http://fromrequired.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
fromrequired.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
revolution_fr2011-03-27 12:19 am
fromrequired.livejournal.com) wrote in revolution_fr2011-03-27 12:19 am
Entry tags:
Question about Robespierre and The Terror
I don't have much knowledge about the French Revolution (as you can tell by looking at my userpic, I'm more of a WWII fangirl) but I'm greatly interested in it.
So in my AP Euro History class, we had to watch this documentary about the French Revolution. I'll post a part of it below:
I'm sort of lost because I thought Robespierre originally was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people? It doesn't seem plausible to me that he can just turn into a sanguinary dictator overnight. Even in my textbook it says that Robespierre killed everyone whom he deemed unfit for his "Republic of Virtue," but history is never that simple. I know, I study WWII ;)
Anyways, can y'all people enlighten me about the cause of The Terror and Robespierre's role in it? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions.
EDIT: Here's the part that succeeds it. It basically describes the fall of Robespierre and says he inspired later dictatorships and revolutions.
So in my AP Euro History class, we had to watch this documentary about the French Revolution. I'll post a part of it below:
I'm sort of lost because I thought Robespierre originally was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people? It doesn't seem plausible to me that he can just turn into a sanguinary dictator overnight. Even in my textbook it says that Robespierre killed everyone whom he deemed unfit for his "Republic of Virtue," but history is never that simple. I know, I study WWII ;)
Anyways, can y'all people enlighten me about the cause of The Terror and Robespierre's role in it? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions.
EDIT: Here's the part that succeeds it. It basically describes the fall of Robespierre and says he inspired later dictatorships and revolutions.
no subject
My reaction to the Cult of Supreme Being is rather personal. I actually read parts of The Social Contract (via my teacher forcing me, but I ended up liking it); I personally disagreed with Rousseau about the idea of having a Civil Religion, but it was indeed explained very nicely.
Of course, as I've stated earlier, it would not be fair of me to judge Rousseau or Robespierre from a 21st century, American point of view.
I'm sure I've become pretty annoying by now, but according to the documentary I've posted above, Robespierre apparently was on top of a paper mache mountain wearing a toga during the Festival of Supreme Being. Is there any truth to this? I'm asking because it seems like such an absurd and unreasonable thing to do for someone who wrote this: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-supreme.html
Thanks for all the book recommendations, by the way. :) I'll be sure to check them out.
no subject
at least the guy playing Robespierre was handsome and had nice eyes >__>Is not true that Robespierre was in the top of a paper mache mountain wearing a toga. He was with all the others members of the Convention, and they all were wearing the same outfit. He pronounced the speech in his quality of president of the Convention.
And the source of the toga and the paper mache mountain thing... Well, do you know that movie Danton by Wadja? Well, that's the source >:C
no subject
As for my class, never mind them; they're all idiots who couldn't give a darn about French Revolution and Robespierre if their rich mommies and daddies didn't make them sign up for an AP class. Tells you a lot about public education.
"at least the guy playing Robespierre was handsome and had nice eyes >__>" Oh, I know ;) Browsing through this community, I came across several media depictions that made him seem like a 50-year-old creep, when we can see in that he was exactly the opposite of that. Just as how the Luftwaffe is almost always depicted as as ebeel ugly monsters in American movies, when in reality, it was compromised of men like Maximilian Mayerl and Hans-Joachim Marseille...
Wow, seriously? D: That is just... oh God. Please don't tell me that is the kind of education that students at Johns Hopkins University are receiving. And this is the 18th best university in the world we're talking about!
no subject
And yes, Robespierre was freaking cute! :3 -or at least his soul was cute- But our history teachers don't notice that: they have never read his speeches, and even less his adorable poems.
And yes, that's the horrible truth. But the quality of the university doesn't matter when it comes to the French Revolution... For example, Simon Schama (a reactionary pseudo-historian) studied in Columbia University.
no subject
Hmm, that's strange that he studied at Columbia. My perception of Columbia has always been a place where the students smoke weed and sing some sort of a Black Power anthem around a campfire... One would think that there would be more Robespierre sympathizers in such a liberal university.
no subject
Talking about Schama, I think that he is just a neoliberal propagandist, but not a serious historian. If you read his Citizens you'll see that he is the opposite of a serious historian.
Also, you'll notice that even more when you watch the Other-Documentary-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named-Because-Is-Much-Worse-Than-The-History-Channel-Documentary (But I'll name it): Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution (Please, don't do that! I watched it a week ago and I'm sick in my bed right now xP
And I found this community looking for bad reviews of it). My problem with it is not their comments, because they have the right of liberty of speech -And what gave then that right? Oh yes! The French Revolution!-, my problem is that they don't have real arguments to say that, they changed phrases and statistics, compared Robespierre to Hitler and Stalin, and just to destroy the souls of the members of the CSP, specially the ones of Robespierre and Saint-Just.Ups... I think I changed the subject ^-^; but I couldn't avoid to talk about that documentary That-Shall-Not-Be-Named-Too >.>
no subject
I haven't read any of his works yet, and by the sounds of it, I don't think I want to.
As for the forbidden documentary, I got curious and watched the first 2 minutes of it on Youtube; I think I'm traumatized for the rest of my life. I don't know much about the French Revolution, but it's a common sense that there were no emos during the 18th century (referring to the guy with the emo hair; think he might be Robespierre's secretary or something?).
But yeah, I probably shouldn't have watched it...
no subject
And the emo guy supposedly is... Saint-Just! ;___; He was a very prominent revolutionary like Robespierre, but this documentary make you think that he was Robespierre's valet. That is how they are destroying him.
There is an essay (http://community.livejournal.com/revolution_fr/88673.html) here about this. I found this community googling for something like it.
no subject
But how does one go from this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Saint_Just.jpg/200px-Saint_Just.jpg to this: http://content2.myyearbook.com/zenhex/images/quiz47/231395/231395_res1_sexy.jpg
? I don't know much about this Saint-Just person, but if he was a prominent Revolutionary, I doubt that he would have acted like Robespierre's valet... Thank you for the link, by the way!
no subject
Or maybe... *inserts a paranoid theory here*
no subject
Not to mention that the actor playing Robespierre doesn't resemble him at all.Or maybe... they're trying to depict Saint-Just as a pissed-off teenager in a deliberate attempt to discredit him. I don't know. Either way, the documentary sucks.