Third
Estate’s demands for more land smacked of greed and insensitivity. Consequently it came as no surprise
when the peasants eventually revolted in 1789 and forced the National Assembly into seizing land from
the church and putting it up for re-sale.
The government’s failure to implement economic, social and political reforms that would have improved
the material conditions of the Third Estate should be seen as insensitivity which contributed to the
revolt in 1789. It has already been shown elsewhere in this essay that the Third Estate laboured under
political, social and economic restrictions that included lack of political participation, heavy taxes and
land shortages as well as lack of individual rights. It has also been shown that the government granted
political, social and economic privileges to the first two states that included political participation,
abundant land, tax exemptions and various individual freedoms. The government was so insensitive to
the plight and needs of the Third Estate as to maintain these restrictions despite their persistent
demands for reforms. It was no wonder then that the Third Estate seized the opportunity presented by
the convening of the Estates-General to revolt in 1789.
The government was also insensitive when it appeared to side with nobles and clergy against Third
Estate over the procedure of the Estates-General in 1789. When the Estates-General was convened
there were two options regarding its procedure. One option was for separate sitting of the estates
where each estate would have only a single vote. This option was favourable to the first two estates as it
would give them an advantage of two votes to the one vote of the Third Estate. The second option
would see combined sitting and the delegates voting as individuals. This was favoured by the Third
Estate who had more delegates and could possibly out-vote the other two. The king decided on the first
option and this appeared to mean that his sympathies lay with the first two estates. They may have
been other motives but the Third Estate only saw a case of insensitivity to their needs in his decision.
They responded by revolting and forming the breakaway National Assembly in June 1789.
The government’s failure to provide food assistance after poor harvests in 1788 suggested to the Third
Estate that it was insensitive to their needs. Adverse weather conditions in Europe resulted in poor
harvests which led to the further impoverishment of France’s peasants and urban workers in 1789.
Desperate, lacking food and incapable of paying taxes the Third Estate looked to their government for
assistance. The government failed to address the situation and restless women took the issue into their
own hands and staged their famous march to Versailles to demand bread from the king. In the rural
areas the food insecurity sparked an orgy of burning and looting from the nobles by peasants. The
ensuring chaos contributed significantly to the ultimate collapse of monarchical rule in France.
274
While there may be so much truth to claims of government tyranny, insensitivity and inefficiency there
are also other ways of explaining the revolt against the government.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a government that was insensitive to the needs of its people
but rather against a government that was merely slow in attending to those needs. Clearly Louis XVI and
his ministers were sensitive enough to the needs of their people as demonstrated by the decision to
convene the Estates-General. That was a highly significant development given that the Estates-General
had not been convened for the past one hundred and seventy-five years. Even before the convening of
the Estates-General Louis XVI had already demonstrated just how considerate he was by appointing
reform-minded ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These sought to achieve financial stability by
making the nobles and clergy pay more taxes as well by removing some of the feudal restrictions that
hampered the economic activities of the Third Estate. Louis XVI even went as far as convening the
Assembly of the Notables in 1787. This was a gathering of the representatives of the nobles to discuss
political, social and economic issues that affected France. Louis XVI had every right as an absolute ruler
to make unilateral decisions but it was a mark of his sensitivity and consideration that he chose to have
representatives of all estates make recommendations to guide his policies. His problem was that he
moved slowly in making decisions regarding the procedure to be followed by the Estates-General. An
already restive Third Estate was finally driven to revolt when he decided on a procedure that appeared
to favour the first two estates.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a king that was tyrannical and insensitive but rather against
one who was either kindly, good-natured or perhaps too much of a coward to stamp his authority on his
people. When the representatives of the Third Estate broke away from the Estates-General to form the
National Assembly in 1789, they could have been crushed through the use of force. Louis XVI however
refrained from any military action and instead agreed to the suggestion that the other estates should
join the rebels. There have been various theories advanced to explain his failure to use the force
befitting the absolute ruler that he was supposed to be. Some historians have speculated that it was
because he was a sensitive and caring ruler who hated to spill the blood of his people. Others have
suggested that he was a coward and he was unsure of the loyalty of his army. Whatever the reason, the
fact is that the revolt of the Third estate only succeeded because the government refrained from using
force against it. In other words, the revolt only took place and succeeded because France lacked a
government that was tyrannical and insensitive enough to crush its opponents.
The government was the unfortunate victim of a revolt that was brought on by poor harvests in 1788
rather than by any tyranny, inefficiency and insensitivity on its part. It has already been pointed out that
adverse weather conditions resulted in poor harvests and consequent food shortages for the peasants
and the urban poor. Inflation increased and food prices also shot up in the cities. Hungry and desperate
the urban poor looked to their government for solutions. That the government failed them was not so
much a consequence of its insensitivity as it was of the situation being beyond their capabilities. In other
words the government failed to provide relief not due to insensitivity but because it just could not deal
with a crisis of that magnitude. What happened in 1789 was that the hungry and angry people of the
Third Estate revolted against a government that filed them due to its inadequacies when faced by
adverse circumstances.
275
The Third Estate revolted against social groups that were insensitive to their plight rather than against
the government in 1789. The nobles and clergy were the two groups against whom the Third Estate
directed its anger for their failure to agree to political, economic and social reforms. The Nobles
displayed a stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly of
political positions, tax exemptions, forced labour and feudal dues. They were very selfish in demanding
the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. They also displayed poor
judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in
1787. They were also arrogant in refusing to sit and vote together with the Third Estate in the Estates
General. The hedonistic, ostentatious and even immoral lifestyle of wealthy upper clergy attracted
intense dislike from impoverished elements within Third Estate. Unfortunately for the government, the
pent-up anger of the Third Estate found an outlet at the Estates-General it had convened in 1789 in an
attempt to find solutions to the crisis.
276
HOW FAR WAS DISCONTENT AMONG THE PEASANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTBREAK OF
REVOLUTION IN FRANCE?
The peasants’ discontent was not as significant a factor as the bourgeoisie’s anger over political
participation at the Estates-General. The revolution was started by bourgeoisie who were exasperated
by royal decisions regarding the procedure of the Estates-General. For a long time the bourgeoisie had
been crying out for the removal of restrictions that resulted in their exclusion from political office and
participation. The convening of the estates-General raised their hopes that their chance had finally
arrived and they would now be accorded the political opportunities they felt their wealth and education
entitled them to. Their expectations were quickly dashed when Louis XVI chose separate sitting and
voting by bloc as the procedure that should be adopted by the Estates-General. The alternative would
have been a scenario where the estates sat together and voted as individuals. The bourgeoisie preferred
this scenario for the obvious reason that their numerical advantage would enable them to out-vote the
other estates and ensure the fulfilment of their political, economic and social programme. They
expressed their anger at the king’s decision by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming the
National Assembly. With this action the bourgeoisie grabbed political power and participation for
themselves and so began the French Revolution.
The peasants were discontented by the land and food shortages but those grievances only fuelled the
intensity and character of the revolution rather than start it. As shown above, the revolution began as
the bourgeoisie rebelled against the king for continuing to marginalise them in politics. While it is true
that the peasants harboured serious grievances over land and food which led them to revolt, it must be
appreciated that they only did so when the revolution had already been started by the bourgeoisie. They
simply took advantage of an already revolutionary situation to press their claims for more land, lower
food prices and removal of feudal restriction. Their campaign of burning and looting from their noble
landlords only took off after the bourgeoisie had already challenged the king and formed the National
Assembly.
The French Revolution was started by urban-dwellers and as result the discontent of the peasants no
matter how important could not have been the major reason. By definition, the term peasant applies to
rural people but as already seen above the bourgeoisie are the class that started the revolution. These
were urban people who revolted out of dissatisfaction with the political system that discriminated
against them. It was the bourgeoisie and some nobles who sat at the Estates-General at Versailles as
representatives of the Third Estate who started the revolution by rejected the royal decision on
procedure as already discussed. From Versailles the revolution moved to Paris where other urban
dwellers like the women took their dissatisfaction with the government’s slow response to their
demands for food assistance to Versailles. That famous march was a significant event in the revolution
not just because normally domestic and docile women articulated public concerns. It was also significant
as an assertion of the Rousseau’s theory that governments and rulers are accountable to their people.
Women therefore rejected the centuries-old doctrine of the “divine right of kings” which held that kings
could be challenged by their subjects. The working class people of Paris then stormed the Bastille prison
in one of the most memorable events of the Revolution. They did not do so out of any sympathy for
discontented peasants but they were moved by their own desire to assert their own political and social
277
rights that had been suppressed for so long under successive Bourbon dynasties. Clearly Louis XVI was
powerless as evidenced by his failure to stop all these urban challenges to his authority. It was only then
that the peasants took advantage of the already revolutionary situation and began to press their own
claims for the abolition of privileges and more land.
The Revolution had leaders who pursued essentially bourgeois ideologies and consequently peasant
discontent was an insignificant issue. Some of the leading figures at the beginning of the revolution
included Lafayette, Mirabeau and Bailly. None of these were peasants; they were either bourgeoisie or
nobles who were guided by bourgeois ideas. Their main priorities included administrative
reorganisation, constitutionalism and economic liberalism. On the other hand, peasants were mainly
concerned with bread and butter issues. Thus the revolution in 1789 mainly centred on establishing
constitutional limitations to monarchical authority, achieving political participation for the bourgeoisie
and creating a system of civil rights for all. The peasants did not share such concerns. apart from desiring
more land, lowering of taxes and the removal of other feudal restrictions remained loyal to monarchy
and Catholic to the core. In any case, feudal inequalities and tax issues they were so concerned about
were also bourgeoisie concerns and would have been addressed as the bourgeoisie moved to
implement their liberal agenda of social equality.
In the end the character of king was more crucial to the outbreak of revolution than peasant discontent.
His apparent bias in favour of the clergy and nobility on the procedure of Estates – General angered the
