Italian and French Revolutions FRQ

**Joseph Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi were two revolutionary leaders in what would become known as Italy supporting the poor and downtrodden working class.  Likewise, in France during the time of their revolution, the peasants in the Third Assembly were the ones who revolted from the Estates General and King Louis.  However, in Italy there was no absolute monarch that the people were revolting against.  The main difference between the revolutionaries in Italy and the revolutionaries in France was that in France their main purpose was to break away from their current monarchy, whereas in Italy their main purpose was to help the poor to a better life by first establishing a government, not by revising one that was already there.
**In France in the late 1700s, there was to be an Estates General with the nobility of the First Assembly, the clergy of the Second Assembly, and the common people of the Third Assembly.  However, thinking they deserved more rights than they were being offered, the people of the Third Assembly rebelled, refusing to attend the Estates General, locking themselves inside a tennis court building, and writing their Tennis Court Oath.  The people of what was now being called the National Assembly wanted a new kind of government, which was the main reason that they revolted.  They wanted King Louis to overturn the throne, or at least establish some sort of unicameral or bicameral assembly so that power would be evenly distributed within the country.  They wrote various documents including a new constitution to try and get their current leaders to see that something must be changed.
**Mazzini and Garibaldi and their followers revolted because of almost the exact opposite reason.  In the loose confederation of city-states that would become known as Italy, there was nothing that united them like the King united France.  Lombardy and Venetia were owned by Austria, Piedmont-Sardinia was its own independent state, the Vatican had its own territory in the papal states, etc.  In this convoluted conglomeration of lands and people, there was no direct order.  In this boot-shaped mess, the poor people often got left behind or neglected.  In France, the people were neglected because the king and his nobles went off to enjoy a life of luxury in Versailles, not because there was no nobility to take care of them and their needs.
**Mazzini and Garibaldi led their revolutions not because they wanted to change the governmental structure from something they did not like, but because they wanted to have some sort of concrete governmental structure in the first place.  Just like Victor Emmanuel and Count Cavour of Piedmont-Sardinia wanted Italy to be united, Mazzini and Garibaldi also wanted some sort of order.  They wanted someone to represent the poor, to make their lives better.  The closest thing they had was the Vatican, but the Pope and his bishops were too involved in religion to be true governmental leaders.  They could not help the poor in the same way that a King or some political leader could.  France revolted because they had a real leader that they wanted to overthrow; Mazzini and Garibaldi revolted for the people, so that a new leader would come and let a new world rise up like the sun.
**Though revolutions can sometimes blend together and all seem the same, the difference between the revolution of Mazzini and Garibaldi and the French Revolution was that the former occurred in the lack of the government to help the common people, whereas the latter occurred to change the current government to help the common people.  France, obviously, was at least a nation when the people revolted; Italy was not even its own independent country.  In the end, both France got its constitutional monarchy and Italy got its government under King Victor Immanuel, though neither worked out exactly like the revolutionaries had imagined it.

Reflection on the French Revolution and Napoleon

In learning about the French Revolution and Napoleon, it shows just how much change one country can go through in such a short period of time.  In less than half a century, France went through multiple complete overhauls of their government.  They went from an absolute monarchy, to some form of a republic, with unicameral and bicameral assemblies, to having an emperor, all the while at war or at least on bad terms with the rest of Europe.  But, through it all, the country both lost and gained certain things, while in the end seeming to turn out better than the did before.

