The epitome of autism

The epitome of autism.

MUH VIRTUE
MUH TERROR
MUH RIA ANTOINETTE

>Instead they took him to be executed at the Place Louis XV, and in a sinister twist, they made him face his killer blade face up.

>While he was being prepared, his executions ripped off the bandages holding his jaw together. So he endured his final excruciating minutes both in mind and body, before the self-same fate he’d been only too happy to dole out to others befell him. Robespierre was just 36 and he was guillotined a year and half after his key victim, Louis XVI.

The smug monarch getting his revenge from beyond the grave.

>Staunchly believed that the death penalty was a barbaric relic from the medieval era
>sentences tens of thousands to death

>Warns about a military dictatorship.
>Millions die all over Europe over the course of decades due to a military dictatorship after he dies.

He didn't sentence tens of thousands to death you dunce.

At most he had 1,400 - 1,500.

Goodbye sweet prince.

>sentences tens of thousands to death
>to save billions

France was literally being threatened with mass slaughter by the European forces. They were issuing proclamations demanding subjection from all French citizens or face death. When you're being threatened by external forces, you crack down on internal forces who are working for those European powers that threaten to exterminate French people indiscriminately.

He did not sentence tens of thousands to death. Only about 2700 people died in Paris, where he (along with the Commitee) had final jurisdiction over executions. And he was one man on a committee, not a dictator, and in a few notable cases he argued against the death penalty. He argued against the death penalty for Marie Antoinette, but withdrew his objection when the Committee turned on him and it was clear he would be killed himself if he continued. He objected to the execution of Louis XVI's sister along with the women who were tried and executed with her, most of whom were unfortunate relatives of high profile, already dead or exiled male aristocrats. He tried to get the perpetrators of the massacres in the Vendee arrested, and ordered them recalled as soon as he learned of what was going on. Other people in the Commitee overruled his argument for their punishment.

Robespierre, like Louis XVI, like Marie Antoinette, became a scapegoat who was blamed for all the ills of the revolution (or in the king and queen's case, the ills of France) by his enemies. Almost everything that is passed down about Robespierre in popular culture and even books comes directly from Robespierre's enemies slandering him after his death. If a historian wouldn't use the volatile words of revolutionaries as evidence of Marie Antoinette's wrong-doing, why do they take the volatile and politically charged words of Robespierre's enemies as gospel? And mind you, quite a few of these enemies were the men who were participating in the Vendee massacres and threw Robespierre under the bus to save their own asses.

>They were issuing proclamations demanding subjection from all French citizens or face death.

Any more about this, genuinely curious? I assumed they simply wanted to reinstate the old regime.

>I assumed they simply wanted to reinstate the old regime.

They did, but by doing so they had to put down the revolution and to put down the revolution, you had to force the people to submit to the foreign and emigre armies. I'm not at home so I can't access some of the declarations put out closer to the Terror right now, but the Brunswick Manifesto (published in July 1792, and one of the key factors in the August 10th fall of the monarchy) shares their sentiment:

Some choice quotes:

[It is declared:]

That the allied armies will protect the towns and villages, and the persons and goods of those who shall submit to the king and who shall cooperate in the immediate reestablishment of order and the police power throughout France.

That the inhabitants of the towns and villages who may dare to defend themselves against the troops of their Imperial and Royal Majesties and fire on them, either in the open country or through windows, doors, and openings in their houses, shall be punished immediately according to the most stringent laws of war, and their houses shall be burned or destroyed

1/2

2/2

The city of Paris and all its inhabitants without distinction shall be required to submit at once and without delay to the king, to place that prince in full and complete liberty, and to assure to him, as well as to the other royal personages, the inviolability and respect which the law of nature and of nations demands of subjects toward sovereigns. . .Their said Majesties declare, on their word of honor as emperor and king, that if the chateau of the Tuileries is entered by force or attacked, if the least violence be offered to their Majesties the king, queen, and royal family, and if their safety and their liberty be not immediately assured, they will inflict an ever memorable vengeance by delivering over the city of Paris to military execution and complete destruction, and the rebels guilty of the said outrages to the punishment that they merit.

Finally, I pledge myself, in my own name and in my said capacity, to cause the troops intrusted to my command to observe good and strict discipline, promising to treat with kindness and moderation all well-intentioned subjects who show themselves peaceful and submissive, and to use force only against those who shall be guilty of resistance and ill will.

Ok, thanks for the info.

To expand on this, there was a total death count during the revolution ranging anywhere from 18,000 to 30,000. Let's just average it out to 20,000.

Of those, only about 3,000 were executed in Paris, give or take depending on the source. From start to end. Of those 3,000, about half were before 1793 when Robespierre was appointed and headed the committee of public safety. So in the scope of the revolution, Robespierre had a relatively small headcount. And that's if you give him full blame and not the committee as a whole. Which is a little unfair considering he didn't have the entire say. Most noticeably he wanted Marie Antoinette exiled to Austria with her children but was told to retract his motion or else face the block himself, or also Danton who he defended until his sudden withdrawal from public life.

He's not even as bad as people like Fouche, whom Robespierre wanted put on trial for his crimes, who executed some 2,000 people in Lyon directly by his command. Or Jean Baptiste Carrier who drowned anywhere from 4,000 to 8,000 in Nantes again on his direct order as well as another 2,000 executions by firing squad (he wouldn't escape the guillotine for this).

