He was born on 26 May, 1883, in Koln-Mulheim a suburb of Cologne. He was the eldest of 13 children to an unemployed, alcoholic father. The entire family lived in a single room apartment and their life was one of extreme poverty. His father was reliant upon State Benefit most of which he spent on drink and the children would often go hungry. If they complained he would beat them and often when drunk he would sexually abuse his children, both the girls and the boys. 

As the eldest of the children Peter was expected to steal to help supplement the family income. He resented doing this, not because he thought it was wrong but because he hated his father so. Any money would go to him and he didn’t see why he should help line his pockets. He despised everything about his father but this hatred didn’t prevent him from following suit and sexually molesting his sisters.

He was desperate to leave home and was to run away on a number of occasions. Finally, aged 13, he got a job working for the local dog-catcher who lived in the same Apartment Block. They soon developed an unhealthy relationship. His new employer soon introduced him to the perverted joys of bestiality. Together they would abuse animals mostly cats, dogs, goats, and sheep. Peter soon found that he got the greatest pleasure in killing the animals, particularly in stabbing them. He found that he was sexually aroused by the sight of blood.  

Having left home he went onto live with a series of prostitutes with whom he indulged in sado-masochistic sex. He no longer worked for a living but instead financed himself through theft, burglary, and indulged himself in acts of arson in which he took particular pleasure. He was arrested numerous times and was to spend a total of 27 years in prison. The longer sentences he received were for acts of rape and for which he was often placed in isolation. But he enjoyed isolation, it provided him with the time to indulge his sexual fantasies.

He committed his first murder in 1913, when he strangled to death a 10 year old girl, Christine Klein, during a burglary.  He was to spend the First World War in prison and upon his release he went to live in Altenburg. In 1925 he married a woman who herself had just been released from prison after serving a  5 year sentence for prostitution and theft. In 1929, they moved to Dusseldorf.  It was in Dusseldorf that he began to murder as if in a frenzy.

On 8 February, 1929, he sexually assaulted a woman before going on to murder an 8 year old girl. Other sexual assaults continued but he did not try to murder again until 23 August when he randomly stabbed 3 people, they all survived. Later that night he attended a fair  in the suburb of Flehe. At around 10.30 pm two foster sisters, 5 year old Gertrude Homacher and 14 year old Louise Lenzen were making their way home. Kurten approached them from the shadows. He asked the older girl to purchase him some cigarettes from a booth at the fair as he had forgotten to do so, there would be a reward for her. She departed to do so and in her absence he stabbed the Gertrude repeatedly, cut her throat, drank her blood, and tossed her corpse into the river. Upon Louise’s return he did the same to her. Twelve hours later he assaulted 26 year old Gertrude Schulte. When he tried to have sex with her she cried, ” I would rather die,” he replied, ” then die you shall.” He stabbed her time and time again, but she survived. The attacks were to continue. 

The city of Dusseldorf was in panic and in a state of virtual lock-down. The Police were clueless as to who might be responsible for these attacks. There was no pattern to them, men, women, and children had been attacked. Some had been stabbed, others assaulted with a hammer. Some had been raped others not. They believed that they were dealing with more than one attacker. More than 200,000 names had been sent to the Police as potential suspects. It seemed as if there was no no one in Dusseldorf and beyond who was not a potential suspect.  But there was no physical evidence linking Peter Kurten to the crimes. 

In September, a servant girl returning home from work was abducted, raped, and brutally beaten to death. The following month 2 women were attacked and beaten with a hammer on the same day but survived. On 7 November, he killed a 5 year old girl, stabbing her 36 times with a pair of scissors. He then taunted the Police by sending them a map with the location of his victims grave. The murder of 7 November, however, would transpire to be his last, though it wasn’t to be for the lack of trying.

On 14 May, 1930, he saw a young woman, Maria Budlick, arguing furiously with a man. She was evidently in some distress and , Kurten saw this as an opportunity to offer a few words of comfort upon the mans departure. They were locked in conversation for sometime and Maria, impressed by his kindness, agreed to accompany Kurten to his home. There he made her a sandwich and said he would escort her to the train station, that he knew a short cut. Instead, he took her deep into the nearby Graftenburg Woods. He then told her that he was going to rape her and that she could scream as much as she liked no one would hear her. Kurten tried to rape Maria but she fought back furiously. Finally he did so but he was getting no satisfaction from it at all. Clearly exasperated he told Maria that he would not kill her if she agreed to make no mention of what had occurred. She agreed. When he asked her whether she remembered where he lived, she replied emphatically, No! Kurten released her and she fled.

Maria did not go to the Police but instead wrote a letter to a friend outlining her terrifying experience of the previous night. The letter was misdirected and instead of it being received by Maria’s friend it came into the possession of a Frau Brugman who upon seeing its contents took it to the Police.

The Police contacted Maria to verify the details of the letter. She told them that she could identify her attacker, that she knew his name, and could lead them to where he lived. The following day, accompanied by 2 plain clothes policemen, she made her way to Mettmannerstrasse. As they walked up the stairs to his 4th floor apartment, Kurten appeared on the stairwell going in the other direction. He appeared startled to see her but said nothing and continued on his way. The Policemen made no attempt to apprehend him. After all, this was just the first step in what they thought was a straightforward rape investigation. Kurten was not then a suspect in the murders. Kurten, however, evidently thought his time was up. When he met his wife at the restaurant where she worked as usual he confessed to her that he was the Vampire of Dusseldorf.

On 24 May, 1930, Peter Kurten’s wife informed the Police of her husband’s confession. She agreed with them to arrange a meeting with her husband later that afternoon at St Rochus Church. The Church was surrounded by armed Police. Kurten arrived at 3 pm, immediately 4 policemen, their revolvers drawn, approached him. He did not try to flee or put up any resistance. Indeed, he told the four Officers not to be afraid. He was taken into custody and charged with multiple murders, violent assault, numerous rapes, and theft. The city breathed a huge sigh of relief.

