I am really enjoying the dialogue between you guys. Remember that you can take the conversation in different directions (for example: comparing these historical events to other events in history or the present day). Also I hope everyone has a happy and safe New Years Eve!
So after all your research and discussion on Napoleon: was Napoleon Bonaparte the savior or the destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution? Be specific in your responses by citing actual examples of revolutionary ideals in effect or ideals being denied by Napoleon.
Hint: identify the ideals of the revolution first, then look at how Napoleon ruled France and his conquered territories, finally examine the lasting impact of Napoleon on Europe.
This is the toughest and most important of the questions asked. Build off of one another's responses and don't be afraid to be bold in your responses.
I believe Napoleon was a destroyer of the ideas of the revolution under the guise of being its savior. The revolution advocated the rights of the people and worked to transformed the government into a republic ruled by its citizens. Napoleon came to power giving his subjects what they wanted, such as higher education and the tax code, while at the same time he seized complete control of the country. He censored the press and put down any signs of opposition to his rule, essentially taking away the freedom they had worked to achieve. He even declared himself the Emperor of France and instituted an absolute monarchy, doing away with the republic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it could be argued that he was the savior of the revolution, because he still believed in the voice of the people. An example of that would be in the attack on the principal that the King was expected to hold the wishes of the Church over the wishes of the people. The citizens of France loved him because they were given what they essentially wanted.
But he did still use their votes to gain absolute power. He became an absolute monarch and sacrificed his peoples' power for it. Although he did bring stability and prosperity to the country, so he could be considered either a savior or a destroyer.
Lets Look at it this way:
ReplyDeleteRevolution Goals:
- Republic/Constitutional Monarchy
- More political voice/freedom
- no heir to the throne
- fair taxation
- an end to an absolute rule
keep in mind that this is mostly demands of the 3rd estate which later included the assembly's made
Napoleon's accomplishments:
- take France by force
- crusade across Europe conquering significant amount of existing nations
- Enforcing the Napolic code on those he ruled over including France
- Establishing a Dynasty to ensure everlasting rule
- Those who had the power to fight either failed (Prussian/Austrian armies) or submitted to his reign (German princes)
......i think it's safe to say he absolutely disregarded the initial ideals of the French revolution. Yes some good things came out of his rule, as Jackie mentioned, however they are minuscule by comparison in my opinion.
Correct me if i'm wrong which i am subject to being occasionally
Don't get me wrong, what the guy lacked in in size he made up for in his accomplishments. He took almost all of Europe, almost defeating Britain and almost taking his reign to North American turf. Napoleon is one of the biggest dictators in European history (no pun intended). He certainly knew what he was doing, adding to his militaristic genius.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Napoleon may have been somewhat acting with the French people's welfare in mind, as Jose and Jackie said, he was still destroying what the revolution was after. To be a little bit more specific; shortly after declaring himself Emperor of France, he tried to recreate the aristocratic section of France. This, to me, proved that he really had no idea what the majority of the French population wanted at the time. The entire point of the French revolution was to get rid of the aristocratic and monarch estates, and give the common people (or the third estate) more power. By recreating the aristocratic section of France, it is bringing back pre-revolutionary France. Now fighting in the revolution, in effect, was pointless. Even though the aristocracy social class of France was a "tradition", it was still ten steps backwards from the result of the revolution. He, in affect, wanted to reward the rich people who served him well, and were loyal to him, by granting them special rights. After a short while, the French court and the Emperor became the figureheads for style and elegance. Ultimately, it was back to a supreme ruler, the priviledge aristocrats, and the Catholic church as the heads of state, and the common people were, once again, shut out.
ReplyDeleteAdding onto what was previously stated, while he was trying to preserve what was left of "traditional France", he was ultimately sacrificing everything that everyone in the French revolution fought and died for. By honoring himself with the title of "Emperor", he was already getting rid of the ideals of the French Revolution. The people of the Revolution yearned for a peaceful republic, in which everyone had an equal say, or vote. Napoleon took it upon himself to make himself the ultimate ruler, and first naming himself the "First Console for Life", then by creating the position of Emperor for himself. This put France right back in the position it was in previous to the revolution. Now instead of a monarch, France gained itself a different type of almighty ruler: an Emperor. An emperor that only gave the French people illusions of a "voice" in the government, while he knew all along that he was only feeding them with what they wanted to hear so he could slither his way into ultimate power.He made it seem like the people of France actually had a say in their own future with the creation of a legislative body and a council of notables, however neither group of people had much power over the Emperor. Napoleon was a true politician, he said whatever he needed to say in order to gain enough support from the population so he could ultimately reach his own, personal goals. It's safe to say that he seldom thought of the benefit of his actions for the people of France, and his empire at this point, but more so for his own, personal gain, closely comparably to thoughts of a monarch.
