#lazare carnot

[senechalum]

Watercolors of Lazare Carnot and Prieur de la Côte d’Or I made last month for the delightful @aedesluminis 🙂‍↕️

(They were made as a gift, which explains why I had zero references for Prieur.. please do not throw me off a cliff)

The part of the faisceau de licteur was inspired by an existing Carnot stamp

[iceblz]

[enlitment]

Frev-related snapshots from Paris compilation ✨

1. La Convention Nationale monument inside Pantheon

2. Louis le Grand (hopefully?) spotted in the wild, but it should be Robespierre and Desmoulins' school, right?

3. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité (felt surreal seeing my old header design irl!)

4. Carnot's tomb inside Pantheon

5. Monument to French Revolution's generals

[citizen-card]

the cps wish they could have outfits as cool as the directors

[plrle]

more theatre kid collot pls ill give u everything

yes. 🙂

also @citizen-card your tags on the first Collot theatre kid post really deserved to be drawn too

[aedesluminis]

Today I finally decided to check something a friend told me a while ago. It was about Robespierre allegedly supporting and pushing for a full scale invasion of Italy, an idea that came from his younger brother Augustin and Napoléon.

The evidence for such claim is mentioned in Mary Young's biography on Augustin Robespierre. This is what Young has to say about it:

(page 142).

So not only was Carnot - someone who's considered responsible for turning a war of defense into one of conquest by robespierrist historians - unexpectedly against the idea of invading Piedmont, but Maximilien Robespierre, even more unexpectedly, was pushing for it.

And there's more: at page 154 - 155, Young mentions, quoting a work by J. Colin, that the reason why the CSP fell apart was because Robespierre interfered with war affairs to the point of alienating Carnot. While the latter was indeed against invading foreign countries, Robespierre, on the contrary, approved it and wanted it to be accomplished:

So it seems like the story about great advocate of peace, Maximilien Robespierre, is indeed just a story...!

Because of course a historian, whose book presents a foreword by Marisa Linton, wouldn't completely intentionally or unintentionally twist and misunderstand sources, right?

Right!?

Wrong.

The sources which Young uses to support her ideas are from Histoire de la campagne de 1794 en Italie by Gabriel Fabry vol 2, p. 438 and L’Éducation Militaire de Napoléon by J. Colin. Let's give them a quick look.

Fabry's histoire simply reports a CSP decree showing a certain eagerness in wanting to invade Piedmont. The excerpt, as you can see, doesn't include any signature.

(pages 438 - 439.)

Since Young said that Robespierre approved it, one would be inclined to think that it was Maximilien who wrote and signed the decree, with his signature being the first one. Of course the handwriting and signature of a CSP member isn't absolute proof of approval, but I usually see these two things used as arguments to show that a CSP member agreed; even by reputed historians; so I wasn't surprised to see Young making such a bold assumption. I then checked Aulard's Recueil and surprise surprise that decree was written and signed by Carnot only. No trace of Robespierre:

(I underlined in cyan the part similar to what Fabry reported, since Aulard made only a summary of the decree.)

Concerning the fact that Carnot was opposed to Robespierre's - yes, because Colin considers it as such - warmongering plans, the latter mentions a letter dated 26 Thermidor, in which Carnot complains about it:

I happened to find that letter in Correspondance générale de Carnot vol. 4, p. 575 - 576:

To sum up, it says that the plan comes from the mind of Augustin, but that it was the tyranny of his brother that inspired it.

Now, this is a letter written shortly after the fall of the Robespierrists, it doesn't take much to understand that this is purely thermidorian propaganda, not only because of its content, but also for the wording used. Moreover, it's not a personal letter, in which Carnot rambles with a friend or relative, it's an official one from the Committee of Public Safety.

Saying that Carnot didn't approve the conquest of Piedmont whereas Maximilien Robespierre did - I actually don't know if it was Augustin's idea, but this is not the point right now - is simply wrong since the decree of 19 floréal quoted above has been written and signed exclusively by him.

Thinking that a historian didn't care to double check their sources leading to such a misinformed mess is... truly appalling. This is proof of how one should always double check sources when possible, even if they come from historians we trust or appreciate!

Not that I personally trust or appreciate Young, considering that another of her bizarre claims based on dubious sources almost caused a sort of Thermidor in the community almost one year ago...

EDIT: Mary Young wasn't a historian, but a psychologist, so I did wrong in calling her as such. I do still think that someone of the reputation of Marisa Linton should have done a much better job in reviewing the book.

