Of course, that Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette understood that the people of France didn’t like them but they didn’t want to believe in it. That is one of the reasons why they both didn’t try to do anything. One small step could have changed the whole course of the French Revolution. If only, they would have gone and asked the people of France what they need and what they want them to do. The way that they could have done this is by giving fair taxes and giving people the freedom of opinion and speech.
This leads to the question, “Was The Reign of Terror Justified?” Justified meaning that the methods the government established were satisfactory to accomplish the goals set forth by the revolution. The Reign of Terror is not justified because the radical change of government brought about war, the internal threat was handed too violently, and the government's methods were too ruthless. The Reign of Terror was not justified because the government's methods were too ruthless. In Steven Otfinoski's Triumph and Terror: The French Revolution he spoke of the establishment of the Committee of Public safety by the National Convention which made sure no enemies of the revolution were a threat to public safety and by this having to send a system of spies and informers to stop the threats, it made everyone counterrevolutionary or not unsafe from being suspected as an enemy. (Doc.
Maximillien Robespierre was a man with drastic reformatory aspirations. He considered the general will to be a necessity and resorted to the Terror because he wished to create a temporary dictatorship in order to save the Republic. He praised the revolution and disguised the gruesomeness of his actions and intentions by reasoning that the Terror was virtuous since it defended the Republic. The Jacobins were liberal radicalists who wished for a central government, control over the economy, and universal suffrage. With the replacement of the Girondins faction in 1793, the Jacobins had complete control of the National Convention, and France as a nation.
When Henry arrives at the walls of Harfleur and gives another one of his famous speeches, he explains what will happen to the people of France if the King does not surrender the crown. He threatens that his men will destroy the town, rape the women, and kill the children. I’ve done some research on what other people think about the play being anti or pro war, come to find out some critics who have read the play feel that it glorifies war and imperialism. I don’t necessarily think that the play “glorifies” war but
This meant when he came to power, there wasn’t really that much religious tension. At this point the most dangerous extremist group was the Catholic, they had been because of the Anti-Catholic laws that she had past once the Catholic Plots had started to appear. James was favoured in the eyes of Catholics as he was the son of the Catholic martyr Mary, Queen of Scots. It has been said that before he came to throne, while he was King of Scotland he has promised the Catholics more tolerance. This has been greatly debated and in the end he didn’t become more tolerant towards the Catholics, he started to suppress them.
Despite the absurd actions that Antigone puts everyone through without any regard for the law, Creon still reasons with her. By offering to execute the guards to save Antigone’s life in Anouilh’s Antigone, Creon drifts away from the tyrannical role he played in the original Antigone, and becomes a forgiving and somewhat reasonable person. According to Oxford Journals, The character of Antigone took on the role of the French Resistance and Creon took on the role of the Government, symbolizing the power struggle that was taking place in France at the time. Publishing this play was very risky for Anouilh, considering the circumstances. In ancient Greece, during the Peloponnesian wars,
The nobility claimed that such drastic change could only be decided on by an Estates General (most at the Assembly of Notables accepted the principle of a land tax but not the means of bringing it about) • weaknesses and mistakes of the King and his ministers: mistakes of Calonne in thinking that an Assembly of Notables would agree to such reforms – also of appealing to the public behind the back of the assembly which lost him support. De Brienne was also weak. The King did not effectively support either minister • the May Edicts which deprived the parlements in Paris and elsewhere of their right to register and protest against royal decrees. This increased cries of ‘ministerial despotism’ and there were disturbances (Revolt of Nobles) throughout France in support of the parlements. To reach higher levels, students will need to show the inter-relationship of the reasons given, for example they might show that the Crown
The Roman Republic influenced democracy by showing that any other way of ruling is very unfair. I think that the Roman Republic was the most influential to the ideas of today’s democracies. Athens had many philosophers to increase the effectiveness of democracy and reform Athens feared a civil war between the aristocrats and the peasants. The peasants far outnumbered the aristocrats, so they needed to come up with a way to protect themselves from the peasants. Draco was appointed in 632 BCE, but failed to do much at all.
One of this war's causes was the nearly tacit public opinion, as well as the Parliament's, that they should support the Protestants due to Elizabeth (James's daughter) and Frederick - both involved in the war. The people and monarchy started to disagree, resulting into a loss of balance in the whole land. Catholics also earned themselves a bad image due to the gunpowder plot, once again creating a scarce relationship between them and the Protestants. However, it's common logic that the situation would be conflictual, as two forms of Christianity were impossible to coexist. As it was nearly impossible for James to neglect the conflicts, he attempted to marry his son Henry to a Spanish princess (dynastic marriage), the scope being to bring Protestants and Catholics at peace.
The King, however, neglected to mention this to his Parliament who became understandably confused and wary due to the carelessness of James and his lack of communication. Discussion at the Parliament then moved to domestic grievances; most importantly the issue of monopolies, which were bitterly opposed by the vast majority of Parliamentarians. Here James and the Commons worked in unison, a rare event at this time. The revival of impeachment by Coke and Cranfield to remove Bacon, who was heavily involved with monopolies, was allowed by James as he was eager to maintain the positive relations he was enjoying with his Parliament. James and the Commons