ReplyDeleteLastly, Napoleon completely disreguarded the desires of the causes of the French Revolution when his thirst for power took over the nation. Once he became emperor, instead of focusing on improving the nation's infrastructure, he felt it was best to conquer the surrounding nations, like his idol, Alexander the Great. By taking after the great Roman, he ultimately pushed his "empire" way too far out of its comfort zone. France never had the desire to go out to different countries and completely control them. This was a thought that Napoleon completely came up with on his own. In fact, the only reason his first couple attempts at creating his own empire worked was because of France's support he had backing him, and his military genius. His crusade across other nations, as Jose put it, was completely unwanted by a majority of the French people. It was a major expense to the national bank of France, and way outside of the hopes of the young revolutionaries that started the French war. Overall, through Napoleon's final actions, that eventually led to his severe downward spiral, it showed his true compassion towards the French revolution, and what he thought about it. He proved that throughout his entire time in France, he fought towards his own gain of power, land and money. He showed a complete disreguard for the ultimate desires of the French Revolution, and twisted them into a situation that had the potential to be benefitcial to himself.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is a bit farfetched, but I believe it is a thought-provoking concept: The revolution was all about what the people wanted. At first, the people wanted a representative government and equality among the social classes. However, when the Directory was proving to be corrupt and ineffective, they just wanted it to end. It was as if they didn’t really care what happened, as long as someone took over to restore peace to their distraught country. That’s when Napoleon came in. He did just what the people wanted in overthrowing the Directory and returning stability and prosperity to France. As was advocated in the revolution, the people were getting what they wanted. Therefore, it is arguable that Napoleon was in fact the destroyer of the revolution because the revolution was ran by the people; because the people changed what they wanted, I think Napoleon was neither the savior nor the destroyer. It is true that his ambitions and overconfidence brought about his downfall and returned France to something it didn’t want to be; in that way it couldn’t be said that he was the destroyer of the revolution. However, the people loved him, and he did just what was asked of him, so I don’t think it is correct to say that he completely destroyed what the people fought for.
ReplyDeletei think that really depends on what point in time you look at napoleon. He is a complex individual who is seemingly schizophrenic. His ideals and goals seem to do a complete 180 throughout his reign.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning he would have to be called the savior. From his highly successful militant conquests, and rapid expansion of french territory across the then dissolved holy roman empire, to his numerous reforms, and reassertion of the church's power in France it shows his ability to give the people what they want.
ReplyDeleteas i said before however it seems like in term he performed a complete transformation, abandoning all the ideals he once embodied. He went against everything the french fought for and started a string of changes that proved to be his downfall. He enforced Napoleonic code on not only his conquered territories but the french people as well he also declared himself an emperor which the french detested, and establish a lineage to in theory retain a Napoleonic ruler in power forever.
ReplyDeleteCould one go as far to say that the revolution was doomed even before Napoleon? It seems that the people of France had a difficult time attempting to establish a Government that satisfied everyone-or mainly the 3rd estate. Napoleon could be argued as a temporary relief before things took a dive for the worst.
ReplyDeleteJust an idea, bu on the flip side, I would agree w/ Cody, it depends on what point in time you see it, the people needed some sort of Stability and Napoleon was the only man to provide at the time. Though he took France by force, like i said, a temporary relief.
Ultimately i think the good outweighs the bad. The positive things Napoleon accomplished like showing the dominance of France over Russia, Prussia, and Austria and reinstating the power of the church showed his capability as a leader. He took a country that was in shambles from a revolution and turned it around, his downfall was of his own doing but it was not catastrophic to the country of France like that of Louis XVI because the country would still prosper.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sergio; the country was pretty much returned to it's origional state before the revolution when Napoleon was taken from power by the ones he had tried to conquer and the Bourbon dynasty was restored to the throne, but it continued to prosper afterwards. He didn't destroy the country like previous monarchs did, he only destroyed the power he had possessed.
ReplyDeletethis is a tough question due to a possibility to go either way. Napoleons rule was prosperous at times and yet at other times it defied all goals of the revolution. The very event that gave him power, was disregarded in his absolutist actions while in control. The goals of the third estate in the revolution were clearly noted as to end absolutist rule, to gain a voice for the people, and to have a constituional type of monarchy. Napoleon proceeded to conquer most of europe as an absolute ruler.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Napoleon established a dynasty to ensure everlasting rule which was also against the wishes of the revolution. He turned into a bit of a power tripping little man. Now it is not justifiable to say that he caused destruction to the nation as it was simply returned to its original state. as Jackie said he did not run the country into the ground as we saw monarchs do countless times. He simply ran himself into the ground and France was left as is.
