Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
maximilien robespierre justification of the use of terror
the reign of terror significance
What were the causes of the reign of terror in france?
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Reign of Terror was one of the most bloodiest and violent periods in the history of France. The Terror lasted thirteen months and with it saw the law of Maximum, which in theory was supposed to help with the food storages France had dealt with since 1788. But in practice, caused insufficient amounts of food getting into the cities and caused the food shortage to worsen. The Terror also brought the de-Christianisation of France, which led to the loss of approximately ten percent of all constitutional priests and resulted in the French citizens having to practice their religion in clandestine from the government. Finally, with the Terror came the rule of Maxilmilien de Robespierre, he was the cause of the Terror starting in the beginning. The rule of Robespierre was one of mass execution, as he believed that anyone who didn’t agree with his ideas of equality and rights for all were deserved to be sent to the guillotine. Through these points it is needless to say the Reign of Terror was unquestionably harmful to the French citizens.
The introduction of the law of Maximum was damaging to the citizens of France, as it caused the food shortages that started in the winter of 1788 to worsen. On September 29 1793, the law of Maximum was brought on to control the prices of essential items and services. The peasants detested this because the price these goods and services were being sold at was generally less than the cost of production. As peasant farmers were in control of most of the harvest, they would simply stop sowing their crops or start hoarding them if they were not making any profit. This affected the citizens as fewer amounts of food made their way into the cities and worsened the food shortages that had already been going fo...
... middle of paper ...
...d Citizen, which states that ‘as all are innocent until they shall have been declared guilty’ (No. 9 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen) yet he was arresting and executing possibly innocent people all because they had their own views that were different to his. This reinstates the idea that the Reign of Terror was harmful to the citizens of France because with the Terror came the leadership of Robespierre who accused and executed citizens of France without a fair trial.
The Reign of Terror, a period in time in which many were left to starve due to unproductive laws, Christianity was abolished and became an offense to practice and approximately 400,000 citizens were accused and killed by the guillotine without a fair trial. Through identifying these facts it is essentially to say that the Reign of Terror was undeniably detrimental to the citizens of France.
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.
Aside from giving the guillotine a purpose, the Reign of Terror stands as a necessity in the story of French independence. It might not have been the proudest of times, but the Reign began on a strong premise; holding together a new government by purging the bad apples for the betterment of the whole cart. While the Reign of Terror developed into an overly excessive bloodshed, it was justified by the war stricken circumstances and necessity for the support of the ongoing revolution.
"French Revolution: The Reign of Terror — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. — Infoplease.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .
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
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.
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.
It occurred under the Committee of Public Safety. During this period over 40,000 executions occurred using the guillotine, including the king and queen. The Reign of Terror was important because it led to the execution of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and ended Robespierre’s dictatorship.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Unlike the leaders of America, the leaders of the French did not turn out to be as positive for the country. In fact, some of these leaders caused much more harm than good. These leaders taught the French people more about what type of government would be the best option for them. One of the most radical, and extreme leaders was Maximilien Robespierre. The duration of his dictatorship was known as "Reign of Terror." He demanded a republic and soon after his demands; the monarchy was overthrown. He also felt that a constitutional government would have to wait until all the enemies of the revolution have been eliminated. To accomplish this task, he murdered close to 40,000 people, most by guillotine, and some sentenced to life in jail. The Reign of Terror was one of the most controversial, and terrifying phases of the Revolution. Some French colonists thought it to be a path to democracy; others thought it was just a attempt for Robespierre to assume dictator. The other great leader was Napoleon Bonaparte. He believed that the only way to have control in France was to put a limit on democracy. Over a period of time Napoleon 's party overthrew Robespierre 's party. Soon enough, Napoleon was dictator of France. The French soldiers who fought in the American Revolution came back from the war with new ideas and reason for revolution. These ideas included the right to take up arms against tyranny, all men should
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.