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.
Robespierre was born in 1758, as the first child of a well-off family. He attended one of the best schools in Paris, eventually trained to become a lawyer, and was known as the defender of the poor in his hometown of Arras – a trait that would remain with Robespierre throughout the Revolution as he became known, along with the rest of the Jacobin rump, for his defence of the sans-culotte in Paris. As was previously mentioned, Robespierre had not always...
... middle of paper ...
...pierre-terror.html
McGowan, Tom. Robespierre and the French Revolution in World History. Berkeley Heights,
New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2000.
Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Toronto, Ontario: Vintage
Books: A Division of Random House, 1990.
Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: 7th Ed. Canada: Thompson Wadworth, 2009.
Webb, Todd. “The Terrible Revolution I: Organizing the Terror.” Lecture, HIST2257,
Laurentian University at Georgian College, Barrie, Ontario, October 16, 2009.
Webb, Todd “The Terrible Revolution II: Ending the Terror.” Lecture, HIST2257, Laurentian
University at Georgian College, Barrie, Ontario, October 16, 2009.
Webb, Todd. “Things Fall Apart II: War and Regicide: The Days of the Federes.” Lecture,
HIST2257, Laurentian University at Georgian College, Barrie, Ontario, October 9, 2009.
Maximilien Robespierre declared at the trial of King Louis XVI. “The King must die so that the nation can live.” Robespierre advocated the kings demise and with it the ways of the Ancien Régime. However, in an ironic twist of fate his words also foreshadowed his own rise and fall as the leader of the French Revolution. Known as “The Incorruptible”, or alternately “Dictateur Sanguinaire” Robespierre is a monumental figure of the French Revolution, but which was he? Was he the incorruptible revolutionist fighting to overthrow the Ancien Regime or a raging radical that implemented his own absolute tendencies under the cover of the revolution? When dissecting the dichotomy of Robespierre’s life and actions during the French Revolution and comparing it to the seven main characteristics of Absolutism it can be seen that Robespierre held many absolutist tendencies.
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. Despite the extreme heights the Reign of Terror reached, it was necessary to maintain the fragile presence of the government and preserve the new liberty a majority of the population had been denied before. In a 1793 letter from Vendée —a major counterrevolutionary hub— local government was fending off on-going riots and rebellion while being invaded from the north by Prussia.
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
Indeed, the musings of Robespierre, in his advocacy for terror as a means of achieving virtue, are reminiscent of Osama Bin Laden in his “Letter to America,” citing excerpts from the Quran which read, “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those who are fought against, because they have been wronged,” (Bin Laden 1). For Bin Laden, therefore, as he fights to initiate a new world order––one that is dictated by the teachings of Allah––those who oppose him or his ideology have thus wronged him; for Robespierre, those loyal to the previous regime have thus wronged him; in either case, however, the resultant of such wrongdoing proved to be death––whether that be in the form of a plane hijacking, or the
The French Revolution produced countless influential politicians throughout its tumultuous course. As a political figure in the French Revolution, Jean Paul Marat began as a nonentity and became a martyr to the revolutionary patriots of France. His influence is often misconstrued, and sometimes overlooked. Although he was not a political leader like Robespierre, his influence was substantial in that he motivated many people through his writings and powerful personality. Through his involvement with the Cordeliers’ Club and his journal Ami du peuple, started September 1789, Marat was able to express the indignation of the bourgeois class through his hopes for social revolution. His conspiracy theories and alleged prophetic outlook on the Revolution created an aura of mystery and intrigue around him, as well as detestation. Because he often stood alone behind his radical ideas, Marat became marked as the scapegoat for various controversial events of the period, and was several times forced into hiding to evade the law. Targeting Marat was an easy and effective way for the warring factions in the National Convention to assert their political dominance. It is curious how a virtual unknown and newcomer to government could become so crucial to the politics of the French Revolution, only to be murdered by another unknown in a seemingly isolated event. Marat’s assassination played a great part in what became the cycle of the Terror. Even though he was not a preeminent leader, both his life and death had an impact on the course of the Revolution. Because of his incendiary political beliefs and bold nature, the government targeted Marat, however, his assassination by the outsid...
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).
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.
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
Phillips, L. (2014, February 16). The Drudgery of Treason. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://theintermediateperiod.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/
The first reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was because the inside/outside threats against the revolution didn’t warrant it. The Prussians and Australians were fighting against the revolution to keep their king and to not have the ideas of the revolutions (Doc C) so in turn Robespierre declared a military draft where all adult males would be forced by the Levee en Masse where the vendee region in france were totally against (Doc B). Rightfully so as well considering the fact that when Robespierre declared for the draft the threat had practically been stopped and so there was no real need for the draft and in turn no need for the Reign of Terror. It also proves the
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...
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.
Even though, the French Revolution saw the Terror as a sign to create peace and restore a new France, it was not justified because the extremities of the internal and external threats spun out of control and the methods of the period were over the top. 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.
While many may be outraged by Robespierre’s actions, he believed they were justified because the killed enemies of the Revolution by terror with the Republic in mind. In his mind the mass executions were justified, since he had the right reason for doing so and was trying to protect the republic. In this second source, we can see that Robespierre and others, will use any means necessary to protect their beliefs and eliminate any threats to those beliefs. Robespierre put the fear into people that they would be killed if they opposed the Revolution in anyway. One last act of terrorism that I looked at occurred in New York City, on September 11, 2011.