bourgeoisie rather than peasants. His procrastination in dealing with financial crisis and calls for all-
inclusive politics also angered the bourgeoisie rather than the peasants. Some have viewed Louis XVI as
a kindly king who did not wish to spill the blood of his subjects and others thought he was simply a
coward. Either way, he refrained from using force to crush the revolt of the (bourgeois-led) Third Estate
which opened the floodgates of revolution.
The American war of independence and teachings of philosophers had greater impact on bourgeoisie
and urban poor rather than peasants. These two factors inspired the bourgeoisie to demand democracy
and civil rights. It is important to note that the revolution began as a protest over procedural issues at
the Estates-General. The king`s decision on procedure of Estates-General was in line with the exercise of
his authority as a divinely ordained ruler but that was no longer acceptable to the bourgeoisie`s
democratic sensibilities that had been stirred by American independence ideals and philosophers like
Rousseau and Montesquieu.
In the final analysis the peasant grievances for more land, greater food security and the removal of
punishing feudal restrictions were not as important for the outbreak of the revolution as those of the
Bourgeoisie and other urban-dwellers. In any event the character of Louis XVI proved the most decisive
factor. The revolution may have been avoided f France had had a different ruler capable of using force
to crush dissent.
278
WHY DID LOUIS XVI CONVENE THE ESTATES-GENERAL IN 1789 AND WHY DID IT NOT SOLVE HIS
PROBLEMS?
For all its real and supposed grandeur, the France of Louis XVI found itself inextricably tied up in the
socio-economic difficulties which were manifested in the financial bankruptcy that plagued the kingdom
in the late 1780s. This was without doubt a perilous situation otherwise Louis would not have taken the
path no other Bourbon had dared use for almost two centuries-he took the ill-fated decision of
summoning the Estates-General. That ancient body failed to present any clean set of proposals to the
king; such was its fractious nature that members tore at each other like mad dogs over procedural
issues. These dissensions only helped to further incite an already excitable populace with the result that
all political and social hell suppressed until then broke loose. Like a raging torrent it swept away
absolutism, aristocratic privileges and the system that was known as the ancien regime .Right up to the
guillotine Louis definitely rued his decision to summon the Estates-General that invariably opened the
revolutionary floodgates. Yet this need not have been so had the character of the king been different.
Various factors prevented the Estates-General from helping Louis XVI. Not least of all was his failure to
effectively stamp his authority over proceedings and resolve the controversial question of its mode of
operation.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in an attempt to find a solution to the crippling financial crisis.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to find a solution to the urgent problem of the
economic crisis. As highlighted above, the king was mired in serious financial difficulty which resulted in
bankruptcy. The causes of France’s insolvency were many, varied and deep-rooted. The government’s
expenditure far out-weighed the treasury’s income from all the country’s taxable sources. The king’s
court is said to have accounted for about one twelfth of the state’s total expenditure. The state engaged
in habitual extravagance like in supporting the American rebellion against British rule in the 1770s. The
situation was worsened by the fact that some classes were exempt from paying most of the taxes
because of the system of privileges. The result of the system of privileges was that the bourgeoisie and
peasants (all Third Estate) shouldered the tax burden while the clergy and nobility (First and Second
estates respectively) were largely exempt. There was an urgent need to raise more taxes and as such
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General with one eye on the vast but barely tapped economic resources
of the first two estates. Finding a solution to France’s economic woes was a huge task that required
more than piece-meal measures hence there was need for a body of the magnitude of the Estates-
General
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General out of a genuine desire to resolve France’s political, economic
and social problems. Although historians have generally been harsh and unkind in their judgement of
Louis XVI, there is a general consensus that he had good intentions for his country. He might have lacked
spine and he might have been incompetent but he sincerely desired to address and redress the
problems France faced. He undoubtedly understood the deep-rooted nature of France’s problems and
as such it would be naïve to think that he convened the Estates-General to solve just one problem of
bankruptcy. The convening should be seen in terms of his persistent desire to reform France. It was not
his first move as his earlier measures had included the appointment of reform oriented ministers like
Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These ministers had made definite moves in the direction of addressing
279
economic, political and social problems for example they initiated cuts in court spending, freed serfs on
royal lands and created provincial assemblies with the intention of giving greater power to local
government. Calonne had even summoned the Assembly of the Notables in 1787 in an abortive attempt
to coax them into giving up their privileges of tax exemption among other things. Convening the Estates-
General should be viewed in the context of the failure of Louis XVI’s earlier measures. It should be
construed as the ultimate act of desperation-a last resort
The overwhelmingly negative attitude of the privileged classes towards reform over the years left Louis
XVI with the little choice but to convene the Estates-General. Over the years Louis XVI had attempted
reform through his ministers but had always found the privileged estates to be a stumbling block. It was
frustration with that opposition eventually prompted him to summon the Estates-General and have the
estates fight it out amongst themselves. The privileged classes had opposed various government
measures like local government reform and attempts to make taxation more equitable. They even
demanded the sacking of ministers who dared initiate reforms no matter how superficial if they felt they
would affect their privileged status
Louis XVI was forced to convene the Estates-General as a result of the pressure from various sections of
the French population. There is little doubt that Louis XVI was under immense pressure to resolve the
crisis in France in 1789. The First Estate demanded a solution to the financial mess because they stood
to lose all the money they had loaned the state. The Assembly of Notables were similarly affected. The
industrial bourgeoisie wanted a solution to the predicament they had been placed in by the commercial
treaty signed with England in 1786. It crippled their businesses by facilitating cheaper English imports.
Ordinary people felt the pinch of the poor harvest of 1788, high unemployment and looked to the state
for relief. They registered their discontent through riots and other forms of disorder. It was therefore
against this background of things going wrong on so many fronts that the well-meaning Louis found
himself under pressure to find solutions
The Estates-General failed to solve his problems because of deep-seated divisions. There was no
cohesion or unity of purpose within the Estates-General: the polarisation pitted the First and Second
estates against the Third Estate which was numerically superior and stood on its own. Sectarian
interests took precedence leading to the impasse over procedure. As long as the conflict over procedure
was not resolved, the Estates-General could not even begin to help the king. There were two options.
The first option would have been sitting and voting as separate estates and the second was combining
all estates and voting as individuals. The First and Second estates favoured the first option which would
have given them a majority of two to one when it came to voting. The Third Estate preferred the second
because they had an advantage as they had more representatives. Valuable time was lost in this impasse
and it led to the revolt of the Third Estate thus dooming the Estates-General and ultimately the king
himself.
The Estates-General failed to help Louis XVI because it quickly broke up after the revolt of the Third
Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis
XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the
National Assembly and invited the other estates to join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end
280
before it had achieved anything. The National Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation
and in this way all who joined it undermined or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority
The king’s character also prevented him from receiving any help from the Third Estate. From the vantage
point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-
General’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the time. His first weakness was to
allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put down his foot on the issue his
decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two estates, he set the stage for the
revolt of the Third Estate. The Third Estate defied him and now claimed to be serving another master
even more important than the king himself. That new master was the nation and not Louis who had
summoned the Estates-General in the first place. Louis’ even bigger mistake was his failure or
unwillingness to use force and crush the revolt. The Third Estate now realised they could get away with
it and they were emboldened to take further acts of defiance. The final self-inflicted blow was Louis’
acceptance of the revolt and the subsequent resolutions of the ‘National Assembly’. That way he helped
to systematically destroy his own authority
In conclusion, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to resolve the urgent financial crisis and
other deep-seated problems bedevilling France. Pressure from various quarters also forced his hand. a
combination of factors including the wrangling within the Estates-General, revolt of the third estate and
Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure to help him solve his problems.
281
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS CAUSED BY ERRORS OF COMMISSION RATHER THAN BY ERRORS OF
OMMISSION? HOW VALID IS THIS VIEW?
Louis XVI committed the mistake of being extravagant as that worsened the financial crisis and
eventually led to the revolt of the Third Estate in 1789. The Monarchy spent one-twelfth of all revenue
generated at entertaining itself and the nobles at the Versailles. The Monarchy also wasted money on
expensive foreign wars like the American war of independence. All of that extravagance came against
the background of an inequitable taxation system which saw the wealthy nobles and clergy being
exempted from paying most of the taxes. Correspondingly, the Third Estate had to shoulder the tax
burden. They paid a variety of taxes that included land and salt taxes. They also had to pay rent and
other feudal dues to their noble and clerical landlords. Louis XVI’s extravagance was therefore very sore
to the long-suffering and over-burdened Third Estate. It was ultimately a costly error of commission as it
triggered the financial collapse of 1789 and started the train of events that led to revolution.
The ruling class omitted to distribute land more equitably among the three estates and that eventually
turned out to be a costly error of omission for them. In an agro-based economy like that of France, land
was the main source of wealth. Fifty per cent of it was owned by the Church and Nobles while the other
half was owned by the Third Estate. That was evidently an unfair and inequitable considering that the
nobles and church amounted to only three per cent of the population. By contrast, the Third Estate far
out-numbered the other groups and constituted ninety-seven per cent of the population. Not
surprisingly, the Third Estate especially the peasants experienced shortages of land that forced them to
live and farm on church and nobles’ land. They had to pay rent and perform labour and give up part of
their produce. Their resentment of this unfair situation added to their long list of grievances against the
ruling elite and helped to spark the revolution in 1789. It came as no surprise when the revolutionary
government moved to confiscate land from the church and nobles in 1789 and put it up for sale and re-
distribution to the Third Estate. That was a situation the ruling class could have avoided had they been
wiser in the beginning.
Louis XVI committed the mistake of agreeing to relocate to Paris in 1789. When the women of Paris
marched to Versailles ostensibly to demand bread from the king, he and the National Assembly agreed
to relocate to Paris from Versailles. From that moment on the king and the assembly which had
assumed legislative functions were subjected to pressure from the vocal and increasingly violent mobs
of Paris. Very often those mobs invaded the sessions of the assembly and the king’s palace. They