ReplyDeletean argument can be made for each as the ultimate goal of the revolution was A VOICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE. Theses people were those in the 97% that had no say in how the nation was run. Although he was an absolutist type of ruler, he still held the people in a high regard and for that he was admired. Which leaves the question of how a commoner of napoleonic era france respond to this very question? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI would consider Napoleon to be a savior in the ideals of the French Revolution. When he returned to France he had already started to use several ways to restore the country to be peaceful. From when he overthrew the directory and created his own constitution that was created to help the people in need and then make reasonable terms with how the country should be run. He is the one person that the Third estate needed to have on their side to make sure that they were treated fairly.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to argue this it seems. What Sergio had mentioned, Napoleon could be considered a savior of the revolution. He had initially promoted rights for the people, which is what the revolution was fought over, and he proved his power by defeating the many who stood against France. He proved to his people that he could raise the country back off its feet, but at the same time, he brought other opposing nations to their knees. Though he proved himself on occasion, it can be very possible that he as both the savior and destroyer of the revolutionary ideals. During my research, I thought Napoleon to be the destroyer of revolutionary ideals because of what he ended up becoming after the revolution took place. He was power hungry, and it is shown all throughout his reign. However, Napoleon did save France from falling under the control of other nations, and he did give stability to the state and his people, unlike many of the previous other leaders, such as Louis, who tended to ignore the majority of the population.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of Napoleon, France became stable once again. He defeated the First Coalition early on in his rule, and his continuous strain of military victories proved to his people that he was the “man for the job”. France suffered from the revolution more than it benefited it seems. Many people died fighting for what they believed was right. The Third Estate, the majority of France, wanted to have equality amongst everyone, but since none of the other two estates agreed with that, the people of the Third Estate needed to take a stand for themselves. If not for Napoleon stepping in, the people would have had not voice, as mentioned by Kevin. The people of France tried time and time again to make a change, but most of what came out of the revolution was bloodshed and violence. Napoleon helped his people to gain what they wanted. Like any great ruler, power went to his head, and there were many instances where Napoleon went too far with what he possessed. His power led him to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire completely, and also allowed him to deal with the Catholic Church in any way he pleased, but it also led him to be overconfident, which ended up being his downfall at the Battle of Waterloo against the Grand Alliance, which at the time was led by Great Britain and Prussia.
ReplyDeleteAs for my decision I'm inclined to agree with Jackie and Sergio. It seems that despite all his failures, napoleon did serve as a savior of the revolution, and the people of France. He preserved the power of the country while simultaneously defending it from their rivals. I think anytime a ruler can leave a country in better shape than when they took power means they had a successful rule.
ReplyDeleteDavid i agree and disagree, while i would say he was indeed a savior for all the reasons Cody,Matt,and Jackie point out, i also agree with Jose whos list of goals clearly states the complete disregard for what people had been fighting for in creating the Napoleonic code, and his attempt to create a lineage. He is the savior of the revolution, not its ideals
ReplyDeleteOne example that I found that helps prove Napoleon was a good ruler was he helped extend France’s rule from the North Sea all the way to regions like Spain and Italy. This, at the time, seemed impossible for France because the nation itself was nearly in ruins from the revolution. Napoleon made people fear him, and his military genius allowed him to plan out military strategies that helped him to gain control of other weak nations. With the extension of France’s holdings though, came the Continental System, which closed all ports to both British ports and ships. Napoleon believed that, if he closed off the ports, he would cause the British to become desperate for much needed supplies. This is similar to what happened in America numerous times during times of war and major conflict. Trade is an important factor in order for a country to proper. Napoleon worked smarter, not harder than he needed to. He made a few adjustments, took hold of power when it was in his reach, and let nations bow before him.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sparknotes.com/biography/napoleon/timeline.html
ReplyDeletenice summary of Napoleon throughout the years of his reign and even before then. (it's a timeline)
As Kevin said he was a power tripping little man, Napoleon had wanted everything that he had to be right and when it did not go the right way he found a way to fix it or gave up on it. With his forcing of Spain to give him the Louisiana Territory in North America he sent his army over there to take possession of it but instead they were met by the revolting slaves in Haiti who then killed the soldiers. So with the frustration of the new territory and the need for funding for a war with Britain he sold the land to the United States. Then with all of the land that he had acquired when he conquered most of Europe he named the several family members that he had kings and Grand Duchy of the land.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most significant events that I found myself looking more into was Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. ( there are a ton of videos and documentaries that I found on you tube about this, many of them were kind of long but are worth to check out). Though it was probably mentioned on more than one occasion on the blog, I believe that it plays a very important rule in Napoleons downfall. When the Continental System was put into place, Russia was unable to trade with Britain. The Tsar at the time, Alexander, did not want to stop trade because Russia and Britain were major trading partners. Napoleon prepared his Grand Army to invade Russia, but ended up retreating due to the multiple factors such as continuous Russian attacks on his army and horrible weather conditions. It is always the little factors, like disease or whether, that change the tide of war in multiple occasions. This, alongside many other choices Napoleon slowly led himself to his own downfall. Thinking he could do anything and achieve everything he wished, Napoleon continued to battle his enemies. He was dealt another defeat at the Battle of Nations, which showed the world how weak Napoleon was getting. Then, after being exiled to the island of Elba, Napoleon escaped, created a new army, and was dealt a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Waterloo, which officially ended his reign. The mightiest rulers are not the only ones to succeed it seems. The more power he gained, the more power he craved, which is what happens to most rulers like Napoleon. At first he was for his people, but many soon came to realize that he was becoming more of a dictator then a ruler who pursued equality amongst all.
