There are so many contradictory views about the Revolution, particularly that of the French. To help decipher some of the puzzling problems of revolutionary ideology, it will be of value to look into the discourses of historians of modern Europe and their students.
After a discussion on these questions, this paper finally ends with a short conclusion.
To understand the concept of revolution, it said that it is best to postpone any attempt to define it until one has inquired into its history. A revolution must not be considered as timeless thing that is wanting of change and variety. Like all human artifacts revolution has a history; therefore, one's understanding of revolution must be sensitive to those changes. Relative to this discussion are the views of revolutionists Max Weber and Friedrich Nietzsche during their time.1
Weber (1864-1920) said, "Definition can be attempted, if at all, only at the conclusion of the study." Meanwhile, Nietzsche (1844-1900) held that "only that which has no history can be defined."2 To understand then a revolution, we look to its history.
Both the American and French revolutions happened in the late 18th centuries. Although the two revolutions took place at different occasions and different continents, their causes were very much alike. The American and French Revolutions did acutally both begin with conservative intentions. The Americans wished, they said, to go back to the working arrangement that they had had with the British state since the seventeenth century. On the other hand, the French wished to restore power to the old institutions of the parliaments and the Estates-General. ...