hackled members of the assembly and subjected them to heavy pressure to adopt their preferred
course of action regardless of the consequences. Policies became increasingly radical from then on. Both
king and assembly increasingly lost of control of the situation which came to be dominated by intolerant
radicals. That prepared the way for the advent of the Jacobins whose policies led to greater violence
repression and intolerance in France. In hindsight, it can therefore be argued that agreeing to relocate
to Paris was therefore a costly error of commission by both king and National Assembly.
Louis XVI committed the error of sending troops to America as that helped to awaken the Third Estate to
democratic ideas. The American war of Independence (1776-1783) presented the French government
with the perfect opportunity to assist the American rebels against their British masters and so gain
282
revenge for their loss to Britain in the earlier struggle for supremacy in Canada. In the event the French
soldiers who participated in that war were influenced by American political ideas of democracy,
accountability of leaders and universal civil rights. It became something of a paradox to them that they
were fighting to assist Americans to gain rights which they were denied in France. That stirred their
consciousness and hunger for the same rights in their own country. It came as no surprise that veterans
of the American war like Lafayette played a leading role in the early stages of the French revolution.
Sending troops to America was therefore a costly error on Louis XVI’s part.
Sending the troops was also a costly financial mistake. France was already starting to feel the effects of
economic mismanagement in the late 1770s when Louis XVI decided to drain the treasury and send
French soldiers to assist the Americans against their British masters. The war might have helped Louis
XVI to avenge France’s earlier loss of Canada to Britain but it was a victory that did not come cheap. It
worsened the government’s financial position and provoked a storm of protests from different sections
of the population. The Third Estate pushed for a reform of the taxation system and called for a reduction
in government expenditure. They wanted to see a more equitable system where the nobles and church
paid more taxes. Naturally enough these demands were resisted by the church and nobles. That bred
the conflict that led ultimately to revolution in 1789.
Convening the Estates-General was a mistake (of commission) which gave the hitherto disorganised and
disparate third Estate the platform to organise the revolt. Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in
1789 in the hope that it would help him redress the economic crisis and other political and social
problems bedevilling France. It was a huge step to take given the fact that no French king had convened
the Estates-General in the one hundred and seventy-five years before Louis XVI decided to. French kings
before had probably felt confident of their abilities as autocratic rulers with “divine right” to even seek
the assistance of the Estates-General in deciding issues. Convening the Estates-General was probably a
reflection on Louis XVI’s unsuitability as a powerful, assertive and self-confident ruler. His decision
brought together in one place the disparate elements in the Third Estate who wanted political and social
change but had been too far away from each other and too disorganised to mount any effective
campaign or course of action. Louis XVI thus brought them together and thus laid the foundation for
their successful revolt against him.
The ruling class committed the mistake of doggedly refusing to give political rights to the Third Estate.
The France of the ancien regime was an absolute monarchy where the king wielded absolute powers,
gave political privileges to the nobles and excluded the entire Third Estate from politics. The king had
power to declare war and make peace, power of life and death over his subjects appoint ministers,
army, judicial officers and all other government officials. It was believed that his authority came from
God (Divine Right) and therefore he ruled as he saw fit, unchallenged and not accountable to his
subjects. King chose his ministers all government officials from the class of nobles. In other words les
(Second Estate) had monopoly over government positions. Third Estate including highly educated and
wealthy bourgeoisie were excluded from political positions and political participation.
Third Estate especially the wealthy and highly educated bourgeoisie deeply resented the monopoly
enjoyed by the nobles over government, judicial, military and even clerical positions enjoyed by the
283
nobles. They also resented their own exclusion especially as they believed that their education and
wealth entitled them to a share of the political power. They also resented the monarch’s privilege to
absolute executive, legislative and judiciary authority which could not be questioned or challenged
under the principle that he had a God given privilege to such power. The persistent refusal by the ruling
class to extend political participation to the bourgeoisie section of the Third Estate was a costly error of
commission that ultimately led to the revolution in 1789.
The nobles and clergy committed the mistake of refusing to assume a greater share of taxation. There
was an inequitable taxation system which allowed the church and nobles to be exempted from paying
most of the taxes. On the other, the Third Estate was forced to shoulder most of the tax burden. They
were unhappy about having to pay so many different taxes including the taille (land tax) and gabelle
(salt tax). In addition they also had to pay rents to noble landlords and tithes to the church. The Nobles
and church refused to take up a greater share of the tax burden and pressured the king into firing
government ministers who suggested that they pay more in order to mitigate the effects of a growing
financial crisis. A combination of inequitable taxation, extravagance on entertainment and foreign wars
and over borrowing all contributed to a financial crisis in France which had become unbearable by 1789.
The nobles and clergy’s continued refusal to pay more even when the financial situation became
desperate merely suggested that they were selfish and heartless. Consequently the Third Estate felt
revolting against the government was the only way to compel the first two estates to assume a fair
share of the tax burden. The nobles and church’s stubborn refusal to pay more was a costly error of
commission as it led to the revolution that resulted in the loss of their political, economic and social
privileges.
Pressuring the king to fire reform-minded ministers was another costly mistake by the nobles and clergy.
Although Louis XVI was supposed to be an absolute ruler with the power to do as he pleased, he was in
practice a cowardly king who could not resist the demands of his noble and clerical allies. Not only did
these classes enjoy a monopoly over political positions and participation, they often pushed the king
into making poor decisions so they could protect their own privileges against the demands of the Third
Estate. They refused to take up a greater share of the tax burden and pressured the king into firing
ministers who suggested that they pay more. Those fired included Necker, Turgot and, Calonne. Firing
these prevented France from enacting reforms that would have eased the financial crisis and prevented
the Third Estate from revolting in 1789.
Louis XVI omitted to use force against a rebellious Third Estate and that was a costly mistake. Louis XVI
lacked the courage to resist the Nobles who opposed financial reforms and pressured him to fire reform
minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. That only worsened the financial crisis and led
ultimately to Revolution. Even when the Third Estate revolted and broke away to form the National
Assembly in 1789, revolution could have been still prevented had he taken the decision to use force to
crush them. Even rebels like Mirabeau conceded that a show of force would have broken their defiance
of the king. It was not forthcoming and a spineless Louis XVI “advised” the First and Second estates to
disband and join the rebellious Third Estate in their so-called National Assembly. That first act of
defiance of royal authority went unchallenged and it simply bred further acts of defiance. The Bastille
prison was stormed by the rebels in July 1789 again without a response from the king. The significance
284
of the collapse of the prison for so long the symbol of the king’s power was not lost on the French
people. It cast Louis XVI as a weak, incompetent perhaps cowardly king who could never stamp his
authority and the Third Estate took full advantage to impose their own will in France with revolutionary
consequences.
Louis XVI committed the mistake of siding with the First and Second Estates in the issue of the Estates-
General’s procedure. From the vantage point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own
character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the
time. His first weakness was to allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put
down his foot on the issue his decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two
estates, he set the stage for the revolt of the Third Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling
over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The
Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the National Assembly and invited the other estates to
join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end before it had achieved anything. The National
Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation and in this way all who joined it undermined
or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority.
In conclusion, there were so many mistakes that Louis XVI and his allies in government committed and
these led ultimately to the revolution in 1789.
285
GROUPS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION:
WHO WERE THE REAL REVOLUTIONARIES IN FRANCE IN 1789; THE NOBILITY, THE BOURGEOISIE OR
THE PEASANTRY?
Although there will always be claims to the contrary, it seems humans do not have the ability to see into
the future otherwise Louis XVI would have explored other avenues in his quest to redress the financial
crisis that crippled France in 1789. Or at least he would have taken the necessary precautions before
making his ill-fated decision to convene the Estates-General. By so doing he set off a train of events that
led ultimately to his own downfall and that of the ‘divine right of kings’-a concept so vigorously
championed by the Bourbon dynasty over the centuries. Thus began the French Revolution that
monumental event which was the end product of varying contributions consciously and unconsciously
made by the bourgeoisie, peasantry and the nobility. If the popular portrait is to be accepted then the
Revolution represented the triumph of the ‘brains’ of the bourgeoisie who harnessed the brute power
of the numerically superior peasants and urban mobs against the conservative and even reactionary
nobles. It is true that the story of the revolution was largely the story of the activities of the third estate
(that is the bourgeoisie, urban mobs and peasants) and it is also true that the social classes were even
pitted against each other. However it is also true that those truths are not enough to enable us to
categorically point to just one class and label them the as ‘real’ revolutionaries while denouncing the
others as ‘fakes’ or ‘counterfeits’. Such generalisations are misleading and therefore inaccurate
representations of history. Close analysis will reveal that members of all three groups actively
contributed to the realisation of the revolution. Instead of attempting to sort out the genuine from the
fakes, this essay will argue that it makes more historical sense to talk of the varying contributions of
each group.
The nobles comprised all those who were privileged in society because of birth (aristocracy) and/or
position held. Those of royal blood and even the clergy were included in this group. They owned most of
the country’s agricultural wealth especially land and also the taxes paid to the church by individuals. This
is the group that monopolised the administrative positions in the government, army and church. They
enjoyed many privileges including exemptions from taxation, forced labour, arbitrary arrest and
detention and many other things that made life unpleasant. Like everybody else this group was worried
by the state’s financial insolvency but they generally preferred a solution that would not endanger their
own privileged position. On the face of it, this is the group that should have opposed the revolution
because they stood to lose the most from it. It is however worth noting before we pass judgement that
the nobility were not a class in the Marxist sense of the word. If class denotes a homogenous group in
terms of wealth, position and ideals then the nobility were never one. The truth is that within the
nobility there were vast disparities of wealth and position with some enjoying unimaginable splendour
while others lived in abject poverty even worse than the peasants who were their social inferiors. The
scenario described above best illustrates the contrasts between court nobles and some provincial
