Leaders have shaped the way revolutions have unfolded. There have been great leaders
and governments who lead their nation through times of trouble and transformed their nations for
the better. On the other hand, leaders have corrupted their country, and set their countries back in
ways they could not realize; to the point where the citizens of the country had to take matters into
their own hands. The French and Russian Revolution are perfect examples of leaders and
governments who did more harm than good for their country. The people of their county saw this
and revolted against the authority because they needed change. The governments, monarchies,
and people in power are the main reason rebellion sparked in these two countries. Through the
monarchs’ harsh laws, their horrible economic spending, their heinous treatment of their
subjects, and the common people’s lack of communication and representation. The people of
these countries had no choice but to rebel, and the people in power are all at complete fault.
To give backstory on each country, the people of France were living in a dire
situation. Their leaders singlehandedly began to push their country further and further into
poverty. On top of this, the enlightenment had begun which caused people to think in ways they
had not before. They debated things like their rights, social justice, and the current power
balance. People also began to realize just how oppressive and restrictive the current monarchy
was, and how the current system was made to make the rich richer. This led to complaining and
demands for change from the Third Estate, which was essentially the working class and around
96% of France’s population. The Third Estate began to blame the 1st and 2nd Estate (composed of
mainly the rich elite and nobles) for the problems that the Third Estate was facing. France also
helped fund the American Revolution which made the already dire economic crisis even worse.
The elites and monarchs’ constant resistance and fear of losing power caused a revolution to
unfold.
Russia faced a different situation then France, but it followed the same principles. Russia
was being plagued with wars in their recent history leading up the revolution. The country was in
a harsh place due to their lateness in industrialization. This caused overpopulation and inhumane
living conditions in their major cities, which essentially became their industrial zones. Pair this
with constant losses in wars and a very brutal winter, which caused massive food shortages for
their constantly growing population. Entering WWII did not help either, and the country felt the
severe backlash from entering the war. People began to speculate that the people in power were
at fault, and they were right in doing so.
The economic crisis in France was a key point of revolution for the French people. Their
country had horrible economic decisions made by the people in power. This action from the
monarchs led the common people to feel the consequences of other people’s actions. This
angered them and according to Alison Johnson, “The money drained from France to support the
American cause contributed directly, however, to the downfall of the French monarchy because
large sums had to be raised at a time when the regime was already dangerously short of funds.”1
This quote is in reference to the current economical state of France. They continued funds to
America even though their own economic situation was progressively getting worse. Many
people blamed King Louis XVI for the problems that began to arise. Even though many common
people supported the American Revolution, which helped inspire their own revolution; The
people still needed someone to pin the blame of their problems on. Allison Johnson goes on to
say, “Between 1774, when Louis XVI ascended to the throne, and 1789, when the Revolution
broke out, the interest on the national debt more than trebled. By 1786 half of the entire French
1
revenue was required to pay the interest on the debt.”2 People were struggling to eat, work, pay
their taxes, and downright survive. A majority of this was due to poor budgeting by the people in
charge. King Louis XVI managed to triple their debt payment, and at the end of it all, half of all
the entire Crown’s revenue was going towards the national debt crisis. The people needed
someone to blame, and they correctly chose the people at fault by blaming the people in power.
Before even looking at Russia’s economic situation leading up to the revolution one must
look at the wars that helped attribute to it. First Russia dealt with the Russo-Japanese war, where
according to Sheila Fitzpatrick, “the war turned out to be a series of disasters and humiliations on
land and at sea.”3 The Russians got embarrassed in the war and it severely set them back. All of
this is Tsar Nicholas II fault as he underprepared and underestimated what war would do to his
country. He left his troops untrained, unarmed, unclothed, and thought he would be able to defeat
a vastly more skilled, prepared, trained, and equipped opponent. The point of this being, that the
country felt severe economic and patriotic lash backs from entering this war. The person who is
at fault for all of that is the Tsar at the time. The people of Russia felt the backlash and they were
understandably upset. In January of 1905, there was a peaceful protest set up by a priest to help
advocate about their economic situation. The Tsar’s troops fired on them. Then, not even ten
years later the country entered another war, World War One. World War One served as one of the
harshest times in Russia’s history. It was a similar situation to the Russo-Japanese war except
they were even more outclassed than before and compared to the rest of the superpowers in the
world, they were very technology behind. Government officials began to intercept letters from
soldiers out on the field so that they could archive them. The letters show the gruesome
2
3
conditions that the soldiers were in, due to the Tsar Nicholas’s horrible planning and preparation.
