Outside France despotism is in its death throes and a prompt attack will
precipitate
its final agony.
Revolution and War_nodrm
P.
Dutton, 1969), 553?
8; Rose, Life of Pitt, 1:577-81; and Clapham, "Pitt's First Decade," 198-200.
46 The decree was incorporated in the Constitution of 1791, and the comte de Mirabeau de- clared that "the moment is not far off when liberty will acquit mankind of the crime of war. " Quoted in Gunther E. Rothenburg, "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon," in The Origins and Prevention ofMajor Wars, ed. Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 2o6; and see Stewart, Documentary Survey, 260.
[6o]
? ? The French Revolu tion
posed a radical threat to the existing order. Until 1791, in short, the revolu- tion in France simply did not appear that dangerous. 47
Foreign reactions were further muted by the unpopularity of the emigres and the obviously self-serving nature of their testimony. Although the emi- gres were greeted warmly by some rulers (and were subsidized by Cather- ine the Great), their extravagance and vanity won them few friends in foreign courts and made them something of a nuisance in their adopted places of residence. 48 Moreover, the French royal family usually opposed their efforts, fearing that a restoration conducted under the auspices of the emigres would weaken royal authority even more than the Assembly had. 49 Louis repeatedly rejected the emigres' suggestions that he flee, preferring to make his own arrangements, and Louis explicitly warned Leopold not to support the emigres (which the Austrian ruler was loath to do in any case). Contacts with emigre agents did reinforce Prussian revisionism (though Frederick William hardly needed encouragement), but England and Austria remained largely immune from their blandishments. 5? During the Nootka Sound dispute, for example, the British ambassador in Paris, Lord Gower, wrote that "the aristocratical party has little to hope from peace and shews evident signs of wishing to profit by the confusion which a war would cer- tainly occasion. " During the summer, the discovery that counterrevolution- ary groups were trying to provoke a war between England and France by blaming the revolution on English interference led Pitt to send two agents to
France to reassure the Assembly of England's pacific intentions and con- vince it not to support Spain. 51 Thus, the royalists' efforts to sound the alarm generally feB flat at this stage.
Last but by no means least, the revolution in France received modest at- tention because the great powers were preoccupied by more pressing prob- lems elsewhere. Russia was at war with Turkey and Sweden and faced a direct challenge from the Poles, while Prussia was backing the Polish rebels
47 See Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:196--97; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 76-78; Clapham, Causes ofthe Warof1792, 19-21; and Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 7J.
48 On the activities of the emigres and foreign responses to them, see Blanning, French Rev- olution in Germany, 52-53, 6o-61; Biro, German Policy, 1:42-45; Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:187-88; and Massimo Boffa, "Emigres," in Furet and Ozouf, Critical Dictionary, 326-28.
49 Rivalry between the crown and the nobility predated the revolution. The comtes d'Ar- tois and Provence sought to limit royal authority and preserve noble and provincial privi- leges. See Albert Goodwin, "Calonne, the Assembly of French Notables of 1787 and the Origins of the Revolte Nobiliaire," English Historical Review 61, nos. 24o-41 (1946).
50 See Lord, Second Partition ofPoland, 159; and also J. Holland Rose, "The Comte d'Artois and Pitt in December 1789,'' English Historical Review 30, no. 118 (1915).
51 Pitt's instructions convey his desire to remain aloof: "In the present circumstances the ut- most care is necessary to use no language which can lead to an expectation of our taking mea- sures to forward the internal views of any political party. " Quoted in Mitchell, Underground War, 17-18.
[61]
? ? Revolution and War
and concocting its own schemes for aggrandizement. Austria's army was bogged down against the Turks, unrest at home was spreading, the Nether- lands were in open revolt, and Prussia's restless revisionism remained a se- rious concern. England and Spain were at loggerheads for most of 1790, and Pitt was more concerned about the balance of power in the East than the col- lapse of England's rival across the Channel. Spain, Sweden, and the Rhen- ish princes were genuinely alarmed by the revolution but were too weak to act alone. Although events in France were of great interest, other problems still took precedence.
This analysis suggests that the wars between France and the rest of Eu- rope did not arise from irreconcilable ideological antipathies. Foreign pow- ers took note of the revolution, some with misgivings, but they did not regard it as an immediate threat on either military or ideological grounds. 52
By contrast, the revolutionary forces in France were already worried about a counterrevolutionary conspiracy between the emigres, the papacy, and various foreign monarchs. Their suspicions were partly justified, as both Louis and the emigres had been seeking foreign assistance since the end of 1790. These efforts were largely unsuccessful, however, and relations between the emigres and the king remained strained and suspicious. In short, genuine fears of an "aristocratic plot" helped drive the revolution in increasingly radical directions, but the alleged conspiracy was a chimera at this point. The stage was set for a spiral into war, partly intended and partly inadvertent.
The Causes ofthe War of1792
Relations between France and the rest of Europe deteriorated dramati- cally in 1791. An underlying cause was the end of the war with Turkey, which allowed Austria and Russia to shift their attention back to European affairs. Another contributing factor was the reform movement in Poland, which helped bring Austria and Prussia together and increased Catherine's desire to regain control in Warsaw. The three main causes of war in 1792, however, were the dynastic ambitions of the other great powers (especially Prussia}, the struggle for power within France, and a series of regrettable miscalculations on both sides. The ideology of the revolution intensified! mutual perceptions of threat and reinforced the belief that the enemy could! be defeated quickly and painlessly. As we shall see, these beliefs turned out to be either erroneous or self-defeating and led to nearly a quarter century of war.
First we turn to Prussia's territorial ambitions? Despite the favorable op- portunities created by the revolution in France, the revolt in Poland, and the
? ? 52 Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 12o-23 and passim.
(62]
? The French Revolution
outbreak of war in the East, Prussia had failed to gain a single inch of terri- tory. When his plans to attack Austria were thwarted, Frederick William re- versed course and sought an alliance with Leopold in order to pursue territorial gains at Russian, Polish, or French expense. In September 1 790, a Prussian envoy proposed that Austria and Prussia act together to restore Louis to the throne, in exchange for territorial compensations in Flanders, Alsace, and Germany. Leopold rejected Prussia's entreaties at this time, and Frederick William turned to other equally unsuccessful schemes. 53 Un- daunted by past failures, he repeated his offer for an alliance with Austria in June 1791, and Leopold was now more receptive. The Austrian monarch had become concerned about the fate of the royal family in France and wanted to convince the Assembly to halt its campaign against them. Leopold was also aware of the royal family's plans to escape, and he in- tended to organize an armed demonstration on the French border in order
to convince the Assembly to adopt a more moderate policy. This plan crum- bled when the royal escape miscarried, but Leopold still believed that for- eign threats would have a moderating effect on the Assembly. 54
Leopold's change of heart led to the signing of a formal convention be- tween Austria and Prussia in July 1791. The convention committed the two states to aid each other in the event of internal rebellion, to support a free constitution in Poland, and to promote a European concert to regulate in- ternal developments in France. But despite its outward appearance, the con- vention was not intended to be the first step toward a counterrevolutionary invasion. Instead, Leopold regarded it as a means of limiting Russian influ- ence in Poland and moderating great power rivalries, and his objectives in France were still quite limited. The emperor aimed neither to start a war nor to undermine the National Assembly; he merely sought to strengthen the moderates and protect the royal family. 55 Frederick William wanted land, not counterrevolution, and he was willing to intervene in France in order to obtain territorial compensations rather than to defend monarchical institu-
53 Frederick Willliam backed an Anglo-Dutch-Prussian effort to force Russia to both restore the status quo ante with the Ottoman Empire and give up its predominant position in Poland, but the ploy failed when Catherine stood firm and the English Parliament refused to support the policy. On this incident {known as the Ochakov affair), see John Ehrman, The Younger Pitt, vol. 2: The Reluctant Transition {Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1g83), chap. 1.
54 Leopold and his sister corresponded regularly during this period. The queen's pleas heightened his concern over events in France but did not convince him to support a counter- revolutionary invasion. Von Amath, Marie Antoinette, Joseph II, and Leopold II, 143-47, 156-69, I81-82, 188-g3, 20D-203, 24Q-41.
5 5 Leopold supported the Constitution o f 1791, and the Austrian chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, told the Prussian ambassador, "If Louis XVI can come to an agreement with the National As- sembly about the constitution, there must be no war. " When Louis accepted the constitution in September, Leopold declared that the need for a European concert had evaporated. See Heinrich von Sybel, History ofthe French Revolution, trans. Walter C. Perry {London: J. Murray, 1867), 1:362, 368; and Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, go.
? ? Revolution and War
tions. Although both monarchs used counterrevolutionary rhetoric to justify their actions, neither saw their rapprochement as the beginning of a coun- terrevolutionary crusade. 56
Given these reservations, Leopold's efforts to pressure the Assembly were quite circumspect. He had already invited the other European powers to form a union to defend the French monarchy in July, but despite some stem language, the so-called Padua Circular was a symbolic gesture that did not commit him in any way. Meeting in Pillnitz at the end of the month (with the emigre comte d'Artois in attendance as well), Leopold and Frederick William issued a declaration calling for a European concert against the rev- olution. Like the Padua Circular, the Declaration of Pillnitz was purely sym- bolic, and joint action remained conditional on unanimous participation by the other powers. England was firmly committed to neutrality, however, which rendered the threat to intervene meaningless. This subtlety was lost on the deputies in the Assembly, in part because the Declaration implied that the emigres and the foreign monarchs were in close collaboration. 57
Leopold's attempt to encourage moderation seemed to work perfectly afr first. The threat of foreign intervention strengthened the Feuillants' position in the Assembly and facilitated their efforts to preserve the king's position, while Louis' decision to accept the new constitution seemed to eliminate the need for intervention from abroad. With the Feuillants in control of the As- sembly and the key ministries, the risk of war appeared to be fading by the fall of 1791. 58 Unfortunately, domestic politics in France now erupted and soon drove Europe over the brink.
