Jacq Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Hi,I'm currently working on an essay, and trying to explain why the french revolution was considered a period of jurisdictional and constitutional change. Any ideas?Thanks! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishup Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I don't study this for IB at all and I'm happy people are studying my history. Basically Louis was an inept **** and his government was corrupt as he syphoned all the taxes from the tiers etat to fuel the life of opulence of the nobles. Because France had suffered from economic problems such as the consequences of the participation in the American war of independence a new system was needed. Although technically the need for change would boil and louis did nothing about it, the people would allow the discontent to boil over as to result in the most successful revolution of all time(highly biased but kinda true )The french revolution sprawled over a few years and the power of the republicans would be consolidated through the medium of terror (hence the reign of terror).And an upsurge in middle class from the peasants and workers would lead to liberte, egalite, fraternite hence an eventual change.I have never real studied French History but if you need to get your ideas going think along the lines of main rubrics. In this case consolidation and rise to power.If only we studied the French revolution 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proletariat Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Just the word revolution itself should invoke the idea of change, and this one in particular crushed up anything left from the ancien régime. That means that things like laws were obviously radically altered.If you want specific examples for your essay, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Civil Constitution of the Clergy were the two big ones early on. Can't remember anything specific from the Reign of Terror, but you'd be able to pull out something. You might even want to talk about how the French Revolution led to the Napoléonic Code and the Concordat, the former being especially significant as an example of how the revolution reformed traditional laws. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorruptible Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I don't study this for IB at all and I'm happy people are studying my history. Basically Louis was an inept **** and his government was corrupt as he syphoned all the taxes from the tiers etat to fuel the life of opulence of the nobles. Because France had suffered from economic problems such as the consequences of the participation in the American war of independence a new system was needed. Although technically the need for change would boil and louis did nothing about it, the people would allow the discontent to boil over as to result in the most successful revolution of all time(highly biased but kinda true )The french revolution sprawled over a few years and the power of the republicans would be consolidated through the medium of terror (hence the reign of terror).And an upsurge in middle class from the peasants and workers would lead to liberte, egalite, fraternite hence an eventual change.I have never real studied French History but if you need to get your ideas going think along the lines of main rubrics. In this case consolidation and rise to power.If only we studied the French revolution Ah, how nice it would be to get an opinion on Robespierre from a citizen of France, just for context... *hint hint* Robespierre fascinates me, and I realise the negative impact of his politics, but based on what I've learned in the History curriculum, I'm seeing that, if he hadn't done it, someone else would've, with the same results. I might even go so far as to say it was necessary.Do you have any opinion on him, and what are the lasting effects that you notice in present-day France? How many generations has your family been in France (i.e. were relatives of yours witnesses to the Revolution)? Feel free to ignore my seemingly incessant questions if you'd rather not answer them--I'm just deeply curious. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacq Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 I did not have family who witnessed the Revolution. I am of Acadian descent. As for my opinion on Robespierre, I think he was a very passionate, very smart man who abused his ability to manipulate people. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishup Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 By blood I'm not French so I have not had family present during that time. Robespierre was a pragmatist I would say he carried out the executions himself hope I haven't made a gaffe by saying something wrong. I don't really know much about Robespierre but he reformed France and allowed France to enter it's most prosperous period. The beginning of the 1800s and France's dominating power in Europe with the conquests of Napoleon. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proletariat Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 By blood I'm not French so I have not had family present during that time. Robespierre was a pragmatist I would say he carried out the executions himself hope I haven't made a gaffe by saying something wrong. I don't really know much about Robespierre but he reformed France and allowed France to enter it's most prosperous period. The beginning of the 1800s and France's dominating power in Europe with the conquests of Napoleon.I'm really not certain that this is accurate. Robespierre's Reign of Terror was the height of radicalism for the French Revolution, and the subsequent phase of the Directory (which is the real phase that ushered in Napoleon) was very much a rejection of Robespierre's level of extremism. During the Reign of Terror, France was not a democracy; it was a dictatorship. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishup Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I'm really not certain that this is accurate. Robespierre's Reign of Terror was the height of radicalism for the French Revolution, and the subsequent phase of the Directory (which is the real phase that ushered in Napoleon) was very much a rejection of Robespierre's level of extremism. During the Reign of Terror, France was not a democracy; it was a dictatorship. That's beyond me. I haven't studied French History. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartosz jez Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) The Third Estate (citizens, peasants, but also lawyers and scientists) was the most numerous estate. Despite strong objections of the king, the deputies of the third estate proclaimed themselves the National Assembly (17thJune 1789), the legislative body in power to launch reforms in the country. Louis XVI opposition and concentration of army near Paris and Versailles led to the Parisians' rebellion. On 14thof July the Bastille was stormed. Waves of civil disturbances under the banner of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity spread all over the country, especially in rural areas. In that situation the National Assembly passed a lot of laws; the most vital being the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens (26thAugust 1789), which shook the principles of the existing political system. Soon after ratifying this document, the National Assembly was transformed into the National Constituent Assembly, which was the body that should draft the new constitution. The new Constitution became the law and the King took the oath on it on 3rd September 1791. France became a constitutional monarchy with the separation of powers advocated by the Enlightenment. You have to be aware of the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens did not state that everybody is equal but it stated everybody's rights are the same e.g. there were social distinctions founded upon the general good (wealth) but everybody had a right of property. It indicates a little bit of the idea why it was an innovative legislative change. Edited April 14, 2011 by Bartosz jez Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.