During his reign, Maximilien Robespierre not only changed the course of the French Revolution but he also changed the meaning of the Revolution. In his speech of February 5,1794, Robespierre discusses the importance of terror as an integral part of what the Revolution should mean. The figures behind this speech indicate that in the five months from September, 1793, to February 5, 1794, the revolutionary tribunal in Paris convicted and executed 238 men and 31 women and acquitted 190 persons, and that on February 5 (the date of this speech) there were 5,434 individuals in the prisons in Paris awaiting trial(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html.
On 8 Thermidor Year II (July 27, 1794), Robespierre was overthrown; he was guillotined the next day. Estimates have the total number of Terror victims at 30,000 to 40,000 persons, including Robespierre.
The question, however, is how should we view Robespierre? His egalitarian vision of the Republicanism was obviously a noble attempt to completely destroy the Old Regime and the inequities that were put in place by the moderate Girondins but his methods of terror and his willingness to equate terror to virtue places him in a special category within Western history. As Colin Jones writes in "At the Heart of the Terror" (required reading for you) "He (Robespierre) evidently believed that he was still acting out of principles and he retained his perennial penchant for self-righteousness".
In his own words, Robespierre writes,
"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs."
I would like each of you to comment on the impact of Robespierre on the Revolution, especially the above comment as it pertains to terror and virtue. What does terror as virtue mean for the direction of the Revolution. Consider all of the readings from the bulletin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Robespierre could easily be seen as the one who moved the revolution from the moderate phase to the radical phase. His ideals and beliefs line up with what happened during the radical phase of the revolution. His image of virtue is that of terror. To achieve peace, one must put fear into his people so that they will follow the laws without question during the time of the revolution. When Robespierre began to preach his ideals, countless people began to be killed for anything, from breaking the law to speaking out against the revolution. His influence on the revolution is very clear during the radical phase.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTyler- Why did Robespierre feel the need to use the violence? How did do you think JJ Rousseau influenced Robespierre? What possible virtue could terror provide?
ReplyDeletebecause he believed that it is impossible for a government to have virtue without terror. He also thinks that it is the governments job to eliminate those who are against the state's virtues. Rousseau advocated the general will and that any who do not follow it should be cast aside. Robespierre followed this notion but took it further and instead of casting the offenders out of the society, he simply killed them. By using terror, one could create a uniform definition of virtue thus influencing the general will.
ReplyDeleteYes, Robespierre was an influential part of the Revolution. He did help to destroy the Old Regime, but he created a new regime just as bad, if not worse, than the original one. Guillotining anyone with slightly contrasting views than his thoughts on terror did not create a society where men are able to exercise their liberty and speak their minds. The Revolution was not able to move in a positive direction until he was guillotined himself and a new perspective was gained on the revolution, one of democracy and equality.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Robespierre had good intentions to bring order in the uncertain period, he soon after went down a slippery slope and brought greater chaos than before. At first,the terror stabilized the economy and made a good army, but later, it did not balance out with virtue and democracy.This would have put a check on the terror.After the order was restored, he did not stop there and only used terror,alone to undo the order,not building on the revolutionary ideas.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre wanted to end the Ancien Regime and implement the ideas of Voltaire and Roussaeau. He succeeded in ending the Ancien Regime, but he basically created another one that was worse. He destroyed the monarchy by killing the king, but he created a totalitarianism also. If anyone spoke their mind about anything, they were guillotined. This is not a free society. It wasn't the society that they wanted to create when they revolted against the king. It created terror in everyone and made them scared. Robespierre believed terror was needed to control the people and for justice. Therefore, it was a virtue in his mind. However, the idea of terror as virtue killed thousands of people. It wasn't until Robespierre was guillotined before everyone realized that there was a better way to deal with things.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre ended the old regime, thinking that he could create a new and better way of government. He was influenced by Rousseau's idea of the general will. Robespierre thought that terror was the way to attain virtue in his newly formed government. In Robespierre's mind, "terror", in itself, was designed to form stability and to instill justice in the citizens. Robespierre killed many people trying to attain virtue. Citizens were not allowed to speak out against his ideas or commit any actions against these ideas. This relates back to Berlin's idea of progress that man has done many bad things to make progress. Also, Machiavelli's statement that "the end justifies the means" comes into play as well. Robespierre, killed many, and was also killed in the end, but it took these mass deaths to realize and form a correct and better way to deal with these conflicts within a government.
