American, English, and French Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis

The Nature of Revolution: An Introduction

The concept of a governmental revolution — whereby the populace of a given society overthrows the reigning government and establishes one of its own (which itself usually becomes a regime at least as oppressive as the one revolted against, it is worth noting) — is probably as old as the concept of government itself. Humanity shows a persistent, though historically unfounded, belief that the future can always be made better. Many times throughout history, that belief has fermented and built to the point where radical change seems like the only viable means of progress. When enough of a population shares this belief to that degree, revolution becomes the inevitable outcome.

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were marked by a series of revolutionary actions that led away — slowly in some places, more immediately in others — from monarchies and other bureaucratic, often autocratic, dictatorships, and toward more democratic, or at least republican, forms of government. Though the American Revolution is often remembered as the quintessential example of such upheaval — and indeed, its effects were the most profound and long-lasting — the thinking, and even some degree of the action, that occurred in the latter half of the eighteenth century had been anticipated by the less successful English Revolution.

The English Revolution: A Power Struggle in Disguise

Though there were many civil wars among the English, and the establishment and overthrow of many dynasties as both the result and often the intended purpose of those military engagements, there has been only one major event in English history that could reasonably be called a "revolution." This would be the overthrow and eventual execution of Charles I by Parliamentary forces, in a series of disputes that consumed nearly the entire decade of the 1640s. When Charles I was beheaded in 1649, the Rump Parliament was still passing laws that laid out the basis for what it termed a republican government.

This government was, in fact, far more republican than the monarchy had been, but describing these actions as a true revolution raises serious problems. The Parliament, through its military power and total defeat of the king, gained complete authority for itself. Many Parliamentary positions were hereditary, and the rest were controlled by those with wealth and political influence — hardly the basis for a populist or truly republican government. The effect on the majority of England's population was not revolutionary. The feudal system remained intact, and though some conditions improved, others worsened. This was not really a revolution so much as an indecisive power struggle in the higher echelons of English society.

The French Revolution: Broader but Still Flawed

The French Revolution, which took place over a century later, involved a much broader spectrum of the population and was far more republican in sentiment and action — especially in the military, where merit alone was the basis for promotion. Yet it, too, led to many of the same problems that had plagued the English Revolution. Still, because it gained a broader base of public support, both in spirit and in arms, it is more appropriate to classify the events of 1789 as a genuine revolution. The government installed thereafter was radically different and would remain so for the rest of that country's history, up to the present day. England's shift to democracy was neither so immediate nor so easily linked to its own revolution.