Monday, November 15, 2010

The Reign of Ingenious Terror



The Reign of terror, an extremely violent period throughout French history in which the rivalry of the Girondins and the Jacobins resulted in the mass execution of those people thought to be enemies of the revolution. How could this idea of been a smart and logical approach by either radical group. In killing the thousands which were being considered enemies of the revolution, both groups lose the opportunity to gain the upper hand. If either group had simply of tried to coax, befriend and lure their so called enemies to their side, their group would gain the upper hand in this blood thirsty battle. However neither group did. Instead of focusing on how their group could be dominant, they simply wanted blood. They wanted someone to have accountability for governmental and perhaps in fact their own sins. Both groups were so blinded by emotions of rage they did not think through their decisions. This lead to irrational killing and much blood that did not need to be shed.

However there is actual genius at work behind this seemingly idiotic executions. The spread of fear. The reign of terror was a highly effective weapon. It spread much fear among the citizens of France. With every waking moment they would be hoping that Rospierre and his committee of public safety would not break down their door and execute them all. This lead them to think through situations and make sure that what they were doing would not get them killed.

It is true genius when thought of this way. Firstly because it imprinted such a dominant symbol of power through times of hardship. Secondly because it made people think differently about their actions and ideals. Lastly the reign of terror was a "tabula rasa" a new beginning for France or at least for the radicals. They were simply getting rid of all in their way. No one could challenge them and inevitably they would come out on top.


1 comment:

  1. Your conclusion seems pretty brutal, potentially. It sounds, even, like a justification for Stalinism. Are you merely saying, however, that the policy makes sense, even if it is abhorrent? Or are you saying it is justifiable, in a "means justify the ends" kind of way? And if the latter, under what sort of circumstances would be it be justifiable?

    ReplyDelete