0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Maxine
Rafa
DevinAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Was Robespierre a hero or a villain?
Robespierre was a villain.He was a person that believed strongly in the everyone being equal and believed that people that were against everyone being equal had to die.At the same time he created the reign of terror sending thousands of men, woman en children (and even the King and Queen of France!) to the guillotine. He killed everyone that thought differently than him.I personally think that Robespierre's ideas about equality were rather okay, but the way he acted because of them is very wrong. He send everybody that did not agree with his ideas (and were still devoted to the monarchs) to the guillotine (he sent thousands to the guillotine, including Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette). He went too far in acting out his ideas. Eventually the French turned against him and send him to the guillotine himself, without a trial. He became the only one that was guillotined face up, so he could see the blade fall at him. When that happened, he screamed, and the blade cut right through his jaws, resulting in his lower jaw being stuck to his neck and the upper to the beheaded head...NOTE:The above story of his execution is a myth. Robespierre was executed but 1) he did have a trial, though it did not follow the due process of the law, because nobody wanted to hear Robespierre defend his violent actions. 2) The night before the execution, Robespierre attempted to commit suicide, but he accidentally shot himself in the jaw. Robespierre shattered his jaw, and died with the lower half of his face in a bandage, unable to scream. 3) Robespierre was executed face down.Another AnswerRobespierre was originally thought to be incorruptible. Unfortunately he went mad with power. I think that before then, he was a good man, but when he took power and headed the reign of terror he (pun intended) "lost his head".Another answerThis is a question of judgment.Robespierre was neither a villain nor a hero. Even if he was considered (and still is) as a villain when the people succeeded in getting rid of him.. But to give a judgment is an hard exercise when History is concerned. He strongly believed in equity and was quite intransigent on this point (no freedom for the enemies of freedom, he said). But i don't think we can say he was a "bad guy" for its times, he was not more cruel than any other man.Except the judgment aspect, the answer above is correct, or, at least is the reflection of what the french think about this historical character.ANOTHER ANSWER!I personally think that he was more of a villain because he was killing all these people mainly innocent people because of disagreement and I also think that it was good that they sent him to the guillotine but i didn't think it was necessary to face him head upwards and let the blade cut through his jaw.ANOTHER ONE!!!!! 4/15/10The man stood for equality, an end to the power of the church and the nobility. He offered free education for all and the opportunity for the third estate. The actions that come about because of his desire to seek change are clearly unfortunate. The creation of the deity and the reign of terror are out of touch with the free speech he initially proposed. The question is, why should Louis XVI and the 1st and 2nd estate be thought of in a positive light when it was their selfishness that led to the likes of Robespierre. In essence, Robespierre can be looked at as any leader who brings change. Good can come but what is the price? He is clearly a better man than anyone leader of the 1st or 2nd estates.AND YET ANOTHER ANSWER!Robespierre went too far. It was the ancient regime, the absolute power that the revolutionaries wanted to rid themselves off, not the lives of their monarchs! In the beginning the people were after a constitutional reign, instead of absolute power to come to equality. A monarchy with a King and Queen, but with a cabinet that the people could chose themselves. Robespierre was an extremist to the max, and even though the revolutionists demanded freedom of speech, he killed those who dared to speak out in favor of the monarchy! He created the reign of terror, he killed everybody with a different opinion than his own. How can this man be looked upon differently than as a villain! He was the Hitler of his own time! Since he took so many innocent lives of men, woman and even children (regardless their rank), he was guillotined faced up. Like he deserved.My answerRobespierre was a crminal and a Psycho. He was a misanthropist.......he was the reason for the bloodbath which France went through after the revolution.No other nation had such a turbulent road after becoming a republic.....he killed Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Elisabeth and led to the torture and death of the young dauphin Louis XVII. May Robespierre burn in hell and all human being spit at his vile image for the innumerable souls he had sent to the Guillotine in the name of Freedomplease go through this link below to understand how much injustice had been perpetrated in the name of EQUALITY AND FRATERNITYhttp://ann-Lauren.blogspot.com/2009/03/18th-cent-Louis-xvii-king-of-France-and.HTMLhttp://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/wormeley/princess/princess-3.HTMLregardsArindam Roy
What were a major effect of European imerialism in Africa?
what was a major effect you mean? It is that it has lead to much unrest in the political sense, not strong economies when the europeans left, and it has made most of Africa dirt poor.
What was the phase of the revolution that huge numbers of French people were executed?
Executions began the French Revolution at the Bastille. They were not state sanctioned, but they were much more then murder or simple mob violence. The actual Reign of Terror goes from 27 June 1793 until 27 July 1793 when thousands met their death.
How did the war of 1812 contribute to defining Canada's political boundaries?
I don`t know
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the communist manifesto?
The Communist Manifesto remains controversial in political and economic discussions. It received praise for its insight into labor and production and championing proletariat rights, and is criticized for encouraging too much government control over economics.
