ables have now turned in favor of the middle class, and more power is put into the hands of the everyday man. In conclusion, Krapotkin summarizes exactly how he feels about the human costs of the French Revolution. He states, “The blood they shed was shed for humanity-the sufferings they endured were borne for the entire human race…liberty, equality, fraternity.” Krapotkin believed that no matter how many losses there are in any revolution, if it helped the country they were all worth it; this not only being for that country, but for all humankind.Simon Schama, a history professor, held a totally different viewpoint than that of Krapotkin. Schama believed that the French Revolution betrayed it’s own goals and did not show the results that it promised. Schama first says that there was no single Revolution in France, but a large number of self-imposed revolutions on whomever a person chose. He says that local interests were more a determinant in the revolutions than the countries future as a whole. Schama’s most important argument is that violence of the revolution was not merely a by-product of politics but the Revolution itself. One of the bloodiest periods of the Revolution was the Reign of Terror. Schama believes that these so called revolutionaries were no more than terrorists killing their own people for their own causes. He also stated that the end of feudalism only changed a small legal aspect of life. The hierarchy went from lords to landlords, which was already underway in the old regime, and with the end of total control, people were even more exposed to economic inequities. During the Napoleonic era, Schama believed that the violence was now coming from the people’s own army. They had turned France into a police state and taken away the citizen’s new found freedom. In conclusion, Schama states that the revolutionaries belief was that “…surely, that for such ...
