The storming of the Bastille prison was a microcosm of the desire for a republic free from any oppressive domination present among the French people. And yet, a few years after the proclamation of the republic, France embraced a new emperor. However, in the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, it is unfair to assume hypocrisy. It was he who, on the basis of the ideals of “liberty, equality and fraternity” born at the beginning of the revolution, promoted French nationalism. Here, the notions of freedom and nation seem synonymous. However, this remains problematic since the ultimate goal of a revolution is transformation, integration and nationalism. These concepts, which seem to go hand in hand, fundamentally undermine each other – later – in the French Revolution. Furthermore, while on the one hand the revolutionary armies wanted the French people to be freed from the oppressive regime of despots; indeed, those who were not part of the Third Estate had no say in political matters. As a result, political debate became widespread during the revolution. The aim of the revolution here was to make France a republic. The coherent argument here is that freedom motivated the revolution and that nation-building – or at least the concept of nationalism – was an inevitable by-product. However, the ambiguities and contradictions that I myself experienced during this investigation suggest that, depending on their current situation, the French Revolution was about many different things to many different people. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The multiplex nature of the French Revolution means that there are ambiguities when investigating the motivation behind said revolution. The multiverbal themes that prevailed during the revolution sometimes seem counterintuitive and/or obscure. Because it was those who stormed the Bastille prison on July 14, 1789 – a crucial initiative to fight against despotism and the oppressive regime of the Ancien Régime – who, in the streets, paraded the severed heads civil servants. While some scholars would argue that violence/brutality was necessary during the Revolution, revisionist historians would say that violence and revolution were synonymous. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to say that the themes of violence and freedom were both symbolic of the Revolution. However, a problematic factor for the question of freedom concerns the proclamation of a republic only before the acceptance of an emperor a few years later. During the Revolution, freedom was established relatively earlier in the revolutionary period with the storming of the Bastille. the prison being an overt act aimed at overthrowing the Ancien Régime. Liberty, in the case of the French Revolution, recognized that all citizens were equal and shared common rights and interests. Including during the Terror, this postulate remained quite transparent and consistent throughout the Revolution. However, when it came to nationalism, this was not the case. The notions of nationalism and revolution are generally linked in that they share origins and often lead to the emergence of nation-states. However, this is problematic – in the case of the French Revolution – since the aim of a revolution is transformation, nationalism and integration (Kumar p. 2). Here, the French people (the bourgeoisie and commoners) wanted a change from the oppressive system of the Ancien Régime. During the early stages of the revolutionary period (1790), the notions of nationalism,patriotism and cosmopolitanism – inspired by Enlightenment thought – were aligned. However, in 1791, these ideals became contradictory when Anarcharsis Cloots redefined the meaning of patriotism and citizenship to that of a universal Republic and cosmopolitanism meant that the aggrandizement of France was no longer a priority. Following in the tradition of Robespierre, the Cloots school of thought gained popularity (p. 591-2). Here, the principles of nationalism begin to deviate and undermine the interests of the Revolution. In response to this, revolutionary armies ironically aroused a sense of xenophobic nationalism – among the French people – by endorsing counter-nationalism and allowing kings and aristocracy to develop state patriotism. From that moment on, the doctrine of revolution became that of the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation. Another plausible interpretation of the Revolution made by contemporary historians, in the 1960s and 1970s, concludes that the Revolution originated in the conflict between social classes over the conflict. then the current oppressive feudal system. This conflict pitted the rising class of the capitalist bourgeoisie against the noble class/those belonging to the Third Estate whose interests were protected by the feudal and agrarian system of the Ancien Régime. Here, the bourgeois class sought the freedom of free trade and representative democracy to meet their capitalist interests (p. 1295). However, empirical evidence is present in this text – and others – that makes this account redundant and/or contradictory. On the one hand, revisionist historians attack this line of approach by asserting that there were members of the Third Estate who were capitalists - in the general sense - but who invested their money in non-capitalist ways ("lands, offices and rents"). ") (p.1295). Furthermore, Heuer introduces another possible perspective, derived from revisionist theories, which implies that before the