nobles; the higher and lower clergy. There was as such no cohesion or common interest to speak of in
this group. What becomes apparent is that there are some of the nobility who had nothing to lose from
a revolutionary situation; in fact they had as much reason as bourgeoisie and peasants to wish for and
286
support the revolution. If the nobles have been labelled ‘counter-revolutionary’ or ‘reactionary’ then
that is a one sided view in which only half the story is being told
The nobles were real revolutionaries because there were many of them who did so much to initiate or
sustain the revolution. Names that quickly come to mind include the likes of Mirabeau, Sieyes and
Lafayette. These participated in the revolt of the Third Estate against Louis XVI after the convening of
the Estates-General in 1789. Although they were noblemen, they had been elected to the Estates-
General as representatives of the Third Estate. The revolt was a momentous occasion as it resulted in
the formation of the National Assembly which claimed the authority to speak and act on behalf of the
French nation. The revolt represented a rejection of monarchical absolutism and the exclusion of the
Third Estate from political office and participation. It can be rightly viewed as the starting point of the
French Revolution. The nobles were part of the Third Estate representatives that challenged Louis XVI
and for that reason they should also be seen as true revolutionaries.
The nobles certainly deserve to be viewed as true revolutionaries because some of them provided
crucial leadership to the Third Estate at critical moments from the start and through the early period of
the revolution. So much has been written about how the nobleman Mirabeau provided good leadership.
It has been said that he refused to back down when Louis XVI sent troops to disband the rebels who had
occupied a tennis court and taken their famous oath to create a constitution for France. He boldly stated
that they would only disband if attacked with bayonets. His courage certainly helped the rebels prevail
over Louis XVI and the revolution was well on its way. Lafayette is another nobleman who is
remembered for his role in forming and leading the National Guard which helped to minimise violence
in the early days of the Revolution. If these two nobles were action men, there was Sieyes who was the
moving spirit of the revolution in 1789. Through his pamphlet titled “What is the Third Estate?” he
stirred the Third Estate into action by pointing out their wretched conditions of life and the need to act
decisively. With such revolutionary heavyweights this group cannot be therefore dismissed as
‘counterfeit’.
As a group the peasants were downtrodden socially, politically and economically. They bore the brunt of
taxation, forced labour and arbitrary arrest. They were subsistence farmers living off the produce of the
land and which some of them did not even own. They were therefore vulnerable to exploitation by the
noble land-owners and also to the whims of the weather as in 1788 when severe winter conditions led
to poor wheat harvests. As a group that occupied the bottom rung of the social ladder, they naturally
had many grievances.
The peasants were highly revolutionary group in 1789 as they acted to destroy restrictive feudal
practices in the countryside. So much has been written about the peasants went on violent orgy of
burning and looting from their noble landlords in that period known as “The Great Fear”. They
destroyed homes and even killed nobles in a violent rejection of feudal oppression. They were by far the
majority in the Third Estate and if figures are to be used as criteria they would certainly be the most
revolutionary class. They should be given credit for some of the defining events of the revolution like the
287
abolition of privileges. When the National Assembly agreed with the nobles and clergy to abolish feudal
privileges on August 4 1789, they were merely confirming a fact that had already been accomplished
through the violence of the peasants in the countryside. Consequently, the peasants should also be
viewed as revolutionaries because their contributions shaped the revolution in the beginning. They also
provided the necessary numerical strength for the revolution to succeed.
Although important, the peasants were less revolutionary than the bourgeoisie because they often
acted under the instigation and leadership of the bourgeoisie. Probably their biggest contribution in
1789 was in the provision of the necessary muscle power in the form of riots and other such activities.
Considering that they (together with the urban mobs) provided the necessary violence to fuel the
revolution they should not be labelled “real revolutionaries”. The main instigators or leaders of the
revolution came from other groups and not from the peasantry.
The bourgeoisie were the wealthy and highly educated group which included lawyers, doctors, bankers,
industrialists and traders. They were highly enlightened and resented their exclusion from the politics.
They conveniently allied themselves with the peasants and the urban mobs of the third estate to initiate
the revolution.
The bourgeoisie were probably the most important revolutionary actors because their ideas of liberty,
equality and fraternity guided the revolution and they also provided the necessary leadership. The
revolution was based on bourgeois demands for a constitutional system of government as well as
universal civil rights to replace the feudal system of privileges for an exclusive minority. Undoubtedly
they provided ideological and practical leadership inciting the peasants and mobs to violence and the
revolution represented the triumph of bourgeois ideas about political, social and economic relations.
The bourgeoisie should be viewed the real revolutionaries because they led the peasants and urban
mobs into accepting their revolutionary political system of the constitutional monarchy which replaced
the absolute monarchy. Conversely the peasants were not real revolutionaries because they fell under
the guidance and control of the bourgeoisie which made them accessories or accomplices.
Even if the bourgeoisie played a greater role, the nobles and peasants were also real revolutionaries
because without their immensely significant contribution there would have been no revolution to talk
about. Revolutions do not just occur through the actions of leaders but also of those they lead- the
French Revolution occurred because even the peasants desired it and actively participated to achieve
it(fiery speeches and ideologies are nothing without the kind of violence and other actions such as those
that were provided by the peasants and mobs of Paris)
It may thus be concluded that to claim that one group were the real revolutionaries is to portray the
revolution as the work of one group which is historically inaccurate. The evidence shows that all groups
(or at least some of their members) took part. This therefore makes real revolutionaries out of all groups
although the bourgeoisie were probably the masterminds and front-runners. The revolution fulfilled the
wishes of the Third Estate (that is bourgeoisie and peasants) but on close inspection even the nobles
such as Sieyes, Lafayette and Mirabeau all played significant roles. Instead of trying to sort out the ‘real
288
revolutionaries’ from the ‘fake’, we should be assessing the comparative significance of the contribution
of each group.
289
REFORM UP TO 1793?
1792.
making body.
290
European countries.
291
292
opposition.
293
Revolution swept France like a sudden wild fire in 1789 mercilessly destroying up the political, social and
among others
Louis XVI was a very serious threat to the revolution because he acted in ways that suggested that he
was opposed to the revolution and encouraged his supporters within and outside France to oppose it.
Louis XVI and the entire monarchical establishment were natural enemies of the revolution because The
revolution systematically destroyed royal authority first by reducing Louis XVI to a constitutional
monarch before eliminating the monarchy altogether in 1792. He was a threat to the revolution because
it is clear that he did not willingly consent to revolutionary changes such as the abolition of the nobility’s
privileges and the civil constitution of the clergy among others. He actually used his veto against the
Legislative Assembly’s decision to deprive priests of their income if they did not take the civil oath within
a week in November 1791. He also vetoed the decree that compelled the émigrés to return to France by
1January 1792 or face the death sentence. Such actions suggested that he was an opponent of the
revolution and sided with those that sought to destroy it. Twice he attempted to flee France and that
suggested that the revolutionaries were holding him against his will. The very presence of a king who
was opposed to the internal developments was dangerous for the revolution.
A king was a like a molecule around which counter-revolution both internal and external could
crystallise. That was indeed the case as demonstrated by rebellions in the provinces. The most serious of
the revolts occurred in Vendee and Lyons. There was the Declaration of Pilnitz and the Brunswick
Manifesto issued by the Austrians and Prussians in support of Louis XVI. They threatened the
revolutionaries with ‘fire and brimstone’ if Louis XVI was harmed in any way and if the Ancien Regime
was not restored to its former glory. The king was seen to be a grave threat so much such that the
revolutionaries took the monumental decisions of abolishing the monarchy altogether and executing
him in January 1793. Such actions together with other factors only served to harden opposition to the
revolution thereby proving that the monarchy was a serious threat even if posthumously
The clergy were a serious threat because they opposed the civil constitution and incited the peasants
into civil unrest which resulted in civil war and the Reign of Terror. The church and nobility were also a
threat because materially and psychologically they suffered and lost the most during the revolutionary
upheavals e.g. they lost land and property. The nobility lost privileges that included exemption from
294
taxation and the church was practically reduced to a mere state agency through the civil constitution of
the clergy
The clergy and nobles posed a serious threat because many of them fled into exile as émigrés from
to invade France. The clergy also became a nucleus of counter-revolution especially after a significant
proportion of their number rejected the civil constitution of the clergy which was also denounced by the
pope. The church was a serious threat because the revolts that flared up in Vendee and Brittany were
largely inspired by anger at the revolutionaries’ treatment of the church and religion. The
revolutionaries’ response of instituting the Reign of Terror is clear testimony of the gravity of the threat
posed by the church and nobility. So many of them were victims of the terror as they were arrested,
imprisoned and executed
The peasants were a serious threat because they joined the clergy and other royalists in a revolt which
the government only suppressed with great difficulty. The peasants were also enemies because
although they had derived some benefits there were many aspects of the revolution they hated. They
detested conscription into the revolutionary army and the requisitioning of food which led to hunger.
They also abhorred the civil constitution of the clergy and the subsequent attempts to destroy religion.
They were a serious threat because they provided the bulk of resistance in the provincial rebellions in
Vendee and Lyons. Their determined resistance in defence of Catholicism hugely contributed to the
revolutionaries’ failure to de-Christianise France a project which was quickly abandoned
Revolutionaries seriously undermined their own revolution through their persistent bickering and in-
fighting. The divisions and factionalism in the revolutionary movement were just as bad for the
revolution as the machinations of its opponents. Belloc writes about the Girondist faction’s struggle with
the Jacobins which was so serious to the extent that the former actually enlisted the support of the
royalists in Lyons even though it was an open secret that the royalists were opposed to the revolution.
The Girondist-royalist alliance had serious consequences in the Lyons uprising resulted in the capture of
the town hall and the establishment of an unelected and rebel municipal government. Another such
municipal government was established in Toulouse in 1793 after an uprising
The pope was a significant threat to the revolution through his exhortations to the Catholics to resist the
civil constitution. In 1790, the pope rejected and condemned in very strong terms the civil constitution
passed by the revolutionary government to limit the power of the Catholic Church and subordinate it to
the state. He denounced it as a heresy and called on all Catholics to resist it. The Pope’s decision
weighed with most of the bishops and priests in France who rejected the civil constitution and came to
be known as refractory or non- juring priests. That certainly put Louis XVI in a difficult position as head
of state and Catholic on the other hand. He had a dilemma deciding whether to act as head of state and
approve the legislation or follow his religious convictions and reject the new law. Either way it was a
