Fatal Purity: Robespierre And The French Revolution

The initial impulse of the French revolution was destructive. For those who lived through all, or even part, of these vast upheavals, the shock was overwhelming. Maximilien Robespierre was a proud disciple of the enlightenment and declared that no political writer had foreseen this revolution. Robespierre (1758-1794) was one of the leaders of the Committee of Public Safety, the effective governing body of France during the most radical phase of the revolution. The leaders of this revolution attempted, perhaps more than any other revolutionary leaders before or since, to totally transform human society in every way. (Supreme Being) Although Robespierre began with patriotic intent he still was the face of the Reign of Terror and was viewed as being a radical person.

Robespierre claims that, “ the French are the first people of the world who have established real democracy [...]is the true reason why all the tyrants in league against the Republic will be vanquished (Robespierre,1794, Speech). Robespierre as a the leader of France, he gave this speech to all of the French people for showing his political philosophy. He claims that he will give all men equality and complete rights of citizenship, but he did not actually achieve his goal during his reign. Robespierre thinks that democracy can be the best form of government; however, he did not achieve any of these points. It makes French people mad at him, even his supporters and jacobins. Robespierre had been abolished a lots of nobles based on his speech, “We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish, in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror” (1794, Speech). During the Reign of Terror, because of terror of people, they have many different ideas about the form of government and society. Robespierre was not only executing the nobles, but also those people who wanted to against him. Therefore, during his reign, he abolished a lots of government officers and powerful nobles. At the same time, Robespierre made his supporters and jacobins’ member to feel terror in their life. He was forced to abdicate the position of the emperor. Robespierre created a very weak government which provided a power vacuum that Napoleon used to come to power. When Robespierre came to power, he promised a domercy government and everyone can have same quality rights; however, he had failed to fulfill people’s demand and made people disappointed on him. It provided a good chance

The French Revolution is arguably the bloodiest period in French history, with men such as Maximilien Robespierre leading the country into a situation of state sponsored terror. Originally being quite a liberal thinker inspired by the works of Rousseau, Robespierre quickly gained a reputation for being a radical throughout the course of the Revolution, especially during the Terror. Early on terror was justified as a means to root out foreign and domestic enemies of the Revolution, however; once the foreign threat had been taken care of it became increasingly difficult for Robespierre to rationalize his use of terror to bring about a supposed Republic of Virtue. In his speech, the “Justification of the use of Terror” which he presented to

The topic that I will be writing about is the French Revolution and how it affected France as a nation. The book that I read was "The French Revolution, A tale of Terror and Hope for Our Times", by Harold Behr. This book gave a very large and broad overview of what transpired during the French Revolution, which occurred during the years of 1789-1799. Though the book covered a lot of material that happened throughout those years, I will be covering the main topics, such as what were the events leading up to the revolution, how the revolution affected the people of France, how the revolution affected the country as a whole, how the revolution affected the world, and whether or not the revolution in the end helped or was more detrimental to the country. All of the topics will be covered from my point of view and how I interpreted the author, there is another point of views on the revolution but this will be from what I felt the book meant to me.

The internal threats against France were minimal because when someone did disagree with the revolution they were punished and more than likely, executed. When these executions took place, people would see what would happen to them if they acted the same way. This shows that there was not many people that rebelled against the government; however, people still did, which is one of the reasons the number executions and murders was so high. People had a right to be angry with the government, nevertheless. Many citizens of France were drafted to the levee en masse, the military draft during the revolution. (Document C) They were very mad about this because they were forced to fight even if they didn’t agree with the method France was using to protect itself from internal and external threats. In Document D, a local government official from Western Europe sends a letter to the National Convention asking for more soldiers because the 3,000 men army wasn’t enough. In the letter, the official says that the men sent by the government have failed to stop the “rabble”. Adding to the many reasons the Reign of Terror was unjustifiable, this leads to the official asking if he can kill the men for not doing their job. Killing nearly 3,000 men because they cannot stop the multitude of soldiers is greatly insensitive. Robespierre overreacted when he believed that the internal threats were serious, because on the contrary, they made little

Maximilien Robespierre has always been known to be controversial and misunderstood. He was the face of the French Revolution. In accordance with the Jacobins, they controlled the time known as the Reign of Terror, due to their influence in the accumulation of murders of those opposed to the revolution. Reign of Terror was a symbolic time period within the French Revolution that involved corruption of power and influence and mass executions. With Robespierre at the forefront, he became one of the most important men in the Revolution. As soon as Maximilien Robespierre decided to react to enemies of the revolutions, mass execution being his choice of force; his implementation of the Reign of Terror was a villainous act striking those who

The French Revolution was based on an assortment of Enlightenment ideals. French philosophers, including Voltaire and Rousseau led the revolution leading up to the revolution, so to speak, coming up with progressive ideals as to government, social structure, and the nature of people. Indeed, the ideals which the revolution was fought in the name of progressed throughout France and, eventually, Europe. Though the revolution took wrong turns along the way, the ideals which it was based on never wavered. Even during the heart of his Reign of Terror, Robespierre spoke of a state where each citizen wants to do good by his country. This shows Robespierre with an unwavering commitment to the state, an ideal which came out of the Enlightenment. Though he may have carried out his beliefs in a gruesome and perhaps wrong way, his ideals were the same as the Enlightenment philosophers: make the state better for all to live in.

