In wat ways did the end of the old order move the revolution toward a more radical phase?

History

1 answer:

netineya [11]3 years ago

3 0

In regard to the French Revolution ...

The end of the ancien regime, or the old order, moved the Revolution to a more radical phase for several reasons and in several ways:

The old order had been based on a social hierarchy of kings and nobles, along with ranking clergy, ruling over the majority population of the country. Once that social hierarchy was ended, there were questions of how fully equal all citizens should be under the Revolution's banner of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The radical phase of the Revolution pushed for absolute equality of all citizens, which meant attacking also the wealthy bourgeois class of merchants and professionals. There were even some voices calling for what would essentially be a communist society. That was the message of François-Noël Babeuf (nicknamed "Gracchus" after the 2nd century Roman reformer). The change from a hierarchical society toward one in which there was more economic and political equality became gradually more radical.
The old order was broken and didn't work well, but the new order established in the French Republic was not working well either. The economic problems of the nation persisted and were not easily solved. That led to more radical measures being imposed and implemented to try to balance the budget -- seizing lands that had been held by the church or the wealthy.
The old order had demanded loyalty to an absolute monarchy. In ending that political model and creating a new republic based on the rights of individuals as citizens, the hope was that greater liberty and fraternity would exist in the nation. However, the new order found it necessary to enforce loyalty to the Republic and its ideas. That meant a more radical phase that demanded absolute loyalty to the new path of the nation. It got to the point that anyone who was suspected of disloyalty to the Republic was arrested and many were executed during what is called the "Reign of Terror." So the new order became as radically absolute in its loyalty demands as the old order had been in its traditional expectations.

You might be interested in

Compare and contrast the changes in the government, economy, and society from the Romanov era under the tsar to the rule by the

Tresset [83]

The rulers of the Soviet Union viewed empire and imperialism in ideological terms as ‘the highest and final stage of capitalism’.1 By this Leninist definition, the Soviet Union did not identify itself as an empire, and instead, its leaders vehemently denounced imperialism that was carried out by its enemies and competitors: the capitalist states. Despite its own anguish over being identified as an empire, the Soviet Union indeed was one. While the meaning of ‘empire’ has shifted over time, for the purposes of this paper the definition of empire is in the sense of a great power, a polity, ruling over vast territories and people, leaving a significant impact on the history of world civilizations.2 As the characteristics of the Soviet Union are examined, support for viewing the USSR as an empire grows.

The Soviet Union emerged after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Tsarist Russian Empire’s government was overthrown by the local soviets, led by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks attempted to replace the Russian empire with a communist one, in which socialism would make nationalismobsolete and in place there would be a supra-national imperial ideology.3 Still, coming back to the issue of ‘empire’, the Soviet Union clearly maintained a commanding control over multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic societies that surpassed the extent of the preceding Imperial Russia Empire. A question thus arises: was the USSR a Russian empire? The first aspect to consider is if the USSR was a continuation of Russian imperialist power or if an intrinsic distinction can be made between the two. What is notable to address is what is meant by ‘Russian’ identity and nationality, its formation, and reshaping through time. Once this will be accounted for, this paper will move on with an answer to the question: the USSR was indeed an essentially different empire from the one preceding it, and thus, the USSR was not a Russian empire.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How did military leaders prevent democracy in Brazil? Check all that apply.

navik [9.2K]

Military leaders A) regulated political parties and B) controlled elections. They had complete power within politics to sway the elections the way they wanted, and since they had military force, it was difficult to defy them. However, they did not kidnap or kill dissenters, nor did they arrest legislators. The power they displayed was much more diplomatic and strategic than it was physical.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Select all that apply.

LekaFEV [45]

To reduce Male responsibility is not the ultimate goal of the cairo conference because the actual goals of cairo conference is: reduce the spread of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), 2. reduce the mortality rates for both infants and their mothers, 3. increase male responsibility, 4. provide academic education to women and girls worldwide, 5. help women gain some measure of equality with men socially, politically, and economically, 6. protect the environment So the Cairo Conference Ultimate goal is not an reduce male responsibility reduce the spread of STDs protection of the environment education for women and girls

5 0

3 years ago

How does the U.S. Constitution address concerns that resulted from the government described in this passage?

vodka [1.7K]

Answer:

i will work on this give me a minute

Explanation:

5 0

2 years ago

Read this passage from the English Petition of Right.

const2013 [10]

There should be no taxation without representation