Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
Hello
I was wondering if any of you might be able to help me with a little school-related work. I attend a junior college where I take a course called History foundation course and I am to write an essay on the revolutions of 1789 and 1848 in France.
The problem is as follows:
"A comparison between the revolutionary in the revolutions of 1789 and 1848 in France."
Obviously, I will be doing most of the work myself, but I thought I'd ask to pick your brains for some thoughts before moving on.
I've decided to start by defining "revolution" and "revolutionary" in order to better be able to extract the core revolutionary aspects of the two events, as I'm not supposed to compare the two revolutions, but the revolutionary aspects of them.
1. How would -you- define "revolution"?
----
When doing this kind of work it's difficult to get lost in a vast sea of information. It can be hard to find an outline of the "main events", as most articles and journals tend to go very much into detail. If I knew what some of the key revolutionary elements of the revolutions were, it would be easier for me to research the information I need in order to write a proper essay.
2. Off the top of your head, what were the 5 most imporant revolutionary aspects of the two revolutions of 1789 and 1848 in France?
It's vital that I don't include -all- the information I can find on the two historical events, but isolate the core revolutionary elemtents of 1789 and compare them to those of 1848. The professors also stress the importance of discussing, meaning I have to look at things from several sides and debate back and forth.
If you know of a good website which houses some of the information I need, I would appreciate a URL.
Thank you for any help you might be able to provide.
- [wcip]Angel
Posts: 6,430
Threads: 204
Joined: Feb 2003
1. Try Webster's or the OED for what revolution and revolutionary mean. If you make up your own definitions, you may fun afoul of running into conclusions that don't fit since you and the works you read as background may be talking about subtly different things.
Remember that politically, revolution is related to the word revolt more than revolve even though things often turn full circle by the time it is all over, see below.
Since you are limiting the paper in scope, you will probably not want to draw comparisons to the American or Russian Revolutions that were before and after the French Revolutions.
Revolution: def 2.
Quote:a. Sudden, radical, or complete change. b: fundamental change in political organization c. activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in socioeconomic situation.
Which definition fits what you are addressing, or do all 3? :)
Revolutionary: I would go with def 1.c:
Quote:constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change
How to organize your thoughts:
Ok, what did each change permanently, and what did NOT change with each revolution?
What was the economic context of each: how did they differ, how were they similar?
What remained the same after each revolution?
THAT point is a core issue, in that revolutions must change something in order to be considered effective by any valid measure. Also you probably need to address the counter revolution and reaction to both, both internal and external to France.
For example, in the 1848 revolution, was there a character or syndicate of characters similar to Bonaparte who co-opted the Revolution for his/their own ends and aims?
2. How long did the honeymoon last each time? Revolutions go through phases, and many end up per the lyrics of the last line of The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Quote:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Most also have a version of "The Terror" that they go through before the process is complete.
To what extent was this true for both revolutions 1789 and 1848? Who ended up really in power in both cases, and what did they do with that?
3. If I can find it, I will dig up an article I used for study on this topic in about 1994. It compared the American 1776, French 1789, Russian 1917, and Iranian 1979 revolutions for similarities and differences. The model might be useful for you to use as a framework, but maybe not.
No, there is no link. I used books, and so did my profs. :) It may take a day or two, but I hope to be able to dig it up and give you the author's name.
As to links, you need to do your own research. That is part of the process.
Books? Head to your library. :)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Posts: 4,063
Threads: 68
Joined: Feb 2003
Hi,
However, I do have a (tongue in cheek) definition for you:
revolution: a successful rebellion.
rebellion: a failed revolution.
-or-
"Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." : Sir John Harington
--Pete
PS Good luck on your paper.
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?
Posts: 6,430
Threads: 204
Joined: Feb 2003
Got me this far in a few moments.
Some 1848 pages
Once you hit a few, some will offer further reading.
The timeline is a nice way to point out how 1848 was a far different animal from 1879 insofar as its ability to cross borders so quickly.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Posts: 6,430
Threads: 204
Joined: Feb 2003
09-22-2003, 04:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2003, 04:55 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Posts: 3,947
Threads: 44
Joined: Feb 2003
... 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
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
Thank you very much to everyone who's replied. I have- and will read through your replies several times.
