Throughout history, leaders have used the influence of others to form morals and ideologies for their country. The legacy that rulers leave behind can greatly influence the course of there country, even after death. Maximilien Robespierre is a great example of someone that has been a large influence on other rulers. In the 18th century, the Atlantic Region was full of revolutions, the American, Latin American, Haitian, and the ever so important French. France an active monarchy, with the ruler King Louis the XVI. He was very controlling and lived a luxurious lifestyle. France, at the time, had Three Estates and the Third contained 90 percent of the entire population. This population was not rich, yet they still paid 100 percent of the taxes. …show more content…
Robespierre’s actions would be very influential to future rulers because his rule was one of the first that truly involved terror. The two men that he would influence the most are Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. These were not the only ones though, as he influenced many other ruler and most importantly, the French people. He would negative impacts all over the place, but he arguably helped their society as well. Rulers like Robespierre can be prevented through. By not putting all your trust in one person, and distributing the power, one may not become power hungry.Terror begins when others don’t influence that ruler. Robespierre’s terror grew exponentially after he killed Georges Jacques Danton because he had all the power. Robespierre had all the power to himself and no one could stop him. Also, a society can prevent terror by limiting the amount of time one rules. Robespierre had to long to manipulate the people and form the right relations. Without this, he wouldn’t have had the same power because no one knew enough about him to formulate large scale opinions. It is still inevitable, he abused his power. There are plenty of “if’s” but none change the fact that abusers of power forever influence their society. Incidences like the Reign of Terror, The Holocaust, and Soviet Russia, are the reason for the United Nations and for government systems that include checks and balances. Countries are taking precautions to prevent another Reign of Terror,and that is important. Today, weaponry is even more advanced and can kill faster. The populations are larger and often more confined allowing for the opportunity of more killings. If the same precautions would have been taken in the 18th century, many abusers of power could have been stopped because the domino effect
A demon’s wings that is colored white is the most frightening of all. He who strongly believes that his ideal is just, right and for the good of the people; but in the eyes of so many people, what he does is inhumane and evil; thus comparable to a demon. Robespierre is someone that describes the earlier statements. He thinks his belief is right but the wrong aspect about this is he clings too much on that belief that he forgets reality. In reality, his contribution is terrorizing the people and tarnishing the values of the government.
The Reign of Terror in France was not justified. This claim can be supported by looking at three areas: external threat, the internal threat, and the methods. The external threat was not enough to justify the Reign of Terror. One example of this is that “churches are soon closed by revolutionary government” which is wrong, because people should be able to choose what they believe in (Document A). Another example is that the “Government denies legal counsel to accused enemies of the revolution” (Document A).
Zora Neal Hurston, first published “Sweat”, in 1926. The story is about a hard-working woman who is the sole provider for her household and she is subjected to physical, mental, and verbal abuse by her husband who is unemployed and insecure. During these times, women were looked at as submissive and obedient. Women were abused and worked through their blood, sweat, and tears. Black women were hired by white men/women to take care of their children and be the homemaker of their home and had to maintain the upkeep of their homes, children, and husbands.
