How the 1000-year-old French monarchy was destroyed

29

Confrontation on the front stairs. Artist Henri-Paul Motte


230 years ago, an uprising took place in Paris - one of the landmark events of the French Revolution. The second revolution led to the fact that the monarchy that had existed in France for about a thousand years was overthrown.



"After us, at least a flood"


By the time of the accession of Louis XVI to the throne in 1774, the position of the kingdom was already unsatisfactory. France was in a severe crisis. Louis XV (1715–1774) left an empty treasury and large debts. His mistresses ruined the country. The Seven Years' War ended with the defeat of France. The French lost their vast possessions in North America (Canada, lands in the Mississippi Valley) and abandoned expansion in India. French naval power was undermined. Having received the entire eastern half of North America into its undivided possession and consolidating its monopoly in India, England turned into the leading colonial power and began to push France as the advanced power of the Western world.

The country's finances were in complete ruin. The main reason is chaos, disorder in the financial system, abuse, corruption, theft on a huge scale and the extravagance of the royal court. This led to a policy of introducing new taxes and, accordingly, the resistance of the Parisian and provincial parliaments. The king compelled parliament through the principle of lit de justice - the supremacy of the royal court over any other, according to which, as soon as parliament decides in the name of the king, then in the presence of the king himself, parliament has no right to do anything. What caused the opposition of the king and parliament, the upper classes (nobility and clergy) with the third estate, which, in fact, paid all taxes.

The top of the third estate (bourgeoisie) had representation in the States General, and also dominated the Parisian and provincial parliaments and tried to change the political, economic, legal situation in the country in their favor. The bourgeoisie had money, capital, and wanted to have privileges, power, and become the new nobility.


Engraving depicting a collection of notables in 1787 at Versailles

Revolutionary situation


By the beginning of the reign of Louis XVI, the peasants were starving, the province was engulfed in unrest due to the high cost of bread (the so-called “flour war”). Louis XVI, unlike his grandfather Louis XV, was not a depraved person, but he was not distinguished by state talents and determination. He understood that fundamental reforms were needed, persistent actions to improve finances, the economy as a whole, solve social problems, etc. However, he was a weak-willed person, could not overcome the influence of the court, environment, relatives, ministers, wife (Marie Antoinette of Austria) and her "friends" who lived for entertainment and enrichment. The dissolute, greedy and parasitic court camarilla in every possible way prevented any positive undertakings of the king.

Louis tried to push through the reforms, first with the help of Minister Turgot, then Necker. But this attempt ran into strong resistance from the court, the aristocracy, the clergy and parliament, they did not want to give up the feudal system that dragged the country into the past, their rights and privileges, they did not want to pay for the development of the state and the people. The king surrendered the more decisive Turgot already in 1776, the more cautious Necker held out until 1781. It was not possible to establish order in the treasury and the economy.

Most of the reforms already carried out aimed at the development of the country, its economy, the elimination of old prohibitions and restrictions, were canceled. Everything went the same way. Moreover, the nobles revived the medieval requisitions that had already gone into the past. This led to the fact that the peasantry and the lower classes of the city, disappointed with the policy of the new king, and Louis at first showed great promise, were mentally prepared for a large-scale peasant war.

Enlightenment ideas played a big role in the future revolution. In essence, France was informationally prepared for the revolution, for the transition to the capitalist rails. Various secret organizations, lodges and clubs developed rapidly, in particular, Freemasons and the Illuminati. France, as the most populous and developed country in Western Europe, was to become the basis for the transfer of the monarchical, feudal Western world into a new socio-economic formation - bourgeois-capitalist, liberal-republican. They were going to “cut off” the old elite, destroy most of it, and the place of aristocrats and nobles was to be taken by new nobles - bankers, usurers, large merchants and speculators, shipowners, slave traders and industrialists. Also, the revolutionary order was going to destroy the old religion, morality, most social institutions.

Almost all segments of the population were prepared for "changes". The bourgeoisie wanted to become a new nobility, to receive rights and privileges, to abolish the old restrictions. The third estate did not like the restrictive, tax policy of the authorities. For example, in 1781 a law was issued that allowed access to officer ranks only to nobles who could prove the antiquity of the family (except artillerymen and engineers). The bourgeoisie was hindered by feudal restrictions, the rights of the nobility and the clergy. In 1786, the French authorities signed a trade agreement with England, which opened access to the domestic market for cheaper English goods. This led to the unemployment of hundreds of thousands of people and the ruin of thousands of trading houses and enterprises.