The second major cause of war was the struggle for power in France and the Girondin campaign for war. The Feuillants' decision to preserve the
56 Leopold did tell the Prussian ambassador, "the Jacobins are stirring up revolts through- out the whole of Italy. It is necessary to root out the evil at once. " He offered no specific pro- posal for doing so, however, and warned, "We must proceed with extreme caution, and allow matters to come to such a pass that the nation itself will feel the necessity of a change in its condition. " Most importantly, he emphasized that intervention would have to be conducted by a general concert of all the European powers, which he knew to be a remote possibility. Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:351-52.
57 The declaration stated that the two monarchs "trust that the [European] powers . . . will (employ] the most effective means for enabling the King of France to consolidate . . . the foun- dations of a monarchical government. . . . In which case [alors et dans ce cas] their said Majesties . . . are resolved to act promptly . . . with the forces necessary. " And as Leopold as- sured his chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, "Alors et dans ce cas is for me the Law and the Prophets- if England fails us, the case I have put is nonexistent. " In referring to the monarchs having received "requests and representations of M. le Comte d'Artois," the declaration also con- tributed to French fears of an aristocratic conspiracy. See Stewart, Documentary Survey, 221-26; Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 77-79; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 88; Ross, European Diplomatic History, 36-39; Goodwin, "Reform and Revolution in France," 693-96; Schroeder, Transformation of European Politics, 89-90.
58 The Feuillants obtained 264 seats in the first elections, the Jacobins received 136, and over 350 were uncommitted. See Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:213; and Sutherland, France, 132.
? ? The French Revolu tion
monarchy after the flight to Varennes and their suppression of popular forces at the Champs de Mars had further polarized internal politics in France, and the Austro-Prussian rapprochement, the exodus of emigres, the Padua Circular, and the Declaration of Pillnitz all combined to reinforce the fear that an aristocratic conspiracy was bent on crushing the revolution.
To counter these dangers and strengthen their own influence in the As- sembly, a faction of the Jacobin movement known as the Girondins began to advocate war in the fall of 1791. Led by a former journalist, Jean-Pierre Bris- sot de Warville, the Girondins believed that war would either expose the king's disloyalty or force him to break ranks with the emigres once and for all. In eithe1r case, the danger of counterrevolution would be reduced and the Girondins' own positions enhanced. The Girondins also feared the con- sequences of another popular uprising and thought a successful war would consolidate the nation and bring the revolutionary process to an end. 59
The Girondin recipe for war contained several volatile ingredients. Hs centerpiece was the familiar assertion that France faced a vast counterrevo- lutionary conspiracy linking the royal family, the emigres, the dissident clergy, and several foreign powers. 6? France's opponents were portrayed as irrevocably hostile, implying that war was inevitable and France must seize the initiative. As Brissot told the Assembly in October, "It is not merely nec- essary to think of defense, the [counterrevolutionary] attack must be antici- pated; you yourselves must attack. "61 The loyalty of the king was repeatedly questioned, and defenders of the monarchy now risked being labeled ene- mies of the revolution. The Girondins persuaded the Assembly to decree the death penalty for counterrevolutionaries and to issue an ultimatum de-
manding that several neighboring rulers expel the emigres from their terri- tories. These measures were intended to reduce the direct threat of counterrevolution and force the king to reveal his true loyalties. 62 Louis ve-
59 The Girondins (so named because many came from the department of Gironde) were known to contemporaries as "Brissotins," in reference to Brissot de Warville. See M. J. Syden- ham, The Girondins (London: Athlone Press, 1961 ); Alison Patrick, The Men of the First French Republic: Political Alignments in the French Convention of 1792 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press, 1972); and "Girondins" in Jones, Longman Companion, 176-18o.
60 Brissot's first speech on foreign affairs raised the specter of a vast conspiracy against the revolution, and he accused the king of "secret schemes" in December. See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 99-100; Clapham, Origins ofthe Warof1792, 135; Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1989), 592-93; and F. L. Kidner, "The Girondists and the 'Propaganda War' of 1792: A Reevaluation of French Revolutionary For- eign Policy from 1791 to 1793," (Ph. D diss. , Princeton University, 1971), 7<>-74?
61 Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 27, 115, 135. On the central place of "plots" in the mindset of the revolution, see Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, 55-'JO.
62 As Brissot told the Jacobin Club in December 1791, "The accepted leader of the nation will be forced to rule in accordance with the Constitution. If he does his duty, we will support him wholeheartedly. If he betrays us-the people will be ready. " Quoted in Sydenham, Girondins, 104.
? ? Revolution and War
toed the antiemigre decrees on November 12, but he also endorsed an ulti- matum demanding that the elector of Trier disperse the emigre armies the following month, and the Girondins' attempt to provoke a confrontation backfired when the elector promptly agreed to the French demands. The king's popularity soared, and the danger of war temporarily receded.
In addition, the Girondins argued that a successful war would rally pub- lic opinion behind the Assembly and undermine the counterrevolutionary forces within France. As Brissot told the Jacobin Club in December 1791: "A people which has just won its liberty after ten centuries of slavery needs a war in order te bring about its consolidation. " They also claimed that war would permit more active efforts to suppress internal opponents, because "in time of war, measures can be taken that would appear too stern in time of peace. "63
The Girondin orators also successfully stirred the emotions of the deputies by repeatedly invoking French glory and national honor. In his ini- tial speech, Brissot began by reciting a list of alleged offenses committed by foreign powers and told the delegates, "You must avenge your glory, or con- demn yourselves to eternal dishonor. " His associate Maximin Isnard pro- claimed, "The French people have become the foremost people of the universe. As slaves, they were bold and great; are they to be feeble and timid now that they are free? " Brissot addressed the same theme in a speech at the Jacobin Club in December: "Louis XIV could declare war on Spain be- cause his ambassador had been insulted . . . are we who are free, should we for a moment hesitate? " Another Girondin, Jean Baptiste Mailhe, pro- claimed that the French nation would "disappear from the face of the earth rather than violate her oath. " That oath, Brissot reminded the delegates, was a simple one: "The Constitution or death! "64
These invocations of patriotism and national pride led to a final theme: that the war would be easy and a glorious victory inevitable. Echoing the optimistic predictions of the foreign representatives in Paris, the Girondins claimed that foreign peoples would rise up to overthrow the despots who sought to suppress liberty. "In the face of our brave patriots," predicted one speaker, "the allied armies will fade away like the shades of night in the face of the rays of the sun. " The German exile Anacharsis Cloots told the As- sembly, "The German and Bohemian peasants will resume their war against their . . . seigneurs; the Dutch and the Germans, the Italians and the Scandi-
63 Brissotalsoargued,"Waratsuchatimeasthiswouldbeablessingtothenation,andthe only calamity that we should fear is that there will not be a war," and he maintained that "we need spectacular treason cases; the people are ready! " Another Girondin suggested that France "designate the place for traitors beforehand, and let it be the scaffold! " Quoted in Soboul,FrenchRevolution,236-37;Clapham, CausesoftheWarof1792,135-36;andLefebvre, French Revolution, 1:219.
64 Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 100-101, 112.
[66]
? The French Revolu tion
navians, will shake off and shatter their chains with fury. " Brissot described the war as "a crusade for universal liberty," and Isnard proclaimed, "If the cabinets try to raise up against France a war of kings, we shall raise up a war of peoples against kings. . . . At the moment that the enemy armies begin to fight with ours, the daylight of philosophy will open their eyes and the peo- ples will embrace each other in the face of their dethroned tyrants and an
approving heaven and earth. "65
If world revolution was imminent and lacked only the French spark to ig- nite it, then the war would be swift and would bring enormous benefits. As Mailhe reminded the Assembly: "Humanity will doubtless suffer, when one considers that in decreeing war you are also decreeing the death of several thousand men; but consider also that you are perhaps decreeing the liberty of the entire world. . . .
Outside France despotism is in its death throes and a prompt attack will precipitate its final agony. "66
This extraordinary optimism also rested on an inflated sense of France's military capabilities and an unwarranted disregard for its opponents. Claiming that free peoples would fight more fiercely than the mercenary armies of the old regime, one of the deputies suggested that "Louis XIV with 40o,ooo slaves, knew how to defy all the powers of Europe; can we, with our millions of free men, fear them? " Another asked, "What is the [French] army? " and provided his own answer: "It is the entire population. " Yet another declared that "if the French people once draws the sword, it will fling the scabbard far away. Inflamed by the fire of freedom, it can . . . sin- glehanded change the whole face of the earth and make the tyrants tremble on their thrones of clay. " Brissot argued that "every advantage is now on our side, for every Frenchmen is a soldier, and a willing soldier at that! Where is the power on earth . . . who could hope to master six million free soldiers? " This confidence was reinforced by misleading reports from the minister of war, who believed that a short war would rally the nation around the constitution and presented the Assembly with an overly rosy picture of the nation's readiness for war. 67
The Girondins also argued that the diplomatic environment was unusu- ally favorable. They predicted that Sweden, Russia, and England would re-
65 The president of the Assembly, Henri Gregoire, declared that "if the princes of Germany continue to favor preparations against the French, the French will not carry fire and the sword to them, they will carry liberty. It is up to them to calculate the possible consequences of an awakening of nations. " Another Girondin predicted, "If the Revolution has already marked 1789 as the first year of French liberty, the date of the xst of January 1792 will mark this as the first year of universal liberty. " Quotations from Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 109-10; Kidner, "Girondists and the 'Propaganda War,' " 77; and Schama, Citizens, 594, 597?
