Question about Robespierre and The Terror

[fromrequired.livejournal.com]

 I don't have much knowledge about the French Revolution (as you can tell by looking at my userpic, I'm more of a WWII fangirl) but I'm greatly interested in it. 

So in my AP Euro History class, we had to watch this documentary about the French Revolution. I'll post a part of it below:

I'm sort of lost because I thought Robespierre originally was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people? It doesn't seem plausible to me that he can just turn into a sanguinary dictator overnight. Even in my textbook it says that Robespierre killed everyone whom he deemed unfit for his "Republic of Virtue," but history is never that simple. I know, I study WWII ;)

Anyways, can y'all people enlighten me about the cause of The Terror and Robespierre's role in it? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions.


EDIT: Here's the part that succeeds it. It basically describes the fall of Robespierre and says he inspired later dictatorships and revolutions. 

Comments

[victorian-fox.livejournal.com]

fromrequired, yes, initially Robespierre was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people. And of course, he didn't turn into a dictator overnight.
But: Robespierre said, that Virtue couldn't exist without Terror - like, if you don't execute everybody who isn't virtuous (in a revolutionary meaning) enough, you can't have a virtuous republic, which they wanted to create. It was a very idealistic vision.
Also, Robespierre and his faction were forced to open the Terror by counter-revolutionaries and because of the pressure from countries (monarchies) in neighborhood.
Robespierre is considered being the most important person of the period of Terror (and they always go together, him and the Terror :( )

(Actually, your WWII studies could help ;) "later revolutions and dictatorships": their stories are, in some parts, somewhat similar)

[gwynplainee.livejournal.com]

Well, the only thing that I can say is that you should not trust everything that is said on Robespierre. He was not an evil man, and he never was a sanguinary dictator. If you read his last speech, you will see that he was very sick for the way the Terror was taking and for the calumnies against him. That speech was not a list of traitors that we wanted to be killed, but his own defense. ("Ils m'appellent tyran. Si je l'étais, ils ramperaient à mes pieds, je les gorgerais d'or, je leur assurerais le droit de commettre tous les crimes, et ils seraient reconnaissants. Si je l'étais, les rois que nous avons vaincus, loin de me dénoncer (quel tendre intérêt ils prennent à notre liberté ! ) me prêteraient leur coupable appui ; je transigerais avec eux".) Also, after his dead, the Terror didn't ended, but changed its ideals.
Is truth that History is never that simple. And the French Revolution was very complex. Robespierre was a very complex character too.
I hope this can help you, but the only way to meet Robespierre is reading what he wrote.
(And sorry for my english. I like WWII period too! but sometime I find it a bit depressing.)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

That documentary is not the world's best. It's better than the recent BBC travesty, but I wouldn't trust it, or any textbook. Or any historian really, if what you really want is to understand Robespierre and/or the Revolution. Try to read primary sources, if you can - specifically concerning Robespierre, if you need your sources to be in English, try George Rudé's collection of writings by and about Robespierre (not to be confused with his biography). Failing that, Zizek recently published a collection of Robespierre's speeches, but the introduction is just about worthless and it's difficult to understand speeches out of context.

Unfortunately, most of the best information on the Revolution (and Robespierre) is only available in French.

I can give you my extremely generalized and short version of the answers to your questions, but you have no reason to take me at my word... Even so, you should know, first of all, that Robespierre was never accused of *being* a dictator in his lifetime, even by his bitterest enemies, only of *wanting* to be one. (It should also be noted that to people in the 18th century, the dictatorship was a Roman magistracy. When anyone from the time says "dictator" they're thinking more Sulla than Stalin.)
Second, the concept of the "Republic of Virtue" is a redundant one, since for any 18th century thinker from Montesquieu on, virtue (ie, the concept of participation in the Republic on the part of its citizens) was the foundation of any republic.
Third, Robespierre never stopped being for the rights of the poor and ordinary people.
Fourth, while everyone agrees that there was repression in the Year II, many historians are starting to question the usefulness of "the Terror" as a concept (J-C Martin demonstrates that it was never actually "put on the order of the day"; a number of studies analyze its invention post-Thermidor; M. Belissa considers that when people use the term Terror what they're really referring to is the popular government - an analysis borne out by the origins of the use of the term during the Revolution: in royalist newspapers decrying the "Terror" of the "Rights of Man and Citizen"; etc.) - as has often been noted with the term "Middle Ages" if you told someone in 1793-1794 that they were living under the Terror, they would have had no idea what you were talking about.
Fifth... well, I won't insult your intelligence by any lengthy explanation about how, say, Lenin's invocation of Robespierre tells you a lot more about Lenin than Robespierre.

[fromrequired.livejournal.com]

Wow, I never thought I'd receive such detailed, quick responses. You guys are amazing. Thank you!

I've read some of Monstesquieu and Rousseau's works and suspected that Robespierre was at least partially inspired by their ideals. Then again, I don't see the necessity for the Cult of Supreme Being (indeed, I shouldn't judge him from a 21st century American perspective), but I guess that was one of his ways of achieving Rousseauian ideals.

I kind of get the idea that "The Terror" was in fact, a reaction to counterrevolutionaries, which I agree were great threats to the very existence of the French Republic.

As for primary sources, I do not speak a lick of French but I have Google Translate, haha. And I also found some accounts in English in Modern History Sourcebook. Did Robespierre happen to write anything in Latin?

[zanyofsorrow.livejournal.com]

I don't like that documentary very much. It leaves out too many important things/events/people and is generally more like a (very brief) summary of the Revolution. If you want to learn more about Robespierre or the French Revolution in general, you should perhaps read something about it. There are many books available in English that deal with the Terror... Palmer's "Twelve who Ruled" is probably the best.


I agree with what has already been said: Robespierre was not a "sanguinary dictator". He was an idealist who supported the rights of the poor and oppressed. The Terror was a reaction to the double threat of war external war (with half of Europe) and civil war organized by the aristocracy/clergy (for example in the Vendée). It is impossible to understand why the Terror happened without keeping this circumstances in mind. Robespierre (and others too, it's not like he was the only person to support the Terror!) advocated the use of "terreur" (not "reign of terror", that phrase was invented by historians) to deal with the counterrevolutionary threat. I'm not saying that everyone who was guillotined in year II actually was a counterrevolutionary or that they all deserved to die. But you should keep in mind why it happened and that it would be too easy to just blame Robespierre for everything when the situation at that time was very difficult and complex.

[fromrequired.livejournal.com]

Gah, reading everything you guys wrote and doing some individual research on my own, I started to find it sickening that my school dared to teach us such blatant propaganda. Worse thing is that the kids are soaking this right up - we recently had a debate on whether Robespierre was truly "incorruptible" and most in my class argued he was a corrupt (when there's no evidence? That's when I started to become suspicious), French version of Kim Jong-Il who tried to elevate himself to the position of a deity, citing that documentary above. And I thought WWII was bad...

My reaction to the Cult of Supreme Being is rather personal. I actually read parts of The Social Contract (via my teacher forcing me, but I ended up liking it); I personally disagreed with Rousseau about the idea of having a Civil Religion, but it was indeed explained very nicely.
Of course, as I've stated earlier, it would not be fair of me to judge Rousseau or Robespierre from a 21st century, American point of view.

I'm sure I've become pretty annoying by now, but according to the documentary I've posted above, Robespierre apparently was on top of a paper mache mountain wearing a toga during the Festival of Supreme Being. Is there any truth to this? I'm asking because it seems like such an absurd and unreasonable thing to do for someone who wrote this: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-supreme.html

Thanks for all the book recommendations, by the way. :) I'll be sure to check them out.