ReplyDeletesorry not Berlin, but Perry, my mistake
ReplyDeleteRobespierre had it wrong when he decided to restrict the freedoms that Rousseau and Voltaire thought as natural and inherent, the very people whose philosophies he attempted to follow. It was probably impossible to determine what wouldn't deserve execution by guillotine, so Robespierre managed to form a similar or, perhaps, worse government than the previous one. Luckily, the French people followed Locke's views on revolution and straightened the problem out.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Robespierre's views on terror as virtue did, in a way, help the cause of the revolution. Although it didn't allow for progress for years, the people were given another opportunity to realize exactly what they needed to start a brand new society, and they were given a second chance to do so. So the deaths, although they were unnecessary and tragic, caused the French to sort of leave their faulty first attempt at reformation and make a progressive step and an even better effort at a new government.
I can clearly understand where Robespierre was coming from with his approach. During this era, Robesiperre had a huge impact on the direction that the revolution was heading in. He gave the people a new definition to the concept of terror. To him, terror was basically a necessity that was definitely needed to shape the society and the government in taut order. When i read this, it greatly reminded me of what Machiavelli stated in "The Prince." He stated that a ruler must use fear and cruelty if there is a justification for it due to the fact that human nature is sinful. I believe that Robespierre was acting accordingly to what Machiavelli had stated. However, Robespierre could not control the use of terror and took it way too far. This lack of control basically created another anarchy and chaos and eventually brought about his downfall.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre hoped to create an ideal and better world where people's rights and liberties were held in high regard, but however in his eagerness to create this perfect kind of society, he instead created a worse version of the Old Regime he sought to replace. although his original intentions were for good, for the better of the people, he blocked out the actual voices of the people and annihilated all opposition, literally marching all of the ones who disagreed with his mentality to the guillotine. Although his original intentions were to create a better society, one different from the old regime in the sense that everyone had equal rights and their natural rights were protected, the society that resulted was one plunged in fear of death, and oppression.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, Robespierre had the right idea about how to rule people. He had the right mentality as well as the right means to rule. As with many rulers, Robespierre clearly lost sight of his goal and took France for a wild ride that ended in his death. The Revolution took a turn for the worst when Robespierre said that terror was a good way to rule. You can scare people as much as you want and probably get whatever you want, but you will lose friends and followers very fast. Robespierre had a great impact on the Revolution, but the minute he mentioned terror and virtue in the same sentence, the Revolution took a turn for the worst. The fact that Robespierre used terror to get what he wanted worked, but it really did not work for long at all. Terror should not be a virtue and is by no means a good way to govern people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Burton-
ReplyDeleteRobespierre approach to destroying the Old Regime in France brings up the question of "whether a ruler should be loved or feared" again. Robespierre believed that a ruler should be feared to maximize efficiency in how a group or party makes decisions. I agree with him on this topic, because if a ruler was loved, it would allow people to debate and argue about decisions, which would only delay the ultimate action of the ruler. Robespierre's spread of terror to instill fear is justifiable because he only made his actions for the good of the state of France. His impact on the Revolution helped it stay on path towards its main goal, liberty in France for all.
Like Andrew and JC previously stated, this brings up the question as to whether or not a ruler should be loved or feared. There needs to be a balance. When you terrorize people constantly and leave no room for the people to do what they like, there are obviously going to be some haters. Perhaps Robespierre was a bit too ambitious, and lost sight of the fact that his people are what matter. Robespierre was the one that caused the Revolution to commit suicide. With his reign of terror, the original ideas (motto) behind the revolution- Liberty, equality, fraternity, were lost. Without a balance between ideals, there will always be issues.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre, "The Incorruptible", was an ambitious, purist who controlled the Revolution during the Reign of Terror. He was married to Rousseau's book-The Social Contract. Rousseau favored a Hellenic Greek type democracy, where the citizens, with the "General Will" controlled government.
