If what you really mean by asking what Robespierre's role in the Terror was is what was Robespierre's role in revolutionary repression, that question is slightly more complicated. In broad strokes: no, Robespierre did not have a problem with the idea of making it so counterrevolutionaries could not harm the Revolution, whether this meant with fighting them on the battlefield, with economic sanctions, with imprisonment, or, if necessary, with execution. Was Robespierre the only one who felt this way? No. Is the Republic in question "his" personal "Republic of Virtue"? Once again, no. Are counterrevolutionaries (defined by F. Gauthier as those who oppose the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and its being put into effect) figments of Robespierre's (or anyone else's) paranoid imagination? Not at all. But did Robespierre use the term counterrevolutionary to satisfy his bloodlust/paranoid fantasies/revenge, etc.? I can find no evidence that he did so and I don't believe it. Did Robespierre believe that everyone who was not a model citizen should be guillotined? There is a great deal of evidence, both in his words and his actions to show that this was not the case. Were there abuses during this period of revolutionary repression? Absolutely. Was Robespierre personally responsible for them? In the vast majority of cases, it can be asserted with confidence that he was not (most of them can be attributed to his political enemies). There are certain cases that are more open to discussion (ie, the trial and execution of the Dantonistes), but even there, any responsibility borne by Robespierre is a shared, not a personal responsibility, because, as noted above, he never had that kind of power. In short, Robespierre, active player in the fight against the counterrevolution with the means at his disposal? Certainly. Robespierre, bloodthirsty dictator? Certainly not.
But again, don't take my word on any of this. Read about it for yourself. (It sounds like you already know enough to not just blindly trust the first account you read, so it would be superfluous to warn you against that.)
no subject
If what you really mean by asking what Robespierre's role in the Terror was is what was Robespierre's role in revolutionary repression, that question is slightly more complicated. In broad strokes: no, Robespierre did not have a problem with the idea of making it so counterrevolutionaries could not harm the Revolution, whether this meant with fighting them on the battlefield, with economic sanctions, with imprisonment, or, if necessary, with execution. Was Robespierre the only one who felt this way? No. Is the Republic in question "his" personal "Republic of Virtue"? Once again, no. Are counterrevolutionaries (defined by F. Gauthier as those who oppose the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and its being put into effect) figments of Robespierre's (or anyone else's) paranoid imagination? Not at all. But did Robespierre use the term counterrevolutionary to satisfy his bloodlust/paranoid fantasies/revenge, etc.? I can find no evidence that he did so and I don't believe it. Did Robespierre believe that everyone who was not a model citizen should be guillotined? There is a great deal of evidence, both in his words and his actions to show that this was not the case. Were there abuses during this period of revolutionary repression? Absolutely. Was Robespierre personally responsible for them? In the vast majority of cases, it can be asserted with confidence that he was not (most of them can be attributed to his political enemies). There are certain cases that are more open to discussion (ie, the trial and execution of the Dantonistes), but even there, any responsibility borne by Robespierre is a shared, not a personal responsibility, because, as noted above, he never had that kind of power. In short, Robespierre, active player in the fight against the counterrevolution with the means at his disposal? Certainly. Robespierre, bloodthirsty dictator? Certainly not.
But again, don't take my word on any of this. Read about it for yourself. (It sounds like you already know enough to not just blindly trust the first account you read, so it would be superfluous to warn you against that.)