What is nationalism—the congruency of the political and national unit—the ideology embodied in the Great French Revolution, when the Third Estate realized its significance in shaping a history once believed to be controlled solely by the elite?
In the flawed Ancien Régime, where the clergy and nobility enjoyed a luxurious life at the expense of the masses, an idea was born—a nation governed by the general will, not by nobility, clergy, or aristocracy. Decades of financial ruin, social stratification, and economic crises—including those arising from the financing of the American Revolution, which strained the foundations of the French monarchy—unbolted the door to the collective resentment of the people, allowing the Revolution to emerge from within.
When the enlightened thinkers of the Age—Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu—challenged traditional authority and promoted ideas of rational governance, individual rights, and equality, the Third Estate, feeling betrayed by a government that once defined the identity of their homeland and lay at the heart of centralized empires, was fueled by hatred toward the self-appointed deities among its leaders. Louis XVI’s persistent ignorance of his people’s political affairs, compounded by indulgence in frivolous extravagances that contributed to the deterioration of both his mind and the state, deepened the crisis. His continual negligence—allowing taxes to burden the populace, disregarding the lessons of the Servile Wars that had taught the Romans the limits of control over the oppressed masses—and the constant mockery by figures like the frivolous Marie Antoinette, set the stage for the birth of a nation.
A nation unites when knowledge is disseminated. The education of the masses narrowed the gap between the Third Estate and the clergy, and in the shadow of the Renaissance and Europe’s hearth, the Enlightenment ignited a passion for the arts and education. Further fanning the flames were the writings of great men—such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, championed by figures like Lafayette, and Sieyès’ analysis of the Third Estate—which helped shape the goals of the National Assembly. When freedoms were further curtailed and the Tennis Oath was formalized, it set the ticking time bomb that would lead to the demise of the monarchy. Had Louis relinquished some of his power as King John had been forced to do with the Magna Carta, settled taxation issues, and most importantly, attended to the needs of the people he governed, the fall of the monarchy might have remained a possibility rather than an inevitability.
The storming of the Bastille significantly bolstered the people’s will and determination. Louis XVI’s continual failures and hesitancy to exercise the power at his disposal—either to suppress the revolution or to support its transformative ideas—contributed to his downfall. In contradiction to Machiavelli’s principles and by playing to all sides of the revolutionary conflict, his actions ultimately validated Robespierre’s dictum: “Louis must die because the patrie must live.” The nation is the embodiment of the people; all individuals are subservient to the nation, which is governed by the general will. Thus, people must adhere to the general will to nurture the nation.
Restriction and anarchy give rise to extremism. The writings of Marat—and his subsequent elevation to martyrdom—further ignited the rebellious spirit of the masses. Meanwhile, the executions of Louis and Marie, carried out under the revolutionary regime influenced by Robespierre, served to solidify the goal of nation-building. Yet, his own descent into lunacy and anxiety—a replica of Emperor Domitian—precipitated the Reign of Terror. This escalation, which saw the execution of Danton and the excessive use of the guillotine, ultimately fueled the republic’s animosity toward its erstwhile savior and leader, turning the blade against him and sparking the Thermidorian Reaction that ended his rule.
While hedonistic excesses became widespread, military responses to defend the nascent republic from its adversaries became imperative. As Kellermann secured the republic’s continuity against Austrian influence, it paved the way for a meritocratic era and prosperity. However, owing to its militaristic foundation, it also facilitated the rise of commanding generals—such as Bernadotte, Macdonald, and most importantly, Napoleon.
Ambition binds a man to a higher purpose, instilling in him the belief that he controls the very simulation of his existence. The unchecked rise of a lower-class nobility enabled his seizure of power during the Coup of 18 Brumaire. By recognizing the militaristic errors of the republic, embracing Enlightenment ideals and the desires of the masses, and exploiting his connections alongside the Directory’s negligence in curbing the emergence of a direct rival, he paved the way for his coronation as Emperor—of the French, not France—thereby creating the illusion of continuity with the republic while marshaling the generals who had once saved it.
Yet, as if scripting his own destiny, Napoleon—who had once criticized men driven solely by ambition—became so deluded by his own that he precipitated the degradation of the nation’s vitality and, consequently, its general will. By centering power around himself, he ultimately became a target of global opposition. With the interventions of Hardenberg, Metternich, and finally Wellington, the Great Emperor’s reign came to an end. Thus concludes the turbulent era of the land that birthed the idea of a nation—one in which the people are melded into the general will, aligning with what benefits the nation, for the very existence they cherish is wholly possessed by it.
Just as Caesar’s “the republic is nothing, a mere name without body or form.”
Napoleon achieved what Caesar could not.
Samnehs Blogs 