His appearance in Court shocked the people of Dusseldorf and the wider German public. This was no raving lunatic, no swivel-eyed monster, but a courteous, quietly spoken, immaculately turned out middle-aged man. Indeed, he seemed the epitome of bourgeois respectability. He was relaxed, very precise in everything he said, and showed no remorse for his crimes. In fact, he was happy to discuss them in great detail. He seemed to remember every murder as if he had taken notes. He could remember times, dates, even the names of each victim. He recounted how he would lure them to their deaths and explained how he would continue to beat and stab his victims until the sight of their blood pertained to sexual arousal. The relish he took in describing the murders in such graphic detail did little to help his defence.

His Defence Counsel wanted to plead insanity on his behalf but none of the doctors who interviewed him found him to be anything but entirely lucid and in full control of his mental faculties. They judged that he killed simply because he enjoyed it, and because he was sexually aroused by the sight of blood.  Kurten himself took the opportunity to attack the penal system which he blamed for brutalising him. 

Peter Kurten was found guilty on 9 counts of murder, and 7 counts of attempted murder (though he confessed to 68 murders in total). He was executed by guilottine on 2 July, 1931. His only concern seemed to be whether or not he would live long enough to witness the blood gushing from his own severed head. 

            The causes of the American Revolution and French Revolution are nearly identical. The French peasants were angry about not being represented enough in the French parliament; they were 97% of all French people, with only one-third of the say, their small say basically added up to none, because the other two sections, the nobility, and the clergy both voted together. This is similar to the American colonists being angry for their complete lack off representation in the British parliament. Both the American and French people were not represented as much as they should have been, and for that same reason they both started their revolutions.

            The events that occurred during the different revolutions were somewhat similar. The French revolution was much unorganized while the American Revolution had a regular army. The French were more like a mob of peasants while the American army and militia was somewhat trained by professionals, and had some strategy behind them. They both fought a war against their oppressors and both won, but that is likely the only similarity, the French was more of a rioting pack of looters then an army.

            The effects of the two revolutions were completely different. The American formed their own government quickly and non-violently, and made their constitution and democracy after two tries, the French however tried five different types of governments and they all failed, there was also a huge amount of violence after the revolution, including thousands of killings by the guillotine, and the guillotining of the king and queen. The effects of the American Revolution were peaceful, while the French Revolution was not peaceful at all.

            The French Revolution was a time of uncertainty and slaughter, the American Revolution was a time of rebellion, they are similar in the way that they are both the people of a country disengaging themselves from an oppressive leader, but the French Revolution was much less orderly then the American revolution. The American Revolution and the French Revolution are similar but different in other ways.

He was nicknamed “le Marquis Leonard” to distinguish him from his brother, “le Chevalier”, whose office was confined to the cutting of hair. In 1791, his gigantic headdresses, two feet in height, adorned with a collection of accessories and supported by a framework of steel wire, were very much “en vogue’. Leonard gave them ridiculous names, like “valgalas” or “toquets en lubie”, which the ladies thought enchanting.  

“If Leonard was not a perfect imbecile, with neither refinement nor taste,” the historian G. Lenotre wrote in his book The Flight of Marie Antoinette, “he must certainly have been a profound philosopher, and have spent hours of exquisite enjoyment in observing the measureless folly of those brainless grandes dames, whom he treated with the rudeness of a slave-trader, being repaid by them with all the more idolatry and admiration.”

Image via Wikipedia

When a woman was of sufficient importance to receive his ministrations,  the artist would arrive – always in a hurry – and take a quick look at his client. He would appear to study the figure of the patient for some minutes, and then, as he felt the inspiration come, he would pounce upon the first objects that came to hand: a cabbage, a scarf, a sponge, some apples, a child’s toy boat. 

With these accessories he would build up his extravagant edifice on the head of his delighted victim. Thus it was that the Duchesse de Luynes presented herself one day in the royal circle with one of her chemises in her hair, an idea which was thought to be “quite too delightfully foolish”, and that Madame de Matignon made her appearance with her locks dressed a la Jardinière, carrying on her head an artichoke, a head of green broccoli, a pretty carrot and a few little radishes. Rousseau had made nature fashionable; or, as one of the ladies put it: “Vegetables are so much more natural than flowers, are they not?”

The noblest and the most charming heads passed through the hands of Leonard. Every day his fingers gently touched those pink and perfumed necks that were so soon to be torn by the steel triangle of the guillotine. In the days of the Terror this man must have been tortured by horrible visions every evening as he read in the gazettes the account of the executions of the previous day. Visions, for instance, of the horrible basket under the guillotine in which were heaped the long curls, fair and dark, that his own golden comb had so often smoothed.

Leonard was a precise little person, with slightly prominent cheek-bones and a pointed and rather turned-up nose. The way in which Leonard became mixed up with the flight of the royal family and the drama of Varennes is rather obscure. When one reads the narratives of his contemporaries, it always seems that something is left unsaid…

As G. Lenotre describes it: “On the 20th June, 1791, at a quarter past one in the afternoon, Marie Antoinette, being on the point of sitting down to the table with the King, sent for Leonard, who lived in the Tuileries in his capacity of valet-de-chambre to her Majesty. He lost no time in presenting himself in the salon where the royal family were gathered. He saw the King chatting with Madame Elizabeth in an embrasure, and the Dauphin playing with his sister.”

The Queen, who was leaning against the chimney-piece, signed to the hairdresser to come near, and said in a low voice: “Leonard, can I count upon you?”

“Ah, Madame,” Leonard answered, “dispose of me as you will. I am entirely devoted to you!”

