Enlightenment thinkers began to revolutionize the way of thinking around the world, particularly in France and America, changing the ways people thought about life during the late eighteenth century. The American Revolution began by the reason of taxation without representation. The French aided the Americans in their war, evoking ideas that France should have equality and justice as well. On the account of the Americans did influence France, their revolutions had many comparable qualities, as well as opposing characteristics. Both regions had several things in common, such as unjust rulers and desire of equality and freedom for peasants and nobles, although they had major differences on how they went about winning their revolution and what they were fighting for.
Because of Napoleon’s selfishness when conquering other countries he is considered a tyrant. Even though Napoleon was a tyrant, he still had many accomplishments to help benefit France. Napoleon ended the French revolution, therefore ending many of the country’s problems. Before Napoleon, there was constant violence, acts for revolution, and economic instability. Napoleon overthrew the Directory in a coup d’etat in 1799 and was the beginning of the Napoleonic Era.
In 1789 France abolished all privileges and came up with the Declaration of Rights of Man 1789. These events led to the debate “Was the French Revolution Worth its Human?” which is being argued by Peter Kropotkin and Simon Schama. In this debate Peter Kropotkin argues yes and Simon Schama argues no. Reviewing the debate from Kropotkins point of view the author of the article “The Great French Revolution 1789-1793”, the French Revolution was indeed worth its human cost. Although many deaths occurred, France did change tremendously.
Napoleons Mistakes and Their Consequences Today in social studies classes even at a very young age we learn about the famous ruler Napoleon Bonaparte. He is worldly known for creating a huge empire basing of off France during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Napoleons Empire was dominant, prosperous, and controlled much of Europe. However his headstrong, persistent personality to acquire more land got him out of power and his empire ruined. Lastly due to his strong and rough ruling tactics when in control of the empire, he was exiled.
Taylor wrote a book called “The Struggle for Mastery in Europe”, in this book A.J.P. Taylor claimed that German ambitions were the cause of the war. All of these views have merit; however, while imperialism was one of the causes of World War 1, the Alliance system and militarism in the pre-war period were definitely the major causes of the war. The Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawn, came up with a theory, the "zero-sum game" theory. This theory was applicable to World War One because it was an "age of total war", therefore the war was "zero-sum game".
Conclusion The main conclusion to be drawn for this paper is that the French Revolution was characterized mainly by war, famine and depression, which were caused by the failure of King Louis XVI at managing the finance of the notion properly. These factors finally led to unseat the French leader. To make matters worse, the inhabitants claimed the country for themselves in the name of liberty. In other words, the Revolution involved not only the reorganization of a country in relation to its government and society, but also a profound change in the course of history.
It wasn’t until shortly after his death that Karl Marx’s ideology began to significantly influence socialist movements. Although relatively unknown during his lifetime he has become one of the fundamental economic and sociological figures of the modern era. Many of his theories and insights into the way society functions are still relevant in the expanding capitalist society that exists today. Marx was very critical of capitalism and the division in society between the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes, attempting to highlight the injustice and exploitation of the working class by the wealthy upper and middle class. Marx predicted that capitalism within a socioeconomic system would inevitably create internal tensions between social classes leading to its demise and replacement by a new system, communism.
France wasn’t part of the colonies like America was, America was sick of being treated badly, and unfairly so they decided to fight. But as for France they were having trouble with their government and needed to create a new one witch they did. And to me it seems like America had much more at stake. The American and French Revolution both worked out in favor of France and for America they both got what they wanted France got the government they fought for, and America parted ways with Britain. The two revolutions were a big part in both America’s history, and a big part in Frances history.
For centuries, historians have described the French Revolution, filled with aggression, terror and human injustice, as a radical revolution. The oppression and disparity of France’s social classes caused the French Revolution to turn violent and remain mired in a monarchy ruled by despots. In contrast, the American Revolution fostered the transformation of thirteen independent colonies and their different socio-economic classes into a single unified nation. As the different people of the thirteen colonies rallied around a common goal of liberty and freedom from tyranny, the American Revolution became more and more radical. The American Revolution was more radical and had much more significance than the French Revolution because the American Revolution was a catalyst for real, historic and permanent change.
Buckingham had too much influence with the King; this meant he was seen as one of the main causes to the break down in parliament. James wanted money from the Parliament in 1625 because of the war with Spain. Parliament decided to grant a tonnage and poundage as the monarch’s main source of Revenue. Opposition MPs discussed Parliament choosing the Kings ministers for him and also the impeachment of those who gained undue influence over him; this was especially aimed at Buckingham. A breakdown in parliament then occurred because Charles realized the parliamentary attack on Buckingham was increasing so in 1625 dissolved his first Parliament in order to protect his close companion.