[identity profile] victoriavandal.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] revolution_fr
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!

Date: 2008-09-10 06:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
With regards to your first point, they were very nervous about the possibility of insurrection, as demonstrated by their uncertainty and paranoia about where to keep the prisoners (and the fact that there were, ah, popular protests).
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?

Date: 2008-09-10 07:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] livviebway.livejournal.com
Re: Augustin. Probably would have escaped for a day or two, then gotten thrown into prison as an afterthought. Whether or not he would have gotten guillotined depending on when he went to trial. Probably would have though.

Date: 2008-09-10 08:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
To my knowledge, Augustin didn't really do all that much, so part of me thinks they may have removed him from office, but they would have hesitated to kill him, if only because it would seem too much like the bad blood (guilt through blood relation) they criticized Robespierre of beginning to lean toward. Still, in a panicked situation, principles tend to go out the window, so they might have just seen something named "Robespierre" and viewed it as a danger.

Date: 2008-09-10 08:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
It's been argued that Saint-Just came pretty close to smoothing things over between the Committees and the Convention, but a dispute with some colleagues and then a conversation with Robespierre made him change course--in the latter we don't know what was said--so one wonders what impact he could have had had he pursued his initial course of action. Furthermore, what were his thoughts when it all fell apart?

Date: 2008-09-10 10:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
I think had there been some sort of official "gardening leave", the French Revolution could have run a quite different course. But then again, argueably Danton's mistake was ducking out of politics. But, had the respective leaders of the Mountain and the Brissotins been made to go calm down, things could have been rather different.

Date: 2008-09-12 12:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hanriotfran.livejournal.com
I think I've already said it...But every time I read about these last weeks at the Committee or watchs a movie about it, I get so nervous that I can't barely bear myself! The issues they were duscussing about were really very delicate, and these men were used after five Revolution's years. I think they all need a few days taking a good holiday at the mountains or the beach, but unfortunately, they couldn't. Too many troubles, too many people wanting to overthrown the Revolutionnary Governement, the war...It was impossible for them to take some rest. And there were not nerve pills!

HanriotFran (Vanesa)

Date: 2008-09-12 08:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
I wonder if things would have been better off had the National Assembly stayed at Versailles. True, they would be in less immediate control of Paris and he who loses Paris loses France. But, in Paris, to control Paris, they let it control them, so perhaps some physical distance between themselves and the angery sans-culottes would have been a healthy thing?
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?

Date: 2008-09-13 04:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hanriotfran.livejournal.com
Yes. But in that case, the French revolution would stayed in the "moderate" face...And if you read my username, you'll understand that I'm not precissely against the Girondins being expelled from the Convention...*cough*

HanriotFran (Vanesa)

Date: 2008-09-13 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
It depends on how we define the moderate phase. In the early days of the National Assembly, the leaders of what would later become the Girondin/Brissotin and Montagnard/Jacobin factions shared a lot of the same ideas of radical social reform--even total moderates like Lafayette did--and what drew a number of politicians away from liberalism (including the Montagnards, when you consider their later support of sensorship, etc) was, aside from fear of invading armies which nothing could have helped, fear of the power of the mob.

Date: 2008-09-12 09:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfshadow713.livejournal.com
The disconnect you mention between the bourgois deputies and the working class parisians is extremely important. Lenin said something to the effect of "the people need bread and justice, but there cannot be justice without bread" (sorry for my terrible paraphrase!) and I think the mistake many revolutionaries and radical reformers(Lenin included)have made is that they somehow combined the two in their rhetoric in a way that resulted in the political classes considering bread an abstraction and the poor expecting justice to bring bread. It's well discribed in Buchner's "Danton's Death" when one of the sans-culottes says something about how the politicians convinced us that killing the King would end our poverity, and then that death of the Girondins would do so, so now maybe killing Danton will do it. It's an over-simplification, of course, but it does illustrate the problem of letting political agendas be confused with basic needs, etc.

Profile

revolution_fr: (Default)
Welcome to 1789...

February 2018

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 12 1314151617
18192021222324
25262728   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 28th, 2025 09:37 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios