09-23-2003, 12:44 AM
... definition?
Well, you know... they just wanna change the world.
;)
The Marxists would describe a revolution more or less as an insurrection of the people (in their case, workers) against the established order. I suppose that's what this would be, although with the French, you could just as easily call it "life".
In the case of 1848, you're dealing with a generalized resistance against a government, since there was at that point a history of republicanism, liberty, etc...
Contrast that to 1793, which was a complete change from an age old system, the third republican revolution, not just in the simple sense of an insurrection, but a rapid, radical change in the social order. (Corsica and America being the two major predecessors; they might be worth mentioning.)
Obviously, the monarchy is an enormous factor in 1793, and much less of one in 1848.
The phases of the 1793 revolution could probably be broken down relatively cleanly.
1) The calling of the assembly and the implosion of the Monarch-State (L'etat, c'est lui)
2) The rise of the Paris mob, and the chaotic times that follow
3) The elimination of the opposition by the Mountain (extremist radicals)
4) The reign of terror
5) The counter-revolution of Thermidor
Remarkably similar to the Russian revolution, come to think about it.
1848 is built on a different model. They don't fall nearly as far from absolute monarchy, and the revolution is spread across Europe. I don't know its history anywhere near as well, though, so I'll be quiet about it.
As far as the interesting figures... I like Danton. Robespierre is just a scary dude.
Good luck with your paper,
Jester
Well, you know... they just wanna change the world.
;)
The Marxists would describe a revolution more or less as an insurrection of the people (in their case, workers) against the established order. I suppose that's what this would be, although with the French, you could just as easily call it "life".
In the case of 1848, you're dealing with a generalized resistance against a government, since there was at that point a history of republicanism, liberty, etc...
Contrast that to 1793, which was a complete change from an age old system, the third republican revolution, not just in the simple sense of an insurrection, but a rapid, radical change in the social order. (Corsica and America being the two major predecessors; they might be worth mentioning.)
Obviously, the monarchy is an enormous factor in 1793, and much less of one in 1848.
The phases of the 1793 revolution could probably be broken down relatively cleanly.
1) The calling of the assembly and the implosion of the Monarch-State (L'etat, c'est lui)
2) The rise of the Paris mob, and the chaotic times that follow
3) The elimination of the opposition by the Mountain (extremist radicals)
4) The reign of terror
5) The counter-revolution of Thermidor
Remarkably similar to the Russian revolution, come to think about it.
1848 is built on a different model. They don't fall nearly as far from absolute monarchy, and the revolution is spread across Europe. I don't know its history anywhere near as well, though, so I'll be quiet about it.
As far as the interesting figures... I like Danton. Robespierre is just a scary dude.
Good luck with your paper,
Jester