These were the people who made up Robespierre's opposition and pinned as much of the executions on him as possible, particularly Fouche. The idea being, kill him before he kills us.

Robespierre was massively autistic and he did have some blood on his hands. But he was hardly even the worst character of the revolution.

bump

>The Prairial Law had an immediate impact on the tempo of executions under the Terror. From an average of five executions a day in Germinal, the rate rose to seventeen in Prairial and twenty-six in Messidor.[9] The law thus inaugurated the period known as "The Great Terror".

The terrible Law of Prairial, initiated by Robespierre, meant that people could be sentenced to death merely on the suspicion of being an enemy of the revolution.

Which is why 1,500 people were executed between 1793 and 94 which was equal to 1789 to 1793.

That doesn't mean he magically killed tens of thousands of people and he did notably defend several people from getting the death sentence.

>initiated by Robespierre

From the wikipedia page you quoted:

>It was proposed by Georges Auguste Couthon and supported by Robespierre.

You should also note the context. Also look at the sources for how the Wikipedia article describes the reception of the law. Just the two that I'm familiar with are enough to raise eyebrows.

Simon Schama's Citizens, notorious for the use of texts from Robespierre's enemies (including as it's been said, literal mass murderers) in his demonization of Robespierre and pretty much any of the "pro" revolutionary figures. If you check out the footnotes in the book that discusses the Great Terror and the Law of 22 Prairial, you'll note Schama got his information from Robespierre's enemies who posthumously attributed every excess to him as well as books published decades after Robespierre's death. Not exactly the most reliable of sources.

And then Thompson's "Robespierre," which isn't wholly bad in that it tries to use a variety of sources instead of just parroting what Robespierre's enemies published--remarkable, considering the age of the book. But if you've read it, you'd know that Thompson was obsessed with proving Robespierre "planned" the Terrror from the outset of his revolutionary career, and he constantly says how almost every thing Robespierre did "portended to the terror"! Even Robespierre's early advocating for abolishing the death penalty--which people seem to forget he said during a time of peace when European generals weren't threatening to slaughter French citizens and Robespierre himself wasn't dealing with assassination attempts--somehow, to Thompson, was an early sign of the Terror.

Is it not reasonable to say that these two historians, who at no point even pretend to be portraying Robespierre in a neutral academic fashion, might be misrepresenting what happened in order to make a demonic scapegoat of Robespierre?

>heh, was only one or two death bras :)
The absolute state of this board.

>pointing out misinformation and biases is now a bad thing
>The state of you

And yet so right.

>he was guillotined a year and half after his key victim, Louis XVI.
Louis' death was entirely out of Robespierre's hands. The national convention voted for it.

>comment explaining why taking a Wikipedia article as absolute fact is a terrible idea without examining the sources for that article, especially for a contentious figure like Robespierre whose historiography is made up of "hey this political enemy wrote it about him, it must be true"
>your reply

The absolute state of this board.

I mean, Robespierre did advocate for his death. But to call Louis' "Robespierre's key victim" is pretty ridiculous considering the time period of the king's trial. And as you said, the death penalty was put to a vote. The death sentence won, albeit by 50 or so votes.

Tell me about him
What did he do? How was he incorruptible?
Why is Veeky Forums so polarised on him

Columbus has the same problem. All the sources didn’t like him, so people that don’t like Columbus take the bias sources at face value.

That's what ideology does to your brain.

Terror is a legitimate form of politics in order to strike fear towards shameless opportunists and encourages the brave to take action. Terror is virtue.

He's ourguy OP

Because half of Veeky Forums is Autistical monarchist whom hate any form of change. And the other half is edgy enough to blatantly refuse to acknowledge the meaning of murdering people without any evidence.

That being said Robespierre is totally unjustly vilified.

he barely did anything wrong

Reminder that it's Touqier Tinville of the revolutionary tribunal that created the terror and that the people basically wanted it anyway

He was PERFECT an ANGEL coming from GOD

Praise Robespierre Praise the Republic and Praise Etre Supreme

they did re vote and death won by 1 vote (The king's brother voted against him RIP)

Only immediate death won by 1 vote. 30 more voted for death with a possible delay.

But yeah, his cousin voted for his death without delay. That demonstrated if needed be that aristocracy is trash.

*declares war on the kaizer*
*exterminates the french people*
>yeah these foreign frenchaboo noblemen obviously wanted to exterminate the frenchs

Robespierre reminds me of Nixon. I feel like both are unfairly criticized for their actions when they were by and large exaggerated, distracting from their good work and they were just men ultimately undone by their own paranoia.

Nope.

The king's brothers were in Austria. It was his cousin who voted for death, which shocked even the extremist factions since he was given the option abstain and no one would have held it against him. If anything, his vote for death without delay made him unpopular.

There was no re-vote.

34 voted for death but with a condition (most conditions were requiring a delay for the execution and then a reconsidering of the punishment before it was carried out)

361 voted for death without conditions

319 voted for imprisonment until the end of the war, then banishment, plus 2 voted for imprisonment for life, in irons.

Prince? That's a beheadin'

*saves you from the terror*