“Here is a letter,” the Queen said, who appeared much moved. “Take it to the Duc de Choiseul in the Rue d’Artois. Give it into no hands but his. Put on an overcoat and a round hat, to avoid being recognised. Obey him exactly as though he were myself, without pausing to think, and without the least opposition.”

At two o’clock, Leonard reached the house of Choiseul, dressed in white silk stockings, silk knee-breeches, a large riding-coat over everything, and a wide-brimmed hat that shaded his forehead and eyes. The Duke opened the letter, nodded slowly and then burnt the note in the flame of a taper, and led away the stupefied hairdresser. In the courtyard was standing a closed cabriolet, and Leonard, seeing that he was expected to enter it, drew back.

“I can’t go away,” he said.

“Oh, I only want to take you very quickly to a spot some leagues from Paris, to fulfil a special commission,” the Duke answered.

“But I have left my key in the door at the palace! My brother will not know what has become of me, and I have promised Madame de Laage to dress her hair. She is expecting me, and my cabriolet is waiting in the court of the Tuileries and oh my God… How can I arrange for all these things?”

Choiseul laughingly assured him that the necessary orders already were given, and that he would be ableto dress Madame de Laage’s hair another day. As he was speaking, he drew the barber into the carriage and lowered the blinds. And they started off at a great pace along the road to Bondy.

At Bondy some post-horses were ready for the cabriolet, which went on without delay to Meaux. At every stage Leonard’s astonishment increased, while repeating continually: “But Madame de Laage is waiting for me, Monsieur! Where can we be going?”

Beyond Meaux, the Duke informed him that he was being taken to the frontier, where he was to carry out a mission of the greatest importance, concerned with the Queen’s service.

“Oh… In that case… Certainly, Monsieur!” Leonard moaned. “But how shall I get back? I am in silk stockings and breeches and I have no money!”

At Montmirail the travelers had some supper; then they lay down in their clothes on a bed, but by half-past three in the morning they were again on the road. They changed horses at Chalons, and an hour later arrived at Pont-de-Somme-Vesle, where they were awaited by forty hussars.

“Now I can reveal everything to you,” Choiseul said. “You must know, Monsieur, that the King and his family should have left the Tuileries at midnight. Before two hours have passed they will be here, and the hussars will escort the royal carriage to Sainte-Menehould, where another detachment is stationed. At Clermont there are quartered some dragoons who will close the road, as soon as the royal family has passed. They will stop all traffic until the King has safely reached Montmedy.”

The luggage-carrier of the cabriolet in which Choiseul and Leonard had travelled from Paris contained a garment worn by the King on state occasions, his linen, some of the Queen’s jewels, and Madame Elizabeth’s diamonds. Leonard melted into tears and declared he was prepared to die for his good master and mistress. He ended by drying his eyes and sitting down to the table, where he dined at considerable length.

Why, among all the tried followers who composed the royal circle, was this brainless and feeble puppet chosen mixed up in the affair? There is but one plausible answer: the wig-maker was not one of the “usual suspects” and so could start his secret mission totally unsuspected…

Image via Wikipedia

At Pont-de-Somme-Vesle the peasants were crowding round the hussars when a rumour arose that a levy by force of arms was imminent. A riot was the result, and Choiseul, convinced that the royal carriage might appear at any moment, tried to gain time. But the King’s arrival had now been delayed by three hours, and it became a question whether he had not been stopped at Chalons. Perhaps even he had been prevented from leaving the Tuileries.

In the face of the hostile attitude of the peasants Choiseul took it upon himself to withdraw the troops. He retired with them across the fields, leaving the road free, after having instructed Leonard to continue his journey in the cabriolet to Montmedy, and to give information of the unfortunate turn of events to the officers of the detachments at Sainte-Menehould and Clermont. He even entrusted the barber with a note to show to them: “It does not appear as if the Treasure would pass to-day. Tomorrow you will receive your orders.”

Together with Boucher, the valet of the Duke, Leonard took the road to Sainte-Menehould.  “Lately but a simple valet,” the historian G. Lenotre wrote in his book The Flight of Marie Antoinette, “he now found himself without any preparation charged with a mission which made him in a certain degree the arbiter of the King’s fate and of the destiny of the nation. We must remember that, except his own protestations, we have no certain evidence that he was devoted to the royal cause, and future events were to give abundant proof that he did not allow himself to be inconvenienced by scruples. This is the kind of man, then, that we must imagine travelling towards the frontier, carrying with him the King’s coat, which was worth a fortune, and the Queen’s diamonds.”

At Sainte-Menehould Leonard showed the note written by the Duke and advised the officer of the hussars to unsaddle their horses and go back to their quarters. At Clermont, the commanding officer paid no attention to him and his note. At Varennes, where he arrived at half-past nine in the evening, two young officers were stationed in command of some men who were keeping some horses in readiness for the royal carriage: the son of General de Bouille and M. de Raigecourt. It was a magnificent night, and the two officers were sitting on a bench before the Grand Monarque hotel, when Leonard’s cabriolet drove up. He immediately assumed an air of great importance and declard that he knew everything, and was in charge of the Queen’s jewels. He assured them that the King must have been stopped at Chalons and informed them that there was a riot going on at Clermont. He demanded some horses and went off at last… but not with the valet of Choiseul, but with a postilion.

The disorganization that was spread along the route, the missing relay at the entrance to Varennes and finally the arrest of the fugitives… it’s a chain of fatal circumstances which cannot be explained if we ignore Leonard’s strange action in the affair. “One chance remained to him of being useful to the royal family,” G. Lenotre remarked. “If he had hurried on to Stenay, where the two regiments under the elder M. de Bouille were stationed, his tales and false information would certainly have decided the latter to take his troops along the Chalons road; but on leaving Varennes Leonard’s postilion missed his way, and did not find out his mistake until he had travelled seven leagues, and was at the gates of Verdun. He was obliged to turn back, and only appeared at Stenay late on the following day, when the King’s arrest had been an accomplished fact for some hours, and there was no longer any hope of helping him.”

