Originally, Robespierre was a fanatical defender of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and opposed the death penalty. Yet he eventually became the leader of the totalitarian Committee of Public Safety, and the leader of the radical Jacobins, even purging Danton for reactionary tendencies? Why did he radicalize, and, if he hadn't, would he have made a good moderate leader?
Why Did Robespierre Radicalize?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
Mike Duncan's Revolution Podcast does a good job of going into detail about Robespierre. I recommend it.
Can you give me a brief rundown? Thanks for the recommendation, I'l check it out later, but I'm going hiking in a bit.
I question whether Robespierre was actually corrupt though. If anything, I think a large part of his radicalization has a lot to do with his incorruptability. As Dominus Novus suggested, Mike Duncan does a really good job of outlining Robespierre's evolution. Really, it's not that Robespierre radicalized so much as it is that he took his already strongly held beliefs and eventually took them to their logical conclusion.
Corruption is more than just taking bribes. Its the point where you stop seeing people as people and instead as obstacles or resources.
As xerex said, this counts as a form of becoming corrupted.
Last edited:
Many (most?) fanatical defenders of the rights of man end up mass murderers. It's easier to love Man in the abstract than it is to love a particular man.
Because he knew that the revolution wouldn't stand a chance if the revolutionaries don't act radically.
Remember that his radicalization was supported by the majority of the national convention until 1794.
I think the stuff he said about terror being "justice,prompt,severe and inflexible" shows that his sanity is clearly questionable.
Look at the military situation of France in 1793 and tell me if a sane person could have believed in victory.
There's a difference between doing drastic things to achieve military victory and simply just randomly killing people.In the end,he was either just randomly killing people or just killing those who voiced an alternate opinion--regardless of whether they were trying to launch a revolt or not.He tried to continue this even when victory was in sight,which was why the rest of the deputies ganged up and took him down.Funny thing is that he started killing off Jacobins in the end who tried to moderate things when 'terror' was clearly no longer needed,which led allowed the true opposition to gain enough votes to have him offed.
Arguably,he f#$ked up BIG TIME by executing the aristocrats randomly since he ended up gutting the French navy of it's excellent officer corps,which led to the French Navy being a massive joke during the French Revolutionary War and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars.
Last edited:
Maybe the flight to Varennes. Once Robespierre saw that even the king would sell himself to the Austrians, I could see how he would think that all aristocrats are liabilities. Extend that to all opposition with the assassination of Marat, and you have the Terror.
Compared to him,Trotsky had the better idea in the Russian revolution.He had all the officers' family members arrested and held hostage--threatening to harm them if they try anything funny.
Sir Chaos
Banned
I would argue the opposite: That you can either take your beliefs to their ultimate and frequently horrible conclusion, or be corrupted by influences outside your belief system (such as bribes, or the rush of having power, or seeing people as individuals rather than reflections of your belief system) and led away from a strict application of your belief system.
If one is a Nazi, holding to the belief that Jews are a cancer eating away at the body of the Aryan people, then getting to see individual Jews one encounters as people who perhaps deserve better than to be murdered (or whose murder at least causes one to feel remorse afterwards), then one is corrupted - though in this case the corruption is an arguably positive thing.
Robespierre´s problem was thus that he was NOT corrupted.
The double dangers of counter-revolution in Vendée and defeats in the war probably had a lot to do with it. That might be the reason why he wanted to preserve the revolutionary development with an iron fist and terreur against all possible rivals. A similarity of all revolutions is that they turn more violent and extreme during times of war (Cf. Russia from 1917 onwards, Iran after 1980).
In foreign policy Robespierre actually didn't radicalise, but sticked to his original non-interventionist approach. Unlike the Girondists, he didn't want to export the revolution.
In foreign policy Robespierre actually didn't radicalise, but sticked to his original non-interventionist approach. Unlike the Girondists, he didn't want to export the revolution.