WI: Robespierre Won?

What if, with a PoD no later than the beginning of the French Revolution, Robespierre had managed to gain and hold on to power for a longer period, and cleansed France of all of its monarchist class? How would France and the rest of Europe look? I'm considering writing a story called "201 A.R, In the Year of the Republic" based on this.
 
Before you read this, I will say that I have a very low opinion on Maximilien Robespierre, so this post might be very partial.

I'm not sure that Robespierre would have "cleansed" France of all its monarchists. A great number of them are probably going to go into exile for safety reasons but I could see "underground" monarchist societies try to topple the Republic.

I'm sure of one things though: if Robespierre remains in power, a lot of heads are going to roll. The man brought the Terror and I'm not sure he intended to abolish it for as long as France was at war with itself (The Vendée was still in uproar, the Bretons were highly anti-revolution and I think there were still a few federalists rebellion) and with Europe (First and Second Coalition War). This means the Guillotine will probably be used more than OTL.

The main powers of the Coalition would be as okay with Robespierre leading the French Republic as they were with Napoleon OTL ("A Robespierre on horse" for some). As a matter of fact, I think Robespierre would be even less liked by the Europeans than Napoleon as he would look more dangerous. Napoleon did kill thousands people but it was out of warfare and it's "excusable" but Robespierre killed thousands of people because he made laws that resulted in a lot of people being sent to the Guillotine. In the European's eyes, a longer-staying Robespierre will probably appear more as a butcher than Napoleon OTL. Thus, peace won't be brought until Robespierre is down or his ennemies are out of soldiers. Thus, instead of Napoleonic Wars, we would probably have Revolutionnary Wars that last around the same lenghth of time.

The ideals of the French Revolution are probably going to be further looked down with Robespierre staying in power longer since he applied them without caring for the consequences (in my eyes at least) and sending opponents to the Guillotine (that's what happened to the Monarchists, the Girondins, the Enragés/Hebertistes (pushed for a longer use of the terror) and the Indulgents (Danton and those who wished to reduce if not stop using the terror)). Thus, they will be less accepted than OTL and will take a longer time to rise up.
 
Robespierre somehow needed to not alienate all his supporters, and driving them to go "oh shit, we could be next on this crazy fuck's list".
 
What if, with a PoD no later than the beginning of the French Revolution, Robespierre had managed to gain and hold on to power for a longer period, and cleansed France of all of its monarchist class? How would France and the rest of Europe look? I'm considering writing a story called "201 A.R, In the Year of the Republic" based on this.

So in this scenario Robespierre basically attains the status of 20th century "luminaries" such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin & Pol Pot. Put in that company, I doubt that there would be a 201 AR - unless that means After Robespierre.
 
For me the most interesting thing about that period of France is her loony process of forced dechristianization and trying to establish a "Cult of Reason". How would the religious landscape of today's France look like if he supported it while staying in power longer, who knows, maybe even stronger secular society.
 
Everyone really as to keep in mind that Robespierre wasn't really the monster that 200 years of monarchist propaganda aimed at building. He wasn't the only one responsible for the terror. A lot of member of the following Directorate supported the terror, but they never came really forward. In fact, one could say that Robespierre and St-Just were victims of the Terror themselves, when the Convention executed them.

If the POD was after the Revolution i would say two possible POD, like Robespierre proposal to abolish the death penalty is accepted, weakening the effect of the terror, with a lot of monarchist exiled instead of executed, or no assassination of Marat. This guy could really hold the republic together. Before the Revolution, i got no idea.
 
Everyone really as to keep in mind that Robespierre wasn't really the monster that 200 years of monarchist propaganda aimed at building. He wasn't the only one responsible for the terror. A lot of member of the following Directorate supported the terror, but they never came really forward. In fact, one could say that Robespierre and St-Just were victims of the Terror themselves, when the Convention executed them.

If the POD was after the Revolution i would say two possible POD, like Robespierre proposal to abolish the death penalty is accepted, weakening the effect of the terror, with a lot of monarchist exiled instead of executed, or no assassination of Marat. This guy could really hold the republic together. Before the Revolution, i got no idea.

I'd agree, and even if he was a monster, he wasn't Hitler. He believed that in order to keep the Republic safe, the internal enemies of the Republic needed to go away; the guillotine was the easiest way of doing that.
 
What if, with a PoD no later than the beginning of the French Revolution, Robespierre had managed to gain and hold on to power for a longer period, and cleansed France of all of its monarchist class? How would France and the rest of Europe look? I'm considering writing a story called "201 A.R, In the Year of the Republic" based on this.

I'd agree, and even if he was a monster, he wasn't Hitler. He believed that in order to keep the Republic safe, the internal enemies of the Republic needed to go away; the guillotine was the easiest way of doing that.


How does this differ from the goals and methods of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and (I forgot to mention above) Mao?
 
How does this differ from the goals and methods of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and (I forgot to mention above) Mao?

So how did the policies of the UK against the Boers differs from those of Stalin ? How does the policies of the USA against the natives differs from those of Hitler ? Did you at least know what happened during the terror ? These were troubled times, and most executions took place without he approval of anyone.
 
How does this differ from the goals and methods of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and (I forgot to mention above) Mao?

Sheer numbers, mainly. And many of the people he targeted were actually actively trying to overthrow the new state. That being said, murder is still murder, and is an evil act.
 
The difference between Robespierre and Hitler is quite obvious...you must be either a troll or very blind to say that.

Many people are influenced by the pro monarchist lobby, who tried to make him a monster. As many people during this dark period, Robespierre wasn't all black or white.

Though, I don't think that Robespierre could have won. He was on the way of self destruction, politically and personally. His fall was just a matter of months.

He could have lasted a little longer if his proposal of abolition of death penalty was accepted. In this case the terror could be less hard, and perhaps his paranoia would have been less present and self-destructive.
 
I'd agree, and even if he was a monster, he wasn't Hitler. He believed that in order to keep the Republic safe, the internal enemies of the Republic needed to go away; the guillotine was the easiest way of doing that.


err... with this explaination hitler look great:

"hitler belived that in order to keep the aryans safe, the racial enemies of the aryans (and their rightfull place in the world)needed to go away, the gas chamber, concentration camp, death marsh, starvation or any other sadistic or brutal method to kill these people was the easieres way of doing that"

now, please explain why he (hitler and robespierre) are no big fat a$$holes?

do you really know how bad R was? how many innocent people died? this guy was mad and cruel

but you are right - he wasn´t hitler. but still, your discussion about R. is problematic (you basically gave every supporter of a brutal dictator a free hand)
 
Top