AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why the French Revolution attracted early support from many Europeans
- Identify why monarchs and conservatives came to fear revolutionary change
- Recall key events and texts including **1789**, **1790**, **1791**, **1792**, and **1793**
- Distinguish between ideological reactions and military-diplomatic reactions
- Use Britain, Austria, and Prussia as case studies of changing responses
- Explain how French expansion spread reform but also provoked resistance

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how the French Revolution affected the rest of Europe, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the French Revolution both inspired reformers and alarmed rulers across Europe
- Identify key responses by **Edmund Burke**, **Thomas Paine**, and **Mary Wollstonecraft**
- Understand the significance of the **Declaration of Pillnitz (1791)** and the **Brunswick Manifesto (1792)**
- Explain why war with Austria and Prussia helped radicalize the Revolution
- Recognise the role of **émigrés**, radical societies, and the **London Corresponding Society**
- Understand how French armies spread revolutionary ideas through **sister republics**
- Explain why early enthusiasm for **1789–1791** often changed into fear after regicide and the **Reign of Terror**

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did many Europeans welcome the French Revolution at first?
2. Why did support for the Revolution decline after **1792** and **1793**?
3. What was the significance of the **Declaration of Pillnitz**?
4. How did British reactions differ between radicals such as **Thomas Paine** and conservatives such as **Edmund Burke**?
5. What were the **sister republics**, and why did they produce mixed reactions?

## Introduction

The French Revolution was never only a French event. From **1789** onward, people across Europe watched France closely because the Revolution raised basic questions about who should rule, what rights people possessed, and whether old institutions such as monarchy, nobility, and church privilege should survive.

For AP European History, this topic matters because it connects Unit 5 to later developments in **liberalism**, **nationalism**, and **conservatism**. Examiners often want students to show change over time: early excitement about constitutional reform did not remain constant. As the Revolution moved from reform to war, regicide, and terror, European reactions became more divided and more fearful.

> **Key Term: popular sovereignty**
> The idea that political authority comes from the people rather than from divine-right monarchs or inherited privilege.

### Why the Revolution inspired reformers and liberals

In its early phase, especially from **1789** to **1791**, the French Revolution seemed to many Europeans like the practical triumph of Enlightenment ideas. The fall of the Bastille, the end of feudal privileges, and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy suggested that an old regime could be reformed or replaced by a more rational political order.

Many people outside France did not first see mob violence. They saw an attack on feudal dues, legal inequality, and arbitrary power. That distinction matters. In **1789**, the Revolution looked less like chaos and more like constitutional change. For liberals in the British Isles, the German states, and the Italian states, France appeared to show that monarchy could be limited and citizenship widened.

In Britain, this early excitement was especially strong. **William Pitt the Younger** and **Charles Fox**, though political rivals, both responded favourably at first. Their reaction shows that the Revolution was not immediately treated as a threat by all elites. It looked, for a moment, as if France might become a stable constitutional state rather than a revolutionary danger.

Writers helped spread this enthusiasm. **Thomas Paine**, in _Rights of Man_ (**1791–1792**), defended the Revolution by arguing that hereditary monarchy and aristocratic privilege had no natural justification. His argument mattered because it translated French events into a wider claim: if governments existed to protect rights, then unjust governments could be challenged.

> **Key Term: liberalism**
> A political outlook favouring individual rights, legal equality, constitutional government, and limits on arbitrary power.

**Mary Wollstonecraft** also joined this debate. In _A Vindication of the Rights of Men_ (**1790**), she defended the Revolution against conservative critics. Then in _A Vindication of the Rights of Woman_ (**1792**), she pushed the logic further. If rights were universal, why should women be excluded? This is a useful AP point because it shows that the Revolution did not just inspire support for constitutionalism. It also encouraged broader arguments about gender and equality.

The Revolution also encouraged political organisation. In Britain, reform groups such as the **London Corresponding Society** called for broader representation and political participation. This is important because it shows influence without direct revolution. Not every response was an uprising. Often the Revolution inspired petitions, clubs, pamphlets, and demands for parliamentary reform.

