Historians have been trying to answer that question for 200 years. I think an interesting way to answer your question would be to take a quick run through the major developments in the historiography of the French Revolution so we can see how the answers to your question changed over time. It’s important to note that most of the following history (at least most from the late 19th century onwards) is based on solid historical evidence, not just a whimsical interpretation. Most of these ideas are based on a massive amount of research, which the author would use to answer the classic question, “what’s the deal with the French Revolution?” When historians say, “no, you’re wrong,” they don’t just do it by sticking their tongue out. Major changes in the historiography are backed up by a lot of quality research that supports their new point.

The first wave of analysis was contemporary, with writers commenting on events as they were happening, or shortly thereafter. The Liberal interpretation was popularized by Thomas Paine, who also wrote a good deal during the American Revolution. Paine argued that the French were radically sweeping aside the unjust systems of the past and replacing them with systems based in individual liberty. On the other side of the isle, Englishman Edmund Burke argued the Conservative view that the French Revolution was a misguided attempt at change for the better. He felt that meaningful, effective change came from gradual, minor changes, not sudden radical ones. He felt government was best when it was rooted in the tried and tested traditions of the past.

As a fun aside, the Abbe Augustin Barruel offered up an, um, alternative explanation, to put it nicely. Affectionately dubbed “The Father of Modern Conspiracy Theory,” Barruel argued that the whole revolution was a big ol’ conspiracy, organized by Freemasons, philosophers, and, uh, (checks notes), the Bavarian illuminati. He claimed that they all came together to form the Jacobin party, which tried to force their extremist views on an unsuspecting and unwilling French nation. As wild as this sounds, this approach to the French Revolution persisted well into the 20th century, although more with far-right conspiracy theorists than with mainstream historians.

Major interpretations from the rest of the 19th century are rooted in either the Liberal or Conservative approaches. Both sides assumed that the revolution was mostly about liberty, rights, and ideal forms of government. Both sides argued over with each other and with themselves about whether the revolution had gone too far or if it hadn’t gone far enough in pursuing these goals. In other words, were they right and could they have been even right-er?

In the early 20th century, Marxist historiography took hold. Marxists argued that the revolution wasn’t really about liberty or rights at all, rather it was really about class conflicts. Aristocrats, royalists, bourgeois, and peasants – all in conflict with each other trying to get their share of the power. The general overarching consensus held that a growing capitalist class saw an opportunity to rise up and overthrow the dying, inept aristocracy, with the peasants trying to poke their heads in every now and again. Georges Lefebvre is the classic example of a Marxist or socialist French historian. It’s worth noting here that even if you don’t agree with the broader historical assessment these authors make, it doesn’t mean that the underlying facts they use are wrong. Lefebvre did incredible research on the lives and opinions of the average French peasant, and took a broader “history from below” approach that was both totally original for its time, and still today stands as some of the best history to be done on the lower classes during the French Revolution. He’s my go-to if I ever feel I’m missing a part of the picture from historians that stick too close to the big names and higher-level happenings of the revolution.

In the second half of the 20th century, the name of the game has been to gang up on the Marxists. Plenty of new answers to the classic “what is this all about” question were floating about, but most historians answered the question by explaining first and foremost why the Marxists were full of it. Alfred Cobban was one of the first to enter the opposition, and he concluded that classes played a minor role at best, that feudalism was basically already dead, and the French Revolution was really just a political revolution.

As we get closer and closer to the present, historians become more and more reluctant to even try to answer your question. They feel that the question itself is too big to be answered by a single overarching grand theory, and that any answer that tries to explain everything will end up being too subjective to be a useful way of thinking about the French Revolution. François Furet wrote not only rebuttals to the Marxist approach, but also on why this kind of overly-big picture thinking is a silly way to go about history in the first place. Recent historians have tried to avoid the greater debate entirely, focusing more on smaller events and why they happened instead of trying to put the entire revolution into an ideological box. Timothy Tackett has written on the psychology and paranoia of the Committee of Public safety, and Lynn Hunt has written extensively on the role of women and the history of feminism during the revolution. Others avoid the debate like the plague by writing longer general histories that stick closely to the “what” and stay away from the bigger “whys.” Simon Schama and to a lesser extent William Doyle have taken this approach. Others still would rather look at the French Revolution from the trendy and fashionable Global History perspective, and focus on how the French Revolution was influenced by other world events and trans-national trends, and how in turn the French Revolution influenced more than just France and Europe.

I don’t want to answer your question by saying, “that’s a silly question,” because it’s not. It is very hard to objectively answer at such a birds-eye-view level, though. Each approach I mentioned tries to answer it in a different way, using different sources to back it up. There are plenty of answers out there, or none, depending on which camp you buy into. But a lot of the modern history being done relishes the chaos rather than trying to make sense of it. Slavery, feminism, democracy, monarchy, warfare, economics, public religion – so many things went from 0 to 100 during the revolution, and then ended up somewhere in-between. I think you’ll find much more satisfying answers by asking narrower questions.