Did Leonard gave his postilionorders to miss his way? And was that the reason why he could not voyage further on up the road with the valet of Choiseul?

Leonard was questioned by General de Bouillé, but he was unable to answer a word… He could give no information to the King’s journey, or of an arrest in Chalons. “His ideas were so much confused that everything he told us was very vague, even with regard to de Choiseul,” the General wrote in his diary.

However, Leonard handed over to him the casket of diamonds… and de Bouillé gave it into the charge of one of his officers. But on the following day the officer was found covered with wounds and almost dying. As for the casket, it had disappeared…

Image via Wikipedia

Proceedings were instituted against all the agents in flight of the royal family. It was a curious fact that Leonard was not indicted, and that he seemed to be in no hurry to return to France, although he would have incurred no danger in doing so. Leonard lived for three months in somewhere in the Ardennes, without anything being heard of him. He abandoned the comb until the 10th August.

It might be thought that on the establishment of the Republic he would be ranked among the “suspects”, but no… He obtained employment at Versailles in connection with army remounts, and was occupying this peaceable position when at last the Terror laid its hand upon him. Leonard was arrested in July 1794 and condemned to death. His body, together with some others, was thrown into the common trench of Picpus, and was registered in accordance with the statement delivered to the executioner.

In 1814 however, Leonard returned from Russia, where he had spent twenty years. Indeed, Jean François Autié,  who was guillotined with every official formality during the days of revolutionary Terror, was still alive at the time of the Restoration. In the “Quotidienne” of March 16, 1838, his nephew protested against the publication of some very apocryphal memoirs which were attributed to “le Marquis Leonard”, and declared “that he had never been parted from his uncle after 1814, the year of his return to France, until the time of his death.” He died, finally, at the age of sixty-two, in 1820. His second death certificate was among the public registers of Paris before the fire of 1871…

See also:

Bourbon Treasures: The War Chest

Historical Mysteries

She was born Marie-Jeanne Philipon on 17 March, 1754, in Paris as the only one of seven children to survive. Her father, Pierre, was a master-engraver who lived upon his shop. Though they were by no means poor he could be found most hours toiling in his workshop. Her mother, Marguerite, described as a sweet and reasonable woman, presided over a remarkable education for her daughter. Marie-Jeanne was an avid reader and eager to learn and Marguerite was happy to indulge her every whim. Whilst still a child she was fluent in English and Italian as well as her native tongue, and could read Latin. She was also an accomplished musician and dancer. She was a devotee, though not an uncritical one, of Rousseau and Voltaire, and considered herself a woman of the Enlightenment. Her father, meanwhile, resented the lack of opportunities that were available to his brilliant daughter, outside of a good marriage.

She achieved that end at least in 1781, when she married Jean-Marie Roland, twenty years her senior, who was the Inspector of Maufactures for the region of Picardy. They settled in Lyon where Marie-Jeanne was to give birth to a daughter.

Marie-Jeanne worked tirelessly on behalf of her husband. Described as attractive rather than beautiful she was strong-willed, and often argumentative, but she rarely raised her voice and always remained calm. She also held firm political views as her friends and associates were soon to discover. She was certainly a boon to her husbands career and her ability to communicate soon built up a formidable network of influential people who were happy to call her a friend.

She was excited by the outbreak of the Revolution and was eager to see what she considered her ideas be put into practice. She believed that the State existed for the good of its citizens and that all should participate to ensure its well-being. This included herself. In November, 1790, Monsieur Roland was elected to the French National Assembly as one of the representatives for the city of Lyon.  

Now resident in Paris she regularly attended meetings of the Jacobin Club, though perhaps acknowledging her status, she rarely spoke. In 1791, she opened her own Salon at the Hotel Britannique where Mirabeau, Brissot, Robespierre, and other leading lights of the Revolution were regular visitors. No one doubted that whenever Monsieur Roland addressed the National Assembly he was in large part conveying his wife’s views.

In 1792, the Roland’s abandoned the Jacobin cause and embraced the more moderate Girondin faction in the National Assembly. It was to be a fatal error but in the short-term Monsieur Roland was rewarded by the Girondin leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot with the post of Minister of the Interior.

It was not long before Madame Roland, as she was now known, was involving herself in her husband’s work. More radical than he she was also more impassioned and less temperate in her use of language. She had begun to pen his letters and indeed written to the King on her husband’s behalf demanding that he embrace the Revolution or face the consequences. Her increasing number of detractors resented a woman wielding such influence over her husband, especially when it was a man in a position of such power. To many she was that “damnable woman” and it was to cost her husband his job.

Encouraged by his wife, Monsieur Roland railed against the excesses of the Revolution in the National Assembly. This was not what the powerful Paris mob either desired or expected. Their popularity waned as a result and rumours soon began to spread that they had Royalist or counter-revolutionary sympathies. It wasn’t long before these rumours became out-and-out accusations. Fearing the worst Madame Roland was induced to address the National Assembly in person. She was calm and articulate and put up a spirited defence of both herself and her husband dismissing the accusations as so much nonsense. The Assembly rose in applause and both the Roland’s were acquitted of any charges that may have been pending. But it was only a matter of time.

On 31 May, 1793, a Jacobin inspired purge ousted the Girondin’s from power. The following day the leading Girondins, including the Roland’s, were arrested.