difficult situation and when Louis XVI chose to follow the pope’s example in denouncing the civil
295
moderate government. The clergy also influenced the peasants to turn against the revolutionary
government. Foreign and civil war quickly followed the rejection of the civil constitution at home and
abroad. Faced with war, the revolutionaries abandoned moderation and adopted repressive measures
such as conscription, requisitioning and suspension of civil rights in a desperate struggle for survival.
They also attempted to completely destroy the church. Priests were persecuted and many of them were
forced into exile in the aftermath of the failure of the Civil Constitution.
Foreign governments seriously undermined the revolution by attacking France, providing refuge for
French rebels and armed them to attack France. External enemies included Austria, Prussia, Holland,
Spain and England. Their opposition stemmed from the fact that the revolutionaries violated some
European treaties by annexing papal territory and abolishing the feudal rights of the Austrian princes in
Alsace. In any case the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were a threat to the
monarchical governments of Europe (the revolutionaries actually promised support for rebellions aimed
at destroying monarchical rule in Europe)
which was vulnerable during that period. They scored such important victories that Dumouriez who was
acclaimed as the best French general felt compelled to defect to the Austro-Prussian alliance in early
1793. They also fomented internal rebellion against the revolutionary government especially in the
frontier regions. They even teamed up with rebels e.g. the Spanish and English fleets teamed up with
rebels in Toulouse to defend the town against the revolutionaries. They also hosted the émigrés and
gave them assistance to plot the overthrow of the revolutionaries.
In conclusion it is clear that the French revolution attracted both internal and external enemies. Internal
enemies included the monarchy, nobility, church and even factions of the revolutionary movement.
External enemies included the émigrés, the monarchical governments of Austria, England and Holland. It
is also clear that these posed a serious threat to the revolution when they operated singularly or in
tandem. The threat was always greatest when the revolutionaries had to deal with so many enemies on
different fronts all at once. The enormity of the threats is better appreciated when one takes into
account the momentary successes of the rebels and foreign invaders as well as the setting up of the
Committee of Public Safety. The revolutionary government was ultimately forced to adopt desperate
measures such as the Reign of Terror and that was clear evidence that the enemies were no pushovers.
296
WHICH GROUPS BENEFITTED AND WHICH SUFFERED FROM THE CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE
OF FRANCE DURING THE YEARS 1789-1815?
Louis XVI’s quest to resolve France political, social and economic problems led him to convene the
Estates-General in 1789. Little did he know that by so doing he had just removed the lid off France’s own
version of ‘Pandora’s box’ with the result that all that country’s political and social furies gushed out and
ignited the violent conflagrations that would consume him together with that politico-social system
called the ancien regime. In the series of momentous events that followed, a faction of the Estates-
General defied the king and took the now celebrated ‘tennis court oath’, unruly mobs stormed the
Bastille and the nobles voted to give up their privileges. Thus began a twenty five year-long kaleidoscope
in which monarchical rule would give way to various shades of republican rule and ultimately back to the
Bourbon restorations of 1814 and 1815.That was the French Revolution and as always with revolutions
some sections of society suffered from the changes and some benefited. In this essay, different groups
such as the monarchy, nobility, clergy, peasantry and the bourgeoisie shall all be analysed with intention
of showing that the former suffered the most while the latter benefited the most.
Between 1789 and 1814 the social structure of France changed with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the
nobles and clergy suffered the most from the loss of their political, economic and social privileges from
1789 to 1814. Their privileges had included the monopoly of all government, military, judicial and
clerical positions. They alone participated in politics under the system of monarchical absolutism while
the rest of the population was denied any access to political participation and representation. However
the revolution which broke out in 1789 changed all that by allowing politics to the Third Estate. The
bourgeoisie dominated the newly formed legislature called the National Assembly. Thereafter the
bourgeoisie came to dominate subsequent legislative bodies that were formed during the period. These
included the Legislative Assembly and National Convention.
The nobles and clergy also lost their social and economic privileges which they forced to give up on the
fourth of August in 1789. The church lost its feudal privileges to levy tithes and control the lives of
peasants through marriage, deaths and birth registration. Even control of education was taken away
from the church. Both nobles and church lost vast tracts of land that were confiscated without
compensation and placed on the open market for resale.
The clergy and nobility only regained some of their lost status in 1814 when the Bourbons were restored
to power. They did not regain their former exclusive political, economic and social privileges. Nor did
they regain the land they lost and that filled them with a desire for revenge.
Correspondingly the Third Estate particularly the bourgeoisie gained the most from the political, social
and economic changes during this period. As indicated above the bourgeoisie ascended to the top of the
social structure alongside the king following the revolution in 1789. The creation of the National
Assembly and subsequent legislative bodies enabled them to dominate politics and achieve a higher
social status. They now made the laws, restricted the king’s power through a constitution they
completed in 1791. They also gained the most from the confiscation and sale of lands formerly
belonging to the church and nobles.
297
The nobility and clergy also suffered the most through persecution and repression. The Civil Constitution
of the Clergy was introduced to destroy church autonomy and bring it under state control. This period
also marked the beginning of the expropriation and sale of nobility and church lands (thus increasing the
suffering of the clergy and nobles). There was the consequent mass emigration of clergy and nobility
into exile.
The Napoleonic Empire (1804-1814) and the Bourbon restoration (1814) did not give the nobles and
clergy all the dominance they had enjoyed before the revolution in 1789. Napoleon’s Concordat enabled
the clergy to recover a measure of their former prominence as the state undertook to recognise
Catholicism as the religion of most Frenchmen. It was nowhere near the exclusive privileges they had
formerly enjoyed when they could levy tithes, control education and possess large tracts of land. They
did not get to recover their land when the Bourbons were restored but they got back a measure of their
political influence after a Chamber of Peers was created by the 1814 constitution.
The working class and peasants also gained from economic changes and the introduction of universal
civil rights. Peasants certainly benefitted from the expropriation and sale of church and nobles’ lands.
They also benefitted from the abolition of forced labour, arbitrary arrest and introduction of civil
liberties. These included freedoms of worship, expression, freedom from forced labour and the right to
life and property. Before 1789, the peasants and working class urban dwellers had always been the
downtrodden mass. They lacked political and economic power. Peasants in some cases did not even
own the land they lived and worked on and they were therefore at the mercy of the clergy and nobility
who owned it. They lacked various individual freedoms and were subject to the brunt of taxation, forced
labour, arbitrary arrest and detention.
In 1792, the social structure changed greatly with the abolition of the monarchy and bourgeoisie
became the complete masters of France. The monarchy suffered the most from its abolition and
creation of a Republic in its place. Louis XVI and his immediate family were executed. Other royals fled
France. The clergy and nobles were swept aside and subjected to high levels of violence and persecution
during the Reign of Terror that lasted from 1793 to 1794. The bourgeoisie benefitted the most as they
introduced laws silenced their opponents. These included the Law of Suspects which made it a capital
offence to show any support for the monarchy and clergy.
Even the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty in 1814 failed to give back to the monarchy all its former
prominence. Although the monarchy returned, Louis XVI did not return with it as he had been executed
in 1793. Kings could no longer rule as absolute rulers with a “divine right”. Instead they had to abide by
the terms of a constitution. This is exactly what the bourgeoisie had intended when they first broke out
in revolt in 1789.
Even when Napoleon created his empire, the bourgeoisie were not completely displaced from their
position of social pre-eminence. The introduction of the Code Napoleon gave legal recognition to
revolutionary acts such as the seizures and sale of aristocratic and church lands (the bourgeoisie and
peasantry therefore gained as they kept what they had acquired. It is also important to note that when
Napoleon gained power and created a new ruling elite of his choice, many of the bourgeoisie were part
298
of his administration. Even the concordat was a victory for the bourgeoisie as it guaranteed the freedom
of religion they had demanded from the ancien regime prior to the 1789 revolution.
Although the repression was supposedly introduced to deal with counter-revolutionaries, the peasants
and working class suffered the most from the Reign of Terror. Although they gained from the
expropriation of the clergy and nobles’ lands, they continued to be marginalised and to occupy the
lower end of the social ladder in revolutionary France. They made up the vast number of the prisoners
and victims of the policy of executions. It has been demonstrated that nobles accounted for far less of
the victims than the ordinary people.
The restoration of the Bourbon monarchy in 1814 failed to dislodge the bourgeoisie from playing a
leading political role. The bourgeoisie also had a chance to share in the political power since France had
become a constitutional monarchy. Those who rich enough to meet the property and tax qualifications
continued to participate in politics as voters or as elected representatives to the Chamber of Deputies.
The Chamber of Deputies operated alongside the Chamber of Peers as the legislature of France.
In the final analysis, a bourgeoisie-inspired revolution destroyed monarchical absolutism and swept
away the political, economic and social privileges of the nobles and clergy who were allies of the
monarchy. Louis XVI even suffered the indignity of being guillotined in 1793 while some members of his
royal family and their noble and clerical supporters were forced to flee France. The Bourbon monarchy
therefore suffered so much in witnessing the reduction and then finally the complete destruction of
their power during this period. It was only in 1815 that the Bourbons were eventually restored to their
position but even then they had to abide by a charter which effectively rendered them constitutional
monarchs. Given these developments the Bourbons, nobles and clergy appear to have suffered the most
during this period. On the hand the bourgeoisie desired and succeeded in gaining political power,
individual freedoms and the social pre-eminence. The peasants also desired and gained freedom from
their feudal bondage. However they and the working class remained the poorest and made up the
majority of the victims of the repression of the Reign of Terror. In view of all that the bourgeoisie are
undoubtedly the group that benefited most during the period 1789 to 1814.
299
EXAMINE THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SANS-CULOTTES IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
They provided the brute force that was necessary for the success of some of the events of the
revolution. One such event was the march on Versailles in 1789. This had been initially organised as
protest by women against the harsh economic situations they faced, especially bread shortages. They
also demanded an end to royal efforts to block the National Assembly, and for the King and his
administration to move to Paris as a sign of good faith in addressing the widespread poverty. The
women first marched to the Hôtel de Ville, demanding that city officials address their concerns. Getting
unsatisfactory responses from city officials, as many as 7,000 women joined the march to Versailles,
bringing with them cannons and a variety of smaller weapons. Twenty thousand National Guardsmen
under the command of La Fayette responded to keep order, and members of the mob stormed the