The French elite (royal court, nobility and spiritual feudal lords) experienced an extreme degree of decomposition and could not bring the state out of the crisis. There are almost no statesmen, people of duty and honor left. And those who still tried to create, drowned in a common swamp. Intrigue, selfishness, hedonism, vice and the pursuit of money were completely prevalent in high society.


Louis XVI distributes alms to poor peasants. Artist Louis Ersan

General States


Hedonism, a policy of wastefulness, when huge funds went not to develop the country, colonies, cities, army and fleet, not for the construction of new fortresses, factories and ships, but for entertainment and a vicious life, led to a huge debt. Current expenses were covered by new loans. By 1789, the public debt had become simply monstrous (at that time) - 4,5 billion livres. The treasury could not pay interest on old loans, it was more and more difficult to get new ones. The deficit reached 198 million livres a year. The business was headed for bankruptcy.

In 1787, an economic crisis began, caused, in particular, by an erroneous trade agreement with England. Simultaneously, the kingdom experienced another crop failure, exacerbating widespread poverty and famine. In 1788 - early 1789, spontaneous peasant riots took place in a number of French provinces. In the spring of 1789 the situation worsened. The cities of Lille, Cambrai, Dunkirk, Toulon, Marseille and others began to join the peasant uprisings. Workers revolted in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine of Paris. The people demanded bread, low food prices.

The then ministers of finance (Turgot, Necker, Calonne) believed that tax reform was necessary. But for its implementation, the support of parliaments was needed, and there the bourgeoisie prevailed, which met with hostility any encroachments on its wallet. The king, finding himself in a hopeless situation, convened in 1787 a meeting of notables (meetings of a group of high-ranking nobles, clergy and government officials). Such an assembly had no legislative power of its own, but Calonne hoped that if it supported the proposed reforms, it would put pressure on the parliaments. The finance minister proposed four major reforms: a unified land tax; the transformation of duties into a monetary tax; abolition of internal customs duties; establishment of elected provincial assemblies.

The nobility abandoned the reform plan. That is, the stronghold of the monarchy and the kingdom - the nobles and the clergy, refused to give up their privileges in the name of the development of the state. Kalonne was dismissed. Brienne was appointed in his place, then Necker. Louis, under the threat of financial collapse and wide popular unrest, dissolved the assembly of notables. Not having the support of parliament, the king agreed to convene the States General (a meeting of the three estates, which had not been convened since 1614). Not counting on the support of the privileged estates, the monarch agreed to give the third estate dual representation.

Fermentation has already seized the whole of France. Paris and the cities were filled with all sorts of brochures, appeals, posters, rumors, there was an information pumping of society. The third estate began to demand broad political reforms, the elimination of class division, restrictions on trade and industry, and political rights (in fact, access to power).

On May 5, 1789, a meeting of the Estates General opened in one of the palaces of Versailles. The main issue was the problem of voting: should the States retain their old estate form, when deputies voted by estates. Then the clergy and the nobility retained the advantage - two votes to one. Or make a decision by majority vote. Negotiations began, no one wanted to compromise.

This caused outrage in the street, where concrete steps were expected, not chatter. The House of Commons (an assembly of the third estate), with the support of the lower classes of society, on June 17 proclaimed itself the National Assembly - the highest legislative and representative body of the French people. Representatives of other estates were invited to join the meeting. The lower clergy decided to support this decision.

Revolution


The king, under pressure from the court and the aristocracy, at a royal meeting on June 23, ordered the restoration of the old order and voting by estates. The National Assembly refused to obey. Then Louis yielded and asked the nobility and clergy to unite with the third estate. The hesitation and indecision of the monarch only added fuel to the fire. The situation went haywire. On July 11, the king again dismissed Necker, which caused discontent among the general public.

An army was concentrated near the capital, but Louis did not dare to start a civil war (although in the past the kings did not hesitate to bleed the rebels). Paris responded with an uprising. On July 14, the Bastille was captured by the rebels. The Minister of War, Marshal de Broglie, suggested that Louis lead the loyal troops and retire to the provinces that remained under control. The king refused, signing the verdict of the monarchy and himself.