One of the excerpts, “We all appreciate that you all, the civilian population, are trying to save
Russia and relieve the army, but alas, our superiors are acting in the exact opposite way.”4 The
soldiers are quite literally saying that it seems the people in charge are not helping the soldiers in
anyway. The people in charge, most notably the Tsar who was on the front lines, are not caring at
all about their soldiers and leading them into sure death. The conditions the soldiers were in gets
even worse as one soldiers writes, “Tell our relatives and friends to dear military service like fire,
because there is neither good footwear, nor clothing, nor food. They don’t give us even meat and
instead they give us rotten fish and mushrooms with worm. I buy a few things myself, because
by sticking to the rations you can die quickly.”5 The letter from the soldier further visualizes the
horrendous situation everyone was in due to the leadership. They re given rotten food to eat and
could not even survive of the food they were given. They had little to no good clothing all
because of the lack of preparation from Tsar Nicholas. He drove his own soldiers to despise him
and question his authority which eventually aided to idea of revolution among the Russian
people.
The French Monarchy treated the common people of France a lot different than the
nobles and elites. Constant double standards and unfair policies by the Crown is one of the key
reasons that the people rebelled. They were stomped on, abused, and taken advantage of because
they were seen as a lesser people by the king. In 1788 the King decided to have an Estates
General, which is a meeting of each of the three Estates to examine what was currently going on
in France, which was the start of the revolution. The Third Estate had the same level of
4
5
representation as the First and Second Estates. Those two Estates only consisted of elite’s and
nobles, which meant they could always out vote the Third Estate. A Revolutionist by the name of
Abbe Emmanuel Sieyes released a piece of writing which advocated for a better wellbeing for
the Third Estate. It was a very well received document among the common people of France,
which consisted about 96% of the population. He says at one point,” It needs no detailed
analysis to show that the Third Estate everywhere constitutes nineteen-twentieths of them, except
that it is loaded with all the arduous work, all the tasks which the privileged order refuses to
perform. Only the well-paid and honorific posts are filled by members for the privileged order.”6
Abbe is saying this in reference to the work that the Third Estate does in comparison to everyone
else. He is saying that even though they essentially work nineteen-twentieths of all jobs, they are
all stuck with the hard and arduous work, while the nobles and elites get the high paying and
honorable jobs. This is not because the nobles and elites are more suited for such jobs, but it is
rather because the King and other people in power have decided that it is the way things should
be. The king shows no pity towards his subject, and the people of France could not take it any
longer because they wanted to be treated like real human beings. The people of France genuenly
wanted basic rights that were being withheld from them, and they were sick of the unfair
treatment they were receiving. Things as simple as being born a free person, with the same social
status as other people was something they needed to beg for. The National Assembly of France,
which was an organization created by the Third Estate after the revolution, to help be a
government body. They created a document which gave rights to the men of France that they
may have not had before. One of these is, “ Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.
Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”7 The simple right of being
6
7
equal was something that not everyone had before. The King had no regard for his subjects and
gave them every reason to revolt, and eventually kill him.
Normally, leaders are supposed to be people that one would look up to and idolize.
Sometimes though, leaders are not role models, but rather people who only care about their own
well-being and nobody else’s. Those kinds of people are not real leaders and should never be
considered as such. When analyzing these two harsh revolutions one truly gets insight into where
these leaders went wrong. The leaders of these countries failed themselves, and all their citizens.
The monarchy and people in power made bad decisions which eventually led to their own
demise. If the leaders of these two countries only took time and put themselves into the shoes of
their subjects, then maybe they would understand why they were overthrown. Instead, one bad
decision would always lead to another, and the citizens of each country just could not take it
anymore. Through idiotic economic spending, disregard for the common people’s representation,
horrible treatment of citizens, and strict laws, the monarchs of each country genuinely let their
country’s’ down and were the soul causes of each revolution.