Based on the readings  below, to what extent (and why) should we regard the Fren

History

By Robert C.

Important - Read this before proceeding

These instructions reflect a task our writers previously completed for another student. Should you require assistance with the same assignment, please submit your homework details to our writers’ platform. This will ensure you receive an original paper, you can submit as your own. For further guidance, visit our ‘How It Works’ page.

Based on the readings  below, to what extent (and why) should we regard the French Revolution as transforming societies and peoples? 
Why, in your view, do these scholars offer such diverse explanations? 
WORKSHOP READING Lynn Hunt, ‘The World We Have Gained: The Future of the French Revolution’ in The American Historical Review
Article 
by Lynn Hunt
Lynn Hunt, ‘The French Revolution in Global Context’ in The age of revolutions in global context, c. 1760-1840
Chapter 
by Lynn Hunt
C.A. Bayly ‘The ‘Revolutionary Age’ in the Wider World, c. 1790–1830’
Article 
by Bayly, C. A.
Textbook
David Bell, ‘Questioning the Global Turn: The Case of the French Revolution’ in French Historical Studies
Article 
by David A. Bell
01/02/2014 
Textbook
I have attached these readings down below. Please only use these sources. 
Your essay will need to determine which aspects of the readings are most relevant to the question and why. Your essay’s structure and argument should reflect your own considered response to the question based on what you have read.
Each essay prompt consists of two parts: the initial question addresses the content and argument about the topic; the second question asks you to reflect on why there is variation (sometimes considerable) among the scholars you have read. Think of the first part as the central core of your essay. It will be your attempt to sort out the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of history and explain what historians have found significant. Think of the second part (‘Why, in your view, do these scholars offer such diverse explanations?’) as an invitation to reflect briefly on issues of method and historiography. Why did your scholars arrive at conflicting or converging conclusions about the topic and to what extent does this derive from their interpretive methods, types of evidence, chronological or geographical focus, etc?