Was the Terror of 1793/4 inherent from the revolutions outset or was it the product of exceptional circumstance?
In this essay I shall try to find whether the Terror was inherent from the French revolutions outset or was it the product of exceptional circumstances. The French revolution is the dividing line between the Ancien Regime and the modern world. After France the hierarchy that societies of the time had been founded on began to change and they began to sweep away the intricate political structures of absolute monarchy, but however to achieve this was the Terror absolutely necessary? And was it planned/ or was it just the extraordinary circumstances, which the French had lead themselves into once they had deposed of Louis the sixteenth. Whatever way it is looked at, the political ideology of the rest of the world was going to change after the French revolution. The conflicting ideology's of the French revolution from socialism to nationalism would now be mainstream words and spearhead many political parties in years to come. The French revolution had been in high hopes that a peaceful transition could be made from absolutist to parliamentary monarchy, but what went wrong? Surely the terror could not have been in their minds at this time? Surely it was not inherent from the start.
By 1791 their had been a constitutional monarchy with the revolutions mission complete, now major changes would have to be made to ensure that the country benefited from this change, but this would be hard, the church had already been abolished and its funds taken to resolve the spiralling debt problems. A lot of groups had been set up to fight the revolutionary committee including the Monarchiens and the Noirs. The main opposition came from ...
... middle of paper ...
...Robespierre now had complete supremacy to endorse their full-on terror.
On the 5th of September the sans-culottes entered the convention and declared "terror the order of the day" with conscription and centralisation the Jacobin/sans-culottes allegiance spearheads the way for the terror. Its main leaders were Robespierre, Saint Just and Carnot. They purge thousands upon thousands including over 200,000 in the defeat of the vendee rebellion. Surely this is not what the revolutionaries had set out to do from the beginning, Kill their own people in order for democracy. The terror can only be said to be a product of exceptional circumstances. It was surely unlucky and it changed political ideology ever since with the terror now becoming a style of government, can this be seen as the first modern times form of a dictatorship? Surely the ends justified the means?
The horrendous acts of the Jacobin leaders during the Reign of Terror led to many unfortunate deads and crimes. Robespierre was a power hungry tyrant, he was unforgiving. He killed Louis and thousands of others because he had become paranoid. His proposal of Republic of Virtue left the people hungry and angry. He also tried to protect the revolution but the plan backfired. All together, these horrible acts prove that the tyrants were extremely power hungry and blood
“Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy; those who had anything united in common terror.” The French Revolution was a painful era that molded the lives of every citizen living in France and changed their ways of life forever. Beginning in 1789 and lasting ten years until 1799, the people of France lived in a monarch society under King Louis XVI’s rule. He was a very harsh ruler and had many restrictions placed on his people. They eventually overthrow him and become a monarch society. Among his deceptive ways, the people also experienced “The Reign of Terror,” which was a period where many lives were taken by the guillotine. Other revolutionary events included rebellions, constitutions, and groups. One of the popular groups that contributed greatly to the French Revolution were the Jacobins who were led by Maximilien Robespierre.
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country.
France experienced a great change in 1793, When the radical Jacobins became in power. The country was in havoc, and a Reign of Terror developed by local revolutionary committees. Because of this, thousands of people were killed by guillotine or other methods. The Terror was successful in executing the counter-revolutionaries of the French Revolution to no longer conspire against the radicals and reformers, and The Reign of Terror also united France as a nation under a new government, making the era of terror justifiable for themselves. Unfavorably, The Terror led to persecution of the people of France, as many people who were in various ways undeserving of capital punishment were killed.
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
Do the actions ever justify the end result? The Reign of Terror, the revolution lead by Maximilien Robespierre, began on January 21, 1793 when King Louis XVI and his wife were guillotined due to the way they had led the government into a financial crisis and as a result when Robespierre took over with his radical new government 20,000-40,000 people were brutally executed. So was this radical period in France really necessary or was it just mass killings with little progress. The Reign of terror was not justified because of the threats against the revolution, the methods used by the revolution were not justified, and the ideals of the revolution were not justified.
