Reading about the French revolution in 1789, none of the readily available Sources (Wikipedia history.com encyclopedia.com) mentions much resistance to the revolution by the army, even though "The kings had ruled by ... their command of the army"
One would assume that a king who rules his country like a modern dictator would, if neccesary, call the army to subdue all efforts to strip him from power.
Where does this discrepancy come from? Some explanations I could think of are:
- There were actual attempts to subdue the revolution, but as they didn't affect the outcome, they generally aren't mentioned
- Louis XVI was already desperate when he called for the national assembly; he knew he needed them to solve France's financial trouble and didn't dare to antagonize them
- After the 7 Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, with France's severe financial troubles, most of the army had already been disbanded and just wasn't in a position to put up much resistance
- The army (especially the leaders) knew about the desolate state of the country, so they wanted something to happen no matter the outcome to the king
- Many members of the army, having fought in the American Revolutionary War, had been exposed to the ideals of the Americans, secretly supported them, and because of this welcomed the revolution in France as well
Is there any research about which of these possibilities are true, and to which extend, especially the last one?