ReplyDeleteWell after seeing everyone’s responses, I’ve decided to make three different posts in which one consists of why he was the savior, one of why he was the destroyer and my own personal viewpoint. I will start of why he was the savior. What was France before he stepped in? A beaten down nation with a corrupted government that did nothing for the people of their country. He listened to the people and reformed the exact things that they had grievances for. He rapidly expanded the nation with his brilliant military conquests like when he dissolved what was left of the tattered Holy Roman Empire. He also got back to the traditional ways of France with the domination of the coalitions he faced against Prussia, Russia and Austria. The French have always been about their devote military genius and domination of other countries. With the recent blunders they faced because of terrible reigns by their monarchs, they no longer had such prowess. Napoleon brought them back. He also dissolved feuds like the one between the Catholic Church and the French government. To say that he merely did nothing is a false statement and this issue could be taken either way depending on the interpretation.
ReplyDeleteMost people have sided with the overall idea that Napoleon was indeed the destroyer of the nation of France. First of all, he created a dynasty to ensure there would be an everlasting ruler in France which completely went against the ideals of the revolution. He also in the Napoleonic code reduced women’s rights even greater and gave more power to the husband. If I remember correctly the women were some of the main people who started the revolution. He also censored the press and suppressed all political opposition which took away the liberties of the people that were gained with the revolution. When he began to reorganize the German nation he ultimately sparked a wave of German nationalism that fueled great opposition to his rule. Most of the Germans who first thought the French were liberators now looked at them as foreign invaders. Without knowing it, Napoleon accidently fueled the German unification. Napoleon and everyone around him started to be under the impression that he was invincible. This desire to be invincible and acquire more power led to him making three disastrous mistakes starting with the Continental System. In 1806, he closed all European ports to British ships and goods. He thought that it would create a depression in Great Britain while promoting French prosperity. Then in 1808, he deposed Spain’s Bourbon rulers and installed his brother Joseph. This outraged the Spanish people. Bands of the Spanish soldiers known as guerillas ambushed the French troops and fled as if they were the small militia men of the American Revolution fighting the British. This led to a massive 300,000 troops in a five year span being killed. The deaths led to Napoleon’s downfall. Finally, the Continental System prevented Russia from trading with Great Britain. Tsar Alexander I knew he had to continue this vital trade. When he refused to stop Napoleon prepared to invade Russia. Alexander refused to surrender and because of the bitter cold, disease and merciless Russian attacks Napoleon’s army was decimated. Leaving Napoleon with angry troops and an angry nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin, this question does possess a certain level of difficulty because its heavy reliance on the answer-er to decide which point in time they chose to discuss. I think that is where the real variety of answers can come from. You have early Napoleon who by his policies was all about the betterment of France, then there is the later Napoleon whose only concerned seemed his power and retaining it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone is saying about how it could go either way. Napoleon didn't exactly stick to the script of the revolution ideals, but if you think about it, the revolution was pretty much finished because of Napoleon. He took over the Directory and then went on to be the ultimate leader of France. He is responsible for basically bringing the Revolution to a close and giving the public the chance to be governed by a leader who knew what they were doing and wanted to help the country (even though Napoleon did have some selfish ambitions)
ReplyDeleteI feel that Napoleon saved France from the situation it was in. The French government had multiple failed attempts at government. Examples of the governments are the directory and the republic. The ones that failed the most would be the two monarchies. The original and constitutional. Napoleon was able to unify the country at a very difficult time. Although it was rather autocratic there was a need for stability. He created the Napoleonic Code which unified laws under the French government in all regions of France. This was crucial to the unification of France. He did start many wars with the various countries, but he did create a sense of nationalism in the French people. People were actually enlisting in the army to fight for him. The revolution did not always want to get rid of the monarchy. As it can be seen, the people wanted to originally fix the monarchy and the problems with it. When this did not work they switched to a constitutional monarchy. They were like the British and did not want to stretch away from something they already knew. However, this changed with the radical parties. In a sense he went against some aspects of the revolution such as the republic and right of people. However, he was able to unify France into a stable state for the time.
ReplyDeleteNapoleon did, however, disregard the Revolution ideas. He campaigned across Europe taking over anywhere he wanted. He also went against the one major thing people wanted to avoid, which was basically any kind of dictatorship. Even though he did much to improve France as a whole, he turned France into a dictatorship in the process which is something the people wanted to avoid. He also crushed anyone who dared oppose him, which obviously goes against the idea of more feedom for the people. Revolutionaries wanted there to be more of a voice allowed for the public, and instead they had to play it safe or else face Napoleon's wrath.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Germany was greatly influenced by the Napoleonic era. Napoleon united Germany and its princes. He also created a sense of nationality in Germany indirectly. His invasion sparked the German people to band together. They wanted to band under one unified language and fight for their culture and society. Also, his troop cap for Prussia led to Prussia building their army secretly. They amassed over 200,000 troops by 1812. This is like Germany in the 1930's secretly creating a superior army. France had a great impact on future events in European history. Germany got a taste of unification and Prussia had rebuilt its army.
