n 1789, France was ruled by an absolute monarch named King Louis XVI. King Louis XVI failed to be the king of France because he did not really care about his people and he only cared about himself and his money. Group of men vowed to make a new constitution. Meanwhile, the French Revolution begun. During the time of the French Revolution, 20,000 people are killed and France was a disaster because Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity was what the people wanted but it turned into a riot and did not really get what they wanted. Does the French Revolution sounds justified to you? Maximilien Robespierre became the leader of the revolutionary government. The new government proceeded to execute large numbers of individuals whom it considered to be enemies of the an assembly revolution. This was called the reign of terror, which lasted two years. The new government had to do battle both inside and outside the country. The reign of Terror was not justified. This claim can be supported by the internal conflicts, external conflicts, and deaths occurred in French Revolution.
The first reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was because of the internal conflicts in France. The people
…show more content…
It was estimated that 16,000 people were guillotined during the Reign of Terror. Death was immediate. Killing thousands of people was not conveniant to the society (Document F). The Reign of Terror was not beneficial for France. People were getting punishment by speaking poorly about he government was a punishment that could lead to prison and even death (Documnet E). The punishment was not really a crime and Robespierre's rule was uncessesary to the people in France and led people to die. In this regard, the Reign of Terror was not justified because the fact that the leader of the Reign of Terror was executed. Additionally, Robespiere was ruthless and would execute people by doing small
The French revolted due to political, economic, and social injustices. Politically, the government was a mess. An absolute ruler can only be beneficial to the people if they cater to
In September 1791, France achieved the movement of freeing and outlawing slavery. In turn, Haitian slaves were inspired to do the same by revolting against French plantation owners. This transformative movement of 100,000 slaves was led by Toussaint L’Ouverture; unfortunately, he died before experiencing Haiti’s separation from France in 1804. However, along the way of success of both revolutions, a toll occurred on the numerous lives lost. The Reign of Terror in France was created as a way to protect the republic from its internal enemies, but instead 16,000 people were guillotined. Many documents were shown to be describing the execution of the Reign of Terror to be gruesome and wrongful such that J.G. Milligen stated, “The process of execution was also a sad and heartrending spectacle”, in The Revolutionary Tribunal. Milligen continued to describe the vivid scene of the execution, but this was only one event and many others have died in the fall of the Bastille and the attack on the royal palace. Haiti has also lost many lives as an outcome of the revolutions especially in the slave revolts and battles with French soldiers sent by Napoleon. In addition, the Haitian Revolution leader L’Ouverture died in captivity in France. Both of these revolutions were known to have successfully achieved its goals, but it was chaotic and
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.
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.
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 first reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was because the inside/outside threats against the revolution didn’t warrant it.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
The declaration of the Terror was a direct result of the growing discontent and ravenous violence that had been occurring since 1789. Revolution could have occurred in an orderly member as it was obvious that Louis XVI was a weak leader but the French citizens set the tone early on with the Storming of the Bastille. This event shows that the French were inclined to achieve their desires through violence and not negotiations. The Bastille was attacked as a response to Louis’ addition of troops in Paris and the fear that they would be attacked. Munitions were transferred to the poorly guarded Bastille just a few days before the attack. A mob descended upon the Bastille on July 14 of 1789. The Governor of the prison Launay tried to reassure that
...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 French Revolution was a major transformation of the society and political system of France, lasting from 1789 to 1799. During the course of the Revolution, France was changed from an absolute monarchy, to a republic of supposedly equal and free citizens. The effects of the French Revolution were widespread, both inside and outside of France, and impacted all of Europe. At times the outcome of revolt led to social change and at times it just led to unnecessary bloodshed. Was this revolution inevitable? Was there something different that the government or people could have done to prevent the horrible atrocities of The Reign of Terror under Robespierre and his men? There are clear social, economic and political changes that could have been made too prevent this revolution from occurring when it did. However, although the government could have postponed this revolution, it was also somewhat inevitable, because of the great differences in the society of the peasants and the nobles divided the entire society. The government was also just trying to make too many things right at the wrong time and this is why they could possibly have not avoided the French Revolution.
...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.
King Louis XVI decision to leave Paris in 1791 had a significant effect for the course of the revolution and in the accumulating terror that was growing across the countryside of France. To be fair, there are possibilities that the course of the revolution combined with the accumulating terror prior to the Kings decision that is well known as The Flight To Varennes that could have already determined his fate before being killed by the guillotine. When discussing the accumulating terror and course of the revolution it affected more than just the city of Paris, it affected the entire countryside of France. Through the course of the revolution it’s important to keep in mind the subjects of these cities and towns feelings towards the monarchy