When we write history we try to make a unified, simplified story of it. Something as complex as the french revolution contains many different events, some more related than not. There are always different groups, different philosophies, different goals. One city might have a series of carefully staged, interrelated events designed to topple the government. An outlying town’s peasants might hear that order is breaking down and use the opportunity to destroy the local tax collector. While each is seen as part of the Revolution it can also be seen as individual actions that get caught up in the story we tell of a unified event called the revolution.

The french revolution is much more easily seen as different events under one heading because it went through more distinct phases than some others.

Here’s a site that gives an outline of phases of the Revolution:

http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teaching/teaching%20resources/Revolutions/FrenchRev2.htm

look up what each of these stages was and how distinct or similar they were. You should put yourself in the mind of someone from each phase. Just because you feel that there should be some economic reform, say, does that mean that you envisioned or supported some of the later, far more radical phases? Would a delegate to the Estates General really have seen himself as part of the early revolution to overthrow the king? That people were participating in some of the phases doesn’t mean that they saw themselves as revolutionaries or that they would have approved at all of other events that took place.