ReplyDeleteIf you could not already tell by my information overload on the destruction aspect of Napoleon’s rule I am indeed a supporter of the fact that he was in fact the destroyer of the ideals. The cons just out weigh the pros to an insurmountable extent. Sure he did great things for a jumbled nation but he left it just as he got it. His own selfish characteristics and simply that he thought he was superior to everyone. He is like Rex Ryan. He may think he is the greatest and has the greatest team or army in this case, but when it comes down to it it’s all about what is written in the record and history books. No one will remember a loser or one who stood on behalf of a cause and lost. Winners are everlasting.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I will say in Napoleon's favor is that he did improve the standards in France. He upgraded the education systems, the sewer systems, and he established a central bank. He also expanded France greatly when he conquered all the lands from just about everywhere he went. Despite what people want to say about Napoleon being a dictator and whatnot, he did much to help improve France and fix it from the ruin it was before he came along.
ReplyDeleteAlthough he did have a dictatorship the French government needed to be stable because they could not last forever with the changing of multiple governments. This made a weak country. Napoleon was not the end of the revolution but another chapter in the revolution. People could learn from this experience and create an even better government.
ReplyDeleteI think the true testament to the French people was when they exiled Napoleon to an island and held him captive. This shows that the French government was able to overthrow and work on their country as a whole. They could start fresh again.
ReplyDeleteI think Cody said it well as far as the success of Napoleon's reign, in that if you can leave the country in better shape than when you arrived you were successful. Although Napoleon did have a way of doing things that the people didn't agree with, I don't think there's a single person who can really say he wasn't extremely efficient at getting done what he wanted to get done. Even though he might have been a weeeeee bit excessive in his use of force, he accomplished a great deal during his reign.
ReplyDeleteAnd on what Jeff said at least Napoleon wasn't promising Super Bowls that never happened. Napoleon came in and crushed people who got in his way he didn't just talk about it.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that his use of force can be justified in the situation he was involved in. He had just recovered France from one of the bloodiest revolutions in the history of the world. Personally, I would not want to have another rebellion if I were in Napoleon's shoes. Stability was needed. If opposition was constant then he would not be able to rule effectively. He is a Machiavellian leader. He put fear into his people, but it was necessary at this time.
ReplyDeleteI second that Alex
ReplyDeleteJust like everyone else, I do believe his original intentions were along the lines of being a savior. His loyaty was strictly to the people of France. He came to power during a time of anarchy where there was no stable government or order. He grew up in Corscia, which a few months prior to his birth was taken over by French rule, which is where his deep dislike for French monarchy rule was started. He was able to work his way to power and displayed his military brilliance. He formed a new government where he served as the Emperor and created his Napoleonic Codes which were what many countries would come to base their goverment off of. These codes emboded much of what the people of France had been fighting for, eqaulity. He had good intentions but they quickly became blinded by his seeking of land and power.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Walters
okay this is the third time that the website refreshed and erased everything i wrote, I am so glad that this assignment is over after this post for me lol but i will summarize the huge response i had earlier written about how I honestly believe he turned out to be a destroyer of the revolutionary ideals. The revolution had one goal, to overthrow the monoarchy and replace it with a republic. What Chris and Alex are saying is true, the violence was needed...to an extent. Being classified as a destroyer as opposed to a savior is not so much about the violence, it is more about his actions. He stopped caring about stabalizing France and instead tried to gain as much land and power as he could. This is seen in his development of the Continental System. He had hoped to get power of Great Britian the way he had over most of continental Europe at the time by ending trade with them hoping to cause an economic issue in England. He did this not to benefit France and the ideas of the revolution but to gain more power for himself. The ideals of the revolution were to end the monarchy and instead they got it replaced with a tyrant. He began to insert his rule in to art by monitoring plays, education by only allowing boys to attend school, and by trying to take over all of Europe. Napoleon clearly was a dictator and should be considered a destryoer of the ideals of the revolution because eventually those ideals were forced to take a back seat to his power.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Walters
Its kind of difficult to choose but I think im going to have to say that Napoleon Bonaparte was the destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution. The people had earned what they wanted from the revolution such as the abolishment of hereditary privilege and the peasents gained land and the oppressive feudal privileges as well were ended. Napoleon's Civil code also gave France some things as well but overall he single handedly destroyed what the whole purpose of the French Revolution had been. The people had rebeled so that they wouldnt have to live restrained under a monarch and this is what Napoleon did, he created a monarchy.
ReplyDeleteLets not forget the nations he took as well. The people of the nations-like France-felt oppressed by the enforced Napolic Code, and like France, they were the peasants of the nation. That being said, i still firmly believe Napoleon destroyed alot of the ideals, maybe not totally demolish the nation. Lets just day France didn't accomplish much near the end of napoleon's reign.