66 Quoted in Blanning, French Revolution in Germany, 63.
67 See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, xoB-109; Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:385. For evidenceofFrance'slackofreadiness,seeLefebvre, FrenchRevolution, 1:229;butseealsoScott, Response ofthe Royal Army, esp. 161? 2; and Bertaud, Army ofthe French Revolution, 49-74?
? ? Revolution and War
main neutral, while Prussia would abandon Austria and ally with France. Here was logic at its most contradictory: on the one hand, war was neces- sary because France was threatened by a vast aristocratic conspiracy; on the other harid, victory was certain because a key member of the opposing coalition was actually a French ally!
In short, the Girondins' campaign for war was inspired primarily by their desire to undermine the Feuillants and the king and to stave off the coun- terrevolution they believed was imminent. Brissot and company may not have believed all of their own arguments, of course, and their position was neither internally consistent nor supported by a careful survey of the avail- able evidence. 68 The key point, however, is that these arguments touched a sympathetic chord within the Assembly and helped convince the deputies to take an increasingly bellicose position toward the emigres, the Austrians, and the king. By portraying France's foes as implacably hostile, by linking them with the king, emigres, and internal opposition, and by persuading the Assembly that the campaign would be short, cheap, and glorious, the Girondins cast war as an ideal solution to the present turmoil.
Momentum for war increased after the Girondins' opponents also con- cluded that it would advance their own political fortunes. By the fall of 1791, for example, Lafayette was convinced that a short, victorious war would rally popular support behind the new constitution and establish the king's authority. Hence, his followers supported the Girondin campaign for war, but for their own reasons. 69 Ironically, Louis XVI also decided to sup- port a war at this point, because he believed that France was unprepared and a rapid defeat would undermine the Assembly's authority and permit him to negotiate his own restoration? 0 By January, therefore, a number of the contenders for power were in favor of war, each convinced that it would strengthen his own position and weaken his internal rivals.
The Girondins' efforts were aided by the fact that some of their arguments were partly true. The king's acceptance of the constitution was insincere, and although there existed no antirevolutionary "aristocratic plot," the royal fam-
68 The contradictions in the Girondins' position are noted by Kidner, who concludes that they did not seriously expect to spread revolution. See "Girondists and the 'Propaganda War,' " 84, 91-<)2 and passim.
69 SeeAlbertMathiez,TheFrenchRevolution,trans. CatherineAlisonPhillips(NewYork:Al- fred A. Knopf, 1928), 139-40; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 99-100; and Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:217-18.
70 Louis told an advisor, "The physical and moral state of France is such that it is impossi- ble for her to carry on [this war] for half a campaign, but it is necessary that I should appear to enter upon it whole-heartedly . . . . My course of action should be such that the nation may find its only resource in its troubles in throwing itself in to my arms. " The queen shared this view, arguing that "the fools" in the Assembly "do not see that [threatening the Electors] is a service to us, for if we begin [to fight them], it will be necessary . . . for all the powers to in- tervene. " Quoted in Mathiez, French Revolution, 14o-42.
[68]
? ? The French Revolution
ily had been in contact with various counterrevolutionary groups and did hope to reverse the revolution at an opportune moment. 71 The hostility of the emigres was not a fabrication either, even if the actual threat they posed was minimal. And, while there was no European concert against the revolution, Prussia and AustJria had made hostile gestures at Pillnitz, and Sweden, Rus- sia, and Spain had expressed even greater antipathy to the new order in France. Finally, the ease with which the revolts in Holland and Belgium had been suppressed in 1787 and 1790 gave the deputies in the Assembly a rea- sonable basis for fearing that they might suffer a similar fate. Although the Girondins tailored their arguments to suit their political goals, their assertions gained credibility because there was considerable evidence to support them.
In addition to the roles of Prussian ambition and internal French devel- opments, the decision for war was encouraged by a series of misperceptions and miscalculations between France and its main adversaries that intensi- fied perceptions of hostility and strengthened the prowar factions on both sides. The first error arose from Leopold's belief that the Padua Circular and the Declaration of Pillnitz had strengthened the Feuillants and convinced the Assembly to moderate its policies. Unaware that the Feuillants' earlier ascendancy had had little to do with his threats or that conditions within France were changing rapidly, Leopold failed to recognize that further at- tempts to intimidate the the Assembly would have very different effects.
As we have seen, the Girondins' first attempt to provoke a confrontation in November 1791 had backfired when Louis demanded the dispersal of the emigre armies and the German electors complied. Unfortunately, Leopold now chose this moment to try to repeat his actions of the previous August. As head of the Holy Roman Empire, he sent a formal protest regarding the usurping of the imperial princes' feudal rights in Alsace on December 3 and approved the Imperial Diet's resolution on this issue. On December 21, the Austrian chancellor, Prince Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz, informed the As- sembly that Austria would defend the elector of Trier if he were threatened, bluntly warning that armed action by France would lead to "inevitable con- sequences not only from the head and members of the Holy Roman Empire but also from the other sovereigns who have united in a concert for the main- tenance of public order and for the security and honour of monarchs. "72
Despite the insulting tone of the Austrian demarche, Leopold and Kau- nitz did not want war, and the emperor advised the electors to accept the French demands. 73 Instead, their threats were intended to strengthen the
71 See Kidner, "Girondists and the 'Propaganda War,' " 119-22.
72 Quoted in Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 102; and see also Clapham, Causes of the Warof1792, 132-33.
73 See Alfred von Vivenot and H. Zeissberg, eds. , Quellen zur Geschichte derDeutschen Kaiser- politik Osterreichs wiihrend der Franzosichen Revolutionskriege, 179D-1801 (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumiiller, 1873-<)0), 1:304, 316.
? ? ? Revolution and War
moderates and to force the Assembly to tum to the king. The Austrians did not know that the Feuillants were no longer in control, however, and Kau- nitz's note merely aroused French suspicions and further undermined the moderates. On January 25, 1792, the Assembly voted to issue a counterulti- matum demanding that Leopold renounce any agreements or treaties di- rected against France. Louis promptly vetoed the motion, reminding the deputies tlhat the Constitution of 1791 gave him primary responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy and pointing out that he had already re- quested assurances of Leopold's peaceful intentions? 4
Louis's opposition stymied the Girondins temporarily, but momentum for war was restored when Austria tried yet again to intimidate the Assem- bly. The Austrian Council of State had already decided on January 17 to re- activate the "European concert" and demand that France disband its forces on the border, restore the German princes' feudal rights, renew Louis's tra- ditional privileges and freedoms, return Avignon to the papacy, and confirm its adherence to all existing treaties. Still convinced that their campaign of intimidation was working (an illusion sustained by a conciliatory message from French foreign minister Antoine Delessart), Austria now sought to transform the convention with Prussia into a formal military alliance, and! Kaunitz dispatched another caustic note to Paris on February 17. 75 Yet even these steps were not intended to lead to war, as Leopold and Kaunitz still believed an armed demonstration with Prussia would be sufficient to strengthen the forces of moderation and restore the position of the king. 76
Frederick William and his ministers welcomed the proposal for an ali? Hance, and a formal treaty was signed on February 7? The Austrians stm hoped to avoid war (although acquisitive ambitions were beginning to emerge in Vienna as well), but Prussia's leaders saw the situation primarily as an opportunity to expand. Their zeal was further increased by thei. r awareness of Russia's designs on Poland, which created the alluring possi- bility that Prussia might receive several Polish territories it had long coveted as compensation for its efforts in France. 77
74 See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 105; Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 145-48; Kidner, "Girondins and the 'Propaganda War,' " 95-102.
75 Delessart had tried to satisfy the Assembly's demands without provoking Austria to war, but his measured reply unwittingly reinforced the Austrians' faith in their minatory diplo- macy. See Clapham, Causes of the War of 1 792, 1 54-55, 164-66; Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:426-27; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, u6; and Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:224.
76 See Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 89, 95--97; and also Vivenot and Zeiss? berg, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserpolitik, 1:323-41, esp. 327-30.
77 According to Robert Lord, "From the first moment when the enterprise against France appeared possible, Frederick William's dominant aim-the first and last word of his policy- was territorial aggrandizement. " Second Partition ofPoland, 2JD-3J See also Blanning, French R e v o l u t i o n a r y Wa r s , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ; V o n S y b e l , F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n , 2 : 6 - 1 1 , 2 2 ; a n d C l a p h a m , C a u s e s of t h e W a r of 1 7 9 2 , 1 5 6 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 .
? ? The French Revolution
Prussia's desire for action was based on the same sort of optimistic beliefs that the Girondins had promulgated so effectively within France. Influenced by the testimony of emigre and royal agents (who portrayed the new regime as unpopular and vulnerable) and by the successful suppression of earlier revolts in Holland and Belgium, the Prussians assumed that the campaign would be short and easy. The belief that the revolution had sapped French
strength was widespread, in part because the exodus of the emigres had robbed the army of many of its officers. Catherine the Great believed that "a corps of 10,000 men would be sufficient to traverse [France] from one end to the other," while a Prussian diplomat reported that "France is without dis- ciplined armies, without experienced generals, without money, and the highest degree of anarchy reigns in all departments. " Similarly, one of Fred- erick William's chief advisors predicted, "The. comedy will not last long. The army of lawyers will be annihilated in Belgium and we shall be home by the autumn. '178 Austria's leaders assumed that the threat of invasion would quiet the Assembly as it had the previous summer, although a few officials were beginning to favor ambitious schemes of their own. Thus, if the Girondins envisioned war as a triumphant crusade for liberty, their op- ponents believed it either would be avoided entirely or would lead to a swift and lucrative victory.