Separated at the time of their arrest Jean and Marie-Jeanne were never to see one another again. Madame Roland was confined in the Sainte-Pelagie Prison before being moved to the Conciergie. There she was treated with surprising respect considering the charge of treason that hung over her. She was allowed frequent visitors and writing materiel which despite having previously said that she would, ” rather chew off her fingers than be a writer,” she used to pen her memoirs. If during this time she imagined for a moment that her previous relationship with Robespierre would save her she was to be sorely disappointed. He was determined to purge the opposition regardless of who they were. Madame Roland was incorrigible nonetheless and even whilst in confinement was able to manufacture her husband’s escape from prison.

Prior to her trial before the Revolutionary Tribunal she urged her lawyer, Chauvieu, not to attend fearing for his safety. She told him, ” Do not come tomorrow, you will endanger yourself without saving me. Accept this ring as a token of my gratitude. Tomorrow I will cease to exist.”

On 8 November, 1793, she was taken from her prison cell to the Place de la Revolution for execution. Before placing her head on the block beneath the guillotine that would kill her, she bowed to the statue of liberty and uttered the words for which she is now famous, ” Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!”

Two days later on hearing news of his wife’s execution, Monsieur Roland committed suicide. He had been trying to flee the country but shattered by the news he sat down beneath a tree and scribbled out a quick note, ” from the moment that I learned that they had murdered my wife. I can no longer remain in a world stained with such enemies.” He then pinned the note to his chest before running himself through with a sword.

            Guillotine is one invention that made the “modern” society during that era more barbaric than the one before. Originally, the guillotine was going to be used occasionally, as an efficient execution device to suppress the public restlessness. However, the beheadings went much farther than that. During the French Revolution, the guillotine was used to execute an estimation of from 20,000 to 40,000 people. This invention produced the side effect of excess bloodshed, something that could not be done in the preliterate civilizations. Another invention that turned our modern civilizations even more barbaric was the machine gun.

            The advent of the invention of the machine gun gave battles a new edge to them. At first, the machine gun seemed to be efficacious in completing its jobs. Soon, the consequences began to appear. The machine guns were so effective that nearly all of the enemy front lines were wiped out shortly stepping out of their trenches. This resulted in pointless suicide missions, which ended the lives of many young soldiers. Although this innovation has it benefits, the side effects are drastic too. Other than the machine gun and the guillotine, there is, yet, another invention that turned the “modern” civilizations more barbaric than those from the past.

            The invention of the atomic bomb stated the United States power. It was originally used just for threatening other countries. However, the United States decided to test the atomic bomb to see its real extent of power. It ended up blowing up two Japanese cities: Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Although the atomic bomb had brought them some power at first, later on, it caused great suffering in two entire cities; this was more barbaric than the preliterate civilizations because there was no way preliterate civilizations could cause such massive damage. The inventions of the guillotine, machine gun, and the atomic bomb all initially seemed to have benefits, but actually had bad side effects.

            In light of the examples above, advanced civilizations are more barbaric than the preliterate people are.

Danton was born in Arcis-sur-Aube in northeastern France on 26 October, 1759, to a comfortably off but by no means rich family. He was a rumbustuous child and a bit of a bully who was always in trouble of one kind or another. With a face scarred by accidents and smallpox his ugly countenance and often lack of charm never prevented him from pursuing the ladies with the utmost vigour and no little success.

He studied as a lawyer and despite coming from a relatively humble background he prospered. It seemed that people appreciated his honesty and straight-talking, and he was never one to kow-tow to his supposedly social superiors. He had always wanted to be involved in politics and watched events in Paris with an envious eye, he was determined to play a key part.

Even though, he had not been elected to any formal position by sheer force of personality alone he made himself the leading man of his district. He became a Captain in the National Guard and helped establish the Cordeliers Club in Paris which was to become pivotal in the firmament of the revolutionary years to come.

On 14 July, 1789, the Bastille, the fortress that lay at the heart of Paris and had for centuries been the symbol of Royal power, fell to the mob. It had been a bloody affair and Danton had lain behind it. Indeed, his presence seemed to loom large over all the major events of the Revolution. He had made his mark on the ordinary people of Paris where he wielded considerable influence but he lacked any real political power. Being denied any formal political office, other than the position he held in the Paris Commune, did not impede his ability to influence events, however. He was instrumental in forcing the Royal Family to leave the Court at Versailles and return to Paris. In July, 1791, he led the people of Paris on a march to the Champ de Mars to protest at the Girondist majority in the legislatures decision to retain Louis XVI as a constitutional Monarch. With Danton at their head exhorting them to action the mob turned on the National Guardsmen hemming them in. At first hurling only abuse they soon began to throw stones. The Marquis de Lafayette in charge of the Guard panicked and ordered them to open fire. The result was to leave more than 50 of the demonstrators dead and for a time Danton was forced to flee to England.

He wasn’t away for long and upon his return was again quick to harness the support of the Parisian mob for as he saw it the good of the Revolution (not, as in the case of Marat, for the sake of vengeance). ” Paris, he said, is the natural and constituted centre of France. It is the centre of light. If Paris shall perish there shall be no Republic.”

In 1792, Danton was at last elected to the National Convention where he was sat next to Jean-Paul Marat, the two rarely spoke. Nearby sat Robespierre, a man he held in low regard. Robespierre, by contrast, respected and admired Danton. He needed him, though he also feared him.

Maximilien Marie Isidore d’Robespierre    

Danton was a big man, tall, of athletic build and immensely strong. His features, it was said, were marked, coarse and displeasing, but he was difficult to ignore. It was said that when he spoke the walls shook. He was also a man of gigantic appetites, a heavy drinker, and a notorious philanderer. He was garrulous and sociable, unlike Robespierre who said little and rarely left his house accept to attend political meetings, and believed in the power of oratory over that of the written word. A force of nature he could be brilliant and generous but he was just as likely to be idle and mean-spirited. He was also venal and corrupt and was a man who always loved money more than he ever loved power. In every respect the apotheosis of his rival the slight, pasty-faced, tight-lipped, thin-bloodied, Robespierre, whose relentless pursuit of virtue earned him the sobriquet the Sea Green Incorruptible, and of whom Danton once said, ” the problem with Robespierre is that he is afraid of money and can’t fuck.”