On July 15, Louis went on foot to the National Assembly and declared that he and the nation were one and that the army would be removed from the capital. On July 17, the king approved the formation of the National Guard. On July 18, he approved the decree of the National Assembly on the elimination of the foundations of the feudal system. After the October 5–6 uprising, Louis was forced to move to Paris, where he was under the control of the revolutionaries. The monarch fell into complete apathy, in fact, he no longer reigned, but was only present at the radical breakup of France. Louis could only draw up deliberately failed plans for coup d'état and secretly ask for help from foreign powers. The attempt to escape the royal couple in June 1791 also failed. On September 14, 1791, Louis took the oath of a new constitution.

New revolutionary situation


Meanwhile, the situation inside France, as well as its foreign policy situation, was deteriorating. The revolution itself did not improve the condition of the people. Moreover, the life of ordinary people even worsened. The old life was destroyed, but the new one has not yet been established. Many representatives of the nobility and clergy fled the country, and they were the main customers of luxury goods, the center of production of which was Paris. This led to the ruin of thousands of small businesses, artisans and workers. Thousands of servants were left without work. The construction sector has shrunk, and there are no former customers. The redistribution of noble and church land began, but the main benefit was received not by the peasants, but by the bourgeoisie. Old exploiters have been replaced by new ones.

The issue of paper banknotes increased, which led to the depreciation of paper money and an increase in prices. An uprising took place in Santo Domingo, Paris lost its massive colonial goods - tea, coffee and sugar. The rapid rise in prices for other foodstuffs also continued. The high cost and food problems hit first of all on the pockets of the poor strata of the population (most of the people). People again began to demand fixed prices and the punishment of speculators.

As a result, the former secular and spiritual feudal lords were replaced by a new "elite" - merchants, usurious bankers, money changers and speculators. The suffering of the people grew. This fueled radical sentiments. The radicals demanded blood, more radical changes, the complete destruction of the former order and society.

How the 1000-year-old French monarchy was destroyed

The storming of the Bastille, July 14, 1789. Jean-Pierre Huel

Second revolution


A series of revolutionary wars began. Austria and Prussia were preparing an invasion to crush the seat of revolution in France. It is clear that Vienna and Berlin did not want to help the French monarchy out of noble motives. They wanted to take advantage of the weakness of France: the Prussians set their sights on Alsace, and the Austrians on Belgium. England and Spain also wanted to take advantage of the weakness of the neighboring power, to take away its colonies.

In the spring of 1792, France declared war on Austria. A long, difficult and bloody confrontation began, which lasted a quarter of a century. The war worsened the economic situation of the country, the material situation of the masses. The situation at the front was extremely unfavorable. The French army retreated. The royal palace wished for defeat. Commanders, generals, senior and senior officers (aristocracy and nobility) did not want victory. Many emigrated, became in the ranks of opponents of the French Revolution. Their example was followed by many mid-level officers and even junior officers. The army lacked experienced personnel, especially gunners.

The Legislative Assembly continued to attack the royal power (its remnants). Louis was forced to disband the guard. Anti-monarchist sentiments grew in society. People believed that Louis was on the side of the interventionists. To arms all able-bodied men were called. Volunteer detachments (federates) are being formed in France.

In Paris itself, a new social explosion was brewing. Napoleon Bonaparte, who happened to be in Paris during these great events, witnessed them and wrote on May 29, 1792:

"The situation (in the capital) is in every respect critical."

On June 14 he wrote:

“I don’t know how things will go, but things are taking an increasingly revolutionary turn.”

Louis' refusal to sanction the decree of the Legislative Assembly against emigrants and rebellious priests and the formation of a government of monarchists (feuillants) caused a movement on June 20, 1792. Crowds of people and national guards broke into the Tuileries Palace. The king listened to the excited crowd, put on a Phrygian cap (an item of clothing for free commoners, artisans, symbolized freedom and revolution), and drank to the health of the nation. However, on the main issues, Louis did not concede.