As T. C. W. Blanning writes, "with all three combatants believing their side to be invincible and their opponents on the verge of collapse, the scene was set for the final lurch into war. ''79 The Austrian note of February 17 pro- voked an uproar in the Assembly and led to Delessart's impeachment. The remaining Feuillant ministers resigned, and Louis reluctantly appointed a new cabinet containing several Girondins. For foreign minister he chose Charles-Fran\ois Dumouriez, an ambitious general who believed that the Austrian Netlherlands were ripe for revolt and hoped to establish his own rule there following a successful invasion. 80
Dumouriez began by attempting to isolate the Austrians, whowere cop- ing with Leopold's unexpected death on March 1 . He obtained assurances of neutrality fmm England, Holland, Spain, and Switzerland, but his efforts to sever Prussia and the German states from Vienna failed completely. His first message to Austria (on March 19) was mild, but a second note nine
78 QuotedinCraneBrinton,ADecadeofRevolution:1789-1799(NewYork:HarperandRow, 1934), 84; and Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 1 15-16.
79 Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 1 15-16.
80 DumourieztoldtheCouncilofMinistersonMarch22,"Allthese[Belgian]provincesare permeated by the spirit of liberty and shaken by recent revolution. . . . They will join forces with our troops and will easily drive the dispersed hordes of Austrian mercenaries from their towns. " Quoted in Patricia Chastain Howe, "Charles-Fran,. ois Dumouriez and the Revolu- tionizing of French Foreign Affairs in 1792," French Historical Studies 4, no. 3 (1985-86), 386-87; and see also Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:224; and Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 177-78.
? ? ? ? Revolution and War
days later demanded that Austria renounce the concert against France or face "the sternest measures. " Dumouriez had already warned the Assem- bly's Diplomatic Committee that Austrian reinforcements were transform- ing Belgium and Liege into a "formidable military state. " He now argued
. that a preemptive strike was preferable to letting France's enemies complete their preparations. A harsh Austrian reply to Dumouriez's first message brought fresh denunciations within the Assembly, and Austrian agents in France now reported that war was imminent. 81
On April 2o, Dumouriez presented to the Assembly a formal report listing France's motives for war. Louis bowed to the inevitable and asked the As- sembly for a formal declaration of war against "the king of Austria and Hungary. " Although several prominent Jacobins (notably Maximilien Ro- bespierre) opposed the decision, the motion passed with only seven dis- senting votes. 82 Austria and Prussia had already begun mobilizing their forces, and the first shots were to be fired by the end of the month. 83
The origins of the war of 1792 support several of my hypotheses about the relationship between revolution and war. First, the war was not simply the result of ideological antipathies between the old-regime monarchies of Aus- tria and Prussia and the new regime in France. France was still officially a monarchy when the war broke out, and Frederick William of Prussia had been willing to negotiate an alliance with France in 1790. Dumouriez sought a similar arrangement in 1792 and explored the possibility of an alliance with England as well. Even more significantly, the French decided to invite the duke of Brunswick to command the French armies; his reputation as a commander was clearly more important to the Assembly than his status within the ancien regime. 84 These events suggest that internal differences
81 On Dumouriez's efforts to shake the Austro-Prussian alliance, see Sorel, L'Europe et Ia revolutionfranfaise, 2:352-56; and Howe, "Dumouriez and French Foreign Affairs," 385-87.
82 Robespierre had opposed war since November, arguing with remarkable foresight that it would either restore the monarchy or usher in a military dictatorship. He ridiculed the uni- versalist pretensions of the Cirondins, arguing that "no one likes an armed missionary, and no more extravagant idea ever sprang from the idea of a politician than to suppose that one people has on1ly to enter another's territory with arms in its hands to make the latter adopt its Constitution. " See J. M. Thompson, Robespierre (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 202-209; Georges Michon, Robespierre et Ia guerre rivolutionnaire (Paris: Marcel Riviere, 1937), 51-55; and Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:395-<)6. An equally prophetic warning was given by Henri Becquet, a deputy from Haute-Marne; see Thompson, French Revolution, 261.
83 The Austrians deployed fifty thousand men to the frontiers on April 12, eight days before the formal declaration of war by the French Assembly. Frederick William ordered his own army to mobilize for war on April 24, but Prussia did not declare war for several months.
84 The duke of Brunswick had won renown as a general in the Seven Years War and was considered a reformer within his own domains. Ironically, he was eventually appointed com- mander of the Austro-Prussian armies, and he led the initial invasion of France. See Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1 :397-98; and Biro, German Policy, 1 :56-57.
? ? ? The French Revolution
were less significant than Girondin rhetoric implied; similarly, while foreign monarchs were concerned about the long-term impact of events in France, neither Prussia nor Austria went to war to defend the monarchical principle.
Second, although the impact of the revolution on the balance of power played a role in causing the war, the importance of this factor should not be overstated. Perceptions of French weakness fueled Prussian acquisitiveness and encouraged the belief that victory would be swift, but Prussia would not have gone to war on its own, and the decline of French power also en- couraged other states to concentrate on more pressing issues. England re- mained neutral, Russia and Austria concerned themselves with events in the East, and even Frederick William preferred to gain territory from Poland than from France. French weakness made these gambits seem feasible, but the war did not arise solely (or even primarily) from the desire to exploit France's difficulties.
Third, several significant misperceptions, which both exacerbated and were reinforced by the ideology of the revolutionary movement and the in- ternal struggle for power in France, clearly contributed to the outbreak of the war. The revolution had fostered a profound sense of insecurity within France, culminating in the belief that the king, the emigres, the clergy, and several foreign monarchs were conspiring to restore the ancien regime. This fear helped the Girondins persuade the Assembly that a foreign war was unavoidable and that it would help preserve the revolution. Their argu- ments rested on erroneous beliefs about the influence of the emigres and the hostility of Austria and Prussia, resulting from their misreading of the Aus- tro-Prussian rapprochement, the Padua Circular, and the Declaration of Pill- nitz. Austria's clumsy attempts to browbeat the Assembly merely reinforced these tendencies and facilitated the Girondins' efforts.
Interestingly, the revolution did not provoke a similar degree of insecurity in Austria or Prussia, whose responses were not driven by a strong sense of French bellicosity. 85 Leopold and Frederick William were worried about the spread of revolutionary ideas and by aspects of French behavior, but neither went to war for that reason. Rather, Frederick William's decisions reflected his perennial desire to expand (bolstered by the testimony of certain emi- gres), while Austria was forced into war by the French response to their ear- lier threats and its own latent expansionism. 86 The fear of contagion was
85 That the sense of threat was limited may have been partly due to the modest scope of the changes within France. Although royal authority had been sharply curtailed and the position of the king was still precarious, the Constitution of 1791 not only retained the monarchy but gave the king a substantial role.
86 Kaunitz seems to have discounted the danger of revolutionary subversion prior to the war, writing in November 1791, "The alleged danger of the possible effects that the bad ex- ample of the French could have on other peoples is nothing but a wild-eyed panic, a chimera contradicted by the facts. " Quoted in Vivenot and Zeissberg, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiser- politik, 1:286.
[73]
? Revolution and War
more prevalent in Spain, Sweden, Russia, and the smaller German states, but leaders there were not actively involved in the initial decisions for war. In partial contrast to the predictions set forth in chapter 2, therefore, the spi- ral of suspicion that led to the war of 1792 was essentially one-sided.
Fourth, the revolution had obvious and important effects on perceptions of the offense-defense balance, such that the use of force appeared more at- tractive. This factor was most evident in the Girondin campaign for war, which rested! on the claims that Europe was ripe for revolt, foreign merce- naries would be no match for "free" soldiers, and France would win a quick and costless victory. France's opponents evinced equal optimism, based on the widespread assumption that the revolution had left France in no condi- tion to fight. These perceptions were at least partly influenced by self-serv- ing testimony from the emigres or the revolutionary exiles in Paris, which helps explain why their forecasts were so inaccurate.
Finally, lack of information was an important contributing factor. Because they were unfamiliar with the subtleties of old-regime diplomacy, the deputies faHed to realize that Leopold's warnings were largely empty ges- tures. Similarly, because they had no reliable information about the rapid shifts in French domestic politics, Leopold and Kaunitz could not know that their efforts to browbeat the Assembly into a more moderate stance were having the opposite effect. The dearth of information played a key role in driving the spiral to war, therefore, as Austria's actions unintentionally con- firmed French fears and fortified the extremists.
With some qualifications, therefore, the war of 1792 illustrates many of the mechanisms that link revolution and war. The upheaval in France caused a destabilizing shift in the balance of power, an exaggerated percep- tion of hostility, an internal struggle for power in which foreign policy was a potent political issue, and visions of a mutual offensive advantage that in- flated both sides' confidence that they could improve their positions through war.
THE WAR OF THE FIRST CoALITION
When war broke out in April 1792, the combatants anticipated a short war and did not expect it to spread. Although the French proclaimed that they would wage a "war against kings," they delayed the declaration of war against Prussia, in an attempt to isolate Austria, and proceeded to launch a traditional limited war against the Austrian Netherlands. Austrian and Prussian war aims were unfocused, and both powers were soon distracted by the Russian invasion of Poland in May. 87 Divisions within the allied coali-
87 See Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 102-107.
? ? ?
