How much of France was against the Revolution?

We all know that the main royalist revolt occurred in Northwestern France: Vendee, Brittany, Anjou, Maine. But I'm interested in what other parts of France were strongly for or against the revolution, as much of the written history about the period is very Paris-centric.

For example, Marseille initially endorsed the revolution, but according to Wikipedia:

By the summer of 1793, the Vendee, Brittany, and parts of Poitou were in open rebellion. They were soon joined by the cities of Lyon, Bordeaux, Marseille, Toulon and Toulouse, where representatives from Paris were attacked and, in some cases killed. And in small towns and villages across France, resistance mounted. In Chaumont, officials affiliated with the Jacobin Club were forced from office. At Soissons and Compiegne they were run out of town by armed mobs. In other places their directives were simply ignored.

So had Marseille turned against the leadership at this point. We also have this map:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rs...es/Counter-Revolution & Revolt 1792-1795.html

I would love to categorise the different areas in France into strongly royalist, moderate and strongly Jacobin, so I could plot out alternate revolutions. All thoughts and comments are welcome.
 
The problem is it was very evolution, a region supportive of revolution could be anti two years after, or the reverse.
And you had popular resistances against ONE aspect, against the massive aspect as well resistances led by some layers or society, etc.

Also this map is really inaccurate, as it merges different years, different reasons, different resistances. To make a comparison, it would be like merging the V2 attacks with the Blitz of 1940 and zepplins attacks of WW1.

And of course, opposition to Jacobinism doesn't mean opposition to Revolution, and left wing opposition to later regies doesn't mean reject of Revolution.

So to answer clearly : It's almost impossible to say as you talk about the whole revolution, between 1789 and 1799.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the area in the Northwest was heavily royalist throughout. The area in the Southeast was initially strongly pro-revolution (or was this just the cities?), but later turned against the government when the Girondists were pushed out.

Is this correct?

What about the other patches on the map?

Thanks.
 
As I understand it, the area in the Northwest was heavily royalist throughout
Against, that's the problem I tried to show you : revolts against government, even in the name of king doesn't mean that the aera was heavily royalist, politically speaking.

You have, critically in Britanny, the mix of "we want the privileges of the province back", the opposition to conscription, a deception from the reforms (juged both too radical, and too elitists) and a classical peasant revolt against the bourgeois power. As the bourgeois power, at this time, was the French Republic, they fought against it and they were supported by actual royalist movments that took the head of this war.

Little by little, critically with the republican reaction, you have the cristallisation of a royalist revendication.

Don't forget that it's most of all a local reaction, and this one can be really different from one village to another.
. The area in the Southeast was initially strongly pro-revolution (or was this just the cities?), but later turned against the government when the Girondists were pushed out.

Again, this is too, far too simple. You have the mix of many things that add themselves to form a resistance or a revolt. The main difference here is that the so-called "Fedéralistes" is more a movment of land owners that use the miscontenment of population in order to fight the Commune of Paris that judge too radical and too much about urban bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie.

What about the other patches on the map?
As I said, they don't make any difference between the actual revolted regions, and the troubled ones.

This map have some correct things, though : the coastal borders are rather good.
 

OS fan

Banned
The revolutionaries had the capital, which meant that they had the upper hand, and the provinces could do nothing.
 
Top