I April, 1792, France declared war on Austria. It was a decision that was to change the course of the Revolution forever. Danton believed that the war was necessary to push the Revolution forward and supported it with all his energy and vigour, declaring that it must be pursued mercilessly.

Danton also continued to manipulate the Paris mob and on 10 August, 1792, they marched on and ransacked the Tuilleries Palace forcing the Royal Family to flee in their nightclothes and seek refuge in the Legislative Assembly for their own protection.

On 2 September, 1792, news reached Paris that the Austrian Duke of Brunswick had invaded France and that the Fortress of Verdun had fallen. Panic swept the city as rumours spread that the defeat had been caused by spies, counter-revolutionaries, and was the result of an aristocratic Catholic plot. Later that day 24 non-juring priests (those who still owed their allegiance to the Vatican) being transported to prison were intercepted and brutally murdered. Over the next 48 hours convents were raided, monasteries destroyed, and the prisons broken into. More than 1200 nuns, priests, prisoners, and aristocrats were dragged into the streets and butchered. The fact that many of the attacks seem to have been planned in advance have led some to believe that Danton was behind them. There is little evidence for this but he certainly did nothing to prevent or stop them. 

Following the Royal Family’s desperate Flight to Varennes when they tried to escape the country but were captured before they reached the border and were returned to Paris the clamour for the abolition of the Monarchy and the establishment of a Republic reached fever-pitch. Such was the hatred directed at Louis XVI and in particular his Queen, Marie Antoinette, that eventually the King was put on trial for his life. In January, 1793, Danton voted for his death. His wife, Gabriele Charpentierre, wept at his decision and begged him to change his mind but he remained adamant – the King must die! Following the execution, Danton thundered in the Legislature, “ Whom among the Monarchs of Europe would dare challenge us? When we throw them the head of a King.”

Despite his defiant words the war was going badly for France. Charles Dumouriez, the General who had led the French to victory at the Battle’s of Valmy and Jemappe had defected to the enemy and counter-revolution had broken out in the Vendee in the west of the country.

Danton, who had little time for personal enmity, had tried more than once to bring the Girondin majority in the Legislature and the more radical Jacobins led by Robespierre together. His attempts at reconciliation were a miserable failure however, and when the Girondins blamed Danton directly for the failures of the war, he decided to act. He instigated the insurrection of 31 May, 1793, that saw the Girondists purged from the Convention, arrested, and executed. For a brief time at least, Danton was the most powerful man in France, but it was the Jacobins who now had their hands on the levers of that power. 

The Revolution, however, had reached crisis point. The war would have to be fought to the death and counter-revolutionaries would have to be eliminated. The Revolution had to be harsher. It needed the Terror. On this at least Danton and Robespierre were agreed. Danton now helped set up the Revolutionary Tribunal. A committee of nine, of whom Danton was one, that would take revolutionary violence out of the hands of the mob and would instead carry out the Terror on their behalf. On 6 April, 1794, all executive power was placed in the hands of the Committee of Public Safety. Danton was briefly its leading member. He soon resigned and was replaced by Maximilien Robespierre. It was to be the absolute exertion of national power and the enemies of the Revolution would be pursued to the Gates of Hell.

Earlier, Danton had returned from visiting the troops on the front-line to discover that his much beloved wife Geraldine had died and had already been buried. He was distraught and openly wept at her graveside. Robespierre sent him a letter of condolence. ” You and I are one, ” he wrote. Yet within weeks he had remarried.

Danton now began to spend more and more time with his new young wife and in his absence his enemies began to gather. With the coming to power of the Jacobins the Revolution had veered sharply to the left and Danton was dangerously exposed as a moderate. In fact, he was a realist, a pragmatist. He did share the dreams of others. For him ideals were throwaway objects. No idea, no matter how worthy, should be pursued if did not work. People now began to call for his head. He did not share the virtue of Robespierre, they said. In response to the accusation, Danton wrote that, ” Virtue is something I do in bed with my wife.” It was Robespierre who defended him and prevented his arrest. But it was only a matter of time.

Danton and Robespierre, two such different men. Danton, the collosus, tall and muscular, who ate to excess, was frequently drunk, and too easily prey to the lure of sex, was the driver of events. Robespierre, short and thin, the abstainer who picked at his food, and had no interest in sex, manipulated those events to his advantage. Danton, robust, hearty, and sociable. Robespierre, pallid, often ill, and reclusive. The one was determined to make history and build a new France. The other determined to create a Spartan Paradise and change the world. 

Rumours continued to circulate that Danton was about to be arrested. He refused, however, to either keep quiet, flee, or go into hiding. He mockingly said, ” Maximilien does not have the balls to arrest me. If only I could lend him my own.” It would seem that Robespierre did not want him arrested. He had little time for Danton’s appetites but he recognised that he still needed him. But his own position was precarious and he bowed to pressure. Perhaps, he needed Danton’s balls after all. On 30 March, 1794, Danton was indeed arrested.

Though charged with treason, the main accusation against Danton was that of financial corruption. For this was the one charge that the prosecution knew would stick. There is little doubt that Danton was guilty of taking bribes, creaming it off the top, and insider trading. He had taken money, it was said, from the Royalist Mirabeau, the King of England, even France’s Austrian enemies. Some of the accusations were patently absurd but the charge that he had appropriated the funds of the now defunct French East India Company was a substantial one, and he had become a very rich man indeed from the Revolution. In response to the charges Danton shouted, ” No one has enough money to buy a man like me.” Indeed, so good was his performance in Court that Robespierre’s right-hand man Antoine St Just, told it to desist with the conventions as it was not necessary for a man who shows such contempt for the course of justice. Danton was swiftly found guilty and  sentenced to death.

