Absolutely not. About 40.000 people got innocently murdered.
The reason why the revolution was started is to be understood. The people were starving while they saw the nobility, clergy and their royal family bathing in wealth. That wasn't right and had to change, yes. But a constitutional monarchy would have been the best option. That way, the King would only have been king in name but keep his stature, and the country would have been reigned by cabinets formed of the bourgeoisie, nobility and clergy.
Unfortunately, the French chose the most violent way imaginable, and murdered everybody that stood in the way (or even dared to think differently) of the revolution. Absolutist power is always dangerous in the hands of a monarch as well as in the hands of a movement (in this situation, the National Assembly).
On the other hand the French Revolution abolished serfdom and absolutism in France. The National Assembly. the 3rd estate was 97% of the population and since the clergy and nobility always sided together they were oppressed. Napoleon was a dictator but he did reform the educational and judicial system.
no
They were horrified at how the French had mistreated their government and of all the bloodshed that had occured. They felt that they could no longer trust the French even though they had been allies during the American Revolution.
Napoleon reversed everything the French Revolution gained through ten years of bloodshed. He also sent Europe to war, fighting with Britain, Austria and Russia.
There was no bloodshed. The government changes from a divine right monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. They won!
The French Revolution happened during 1789-1799 and the American Revolution happened during 1775-1783. So the French Revolution happened before the American Revolution.
Dumbledore was not a french monarch and was not beheaded during the french revolution
Reign of Terror.
The period called "the reign of terror". During this period, thousands of people (man, woman and children) were murdered.
not really
It symbolizes the bloodshed that would occur after the start of the French Revolution. In my opinion, the manner with which the civilians consumed the blood--almost savagely--speaks to the barbaric nature of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
American freedom struggle is through wars and bloodshed killing the Native Indians whereas the Indian struggle was a peaceful one - though with the blood of the sacrifices of martyrs..
They were horrified at how the French had mistreated their government and of all the bloodshed that had occured. They felt that they could no longer trust the French even though they had been allies during the American Revolution.
Napoleon reversed everything the French Revolution gained through ten years of bloodshed. He also sent Europe to war, fighting with Britain, Austria and Russia.
The French and Indian War
It was different because there was no bloodshed involved; the monarchs fled and were replaced without anyone getting killed.
William & Mary were crowned king and queen with out any bloodshed.
Wordsworth was critical of the French Revolution, particularly as it veered towards violence and instability. He believed that the strive for liberty and equality should be pursued through peaceful means rather than through bloodshed. Wordsworth's views on the French Revolution reveal his concern for the human cost of political upheaval and his belief in the importance of moral principles in guiding social change.
hum french revolution? you mean 1789 revolution?