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?
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.
Liberty, equality, and freedom are all essential parts to avoiding anarchy and maintaining tranquility even through the most treacherous of times. The Reign of Terror is well known as the eighteen month long French Revolution (1793-1794). In this period of time, a chief executive Maximilien Robespierre and a new French government executed gigantic numbers of people they thought to be enemies of the revolution; inside and outside of the country. The question is; were these acts of the new French government justified? Not only are the acts that occurred in the Reign of Terror not justified, they were barbaric and inhumane.
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 French Revolution, beginning in 1789, was a lengthy process in which the people of France took over the government and instituted a Republic (Chambers). The overarching goal of the Revolution was to place the power of government in the hands of the people. For two years, whilst France was facing internal disorganization and external wartime threats, the government was run by a war dictatorship under Maximilien Robespierre, the head of the Committee of Public Safety (“Reign of Terror”). Amid much internal suspicion and fear, the Reign of Terror began. Much of France was politically divided, and Robespierre’s method for keeping the government stable in a time of crisis involved severe penalties for any suspected of plotting against the new government (Chambers). Soon the accusations began to fly and a handful of people convicted and killed for treason became thousands. Many of the cases turned into the accuser’s word versus the accused, and a government preoccupied with bigger issues often did not care to look into these cases, simply convicting the accused, supposedly to promote a sense of unity and control to the citizens of France, and to forewarn anyone who did attempt treasonous deeds (Chambers). Eventually, Marie Antoinette, guilty of no crime other than marrying the former king, was executed on the grounds of treason (“French Revolution: The Reign of Terror”). Many thought this was taking a step too far. The former Queen was well-respec...
The French Revolution is arguably the bloodiest period in French history, with men such as Maximilien Robespierre leading the country into a situation of state sponsored terror. Originally being quite a liberal thinker inspired by the works of Rousseau, Robespierre quickly gained a reputation for being a radical throughout the course of the Revolution, especially during the Terror. Early on terror was justified as a means to root out foreign and domestic enemies of the Revolution, however; once the foreign threat had been taken care of it became increasingly difficult for Robespierre to rationalize his use of terror to bring about a supposed Republic of Virtue. In his speech, the “Justification of the use of Terror” which he presented to the National Convention, he attempted to defend the actions of the Terror one last time. Unfortunately it appeared that Robespierre was going to become the very type of tyrant that he had strived to abolish along with the French Monarchy at the beginning of the Revolution. As demonstrated in the speech, Robespierre had become obsessed with ridding France of her enemies, however; his fixation with the Terror, even when it had become unnecessary, eventually caused the rest of the radicals to envision a France without him – and it cost him his life.
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...
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. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
As the Reign of Terror in France grew and invoked fear the internal threats became more radical and deadly. The French Revolution began in 1789 as an attempt to create a new and fair government. (Doc A) As year four of freedom lurched the thirst for power in Maximilien Robespierre stirred and the hunger for more blood provoked him urging him to create the Reign of Terror. 1793, the first year of the Reign of Terror, Robespierre grasped on to his new power and as the revolution spun out of control the Jacobins Club established a new way to “fight enemies” by constructing a Committee of Public Safety and a Tribunal Court. (Doc A) This new government was working swell it contained counterrevolutionaries in the Vendée Region, and it smothered and ferreted the internal threats. (Docs A, C, G) The counterrevolutionaries adopted a name that meant trouble – the rabble. (Doc D) In a letter written by a city official of the Town of Niort a...
The France practically changed from being an absolute monarchy to a republic overnight. Everything that the people of France had ever known was changed in a heart-beat. Their once beloved king had just been guillotined and it was now time to set up a new political system. The leaders of the revolution, the Jacobins, imagined a representative government that ruled on the principals of “liberte,” “egalite,” and “fraternity,” liberty, equality and broth...
This is why the September Massacre was the most important part of the French Revolution because of the many months leading up to the tragedy, the five days of complete turmoil, and the two months afterwards. "A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me. Stop shaking the tyrants bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains." (Gautreu) This was said by Robespierre which earlier in this year made the plan to take the king off of his throne and takes over in the year 1793.
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.
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
The Reign of Terror was a time during the French Revolution hundreds of thousands of people were executed by various means: guillotine, shot, and drowned. The Committee of Public Safety, lead by Maximilien de Robespierre, were in charge of these executions, and with the job of finding anti-revolutionaries forces. Many thought that what Robespierre was doing would just lead to a greater anti-revolution movement, which would in turn increase the number of executions. Others did not take action against the terror; for fear that they themselves might be executed. Those who were still loyal to the revolution saw the terror as a noble cause; they saw it as a way to rid France of anti-revolutionary forces. While the terror started as an advantage to the revolution ridding anti-revolution ideals from France it began to change in to a disadvantage; it was a disadvantage because, it showed just how radical the revolutionaries could be.
Sparknotes editors. “Sparknote on The French Revolution (1789-1999)”. Sparknotes.com. Sparknotes LLC. 2005. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
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.