There were people dying at every second of the Reign of Terror, dozens of people were dying because of Robespierre and the guillotine. This was considered as a humane way of killing people because everyone died the same way and it was immediate (Doc. F). Unfortunately, many of the citizens were dying without a good reason or a fair trial. The citizens and counter-revolutionaries were being executed for the slightest thing such as saying a careless word of criticism about the government. Although the government did this to stop any rebellions from forming, they ended up doing much more than what was needed and going completely
Sunday worship, Christmas, and Easter were abolished…in Auxerre.” (Map created from various sources, Document C). The Reign of Terror was not justified because they enforced laws that made people do things that they didn’t want to do, which means that they don’t value liberty. Robespierre ultimately ruined the chances of peace, killing anyone who got in his way to stay in
The Reign of Terror was led by Maximilien Robespierre, he violently suppressed counter-revolutionary forces within and outside the country. Did the French government have good reason to conduct a violent campaign to uphold the ideals of the French Revolution? The Reign of Terror was justified because of three reasons: the revolutionary
How revolutionary was the French Revolution? Did the Revolution simply replace the old ruling elite with a new bourgeois one? What were the major effects on different groups of people, including nobles, priests, peasants, urban workers, slaves, and women? This essay will address the French Revolution and the degree to which it can be aptly described as “revolutionary.” How revolutionary was the French Revolution? Was the storming of the Bastille, the destruction of feudalism, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of a fundamental and radical and revolutionary nature, or, alternatively, simply a series of historical events that results in the supplanting of one authoritarian regime for another and at great cost in
Napoleonic Rule The late 1700’s was a time of great discontent in France. The people of France revolted against their government in an attempt to gain power in political decision making. In this time, France experienced many forms of governments as the people fought for change. It was during the 1790’s that Napoleon Bonaparte became known to the people as a strong military leader.
In 1789, France was precariously balanced on the edge of chaos. King Louis XVI was ruling monarch of France. King Louis’ youth depicted him as reckless, thoughtless, and unwise. A series of bad financial and political decisions, lead to his unpopularity among the people of France. King Louis was young, distracted and misguided.
This enormous massacre of people went against Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, all of which the national assembly declared were every man 's right. Much of the killing can be blamed on Robespierre and King Louis XVI. Although it was mostly a failure, some achievements can be seen through the Revolution. The French Revolution helped the French people become a more equal and socialist state. This showed Europe that the French were capable of revolting and they were not afraid to stand up for what they believed.
Various reasons prove this, though the people believe that they are better best served before the state, history only shows the most benevolent and the most hated rulers. So if a ruler rules just to be well-liked history does not show that they had any significance because none of the people are left to remember what acts of kindness they performed. If a leader is feared but provides huge expansion and sets up their state to be successful in the future they are remembered as important to causing their state to be the way it is today. In truth, all people serve to their own interests and will turn on anyone who goes against it unless they are controlled. It is nearly impossible to control people with their love for ruler because they will not love the ruler once the ruler goes against their interests, but if they fear the ruler they will fear going against them and stay under the influence of their ruler.
When somebody receives incredible power, they also receive a large burden of responsibility. Some people, such as Napoleon, disregard these responsibilities and become corrupt. In reality, we have seen this in leaders such as Stalin, who became corrupt once into power. In “Animal Farm”, Napoleon, a totalitarian pig, is a great example of how too much power is equal to corruption.
Power can have the persuasive action in undoing the moral ethics of one’s character. This can be seen throughout history, such as World War II and proven by the actions of Napoleon in the allegory, Animal Farm, by George Orwell. As Lord Acton said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In history what was viewed as a villain, is never the same as the perception. A leader does not begin wanting to do wrong, they start with the best intentions, but power is a tricky thing.
They had an election between all the Estate and everyone got to choose and the result was shocking. The King got executed by a very close result; the king got executed by 1 more vote. After king got executed by a very close result some people thought they were free now from absolute monarchy but other people knew there is a big war coming up. Their politic power was all gone and more people start dying because Robespierre stood up and started to execute every person who was going against revolution or did something bad or broke a law. Still need a conclusion Overall would all of the revolution be considered a success or a failure?
The French Revolution was undoubtedly influenced by the political theorists of the Enlightenment. The ideas of two French political theorists in particular are easily seen throughout the French Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron Montesquieu. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thoughts and texts, such as the Social Contract, instilled the entitlement of basic human rights to all men. Rousseau’s concepts on rights combined with Baron Montesquieu’s ideas on government provided the backbone of a radical movement in the French Revolution known as the Terror. When one delves into the beginnings of the French Revolution, the motives and actions of the National Assembly, and the Terror of the French Revolution, one can obviously see the influence of two Enlightenment political theorists, Rousseau and Montesquieu.