5 Answers

  1. Nothing. “Yes, that's” my rough “answer. �A criminal and a monster �Robespierre �delayed �NORMAL �processes �in France �a hundred �years. That's all that happened. �Fortunately, �this �criminal lasted �peak power for only � only some �one and a half �year. �

    Cromwell is the destroyer of the English Revolution, Robespierre is the destroyer of the French Revolution, and Lenin is the destroyer of the Russian Revolution. In my opinion, there can be no other “opinion”, because ” it ” is not justified by anything. Any �reverence �to �ancient �criminal, terrorist, intuitively called himself a revolutionary, to be �not �can. �

    I know that this opinion is unpopular. “But “I don't care at all. Robespierre and all “kindred” people in his “temperament” are criminals. This is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. “Until humanity realizes this, it will not advance any further. “That's all.

  2. I think it's her noble character.�

    If you look deeply at revolutions in other countries such as Russia, Italy, Spain, and America, the words “betrayed”, “accused”, and “provided false facts”are all too common. But not in France. The First and Great French Revolution was unusual for its straightforwardness and soulful patriotism. France was identified with the gods, there was no insult to anyone's feelings, substitutions and hidden tricks. Everything was done directly, on display, all the vices of the monarchy and such a system of life were exposed. Revolutionaries tried to find a way out of the situation, looking only for the talented and the best; the bureaucracy was the worst vice.

    In part, I think, the behavior of the revolutionaries also played a role. The same Saint-Just, according to historians, went to the guillotine with his head held high, and Robespierre, the day before the execution, wrote: “The revolution is not conceived without victims, but these victims are justified. If a revolutionary does not die young on the scaffold, he certainly ends up a tyrant.” Their behavior is commendable, and they can be held up as an example to our generation.

    Another fact is, as I said above, the divine prototype of France, but not of people. Since the 17th century, France has developed a kind of sophisticated atmosphere, as a country for geniuses and creators. This was justified by the flourishing culture of classicism in those days.�

    And one small remark. In the last few years, “slash” and “shiperstvo” have become popular, which, in part, has also affected history. And in the case of the FIU, this is even too popular. There are many factors here: the official abolition of punishment for sodomy in France since the 18th century, images of revolutionaries, the same Saint-Just was described by historians as a “very feminine young man” and everything else. It's much more interesting to believe in mundane storytelling options than platonic relationships.

    I hope I answered fully, sorry for mentioning the last topic, but in my opinion, it really has a decisive influence in popularizing the FIU.

  3. The Great French Revolution is one of the most violent, destructive, but beautiful pages in the history of mankind; one of the most powerful liberation outbursts that humanity has ever seen. The legacy of the revolution is the values proclaimed by the great French enlighteners: the freedom of everyone with respect for the freedom of all, the right of peoples to control their own destiny and institutions designed to ensure social well-being, etc., which have become universal and are rightfully considered the basis of modern democracy.

    The romance of the French Revolution shines through in the famous words of Maximilian Robespierre:
    �«…the driving force of a popular government in a revolutionary period must be both virtue and terror-a virtue without which terror is fatal, a terror without which virtue is powerless.”�

    and in the words spoken before the execution of the famous figure of the revolution Georges Jacques Danton:

    “The revolution devours its children.”�

    The answer to this question should, in my opinion, first understand the essence of the idea of romanticism, and then use concrete examples from the history of the revolution to show the beauty and romance of the French revolution.

    So, the essence of Romanticism as an artistic and cultural movement lies in the idea of life and life's struggle as a work of art. Or, simply put, a romantic life is a beautifully lived life in a constant struggle (for example, to create a better world).

    Historians are divided into two opposing camps on the question of the historical necessity, heritage, and morality of the so-called “Era of Terror.”
    In 1794, the Jacobins issued a series of decrees that marked the beginning of the “great terror”, which was directed against all “enemies of the people”, against those who somehow “assisted the enemies of France”, tried to “violate the purity and strength of revolutionary principles”, etc.The victims of repression were both nobles, royalists, and revolutionaries themselves, who for one reason or another (in most cases on the basis of denunciations) were declared “enemies of the people”. Thus, to J. Danton, Desmoulins and their associates, who opposed the extremes of terror, were given the nickname “condescending” for a truce with an external enemy (to give the country a break), were accused of helping the enemies of the revolution, and after a short trial were executed by guillotine.
    Standing in front of the revolutionary tribunal, J. Danton bitterly threw it to its members: “It was I who ordered the establishment of your vile tribunal-may God and people forgive me!”

    Danton's fate shows that the logic of post-revolutionary events is such that the struggle between the revolutionaries themselves becomes inevitable, and usually the people whom the revolution raises to the top of state power are the first to die. Danton's example also illustrates that a true revolutionary desperately believes in his cause and is ready to give his life without hesitation for the bright, beautiful future of humanity.

    In the middle of the same year, 1794, due to the merciless policy of Terror, in the absolute necessity of which Robespierre firmly believed, the number of counter-revolutionaries and traitors in the ranks of revolutionary leaders increased dramatically. This put Robespierre and his associates, and hence the whole revolutionary cause, in grave danger.
    According to one story, while assessing the critical situation created, Robespierre decides to give a speech to a crowd of revolutionaries, during which he picks up a black notebook and says:�

    “This book contains the names of all traitors. I will now read their names and they will all be executed immediately.”

