Actually, I think even a cursory look at history would tell a different story. Probably because nation-states are a more recent development you have a larger definition of "total war", but in the era before the nation-state war was generally winner take all. There is a reason we have a definition for the word "sack" that includes the plundering, looting and destruction of a city. Take a quick google of "Carthage" for a better understanding of what the norm in conflicts was prior to the current era. The Romans leveled the city to the ground, took 50,000 survivors into slavery and generally raped pillaged and plundered their way through the etire city/state. They even took the extraordinary step of sewing salt into the fields so nothing would grow there. This is over 2,000 years ago - so no, I don't think you can point to the French revolution as a sea change in the style of warfare. In fact, as you go back farther in time and get to smaller and smaller civil aggregations you would see a greater percentage of the populace involved in armed conflict, and a greater likelihood that they would be involved in armed conflict in their lifetimes. I think the distiction between military and civilian populations is a more recent development.