Elsewhere in Europe, reformers in the Italian and German states formed radical political associations of their own. The key reason is cause and effect: French events made change seem possible. Before **1789**, criticism of privilege often stayed in books and salons. After **1789**, it had a living example.

> **Test Tip:** For SAQs and LEQs, do not say “Europeans supported the Revolution.” Split the response into groups: liberals, radicals, monarchs, conservatives, and occupied peoples.

### Why the Revolution alarmed monarchs and conservatives

The same events that encouraged reformers frightened rulers. If sovereignty came from the people, then divine-right monarchy looked weak. If privilege could be abolished in France, why not elsewhere? This fear of spread, often called revolutionary contagion, shaped both political writing and foreign policy.

One of the clearest conservative reactions came from **Edmund Burke** in _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ (**1790**). Burke was not against all reform. That is a point students often miss. His argument was not “nothing should ever change.” It was that sudden destruction of inherited institutions would produce disorder, violence, and tyranny. He defended tradition, hierarchy, religion, and gradual reform.

> **Key Term: conservatism**
> A political outlook that values tradition, established institutions, hierarchy, and cautious, gradual change rather than sudden revolution.

Burke matters for two reasons. First, he became the classic critic of the Revolution. Second, later events seemed to confirm some of his warnings. Once the Revolution entered a more radical phase, conservatives could point to real evidence rather than abstract fear.

Monarchs were also alarmed by the behaviour of the king and his enemies. Louis XVI’s attempted flight to **Varennes** in **June 1791** deepened suspicion that the monarchy could not be trusted within a constitutional system. Meanwhile, thousands of nobles, clergy, and royalists fled France.

> **Key Term: émigrés**
> French nobles, clergy, and royalists who fled the Revolution and urged foreign monarchs to intervene against it.

These émigrés lobbied foreign courts to restore the old order. Their pressure helped turn the French crisis into an international one. Austria and Prussia were not reacting only to abstract principle. They were also responding to dynastic pressure, especially because **Marie Antoinette** was Austrian.

This led to the **Declaration of Pillnitz** on **27 August 1791**, issued by **Leopold II of Austria** and **Frederick William II of Prussia**. The declaration was partly symbolic and did not necessarily mean immediate war. But in France it was read as a threat. That interpretation mattered more than the cautious wording.

> **Key Term: Declaration of Pillnitz**
> A statement issued by Austria and Prussia in 1791 expressing concern for the French monarchy, interpreted in France as a threat of intervention.

Why did Pillnitz radicalize the Revolution? Because it seemed to prove that France faced enemies both outside and inside the country. If foreign monarchs were threatening intervention and the king was suspected of divided loyalties, moderates lost ground while radicals gained it. This is a classic AP cause-and-effect chain:

French reform threatens monarchs → Pillnitz raises foreign pressure → French revolutionaries fear invasion and treason → radical voices gain support.

France then declared war on Austria in **April 1792**. War transformed everything. The Revolution ceased to be only a domestic argument about constitutions. It became a struggle for national survival.

The **Brunswick Manifesto** in **1792** made this worse. The Prussian commander, the Duke of Brunswick, threatened Paris if the royal family were harmed. Instead of intimidating revolutionaries, it backfired. Many in Paris saw it as proof that Louis XVI was tied to foreign enemies. That helped produce the overthrow of the monarchy on **10 August 1792**.

> **Test Tip:** If asked why the Revolution became more radical, link foreign intervention to domestic suspicion. Pillnitz and the Brunswick Manifesto did not calm France; they intensified fear and extremism.

### Britain as a key case study: debate, fear, and repression

Britain is one of the best case studies because reactions there were open, documented, and divided. At first, many Britons welcomed the end of feudalism and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in France. But as events grew more violent, British opinion split sharply.

On one side stood supporters such as **Paine** and **Wollstonecraft**, who saw the Revolution as a defence of natural rights. On the other stood **Burke**, who saw it as the destruction of social order. This debate is high-value AP evidence because it lets you compare ideas within one state rather than between states.

The situation changed further after **1792** and especially after the execution of **Louis XVI** in **1793**. Regicide mattered far beyond France. Killing a king was not simply another political act. It attacked the principle of monarchy itself. To conservatives, this showed that revolutionary claims about liberty could end in bloodshed and dictatorship.

