Even before the actual revolt, many Chinese scholars already predicted that a revolution would be followed by violence and civil wars.

The scholar Liang Qichao, who initially supported peaceful reforms aimed at strengthening China, argued that the Chinese court was necessary to keep China together, just like how a corporation needs a board of managers and a city needs a city council. In order for this court to function efficiently, people would have to extend their love for their country (China) to the court as well. In return, a proper court would have to respect people's rights and extend its love towards the people. However, were the court to collapse or disappear, Liang was certain that the Chinese nation would also collapse. (See: Liang Qichao, Xinmin Shuo, chapter 6, 16-18.)
Liang also wrote the following paragraph in the opening statement of the Eastern Times (Shibao):

'In China today, those in lofty and powerful positions and those who are reclusive hermits are all unaware of the general world situation. They believe that thousand-year-old politics and thousand-year-old learning are appropriate to the changes of today. According to an assessment of present conditions, however, this is not possible; one could knit one's brow in worry for a whole day and still be able to solve today's problems with yesterday's methods. As a result, when heroic young activists hear that Western nations have such and such a method of regulating chaos, such and such a method of self-strengthening, they all run and shout, "We too must do it this way! We too must do it this way!"While no one would deny that these methods are the reason the West can regulate chaos and strengthen itself, we simply do not know if these methods are appropriate to our times. As Confucius said, "To go beyond is as wrong to fall short." To fall short and apply methods that are no longer fitting to the times is a waste; every day corruption would increase and there would be no way to save the nation. At the same time, to go beyond the present situation and apply methods that are too advanced for the times, to yell and shout and wildly push forward, would not accomplish anything either. Moreover, proceeding in this way could give rise to new problems, and the nation would become unsalvageable. In sum, if the country should be lost, both kinds of people [conservatives and people argueing for revolution] would be equally responsible.'

As for proponents of the revolution, Zhang Binglin is one of the more famous ones, sometimes being called The Father of Chinese Nationalism. After the reforms of 1898 failed, Zhang turned against Kang Youwei, the main proponent of peaceful reform. Kang claimed that revolution would just lead to bloodshed, especially for Chinese minorities like the Manchu and Mongols, dictatorship and foreign invasions. Zhang reacted to these statements with a purposely provocative open letter in 1903.

[Zhang first attacks Kang directly, claiming he's merely writing to put himself in a favourable light in the eyes of China's Manchu rulers and that his status as a respected sage is undeserved. He goes on to claim that the Manchus have never assimilated but are actively trying to erase Chinese culture. He then goes on to point out that China can never become a democracy while ruled by an ethnic minority, suggesting that it would not be in their interest to give up their position of power over the Han majority. Finally, he attacks Kang's fears for civil war to break out.]
'You believe that "blood will flow like water and the dead will lie everywhree in the disaster of revolution, and its goals will in the end still be left incomplete." However, can a constitutional system ever be achieved without bloodshed? England, Austria, Germany, and Italy all first won their rights to liberty and parliaments through revolts. Were these insurrections just a matter of debate, or did they involve spears and bows and flying bullets? Closer to us lies the example of Japan. Although their constitutionalist movement first arose in peaceful discussion, it had been preceded by armies devoted to expelling the foreigners and overthrowing the Bakufu. There would have been no constitutional system without the violent struggle that preceded it.
..
You suppose, "The Chinese people today are incapable of understanding universal principles or abolishing old customs; thus, after a revolution violence would continue unabated and bare survival would be difficult. How then could one reform the country and save the people and reorder politics!" But how could a people who cannot understand universal principles and who persist in following old customs be incapable of revolution but capable of constitutionalism? How can there be a constitutional order with a single sage at the top while the rest of the population are the most primitive of barbarians?'

Note from the quotes of Kang Youwei why Kang opposed revolution. He did indeed fear that a revolution would lead to constant violence and horrible bloodshed without fulfilling the goal of the revolters.

Rather than saying this won't be the case, Zhang states that such bloodshed was necessary in all countries in recent history that wanted to establish a constitutional order. He ends his letter by suggesting again that in China also such bloodshed will be a necessary evil to wake up the Chinese people:
'If the Manchus are not expelled, however, we cannot expect that the scholars will perform well or that the people will share a bitter hatred of the enemy in order to reach a realm of freedom and independence. If the situation continues to decline, we will simply become the slaves of the Westerners. If bad seeds are not removed, the good ones will not grow. If bad people are not removed, the good ones will not flourish, and naturally if we do not personally take a large broom to sweep away the rotten customs of the ancestors, then how can we hope to foster the ideal China?' (See: Bo Kang Youwei lun geming shu, in Zhang Taiyan quanji 4:173-184.)