For my book review, I have read and evaluated Sylvia Neely’s history book entitled A Concise History of the French Revolution published in 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Neely’s purpose is to gives an overview of the French revolution with the most important events, the most prominent people and the essential terms. We can see that the author proved her thesis by explaining the background causes of the revolution such as the ancient regime with Louis XVI. Also she described all important events in chronological orders which made it easier for the reader to understand. Neely’s book is at the same time an history book, but also an kind of encyclopedia because she included all essentials terms which were use during that time period, such as “dérogeance”, which means the loss of nobility.

Source two is an excerpt from a speech from French lawyer and politician, Maximilien Robespierre. A stranger to nobody who is the least bit familiar with the French Reformation, Robespierre is exceptionally well-known for his understanding of politics and government, and the hugely influential role he played in kickstarting the Reformation. This is demonstrated in his quote, in which he decides and justifies the death of Louis XVI, the king of France at the time. Louis, along with his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, had just been captured for attempting to flee to Austria, most likely to defend themselves against the tumultuous reform. Understandably, this was seen as an act of treason by the people, which grew even more enraged at

Just like John Wilson Croker, 19th-century historian said, "Of no one of whom so much has been written is so little known,”. Historians such as Fouché and Merlin think of Robespierre as a “bloodthirsty tyrant”. Fouché said, “he (Robespierre) had an unquenchable thirst for the blood of his colleagues”. Historian, Peter Kropotkin also has a similar view of Robespierre. In his book, Great French Revolution (1911), he wrote that Robespierre was a “fanatic”, who “to establish his authority over men’s minds, was ready, if necessary, to pass over the dead bodies of his opponents”. On the other hand, historians such as George Rudé and Albert Soboul support Robespierre’s decisions. In Rudé’s opinion, Robespierre was not a ruthless killer, but instead a competent judge, able to differentiate between the counter-revolutionaries and those who had just been misguided. Historian Mathiez has gone as far as relieving Robespierre of any blame by saying that he was a “victim of his time”. The extreme polarity between historians’ views on Robespierre shows us how obscure his personality

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

Robespierre was the main person to implement the laws he put forth.[Footnote] He believed in solving all his problems through violence. Those who were born to a particular family, having certain opinions, or simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time, would fall victim to him. Although Robespierre was obsessed with violence, he never actually performed acts himself, unless assured he would succeed, he’d have other people to do his work for him. The most common device used to punish people was the guillotine. Robespierre used other methods at times; he’d burn, hack, stab, shoot, and even cannonade a person. Those he objected, or had been his enemy would soon be imprisoned, and eventually executed. He was relentless and ordered people dead with no trial, killing people without proving or even knowing if they were truly “guilty”. He believed the mass murders he was responsible for were justified.

The Royal Family of France’s attempted escape on June 20th, 1791 made many people very unhappy with the King. The mob, ever ready to exercise the uncontrolled Rights of Men, made a mock parade of the King’s Arms in the market places, and, dashing them and the figure of a crown to the ground, they trampled upon them, crying out, “Since the King has abandoned what he owed to his high situation, let us trample upon the ensigns of royalty” (Ascherson 48)! The Royal Family not only lost many of its followers through their attempted escape, but also because King Louis XVI kept making bad decisions, ones that had no benefit to France or its people. The people wanted someone who would lead them into a revolution and change France for the better, not because they wanted the power, but because they believed in France and wanted it to become a great nation. That man was Robespierre, who after the flight of the King followed the Jacobin club in its move toward republicanism. He called for universal male suffrage and the end of property qualifications for voting and office holding (Blumberg 290). Robespierre wanted to make France a republic, a government for the people and by the people, a country where everyone had the freedoms and rights they deserved. In January of 1793, Robespierre voted on whether or not he thought that King Louis should be executed for his actions. At the Convention on the trial

Robespierre and the French Revolution illustrates the formerly mentioned media institutionalised lack of ability to confront the true nature of violence whether or not in France over 2 hundred years ago, or at the streets of Britain nowadays, the systematic refusal to mirror upon the variations among violent symptoms and underlying social causes.

To a larger extent the arrest and execution of Maximilien Robespierre was due to his narcissistic tendencies and over-obsession with killing as he showed narcissism to such an extent that he created a new religion in France to which he was the head (Source C), was the ultimate judge of wrong and right in his time of power (Source B), assumed autocratic control of the government (Source C) and was interested solely in personal power and glory (source D). Maximilien Robespierre was the architect of the French Revolution’s reign of terror and executed more than 17,000 enemies of the revolution (Source E), fell into complete tyranny over the simplest differences in opinion and fear was a key component in his terror (Source D), became intoxicated with the power he had over life and death hence called for further executions through his