Georges Jacques Danton was executed on 5 April, 1794. As his tumbril passed the house of Robespierre he shouted, ” You’re next Robespierre! It won’t be long until you follow me!” The watching Robespierre did not reply. Upon the scaffold his last words to the executioner were, ” Do not forget to hold up my head. It is well worth seeing.”

Danton was 34 years old when he died. Just over three months later on 28 July, 1794, the 36 year old Maximilien Robespierre followed him to the scaffold.     

• Defended the voice of the common man for Democracy against Louis XVI

• Demands for 1st and 2nd Estate to pay taxes to help the 3rd Estate

• Makes National Assembly to defy Louis XVI when he prevents 3rd Estate from attending the Estates-General

• Helps create the National Guard to protect the 3rd Estate from the army of Louis XVI

• Helps with the storming of the Bastille to get gunpowder and weapons

• Wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man, stating that men are born and remain free and equal in rights and it protects all rights of Man

• Increases the Freedom of the Press to allow for people to spread their ideas

• Gets food from Versailles to feed the masses, improving the life of the 3rd Estate

• Gains the nickname “The Incorruptible” because he always aims to help the people

• Demands universal suffrage so adults have the right to vote and emancipation to free the serfs from tyranny, bringing Democracy to France

• Did not support inhumane killing so he supported the human Guillotine

• Was against declaring war against Austria but was outvoted, meaning there was a stable Democracy and proving him again to be incorruptible

• Weakened the political influence and leadership of the aristocracy, allowing for people with talent to succeed

• Helps create the French Republic by focusing on the internal struggles and removing Louis XVI

• Created the Committee of Public Safety to root out traitors and to protect those loyal to the French Republic

• Ensured the success of the Revolution be establishing the Reign of Terror
  • The Terror was not resorted to because of blood lust, but to save the Republic and work on the Republic of Virtue

• Wants to use the Reign of Terror to create the Republic of Virtue a reality
  • Traitors and tyrants are punished, assistance is given to the unfortunate, the weak are respected, the oppressed are defended, and men are just

• Wanted to continue the Reign of Terror to create the Republic of Virtue since it is already half way finished

• Eliminates Danton the traitor for wanting to stop the Reign of Terror when the Republic of Virtue is within sight

• Introduces Deism, which supports the belief of a supreme being that does not interfere with the lives of humans, to the people so they do not get easily go back to an absolute monarchy, since Christianity supports a being that interferes with human lives

• Betrayed by the National Convention because they were becoming corrupted since they knew they were on the list

• Was sent to the Guillotine without trial on July 28, 1794, where he was placed into the Guillotine face-up and had his bandage removed from his jaw, producing an agonizing scream until the fall of the blade

But what exactly was the Guillotine and where did it come from ?

image from wikispaces

The Guillotine was originally composed of two upright grooved wooden posts of a height of 14 feet connected by a cross beam at the top. At the base of the frame were two pieces of wood with a semicircular aperture cut into them. The bottom piece was secured to the frame and thus provided stability for the entire frame. The upper piece of wood could be moved up and down along the grooves to allow for entry of the condemned prisoners neck and head. The upper piece would then come down and be secured with hook and eye or hasp’s. The Two semi-circles forming a circular aperture that now restrained the head.

Within the frame and supported by rope was a heavy block of wood in which was set a blade. By releasing the rope the weght of the wooden block running along the greased grooves would drive down the blade to sever the neck restrained at the bottom. This whole machine was usually set on a platform that was entered by a flight of 24 steps

The machine was devised by a surgeon called Antoine Louis and built by a German engineer called Tobias Schmidt in 1792. It was originally called the  Louisette or Louison but shortly afterwards a civil rights campaigner who sought the permanent end to the death penalty, Dr Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, actively sought for the complete abolishing of capital punishment and in what he thought was a forward thinking gesture, proposed a quick and humane means to administer executions in what he thought and hoped would be the dying days of capital punishment. However in a classic case of historic irony the machine became so associated with his advocacy of it’s use that it took his name and became the Guillotine.

image from stockphoto

The machine made it’s debut performance on April 25th 1792 when a highyway robber called Nicolas Jacques Pelletier became the first person to be executed using this method. The execution was both swift and efficient, so much so that the new civilian assembly edited the penal constitution to read “Every person condemned to the death penalty shall have his head severed.” It was in this fashion that the overthrown French King Louise XVI met his end on January 21st 1793.

In 1870 a state employed assistant executioner named Leon Berger designed and instigated some modifications to the Guillotine which included a spring mechanism that halted the blade after it had carried out it’s task and a new release mechanism for the blade.

The last public execution using a guillotine took place on Saturday the 17th of June 1939 of convicted multiple murderer Eugen Weidmann in Versailles. Executions using the guillotine continued behind prison walls until the execution of Hamida Djandoubi on Saturday the 10th of September 1977 which is the last officially recorded use of the guillotine.

It was to be another 4 years before the death penalty was finally abolished  permanently in France and finally after over 185 years Dr Joseph-Ignace Guillotin got his wish for an end to the death penalty.

The guillotine was used to bring further equality to France by using the same sentence for everyone, that sentence being: Guilty!?!?!?!? GUILTY!?!?!?!? Your sentence is death at the guillotine!!! It was also used because it was believed to be more moral and painless then other death sentences.

A few famous people who died at the guillotine include King Louise 16th, Marie Antwanet, George Danton, and Maxamilien Robespierre.

