You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The year 1792 is the pivot of the whole Revolution. It opened with a constitutional monarchy still formally intact and closed with the monarchy abolished, a Republic proclaimed, France at war with much of Europe, and the king awaiting trial for his life. In between fell the storming of the Tuileries on 10 August, the September Massacres, the victory at Valmy, and the birth of the First Republic. This lesson explains how the war declared in April 1792 detonated the constitutional settlement within months, why the monarchy fell, and how the new Republic began — under the shadow of foreign invasion and popular violence — its road toward the trial of Louis XVI.
The analytical task is to explain a transformation: how a movement that in 1789 had proclaimed a constitutional monarchy came, within three years, to abolish the throne and execute its king. War is the indispensable engine. By turning every domestic dispute into a question of treason and national survival, it fused the religious, political, and military anxieties of the constitutional period into a single charge — that the king was in league with the invaders — and delivered the sans-culottes and the radical clubs the emergency they needed to overthrow the settlement of 1791. A strong answer treats the fall of the monarchy not as a sudden accident but as the point at which the pressures traced in Lesson 3 reached breaking point.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson sits within Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 2, Option 2C.1 (Route C depth study): "France in revolution, 1774–99." It covers the impact of war, the fall of the monarchy, the September Massacres, the founding of the Republic, and the regicide. Within our own teaching sequence it is the revolution's second rupture — as decisive as 1789 — and the necessary bridge between the constitutional experiment of Lesson 3 and the Terror of Lesson 5.
Because Paper 2 is a depth paper, the reward is for fine command of a short period and for source judgements set firmly in context. (For the precise weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
France declared war on Austria on 20 April 1792, and Prussia soon joined the coalition against her. The war went badly from the start. The revolutionary armies, disorganised and short of trained officers after the emigration of much of the noble officer corps, suffered early reverses, and the frontier lay open to invasion. Each defeat sharpened the suspicion — already planted by Varennes — that the king and queen were secretly willing France's enemies to win.
War thus did precisely what Robespierre had feared and the Girondins had half-intended: it turned every political question into a question of loyalty. If the armies were failing, someone must be betraying them; and the obvious suspect was a king known since Varennes to be no friend of the Revolution, married to an Austrian princess, and constitutionally entitled to veto the Assembly's emergency measures. When Louis used his suspensive veto in the summer of 1792 to block decrees against refractory priests and to prevent the massing of provincial fédérés near Paris, he appeared to confirm the charge. The constitutional monarchy's central contradiction — a Revolution at war, headed by a king it could not trust — became unbearable under the pressure of defeat.
| Development | Significance |
|---|---|
| War declared (20 April 1792) | Turned every domestic dispute into a question of treason and national survival |
| Early defeats | The open frontier and military failure fed suspicion of royal and aristocratic betrayal |
| The royal veto (summer 1792) | Louis blocked measures against refractory priests and the fédérés, appearing to side with the Revolution's enemies |
| The fédérés arrive | Provincial volunteers gathered in Paris, radical and armed, ready to act against the king |
Two further factors deepened the crisis and deserve emphasis. First, the émigrés — nobles and officers who had fled France since 1789 and gathered at Coblenz across the Rhine — were openly raising forces and appealing to foreign monarchs to restore the old order. Their presence turned the war into a contest not merely between states but between the Revolution and a counter-revolution actively plotting from abroad, and it lent every rumour of royal collusion a terrible plausibility: the king's own brothers were among the émigré leaders. Second, the constitutional machinery itself intensified the deadlock. Under the 1791 Constitution the king's suspensive veto was entirely legal, yet each legitimate use of it now read as sabotage, because the Assembly's measures were emergency responses to invasion. The settlement of 1791 had created a monarch with just enough power to obstruct the Revolution's defence and just little enough legitimacy to make that obstruction intolerable — precisely the contradiction that Furet identified, now activated by war. The veto crisis of the summer of 1792 is therefore a superb illustration of how a constitution can fail not through the illegality of its actors but through the impossibility of the situation it was designed for.
The politics of the sections and clubs also mattered. Through the spring and summer of 1792 the Paris sections — the forty-eight local assemblies of the capital — grew steadily more radical, admitting 'passive' citizens to their meetings in defiance of the 1791 franchise and organising the sans-culottes into an insurrectionary force. The Jacobin and Cordelier clubs supplied leadership and a press; the arrival of the provincial fédérés, summoned for the anniversary of the Bastille, added disciplined manpower. By late July the machinery of insurrection was in place, needing only a trigger. The Brunswick Manifesto supplied it.
In late July 1792 the allied commander, the Duke of Brunswick, issued a manifesto (25 July 1792) threatening the destruction of Paris and 'exemplary vengeance' should the royal family be harmed. Intended to intimidate the revolutionaries into protecting the king, it achieved the opposite: it appeared to prove that Louis was in league with the invaders and that the fate of Paris was bound to his. Far from cowing the city, the manifesto enraged it and supplied the final justification for insurrection.