    But after a wave of horror swept through the crowd, Robespierre, instead of opening the book and reading the names, put it aside and said:

    “If any of you are horrified by what you just said and are afraid, then they are already a traitor!”

    On the one hand, one can argue that it is quite normal to be afraid after such a statement, especially for loyal revolutionaries (since each of them was well aware that his name could be included in the list of traitors by false denunciation), but on the other hand, Robespierre's words contain the romance of the revolution: if you are not ready to give your life for the revolution,

    Disagreements over the policy of the Committee of Public Safety (the main executive body of the government) headed by Maximilian Robespierre continued to grow, and the split among the revolutionaries still reached such a critical level that even the National Convention (the main legislative body of the government) opposed and began to fight Robespierre and his associates. After the first unsuccessful attempt of the gendarmerie detachment sent by the Convention to overthrow Robespierre, the latter gathers an emergency meeting with the rest of the members of the Committee of Public Safety on the night of the so-called 9 Thermidor. During the conference, a decree is passed on the withdrawal of all powers and on the abolition of the National Convention, because at that time it represented a direct threat to the revolution.
    The decree is signed by all members of the committee, including, last of all, Robespierre himself. However, Robespierre's signature remained unfinished: “Ro”; on the lower part of the sheet there are several large brown spots. According to one of two versions, these stains are Robespierre's blood, and the signature was cut off by a pistol shot of a gendarme who burst in at the time of signing the decree, crushing his jaw.

    But there is also a second, beautiful and romantic version explaining what happened. According to this version, Robespierre deliberately interrupted the act of signing a decree depriving the main legislative body of the newborn republic of all its powers. It dawned on him that with this signature, he was uprooting and bringing to the grave what he had been desperately fighting for all this time. After all, the abolition of the National Convention meant the death of the first democratic republic and the introduction of a dictatorship, which in fact would be no different from the Monarchy, against which he and his associates fought murderously.

    Finally, we can focus on the history of the Haitian liberation movement. Haiti, which at that time was a French colony, together with the beginning of the revolution in France, declared its sovereignty and the establishment of a democratic system in the state. This incident is significant because for the first time in the history of the struggle of black slaves against colonialism, African black Haitians, instead of returning to their homeland, wanted to create the same democratic republic based on universal values as in France. The constitution was adopted, which included the following lines::невероят” Every citizen of the Democratic Republic of Black Haiti , REGARDLESS of skin color, is BLACK! ” Even more incredible, the government of Republican France recognized and established friendly relations with the new government of free Haiti.�

    After the fall of the First Republic, in 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte, who had come to power by this time, sent an army to suppress the black uprising in Haiti and re-establish French order there. However, as Napoleon's ships approached the coast of Haiti, the French saw from afar a cluster of blacks on the shore and the sounds of singing began to reach them. At first, the French thought it must be the primitive music of African slaves, but when they got close enough, they were shocked to hear that the blacks on the beach were actually singing the Marseillaise! According to legend, the sailors (many of them former revolutionaries) realized that they were fighting on the wrong side, and went over to the black side!

    It is also no coincidence that the music of the national anthem of the RSFSR is the music of the Marseillaise. The Great French Revolution, the Great October Revolution in Russia, and Christianity are united by an ABSOLUTE zeal for freedom. These are outbursts of emancipation. The fundamental idea of all these historical events is a call to the fact that regardless of social status, he has the same access to the “Universal Truth”, like all the others (in paganism access to the “Universal Truth” had only the priests, and in a monarchy, only the monarch and his entourage; no one questioned the legitimacy of the monarch; the power was given to him from birth from God).

    In conclusion, Immanuel Kant's The Conflict of Faculties raises a fundamental question: is real progress possible in history (meaning ethical progress, not material development)? Answering this question, he admits that the story is too complicated and ambiguous to prove progress. However, despite the fact that progress cannot be proved, Kant writes that it is possible to distinguish signs of the possibility of progress. He interprets the French Revolution as such a sign. An absolutely unthinkable thing happened before that: a whole nation stood up and fearlessly declared freedom and equality, and dedicated its existence to the struggle for Freedom, Equality and Fraternity! This is romance.

  4. The romance of the French Revolution lies precisely in the fact that it was preceded by a wave of Enlightenment. Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau-they all believed that it was necessary to show people that they can live differently, that they have rights. Can you imagine the peasants tortured by the feudal lords, suffering under the yoke of power? And then they all get an announcement that the ball is over, guys, the candles are out, you all have exactly the same rights as the people who run you. That is, in less than a hundred years, people there have realized (unlike in Russia) that YOU CAN live better and, most importantly, that YOU NEED to live better. I mean, you know, it's like a massive epiphany. The Enlightenment became for them a guiding light to freedom. That's the whole point of romance.

  5. For some people, this is to repeat the path described in the proverb “from dirt to princes”, for another part, on the contrary, from princes to dirt. For most, “my hut is on the edge, I don't know anything.”

Leave a Reply