46 The decree was incorporated in the Constitution of 1791, and the comte de Mirabeau de- clared that "the moment is not far off when liberty will acquit mankind of the crime of war. " Quoted in Gunther E. Rothenburg, "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon," in The Origins and Prevention ofMajor Wars, ed. Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 2o6; and see Stewart, Documentary Survey, 260.
[6o]
? ? The French Revolu tion
posed a radical threat to the existing order. Until 1791, in short, the revolu- tion in France simply did not appear that dangerous. 47
Foreign reactions were further muted by the unpopularity of the emigres and the obviously self-serving nature of their testimony. Although the emi- gres were greeted warmly by some rulers (and were subsidized by Cather- ine the Great), their extravagance and vanity won them few friends in foreign courts and made them something of a nuisance in their adopted places of residence. 48 Moreover, the French royal family usually opposed their efforts, fearing that a restoration conducted under the auspices of the emigres would weaken royal authority even more than the Assembly had. 49 Louis repeatedly rejected the emigres' suggestions that he flee, preferring to make his own arrangements, and Louis explicitly warned Leopold not to support the emigres (which the Austrian ruler was loath to do in any case). Contacts with emigre agents did reinforce Prussian revisionism (though Frederick William hardly needed encouragement), but England and Austria remained largely immune from their blandishments. 5? During the Nootka Sound dispute, for example, the British ambassador in Paris, Lord Gower, wrote that "the aristocratical party has little to hope from peace and shews evident signs of wishing to profit by the confusion which a war would cer- tainly occasion. " During the summer, the discovery that counterrevolution- ary groups were trying to provoke a war between England and France by blaming the revolution on English interference led Pitt to send two agents to
France to reassure the Assembly of England's pacific intentions and con- vince it not to support Spain. 51 Thus, the royalists' efforts to sound the alarm generally feB flat at this stage.
Last but by no means least, the revolution in France received modest at- tention because the great powers were preoccupied by more pressing prob- lems elsewhere. Russia was at war with Turkey and Sweden and faced a direct challenge from the Poles, while Prussia was backing the Polish rebels
47 See Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:196--97; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 76-78; Clapham, Causes ofthe Warof1792, 19-21; and Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 7J.
48 On the activities of the emigres and foreign responses to them, see Blanning, French Rev- olution in Germany, 52-53, 6o-61; Biro, German Policy, 1:42-45; Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:187-88; and Massimo Boffa, "Emigres," in Furet and Ozouf, Critical Dictionary, 326-28.
49 Rivalry between the crown and the nobility predated the revolution. The comtes d'Ar- tois and Provence sought to limit royal authority and preserve noble and provincial privi- leges. See Albert Goodwin, "Calonne, the Assembly of French Notables of 1787 and the Origins of the Revolte Nobiliaire," English Historical Review 61, nos. 24o-41 (1946).
50 See Lord, Second Partition ofPoland, 159; and also J. Holland Rose, "The Comte d'Artois and Pitt in December 1789,'' English Historical Review 30, no. 118 (1915).
51 Pitt's instructions convey his desire to remain aloof: "In the present circumstances the ut- most care is necessary to use no language which can lead to an expectation of our taking mea- sures to forward the internal views of any political party. " Quoted in Mitchell, Underground War, 17-18.
[61]
? ? Revolution and War
and concocting its own schemes for aggrandizement. Austria's army was bogged down against the Turks, unrest at home was spreading, the Nether- lands were in open revolt, and Prussia's restless revisionism remained a se- rious concern. England and Spain were at loggerheads for most of 1790, and Pitt was more concerned about the balance of power in the East than the col- lapse of England's rival across the Channel. Spain, Sweden, and the Rhen- ish princes were genuinely alarmed by the revolution but were too weak to act alone. Although events in France were of great interest, other problems still took precedence.
This analysis suggests that the wars between France and the rest of Eu- rope did not arise from irreconcilable ideological antipathies. Foreign pow- ers took note of the revolution, some with misgivings, but they did not regard it as an immediate threat on either military or ideological grounds. 52
By contrast, the revolutionary forces in France were already worried about a counterrevolutionary conspiracy between the emigres, the papacy, and various foreign monarchs. Their suspicions were partly justified, as both Louis and the emigres had been seeking foreign assistance since the end of 1790. These efforts were largely unsuccessful, however, and relations between the emigres and the king remained strained and suspicious. In short, genuine fears of an "aristocratic plot" helped drive the revolution in increasingly radical directions, but the alleged conspiracy was a chimera at this point. The stage was set for a spiral into war, partly intended and partly inadvertent.
The Causes ofthe War of1792
Relations between France and the rest of Europe deteriorated dramati- cally in 1791. An underlying cause was the end of the war with Turkey, which allowed Austria and Russia to shift their attention back to European affairs. Another contributing factor was the reform movement in Poland, which helped bring Austria and Prussia together and increased Catherine's desire to regain control in Warsaw. The three main causes of war in 1792, however, were the dynastic ambitions of the other great powers (especially Prussia}, the struggle for power within France, and a series of regrettable miscalculations on both sides. The ideology of the revolution intensified! mutual perceptions of threat and reinforced the belief that the enemy could! be defeated quickly and painlessly. As we shall see, these beliefs turned out to be either erroneous or self-defeating and led to nearly a quarter century of war.
First we turn to Prussia's territorial ambitions? Despite the favorable op- portunities created by the revolution in France, the revolt in Poland, and the
? ? 52 Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 12o-23 and passim.
(62]
? The French Revolution
outbreak of war in the East, Prussia had failed to gain a single inch of terri- tory. When his plans to attack Austria were thwarted, Frederick William re- versed course and sought an alliance with Leopold in order to pursue territorial gains at Russian, Polish, or French expense. In September 1 790, a Prussian envoy proposed that Austria and Prussia act together to restore Louis to the throne, in exchange for territorial compensations in Flanders, Alsace, and Germany. Leopold rejected Prussia's entreaties at this time, and Frederick William turned to other equally unsuccessful schemes. 53 Un- daunted by past failures, he repeated his offer for an alliance with Austria in June 1791, and Leopold was now more receptive. The Austrian monarch had become concerned about the fate of the royal family in France and wanted to convince the Assembly to halt its campaign against them. Leopold was also aware of the royal family's plans to escape, and he in- tended to organize an armed demonstration on the French border in order
to convince the Assembly to adopt a more moderate policy. This plan crum- bled when the royal escape miscarried, but Leopold still believed that for- eign threats would have a moderating effect on the Assembly. 54
Leopold's change of heart led to the signing of a formal convention be- tween Austria and Prussia in July 1791. The convention committed the two states to aid each other in the event of internal rebellion, to support a free constitution in Poland, and to promote a European concert to regulate in- ternal developments in France. But despite its outward appearance, the con- vention was not intended to be the first step toward a counterrevolutionary invasion. Instead, Leopold regarded it as a means of limiting Russian influ- ence in Poland and moderating great power rivalries, and his objectives in France were still quite limited. The emperor aimed neither to start a war nor to undermine the National Assembly; he merely sought to strengthen the moderates and protect the royal family. 55 Frederick William wanted land, not counterrevolution, and he was willing to intervene in France in order to obtain territorial compensations rather than to defend monarchical institu-
53 Frederick Willliam backed an Anglo-Dutch-Prussian effort to force Russia to both restore the status quo ante with the Ottoman Empire and give up its predominant position in Poland, but the ploy failed when Catherine stood firm and the English Parliament refused to support the policy. On this incident {known as the Ochakov affair), see John Ehrman, The Younger Pitt, vol. 2: The Reluctant Transition {Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1g83), chap. 1.
54 Leopold and his sister corresponded regularly during this period. The queen's pleas heightened his concern over events in France but did not convince him to support a counter- revolutionary invasion. Von Amath, Marie Antoinette, Joseph II, and Leopold II, 143-47, 156-69, I81-82, 188-g3, 20D-203, 24Q-41.
5 5 Leopold supported the Constitution o f 1791, and the Austrian chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, told the Prussian ambassador, "If Louis XVI can come to an agreement with the National As- sembly about the constitution, there must be no war. " When Louis accepted the constitution in September, Leopold declared that the need for a European concert had evaporated. See Heinrich von Sybel, History ofthe French Revolution, trans. Walter C. Perry {London: J. Murray, 1867), 1:362, 368; and Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, go.
? ? Revolution and War
tions. Although both monarchs used counterrevolutionary rhetoric to justify their actions, neither saw their rapprochement as the beginning of a coun- terrevolutionary crusade. 56
Given these reservations, Leopold's efforts to pressure the Assembly were quite circumspect. He had already invited the other European powers to form a union to defend the French monarchy in July, but despite some stem language, the so-called Padua Circular was a symbolic gesture that did not commit him in any way. Meeting in Pillnitz at the end of the month (with the emigre comte d'Artois in attendance as well), Leopold and Frederick William issued a declaration calling for a European concert against the rev- olution. Like the Padua Circular, the Declaration of Pillnitz was purely sym- bolic, and joint action remained conditional on unanimous participation by the other powers. England was firmly committed to neutrality, however, which rendered the threat to intervene meaningless. This subtlety was lost on the deputies in the Assembly, in part because the Declaration implied that the emigres and the foreign monarchs were in close collaboration. 57
Leopold's attempt to encourage moderation seemed to work perfectly afr first. The threat of foreign intervention strengthened the Feuillants' position in the Assembly and facilitated their efforts to preserve the king's position, while Louis' decision to accept the new constitution seemed to eliminate the need for intervention from abroad. With the Feuillants in control of the As- sembly and the key ministries, the risk of war appeared to be fading by the fall of 1791. 58 Unfortunately, domestic politics in France now erupted and soon drove Europe over the brink.
