Premodern And Modern Revolution Analysis

Both premodern and modern revolutions are true revolutions because to be a revolution there needs to be an element of change and is something that matters more than the trajectory of the motivations behind this change. A Lloyd Moote contradicts this by stating, Europe was ‘non-revolutionary’ before the ‘Age of Democratic Revolutions’ because contemporaries were not progressive. This is a judgement disparages the experience of those in the premodern period, as it implies the only changes which count take place in the modern era because they take on are modern notions of progress. This is not the case, however, as any change in regime is significant no matter the ideals. For instance, the Glorious Revolution in 1688 was motivated by conservative-minded
This was because it was based on vague ideals which could not be replicated and thus any attempt to implement it had to result in change. Glenn Burgess reinforces this by noting the ancient constitution was an ambiguous concept that was ‘time out of mind’, which meant that there was no past they could pinpoint. This meant the altered political situation contemporaries received would be a change and thus one which was revolutionary to them. Robert Ferguson’s 1695 pamphlet suggests this because it points out that William of Orange’s political takeover had resulted in changes to the English state, as the Dutch had ‘tricked’ the English and the Church of England was now in ‘precarious state’ because Dutch if they did think of it were trying to ‘subvert’ it. Moreover, in spite of this being perceived by Ferguson as a negative development, it is still referred to as a ‘revolution’ in the source further consolidating the fact premodern revolutions did exist. It is worth noting, however, that not all premodern revolution refer to themselves as such and although some may note it is anachronistic to argue these ones are, it is worth keeping in mind their mind there maybe some resistance in contemporaries using the word, or the true revolutionary nature might be unrealised because of their proximity to the
For example, with the Russian Revolution there were symbolic changes that Leon Trotsky notes such as the removal of the Romanov motifs like ‘the two-headed eagles’ from government buildings but also more significant practical changes such as ordinary citizens of Russia, having access to culture previously unavailable to them as ‘Plays were given in factories, [and] in barracks’ as Louise Bryant states. In turn, both the Glorious Revolution and the Russian Revolution can be considered to be true revolutions because there was a change in both these regimes, one acknowledged by the respective contemporaries although it has also shown this change is easier to detect in the modern context because of the material changes the Bolsheviks put in place. Therefore, this fits with Zagorin’s broad definition of a true