ReplyDeleteFrance, during the Revolution, was not gradually moving in the direction of a peaceful republic, but rather, free falling violently in the name of democracy. Robespierre, in this frenzied time, took it upon himself to decide the "General Will", which, in his eyes, was in the people's best interest, for besides he was the "Incorruptible". This Machiavellian grasp of the control over the "General Will" completely diminished Rousseau's ideals. As leader of the Revolution, Robespierre sought virtue, nationalism and adherence to the "General Will". Being an ambitious statesman, he asserted his will through violence, or "terror". He viewed terror as justice, and he viewed justice as virtue. In result, virtue and terror became intertwined. This dangerous and contrasting combination was not sustainable, ending the "Reign of Terror" and destroying the very corrupt, power-drunk Robespierre. Overall, Robespierre had good intentions for France, but he rushed the reforming process of the state, spilling blood and causing chaos.
Gentlemen--
ReplyDeleteReally nice comments. You've put some wonderful thoughts into these ideas. Robespierre is a polarizing figure; some think he was not a bad guy at all and that he was the precursor to the egalitarian ideas of Marx and Engels; more importantly that he wanted to change the condition of man.
Robespierre belived that through terrorzing everyone, he could achieve a well balanced society. But a society cannot be founded on one of fear. It should be based upon ideas and characteristics that fit the citizens, and is beneficiary to everyone. Sure Robespierre affected the Revolution, but it was only by moving out of one problem and into another. He tried to pusue a better government for the people, but failed in applying essential components for an ideal government.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre thought that if he always terrorized the people that his society would become well balanced. The down fall of this is that when he terrorizes the people they will begin to fear him, which will not lead to a balanced society. If you have a society that fears the ruler there will always be problems. Robespierre should instead have a society that is for the better of the citizens and makes them feel comfortable with the decisions their leader makes.
ReplyDeleterobespierre felt it necessary to completely change the french government. I believe he was trying to better the government, but took it too far. He used violence and fear to create this. It led to not only a totalitarian society, but to a society that feared its ruler. In the end, robespierre overstepped his power and failed to follow the main principle of machiavelli: to stay in the grey area between fear and being too nice.
ReplyDeleteJeff Loube
In the Burke excerpt from Perry (154-155) comment on what he accuses the French citizens of acting as. What are his criticisms?
ReplyDeleteBurke accuses the leaders of the French Revolution and the French citizens as, "wild-eyed fanatics who had uprooted all established authority, traditions, and institutions, thereby plunging France into anarchy" (154). In addition, Burke states that the nature of man is savage like when not controlled by an absolute authority. In other words, Burke did not believe that people were capable of ruling themselves, and if they did rule themselves, it would lead to anarchy.
What does Hitchens mean by this? Comment please
Hitchens means that revolutions often backfire, and when the followers of the revolution believe that they have achieved their goal, they find out that the product of the revolution is the same or worse than the establishment which inspired the original revolution.
What does Burke mean by this? Why did Burke find the Revolution so appalling and destructive? Please comment.
Burke believes that the French people failed when attempting to emulate other countries/societies reconstruction of old government systems, to make way for new, democratic governments which protected the rights of the individual. Burke believes that the French people made the French society worse when they abolished the "regal authority".
What does terror as virtue mean for the direction of the Revolution?
Robespierre viewed terror as a necessary act in order to reach the final goal of destroying the Old Regime and establishing a new government in France. Robespierre represents an intriguing character because he advocated an egalitarian society based on Republicanism, yet he thought that the end result of Republicanism justified the slaughter of thousands of French citizens.
Maximilien Robespierre believed that society’s balanced could be found in his terrorization of the people. The problem with terrorizing the people is that he will gain fear from the people, and this is problematic because if he is trying for a balanced society then the balanced with never be achieved if some fear the leader, and some don’t. Instead of terrorizing the people, Robespierre should let the people make their own decisions and allow them to become more content with the decisions and adjustments the ruler makes. This would clearly allow Robespierre to achieve his idea of the idealistic France.