revolution, the bourgeoisie and nobility were in fact in competition instead of being "a single propertied elite with shared interests", making thus the notion of an oppressive system and the conflict for free trade is superfluous for the bourgeoisie. Similarly, on the aforementioned point, Lewis (1993: 119) proposes that rather than being a class issue, the Revolution was rather a conflict between the capitalist bourgeoisie and the nobility. Lewis (1993: 119) argues that before the Revolution, France had already experienced an industrial “take-off” due to the old regime. However, it was the post-feudal structure and mentality of aristocratic society that hindered modern forms of capitalist production. It is plausible that the Revolution was exacerbated by the fact that the already existing capitalist growth was led by the nobility rather than the bourgeoisie. Thus, instead of a class war, the conflict derived from this capitalist growth in fact opposed the bourgeois capitalist “elite” and the feudal nobility (Lewis: 1993: 119-21). So, instead of being about individual freedom – for the bourgeoisie – the Revolution was about control over the state. However, this premise does not seem to recognize that inequalities existed within society before the Revolution. The desire for freedom before/during the Revolution demanded equal representation between the French people (commoners and bourgeoisie) and what was once known as the ruling class (nobility and Third Estate). This notion of equality was to be applied both politically and generally, while the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was a good indicator of the motivation of the Revolution. A resolution passed - November 14, 1793 - prohibitingthe use of any language that addresses/refers to others as less superior to oneself was crucial to the direction of the Revolution, for example, the term 'you' was to be replaced with 'tu' and/or 'You'. The petition asking the National Convention to abolish the "you" in 1794 was a microcosm of the desire for less social reserve and discrimination and more open familiarity, fraternity, and equality (p. 22 ). These ideals placed a strong emphasis on the transformation of social relations whereby individuals and certain classes were to be freed from oppressive societal norms causally directed by the Ancien Régime. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that the symbolic trinity of the Revolution (liberty, equality and fraternity) was synonymous during the Revolution. However, that said, some events that occurred following the Revolution - such as the Terror - were very questionable in their morality and usefulness. Before continuing, it should be noted that there are apparent ambiguities and contradictions when studying this aspect of the Revolution. The event in question here is the Terror which occurred later in the revolutionary period around 1794 (p. 25). We can see that the initial interests of the Revolution seemed to be class-based where the rising bourgeois class was overthrowing the prosperous aristocrats under the Ancien Régime. However, the motivations behind the violence inflicted during the Terror seemed to prey on all forms of inequality and counter-revolutionaries. Ironically, it was the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal that orchestrated the official terror that cost the lives of approximately 17,000 people, 85% of whom were commoners. At this point, an "aristocrat" was anyone considered an enemy of the state. (pp. 25-6). Here, the narrative of the Revolution appears to have transgressed in a way that contradicts its original interests. The Terror reflected a totalitarian state mentality as opposed to the republic that the revolutionaries desired and fought for. Darnton (19989:28) believes that this happened because people cannot live for long in a state of “epistemological exaltation” – created after the siege of the Bastille. At this stage of the Revolution, the people seem to have taken justice into their own hands and are letting themselves be guided by blood. It is reasonable to assert that the violence inflicted was a necessary evil to ensure the destruction of the Ancien Régime (p. 27). However, having said that, it is important to recognize that at this point the Revolution may have lost its meaning and that the violence inflicted was the result of blind populism. The arguments put forward seem to indicate that the Revolution was about freedom. -in the most general and broadest sense- for everyone. And even if that were the case, only the bourgeois class gained immediate political and individual freedom through the Revolution. It is also reasonable to assert that the bourgeoisie was the only class to benefit from the Revolution. Almost immediately after the siege of the Bastille, members of the Third Estate were unjustly and brutally persecuted by commoners as part of a public outcry against soaring bread prices due to political instabilities immediately following the collapse of the Bastille. Ancien Régime (Darnton: 25). ). Moreover, working patterns, the situation of the poor and social injustices remained unchanged (McPhee: 182). For their survival, the poor continued to live and work in the same way as before the Revolution (McPhee: 182). It seems that the aristocracy and the poor were the most affected by the revolution, while also being those who gained the least from it. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these immediate aftereffects of the Revolution, also.