The Reign of Terror was the bloodiest and deadliest period in French history. The Reign of Terror took place during the French Revolution in France from September 1793 to July 1794, when the French abolished the monarchy and were in the process of transitioning to a new governmental system. It was the act of making a statement by publicly silencing and executing those who were suspected to be against the revolution, or even attempting to restore the monarchy. Historians Colin Jones and Howard G. Brown both explore the Reign of Terror, the overthrowing of its leader, Maximilian Robespierre, and its aftermath in their articles. Both historians discuss similar events with similar ideas and tellings of history, but Jones focuses more on Robespierre, …show more content…
Though Robespierre was and is commonly agreed to be an evil, authoritarian figure in history, the tone and language used by Howard G. Brown show some evidence of a bias. This slightly differs from how Jones refers to him, as when analyzing the story of his downfall and death, he describes Robespierre as, “...so star-crossed and complex, his fate so ghastly,...and the motivations so tantalizing, that it is perhaps understandable that many historians who have written about [Robespierre’s death] have viewed it through the prism of individual destiny, psychology, or, for some, psychopathology” (Jones 692). The tone and language he uses in his writing are more objective and scientific than Brown’s, but he ensures to solidify that Robespierre was not necessarily a good person by including the stance of viewing him from a position of psychopathology. Saying this shows his objectivity, as he is simply expressing that he may have shown psychopathic behavior, giving a reason as to why he did some of the things he …show more content…
The “Thermidorian Reaction” was the plan for the French parliament to revolt against Robespierre’s regime in order to take back governmental control and remove Robespierre himself from power. Jones writes about what many historians believe and then clarifies what he believes happened by explaining, “Overthrowing Robespierre was not an act of ‘Thermidorian Reaction.’ The ‘Thermidorian Reaction’ came later” (Jones 711). He is saying that the overthrowing of Robespierre was not necessarily due to the “Thermidorian Reaction”, as it very well could have had something to do with it, but it went into full effect after he was killed, so it did not assist in that aspect of the transition of the governmental system. Brown, while he does not directly mention how the “Thermidorian Reaction” could have kicked out Robespierre, he does describe how and why he feels it was a plan that needed to take place. He believes all the ideas of this plan and why it was carried out were due to “desperate efforts to establish [Thermidorian] political legitimacy by appealing to public opinion” (Brown
Doyle, William, and Colin Haydon, eds. Robespierre. Cambridge ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
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.
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
"French Revolution: The Reign of Terror — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. — Infoplease.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .
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
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).
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.
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.
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
“Europe cannot conceive of life without Kings and nobles; and we cannot conceive of it with them. Europe is lavishing her blood to preserve her chains, whereas we are lavishing ours to destroy them”(Maximilien Robespierre). For centuries upon centuries, the monarchal system had dominated European life. The very nature of this method of rule incited rebellious feelings, as a definite imbalance of power was present. Understandably, people under this system had risen against authority. The glorious nation of France was no exception. The eighteenth century brought about a great deal of economic and social turmoil. By the end of this one hundred year period, rebellion had been talked about by many citizens for quite some time. However, no definitive action was taken until one man stepped to the forefront; Maximilien Robespierre. Born in Arras, France about thirty years prior to the French Revolution, Robespierre was an immensely intelligent man as is seen from his ability to read and write fluently from the age of eight (the Force of 10). Robespierre rose from fairly humble origins to become a provincial lawyer, advancing further to become a representative in the Estates General, and eventually ascending to the leader of the French Revolution itself. For its sake he sent thousands to the guillotine, overthrew a monarchy, declared a new national religion, and invigorated the will of a nation. “No individual of the French Revolutionary era, with the exception of Napolean Bonaparte, has excited more passion in his time than the…dedicated provincial lawyer, Maximilien Robespierre”(Maximilien 1). During this era, Robespierre led France’s world inspiring cry for the liberation of mankind and petrified the world with its relentle...
The Reign of Terror History is said to be written by the winners, but is it possible to rewrite the history of the rewrite? In a way, the French, like many who have preceded them, and many who will proceed have done the impossible, rewriting history. From trivial folklore, such as George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, to the incredibly wrong, the African slave trade; people's views of history can be. shaped and molded by the. The French have done a superb job of instilling all of us.