The second major cause of war was the struggle for power in France and the Girondin campaign for war. The Feuillants' decision to preserve the
56 Leopold did tell the Prussian ambassador, "the Jacobins are stirring up revolts through- out the whole of Italy. It is necessary to root out the evil at once. " He offered no specific pro- posal for doing so, however, and warned, "We must proceed with extreme caution, and allow matters to come to such a pass that the nation itself will feel the necessity of a change in its condition. " Most importantly, he emphasized that intervention would have to be conducted by a general concert of all the European powers, which he knew to be a remote possibility. Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:351-52.
57 The declaration stated that the two monarchs "trust that the [European] powers . . . will (employ] the most effective means for enabling the King of France to consolidate . . . the foun- dations of a monarchical government. . . . In which case [alors et dans ce cas] their said Majesties . . . are resolved to act promptly . . . with the forces necessary. " And as Leopold as- sured his chancellor, Prince Kaunitz, "Alors et dans ce cas is for me the Law and the Prophets- if England fails us, the case I have put is nonexistent. " In referring to the monarchs having received "requests and representations of M. le Comte d'Artois," the declaration also con- tributed to French fears of an aristocratic conspiracy. See Stewart, Documentary Survey, 221-26; Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 77-79; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 88; Ross, European Diplomatic History, 36-39; Goodwin, "Reform and Revolution in France," 693-96; Schroeder, Transformation of European Politics, 89-90.
58 The Feuillants obtained 264 seats in the first elections, the Jacobins received 136, and over 350 were uncommitted. See Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:213; and Sutherland, France, 132.
? ? The French Revolu tion
monarchy after the flight to Varennes and their suppression of popular forces at the Champs de Mars had further polarized internal politics in France, and the Austro-Prussian rapprochement, the exodus of emigres, the Padua Circular, and the Declaration of Pillnitz all combined to reinforce the fear that an aristocratic conspiracy was bent on crushing the revolution.
To counter these dangers and strengthen their own influence in the As- sembly, a faction of the Jacobin movement known as the Girondins began to advocate war in the fall of 1791. Led by a former journalist, Jean-Pierre Bris- sot de Warville, the Girondins believed that war would either expose the king's disloyalty or force him to break ranks with the emigres once and for all. In eithe1r case, the danger of counterrevolution would be reduced and the Girondins' own positions enhanced. The Girondins also feared the con- sequences of another popular uprising and thought a successful war would consolidate the nation and bring the revolutionary process to an end. 59
The Girondin recipe for war contained several volatile ingredients. Hs centerpiece was the familiar assertion that France faced a vast counterrevo- lutionary conspiracy linking the royal family, the emigres, the dissident clergy, and several foreign powers. 6? France's opponents were portrayed as irrevocably hostile, implying that war was inevitable and France must seize the initiative. As Brissot told the Assembly in October, "It is not merely nec- essary to think of defense, the [counterrevolutionary] attack must be antici- pated; you yourselves must attack. "61 The loyalty of the king was repeatedly questioned, and defenders of the monarchy now risked being labeled ene- mies of the revolution. The Girondins persuaded the Assembly to decree the death penalty for counterrevolutionaries and to issue an ultimatum de-
manding that several neighboring rulers expel the emigres from their terri- tories. These measures were intended to reduce the direct threat of counterrevolution and force the king to reveal his true loyalties. 62 Louis ve-
59 The Girondins (so named because many came from the department of Gironde) were known to contemporaries as "Brissotins," in reference to Brissot de Warville. See M. J. Syden- ham, The Girondins (London: Athlone Press, 1961 ); Alison Patrick, The Men of the First French Republic: Political Alignments in the French Convention of 1792 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press, 1972); and "Girondins" in Jones, Longman Companion, 176-18o.
60 Brissot's first speech on foreign affairs raised the specter of a vast conspiracy against the revolution, and he accused the king of "secret schemes" in December. See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 99-100; Clapham, Origins ofthe Warof1792, 135; Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1989), 592-93; and F. L. Kidner, "The Girondists and the 'Propaganda War' of 1792: A Reevaluation of French Revolutionary For- eign Policy from 1791 to 1793," (Ph. D diss. , Princeton University, 1971), 7<>-74?
61 Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 27, 115, 135. On the central place of "plots" in the mindset of the revolution, see Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, 55-'JO.
62 As Brissot told the Jacobin Club in December 1791, "The accepted leader of the nation will be forced to rule in accordance with the Constitution. If he does his duty, we will support him wholeheartedly. If he betrays us-the people will be ready. " Quoted in Sydenham, Girondins, 104.
? ? Revolution and War
toed the antiemigre decrees on November 12, but he also endorsed an ulti- matum demanding that the elector of Trier disperse the emigre armies the following month, and the Girondins' attempt to provoke a confrontation backfired when the elector promptly agreed to the French demands. The king's popularity soared, and the danger of war temporarily receded.
In addition, the Girondins argued that a successful war would rally pub- lic opinion behind the Assembly and undermine the counterrevolutionary forces within France. As Brissot told the Jacobin Club in December 1791: "A people which has just won its liberty after ten centuries of slavery needs a war in order te bring about its consolidation. " They also claimed that war would permit more active efforts to suppress internal opponents, because "in time of war, measures can be taken that would appear too stern in time of peace. "63
The Girondin orators also successfully stirred the emotions of the deputies by repeatedly invoking French glory and national honor. In his ini- tial speech, Brissot began by reciting a list of alleged offenses committed by foreign powers and told the delegates, "You must avenge your glory, or con- demn yourselves to eternal dishonor. " His associate Maximin Isnard pro- claimed, "The French people have become the foremost people of the universe. As slaves, they were bold and great; are they to be feeble and timid now that they are free? " Brissot addressed the same theme in a speech at the Jacobin Club in December: "Louis XIV could declare war on Spain be- cause his ambassador had been insulted . . . are we who are free, should we for a moment hesitate? " Another Girondin, Jean Baptiste Mailhe, pro- claimed that the French nation would "disappear from the face of the earth rather than violate her oath. " That oath, Brissot reminded the delegates, was a simple one: "The Constitution or death! "64
These invocations of patriotism and national pride led to a final theme: that the war would be easy and a glorious victory inevitable. Echoing the optimistic predictions of the foreign representatives in Paris, the Girondins claimed that foreign peoples would rise up to overthrow the despots who sought to suppress liberty. "In the face of our brave patriots," predicted one speaker, "the allied armies will fade away like the shades of night in the face of the rays of the sun. " The German exile Anacharsis Cloots told the As- sembly, "The German and Bohemian peasants will resume their war against their . . . seigneurs; the Dutch and the Germans, the Italians and the Scandi-
63 Brissotalsoargued,"Waratsuchatimeasthiswouldbeablessingtothenation,andthe only calamity that we should fear is that there will not be a war," and he maintained that "we need spectacular treason cases; the people are ready! " Another Girondin suggested that France "designate the place for traitors beforehand, and let it be the scaffold! " Quoted in Soboul,FrenchRevolution,236-37;Clapham, CausesoftheWarof1792,135-36;andLefebvre, French Revolution, 1:219.
64 Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 100-101, 112.
[66]
? The French Revolu tion
navians, will shake off and shatter their chains with fury. " Brissot described the war as "a crusade for universal liberty," and Isnard proclaimed, "If the cabinets try to raise up against France a war of kings, we shall raise up a war of peoples against kings. . . . At the moment that the enemy armies begin to fight with ours, the daylight of philosophy will open their eyes and the peo- ples will embrace each other in the face of their dethroned tyrants and an
approving heaven and earth. "65
If world revolution was imminent and lacked only the French spark to ig- nite it, then the war would be swift and would bring enormous benefits. As Mailhe reminded the Assembly: "Humanity will doubtless suffer, when one considers that in decreeing war you are also decreeing the death of several thousand men; but consider also that you are perhaps decreeing the liberty of the entire world. . . .
Outside France despotism is in its death throes and a prompt attack will precipitate its final agony. "66
This extraordinary optimism also rested on an inflated sense of France's military capabilities and an unwarranted disregard for its opponents. Claiming that free peoples would fight more fiercely than the mercenary armies of the old regime, one of the deputies suggested that "Louis XIV with 40o,ooo slaves, knew how to defy all the powers of Europe; can we, with our millions of free men, fear them? " Another asked, "What is the [French] army? " and provided his own answer: "It is the entire population. " Yet another declared that "if the French people once draws the sword, it will fling the scabbard far away. Inflamed by the fire of freedom, it can . . . sin- glehanded change the whole face of the earth and make the tyrants tremble on their thrones of clay. " Brissot argued that "every advantage is now on our side, for every Frenchmen is a soldier, and a willing soldier at that! Where is the power on earth . . . who could hope to master six million free soldiers? " This confidence was reinforced by misleading reports from the minister of war, who believed that a short war would rally the nation around the constitution and presented the Assembly with an overly rosy picture of the nation's readiness for war. 67
The Girondins also argued that the diplomatic environment was unusu- ally favorable. They predicted that Sweden, Russia, and England would re-
65 The president of the Assembly, Henri Gregoire, declared that "if the princes of Germany continue to favor preparations against the French, the French will not carry fire and the sword to them, they will carry liberty. It is up to them to calculate the possible consequences of an awakening of nations. " Another Girondin predicted, "If the Revolution has already marked 1789 as the first year of French liberty, the date of the xst of January 1792 will mark this as the first year of universal liberty. " Quotations from Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 109-10; Kidner, "Girondists and the 'Propaganda War,' " 77; and Schama, Citizens, 594, 597?
