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?
no subject
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?