The people in front of Louis XVI, dressed in a Phrygian cap. Engraving of Le Jeune & Couché fils, 1792

The tension grew. Radical revolutionaries - Jacobins (Marat, Robespierre and Danton) organized and directed the energy of popular discontent against the royal court. They demanded to take the king and queen as hostages, to purge the army. The calls of the Jacobin leaders were taken up by the crowd. The more moderate revolutionaries, the Girondins, had doubts. The former commander of the National Guard, a moderate monarchist, General Gilbert Lafayette, demanded that the National Assembly take action against the Jacobins. He was refused. Then he invited Louis to move under the protection of his troops to Compiègne. At the royal palace, he was received coldly, "better death than Lafayette's help," said the Queen, signing her own death warrant.

On June 23, a new revolutionary body, the Paris Commune, was created. The Girondins, frightened by the magnitude of the movement, tried to lead it in order to maintain influence and power. The last straw was the manifesto of the commander of the interventionist army, the Prussian general, the Duke of Brunswick. In Paris, they learned about him on August 3. In it, the general, on behalf of the Austrian and Prussian monarchs, announced that the purpose of the invasion was to restore the legitimate authority of the king and destroy the rebels. Parisians were warned that if the king and his family were subjected to the slightest punishment, Paris would be destroyed.

This manifesto became the occasion for a new revolution. The commissioners of the 48 sections of the capital demanded the immediate deposition of Louis XVI and the convening of a national convention. On August 5, preparations began for an armed uprising. Pétion, mayor of Paris, Roederer, prosecutor of Paris, and the Marquis of Mande, commander of the troops gathered to defend the Tuileries, guaranteed the protection of the royal family, but let Louis down. The defense of the palace was not organized.

On the night of August 9-10, bells rang over the city, cannon shots rang out. Armed people began to gather in the city sections, and then moved to the Tuileries Palace. Resistance was offered only by Swiss mercenaries (950 fighters), who did not betray their oath, and 200–300 Knights of the Order of St. Louis and other royalists. Gendarmes and national guards (about 3 thousand people) fled.

The Swiss were able to beat off the first attack and push back the rebels. But then the battalions of the National Guard entered the battle, the royalists were crushed by a numerical advantage (in addition, there was no general leadership, action plan, defense prospects). After a fierce battle, the palace was stormed. About 600 Swiss fell in battle. The total losses of the royalists are about 800 people. Some were killed after they were taken prisoner.

The King placed himself under the protection of the Legislative Assembly. The revolutionary Commune became the master of the situation in the city. The Legislative Assembly placed Louis in the Luxembourg Palace, but by decision of the Commune he was imprisoned in the Temple Castle. The monarch was accused of plotting against the freedom of the nation and of a number of attempts on the security of the state.

The convocation of a national convention was announced, elected by two-stage elections by all men over 25 years old (then the age limit was lowered to 21 years). All the old ministers were fired and a new ministry was created. Most of them were Girondins. One of the first decisions of the Convention was the abolition of the monarchy. On December 11, 1792, the trial of the king in the Convention began. On January 21, 1793, Louis was executed. The monarchy that had existed in France for about a thousand years was destroyed.


Storming of the Tuileries on August 10, 1792. Jean Duplessis-Berto
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    10 August 2022 05: 31
    Any social revolution is a sign of the absence of democracy.
    1. +1
      10 August 2022 05: 36
      Quote: Oorfene Juice and his Wooden Soldiers
      Any social revolution is a sign of the absence of democracy.

      More precisely, any social revolution is a sign of lack of will and decay, fear of making a decision.
      1. -1
        10 August 2022 15: 41
        Don't confuse cause with effect.
    2. +2
      10 August 2022 07: 54
      Any social revolution is successful only under the leadership of a dictator (at least a small group of such).
      And democracy can exist only in greenhouse conditions, when there are no serious problems in the economy, foreign policy and social relations. Any shock again brings dictators to power, because the trade union meeting is not capable of leading.
      1. -2
        10 August 2022 15: 50
        Democracy is not a state. This is the action. Democracy is not guaranteed. She is strong, how strong is our willingness to fight for her, to guard her and never to take her for granted. And defending democracy requires a fight. It requires self-sacrifice. There is both joy and progress in this. We must build a better future. (with)
        1. +2
          10 August 2022 17: 37
          Nevertheless, history shows that in critical situations, democracy has always given way to dictatorship, and even tyranny. Apparently no one wanted to fight for democracy? Why would it?
          1. -1
            10 August 2022 20: 07
            Just curious, name a couple of recent examples.
            1. +1
              10 August 2022 23: 06
              Recall what the number of republics in France is. And why are there so many.
              Well, name me some country where during the war they did not abolish democratic institutions.
              1. -2
                11 August 2022 09: 17
                A single example cannot be a general conclusion. As for wartime, democracy is not completely abolished, it is always systemic, even in war.
                1. 0
                  11 August 2022 10: 21
                  Well, excuse me, lecturing you on world history is not in my plans. Somehow study for yourself.
    3. +1
      10 August 2022 08: 01
      Quote: Oorfene Juice and his wooden soldiers
      Any social revolution is a sign of the absence of democracy.

