AHC: Robespierre becomes Stalinist/extremist Dictator

For those of you who don't know, Robespierre was the initially moderate but later extreme Jacobinist politician during the French Revolution. He was the de facto dictator, albeit checked by the "national convention" (parliament) of revolutionary France from 1793-1794 and was largely responsible for the reign of terror, though he was overthrown and executed by the parliament eventually.

The challenge is to have him not only survive but become a paranoid, authoritarian Stalinist style dictator, but with the revolutionary fervour of Mao or Lenin, devoted to transforming Europe and then the world.


I might even write a little timeline/story if this gets interesting enough.
 
Have Robespierre successfully rally the Parisian mob and depose the convention during the Thermidorian Reaction.In OTL,Robespierre managed to rally the mob to his side,but that support eventually faded and he was arrested.
 
For those of you who don't know, Robespierre was the initially moderate but later extreme Jacobinist politician during the French Revolution. He was the de facto dictator, albeit checked by the "national convention" (parliament) of revolutionary France from 1793-1794 and was largely responsible for the reign of terror, though he was overthrown and executed by the parliament eventually.

The challenge is to have him not only survive but become a paranoid, authoritarian Stalinist style dictator, but with the revolutionary fervour of Mao or Lenin, devoted to transforming Europe and then the world.


I might even write a little timeline/story if this gets interesting enough.

You can't because you just have no idea of what was the french revolution and how the system of power and government in these years.

There was no single party rule. There was even not any political party. It was a collegial system with almost no executive power. The decisive political bodies were a very unstable assembly (the convention), a club of very diverse people, and some violent militant mobs.

This was an incredible mess. This is why there was no boss in the revolution. The few people that seemed to be dominant stood on a very fragile position and their relative power never lasted more than 6 months.
 
I would love to read a tl of this. I imagine the cause of republicanism would be extremely damaged in this world and monarchism would have more intellectual weight behind it.
 
You can't because you just have no idea of what was the french revolution and how the system of power and government in these years.

There was no single party rule. There was even not any political party. It was a collegial system with almost no executive power. The decisive political bodies were a very unstable assembly (the convention), a club of very diverse people, and some violent militant mobs.

This was an incredible mess. This is why there was no boss in the revolution. The few people that seemed to be dominant stood on a very fragile position and their relative power never lasted more than 6 months.

Enlighten me as to how Napoleon wasn't at all a dictator and how it's absolutely impossible that someone else could have taken his place.
 
Enlighten me as to how Napoleon wasn't at all a dictator and how it's absolutely impossible that someone else could have taken his place.
Wow,you really know nothing about the French Revolution.The period where Napoleon took power is drastically different from the period where Robespierre was supposedly calling the shots.During the period where Robespierre was 'in power',France was run by a number of committees with power delegated by the National Convention.In other words,there wasn't really any particular head of states or head of government.Robespierre was merely a rather outspoken member of the Committee of Public Safety.He is only 'powerful' because the Convention delegated power to him (due to the fact that they believe it was necessary to purge the supposed enemies of the state) and that he has the support of the Parisian mob.Once that fear was gone after the Battle of Fleurus,the Convention has no more need of him.Within the Convention,the Jacobins were in fact a minority.This is why people were able to get rid of Robespierre so easily--most of the Convention consists of independents who were weary that they might be next on his list.Meanwhile,Napoleon's a popular general with actual military authority.On the day when he launched his coup,he led an army to clear the parliament of it's members.Also,by then there was already a clear government structure with three directors.

Like I mentioned,the only way Robespierre could have went full on dictator would be having him successfully rally the Parisian mob and overthrow the government/Convention--which actually has the backing of the army to put him down.
 
Enlighten me as to how Napoleon wasn't at all a dictator and how it's absolutely impossible that someone else could have taken his place.

I think the key distinction here is that Napoleon was an accomplished general who commanded the loyalty of the army, which was basically the only functional part of the government. Robespierre was a politician. How would he form that kind of support base?
 
You can't because you just have no idea of what was the french revolution and how the system of power and government in these years.

There was no single party rule. There was even not any political party. It was a collegial system with almost no executive power. The decisive political bodies were a very unstable assembly (the convention), a club of very diverse people, and some violent militant mobs.

This was an incredible mess. This is why there was no boss in the revolution. The few people that seemed to be dominant stood on a very fragile position and their relative power never lasted more than 6 months.

Couldn't a POD be Robespierre maintaining strength log enough that by the time a party-esque system comes into place he becomes naturally indispensable?
 
Couldn't a POD be Robespierre maintaining strength log enough that by the time a party-esque system comes into place he becomes naturally indispensable?

How would that happen? This was a man with a very limited support base who executed his political opponents. That's not a recipe for long-term political survival.
 
That's right.

The public opinion saw Napoleon as a national hero, as the only competent man who could bring order back in a country that had been ruined and had faced chaos for almost 10 years.

Napoleon took Caesar as model. He used the same propaganda technics as Caesar to present his action and results in the most favourable way.

He looted many riches in Italy to finance the french government. That makes someone very popular when money is missing.


So he built a very strong powerbase and had the support of a large part of the army.

Robespierre was very far from having such trump cards.
 
How would that happen? This was a man with a very limited political base calling for the execution of his political opponents. That's not a recipe for long-term political survival.
I think he could have had the support of the Parisian mob to launch a counter-coup on the convention.Problem is that he undercut his own support by killing some of the other Jacobins and by (IIRC)threatening the propertied class.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Enlighten me as to how Napoleon wasn't at all a dictator and how it's absolutely impossible that someone else could have taken his place.

Napoleon was basically the first of the populist autocrat which was to appear all over the world in the 20th century: not democratic, but would win an open and fair election even if there was one. And is pretty open about and receptive to certain amount of general population's demands.

Robespierre was proto-Lenin/Stalin.
 
The problem is that despite his profile - chiefly the result of foreign propagandists - for most of the period Robespierre wasn't even primes inter pares in the committee of public security, but a member who didn't attend all meetings or sign all bills. He did eventually come out towards the top through manipulating propaganda to get enemies executed (from both sides of the chamber - Danton and Herbert for example), but only for a couple of months before the fear that allowed such leadership burnt itself out, thanks chiefly to Carnot and the victories his organisational ability brought. Should the terror continue - and so Robespierre stay in charge - the likelihood is that this is due to military failure (in the Vendee, against the coalition on land or at the 1st of June), and such continued defeat would imperil the revolutionary state, preventing any long term dictatorship.

You may be better served if you want an earlier dictator to look to those with a higher profile earlier in the period of the terror. Maybe (hugely off the top of my head!) the September Massacres are wider and last longer and bring Marat into power?
 
Enlighten me as to how Napoleon wasn't at all a dictator and how it's absolutely impossible that someone else could have taken his place.

Napoleon wasn't able to become first consul until late 1799, by which time the political structure in France was significantly different
 
I think he could have had the support of the Parisian mob to launch a counter-coup on the convention.Problem is that he undercut his own support by killing some of the other Jacobins and by (IIRC)threatening the propertied class.

Was the mob really the monolithic political force as it is often portrayed? Or were there in fact multiple mobs with different agendas? I'm guessing it was more the latter but I don't know for sure.
 
Top