Nasty subject, but...

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

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!

Comments

[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?

[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.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Skimming through a book on Napoleon in a bookshop recently, I read something that suggested that Carnot was pissed off that the Robespierres were giving young Bonaparte a long leash (the papers on which were tactfully destroyed after Thermidor), and, as with the CPS arguments with Saint-Just over military matters, this may have helped stir the anger up. I haven't come across this anywhere else, though (but I haven't done much reading on this - as a friend of mine said, "Napoleon doesn't really do it for me" - nice uniforms, though!) - if there's any truth in it, I suppose Carnot would have it in for Augustin, too.

[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.