The dynamic of this second civil war that's somewhat being overlooked is the matter of social class. The same issues that partially drove the American Revolution.
Paris is the heart of the revolution yes, but it is not the only place where the Revolution need to follow. It can and should look to the Frontiers and heartlands that have largely been ignored by
France is not Paris, and Paris is not France, no matter how many men like Robespierre and others may believe. France has millions living in the lower classes
Maximilien Robespierre is not nobility, but a wealthy lawyer, a 1%er. His clique included other wealthy men who were put on the level of peasants and working class by virtue of not possessing titles, something that has been a source of struggle since the High Middle Ages. The Army, by contrast, retains the ancient tradition dating back to the Roman Kingdom of being the place for the common man to advance into the wealthy, non-nobility, elite. They are the proletariat, not Maximillian's government.
I would argue it is also the much greater difference between the soldier, the lower nobles that are in the army and the city elite, more then the peasents and working class and the 1%.
They do not see the high-minded ideals of the revolution preached in the streets of safety and prosperity (for a given word) by Revolutionaries. Where they can be swayed by people who are charismatic, and who's interests are in power and influence over their fellow man.
They see brotherhood in a shared mission, in common goals and common struggles.
Therese for example has been wounded after she puts herself into the fight because she felt like she needed to. Brian, being a staff officer, may not have shared that similar feeling, but no one denies he's the reason everyone is fed and paid.
And Napoleon brings victory wherever he goes, even with minor setbacks, ones that end war.
To quote an certain character: Everyone thinks they're hero of their own story.
Exactly. The thing is, we are the hero of our story, and even a supporting cast member in others.
Under other circumstances Robespierre's goals might seem noble, maintaining democracy in the face of a man whose undoubtably plotting to overthrow him (let's not kid ourselves Napoleon has probably looking for ways to remove Max), depoliticising an army that regularly interferes in the governing of the country, ending the cycle of weak and chaotic governments by defanging an opposition that seeks to return the country to the bad old days and preserving the original values of the revolution.
Some could even argue that they might restore the monarchy. But that is propaganda at the moment.
Trouble is Robespierre is paranoid, perhaps rightfully so as he has already been overthrown once, but this paranoia seeps into his actions. It isn't enough to win, there must be no possibility that his victory can be undone. The easiest solution is usually the simplest, so if that means rolling out the guillotine for not only known enemies, but the suspected and the sympathisers, then so be it.
While the problem with that, even if Robe is right in his thinking, the fact that his methods require that of him, means that they are in the end, wrong.
They say the ends justify the means...
But sometimes the Means are just as important.
I don't think Max has gone completely delusional (cult of the supreme being! Bathe in the virtue of my glorious republic!), but he represents what unchecked drive and uncompromising belief can create. To him if his ideology isn't working, it isn't the ideology that needs to change, it's France and instead of the means justifying the end, it's the end that justifies the means.
And that is the Failure of Maximimliumn Robespierre. He is such a believer in his ideology, he doesn't stop and ask himself "Will France be strong if I do this?"
Napoleon for all his faults and ambitions, has men who can tell him straight to his face, that what he is doing is wrong, and make him reconsider what he is doing.
Not really accurate, IMO. Napoleon wasn't much interested in the social policies of the modern liberal movement, see his willingness to reinstate slavery for political support, and believes quite strongly in mustering the economy of France and the conquered nations of Europe to fund his armies. Classic command economy stuff that's kinda how all kings and emperors ran their lands.
Napoleon is in the end a man after power.
But I belive he may do things differently here with influence from good people. Maybe not brilliant people, but good people.
The main distinction for the early manifestations of communism is the old metric of "background". Much like how former nobility and royally-connected officers were forced out of the military or spied on during the Revolution, Napoleon comes from a "backwater" country and minor status. Corsica's been occupied by France as long as he lives, and with many of its old nobility stripped to ensure the nation was kept compliant amidst independence bids, he lived on the "outside" until joining the military. Maximilian, by contrast, was from a long-standing family connected to the justice system, an old favorite of the educated elite among the Third Estate.
Therese and Brian are more accurate for this, as they were literally freemen thrust into a situation that allowed them to rise to prominence by luck and fate (and the dice)
Napoleon had his family. Robes had his family.
Therese and Brian only had eachother.
Napoleon is the citizen-Soldier that Max once idolized, before realizing that concept poses a threat to his grand ambitions. Ergo, Napoleon is potentially a Proto-Proletariat Vanguard.
I find that innaccurate.
Napoleon is blue blooded and noble.
Brian and Therese are the more ideal citizen soldier. Especially brian, as he gave up power to be with his family.