ReplyDeleteSome people believe Napoleon finished and completed the Revolution by fulfilling the ideals the people of France demanded. Many upper-middle class and poor peasants believed that Napoleon gave them equality, freedom, justice, and many rights. Such things never existed during the reign of the monarchs before Napoleon stepped in. He helped solve France’s economic problems by putting the country back on a stable financial footing, and he made the French currency one of the most stable in Europe. Soldiers and generals praised him for fighting alongside his men in many battles. He was an aspiring leader who gained their loyalty.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he worked hard to heal the wounds of over a decade of revolution. He allowed all types of political refugees back into the country, and appointed both radicals and royalists to his government. His greatest act of reconciliation, however, was allowing the Catholic Church back into France in an agreement with Pope Pius VII. The church was allowed back in, however, on Napoleon's terms. Clergy who had supported radical or monarchist uprisings were dismissed, confiscated church lands remained under the control of the government, and the principle of religious freedom remained in force.
ReplyDeleteAfter lots of thinking and lots of lists, I think I've come to my conclusion about Napoleon: that he was ultimately the savior of the ideals of the French Revolution. Here is why I think this:
ReplyDelete-On August 26, 1789 the National Assembly created the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which created equal rights and protection before the law, gave rule to general will of the people, and stated that taxes have to be paid according to the ability to pay. The slogan and symbol of this document and the French Revolution came to be "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity." Though the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen did not prove to be very effective at the time, in 1804 Napoleon preserved these rights through his establishment of the Napoleonic Code. This code created equal treatment before the law, provided religious toleration, and abolished serfdom and feudalism. The tax problem was then addressed in the year 1800 when the Bank of France was founded under Napoleon's rule. A sound currency and balanced budged were introduced, everyone was expected to pay taxes and there were no exemptions. Through the Bank of France, Napoleon effectively paid off France's debts and restored the country to economic health. The prayers of the bourgeoisie, especially, were finally answered.
- Also, prior to 1790, the church had an overwhelming authority in France, but during this year the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was approved by the National Assembly. This put the church under state-control, ended the pope's authority in France, and dissolved monasteries and convents. Many of the radical revolutionaries at the time approved of this while others who had been devoted to Catholicism had not. Through the Concordat of 1801, however, Napoleon was able to address just about everyones' problems. He made peace with the Catholic Church, returned church property, and acknowledged that Catholicism was the primary religion of the French people. This was important because the peasants who had taken over the church's land were not punished for it, and the Catholics throughout the country were now happy.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of the most important and lasting contributions that Napoleon gave to the French people was the Civil Code or most widely known as the Napoleonic Code. Determined to unify France into a strong modern nation, he pushed for a single set of written laws that applied to everyone. The Napoleonic Code reformed various aspects of the old French law codes to provide more equality under the law and greater guarantees of basic rights. It was based on two ideas: that all men are equal under the law and all people have a right to property. This new code of laws applied equally to all French citizens regardless of what position they were in the society. This was especially true of tax reform, in which he eliminated any privileges the wealthy had enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it also can be argued that Napoleon betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution. First, Napoleon became the monarch of France in all but the title. Many who fought to get rid of the monarchy opposed Napoleon. The constitution of 1802 had officially installed Napoleon as a lifelong dictator, and he later crowned himself Emperor of France. He made this position hereditary, so that even if he died, his family members would continue his rule. Additionally, he ran an incredibly efficient government, but centralized power so that he was a strong ruler not unlike a king. He was ruthless toward any who opposed him and severely restricted the freedom of the press to restrict criticism against him.
ReplyDeleteNapoleon went and took the entire army and divided them into corps where there were less people and more availability to move around. He also increased the importance for artillery to weaken the enemy so the infantry didn’t have to be weakened at the start and have an advantage. He had then influenced the Americans and British with his conduction of warfare. Then when in Poland he influenced areas surrounding the country by abolishing serfdom, supported independence and with his legal code.
ReplyDeleteAs stated so well by mike, he did not destroy the French nation. He may have strayed from the revolutionary ideals but his actions set France up to prosper and that is what they did. His napoleonic code was and is the basis for their laws. It set the path for the equality of all men in the eyes of the law and a single body of laws to govern the nation as a whole. This result was certainly an ideal grievance voiced by the third estate prior to the revolution. For this reason it is hard to make a definitive decision towards either side.
ReplyDeleteAs I had said, Napoleon was ultimately the savior of the ideals of the French Revolution. He effectively answered the people's problems and brought stability back to France, and even brought France to powerful position which it never thought it would see. As of right now, I am against the idea that Napoleon was the destroyer of the ideals of the FR. If it hadn't been for the guy, who knows what kind of terrible shape France would have been in; I mean it may have been in bad shape for the next 50 years after Napoleon's rule, but perhaps if someone else had ruled, France would have been in complete ruins and would never get to see a recovery again. All of the best rulers in history have had an inevitable failure at the end of their term, whether they make a wrong decision, or they simply just die, leaving their country chaotic and scared. If Napoleon had died earlier, it'd be a one in a million chance that a ruler as good as him would have stepped in, and so France likely would have returned to its old conditions.