      I understand, I understand ..... 3rd Reich - there is a lot of democracy, therefore there is no social revolution. request
      1. -1
        10 August 2022 15: 46
        Democracy is not viable without accountable and sustainable institutions and a political culture that values ​​the rule of law.
    4. 0
      10 August 2022 14: 17
      Quote: Oorfene Juice and his Wooden Soldiers
      Any social revolution is a sign of the absence of democracy.

      Democracy in the sense of the power of the demos? That is, the wealthy strata of society with the right to own the means of production?
      1. -1
        10 August 2022 15: 45
        Democracy - the benefits of the poor, among the irregular forms of the state, Aristotle preferred it, considering it the most tolerable. A democracy should be considered such a system when the free-born and the have-nots, constituting the majority, have the supreme power in their hands.
        1. +3
          10 August 2022 17: 26
          Quote: Oorfene Juice and his Wooden Soldiers
          Democracy - the benefits of the poor, among the irregular forms of the state, Aristotle preferred it, considering it the most tolerable. A democracy should be considered such a system when the free-born and the have-nots, constituting the majority, have the supreme power in their hands.

          You learn more about history! Ancient Greek. The have-nots ohlos. And their power is ochlocracy. Demos и democracy, it's completely different!
          1. -2
            10 August 2022 19: 59
            Quote from U_GOREC
            The have-nots are ohlos. And their power is ochlocracy.

            No need to pull out words from phrases. It is said whenb]freeborn and have-nots[/b], making up the majority. Aristotle was more of a theorist and speculator. And where do you think in the ancient world you can call the system of government an ochlocracy?
        2. +2
          10 August 2022 17: 34
          The demos included ONLY the owners of slaves. So initially democracy is the rule of slave owners. True, and now it's the same.
          1. -2
            10 August 2022 20: 04
            Not the same. The positions were elected not by elections, but by lot (random sampling method), and not by elections as such, in order to exclude falsification and corruption. Controversial? Yes, but effective. So these are two big differences.

            Quote: U. Cheny
            The demos included ONLY the owners of slaves.

            Not only. There were free-born citizens, without property.
            1. 0
              10 August 2022 22: 53
              The same thing, I'm talking about slave owners.
              And free citizens, just like slaves, treated ohlos. True, unlike slaves, they could elect, but could not be elected. That is, the power was completely in the hands of the slave owners. Which, by the way, was about 10% of the population. It is also very similar to today's democracy.
            2. -1
              10 August 2022 22: 58
              Quote: Oorfene Juice and his Wooden Soldiers
              Not only. There were free-born citizens, without property.

              Where did you get this nonsense?
              DEMOS - Large slave owners, residents of Demos - a rich area of ​​​​the city, passing a certain property qualification. So they could be elected to the governing bodies.
              PLEBOS - free people, small owners, owners of their own houses and lands - can choose, but cannot be elected
              OCHLOS - the poor (laborers) - who do not have the right to vote
              Aristotle, by the way, describes Athens under Pericles and later as an ochlocracy, because then the mob dominated; people of noble origin were systematically eliminated from participation in management affairs, and the lottery played a decisive role in the appointment!
              And you sort of lumped it all together...
              1. -2
                11 August 2022 09: 23
                Quote from U_GOREC
                Aristotle, by the way, describes Athens under Pericles and later as an ochlocracy, because then the mob dominated; people of noble origin were systematically eliminated from participation in management affairs, and the lottery played a decisive role in the appointment!