ReplyDeleteObviously, Robespierre knew how much he would be hated after he decided to incorporate terror as his tool for defending democracy. As every human being does, Robespierre knew the emotional effect that results from a death. However, he decided to ignore that feeling of emotion that would be an obstacle to his ultimate goal (the peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality.) He was a strong advocate of the concept previously instated by Machiavelli. As a leader, he could not be too compassionate towards every individual. Instead, he utilized fear and terror to maintain a controllable society. He knew, just as Machiavelli did, that it was better to be feared as a leader than to be loved. He ignored the needs of the individual and judged everyone equally. (One of the reasons why so many victims were killed innocent.) The fact of the matter is, while Robespierre had good intentions for France, he took it too far. The reign of terror that he had created spun out of control. It no longed balanced out with virtue. He had a well-known quote which stated that “virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent.” It could have worked, but Robespierre focused too much on the terror. Just as he had predicted terror without virtue was impotent, the result of his lack of balance was fatal. To add on to your previous question on how did Rousseau influenced the ideas of Robespierre; Rousseau believed that “The individual member alienates himself totally to the whole community together with all his rights." This and his concept of the general will state that the individual does not have precedence over the necessities of the society, but that when the needs of the individual and the needs of society collide, society overrules the individual. Robespierre understood this concept and incorporated it into his own beliefs. He believed that the sacrifices of the individual were well worth it and that the countless deaths were necessary for the development of a better society.
ReplyDeleteWhen Robespierre equated terror to virtue, he removed any possible chance of a stable revolution. His complete and absolute reign of terror did not actually distance France from the old regime, but it actually distanced France a new stable democracy. As Robespierre steered the revolution in the direction of terror, justifying all of his actions with virtue, which in it of itself is hypocritical, he acted as an absolute monarch would. If somebody did not agree with the revolution, Robespierre killed them, and claimed that it was for the good of the Revolution. But is that not what the French kings had been doing previously, terrorizing and killing because somebody spoke out against them? Robespierre simply removed stability and order from France.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre, in my opinion, is somewhat like Machiavelli.He realized that to move forward and make an impact that he had to throw away compassion, sympathy, values. He must be willing to get hid hands dirty, and his hands were very very dirty. Machiavelli mentioned two animals in his piece The Prince, the lion and the fox. Lion representing fear and the fox representing cunning.Robespierre took the idea of the lion to heart. He used mass fear of death to create an "controllable" society. the one place where i think Robespierre went wrong is the Fox. He threw all caution aside and was not deceptive. He was brutal and straight forward. And he died for it.
ReplyDeleteSo u ask "what effect he had on the Revolution", he was the revolution.
BOOYAH
ReplyDeleteRobespierre believes that virtue and terror are not seperate entities, but that one is essential for the existence of the other. This allowed him to justify that he must act harshly towards his people to maintain a certain sense of authority which he considered virtue. Robespierre believed that if he followed the law to the letter, he would be considered virtuous since he did not show any favoritism. However many of the laws at the time were draconian in nature, yet Robespierre did not use reason in his evalutions of different cases, which he must have believed was a virituous act. His overwhelming belief that he was using reason in his acting as leader, was actually a misunderstanding of the Machiavellian principles, needed to be a good leader.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre was a very important part of the Revolution. He helped destroy the Old Regime but then also tried to make a New Regime which did not result in a positive way. The New Regime could even have been in a worse shape than the Old Regime. Robespierre is trying to have terror and virtue work in conjunction to try and create a better French government. He is saying by terror as virtue that for a successful government or society, the common people must have some fear in them. This means that if one does something that the government doesn't like, they have the "right" to persecute them as they wish. This also leads to the guillotining of Robespierre, himself. He believed that to have a successful government that the people must have fear of the government to keep them in line.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the French Revolution, I see "terror" taking two different roles. Many of the previous comments have touched on the manifest terror that took the lives of so many "innocent" Parisians. Yet were they truly innocent? And was Maximilien Robespierre behind the death of every one of them?
