Suchergebnisse

This unit provides basic historical background to the French Revolution. It will show that the Revolution accelerated intellectual, cultural and psychological change, and opened up new horizons and possibilities. In fact, while much controversy and scepticism remain as to the real extent of underlying change in the social and economic structure of France, it is generally agreed by scholars that the Revolution stimulated a widening of expectations and imaginative awareness: a belief, inherited from the Enlightenment, in the possibility of progress, as well as a conviction that state and society could be reconstituted with a view to realizing social and individual aspirations and human happiness generally. As it degenerated into violence and bloodshed, however, the Revolution also provoked scepticism and pessimism about progress and human nature. The two basic types of modern political outlook, progressive and conservative, date from this experience. Which, if any, of these sets of beliefs was true is not at issue here. What matters is that the Revolution gave rise to them and gave them lasting life

The French Revolution is one of the most important events in world history. This era has been the subject of countless studies and has also been cited as the inspiration for revolutions around the world. The downfall of Louis XVI and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte challenged and reshaped Europe's political foundations. Simply put, the world would be a very different place if the French Revolution had ended differently. With that being said, the outcome of the French Revolution was not inevitable. Having explored this topic before, I believed that Louis XVI's role in the French Revolution needed to be reviewed, as his actions completely changed the trajectory of the revolution. If Louis had given in to the revolutionaries' demands, the revolution might not have escalated; calls for republicanism were not nearly as popular in 1789 as they were in 1793. This paper mainly challenges the concept of the inevitability of Louis' downfall, showing that the monarch was responsible for his own ruin. This paper also seeks to clarify this moment in history by examining numerous books, journal articles, memoirs, and letters that explore why the revolution developed as it did. Furthermore, I believe that this paper's findings clarify the French Revolution's developments and contribute to the subject's historiography through an examination of Louis XVI's actions during the revolution.

v. 1. bk. 1. Spontaneous anarchy ; bk. 2. The constituent assembly, and the result of its labours ; bk. 3. The application of the constitution -- v. 2. bk. 4. The Jacobin conqiest -- v. 3. bk. 5. Establishment of the revolutionary government ; bk. 6. The Jacobin programme ; bk. 7. The governors ; bk. 8. The governed. ; Mode of access: Internet.

I SHOULD LIKE TO START WITH AN EXTREMELY SIMPLE STATEment about the French Revolution. This is that there are many historical arguments among historians on many subjects, but that none of these arguments is so intense and so heated as the one which takes place in every generation about the French Revolution. It is as though the historical interpretation of this particular subject and the arguments of specialists directly reflect the political struggles and the gamble for power. It is true that we are all aware today that there are no unbiased historical interpretations: the selection of facts which provide the raw material for the historian's work is already the result of a choice, even although that choice is not an explicit one. To some extent, history is always the result of a relationship between the present and the past and more specifically between the characteristics of an individual and the vast realm of his possible roots in the past. But, nevertheless, even within this relative framework, not all the themes of history are equally relevant to the present interests of the historian and to the passions of his public.

I SHOULD LIKE TO START WITH AN EXTREMELY SIMPLE STATEment about the French Revolution. This is that there are many historical arguments among historians on many subjects, but that none of these arguments is so intense and so heated as the one which takes place in every generation about the French Revolution. It is as though the historical interpretation of this particular subject and the arguments of specialists directly reflect the political struggles and the gamble for power. It is true that we are all aware today that there are no unbiased historical interpretations: the selection of facts which provide the raw material for the historian's work is already the result of a choice, even although that choice is not an explicit one. To some extent, history is always the result of a relationship between the present and the past and more specifically between the characteristics of an individual and the vast realm of his possible roots in the past. But, nevertheless, even within this relative framework, not all the themes of history are equally relevant to the present interests of the historian and to the passions of his public. The subject of Clovis, for example, and of the Frankish invasions was of burning interest in the eighteenth century, because historians of that era thought that the Frankish invasions were the source of the division between the nobility and the common people: the conquerors having evolved into the nobility and the conquered having become the commoners. Today, the Germanic invasions are no longer considered to contain or reveal any secret about French society: they have become once again a subject for historiography, left to scholars and to the arguments of specialists.

Beginning with a detailed history of the sparks that led to the Revolution in France (1789–1799), this essay gives French women praise by illustrating the specific types of women who assisted in the Revolution: the women of the mob, Charlotte Corday, Madame Roland, Madame de Stael, the Princess de Lamballe and Marie Antoinette.