[josh-lanceero]

*looking disrespectfully

[filipinawritcr]

Rare footage of what happened after spending a late afternoon at the Rosati with the Trio™ (c. 1788):

Left guy with the cap holding a beer can, who then drunkenly faints: Robespierre

Center redhead with a pizza cutter: Fouché

Right brunet who holds a Bourbon drink and drops it after the first guy falls: Carnot

[amateurvoltaire]

I am geographically challenged, and I really, really wanted a way to visualise what constituencies the members of the Third Committee of Public Safety ( July 1793 – July 1794) represented. So, this map was born.

Bertrand Barère: Hautes-Pyrénées

Jacques Billaud-Varenne:  Paris

Lazare Carnot: Pas-de-Calais

Jean-Marie Collot: Paris

Georges Couthon: Puy-de-Dôme

Marie-Jean Hérault de Séchelles: Seine-et-Oise

Robert Lindet: Eure

Pierre-Louis Prieur de la Marne: Marne (hence the name…)

Claude-Antoine Prieur: Côte-d'Or (ditto)

Maximilien Robespierre: Paris

André Jeanbon Saint-André: Lot

Louis Antoine de Saint-Just: Aisne

PS: It’s fascinating and telling how many of them represented provinces in the north of France.

[magicmagic09]

Your blond long-hair Maths teacher comes into the classroom on Oct 31st, without knowing anything about the tricks prepared for him.

Well, happy Halloween!

[historicconfessions]

[senechalum]

Sketches :)

The one of Prieur and Carnot as gift for the wonderful @aedesluminis ✨ The second one being Général Rapp, because no one seems to draw him very often .. ?

[nesiacha]

Lazare Carnot and the Colonial Question?

I just came across a document on JSTOR (my computer is in a good mood today, so I managed to read 10 pages)

I was reading the article Éthique et rhétorique de la Révolution chez Gracchus Babeuf et Toussaint Louverture.

The author discusses the date on which Gracchus was executed, May 27, 1797, and how shortly before, he had written an open letter criticizing the policies of the Directory. The author draws a parallel with Toussaint Louverture.

“Two days later, on Prairial 10, Year V, the pro-royalist colonist Vienot-Vaublanc, a prominent member of the Council of Five Hundred, delivered an ‘impolitic and incendiary’ speech about the general situation on the island of Saint-Domingue, which prompted a lengthy Réfutation of Certain Assertions in a Speech Delivered at the Legislative Body, written by Toussaint Louverture. Then, on Brumaire 15, Year VI, Toussaint Louverture sent a similar letter to the Directory, openly criticizing the colonial party in France as ‘enemies of the current system.’”

So far, I understand the parallel between Toussaint Louverture and Gracchus Babeuf.

But here’s where I get lost:

“It is easy to note, following a simple chronology of events, the almost perfect intertwining of the respective fates of Babeuf and Louverture under the Directory, then the Consulate. Scarcely had Babeuf’s body been beheaded, and the ‘Babouviste’ question ‘resolved’ by Carnot, when (...), under pressure from the colonists, set about tackling the colonial situation again, reactivating the colonial question that had remained unresolved, provoking what Jaurès would rightly call a ‘wounding of the revolutionary conscience.’”

End of the text excerpt. The source on Carnot in this article is listed as Marcel Dorigny and Bernard Gainot, La Révolution et la "question coloniale."

The problem is that, from my previous readings, I had always thought, according to historian Frédéric Régent (if I’m not mistaken—I'll need to find the reference) that at least two-thirds of enslaved people had been emancipated. Victor Hugues was criticized for his ambiguous stance, whereas Sonthonax was much more committed to the abolition of slavery, although it's more complicated than that. Eventually, Victor Hugues would become a supporter of re-establishing slavery under Bonaparte in Guadeloupe, while his revolutionary colleague Alexandre Kirwan would side with Delgrès and Ignace against slavery and ultimately lose his life.

I also previously explained in another post that Bonaparte’s reinstatement of slavery was illegal. As for 1797, we are in a period where there is the abolition of slavery , as far as I know, and therefore the Directory did not violate the law on slavery . So, this is where I’m a bit confused: I know there were influential figures within the Directory who favored reinstating slavery, but it hadn’t actually been reinstated. Perhaps the author of the article is referring to the seizure of lands that were then redistributed to colonists. I couldn’t delve into the entire article, having accessed only the first 10 pages.

This article is making me rethink what I thought I knew, especially since it’s well-sourced. (But then again, we’re all here to learn in one way or another. 🧐)

You get it—this is a call for more information. So, if anyone has answers, please let me know.

Here the link of the article:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43932870

[nigrit]

This one’s for @aedesluminis . Special delivery via the Musée de l’Histoire Vivante. You’re welcome! I think he adopted this as one of his slogans. Probably framed it and hung it in his office. Next to his idiot’s guide to provisioning revolutionary armies

[citizen-card]

dinosaur named ‘Carnotaurus’ discovered by a man named ‘Bonaparte’

[plrle]

frev doodles 🫡

hope you like it :]