Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Guided essay the reign of terror was it justified
French revolution easy
French revolution easy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Guided essay the reign of terror was it justified
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... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
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.
Taking into account the reality of the effect of the Reign of Terror and its acts to secure the government, it is important to highlight the circumstances that made the Reign the most necessary: war. Marching an 80,000-man army into France, Prussia and Austria moved to attack and capture the providences of Longwy and Verdun. Along with the pressing overseas forces, an additional “10,000 French army officers.formed armies and allied themselves with France’s foreign enemies” (Document B). To match the amassing legion that was shaping against them, the French government had to enforce regulations (in example: The Tribune) to divert the internal forces they were spending calming riots back to their needed place on the front lines. Similarly, without the Committee on Public Safety “employing a.network of informers and spies” (Document E) it’s impossible to say how the French would have suffered if the infantile government had lost information to enemies, especially considering many of their own countrymen had abandoned their patriotism and fled to the Austrian-Netherlands.
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.
Although, the Reign of Terror was seen as a way to let the revolution live and was well supported it was not justified. Because the internal threats propagated radicalism, the external threats raged and became stronger, and the methods became chaotic the Reign of Terror extended its stay in France until the death of the powerful leader Robespierre. The Reign of Terror was an outreach to gain rights but during this period they were taken away until the fateful day of Robespierre’s death ending the Terror.
A revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. In 1775, America was ready for dramatic change, freedom, and a disconnection from Great Britain. Taxes, trade regulations, and overarching, power, made all colonists, aside from the loyalists, more than ready to detach from Great Britain’s rule. The American Revolution portrays many similarities and qualities of the French revolution, due to the inspiration of one to another. The similarities and qualities lie within their spiraling economies, selfish, money-worship-thirsty leaders, ideologies, and provocation.
The American Revolution should never have happened. The British were not tyrannical, oppressive rulers although the American colonies perceived them to be so. The American colonists misperceptions led to revolution and independence.
Throughout history, countless uprisings have occurred. Historians classify any forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system as a revolution. The success or failure of a revolution is directly related to the revolution’s causes and courses. The French Revolution was more successful than the Nicaraguan Revolution, because the Nicaraguan Revolution left the country in social and financial ruin, foreign powers had much greater interference, and it precipitated a period of political unrest with multiple leadership changes.
“After she was dead one of the assassins ripped out her heart and ate it while another stuck her head on a pike and paraded it beneath the Queens window” (Gautreu). The queen there talking about is Marie Antoinette. She was the archduchess of Austria and when she married Louis the king tension started to grow between Austria and France . This eventually lead up to the September massaacre. In this the author is speaking of Princess de Lambelle. She accompanied the royal family to the Tuileries; she was the daughter of King at the time, Louis the 16th. This is a description of what happened to the princess during those awful days in September. This is some of the ways people were murdered during the year 1792. Therefore The September Massacre was the most important part of the French Revolution because it had many events leading up to it, the largest number of fatalities during, and had many consequences afterwards.
...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.
They entered a war amongst each other because lower class was challenging the government, which concluded to many people fleeing France to go to Britain and Austria. The king of France, Louis XVI, was charged with treason and guillotined, causing the Reign of Terror, which took place when Maximilien de Robespierre tried to kill over 17000 men and women. As the country of France was declining in government and economy General Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself emperor and fifteen years after the French Revolution, France was ruled under a dictatorship (“French Revolution”). The French Revolution was inspired by the Enlightenment and Declaration of Independence because just as the Americans, the French had been fighting for freedom from the monarchy for not supporting the country of France during a period of debt. The Revolution was based from the ideas of both the Enlightenment and the Declaration of Independence derived from John Locke’s ideals of government. This includes how the people should have a representative in the government and if they are unhappy with the government, they are able to break away to start a new one. In the end, the French had lost the Revolution by having a democratic government, which later transcended into a dictatorship (“Enlightenment
...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.
They said that not one official in power was corrupt, but that the whole system of government needed some change. Eventually, when the royal finances were expended in the 1780's, there began a time of greater criticism. This sparked the peasants notion of wanting change. Under the Old Regime in France, the king was the absolute monarch. Louis XIV had centralized power in the royal bureaucracy, the government departments which administered his policies. Together, Louis XIV and the bureaucracy worked to preserve royal authority and to maintain the social structure of the Old Regime.