Thomas Carlyle was fond of the Great Man theory and was more interested in Mirabeau and Danton. Carlyle was also a Romantic; his historical writings are written like prose and the famous epithet of Robespierre as the "sea-green Incorruptible" originated from Carlyle. Robespierre is described with monstrous qualities, with also greenish veins and a green face, as if Carlyle aimed to depict his "tyranny" as so strong it appeared on the physical level.

In this book the "fourth estate" refers to the proletariat. Ralph Korngold uses a Marxist interpretation which results in a view of Robespierre as the ally to the proletariat. Interestingly future editions of this book carried a different title, Robespierre: The First Modern Dictator. Korngold was influenced by Mathiez's works on Robespierre.

Mathiez admired Robespierre and was concerned with the rehabilitation of his image and memory. His writings about Robespierre were conscious of the fact that his life and legacy had been "misrepresented" by previous historians. Mathiez wrote Robespierre as a model revolutionary who was dedicated to social justice. Special attention was given to Robespierre's role in the attempted Laws of Ventôse, which was interpreted by Mathiez (and future Marxist historians) as the attempt to redistribute aristocratic wealth to the poor.

Rudé wrote several books on the French Revolution where he gave particular emphasis to "the crowd." Even in his biography of Robespierre, Rudé discusses key points of Robespierre's life in juxtaposition with the reactions and attitudes of the Parisian masses. Rudé also explicitly mentions at the beginning that he would be focusing on the political aspects of Robespierre's life, and not as much attention was given to personal details. Rudé was also a Marxist historian, which can be seen in his attention to socio-economic facts; special focus is given to the likes of the General Maximum or the Ventôse Decrees.

Simon Schama carried on the perception of Robespierre as "tyrant" in his book Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (1989), wherein he focused more on a narrative of individuals and events, and is a relatively conservative or moderate work on the Revolution.

Influenced by Mathiez, Georges Lefebvre also wrote Robespierre as a model revolutionary of democracy. In "Remarks on Robespierre", Lefebvre takes a Marxist approach to direct democracy and central authority in the French Revolution. Lefebvre saw Robespierre as a wise statesman who understood the material necessity for revolutionary dictatorship (through the Committee of Public Safety) and connected this effort to Babeuf and Buonarroti, and even Blanqui and Lenin. Other works by Lefebvre on the French Revolution focused on a "history-from-below" approach, especially concerning the peasantry.

In this journal article, Alyssa Goldstein Sepinwall explores Robespierre as a feminist figure. Sepinwall discusses how Robespierre argued for the admission of women into academies in 1787.

Subsequent historians have critiqued Carlyle's stylistic historical writing. While contemporary reviews of Carlyle applauded how he seemed to bring history to life with vivid descriptions, future historians like Mark Cumming would critique how Carlyle's famous descriptions were, more often than not, untruthful.

Terror! was a BBC TV film/documentary that heavily leaned into the "Robespierre as tyrant" narrative. Robespierre is portrayed like a cunning movie villain. The film consists of dramatic reenactments interspersed with interviews with historians (and Slavoj Zizek and Hilary Mantel, who is not a historian but wrote a novel about the French Revolution). Simon Schama was interviewed for this TV movie/documentary. Marisa Linton was also interviewed and later stated in an journal article where she cited the movie: "The experience (whilst interesting in itself and the programme makers were charming with me)
gave me an object lesson in how little influence a specialist historian has on the argument and direction of the
final product in a programme designed to attract a mass audience." ("The Sea-Green Incorruptible and the Archangel of Death: How narratives of the
French Revolution contrast the roles of Robespierre and Saint-Just", 2020.)

Michelet saw the leader of the Revolution in not any singular leader but in "the people." Like the liberal historians, he also divided the Revolution into two "stages" but as a Republican democrat, made his division between 1789-92 as the glory days and 1793-94 as the sombre days. Michelet favored Danton as a more heroic figure; consequently, Robespierre who executed Danton was written as a figure of the Terror. Michelet wrote Robespierre as a brooding, solitary yet hypocritical leader.

Soboul, as the student of Lefebvre, continued Lefebvre's and Mathiez's position that Robespierre (and the sans-culottes of Paris) were justified in defending the republic from enemies through the Terror.

In this journal article Malcolm Cook explores the different ways Robespierre has been portrayed in some French novels, including some Revolutionary fictional pamphlets. It's an interesting review of Robespierre's image throughout time (particularly his physical appearance and personality). One interesting thing of note is that Cook included Michelet's history of the Revolution, because Michelet's descriptions were so fanciful.