palace, killing several guards. La Fayette ultimately convinced the king to accede to the demand of the
crowd that the monarchy relocates to Paris.
On 6 October 1789, the King and the royal family moved from Versailles to Paris under the protection of
the National Guards, thus legitimizing the National Assembly. Mobs of sans culottes also invaded the
Bastille prison in 1789 and that remains the most celebrated event of the revolution. Both events were
highly significant for the way in which they suggested the collapse of monarchical absolutism and the
growing political influence of the Third Estate.
They played the negative role of turning the revolution into a violent and bloody phenomenon. The
moderation of diplomacy and negotiation gave way to violence and intolerance as a method of resolving
critical political, economic and social issues. After the march on Versailles to present their grievances,
members of the mob stormed the palace and killed several guards. On 14 July 1789 sans culottes
stormed the Bastille. After several hours of combat, the prison fell that afternoon. They went on to beat,
stab and decapitate the Governor Marquis Bernard de Launay despite the fact that he had ordered a
cease fire which prevented large-scale massacres. His head was placed on a pike and paraded about the
city. They proceeded to the Hôtel de Ville (city hall) where they butchered the mayor Jacques de
Flesselles for alleged treachery.
As civil authority rapidly deteriorated, they also engaged in random acts of violence and theft across the
country leading to large numbers of nobles fleeing France as émigrés. Time and again they invaded the
king’s palace and massacred guards. In 1792, they were incited by the Jacobins to storm the National
Convention and secure the arrest the arrest of seventy-three leading Girondist deputies. They were also
responsible for the wholesale massacres of prisoners in the prisons that came to be known as the
September Massacres (in 1792).
The Parisian sans-culottes helped exacerbate the divisions among the revolutionaries. By 1791, the
revolutionaries were clearly divided and the two main groups were the Jacobins and the Girondists.
Most of sans culottes of Paris threw their weight behind the Jacobins. There were so many facets to the
Jacobin-Girondist struggle for supremacy. One of these was ideological as the Jacobins sought to impose
centralisation as a way of dominating the whole country. Their attempts were fiercely resisted in the
provinces like Vendee. The Jacobins enlisted the support of Parisian sans culottes to wrest control of the
300
National Convention and imprison seventy three leading Girondist deputies in 1792. Divisions among the
revolutionaries consequently increased and became more violent. The Girondist supporters in the
provinces responded to the Jacobin victory in Paris by rebelling against the new government. As civil war
raged the Jacobins felt compelled to introduce the Reign of Terror with its repressive measures to deal
with the situation.
Their influence led to the passage of so many irrational and illogical decisions. Under their influence the
revolutionary government’s policies became considerably more radical. One such radical policy was The
Law of the Maximum. This was passed in 1793 to control food prices. At first the law applied to only a
limited number of grain products but by September of 1793, it expanded to cover all foodstuffs and a
long list of other goods. Selling above the stipulated prices attracted fines, imprisonment and even
executions. It was illogical and irrational from an economic point of view for the government to attempt
to fix prices because that only fuelled hoarding, the black market and consequent food shortages.
On 2 June 1793, Parisian sans culottes were incited by the enraged ones Jacques Roux and Jacques
Hébert to storm the National Convention and demand a limitation of the electoral franchise to sans-
culottes alone. They also demanded and succeeded in convincing the Convention to arrest seventy three
Girondin leaders including Jacques Pierre Brissot. Following these arrests, the Jacobins gained control of
the Committee of Public Safety on 10 June and initiated the Reign of Terror.
The Jacobin victory resulted in violent state repression to crush resistance to the government. The
dictatorial Committee of Public Safety quickly established sans-culottes paramilitary forces to force
farmers to surrender grain demanded by the government. It also enacted the Law of Suspects which
denied suspects legal representation and criminalised support for the monarchy as well as what it called
insufficient enthusiasm for the revolution.
That helped to alienate many foreigners who had initially sympathised with the revolution and its
objectives. When the revolution broke out in 1789, there was so much international sympathy and
enthusiasm. In Britain prominent people welcomed it in the belief that France would undergo its own
political and social transformation very much like the one Britain had undergone more than a century
earlier. That transformation had resulted in the creation of a constitutional monarchy and the extension
of political participation to ordinary people. The poet William Wordsworth spoke glowingly of how it
was “bliss” to be alive during the outbreak of the revolution. The intervention of the sans culottes in
politics started a chain of events that led France away from the moderate course to that of radical and
violent changes. It began with the violent storming of the Bastille, the march on Versailles through to
the storming of the National Convention and the aid given to the Jacobins. The government was
ultimately forced into the harsh, repressive measures of the so-called
301
To what extent should Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule in France from 1799 to 1814 be described as
“ruthless and dictatorial”?
To be Ruthless means to be cruel, harsh and oppressive. To be Dictatorial means personal rule,
autocratic, intolerant and tyrannical.
Napoleon was both ruthless and dictatorial because he established his highly autocratic, intolerant and
tyrannical rule in France in complete disregard for revolutionary ideals of democratic participation and
representative democracy. Although he was supposedly a part of a three-man triumvirate, Napoleon
was the only one who mattered as the First Consul. All executive power was vested in him and he had
direct and indirect control of the legislative process. It was direct in so far as the deliberations of the
State Council could only yield laws for France if he gave his consent. It was indirect but powerful all the
same in the sense that he was the only one with the authority to nominate members to the State
Council.
His political and administrative reforms demonstrated that he was driven by a selfish desire to secure
Even the possession of that executive power was not enough to satisfy his boundless ambitions for
personal power as he wasted no time in having himself proclaimed Emperor of the French. That
followed hot on the heels of his earlier decision to convert himself to First Consul for Life. This self-
aggrandisement was followed by the soon-to-be-familiar plebiscite. The plebiscites were really
pageantries that merely confirmed accomplished facts giving them a veneer of democratic legitimacy.
Their outcome was probably pre-determined which is why they were held in the first place. Napoleon
thus became emperor which was a fact that flew in the face of revolutionary ideals of equality and
‘people’s power’. It was also a mockery of his oft-stated commitment to ‘careers open to talent’. France
was now compelled to put up with the dynastic succession of Bonapartes even if they were not
necessarily the best for the job.
302
The very fact of establishing an empire effectively denied other people the opportunity to rise to the
highest political position in the land. The revolution had destroyed the monarchical or dynastic political
system and by restoring it Napoleon had re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It also
ensured that the highest political position in the land could only be achieved by Napoleon and those in
his family line. The closest Napoleon came to sharing power ideal was by re-organising national
administration and appointing a Council of State prefects and sub-prefects for the departments he had
divided France into. However there was no real power-sharing as the administrators were his
appointees and therefore acted on his behalf and not that of the general population. It is therefore
impossible to talk of the equality of opportunities when Napoleon had restored a nepotistic and
hereditary system that benefited only his family line and not necessarily the man best qualified as
envisaged in the revolution’s ideal of equality of opportunity. Napoleon ultimately showed neither
respect for the people’s revolutionary right to choose their rulers nor his self-proclaimed concept of
‘careers open to talent’.
In true dictatorial fashion, Napoleon ruled by decree. He has been credited with the issuing of eighty
thousand letters and decrees over a fifteen year period. Though that figure might be somewhat
controversial, it does however serve to underline Napoleon’s excessive reliance on decrees to the extent
that they became an important source of the French law of that period. It also shows how much France
had come to be governed through the autocratic discretion of its emperor.
He was ruthless because he also employed repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on
power. To this end he re-introduced spies, the secret police, censorship and the dreaded lettres de
catchet. Thus imprisonment without trial which his predecessors had abolished became a reality once
more. With the restoration of censorship, newspapers, drama and other forms of entertainment were
carefully scrutinised for seditious content. The writer A. Guerard has claimed that Napoleon’s decree on
censorship led to sixty newspapers being outlawed out of the seventy-three that were in circulation.
According to Vincent Cronin, freedom of expression was severely suppressed to the extent that only
four out of thousands of newspapers, journals and articles were allowed to publish in 1811. Critics and
dissidents were silenced and kept under control by that censorship and by a strict police force headed
by Fouche’. C. Jones also states that only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture
that images is that of an autocrat entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
Even his so-called progressive policies were achieved through dictatorship and a ruthless determination
to cement his power. For example Napoleon used his dictatorial powers to give France a codified and
303
Consulate."
“The greatest achievement of Napoleon was a reform of the French law.” Critically examine this view
with reference to the Code Napoleon.
The Code was a huge achievement because of its success in giving France a written and uniform system
of law which cleared out legal confusion. Before there can be any talk of equality before the law, the law
must first of all be clearly articulated, laid down and uniformly applied. Before then, there had only been
a confused and uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were
uncertain, unevenly applied and unwritten. Civil Law was divided into three categories namely Personal
Status, Property and Acquisition of Property in accordance with the main ideals of the French Revolution
of advancing individual rights.
The Code was also a big achievement as it gave legal recognition to the expropriation and sale of the
nobles’ and churches’ lands that occurred during the revolution and re-assured the peasants and the
bourgeoisie of the permanency of their ownership. In the words of David Thomson, “Bonaparte
ensured, above all, that there would be no counter-revolution - and this rallied middle classes and
peasants alike behind the Consulate."
The Code was certainly the greatest achievement of Napoleon because it outlived his other
achievements and was even copied by many other European countries. While Napoleon was celebrated
as a conqueror, his great military victories were only temporary and they were even reversed by the
defeats he later suffered during his lifetime, even his empire was abolished but many aspects of the
Code have remained in use even to this day. France’s civil law still retains aspects of the code. It is still in
use in many European countries as well as former French colonies like Quebec and Louisiana.
It was also his biggest achievement because it was much more positive and progressive when compared
to some of his more repressive policies. Despite its shortcomings especially on gender inequality and
failure to afford workers protection from employers, the Code was still more positive especially in
comparison to repressive measures like his autocracy and press censorship. Napoleon cemented his
dictatorship by establishing his empire in 1804 and by 1811; he had closed down most newspapers to
silence any criticism of his rule.
304
Viewed from a socialist perspective the Code which was capitalist in outlook and emphasised the rights
of employers ahead of those of workers enterprise was not such a good development. The Code was
highly repressive as it banned labour unions and gave protection to employers who turned out to be
exploitative of their workers. Workers were left in a desperate position where they could not effectively
bargain for higher wages and better working conditions without representative bodies. Many books of