Egyptian and French Revolutions

~ 1.  One of the biggest similarities between King Louis XVI of France and Husni Mubarak is the fact that they were both absolute rulers of their respective countries.  A difference is that, during Louis's reign, the country was in an economic crisis and heading quickly towards famine.  Also, in the time leading up to the French Revolution, Louis was married to Marie Antoinette, whom the people did not like at all (1).  The reason the people of Egypt revolted had more to do with discontent in Mubarak's reign itself (2).
~ 2.  One of the reasons the French Revolution started was because the people who had less land -- the Third Estate -- wanted to own more land, especially because they had the most people, as is human nature.  Stemming from this, there was also much competition for money among people.  The people with the most pand made the most money, causing social classes to develop and causing discord between these social classes (3).  In Egypt, one of the things that made the protests in Egypt as big as they were was the internet restrictions.  By restricting the rights of his people, Mubarak made them want to revolt even more (4).
~ 3.  In the French Revolution, women had a very large roll.  Olympe de Gouge's "Declaration on the Rights of Women" (5) began the progression of women's rights, and women played the largest roll in the march on Versailles in October 1789.  France was one of the first countries to strive toward gender equality, all starting during the Revolution.  In the Egyptian Revolution, many groups of both women and young people are surfacing.  These groups were in the streets along with all the men, protesting the government as well as raising awareness about things like sexual harassment (6).
~ 4.  After Louis XVI stepped down, the people of the National Assembly thought they had gotten what they wanted.  Instead, they got a violent period called the Terror, in which thousands of French citizens of all social castes were murdered (7).  There is a concern that this same result could occur in Egypt.  Though there is celebration now, if there happens to be a battle of power there is a good chance violence could ensue.
~ 5.  During the French Revolution, the Third Estate protested by holding their own National Assembly and writing things like the Tennis Court Oath (8) and the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen (9) to try and change their country's constitution.  During this recent Egyptian Revolution, people protested in large crowds in Tahrir Square, for the most part more peaceful than the protests could have been (10).
~ 6.  Though the protest did get somewhat violent before Mubarak stepped down, they were not as violent as they could have been.  There were a few deaths, but there were no giant massacres of Egyptian citizens.  Now, there is hardly any violence at all, mostly just celebrating after Mubarak has stepped down (11).
~ 7.  Now that President Mubarak has stepped down from office, instead of protests going on in the street, there are celebrations.  Scores upon scores of people are celebrating their successful overthrowing of their leader.  According to reporters currently in Egypt, everyone has high spirits and happiness from their success (12).
~ 8.  It is very likely that the Egyptian Revolution can work out much better than the French Revolution.  Mubarak stepped down more eagerly than Louis XVI, so the people are very please about that.  As of yet, nothing as devastating as the Terror has occurred, so the outlook for Egypt is looking much better than that of France.  There does not seem to be any struggle for power occurring, and hopefully it will stay that way.  On the other hand, if things get too violent, the Egyptian Revolution could take a turn for the worse and end up like the Terror of the French Revolution.

Works Cited
(1) Campan, M. (1818). Memoirs of the private life of marie antoinette. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1818marieantoinette.html
(2) Hosni mubarak. (2011, February 11). The New York Times, Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/hosni_mubarak/index.html?inline=nyt-per
(3) Turgot, ARJ. (1775). Reflections on the formation and distribution of wealth. Retrieved from http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/turgot/reflecti
(4) Mackey, R. (2011, January 26). Egyptian bloggers report on new unrest [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/egyptian-bloggers-report-on-new-unrest/
(5) de Gouge, O. (1791). Declaration on the rights of women. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1791degouge1.html
(6) Martin, Michel (Writer). (2011 February 4). Women play vital roll in egypt [Radio series episode]. (Executive producer), National Public Radio.
(7) Robespierre, M. (1790). Justification of the use of terror. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html
(8) The oath of the tennis court. (1789, June 20). Retrieved from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/tennis_oath.html
(9) Declaration of the rights of man. (1789, August 26). Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
(10) Anti-government Protesters Fill Cairo's Tahrir Square on Tuesday. 2011. Photograph. Cairo, Egypt. Egyptian Protests Leave 3 Dead. CBC News, 25 Jan. 2011. Web. <http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/25/cairo-egypt-protest-tunisia.html>.
(11) Goldman, P. (2011, February 11). A party for the ages in tahrir square [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/11/6034857-a-party-for-the-ages-in-tahrir-square
(12) Egypt's protests on twitter. (2011, January 27). Retrieved from http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112523026521335.html

French Revolution and The Terror

THESIS:  Though in the end the Terror seemed to have solved many problems of the French Revolution, there was no need to resort to all the violence and killings that occurred in this time period; important figures in the Revolution at that time, the opinion of the general public, and execution statistics of the Terror show how devastating this time was, and how France would have benefited more had this much violence not been used.

• Statistics
• Document 1
• Document 2
• Document 3
• Important Figures
• Document 4
• Document 6
• Document 7 (disagree)
• General Public
• Document 9
• Document 10
• Document 12
• Document 13

**During the French Revolution, the time of Terror was, as its named suggests, a time of much turmoil and death in the whole of France.  Throughout the whole of these massacres and be-headings, though, many different reforms were instituted for the better of France as a whole.  Policies were put in place and government orders were changed in order to please as many of the subjects as possible in an attempt to stop the murder.  These reforms and whatnot would later be very beneficial to France after eventually stopping the Terror.  However, this was not the best way the citizens could have gone about trying to change France.  Though in the end the Terror seemed to have solved many problems of the French Revolution, there was no need to resort to all the violence and killings that occurred in this time period;  important figures in the Revolution at that time, the opinion of the general public, and execution statistics of the Terror show how devastating this time was, and how France would have benefited more had this much violence not been used.

**Statistically, the death toll in the whole of France was outrageous.  By the end of the terror, 2639 people had been killed in the city of Paris alone.  In the entire country of France, over 11000 people had fallen victim to the devastation of the Terror.  Even worse, these deaths were among people of all different social classes: nobles, middle class, peasants, every class imaginable in France was effected by the Terror (doc. 2).  Some territories of France -- Vendee and Lyon, for example -- had over 400 executions take place (doc. 1).  And even aside from this caste system they already had, with these differing view points as part of the Revolution, France was even more divided than it had ever been.  Throughout all of France people were pitted against one another, siding with the enemy, siding against the state, maybe not even allying themselves at all (doc. 3).  The Terror of France caused much discord within France, and unfortunately the one thing that all castes and opinions had in common was a large death toll.

