If the change from monarchy to republicanism was not very violent in itself, it appears to have been yet more smoothed away by gradual preparations.

Monarchy was not abolished, it declined.

The direct line was broken, or some other excuse occurred for exchanging an hereditary for an elective monarchy; then the period of power became shortened, and from monarchy for life it was monarchy only for a certain number of years: in most cases the name too (and how much is there in names!) was changed, and the title of ruler or magistrate substituted for that of king.
Thus, by no sudden leap of mind, by no vehement and short-lived revolutions, but gradually, insensibly, and permanently, monarchy ceased--a fashion, as it were, worn out and obsolete--and republicanism succeeded.

But this republicanism at first was probably in no instance purely democratic.

It was the chiefs who were the visible agents in the encroachments on the monarchic power--it was an aristocracy that succeeded monarchy.