this period detail how workers suffered great exploitation and poor working conditions as government
turned a blind eye. The workers’ discontent that eventually led to the bloody civil war in 1848 was really
a legacy of the government’s failure to give them legal protection and the Code was partly to blame.
From a liberal and feminist point of view, the Code was a blow to gender equality and egalitarian
principles of the French revolution as it re-established male superiority over women. The Code was
retrogressive in as far it placed men at the head of the families and regarded women as inferior. It was
also retrogressive in as far it decided that property should be inherited by the eldest son. All of this
represented a reversal of the progress of the revolution which had established equality between the
sexes and in the division of property among surviving children. According to David Thomson, "the
authority of the father over his wife, his children, and the property of the family was strengthened, as
against the revolutionary tendency towards equality of persons and equal division of property."
In conclusion, while Napoleon was famous for many achievements including his military victories, the
Code stands out as the greatest due to its lasting impact in France and Europe. Despite its shortcomings
it compares favourably to the repressive measures that he also came up with during his 15-year reign.
305
How far did Napoleon Bonaparte achieve his aims in domestic policy? June 2004
Napoleon was highly successful in his quest to achieve personal power following as demonstrated by his
success in achieving his empire after starting of as part of a triumvirate in the Consulate. In 1804,
Napoleon fulfilled his quest for personal power when he created his empire after destroying the
Republican Consulate which he had helped create after overthrowing the Directory in 1799. He had
started as part of a 3-man triumvirate in the Consulate after his overthrow of the Directory in 1799.
Even as First Consul he wielded so much power through direct and indirect control of the legislative
process, appointments of key officials and highly centralized control of the country. The creation of the
empire cemented his dictatorship by ensuring that he would not have to give up power as is the norm in
a republic. He could only hand it down to his descendants.
He also achieved great success in establishing stability and order in France after the chaos and instability
of the revolutionary period. Besides maintaining a strong police state under Fouche, Napoleon used
populist measures to fulfil his quest for order and stability in France. A good example is the codified and
Consulate."
Napoleon also achieved great success in his quest to crush all dissent to his own rule. He employed
repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on power by re-introducing spies, secret police,
censorship and the dreaded lettres de catchet. Thus imprisonment without trial which his predecessors
had abolished became a reality once more. With the restoration of censorship, newspapers, drama and
other forms of entertainment were carefully scrutinised for seditious content. Historian A. Guerard
states that Napoleon banned 60 out of the 73 newspapers that were in circulation. According to Vincent
Cronin, freedom of expression was severely suppressed to the extent that only four out of thousands of
newspapers, journals and articles were allowed to publish in 1811. Critics and dissidents were silenced
and kept under control by that censorship and by a strict police force headed by Fouche’. C. Jones also
states that only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture that images is that of an
autocrat entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
306
Napoleon was highly successful in his quest to bring the Church under the state’s control. He achieved
this through the Concordat with the Pope which was also important in reconciling the Church and the
state after the fall-out when revolutionaries first attempt to reduce religious influence before
attempting to destroy Christianity during the Reign of Terror (1793-4). The Concordat strengthened his
position as he won the support of the pre-dominantly Catholic Christians after recognising Catholicism
as the dominant religion in France. He also won the support of other Christians by recognising other
religions. The church not only accepted the loss of its property during the Revolution but more
importantly Napoleon got the power to appoint Bishops and pay their salaries too. Such developments
brought the church firmly under his control.
Napoleon achieved a large measure of success in promoting socio-economic development after the
uncertainties that had plagued the revolution. Napoleon also had a genuine desire to uplift the lives of
the French. Among various measures he adopted to achieve that was the promotion of education. Many
public schools were opened and he went as far as giving France a university. He also introduced his
celebrated ‘careers open to talent’ policymaking it possible for all people to employ their skills for the
betterment of the nation. He led the way by harnessing the expertise of different personalities from
different backgrounds and political persuasions including Bourbon loyalists, clericals and revolutionaries
in various projects. Examples include Talleyrand and Fouché who had all served previous
administrations. Lawyers from all kinds of backgrounds lent their expertise to the drafting of the famous
Code Napoleon. His crowning edifice was the Legion of Honour which was created to reward all those
who had served France with great distinction in their chosen field of endeavour. Such people were
bestowed titles and became the new aristocracy even though some of them came from the humblest
backgrounds.
In the final analysis napoleon was highly successful in achieving his aims in the domestic sphere whether
in gaining personal power or in promoting order and socio-economic development. Even if he ultimately
failed in his quest to ensure a lasting Bonapartist legacy in power, it was because of military defeat
outside France rather because of any domestic failures.
“Napoleon Bonaparte’s downfall was inevitable.” How far do you agree with this assertion? Nov 2009.
Napoleon’s downfall was made inevitable because in the final analysis his opponents had vastly superior
resources in the long run. Napoleon had waged wars which he supported by looting and demanding
reparations from those that he conquered but against the combined resources of the Austrian, British,
Prussian and Russian governments even that was not enough to save him from eventual defeat. His
arch-enemy Britain’s apparently bottomless reserves funded various European coalitions and assisted
307
the Portuguese and Spanish guerilla campaigns against Napoleon. He later spoke of the “Spanish ulcer”
which sapped the energies of his ‘Grand Army’. Napoleon’s frustrations at his failure to overcome the
British led to his ambitious but ill-conceived Continental System which aimed to strangle the British by
preventing them from trading with the European continent. It only hurt Europe and turned states
against him including his former ally Russia. In 1812, Russia responded with a successful scorched earth
policy which deprived Napoleon’s army of provisions and brought his defeat by Europe ever closer.
Recent European history had shown that those who maintained themselves in power through force
ultimately lost it when they were unable to command sufficient force to maintain it. In France itself the
likes of Robespierre who seemed invincible during the Reign of Terror were soon victims of the same
guillotine they had used to eliminate their opponents. The Directory which seemed to have mastered
the art of subverting popular will by annulling election results lost its battle to survive after being
overthrown by Napoleon who had sustained it through armed force. Napoleon had got to power
through the superior force he enjoyed through his control of the army and while domestic opposition
was weak, the superiority of his external European enemies eventually brought him down.
Napoleon was doomed to fail because his popularity rested on military victories abroad which could not
be permanently guaranteed or sustained. Napoleon very well knew that his fame rested on success in
the military campaigns which were also an important source of employment for the lower classes and
also for propping up the French economy through loot and reparations from conquered territories.
Consequently, he had little choice but to continue waging wars but his task got ever harder because with
time his opponents wizened to his tactics. Battles and wars became harder to win and inevitably the
question became when not if he could be defeated. The day of reckoning did eventually arrive in 1814
when he was soundly defeated by the coalition of European states.
Napoleon’s downfall was also made inevitable by the fact that with time local populations in states that
he fought would not support him forever once they realized his true motives. Like the revolutionary
armies before him, the French had achieved so much success against European armies on the back of
support they received from local populations that had welcomed them as liberators. Riding on the
revolutionary propaganda of “liberty, equality and fraternity”, the French had been received as
liberators from tyrannical Austrian rule in Italy and Belgium. However the tide began to turn with
populations resisting the French whose true colours emerged as they looted, demanded reparations and
conscripted people to fight in their armies. It has been said that half of Napoleon’s five hundred
thousand -strong army that invaded Russia in 1812 were foreigners who had been conscripted from
conquered territories and under such circumstances, the soldiers’ loyalty could not always be counted
upon.
Napoleon’s downfall was made inevitable by the fact that monarchical Europe would never reconcile
itself to a regime built upon the principles of the French Revolution which threatened their own
existence. European rulers could never reconcile themselves to Napoleon because he was the product of
the French Revolution which abolished a monarchical government akin to their own. French armies
engaged in a campaign to dismantle the foundations of monarchical rule in the territories they
conquered by replacing rulers, abolishing feudalism and introducing legal equality. In essence,
308
Napoleon’s war with Europe had become a struggle between the new socio-economic and political
system generated by the French revolution on one hand, and the old monarchical order. At that time,
Napoleon was doomed to fail because the forces of monarchical absolutism had not been as sufficiently
weakened in the rest of Europe as they had been in France after 1789. Furthermore he had undermined
his own cause among the lower classes who could have continued supporting him through looting and
conscription.
Napoleon’s position was ultimately the victim of the very forces of nationalism, liberty and equality that
his campaigns had helped unleash in the various European territories. TAs shown above, Napoleon and
the French armies helped spread in conquered territories the ideals of nationality, merit and equality
initiated by the revolution. This precipitated a contradiction especially as Napoleon overthrew rulers and
replaced them with foreigners as he did in Spain, Portugal and Holland. Even as he looted and
demanded reparations from conquered peoples, Napoleon created a paradoxical situation where he
came to be looked upon as the foreign tyrant despite his message of liberation. Even formerly unpopular
monarchical rulers were presented with a golden support to win support of their subjects for a war
against foreign rule. This was especially true in Spain, Portugal, Russia and Prussia. In Prussia there even
developed a strong national spirit which manifested itself in the dislike of all things French including
language, dress and culture.
Establishing an empire left him without any claims to legitimacy having destroyed the revolutionary
values of republicanism which had given him respectability. Even in France Napoleon weakened his own
position when he created an empire to replace the republic in his attempt to strengthen his position and
ensure a legacy for his descendants. Naturally this destroyed the republican values of the Revolution
that facilitated his rise and made it unlikely that he would maintain the support of revolutionaries.
Without moral foundations, Napoleon could only maintain his rule as long as he commanded sufficient
armed force. Having turned his back on the Revolutionary principles that had brought him to power,
Napoleon found himself in a unique position where he was could not count on the support of
revolutionaries or that of the old monarchical order. Not surprisingly there was little internal support for
his continued rule when he was defeated by the European forces outside Europe.
To conclude, it is therefore clear that Napoleon doomed himself after throwing the gauntlet at European
Rulers still strong enough and determined to crush the principles of the French revolution that had
brought him to power. At the same time he had made his own position untenable by alienating the
revolutionaries in France and local populations in Europe who would have supported him against the
monarchical rulers.
309