ReplyDeleteConsidering he was often absent from his position on The Committee of Public Safety in 1974, it cannot honestly be said that he was the sole perpetrator behind those murders. Robespierre merely fulfilled his position as an altruistic Prince concerned only with the selfless welfare of his beloved fatherland. In fact as Colin Jones also points out in "At the Heart of the Terror", Maximilien supported the abolition of the death penalty in the early Republic. However, drastic times call for drastic measures, and so as the thriving Revolution became corrupt, not by himself, but by counter-revolutionaries he did what was best for the common-wealth. As Robespierre himself claimed, "The King must die so that the nation can live."
Is it not then justified that a city as grand as Paris should be cleansed of its vermin by a simple thump of patriotism? Criminals so ambitious as to dream to overthrow a republic are of course guilty of "the blackest crime of all." You say these "innocent men and women" are victims of Robespierre; the same men and women who took part in such calamities as the September Massacre.
Yes, I can see a Reign of Terror, but it is controlled by a duplicitous mob of blind radicals, the such who have the audacity to assassinate the one man with sight of the truth, a man who dedicated his life to Liberté, Fraternité, and Egalité.
I believe that terror as a virtue meant nothing but more turmoil for the people of the French Revolution. Up until the start of the revolution, the French absolute monarchy had been ruling under "Machiavellian" principles, believing that they had to cast aside good Christian values and morals and implement fear into their society in order to have a successful rule. A disobedient citizen would suffer severe consequences. This is why terror definitely not the right approach to take in the revolution: the French were used to it. They were used to living in fear of what their government would do to them if they didn't agree, they were used to being ordered around, and if they violated these boundaries in either 1779 or 1789, the result was still the same: certain death. So what was the difference? A much more intelligent approach that Robespierre could have pursued would have been to A) NOT kill bajillions of people, only the ones that were threatening to kill him, and B) to lead by example. If he had allowed his revolters to be free and keep their own opinions, maybe they would have seen a future in his promises.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre ended the old regime and brought France into a reign of terror and turmoil. Robespierre did this by uniting the people with fear. This idea is similar to what Machiavelli expresses in his ideal leader, "The Prince." Robespierre believed the ends justified the means, fear justified his virtue of improving France. Robespierre was to extreme with his use of fear and tried to change France too drastically and too rapidly which resulted in a worse France and Robespierre's execution
ReplyDeleteRobespierre had tremendous influence over the french revolution. He used terror to stear the revolution in the direction of its eventual goal. He used executions and imprisonments to punish those who wished to continue with the old ways and social structure. He descirbes terror as a necessary virtue for a successful revolution. By this he means that the justice provided by terror is needed to push the progress sought by reformers. Terror is used to hasten the revolutionary process. Robspierre would argue that without terror the virtue of the revolutionary could not meaningfully be put into place.
