The Villagers of Fuente Ovejuna lived a very simple life. They didn’t worry about the bigger picture around them. All most of them cared about was living a peaceful and happy life. Laurencia just wanted a happy life with Frondoso. But, once an authoritarian dares to disrupt the serenity of their society; the head must changed. With the help of the rest of Village, Laurencia and Frondoso violently murdered the Commander because of his tyrannical behavior. They lead the way to a successful revolution.
The Grand Commander was a terrible person and his boss wasn’t great either. Gomez’s Servants said that the Master of Calatrava was “still too young to know what it means To be loved by others” (Goya 18-19). If the Grand Commander had to …show more content…
If the master didn’t even respect the Grand Commander enough to be on time to a meeting with him. How would he ever listen to the villagers pleas for reform? A mere reformation of the politics would not change a thing, a revolution was needed. The Grand Commander was much too proud to change his ways. His way of thinking was flawed. He says that “you believe that you have honour? You’ll be claiming next You are the knights of Calatrava”(123-125). It is obvious that he sees them as a lower class. If the peasants can't negotiate with the commander without being looked down upon, there is no hope of reform. The commander would just laugh it off and say that he has noble blood and does not need to listen to the peasants. He was not needed at all in keeping the village up and running. He was more if an intruder than a leader.When it was clear that the peasants did not have a lot if grain, the commander still wanted grain for himself even though he had plenty. Esteban's says that “although others don't agree we need to keep the grain we have”(act two 4-5). This act itself is revolutionary. He is not listening to what the government orders him to do and is rebelling by keeping his grain. If he …show more content…
This was a huge victory for women all over Europe. This changed the way politicians needed to act. Instead of all the bills and laws being focused on advancing men’s status. Now they needed to satisfy the women too. You could say this was revolutionary because the women's vote had a huge impact in elections technically changing the order. But, the point of the movement was not so they could eliminate sexist politicians. It was more that women wanted the basic rights that they were entitled to have. The installment of new government during this time was a side effect of the movement. The purpose of the movement wasn't to overthrow a government. It was to allow women to continue traditions of the government. Voting for a new leader is not a revolution if it is part of the principles of the
The Grand Commander was a terrible person and his boss wasn’t great either. Gomez’s Servants said that the Master of Calatrava was “still too young to know what it means To be loved by others” (Goya 18-19). If the Grand Commander had to …show more content…
If the master didn’t even respect the Grand Commander enough to be on time to a meeting with him. How would he ever listen to the villagers pleas for reform? A mere reformation of the politics would not change a thing, a revolution was needed. The Grand Commander was much too proud to change his ways. His way of thinking was flawed. He says that “you believe that you have honour? You’ll be claiming next You are the knights of Calatrava”(123-125). It is obvious that he sees them as a lower class. If the peasants can't negotiate with the commander without being looked down upon, there is no hope of reform. The commander would just laugh it off and say that he has noble blood and does not need to listen to the peasants. He was not needed at all in keeping the village up and running. He was more if an intruder than a leader.When it was clear that the peasants did not have a lot if grain, the commander still wanted grain for himself even though he had plenty. Esteban's says that “although others don't agree we need to keep the grain we have”(act two 4-5). This act itself is revolutionary. He is not listening to what the government orders him to do and is rebelling by keeping his grain. If he …show more content…
This was a huge victory for women all over Europe. This changed the way politicians needed to act. Instead of all the bills and laws being focused on advancing men’s status. Now they needed to satisfy the women too. You could say this was revolutionary because the women's vote had a huge impact in elections technically changing the order. But, the point of the movement was not so they could eliminate sexist politicians. It was more that women wanted the basic rights that they were entitled to have. The installment of new government during this time was a side effect of the movement. The purpose of the movement wasn't to overthrow a government. It was to allow women to continue traditions of the government. Voting for a new leader is not a revolution if it is part of the principles of the