Were the Revolutions inevitable Post-Enlightenment?

Simple enough question that I have to answer for history class. Thing is, this delves into alternate history and I've got class tomorrow. I really should have asked at least two days ago, but that's water under the bridge. By the way, I am referring to both the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the subsequent revolutions which displaced the Monarchical Old-Order
 
I wouldn't say they were inevitable. Additionally, the American Revolution was hardly about displacing the "Monarchical Old-Order". It was after all a rebellion against the authority and actions of Parliament. More broadly I would say that the French and American revolutions were against the specific actions of the respective regimes and not against the regime itself. I'm not sure which other revolutions you're talking about. If it's the 1848 ones then those were due to nationalism more than enlightenment.
 
yes and no. Enlightened ideals were doomed to spread but competant leade whom initiate proper reforms could have averyed violent reforms
 
I'd say no. Did the enlightenment help spread the ideas of freedom and equality? Yes. But was it a "genie out of the bottle" situation? No. Besides, look at the nations where were directly effect by Enlightenment ideas (Enlightened Absolutism). Spain, Russia, Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Prussia ex, ex. Of the Enlightened Nations, only France had any real revolutionary risings, and even then that was mainly from the countries crippling debt and bad harvests. The rest of the Enlightened Nations, like Russia and Prussia, were able to become Reactionary states after the French Revolution fairly easily. So again I'd say no to the Enlightenment making Revolutions inevitable.
 
I'd say no. Did the enlightenment help spread the ideas of freedom and equality? Yes. But was it a "genie out of the bottle" situation? No. Besides, look at the nations where were directly effect by Enlightenment ideas (Enlightened Absolutism). Spain, Russia, Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Prussia ex, ex. Of the Enlightened Nations, only France had any real revolutionary risings, and even then that was mainly from the countries crippling debt and bad harvests.

I completely disagree with this. Just because it didn't happen at the end of the 18th Century, doesn't mean it didn't happen. All of these countries were wracked by popular convulsion for the next century or two. The Juntas in Spain used their popular support to set up the constitution of 1812, and the Civil War in the 1930s was a continued fight for different strands of ideologies that emerged from the Enlightenment. Russia had various forms of socialists uprising in the revolutions in the early 20th Century. Portugal had the liberal wars in 1820s and 1830s. Austria was multi-ethnic, so the Enlightenment ideas came out in terms of nationalism, which resulted in things like the dual monarchy and the spark that caused the First World War. Similar nationalist sentiments caused popular uprisings in Poland and the German states. Then, of course, we have the Latin American movements, which certainly count. In fact, I would argue the decolonisation movements from India onwards, and the Arab Spring today are part of the same process.

I think the Enlightenment will make popular discontent inevitable, and increasingly so as literacy spreads. There was simply always going to be a chasm between how the ancien regimes worked and how people feel governments ought to work once the "God has ordained it this way" argument falls by the wayside. In any one country, governments can address these emerging concerns by adjusting, but it seems highly unlikely that you can get a clean sweep of governments giving away their powers as needed. This is particularly so as governments of this era tended to have their heads in the sand about the need for change. Even those that did reform often only did so after the shock of neighbours' revolutions, so the pressure will simply build up until the first one happens. And then other potential revolutionaries will see what can be achieved.

I do think, however, that such revolutionary activity can be delayed. If the first one happens somewhere other than France, or if France keeps the revolution within her own borders, it may delay the thing by 30-40 years.
 
I think the Enlightenment will make popular discontent inevitable, and increasingly so as literacy spreads. There was simply always going to be a chasm between how the ancien regimes worked and how people feel governments ought to work once the "God has ordained it this way" argument falls by the wayside. In any one country, governments can address these emerging concerns by adjusting, but it seems highly unlikely that you can get a clean sweep of governments giving away their powers as needed. This is particularly so as governments of this era tended to have their heads in the sand about the need for change. Even those that did reform often only did so after the shock of neighbours' revolutions, so the pressure will simply build up until the first one happens. And then other potential revolutionaries will see what can be achieved.

This.

While it might have been possible for the ancient regime governments to adjust without even going fully republican/democratic, it would have required a lot of adjustment - which brings us to the underlined part.

It would have taken extraordinarily effective leadership to render that possible, and even the kind of reforms we're talking about within a monarchist context would still have to be a consequence of the Enlightenment and the understanding of government and the world on more rational lines as opposed to the mere weight of tradition and religion.

But I think that if the question is, are they inevitably going to succeed? That answer is no.

It wouldn't be easy to do what was done in 1848 - bloodily put them down - but it wouldn't be impossible.
 
Top