The French Revolution Through Simon’s Eyes

Intro. The Revolution was basically a wide scale revolt with little reformation and spontaneous hostilities forced towards higher estates to gain liberties for the majority.

Bourgesoisie Wanted representation, equality, etc. Represented small number of third estate Were unable to maintain control over other revolutionaries Started fighting against other members of third estate

City Workers City workers outnumbered National Guard Easily overwhelmed untrained National Guard Wanted revenge on higher estates and not political change Were “terrorists”

Started as a need for political and social change Once city workers took over, lost sight of goals Bourgeoisie lost control of city workers and therefore revolution Ended with mass-murder

Dying for Patriotism The people didn’t think that dying was a big deal because it was considered “patriotic.” If they died for their country they went down in history. Their family could have pride for it.

Killing for Patriotism The people felt it was their duty to their country. If it was the last thing they did they would kill the enemy. It caused uncontrollable killing because no one cared for anyone else. They used patriotism as justification for their anger.

A Quote from Simon “ There was another obsession which converged with this Romanticization of violence: the neoclassical fixation with the patriotic death….Their France would be Rome reborn, but purified by the benison of the feeling heart. It thus followed, surely, that for such a Nation to be born, many would necessarily die. And both the birth and death would be simultaneously beautiful.”

The Terror The Terror was a period in the French Revolution from September 5, 1793 – July 28, 1794 characterized by brutal repression. It included house searches, using the guillotine to chop off multiple heads, and mass shootings. By the time the killings of the Terror were finished, one thousand nine hundred and five people were dead. The violence of the Revolution did not stop with the Terror.

Too Much Violence Simon says that the French Revolution was not worth all the violence and killing. Violence was pretty much the revolution itself. Deadly revolts and killing sprees weren’t always planned and sometimes didn’t even benefit the people. There was too much violence and killing out of anger that didn’t always accomplish any of the goals of the Revolution.

This is an important reason why Simon thinks the French Revolution was not worth its outcome. There was so much violence and killing that caused so many people to perish. Not enough was accomplished for those people after the Revolution was over.

Social Change The primary alteration made in the revolution was the abolition of the ancien regime. The ancien regime was basically the old laws established by the monarchy, which no longer existed after the revolution. Laws

Continued Guilds & Seigniorial Regime Schama believed only social changes occurred from the Revolution which were the abolition of the guilds and the seigniorial regime. Guilds & Seigniorial Regime

Guilds and Seigniorial Regime Following the Revolution there no longer existed Estates (guilds). Even though there were no Estates, the whole of France remained separated. Peasants Bourgeoisie Nobles/Clergy The mass murders resulted in the elimination of the Seigniorial Regime (the monarchy/ First and Second Estates.)

What was really accomplished? Once the Revolution was finished, it seemed that what was desired had not been accomplished. The cause was lost, and the ends were not justified.

The Revolution ended the monarchy. The new government was not much better though. They still had the same problems the old regime did. The Estates had broken up. But people were still separated by classes, and the majority still struggled. What occurred simply renamed French ways. It didn’t really change their society.

What Simon Says The French Revolution was not worth its costs. The country did not change that much in the process, and too many people died without the proper cause.

Source: BBC.com Simon Schama: Born 1945 in London. He went to school at Christ's College, Cambridge and has taught classes in Cambridge, Oxford, Havard, Columbia, and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Social in Paris. His classes have included English history, French and English art and culture, the Gothic revival, and other various culture classes.

He’s British, they are French. How could he be biased? Source: BBC.com He’s British, they are French. How could he be biased? He taught French art and politics in college so he knows what he is talking about. Also he has taught classes on these subjects in Paris so he cant hate the French. He has also written on revolutions before and has seen what others have done. However, he has done many histories on Britain, in which its obvious loves his country and its history. Perhaps he thinks the French (at least the historical French) are inferior. Conclusion: Even though Simon has a reason to be biased, his only bias is that of a realist and this is what influenced his writing on the French Revolution Looking at real life facts, not romantic ideals, he says the French revolution was not worth it.