A Level Hist Q&a

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Level Hist Q&a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRINTED

AUTHORS: HERBERT MOYO AND COMFORT NHIRA

‘A’ LEVEL HISTORY QUESTIONS AND ESSAYS

3. The most reasonable conclusion...

Key factors include:

SOME OF LOBENGULA’S STRATEGIES INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

5. Permitting and accommodating missionaries- Lobengula continued Mzilikazi’s policy of

ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR ON REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE

Methods of punishment included:

Death/executions -4% of all those arrested were ultimately executed/some by drowning/some by

Imprisonment-the Revolutionary Tribunal acted imprisoned as many as 500000 suspected counter-

Effects of terror on France

An outline of the moderate reforms-Formation of the National/Constituent Assembly in 1789

How Financial Crisis led to Revolution:

Other causes/factors for revolution.

• Most important work was The Spirit of the Laws (1748)

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 1712 – 1778

• Most important work- The Social Contract(published in 1762)

• The Social Contract is an important declaration of the natural rights of man

• Rousseau’s political philosophy is expressed as the principle of the general will

John Locke 1632–1704

• These rights are “inalienable” (cannot be surrendered)

• Favoured government by adult male property owners

• Legislative arm of government should have supreme authority

• Locke argued for freedoms of thought, speech, and religion

• Rights to property the most important natural right

Voltaire 1694 – 1778

• He is best known for his satirical work Candide

• during those times of extremely high rates of illiteracy

• He attacked the aristocracy for being parasitic and corrupt

• Enlightment ideas generated a second kind of renaissance or widespread intellectual awakening

• Political participation and representation for all.

• Power resides in the nation and not God.

• Rulers are accountable to the nation.

• Church is separate from the state.

• Freedom from servitude/serfdom.

Politics and Religion

• Enlightenment thinkers argued for freedom of thought, religion and politics.

Let us examine both questions:

Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (August 1789)

This is my take on the Civil Constitution of the Clergy:

France in the years 1790 to 1791. (12 marks)

Principal Examiner’s Comments

It challenged tradition and provoked a moral dilemma

It imposed a centralisation that was resented

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790)

the National Assembly and accepted by the king…

SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES TO CONSIDER INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

SOME OF LOBENGULA’S STRATEGIES INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

5. Permitting and accommodating missionaries- Lobengula continued Mzilikazi’s policy of

(4) Imposing a crippling indemnity and army of occupation on France

(1) Stripping France of all its conquests

(3) Britain took most of France’s overseas territories

(4) Russia rewarding itself with Poland and Bessarabia

Conference decisions – The main decisions were:

− free navigation was to be guaranteed on the Niger and Congo rivers.

Effects of its decisions

Rechenberg after Maji Maji

− indirect rule encouraged stagnation and discouraged progress and reform;

British authorities appointed 'warrant chiefs' to act as substitutes.

Leeming Vol.2, pp.205-207 for further details.)

− use of the press to publicise their aims and activities.

Answers in Bands 1, 2 and 3 need to address all 3 aspects of this question.