The pros of the use of the guillotine include: fast and effective; good for repetitive use without multiple executioners plus the executioners don’t tire out as fast. The cons include that the argument that people actually live LONGER after being guillotined then when they are hanged. Personally I agree that the do survive a while after they are guillotined based on a multitude of tests which have all proven well enough to remove doubt from my mind at least that people survive after being guillotined for anywhere from three seconds to a full minute and retain ocular functions as well as the ability to hear and see as well as feel and possibly taste.

Marie-Anne Charlotte Corday d’Armont, was born on 27 July, 1768, in the small hamlet of Saint-Saturnin-des-Ligieries in Normandy. She was the scion of a minor, but impoverished, branch of the aristocracy. When still a young child her mother and older sister died. Her father, either unable or unwilling to cope, sent Charlotte and her younger sister to be raised by the nuns at the Abbaye-aux-Dames convent in Caen. Here, shut away from the conflicts of the real world, Charlotte devoted herself to reading and learning. She familiarised herself with the works of Voltaire and Rousseau and became a devotee of Enlightenment ideas. Despite always at heart being a royalist she supported the revolution at its outset. Indeed, she embraced it willingly and with enthusiasm, but she could never come to terms with its consequences.

After leaving the convent she went to live with her cousin Madame Le Coustellier de Bretteville Gouville. They quickly became very close and Charlotte was made sole heir to the older woman’s estate. Had she chosen to do so, Charlotte could have become a woman of independent, if modest, means. But she was to choose a different path.

At the end of May, 1793, Marat condemned the ruling Girondin faction in the National Convention. More moderate than the Jacobins or extremist Hebertists they represented the interests of merchants and big business. They also sought to limit the consequences of revolution, and were, as such, hated my Marat. They had earlier had him tried before the Revolutionary Tribunal but he had been acquitted of all charges. Returning to the Convention in a blaze of glory and amid cheering crowds the Girondins days were now numbered. On 2 June, denounced by Marat they were arrested by the National Guard. The Girondin leaders Jacques Pierre Brissot, Charles Dumouriez and many others were executed. Those who could escape did so to Charlotte Corday’s home town of Caen. There Charlotte, a Girondin supporter, was regaled with stories of persecution and death. She had also lost friends and associates in the purge. Always a Royalist at heart, she had not yet come to terms with the execution of King Louis XVI five months earlier. The beautiful revolution as she saw it had been turned into a grand guignol horror of blood and gore, and she laid the blame firmly at Marat’s door. If no man would commit to end it then she would do so herself. 

France was at this time a country of internal borders and to travel to Paris,Charlotte had to apply for a passport. The passport she was provided with describes her at this time as being, ” twenty-four years of age, five feet and one inch in height, hair and eyebrows chestnut colour, eyes grey, forehead high, mouth medium, chin dimpled, and with an oval face.”

On 9 July, 1793, Charlotte set off for Paris with very little else but the clothes she stood up in and carrying a copy of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.  On her arrival she took a room at the Hotel de Providence, leaving it briefly to purchase a kitchen knife with a six inch blade. Returning, she then penned a brief Address to the French People.”

On the morning of 13 July, she visited Marat’s home on the Rue de Cordeliers. She explained that she had to see the good citizen on an important matter but the guards barred her entry. Returning later she saw men delivering food and newspapers and followed them in. Once inside she said that she had in her possession a list of traitors in the city of Caen that Marat must see. Told of this he ushered her into his presence. Languishing in his bathtub, Marat took the list from Charlotte and began to peruse it thoroughly whilst occasionally nodding his head. Charlotte sat quietly nearby beads of sweat appearing on her brow on what was a sweltering hot day. After about fifteen minutes Marat looked up and said, ” Madame, they will all be dead within the week.” Immediately Charlotte stood up and without a word lurched forward plunging the knife deep into Marat’s chest. He cried out, ” Aidez-moi, ma cherie ami (Help me, my dear friend) to his wife Simone who was in an adjacent room. 

By the time the guards responded to his cries Marat, slumped in his blood-stained bath the knife protruding from his body, was a was already dead. Standing nearby was Charlotte, unmoved both physically and emotionally, there was no doubt who the murderer was and she was promptly arrested.  

Within days of her arrest she was hauled before the Revolutionary Tribunal to be tried for her life. When questioned she testified that she had,” killed one man to save a hundred thousand others.” But it didn’t matter much what she said. In the hostile environment of the Tribunal there could be only one sentence – death. In the few hours left to her she penned a number of letters. In one she wrote, ” there are so few patriots who know how to die for their country.” In another to her father she begged his forgiveness for ” having disposed of my existence without your permission.”

Charlotte Corday, drawn on the day of her execution

On 17 July, 1793, she was paraded before the howling mob on her way to the guillotine. Abused and spat at she refused to bow her head. With her hands bound and not permitted to speak she was dispatched in haste and without formalities as befits a traitor. As the executioner, Legros, held up her severed head he slapped it hard across the face to show the crowd his contempt (an act for which he was serve three months in prison). Before being disposed of Charlotte’s body was examined to see if she had been a virgin (virginity in women over a certain age, Charlotte was 25, was widely assumed to induce madness in them). When it was discovered that she was still virgo intacta it seemed to prove that her murder of Marat had indeed been an act of insanity. The discovery, however, also caused a great feeling of unease in many. Having completed their violation of her body Charlotte’s remain were taken to the Madeleine Cemetery where they were buried without Christian rites.

Charlotte Corday, would soon be largely forgotten. Jean-Paul Marat, however, would be immortalised forever as the martyred hero of the people brutally murdered by the evil agents of reactionary vested interest, by that great propagandist of the revolution, Jacques-Louis David.

* See related article: Jean-Paul Marat, Death for Death’s Sake.