> **Key Term: regicide**
> The killing of a king; in this context, the execution of Louis XVI in 1793.

The **Reign of Terror** in **1793–1794** reinforced that fear. It made it easier for British authorities to portray reform movements at home as dangerous rather than patriotic. The government grew concerned that societies such as the **London Corresponding Society** might spread unrest among ordinary people.

In response, Britain turned to repression. The **Alien Act (1793)** tightened supervision of foreigners, reflecting fear that revolutionary agents might spread unrest. The **Two Acts (1795)** restricted large political meetings and expanded state power against radical speech and organisation.

This shows a useful distinction for exam answers:

- **Ideological reaction:** Burke’s critique of abstract rights and revolution
- **Political reaction:** repression of societies, meetings, and foreign radicals
- **International reaction:** war against Revolutionary France

These are related, but not identical.

Britain also demonstrates continuity and change. Early sympathy existed. Later alarm dominated. That shift is exactly the sort of argument AP examiners reward.

### French expansion, sister republics, and the mixed European response

French victories after **1792** spread the Revolution beyond France. Armies entered the Austrian Netherlands, the Rhineland, and parts of Italy and Switzerland. Wherever they went, they carried slogans of liberty, equality, and fraternity, along with institutional change.

One result was the creation of **sister republics**.

> **Key Term: sister republics**
> Republics established in territories conquered by France and modelled on revolutionary French institutions.

Important examples include the **Batavian Republic** in the Netherlands (**1795**), the **Cisalpine Republic** in northern Italy (**1797**), and the **Helvetic Republic** in Switzerland (**1798**). These states spread anti-feudal reforms, more centralized administration, and the language of citizenship.

Why did some people welcome them? Because French rule could abolish old privileges, weaken nobles, reduce feudal burdens, and promote legal equality for men. Reformers often saw French armies as the carriers of modern politics.

But this is only half the story. French troops also occupied territory, demanded taxes, imposed conscription, and placed local institutions under French control. That meant liberation could look a lot like domination. The same army that destroyed feudal privilege could also seize grain and draft men.

This double effect is one of the most important distinctions in the topic. Revolutionary France inspired Europeans, but it also behaved like a conquering power. In the short term, some welcomed reform. In the longer term, many began to resist French control. That resistance later fed nationalism, especially in the German and Italian states and in Spain under Napoleon.

So when explaining the Revolution’s effects, avoid one-sided claims. It did spread liberty and citizenship language. It also provoked conservative reaction, military coalitions, and anti-French feeling.

> **Test Tip:** In essays, use the phrase “double-edged effect” or equivalent reasoning: French rule spread reform but also produced resentment through occupation, taxation, and conscription.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The French Revolution both inspired reformers and alarmed rulers across Europe
- Early reactions from **1789–1791** were often positive because the Revolution seemed to support constitutionalism and equality before the law
- **Thomas Paine** defended the Revolution in _Rights of Man_
- **Mary Wollstonecraft** supported the attack on privilege and extended rights arguments to women
- **Edmund Burke** criticised the Revolution in _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ (**1790**) and helped define conservatism
- **Émigrés** urged foreign rulers to intervene against revolutionary France
- The **Declaration of Pillnitz (1791)** increased French fear of foreign intervention and helped radicalize politics
- The **Brunswick Manifesto (1792)** backfired and deepened suspicion of the king
- War from **1792**, the fall of the monarchy, regicide, and the **Reign of Terror** made many Europeans more hostile to the Revolution
- In Britain, reform societies such as the **London Corresponding Society** showed revolutionary influence, but the state responded with repression
- French armies created **sister republics** such as the Batavian, Cisalpine, and Helvetic republics
- French expansion spread reform but also created resentment because revolutionary armies often acted as occupiers rather than liberators

## Key Terms and Concepts

- popular sovereignty
- liberalism
- conservatism
- émigrés
- Declaration of Pillnitz
- regicide
- sister republics


The French Revolution’s Effects - Revolution inspired and alarmed Europeans