66 Quoted in Blanning, French Revolution in Germany, 63.
67 See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, xoB-109; Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:385. For evidenceofFrance'slackofreadiness,seeLefebvre, FrenchRevolution, 1:229;butseealsoScott, Response ofthe Royal Army, esp. 161? 2; and Bertaud, Army ofthe French Revolution, 49-74?
? ? Revolution and War
main neutral, while Prussia would abandon Austria and ally with France. Here was logic at its most contradictory: on the one hand, war was neces- sary because France was threatened by a vast aristocratic conspiracy; on the other harid, victory was certain because a key member of the opposing coalition was actually a French ally!
In short, the Girondins' campaign for war was inspired primarily by their desire to undermine the Feuillants and the king and to stave off the coun- terrevolution they believed was imminent. Brissot and company may not have believed all of their own arguments, of course, and their position was neither internally consistent nor supported by a careful survey of the avail- able evidence. 68 The key point, however, is that these arguments touched a sympathetic chord within the Assembly and helped convince the deputies to take an increasingly bellicose position toward the emigres, the Austrians, and the king. By portraying France's foes as implacably hostile, by linking them with the king, emigres, and internal opposition, and by persuading the Assembly that the campaign would be short, cheap, and glorious, the Girondins cast war as an ideal solution to the present turmoil.
Momentum for war increased after the Girondins' opponents also con- cluded that it would advance their own political fortunes. By the fall of 1791, for example, Lafayette was convinced that a short, victorious war would rally popular support behind the new constitution and establish the king's authority. Hence, his followers supported the Girondin campaign for war, but for their own reasons. 69 Ironically, Louis XVI also decided to sup- port a war at this point, because he believed that France was unprepared and a rapid defeat would undermine the Assembly's authority and permit him to negotiate his own restoration? 0 By January, therefore, a number of the contenders for power were in favor of war, each convinced that it would strengthen his own position and weaken his internal rivals.
The Girondins' efforts were aided by the fact that some of their arguments were partly true. The king's acceptance of the constitution was insincere, and although there existed no antirevolutionary "aristocratic plot," the royal fam-
68 The contradictions in the Girondins' position are noted by Kidner, who concludes that they did not seriously expect to spread revolution. See "Girondists and the 'Propaganda War,' " 84, 91-<)2 and passim.
69 SeeAlbertMathiez,TheFrenchRevolution,trans. CatherineAlisonPhillips(NewYork:Al- fred A. Knopf, 1928), 139-40; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 99-100; and Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:217-18.
70 Louis told an advisor, "The physical and moral state of France is such that it is impossi- ble for her to carry on [this war] for half a campaign, but it is necessary that I should appear to enter upon it whole-heartedly . . . . My course of action should be such that the nation may find its only resource in its troubles in throwing itself in to my arms. " The queen shared this view, arguing that "the fools" in the Assembly "do not see that [threatening the Electors] is a service to us, for if we begin [to fight them], it will be necessary . . . for all the powers to in- tervene. " Quoted in Mathiez, French Revolution, 14o-42.
[68]
? ? The French Revolution
ily had been in contact with various counterrevolutionary groups and did hope to reverse the revolution at an opportune moment. 71 The hostility of the emigres was not a fabrication either, even if the actual threat they posed was minimal. And, while there was no European concert against the revolution, Prussia and AustJria had made hostile gestures at Pillnitz, and Sweden, Rus- sia, and Spain had expressed even greater antipathy to the new order in France. Finally, the ease with which the revolts in Holland and Belgium had been suppressed in 1787 and 1790 gave the deputies in the Assembly a rea- sonable basis for fearing that they might suffer a similar fate. Although the Girondins tailored their arguments to suit their political goals, their assertions gained credibility because there was considerable evidence to support them.
In addition to the roles of Prussian ambition and internal French devel- opments, the decision for war was encouraged by a series of misperceptions and miscalculations between France and its main adversaries that intensi- fied perceptions of hostility and strengthened the prowar factions on both sides. The first error arose from Leopold's belief that the Padua Circular and the Declaration of Pillnitz had strengthened the Feuillants and convinced the Assembly to moderate its policies. Unaware that the Feuillants' earlier ascendancy had had little to do with his threats or that conditions within France were changing rapidly, Leopold failed to recognize that further at- tempts to intimidate the the Assembly would have very different effects.
As we have seen, the Girondins' first attempt to provoke a confrontation in November 1791 had backfired when Louis demanded the dispersal of the emigre armies and the German electors complied. Unfortunately, Leopold now chose this moment to try to repeat his actions of the previous August. As head of the Holy Roman Empire, he sent a formal protest regarding the usurping of the imperial princes' feudal rights in Alsace on December 3 and approved the Imperial Diet's resolution on this issue. On December 21, the Austrian chancellor, Prince Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz, informed the As- sembly that Austria would defend the elector of Trier if he were threatened, bluntly warning that armed action by France would lead to "inevitable con- sequences not only from the head and members of the Holy Roman Empire but also from the other sovereigns who have united in a concert for the main- tenance of public order and for the security and honour of monarchs. "72
Despite the insulting tone of the Austrian demarche, Leopold and Kau- nitz did not want war, and the emperor advised the electors to accept the French demands. 73 Instead, their threats were intended to strengthen the
71 See Kidner, "Girondists and the 'Propaganda War,' " 119-22.
72 Quoted in Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 102; and see also Clapham, Causes of the Warof1792, 132-33.
73 See Alfred von Vivenot and H. Zeissberg, eds. , Quellen zur Geschichte derDeutschen Kaiser- politik Osterreichs wiihrend der Franzosichen Revolutionskriege, 179D-1801 (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumiiller, 1873-<)0), 1:304, 316.
? ? ? Revolution and War
moderates and to force the Assembly to tum to the king. The Austrians did not know that the Feuillants were no longer in control, however, and Kau- nitz's note merely aroused French suspicions and further undermined the moderates. On January 25, 1792, the Assembly voted to issue a counterulti- matum demanding that Leopold renounce any agreements or treaties di- rected against France. Louis promptly vetoed the motion, reminding the deputies tlhat the Constitution of 1791 gave him primary responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy and pointing out that he had already re- quested assurances of Leopold's peaceful intentions? 4
Louis's opposition stymied the Girondins temporarily, but momentum for war was restored when Austria tried yet again to intimidate the Assem- bly. The Austrian Council of State had already decided on January 17 to re- activate the "European concert" and demand that France disband its forces on the border, restore the German princes' feudal rights, renew Louis's tra- ditional privileges and freedoms, return Avignon to the papacy, and confirm its adherence to all existing treaties. Still convinced that their campaign of intimidation was working (an illusion sustained by a conciliatory message from French foreign minister Antoine Delessart), Austria now sought to transform the convention with Prussia into a formal military alliance, and! Kaunitz dispatched another caustic note to Paris on February 17. 75 Yet even these steps were not intended to lead to war, as Leopold and Kaunitz still believed an armed demonstration with Prussia would be sufficient to strengthen the forces of moderation and restore the position of the king. 76
Frederick William and his ministers welcomed the proposal for an ali? Hance, and a formal treaty was signed on February 7? The Austrians stm hoped to avoid war (although acquisitive ambitions were beginning to emerge in Vienna as well), but Prussia's leaders saw the situation primarily as an opportunity to expand. Their zeal was further increased by thei. r awareness of Russia's designs on Poland, which created the alluring possi- bility that Prussia might receive several Polish territories it had long coveted as compensation for its efforts in France. 77
74 See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 105; Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 145-48; Kidner, "Girondins and the 'Propaganda War,' " 95-102.
75 Delessart had tried to satisfy the Assembly's demands without provoking Austria to war, but his measured reply unwittingly reinforced the Austrians' faith in their minatory diplo- macy. See Clapham, Causes of the War of 1 792, 1 54-55, 164-66; Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:426-27; Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, u6; and Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:224.
76 See Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 89, 95--97; and also Vivenot and Zeiss? berg, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserpolitik, 1:323-41, esp. 327-30.
77 According to Robert Lord, "From the first moment when the enterprise against France appeared possible, Frederick William's dominant aim-the first and last word of his policy- was territorial aggrandizement. " Second Partition ofPoland, 2JD-3J See also Blanning, French R e v o l u t i o n a r y Wa r s , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ; V o n S y b e l , F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n , 2 : 6 - 1 1 , 2 2 ; a n d C l a p h a m , C a u s e s of t h e W a r of 1 7 9 2 , 1 5 6 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 .
? ? The French Revolution
Prussia's desire for action was based on the same sort of optimistic beliefs that the Girondins had promulgated so effectively within France. Influenced by the testimony of emigre and royal agents (who portrayed the new regime as unpopular and vulnerable) and by the successful suppression of earlier revolts in Holland and Belgium, the Prussians assumed that the campaign would be short and easy. The belief that the revolution had sapped French
strength was widespread, in part because the exodus of the emigres had robbed the army of many of its officers. Catherine the Great believed that "a corps of 10,000 men would be sufficient to traverse [France] from one end to the other," while a Prussian diplomat reported that "France is without dis- ciplined armies, without experienced generals, without money, and the highest degree of anarchy reigns in all departments. " Similarly, one of Fred- erick William's chief advisors predicted, "The. comedy will not last long. The army of lawyers will be annihilated in Belgium and we shall be home by the autumn. '178 Austria's leaders assumed that the threat of invasion would quiet the Assembly as it had the previous summer, although a few officials were beginning to favor ambitious schemes of their own. Thus, if the Girondins envisioned war as a triumphant crusade for liberty, their op- ponents believed it either would be avoided entirely or would lead to a swift and lucrative victory.