ReplyDelete(Sorry, I kind of started to rant....but I'm done! Yay!)
To start this question I cannot help, but go back to Jose’s comment in the very beginning of this thread. In his post Jose listed the goals of the revolution as follows:
ReplyDelete- Republic/Constitutional Monarchy
- More political voice/freedom
- no heir to the throne
- fair taxation
- an end to an absolute rule
I cannot help but agree with him on these terms and I believe his analysis of the goals of the Revolution is stop on. Similarly, I agree with Jose that Napoleon disregarded the ideals of the French Revolution and I believe that he ruled the French country how he saw fit and not how the French Revolution dictated it. In essence Napoleon ruled France with an iron fist and the events that happened were all from his own accord.
To understand how Napoleon ruled we must first look at all of the territories that he conquered. First of all he had gotten Louisiana, which was all of the territory in North America west of the Mississippi River. He got this back from Spain in 1800 and had the dreams of an American empire. Sadly the strains of fighting a distant war under tropical conditions forced Napoleon to sell Louisiana to the United States. Next in the German states, Napoleon dissolved the old Holy Roam Empire and consolidated territory into a much smaller number of states, and these states were loosely organized into the Confederation of the Rhine. Furthermore, Napoleon conquered Poland, essentially re-creating Poland as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. In all Napoleon conquered Spain, the boot of Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and eastern Poland for the sole purpose of establishing a dynasty to ensure everlasting rule. In some ways people can say that Napoleon was selfish or simply power hungry, but from my research it looks like Napoleon had something to prove to the whole world. From his humble birth, Napoleon wanted to make something of himself and to prove himself to the world and this is exactly what he did. We study this short and stout “chap” in history because he had such a great influence on Europe. Napoleon was truly a revolutionary dictator and in the next post I will end the question with the explanation of the impact that Napoleon truly had on the whole of Europe.
As I said in the post before, Napoleon conquered all of his territories for the sole purpose of creating an empire and extending his own power. This motive, though selfish, had a very profound effect on the whole of Europe. For France, Napoleon was the savior of the country. He was a dictator – something very similar to a king – but he had the right mindset for his country and the right judgment to constantly hold the support of his people. Even thought there was a dictator, the people of France still had their rights. Citizens were able to vote, had the right to own property and had access to education. Moreover, while he was trying to conquer the other countries in the whole of Europe, wherever he went, the Napoleonic Code went with him. I would compare Napoleon to Alexander the Great because like Alexander the Great, Napoleon spread his beliefs to every nation they have conquered. Napoleon, though sometimes referred to as evil really wan not evil. Hungry would be the better term to describe his want for power and this was the essential reason that he failed. But I believe that this man did not purely believe in evil, because he had a clear view of uniting Europe and would essentially offer all of Europe its rights as long as they would support him. Among other feats Napoleon managed to convert the 360 different German States into a unified German nation that consisted of five primary states that acted together for the mutual interest of the Germanic people. If this is not an accomplishment than I don’t know what is! Napoleon truly got his nation of France back on their feet after the Revolution and the nation needed a man like this to “whip them back into shape.” Despite his countless wars, Napoleon had a view of ultimate European unification and despite his failure to fulfill this dream, he was still a very successful ruler. To sum up my rant I believe Napoleon had a huge impact on the whole of Europe and if the revolution was one of the most significant events that ever occurred in Europe, then Napoleon is truly one of the most significant men that even ruled in Europe.
ReplyDeleteWell, it always seems I miss the discussions between everyone. I hope someone will be online to engage with me in some sort of talk about this…… But here it goes.
ReplyDeleteThis is by far the toughest of the questions and after reading everyone’s post it could really go in either direction. After all my research and the blogged discussion about Napoleon there is still a small bit of uncertainty in my mind. However, I am resolute when I claim that Napoleon was the savior of the ideals of the Revolution. He upheld many of its core principles and ideology in his domestic policies and reforms. He was not the destroyer, nor did he deny any ideals. He did the best he possibly could in the situation provided. To continue on what many others, specifically Chris, had touched on, I believe that his use of force was necessary given the situation he was in. France was on the brink of total collapse financially, politically, and socially. The Revolution had brought absolute destruction to the nation and he wanted to make sure nothing of the sort could ever happen again. The whole concept of the Machiavellian ruler brought up perfectly fits the situation. He did not want to terrify the people info another rebellion, but fear and threat of force was needed to keep things stable and orderly, which France needed more than anything.
