Nasty subject, but...
Sep. 9th, 2008 11:02 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
I don't think any of the history books I've read have ever really gone into this, but - presumably, as originally intended, the Thermidor plot was to have Robespierre and co. arrested, imprisoned, and then, presumably, put on trial before the Tribunal. Could they have seriously been confident in a conviction? Some accounts of the day suggest that the Robespierristes were reluctant to be 'freed' because it appears they reckoned a trial was a better option for them, Marat style. It would also have given Robespierre's supporters more time to organise. So, what were the plotters thinking? Just 'it's now or never and we'll work the next bit out when we come to it'? Any thoughts on this?
Another bit of unpleasantness on the same subject - I recently came across an account that suggests there wasn't any lead in the wound in Robespierre's jaw, i.e., that it was a shot from a pistol charged with gunpowder but no lead bullet: that would still cause a fair bit of damage, specially if fired into your mouth, which is the suicide method, but wouldn't smash your skull...sorry, I've had toothache all week so that's the sort of thing I've been wondering about!
Another bit of unpleasantness on the same subject - I recently came across an account that suggests there wasn't any lead in the wound in Robespierre's jaw, i.e., that it was a shot from a pistol charged with gunpowder but no lead bullet: that would still cause a fair bit of damage, specially if fired into your mouth, which is the suicide method, but wouldn't smash your skull...sorry, I've had toothache all week so that's the sort of thing I've been wondering about!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 06:18 am (UTC)The old addage that history is written by the winners may very well apply here: the opposition could have known a trial would be impossible from the start but could have still later implied that they intended to go ahead with one. In short, we can't be sure. However, I think the conviction of Danton did leave the deputies with the sense--whether it is right or wrong, I do not know--that, at this point, the only possible verdict the jury will return for a politician is a guilty one. In short, the Tribunal became so closely associated wiht execution and so much had happened since Marat's acquittal that they didn't really take into account that there could be another outcome. That fatalism combine with the blind certainty that can come out of taking a terrible risk may have colored their judgement.
As for the second bit, my guess is that Robespierre's wound wasn't examined that closely, seeing as by that point it was probably assumed he was less than fourty-eight hours away from the guillotine. And, as Scurr points out in Fatal Purity, if Robespierre himself was handling the gun, it should be remembered that he had little to no experience with fire arms, so god knows what he did. But the quesiton of the facial damage is an interesting one, if only because different sources discribe it differently. Some imply Robespierre's jaw was totally shattered, also implying the injury was such that speech was rendered impossible, but there are quotes attributed to him following his injury which implies slightly less--though still possibly severe--damage to his jaw.
A sort of related question: Augustin Robespierre requested to be arrested along with his brother. Had he kept his mouth shut, what do you think would have happened to him?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 11:14 am (UTC)Robespierre's injuries vary according to the animosity of the teller, it seems - I've read one where his jaw's hanging off by a few ligaments! Ditto, in some he's guillotined quickly, but in one account (a footnote in Thiers, I think) his bandages are removed so the executioner can show him to the crowd for a while - look, it's really him - not simply to provide a clean cut. I think there's a nerve in the lower jaw that if severed causes paralysis (at any rate, I had to sign a document on this when I had a jaw operation when I was a teenager - and my god there was a lot of blood, too!) so the account of him thanking the person who gives him some paper is an odd one - it's not hostile, unless his saying 'monsieur' is implying he's dodgy - though I've read other non-hostile accounts of him saying he carried on using 'monsieur' and 'vous' in speech, so...later on, he indicated he wanted pen and paper, though his head was bound up by then so even if he was capable of speech at this point he presumably couldn't because of the bandages.
Yes, I love speculating on that - I suppose by that point all the Robespierristes would have been doomed, as Elisabeth LeBas' suicide story suggests: Mathiez records regional Jacobins killing themselves in sorrow when the news reached them. I wonder what would have happened if Robespierre had been assassinated in the street beforehand? Would the left have survived, and Saint-Just etc. been able to stay in the CPS? Or if - as Napoleon commented later, he had been in Paris, as he had had the option of being, on the 9th? His political allegiances seem pretty flexible, but the comment suggests he'd have fought with the Robespierristes at that point (with what result? destruction of the Convention, chaos in Paris, civil war, and the foreign powers moving in to take advantage, I suppose?)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 09:57 pm (UTC)On your earlier point - it's a shame they didn't have the concept of 'gardening leave' - it's the British term for a cooling off period where colleagues at each others throats are made to stay at home without losing their official position while others sort things out (much in the news yesterday because there's a big spat in the police)!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 12:15 am (UTC)HanriotFran (Vanesa)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 08:47 pm (UTC)It's hard to govern rationally when you know radicals, enemies, etc are beating on the door demanding that you listen to them or there'll be an insurrection. When the sense of imediate physical danger is that real, decisions are bound to be more motivated by panic and fear of things falling apart than rationality. Had the deputies not felt so imediately threatened by the crowds gathering outside, would they have expelled the Girondins? Would a lot have happened?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-13 04:59 pm (UTC)HanriotFran (Vanesa)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-13 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-13 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 11:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 11:48 pm (UTC)