Throughout the French revolution, there were many turning points that irrevocably changed the course of history both within France and in a global scale. The revolutionaries faced many tough decisions with consequences that were beyond the scope of human understanding. These moments also helped define what the French Revolution was and what goals the revolutionaries hoped to accomplish through their actions. In many ways the French Revolution itself was a turning point for both France and humanity as it paved the way for both human rights and one of the most controversial emperors in history.
The French Revolution was not the most peaceful revolutionary movement in history. Once the National Assembly was established, there was a fear within
…show more content…
Once this phase was over, the new government, the Directory, attempted to maintain control of France with limited success through election rigging and continuing some of the practices of the Terror at a lesser extent. They also reversed many of the changes, both positive and negative, established by the Committee of Public Safety throughout the Terror. The French government ended the Terror through the trial and execution of Robespierre and some of his accomplices, in a manner akin to that of Danton’s execution. Once again, with Robespierre’s trial and execution, a leader of the French Nation was charged for treason and all of the faults of the government under his control were attributed to him. Placing all the blame for the actions of the Terror on Robespierre’s feet was also useful to the new government as a way to prevent a second Terror for occurring. This event also resonates with many due to the poetic justice of Robespierre’s execution by guillotine: the prosecutor facing the same fate as those he had avidly …show more content…
One of the few features that remain constant throughout the revolution is that it was a reactionary force. The actions of the revolutionaries, although guided by ideals and morals of building a better France, were propelled mostly by mixture of fear and rage at certain groups with a perceived advantage over the masses. The events of the French Revolution are tightly interconnected to each other, the actions of a previous government causes the next one to compensate in the opposite direction. This tendency to react to the present, both when groups fought to obtain power and when they attempted to keep it, lacked the foresight necessary to form any lasting stability in the French nation. This view of the nature of the French Revolution also sheds some light on why it isn’t possible to form a cohesive description of the French Revolution as a whole. Instead, it is necessary to break down the Revolution into time periods and see the overarching theme within each one. The constitutional monarchy at the beginning of the French Revolution is an entirely different entity than that of the Directory during the Revolution’s slow decline, let alone the quasi police state that existed during the Terror. Some revolutionaries, such as
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.
Clearly there never was just one French Revolution, but rather a series of revolutions. These occurred while the French struggled to create a new political and social system – one that would follow principles radically different to that of the ‘ancient’ regime. There were five regimes during the French Revolution between 1787 and 1800. However, despite this fragmented revolution, the same fundamental principles guided most of the revolutionaries involved. These principles included equality under law, centralisation of government, elimination of feudal rights, religious freedom and careers open to talent, not birth.
First, the Jacobin leader Robespierre’s tried to protect the revolution but this plan backfired. It backfired because immediately after the publication of this decree, all suspected persons within the territory
Maximilien Robespierre became obsessed with this passion to create equality within France and to abolish the segregation that he began to be worshiped by others and seen as a beacon of hope. They both hoped that the Tribunal would bring peace to France. It would crush the Royalists and quiet mob by reassuring that the enemies of the revolution would be punished.” (DiConsiglio).
“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. 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.
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...
...pave the way for democracy, but the bloodshed could have been more limited. Many people during the Revolution believed that France needed a change in many ways. They had achieved that by 1793. Many new reforms had been implemented in the country and it was much better off than it had been four years prior. I do agree with Kropotkin that the abolishing of serfdom and absolutism was a great achievement for France and that it did lead to a democratic system. Though this is true, the violence and bloodshed during the Revolution could have been minimized through committees and discussions. Schama is also right in that some men were too radical and their new found power went to their head. All said and done, the French Revolution was a bloody time in history, but it paved the way for a new democratic system not only for France but for many other countries as well.
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.
New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969. Print. The. Kreis, Steven. A. A. "Lecture 12: The French Revolution - Moderate Stage, 1789-1792.
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 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.
Nardo, Don. A. The French Revolution. San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999. Print.
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.