More handpicked essays just for you.
Significance and impact of the french revolution
Essay the french revolution 4 pages
Critically analysis of the french revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Significance and impact of the french revolution
Question 2: How much violence is justified in the creation of a better society? Was the violence of the French Revolution justified?
In the creation of a better society, violence is justified, but only to the point the protection of yourself and your rights. If violence is used for personal satisfaction or gain, then it is no longer justified. Regarding the French Revolution, the violence was justified as it was necessary to improve conditions for the people, until the death of Louis the XVI, and Marie Antoinette during the “Reign of Terror” (The French Revolution: A New Republic Is Born in Blood).
The “Reign of Terror” began when Robespierre suspended the new constitution, and replaced this with a new menacing martial law. This new law
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.
The French Revolution was a period of political upheaval that occurred in France during the latter half of the 18th century. This revolution marked an end to the system of feudalism and the monarchy in France and a rise to democracy and new Enlightenment ideas. By 1789, when the revolution began, France was in a deep financial crisis due to the debt they had obtained over many years of reckless spending and France was nearly bankrupt. These financial issues fell almost completely on the bottom social class or the Third Estate which made up a majority of the country. Because of this financial trouble the common people were heavily taxed leaving many of them in poverty. In addition to the economic issues, France also held an Estate System that led to heavy
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.
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.
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
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.
To begin, the French Revolution involved radical change in a radical manner, both traits which the American Revolution lacked. A revolution is defined as a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, usually occurring with violence. The American Revolution does not appear to resemble the revolutions of other nations, in which people were killed and property was destroyed. They revolted relatively peacefully and did not kill each other or devour themselves. (Wood, 3) The French Revolution had a period of time in which all people who were considered ‘enemies of the state’ were arbitrarily arrested and at least 17,000 were officially executed. (“The French Revolution,” 20) The American Revolution had no mass executions; there was a minimal amount of deat...
As more peoples blood is split to gain the rights not extended to them, the Terror grows becoming more and more gruesome. The French revolution began in late 1789 to obtain the rights that every citizen in born with. The motto of the French was liberty, equality, or death and the price to be paid for the civil liberties was blood. The revolutionary leader Robespierre and journalist Marat explained the more blood the better so that was what raged the people and started the Reign of Terror. Were the values expressed by the French Revolution necessary though? 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.
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.
Before the revolution formally began, France was being ruled by the monarch Napoleon Bonaparte. All people under him, particularly the third party members also known as the working class, were oppressed in a sense that they were powerless against the laws that wronged them while bestowing the monarchy more power. The ruler of a country or empire should have one goal: to ensure that the people of the country are taken care of. As Napoleon was not adhering to this basic moral law of power the people grew upset about the little they could do to help themselves, and decided the best course of action would be to overthrow the government. Once the monarchy was overtaken the bourgeoisie temporarily assumed power which worked for a short time. Soon however, multiple rebel groups rose to power, subjecting all those not associated with them to the two year Reign of Terror. During this time, many civilians and previous government officials were executed. The consequence of the rebellion yielded predictable results. Like before, the people outside the direct government suffered as they could do nothing to prevent wrongdoing from befalling them. Both during Napoleon’s rule and the rule of the rebels, powerlessness influenced an ascent to despotism that left the people of the country
...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.
Many people choose to use violence in their own ways to achieve the goals they have set upon themselves. But are there situations where violent disobedience is ever justified? You might be thinking, what is violent disobedience? Violent disobedience is the act of breaking a rule placed upon oneself, ready to accept any punishment that is to come to thee. You could violently disobey anyone such as the police, your parents, and even yourself. I believe only in certain situations one should be allowed to violently disobey an order give to him or her. No matter, one must accept ones hardships with outstanding stoicism to be able to succeed in controlling your actions for the greater good.
“Revolutions never go backwards.”-Wendell Phillips. It is true that revolutions never go backwards; an example of this would be the French Revolution. Before 1789, France was ruled by a monarchy. Before the France revolution, the monarch was King Louis XVI. His family had ruled France for many years, however King Louis XVI, was an ill-suited leader who lost his country to the National Assembly. During the French revolution, France went through countless reforms by switching back and forth from republics to dictatorships. France eventually thrived under the rule of Napoleon, who was a dictator chosen by the people. Because of the sacking of King Louis XVI and the monarchy, France had become a better nation. Therefore, the citizens for France were justified in overthrowing King Louis XVI because King Louis XVI was not a competent leader, he treated the third estate poorly and King Louis XVI let Marie Antoinette have an impact in political affairs.