**As people began to see how devastating the Terror was, many important figures, whether revolutionaries or people of the state just wanted it to stop.  Camille Desmoulins, a journalist and former ally of Maximilien Robespierre, wrote, "You want to remove all your enemies by means of the guillotine?  Has there ever been such great a folly?" (doc. 6).  She goes on to say that these people doing the killings were murdering so many innocent people for no good reason, and the really brave ones are the ones that have unfortunately perished.  She, like many others, realizes what a terrible idea something like the Terror is, and how much more efficient discussing matters peacefully would be.  Charles James Fox, reformist member of Parliament and sympathizer with the French Revolution, said in a speech to Parliament, "What a pity that a people capable of such incredible energy should be guilty or rather be governed by those who are guilty of such unheard of crimes and cruealties," (doc. 4).  He believes that the people of France do indeed have the potential for greatness, but they are putting this potential at risk by killing all of their enemies.  Even as a sympathizer of the French Revolution, he believes that murder is not the way to solve problems.  On the other side of the argument, Maximilien Robespierre says in a speech to the National Convention, "To good citizens revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes only death," (doc. 7).  This was the violent mindset for the people in favor of the Terror.  Though Robespierre did have supporters at first, people eventually realized that his ideas were not logical and would only cause harm, so they took power away from him.  People, like Desmoulins, Fox, and those who demoted Robespierre, were completely right in saying how useless it was to go around killing people in order to try and make a better France.

**Even the insignificant general public came to learn that the Terror was a terrible idea.  They were indeed in favor of it at first, though, in the January 28, 1794 report to the government on public opinion, which said, "The majority of the citizens agreed unanimously saying that the tribunals act well, that they acquit the innocent and punish the guilty," (doc. 9).  But even in this same report it goes on to say, "Murmurs are heard among the public at their judgements," (doc. 9).  These people murmuring were the ones who had the right idea about the Terror and that it should be stopped.  Just a month later in the next report to the government, it was written, “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and 

imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots and are victims of ambition, cupidity, jealousy, and, in 

short, every human passion," (doc. 10).  More and more people are beginning to rightly realize that killing people is not the best solution to any problem.  Even more discontent was brewing the next month.  The next report said, "On seeing peasants on the scaffold, people said, What, have these wretches allowed themselves to be corrupted?" (doc. 12).  By now they are certain that people in charge during the Terror were, as the said corrupted.  Lastly, on March 30, it was reported, "The revolutionary committees are every day falling into discredit," (doc. 13).  By now almost all of the general public knew how bad of an idea the Terror was, and they all just wanted it to stop.

**Though there were solutions that came from the Terror within the French Revolution, these solutions could have arisen from much more peaceful means.  As statistics, important figures, and the general public all agree, murder and massacre are not the way to solve problems.  Though it took some a little longer to come around then others, eventually nearly everyone was able to see that they should have come up with better alternatives to solve their problems.

Candide Thesis and Outline

Pangloss, being an optimist, and all those who follow his philosophy provide better company than one who is a pessimist and enjoy a happier life because of their outlook on it.

• Pangloss's optimistic philosophy
• There is no effect without cause
• Everything has sufficient reason
• It is impossible for anything to be different because everything is right just the way it is
• Disaster leads to better things
• Candide was banished from the castle, but was not a victim of the siege that later befell it; if he had not been banished and the castle had not been ransacked, he may have never been reunited with Pangloss, Comgonde, Paquette, or Cunegonde's brother
• If Candide had not stabbed Cunegonde's brother, the Oreillions that later captured him would have roasted and eaten him and Cacambo
• If Candide and Cacambo had not gotten lost and just let the river carry them, they would have never found El Dorado, the City of Gold, and gotten the funds to fund their journey
• In the end, "If you had not been kicked out of a magnificent castle for the love of Miss Cunegonde: if you had not been put into the Inquisition: if you had not walked over America: if you had not stabbed the Baron: if you had not lost all your sheep from the fine country of El Dorado: you would not be here eating preserved citrons and pistachio nuts," (chapter XXX)
• General happiness
• Because he believed that everything was the best possible thing that could happen, Pangloss's own hanging, though he did not die, could not have been sad for him, because he knew it was for the best; even after being hanged, cut open, whipped, etc., he still professed that everything was for the best.
• Though the old woman that Cunegonde befriends had had a hard life of slavery and abuse, she was still glad to help reunite Candide and Cunegonde
• Despite all his setbacks, Candide never lost hope that he would be reunited with Cunegonde, and in the end he did end up marrying her