Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyze the reign of terror
Analyze the reign of terror
Essay about french revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Reign of Terror
Throughout history there has been a lot of bloodshed from wars, civil wars, revolutions, and revolts. Each of these events changing people's lives, some for the better, and worse for others. When talking about these events the question to whether the event was justified or not comes up. This is where people disagree on many aspects. After the onset of the French revolution the Reign of Terror began, and just by reading the name one can already assume that the Reign of Terror was not an enjoyable time. The Reign of Terror was not justified due to the amount of innocent people who were executed, the weakening of the country, and the violation of human rights.
During the Reign of Terror paranoia set in frightening the people
…show more content…
After the revolution passed laws that abolished christianity in France the people of the Vendée were not pleased. Rather the opposite really, because now according to the map on top of fighting against the laws that abolished their religion, ”The Vendée region was the hub of the counterrevolution. People here fiercely fought against the military draft”(Doc C). By fighting against the military draft less people were put into the military. Which means less people to stop revolts and outside invader making the country weak. In the same year the counterrevolutionary activity had been increasing. In the town of Niort an official sent a letter, “reporting that the soldiers already sent by the government have failed to stop the ‘rabble’ and he is writing for more help”(Doc D). The revolutionaries were losing control and to make things even worse, “Prussians were invading at the same time from the north”(Doc D). The government was losing control, the military couldn't keep up with the revolts or deal with the foreign invaders making the whole country of France weak. The Reign of Terror was not worth weakening the country making France susceptible to
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 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 an attempt by Robespierre to assume dictatorship. 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.
A lot of people say that the southern part of the united states is what started the war. Their stubborn ways force the north to take action which lead to the civil war. In all reality there was more that came into play when the civil war was in the making. States rights was one of the problem that lead to the civil war, the constitution did not define who had what powers and what authority over one what. Also slavery played a part because the slaves were raising up and fighting for their rights in which the south did not like and and the north tried to help only making the problem worse. The differences between the free states and the slave states was the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet
The French Revolution may have temporarily destroyed Christianity in France, however, it acted as a savior for the future of Christianity. According to the Bible, God allows us to go through trials of tribulation to grow stronger and closer to him. This series of events that impacted France, represented a truly dark period in the history of Christianity, but also marked a rebirth and overall revival of a religion that was becoming far detached from its roots.
...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.
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. employed a shadowy network of informers and spies to achieve these ends. a careless word of criticism spoken against the government could be put in prison or worse.”
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 Dark ages is the time between the 500’s and 1400’s. The Dark ages was a time of civil wars, Death, diseases, invasions and thief. There was a lot of invasions and to protect them self from that communities made a code call The code of Chivalry as (Doc 5) states “Europe in the Middle Ages was a dangerous place. Invasions from Muslims, Mongols, Vikings, and other tribal groups were common. War between lords was also common. The value of protection and warriors created a social code called Chivalry. Knights fought for lords and ladies, and lived by a gentleman- warrior code of Chivalry.” And other big thing in The Dark Ages was Diseases. Diseases in the dark ages was deadly because there was not antidote and even Doctors were scared of
...inite decision to make in this situation. King Louis XVI tried to rule his country with an absolute monarchy, and the plan backfired substantially. The result was the citizens rebelling rightfully so, but the situation went to an extreme extent. The determination of the people must have been extensive because the government had to send armies in attempts to conquer them. The only answer to this question is no, The Reign of Terror was not justified because it was ridiculous. It began with a central plan to protect the people supposedly, but corrupted itself into an ultrasensitive, unjust massacre. The people of the country were forced to rebel by their greedy leaders, and so countless lives were lost, along with time, energy, and money. I can only hope that the United States of America remains grounded, and we’re not forced to rebel like countries in the Middle East.
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.
The French people were quick to blame the government for all the misfortune they possess, yet ignored the potential evil or crisis the social body was heading towards within themselves. Because of the rapid sequence of horrific events in the beginning of the French revolution, it prevented the subversive principles to be spread passes the frontiers of France, and the wars of conquest which succeeded them gave to the public mind a direction little favorable to revolutionary principles (2). French men have disgraced the religion by ‘attacking with a steady and systematic animosity, and all it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success (2). Metternich was not in support of the French
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.
The French Revolution was a period of upheaval in France, during which the French governmental structure and Catholic clergy underwent a large change due to Enlightenment ideas. The commoners of France began to revolt after hearing the ideas of famous philosophes like Voltaire. Voltaire was a deist who believed that the Catholic Church and its doctrines were not to be trusted since they used propoganda to get followers rather than the actual religion. He believed it was unfair that there wasn’t any religious freedom since you were expected to be a Catholic. He spoke openly about this, which of course got him into a lot of trouble. Nevertheless, the French commoners took his word into thought and decided to act upon what he said by revolting against the church. Voltaire’s ideas also critized royal absolutism because they had, in his opinion, too much power. He favored an elightened absolutist, which is an absolutist who adopts Enlightenment ideas. Once again, the French commoners took this to heart and agreed with Voltaire that the French government was too ...
...wn the monarchy because “World History,” states that, “Louis was well-intentioned and sincerely wanted to improve the lives of the common people.” (Beck Roger, Black Linda, Krieger, Larry, Naylor Phillip, Shabaka Dahia, 653) However, King Louis XVI lacked the conviction and initiative to carry out any of his plans to truly improve the lives of the French citizens. Proof of this was that the French citizens were desperate enough to riot the streets of France and storm the prison of Bastille. After all that has been said, it is clear that the citizens were indeed justified to overthrow the monarch.