As T. C. W. Blanning writes, "with all three combatants believing their side to be invincible and their opponents on the verge of collapse, the scene was set for the final lurch into war. ''79 The Austrian note of February 17 pro- voked an uproar in the Assembly and led to Delessart's impeachment. The remaining Feuillant ministers resigned, and Louis reluctantly appointed a new cabinet containing several Girondins. For foreign minister he chose Charles-Fran\ois Dumouriez, an ambitious general who believed that the Austrian Netlherlands were ripe for revolt and hoped to establish his own rule there following a successful invasion. 80
Dumouriez began by attempting to isolate the Austrians, whowere cop- ing with Leopold's unexpected death on March 1 . He obtained assurances of neutrality fmm England, Holland, Spain, and Switzerland, but his efforts to sever Prussia and the German states from Vienna failed completely. His first message to Austria (on March 19) was mild, but a second note nine
78 QuotedinCraneBrinton,ADecadeofRevolution:1789-1799(NewYork:HarperandRow, 1934), 84; and Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 1 15-16.
79 Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 1 15-16.
80 DumourieztoldtheCouncilofMinistersonMarch22,"Allthese[Belgian]provincesare permeated by the spirit of liberty and shaken by recent revolution. . . . They will join forces with our troops and will easily drive the dispersed hordes of Austrian mercenaries from their towns. " Quoted in Patricia Chastain Howe, "Charles-Fran,. ois Dumouriez and the Revolu- tionizing of French Foreign Affairs in 1792," French Historical Studies 4, no. 3 (1985-86), 386-87; and see also Lefebvre, French Revolution, 1:224; and Clapham, Causes of the War of 1792, 177-78.
? ? ? ? Revolution and War
days later demanded that Austria renounce the concert against France or face "the sternest measures. " Dumouriez had already warned the Assem- bly's Diplomatic Committee that Austrian reinforcements were transform- ing Belgium and Liege into a "formidable military state. " He now argued
. that a preemptive strike was preferable to letting France's enemies complete their preparations. A harsh Austrian reply to Dumouriez's first message brought fresh denunciations within the Assembly, and Austrian agents in France now reported that war was imminent. 81
On April 2o, Dumouriez presented to the Assembly a formal report listing France's motives for war. Louis bowed to the inevitable and asked the As- sembly for a formal declaration of war against "the king of Austria and Hungary. " Although several prominent Jacobins (notably Maximilien Ro- bespierre) opposed the decision, the motion passed with only seven dis- senting votes. 82 Austria and Prussia had already begun mobilizing their forces, and the first shots were to be fired by the end of the month. 83
The origins of the war of 1792 support several of my hypotheses about the relationship between revolution and war. First, the war was not simply the result of ideological antipathies between the old-regime monarchies of Aus- tria and Prussia and the new regime in France. France was still officially a monarchy when the war broke out, and Frederick William of Prussia had been willing to negotiate an alliance with France in 1790. Dumouriez sought a similar arrangement in 1792 and explored the possibility of an alliance with England as well. Even more significantly, the French decided to invite the duke of Brunswick to command the French armies; his reputation as a commander was clearly more important to the Assembly than his status within the ancien regime. 84 These events suggest that internal differences
81 On Dumouriez's efforts to shake the Austro-Prussian alliance, see Sorel, L'Europe et Ia revolutionfranfaise, 2:352-56; and Howe, "Dumouriez and French Foreign Affairs," 385-87.
82 Robespierre had opposed war since November, arguing with remarkable foresight that it would either restore the monarchy or usher in a military dictatorship. He ridiculed the uni- versalist pretensions of the Cirondins, arguing that "no one likes an armed missionary, and no more extravagant idea ever sprang from the idea of a politician than to suppose that one people has on1ly to enter another's territory with arms in its hands to make the latter adopt its Constitution. " See J. M. Thompson, Robespierre (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 202-209; Georges Michon, Robespierre et Ia guerre rivolutionnaire (Paris: Marcel Riviere, 1937), 51-55; and Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1:395-<)6. An equally prophetic warning was given by Henri Becquet, a deputy from Haute-Marne; see Thompson, French Revolution, 261.
83 The Austrians deployed fifty thousand men to the frontiers on April 12, eight days before the formal declaration of war by the French Assembly. Frederick William ordered his own army to mobilize for war on April 24, but Prussia did not declare war for several months.
84 The duke of Brunswick had won renown as a general in the Seven Years War and was considered a reformer within his own domains. Ironically, he was eventually appointed com- mander of the Austro-Prussian armies, and he led the initial invasion of France. See Von Sybel, French Revolution, 1 :397-98; and Biro, German Policy, 1 :56-57.
? ? ? The French Revolution
were less significant than Girondin rhetoric implied; similarly, while foreign monarchs were concerned about the long-term impact of events in France, neither Prussia nor Austria went to war to defend the monarchical principle.
Second, although the impact of the revolution on the balance of power played a role in causing the war, the importance of this factor should not be overstated. Perceptions of French weakness fueled Prussian acquisitiveness and encouraged the belief that victory would be swift, but Prussia would not have gone to war on its own, and the decline of French power also en- couraged other states to concentrate on more pressing issues. England re- mained neutral, Russia and Austria concerned themselves with events in the East, and even Frederick William preferred to gain territory from Poland than from France. French weakness made these gambits seem feasible, but the war did not arise solely (or even primarily) from the desire to exploit France's difficulties.
Third, several significant misperceptions, which both exacerbated and were reinforced by the ideology of the revolutionary movement and the in- ternal struggle for power in France, clearly contributed to the outbreak of the war. The revolution had fostered a profound sense of insecurity within France, culminating in the belief that the king, the emigres, the clergy, and several foreign monarchs were conspiring to restore the ancien regime. This fear helped the Girondins persuade the Assembly that a foreign war was unavoidable and that it would help preserve the revolution. Their argu- ments rested on erroneous beliefs about the influence of the emigres and the hostility of Austria and Prussia, resulting from their misreading of the Aus- tro-Prussian rapprochement, the Padua Circular, and the Declaration of Pill- nitz. Austria's clumsy attempts to browbeat the Assembly merely reinforced these tendencies and facilitated the Girondins' efforts.
Interestingly, the revolution did not provoke a similar degree of insecurity in Austria or Prussia, whose responses were not driven by a strong sense of French bellicosity. 85 Leopold and Frederick William were worried about the spread of revolutionary ideas and by aspects of French behavior, but neither went to war for that reason. Rather, Frederick William's decisions reflected his perennial desire to expand (bolstered by the testimony of certain emi- gres), while Austria was forced into war by the French response to their ear- lier threats and its own latent expansionism. 86 The fear of contagion was
85 That the sense of threat was limited may have been partly due to the modest scope of the changes within France. Although royal authority had been sharply curtailed and the position of the king was still precarious, the Constitution of 1791 not only retained the monarchy but gave the king a substantial role.
86 Kaunitz seems to have discounted the danger of revolutionary subversion prior to the war, writing in November 1791, "The alleged danger of the possible effects that the bad ex- ample of the French could have on other peoples is nothing but a wild-eyed panic, a chimera contradicted by the facts. " Quoted in Vivenot and Zeissberg, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiser- politik, 1:286.
[73]
? Revolution and War
more prevalent in Spain, Sweden, Russia, and the smaller German states, but leaders there were not actively involved in the initial decisions for war. In partial contrast to the predictions set forth in chapter 2, therefore, the spi- ral of suspicion that led to the war of 1792 was essentially one-sided.
Fourth, the revolution had obvious and important effects on perceptions of the offense-defense balance, such that the use of force appeared more at- tractive. This factor was most evident in the Girondin campaign for war, which rested! on the claims that Europe was ripe for revolt, foreign merce- naries would be no match for "free" soldiers, and France would win a quick and costless victory. France's opponents evinced equal optimism, based on the widespread assumption that the revolution had left France in no condi- tion to fight. These perceptions were at least partly influenced by self-serv- ing testimony from the emigres or the revolutionary exiles in Paris, which helps explain why their forecasts were so inaccurate.
Finally, lack of information was an important contributing factor. Because they were unfamiliar with the subtleties of old-regime diplomacy, the deputies faHed to realize that Leopold's warnings were largely empty ges- tures. Similarly, because they had no reliable information about the rapid shifts in French domestic politics, Leopold and Kaunitz could not know that their efforts to browbeat the Assembly into a more moderate stance were having the opposite effect. The dearth of information played a key role in driving the spiral to war, therefore, as Austria's actions unintentionally con- firmed French fears and fortified the extremists.
With some qualifications, therefore, the war of 1792 illustrates many of the mechanisms that link revolution and war. The upheaval in France caused a destabilizing shift in the balance of power, an exaggerated percep- tion of hostility, an internal struggle for power in which foreign policy was a potent political issue, and visions of a mutual offensive advantage that in- flated both sides' confidence that they could improve their positions through war.
THE WAR OF THE FIRST CoALITION
When war broke out in April 1792, the combatants anticipated a short war and did not expect it to spread. Although the French proclaimed that they would wage a "war against kings," they delayed the declaration of war against Prussia, in an attempt to isolate Austria, and proceeded to launch a traditional limited war against the Austrian Netherlands. Austrian and Prussian war aims were unfocused, and both powers were soon distracted by the Russian invasion of Poland in May. 87 Divisions within the allied coali-
87 See Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 102-107.
? ? ?
