I tend to find Robespierre a bit easier to understand because, in retrospect, the progression of his extremism is devostatingly logical (though when I remember the peaceful and just lawyer from Arras, it is shocking hard on a more emotional level to see that that is the same man who went to the Guillotine in Thermidor).

Your assessment of Saint-Just as a bit of an "Uebermensch" is intersting. It would be a good subject for debate. He clearly embraced the notion that social convention must be broken and should be broken by the "right" people to bring change, but he lacks the "noble man's" spontineaty and was obsessed with notions of morality, obviously believing in a clearly defined good and evil--traits of the slave morality as explained in Geanology of Morals. Still, for all practical purposes, I think your classificaiton is accurate, though more in Dostoevsky's interpretation of the Extraordinary Man (see Crime and Punishment) than a pure nietzchean interpretation.