ReplyDelete- Theo Donnay
Robespierre new that their was corruption in their government. He overthrough the monarchy but power corrupts and he found himself in the same position as a totalitarian leader who abused his position like the same regime he overthrew. He used the fear he could yield as ruler to take advantage of the people. It took the next batch of unhappy Robespierres to execute him and the cycle continued. His ideas were origanally virtuous, he could just not handle his power.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre used the wrong methods in trying to make society balanced. He instituted fear into the peoples minds and this created imbalance. He was seen as a dictator and so the people then had very little control over their own freedom, so obviously they did no seek balance in their society. He should have given more liberty and freedom to the people to create this idealistic France that he wanted. Instead he created a worse version of the Old Regime.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre in reality, was not a complete savage as many make him out to be. Yes, he used fear, and violence to do what needed to be done, but he did exactly that. In all scenarios, fear and violence are not necessary, but from Robespierre's perspective, with pressure from other people, countries, etc. the necessity was probably higher than anything at that time.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre serves as a conduit for the terror and a dictionary for the virtue. He brings the terror to the people through his skewed ideals of how power should be seized. Then with all the power and control he has, Robespierre can define virtue as whatever he pleases. So he takes his idea of power through terror and makes that the virtue of the time. This shows the backwards way of the Revolution and also the people of the times willingness for any kind of leader
ReplyDeleteRobespierre embodied both the positive and negative essences of the Revolution. Contrary to popular belief, he was not a terrorist, but he realized that he had to utilize terror in order to destroy the Ancient Regime. He changed his stance on political issues (such as the death penalty) because he saw that in order for France to overthrow old notions and social systems, and completely give itself a makeover, he needed to completely rid his country of people who held beliefs that were contrary and detrimental to the betterment of France. Robespierre's actions (and we cannot say for sure that he was behind all of the convictions-because he was ill) raise the question: Does the progression and evolution of the state take precedence over the people that make it up? In other words, is the collective whole or "general will" more important than the people that make it up? The terror implemented by Robespierre allows one to infer that the collective whole of state is more important than the people. By caring for the state itself, the state has been able progress and the people of further generations have had better conditions of life. Virtue is better in the present, but terror serves the people better in the long run. That is not saying that terror and virtue should be separated, rather they should be balanced, and the best should be used for each situation.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre ended the old regime, and was influenced by Rousseau's idea of general will. Robespierre used terror to keep virtue in the government. Robespierre used terror to rule with an iron fist over the people. Robespierre took many innocent lives on his way to attaining virtue. Citizens were not allowed to speak out against his ideas or they would be punished or killed. Robespierre took many lives and even lost his own in order to form the sought after government. This is back to the classic idea if the ends justifies the means.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre's effect on the revolution was very significant. He incorporated terror in his ruling style and controlled people with fear. He took the idea of the general will, originally touched on by Rousseau. Because Robespierre decided that he had the power to interpret the general will, he could promote his own agenda under the mask of public betterment. As we have learned, no one has the power to interpret the general will, and people who claim that they understand it are very dangerous.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre's use of terror as a tool created an unstable France. The government that came about acted against the ideals of france and the true goals of the revolution.
Although Robespierre's methods were undoubtedly violent, his noble goal set the foundation for a movement that ended the restrictive society of a one-man rule. Robespierre provided the necessary force needed to end such a strong tradition of society, and in a twisted manner, stands as a martyr. Certainly, his methods weren't anywhere close to perfect, and created an extremely hostile environment, but as Berlin says, it takes blood to exercise progress. It is important to look past Robespierre's mistakes and look into the deeper meaning behind his importance. He used the virtue of terror for the sake of human rights, just as the Old Regime (although less blatantly) used the virtue of terror for the sake of restricting human rights. He had to forcefully counter the style Old Regime in order to bring it down.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre definitely had an influence on the Revolution. Yes, he did help the Old Regime to be destroyed, but he created this idea that was equally as bad. He took away the rights that all humans should have freedom of speech, and man's liberty. Men were not able to speak freely because if they did they were killed. Robespierre created a society that was okay with decapitating someone if they disagreed with your ideas, just the slightest. This mentality is, in my mind, worse then the Old Regime. So, in a sense, he moved the Revolution, but not in a positive direction. Robespierre creates this sense of terror over the people to get his way. Although effective for the most part, it was a very disturbing and violent way. Until after his death, France returned to it's liberty and democracy.