#1: What was so revolutionary about the French Revolution (what is the author’s interpretation, and what is your interpretation… do you agree with the author)?
the author’s interpretation of what was so revolutionary about the french revolution is that “the French revolution was a succession of such events, events so terrible that shook mankind to it’s core. out of destruction they created a new sense of possibility- not just of writing constitutions nor of legislating liberty and equality, but of living by the most difficult of revolutionary values, the brotherhood of men” (Darnton 7). my interpretation of what was so revolutionary about the french revolution is that there was so much bloodshed and it lasted over a long period of time (1787-1799) that is 12 years of a rollercoaster where the conflict would settle for a little while but then go downhill all over again. even though the main thing that united all the groups was the idea of fraternity, they all wanted something different. There were so many different groups like moderates, radicals, and those in between and all of them had different ways of approaching the situation. The radicals wanted to flip everything over and just change everything whereas the moderates would take it slow. so the thing that was so revolutionary was: The violence
the different groups
the overall outcome of it (a whole monarchy was overthrown by the people)
I do agree with the author’s interpretation of what was so revolutionary about the french revolutionary war. The author says that all violence was necessary because “Nearly all violent days were defensive-desperate attempts to to stave off counterrevolutionary coups, which threatened to annihilate the revolution…” (Darnton 6). Without the revolution the French would have never become free from monarchy rule.
#2: To what extent was the French Revolution “constructive” in the end?
i think that the french revolution was only constructive in the fact that the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document