                So this is what I wrote in the start message, and you are breaking through the open door.
              2. 0
                12 August 2022 07: 06
                Plebs is already a Roman term.
  2. -7
    10 August 2022 05: 31
    How the 1000-year-old French monarchy was destroyed
    Another nonsense from 100 years ago. Today, everyone already knows that revolutions are made for money, mostly competitors on the world stage. A revolutionary situation exists every day in any country, or it can be declared and proved. request The article shows pictures of events in France, but there are no springs and money ... England fool
    1. +5
      10 August 2022 07: 55
      Again English money. And what money did the revolution in England itself 100 years before the French one do? Revolution in Russia in 1917 - German money. And a year later in Germany itself, the revolution of 1918 - on whose money? Jokers write - with German money, which the Bolsheviks did not have time to spend on their revolution.

      It turns out that if the British had not given money, then the French would have endured all this feudal lawlessness, and Robespierre-Incorruptible would have remained a petty provincial lawyer. By the way, then the British began to fully sponsor the counter-revolution (Vendee, etc., etc.). Finally got Napoleon. Carousel turns out.

      There will always be foreigners who will throw money on any revolution, but revolutionary situations arise mainly due to the failed economy and the stupidity of their own rulers.
      1. 0
        10 August 2022 14: 05
        Cool picture... from where?
  3. +3
    10 August 2022 05: 34
    Not the first and, unfortunately, not the last case when the snickering elite dried out the country. A classic of the genre: "No bread? So let them eat cake!"
    1. 0
      11 August 2022 17: 41
      Quote: Slon_on
      "No bread? So let them eat cake!"

      "No money, but you hold on" (c)
  4. 0
    10 August 2022 09: 34
    One of the first decisions of the Convention was the abolition of the monarchy. On December 11, 1792, the trial of the king in the Convention began.
    Hugo wrote very interestingly about the Convention in his novel 93
    While purifying the revolution, the Convention was simultaneously forging civilization. Yes, a cleansing furnace, but also a furnace. In the same cauldron where terror was seething, progress was also thickening. Through the chaos of darkness, through the swift running of the clouds, powerful rays of light made their way, equal in strength to the eternal laws of nature. The rays that still illuminate the horizon have shone and will shine forever and ever in the firmament of peoples, and one such ray is called justice, and the others - tolerance, goodness, reason, truth, love. The Convention proclaimed the axiom: "The freedom of one citizen ends where the freedom of another begins"; This one phrase contains all the conditions for the coexistence of people. The Convention declared poverty sacred; he declared squalor sacred, taking the blind and deaf-mute into the care of the state; he sanctified motherhood, supporting and comforting the mother girl; he sanctified childhood by adopting orphans and giving them a motherland; he sanctified justice, justifying in court and rewarding the slandered. He scourged the negro trade; he abolished slavery. He proclaimed civic solidarity. He decreed free education. He regularized national education by establishing the Normal School in Paris, central schools in the major provincial towns, and elementary schools in rural communities. He opened conservatories and museums. He issued a decree, which established the unity of the code of laws for the whole country, the unity of measures and weights and a single calculation according to the decimal system. He brought order to the finances of the state, and the long bankruptcy of the monarchy was replaced by public credit. He gave the population a telegraph connection, the poor in old age - free almshouses, the sick - hospitals, having cleansed them of age-old infection, students - the Polytechnic School, science - the Bureau of Longitudes, the human mind - the Academy. Without losing his national features, he was at the same time international. Of the eleven thousand, two hundred and ten decrees issued by the Convention, only one third dealt directly with political matters, and two thirds dealt with matters of the common good. He proclaimed the universal rules of morality as the basis of society and the voice of conscience as the basis of the law. And freeing the slave, proclaiming brotherhood, encouraging humanity, healing the crippled human consciousness, turning the heavy labor law into a beneficent right to work, strengthening national wealth, guarding and enlightening childhood, developing arts and sciences, bringing light to all peaks, helping in all troubles Spreading its principles, undertaking all these labors, the Convention acted, tormented from the inside by a terrible hydra - the Vendée and hearing over its ear the menacing growl of tigers - a coalition of monarchs.
    So the revolution in France was justified and rightfully called the Great
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. 0
    11 August 2022 09: 15
    The author did not note that of the three listed, who ensured the security of the royal palace, Manda is absolutely innocent (it’s more euphonious to write Mandate). Pétion and Rederer were more likely on the side of the mob. And Mandat was vilely killed by revolutionaries, Danton gave the order to deal with the military, while Robespierre habitually hid and waited for the outcome