You've given me some good points and have actually helped me getting past my first paragraph ;)
Posts: 341
Threads: 8
Joined: Feb 2003
1 complete (successful) revolution = 1 complete rotation of government ;)
Stormrage :
SugarSmacks / 90 Shammy -Elemental
TaMeKaboom/ 90 Hunter - BM
TaMeOsis / 90 Paladin - Prot
TaMeAgeddon/ 85 Warlock - Demon
TaMeDazzles / 85 Mage- Frost
FrostDFlakes / 90 Rogue
TaMeOlta / 85 Druid-resto
Posts: 25
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2003
[ Wrote:Angel,Sep 22 2003, 05:30 AM]
The problem is as follows:
"A comparison between the revolutionary in the revolutions of 1789 and 1848 in France."
Obviously, I will be doing most of the work myself, but I thought I'd ask to pick your brains for some thoughts before moving on.
I've decided to start by defining "revolution" and "revolutionary" in order to better be able to extract the core revolutionary aspects of the two events, as I'm not supposed to compare the two revolutions, but the revolutionary aspects of them. You're quite correct. Your assignment wants you to make a distinction between "revolution," i.e. the overthrow of a political system, and "revolutionary." You're also correct that you need to clarify that distinction in your introductory paragraph, probably near the very beginning.
While it is not a bad idea to look up those terms in a dictionary or an encyclopedia so that you become more comfortable understanding the differences, it is not a good idea to include sentences along the line of "Websters defines `revolution' as...." Stylistically, this is the kind of sentence that a high school student can get away with, but it isn't good academic style for college level papers. Information found in a dictionary or an encyclopedia falls under the aegis of "common knowledge." In other words, unless you need to use the exact wording of the definition, you shouldn't have to cite the source. Your instructor assumes that you'll be able to figure out the difference.
The bulk of the first paragraph should move toward the comparative thesis. Comparisons (similarities) also imply contrasts (differences). This paper asks you look at the similarities first, which means you'll have to establish broad categories in which to operate. For example, who were the key motivators? Did they come from similar sections of society? Were their goals similar? Again, these kinds of categories will allow you to address specific events/situations.
Hope this helps.
--ceolstan
In worlde we ware kast for to kare
To we be broght to wende
Til wele or wa, an of tha twa,
To won withouten ende.
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
Yes it did, Ceolstan, as I had written something along the lines of "According to Longman dictionary 'revolution' means bla bla bla".. :)
But this is good. I'm learning by making mistakes.
Posts: 1,036
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2003
09-25-2003, 05:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2003, 06:23 PM by Rhydderch Hael.)
I guess I should have bothered with this thread earlier.
"A comparison between the revolutionary in the revolutions of 1789 and 1848 in France."
You need someone versed in dreadfully antiquated and aggrievously superfluous semantics to translate this statement. That'd be me. ;)
Revolution: the event
Revolutionary: a person participating in the event
You are to compare the soldier or participant found in these two revolutions. You are to compare the people involvedâ not the events themselves.
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
09-25-2003, 07:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2003, 07:03 PM by [wcip]Angel.)
"revolutionary" as an adjective, not as a noun ;)
edit: and you're not too late. I don't have to hand the essay in till end of October.. We handed in our first draft today.
Posts: 1,036
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2003
09-25-2003, 07:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2003, 08:19 PM by Rhydderch Hael.)
That depends. Is the boldfaced statement something of your own writing, or is that the exact statement coming from your professor?
If the statement came from your professor, then the word revolutionary is precisely a noun in this context.
If it is yours, then... daayyyyyum. *shakes head*
You partake in the diction of England, but in a most strange passing of manner. ;)
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
Yeah, I translated the task word for word, which I now is stupid.. I know how to translate things from Norwegian to English and back, and yet I managed to translate the assignment so poorly.. well.. I'm not studying English this year. (yes, that -is- the best excuse I could come up with) ;)
|