In 1789, the French people began to stand up to their current monarchical government in order to obtain rights and laws that they felt they deserved. The Reign of Terror followed after the Revolution and seemed to stand for the complete opposite of what the people had previously stood up for. The Reign of Terror began in 1793 and ended in 1794 due to the decapitation of Maximilien Robespierre. The Reign of Terror can be explained as a time period in France when many counter revolutionaries were killed because of their traditional beliefs. Counter revolutionaries believed in preserving the ways of the monarchy, but since the majority of people thought otherwise, these opposing beliefs led to death. The French government did not have good reason to conduct such drastic measures against those who challenged the Revolution.
new state religion, effectively stripping the Catholic Church of its respective sphere of influence over the populace. But was Robespierre’s rebellion just? The effects of his domineering influence produced a period widely known as nothing less than a terror. Power can turn you into something you don’t want to be. Was this the case with Robespierre? Opinions on this matter widely vary. What is certain, however, is that rebellion will always have its price.
Kreis, Steven. "Lecture 12: The French Revolution - Moderate Stage, 1789-1792." The History Guide -- Main. 13 May 2004. Web. 03 Nov. 2011. .
A rather ominous name for the unaware; “The Reign of Terror”. An oblivious person could completely bypass the horrifying events related to the French Revolution, had it been named differently. The title for these events is appropriate from my perspective. Those four words could easily interest a curious, ordinary person, and so the history can survive, along with the information transferring to yet another carrier. Of course, everyone can benefit from knowing a few terms that can increase your understanding of the topic. An absolute monarch is a person that has absolute power among his or her people. The Estates General is a representative body drawn from the three ‘estates’ into which society had been theoretically divided. A fraternity is a group of people sharing a common profession or interests. A radical person is a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform. The device used to execute most people was the guillotine: a machine with a heavy blade sliding vertically in grooves, used for beheading people. The Reign of Terror is generally defined as a period of remorseless repression or bloodshed, but in particular, it is the period of the Terror during the French Revolution. Conservatives are people that hold to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation. Now that we can speak of our topic with more knowledge of terms typically used for this subject, we can address the pending question. Was The Reign of Terror justified? An outstanding amount of people died for good and bad reasons. Every system was corrupt, there was practically no right and wrong; no order, just rebellion. Several conflicting arguments can be made, but there is a definite decision to make in this situatio...
Outside threats from foreign countries did in no way justify the acts of the Reign of Terror. Foreign countries such as Austria and Prussia had reason to act. If they didn’t access the situation quickly, the revolution would spread to their countries and their people would also rebel. Austria itself was worried about the safety of Louis XVI’s wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, who was a daughter in the Austrian royal family (Doc. B). They had reason to
In his book Twelve Who Ruled, Palmer eloquently writes this narrative, "weaving the biographies of the twelve into the history of their time," and provides a coherent and convincing explanation of the terror. The book is not only educational for someone interested in the time period when these twelve men ruled the nation of France, but it is also enjoyable from the perspective of a person reading the book solely for interest in revolutions and how they affect the people who are involved in them. The book deals with a brief period of time during the French Revolution, namely the year of terror. The book ventures to interpret the foundations and rationale for the terror and Palmer illustrates his speculations on the subject through gracious, flowing writing.
The essential cause of the French revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges”. This statement is very accurate, to some extent. Although the collision between the two groups was probably the main cause of the revolution, there were two other things that also contributed to the insanity during the French revolution – the debt that France was in as well as the famine. Therefore, it was the juxtaposing of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as well as the debt and famine France was in that influenced the French Revolution.
These methods however, became too extreme and the deaths of the incident was not justified. Although, the Reign of Terror was seen as a way to let the revolution live and was well supported, it was not justified. Because the internal threats propagated radicalism, the external threats raged and became stronger, and the methods became chaotic the Reign of Terror extended its stay in France until the death of the powerful leader Robespierre. The Reign of Terror was an outreach to gain rights, but during this period they were taken away until the fateful day of Robespierre’s death, ending the Terror.
As the Reign of Terror continued on, the gap between the right and wrong gradually began to widen. Those who stood for the revolution, particularly peasants, began to find themselves stretched between liberty and oppression. The Reign of Terror began by striking fear into the hearts of citizens and those who led it could find no other way to establish their reign. The revolution had continued on for long enough, and observers from the outside were waiting for France to mend the wounds that continued to fester.