The Rise of Popular Authoritarianism

Conceived in the ideas presented by the Enlightenment, the people of France (generally those classified in the Third Estate) began to question Louis XVI on their rights as human beings.  In late 1788, the Three Estates (the Clergy, the Nobles and Everyone else) came together at Versailles to discuss an adequate solution to the current financial crisis.  However, after 6 weeks of deadlock, the Third Estate fled to a indoor tennis court and drew up a new constitution for France, while also proclaiming themselves as "The National Assembly".  This was essentially the tipping point, as Louis XVI reacted by assembling troops to disperse the Assembly, however when the local french citizens heard about this they rose up in arms and destroyed the Bastille.  These uprisings only helped the National Assembly, and they soon created a document known as The Rights of Man and the Citizen.   However, in order to protect this revolution, a Reign of Terror swept through France, as over 40,000 people were beheaded for being against the rebels.  Soon after, Napoleon, a young french general, took command militaristically and declared himself the Ruler of France.

Enlightenment as Inspiration for Revolution within France

Louis XVI assumed the throne in 1774 after facing a desperate fiscal situation by growing the opposition of French Courts. The protest of the king created the responsibility of The Third Estate Acts to create new laws. These uprising ideas strengthened the hand of the National Assembly in it’s dealings with the king. This lead to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen which states the doctrine for a future constitution. The Declaration guaranteed expression of ideas, equality before the law, and representative government.The Declaration was geared towards the peasants that took over 80% of the French Population. The poor unable to afford housing and receive significant pay resulted in violence and crime. The new constitution was the start to solving these disasters. The constitution made it so everyones thoughts and opinions can be heard and everyone has a role in the duty of the government. The new constitution and the United States constitution are very similar in bringing out human rights so everyone get involved and is able to speak out. This allowed the French people to start a beginning with expressing there ideas and representing a part of there government.

The French Revolution: A New Beginning

After Louis XVI was successfully overthrown by the French revolutionists, it was up to the Third Estate of the Estates General to write a new code of law. Representing the French poor, the Third Estate produced the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" which contained the principles of the future Constitution. Prior to its creation, 80% of the french population, who lived in poverty, severely suffered in the living conditions of Monarchial France. Imposing taxes limited the poor's ability to find the proper nutrition or put food on the table at all. France itself was not a poor country, its wealth was however horribly distributed, reaching only the upper classes. Because wealth was scarce and long working hours refused a significant pay, much of the population turned to crime as an attempt to liberate their lives of poverty. Such hardships were the exact problems the new constitution sought out to solve. It directly addressed the oppression of the poor by establishing equality and security as a human right, essentially disassembling the social structure of Europe at the time, which was predominantly hierarchical. The old political structure was also uprooted, as the new constitution granted everyone a role to play in the function of the government. This idea represented the basis of democracy, which the people adopted in a hope that exclusive and absolute governments would fail to return to France. This Constitution is very similar to that of the United States and parallelly started a new beginning for the people of France by including basic human rights to ensure that every voice in the country was heard.

Ellen: Spreading and Stopping the French Revolution

The Enlightenment ideologies that sparked the French Revolution have clearly had an enormous impact on world history. Central to this revolution and many others is the concept of the rights of man. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man outlines these rights mainly to be "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression." The American Declaration of Independence outlines these rights to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And finally, the Haitian Constitution states that "The Constitution guarantees freedom and individual security...[and] Property is sacred and inviolable." The parallels between these three documents show how there are fundamental beliefs that almost all humans values, and these are essentially the basis for democracy. Regardless of the nationality, the oppressed people want a voice in their government, which ties back to the discussion in-class on Tuesday. I do not believe that democracy can be exported because, in a way, it is a naturally occurring process. People can only be oppressed for so long before they rise up to overthrow the political system. The British and the French governments both tried to suppress the democratic rebellions, but, in these cases, the governments failed. So I do not believe democracy can be exported because everyone has the power to bring democracy to a nation on their own without external forces. Obviously, with more advanced militaries, political alliances and globalization, this is not always the case, but in an ideal world, democracy cannot be exported.

Claire: Persia vs. Greece

Though the era of the Persian Wars (early 5th century B.C.E) saw heightened conflict between the Greeks and the Persians, I agree with Bulliet in his assertion that both empires had commonalities in political strategy, social organization, and Indo-European language than meet the eye. However, differences in political organization and state religion did, in my view, have some advantages for the Persians.

The Persian imperial organization had to accommodate for their vast landholdings. Darius divided the empire into twenty provinces, each under the supervision of an appointed governor, or satrap. The hereditary role of the satrap meant that his family knew the local area well, which is a good model for municipal government. Though the royal road system allowed for slow communication back and forth to the central administration, Persepolis, most of these provinces operated pretty autonomously. The tribute system, however, illustrates that the citizens maintained an economic connection to the king. The idea of parsing huge territory into smaller, more manageable municipalities is comparable to the Greek polis system. There were hundreds of Greek poleis, however, and their complete independence from one another caused internal strife between poleis, less unification, and more political instability than in Persia.

Zoroastrian religion was also a smart political move on behalf of the Persians. Moral theology buttressed the king's power, and gave context for his rule and his relationship to the empire. In the Behistun text, Darius writes that: "The right, that is what I desire...the man who is cooperative, according to his cooperation I will reward him...I give much to loyal men" (114.) This passage reveals the morals held high in this society (morality, cooperation, loyalty,) and the king's relationship with the divine and his own endorsement of these values made his people more likely to follow suit and be content in being upright citizens.

Catie- Persia

The Greeks were not worth the Persian's time. One reason is that the Persian Empire was the largest yet. The Persians also had a very developed political system where the empire was divided into about 20 provinces that were each ruled by a satrap. The Persian Empire had access too a far greater amount of resources than the Greeks. Their geographic location gave them access to mineral recourses as well as wooded areas that gave them fuel and building materials. The Greeks needed to rely on importing resources because of their poor geographic location. The Persians also made great technological advancements such as underground irrigation channels. The Greeks were not worth the Persian's time because they simply didn't have any of the important resources that the Persian's had, a large empire, or an advanced political structure.

P vs G -rachel

One might be astonished about the statement “Greeks are a waste of time for the Persians”. Greeks have such a good reputation, why would they ever be looked down upon? There are many reasons for this. The Persian Empire was the largest empire ever established. “The Persian Empire, which dominated most of the Middle East, ruled over a greater percentage of the world’s population than any other empire in history” (US History). Then there was the Greeks empire which wasn’t as close in size to a small peninsula.The persians thought the empire was too small and poor to deal with. Another reason is because the Persians never thought the Greeks had a strong enough and unified government to be a threat towards them. Also trade was a huge reason for the persians to not consider the greeks because the greeks had very little goods and resources. The Persians had many valuable exports and  a collection of imports. Since the Greeks land didn't support them with enough resources they took in vast amounts of goods and resources to supply to there empire. The Persians were not going to waste there time trading with the Greek Empire who weren’t very well equipped.