On 10 August 1792, Parisian sans-culottes and provincial fédérés, organised through a new insurrectionary Commune, stormed the Tuileries Palace. The king's Swiss Guard was overwhelmed and killed in large numbers; several hundred died on both sides in the bloodiest of the great journees. Louis took refuge with the Legislative Assembly, which, overawed by the insurrection, suspended him from his functions and ordered the election, by universal male suffrage, of a National Convention to decide the fate of the monarchy and give France a new constitution. The constitutional monarchy was dead; the road to the Republic was open.
The significance of 10 August is profound. It was a second revolution, as decisive as 1789: it destroyed the constitutional settlement, brought down the throne, and transferred power to a radicalised Paris acting through the Commune and the sections. Where 14 July 1789 had saved a reforming assembly, 10 August 1792 overthrew an existing constitution — the crowd had moved from defending the Revolution to remaking it. It also marked the political triumph of the sans-culottes, whose insurrectionary power now stood behind the most radical deputies, and the eclipse of the moderate constitutional monarchists (the Feuillants), many of whom fled or fell silent. The journee that had begun at the Bastille as a defensive rising had become, by August 1792, the instrument for overturning governments.
As Prussian armies advanced and the fortress of Verdun fell, panic seized Paris that imprisoned counter-revolutionaries would rise behind the front while the volunteers marched to the frontier. Over several days in early September 1792, crowds and improvised tribunals seized and killed an estimated 1,100–1,400 prisoners — clergy, nobles, and common detainees alike.
The September Massacres are significant less for their scale than for what they revealed and prefigured. They exposed the destructive potential of popular violence when authority collapsed; they horrified moderate and foreign opinion, fixing the image of a Revolution turning on itself; and they posed the question that would dominate 1793–94 — whether such violence should be channelled and controlled by the state rather than left to the street. The later, institutionalised Terror was in part an attempt to substitute legal process for spontaneous massacre.
The episode also sharpened the emerging division within the revolutionary leadership. The massacres took place under the eyes of a Paris controlled by the radicals, and the failure of those in authority to prevent them — and in some cases their tacit acceptance of them as a regrettable necessity of national defence — became a lasting reproach. Moderates, and later the Girondins, would invoke 'the men of September' to taint their opponents with complicity in murder; the radicals, in turn, defended the violence as the people's rough justice against traitors in a moment of mortal danger. The argument over the massacres was thus an early instance of the central political question of the Republic: was popular violence a legitimate expression of the sovereign people's will, or a crime to be suppressed? How a politician answered that question increasingly defined where they stood, and the disagreement would run directly into the struggle between Montagnards and Girondins.
On 20 September 1792 the revolutionary armies, stiffened by volunteers, halted the Prussian advance in an artillery duel at Valmy. Militarily modest, the engagement was politically decisive: it saved Paris, checked the invasion, and gave the new regime a founding victory. That same day the National Convention, elected by universal male suffrage (though on a very low turnout), met for the first time. Its first acts were to abolish the monarchy and proclaim France a Republic (22 September 1792), dating a new revolutionary era from Year I.
| Faction | Key Figures | Position |
|---|---|---|
| Girondins | Brissot, Vergniaud, Roland | Moderate republicans; suspicious of Paris and the crowd; favoured a measure of provincial autonomy |
| Montagnards (the Mountain) | Robespierre, Danton, Marat, Saint-Just | Radical, centralising republicans; allied with the Parisian sans-culottes |
| The Plain (Marais) | the uncommitted majority | The shifting centre, voting with whichever faction commanded events |
The struggle between Girondins and Montagnards was less about ultimate aims than about the relationship to popular violence and Paris. Both were republicans; both accepted the war. But the Girondins, tainted in radical eyes by their sponsorship of a war that had gone wrong and by their squeamishness over the September Massacres, sought to resist the pressure of the capital and the sans-culottes; the Montagnards embraced that pressure as the motor of revolutionary energy. This quarrel, latent in the autumn of 1792, would become the central political drama of the Republic — and its first great test was the fate of the king.
The discovery of the king's secret correspondence — the armoire de fer, an iron chest of papers revealing his dealings with the Revolution's enemies — made a reckoning unavoidable, and Louis was tried by the Convention in December 1792.
| Issue | Girondin Position | Montagnard Position |
|---|---|---|
| Guilt | Conceded, but many wished to refer the verdict to the people in a referendum (appel au peuple) | Guilty by the fact of kingship; no appeal to the people |
| Sentence | Imprisonment, exile, or death deferred | Death without delay |
| Framing argument | Vergniaud warned against creating a royalist martyr | Saint-Just argued that monarchy was itself a crime and a king could not 'reign innocently' |
Louis was found guilty effectively unanimously; the death sentence passed by a narrow margin (387 to 334). He was executed on 21 January 1793. The regicide was a point of no return: it bound the Republic's fate to its own survival and hardened the resolve of the coalition abroad.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.