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre "Reign of Terror" to me is the turning point in the French Revolution. Until Robespierre took control the French Revolution was nothing but a collection of ideas. Robespierre enforced these ideas and violently removed those who opposed his rulership. Although Robespierres methods were out of line he pushed across the ideas that the lower class had been addressing during the earlier stages of the revolution. Robespierre played the most important role in the Revolution by changing the regimes. After most of the opposition to the Revolution had been removed Robespierre became useless as his methods were only needed to start the republic not lead it.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre intended for his spread of terror to be a good thing which would help stabilize the country and its own problems, yet his first mistake was using terror as a virtue. Terror and virtues are two opposite ideas that don't make sense when placed together. A virtue is a high moral standard which is certainly not in the same category as the idea of terror. Yet Robespierre himself was not a virtuous man, in face he was cruel and removed his opposition by violently executing them. He suceeded in his initial goal of overtrowing the old regime yet failed in his attempt at leader ship
ReplyDeleteI must say that Robespierre definately had a large impact on the revolution. He made perhaps the largest impact because through his many speeches and announcements he was able to rally a vast majority of Revolutionaries under the overall belief that the old regime must be tossed out and that they the people must make a new government. Now, while the old regime was certainly corrupt because many people were homeless due to the harsh conditions under the rule by King. Robespierre personally thought that having a monarchial rule was to be very bad, however he somewhat turned into the very man he but to death. Overall Robespierre had a vast effect on the revolution because he seemed to be the one that rallied everyone together.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre idea of a change of governemnt was one that was supposed to go from a totaln anarchial government, to a more free, self choosing government. As a powerful man he became blinded by society and began to make decisions he would have not before. He was blood-thirsty and thought everyone deserved to pay. With little evidence he would murder someone if he thought they did wrong. He had a loarge inpact on the revolution because he was a precedent for what others saw not to be, someone who is power hungry, and blood thirsty.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look back on the French Revolution, many great achievements are overshadowed by apparent terror and violence. However, much more came out of the Revolution than a high body count. Robespierre is the mastermind behind these advancements. His ideas shaped the modern outlook. His ideas of equality under law as well as many others are key concepts in the governments of many modern day societies. He advocated for a constitution protecting and defending the rights of all Frenchmen. This was tremendously different from the ld Regime, which he helped terminate. He opened peoples' minds to the idea of a parliament, different from the previous rule by a monarch or a powerful aristocratic few. Robespierre saw a struggling France and did all that he could to save it.However, one cannot ignore completely the death toll and violence that accompanied the Revolution. The facts are staggering. How could such human tragedy be stomached by the people of France? Robespierre invoked terror among the people. Such terror instilled in them a hunger and sense of nationalistic pride. They would do whatever it takes to accomplish their goals. The goals of the Revolution may be something worth working for, yet it is not worth it if it was achieved through terror. One cannot build a country on terror alone. Robespierre too a great deal of inspiration from Rousseau. However, Robespierre strayed from Rousseau. Those who disobeyed the general will were not merely outcasts, rather they were killed by guillotine immediately. The general will was in the power of one man, a terribly dangerous idea for Rousseau. Robespierre clearly beleived that it is better to be feared than to be loved, following closely in Machiavelli's footsteps. As a better end was to be reached, Robespierre's actions were justified. However this thinking leads to a dilemma. Robespierre was not succesful, therefore all the deaths and horror were not justified. Had he been successful, he would be remembered in a completely different light.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre was successful with his intial goal to remove the old regime from power, however in his attempts to lead he made a fundamental mistake from the beginning. His combination of terror as a virtue is not something that could ever work, especially in the state that france was in. He was trying to achieve balance in society, however his reign of terror created a "fear of the leader" aspect which made it impossible to find the true balance. At first his ideas succeded, economic and military conditions improved, but soon his ideas began to not be able to blend with the new type of democracy which people were trying to achieve
ReplyDeleteRobespierre's impact on the French Revolution was one that was very influential, but his beliefs were ones that are flawed. His total reliance on terror and his thought of terror a means of justice and an emanation of virtue caused thousands of deaths. Did all of these deaths outweigh the positive output it had on the French Revolution? Was Robespierre right to be as strict and forceful for the purpose of the greater good? In the end, both attempts were in vain, and he himself became a victim of his own rulings.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre acted on what he believed on and wasn't a passive person, and for that he influenced the Western culture. His combo of terror and virtue showed was poorly judged, but he still was affective at rallying people up, but once the ideas were in place, he became less affective.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre's effect on the revolution was one that severely altered the course of action taken by most people. He was the one who could be held responsible for the change from the moderate phase of the revolution into the terror. His view that terror is virtue would mean that as ruler he would continue using terror as his main tactic in attaining justice. He feels that terror is virtuous and helpful to his cause so if he had lived the society left after the old regime would be ruled by terror.
ReplyDelete