One of the great enduring debates among historians is the question: “Is history deterministic?”. That is, are the great historical events and eras the inevitable conclusion of long-running grand trends and forces? Or simply the result of many chaotic dice rolls? Put another way, was the start of world war one caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, or by the complex alliance system in pre-war Europe?

Whatever the answer to this question when it comes to the rest of history, revolutions feel distinct in this regard. That is, revolutions are so alluring because they feel particularly chaotic.  For one moment in history, the power structures holding a nation in place are lifted. The result is incredibly fast change: more changes occur in a year during a revolution than during a century of gradual reform within existing institutions. And while we might accept gradual change to be inevitable, rapid change feels chaotic.

Yet it is worth examining where this belief comes from. Are revolutions especially chaotic, or do they just feel that way? We can trace the causes of any revolution to grand trends and forces as easily as we can for any historical event. And the outcome of a revolution is rarely especially surprising once it starts. But in order to start a revolution, the participants have to buy into the idea that this is a moment where anything is possible, when a normally invulnerable regime can be overturned. And they have to successfully convince others of this idea. What if our human fascination with revolutions is just the result of us falling for their propaganda?