As I had mentioned in the previous question, he and the institution of the army clearly embodied the popular values of the nation and of the revolution. Specifically, he furthered the revolutionary principle of equality, which can be seen in his new domestic policies while Consulate. In the Concordat of 1801, for example, he acknowledged that Catholicism was the religion of the majority of the people but AFFIRMED RELIGIOUS TOLERATION FOR ALL. This idea of toleration for all types of people and religions was furthered in the Napoleonic Code (1804). It established a uniform legal system to replace the outdated and inequitable medieval system. Emphasizing the revolutionary principles of equality, the Code created equal treatment before the la, provide religious toleration to Protestants and Jews (o word?!?!? That’s groundbreaking in itself, dontchathink?), and abolishing serfdom and feudalism. No longer could people be oppressed by outdated social systems anymore, and the relief for peasants and the lower classes had just begun. Napoleon, in addition to the creation of the Bank of France, made it a law that EVERYONE was expected to pay taxes. There were no more tax exemptions because of birthright. By collecting taxes fairly, the people were treated equally and the financial debt began to become paid off. He is a saved France financially as well! Finally the “Legion of Honor” clearly illustrated that French society moved away from the privileges bestowed on individuals by birthright, and valued people equally. It was a society created by Napoleon for public recognition of those who had rendered distinguished military or civilian service to France and was based on merit, not social status. Anyone could be a member, rich or poor, noble or peasant, this was a time for social mobility/fusion and change.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to how Napoleon ruled his conquered territories, I tend to disagree that he conquered everyone mercilessly and established an oppressive dictatorship. Napoleon’s military genius and efficiency helped oust whatever was left of the Old Regime, which was a crucial step in the modernization of the continent. He sought to spread the ideas of the French Revolution and to extend his empire. Of course, when the interests of two nations collide there is conflict, but Napoleon never unleashed a bloody massacre or anything of the sort. For example, while at war against Europe, he knew France's naval power was not yet strong enough to confront the Royal Navy in the English Channel. Thus he proposed a military expedition to seize Egypt and thereby undermine Britain's access to its trade interests in India. He also wished to establish a French presence in the Middle East, with the ultimate dream of linking with a Muslim enemy of the British in India. He had to be ruthless to those who opposed him too! He and France were scarred and still trying to patch up the wounds left by the bloody Revolution. He wanted to make sure nothing like that ever happened again, and with good reason. Of course people make mistakes and mortals are fallible, but Napoleon was intelligent. His tactics and force took Europe by surprise, yet his goal was never to oppress and being a merciless tyrant. In order to achieve continental domination, however, sometimes he had to adopt dictatorial measures and use force to control his massive territory and many subjects.
ReplyDeleteThe lasting impact of Napoleon on Europe is unparalleled. Ultimately, and as many of my fellow historians have already mentioned, Napoleon was able to save the nation and preserve its power, while protecting it from its rivals. He inspired the French people to fight for their nation and effectively used the principles liberty, equality, and fraternity to restore France as a major power. Notably, Germany was greatly influenced by the Napoleonic era. He united Germany by abolishing the Holy Roman Empire and creating the Confederation of the Rhine. He reduced the number of German states and is referred to as “Grandfather of German Unity.” Chris, I totally agree with you! He inspired German unity and other feelings of nationalism as well. Nations would unify and grow stronger independently from one another in the upcoming decades. He helped lay the groundwork for the Age of Nationalism in Europe and the era paved the way for Romanticism. Also, after his defeat, the four great powers (England, Russia, Prussia, and Austria) and France met in Vienna in November 1814 (the Congress of Vienna) to draw up a peace settlement. They were all uneasy about what Napoleon had been able to accomplish and they needed to ensure order and stability to the continent. Even though it denied the principles of nationalism and democracy, the settlement lasted 100 years. Europe would not see another war on the Napoleonic scale until WWI in 1914. Without Napoleon there would be no France, but if there was something that managed to survive, it would be nothing like it is today. What do you think?
ReplyDeletethe interactive battle simulator was deffy one of the best included links!
ReplyDeleteNapoleon came into power at a much needed point, he had flaws as becoming too much of a military dictator and reversing some of the very concepts of law that the revolionists attempted to change. While Napoleon believed in tradition, his decision to bring back the class or aristocracy was not the best decision considering the amount of people (97%) that faught to end the existance or it. Napoleon also rewarded those who were loyal to him, this reminds me of looking back to AP US when presidents would assign people positions in their cabinet and office due to the support and loyalty that they recieved from people. This shows a bit of curruptivness and could be used as an example of him declaring himself as a supreme ruler.
ReplyDeleteYet while he controlled France as a state under military control, he accomplished many things and helped france improve from the horrific state that they were in. Napoleon helped with the rapid expansion of France and helped them fight off and win the six wars that they had been fighting towards the end of the Revolution. Napoleon dominated over Prussia, Austria, and Russia. He showed his power and strength as a stable leader by defeating the first collition. It was clear to me that Napoleon at times was on a one track path to power and control. while some of his control helped out the citizens of France, for example, Napoleon's code allowed all citizens of France with the same equal and basic rights. This meant that no matter what social class a citizen was in, they all had the same basic rights( idea brought up during the enlightenment by people such as lock and hobbs.) Napoleon helped the revolionists gain land for france and rights as humins. I also believe that as others have said, that the revoltionists were fighting a much greater war than they could handle. Not only were they fighting six different nations at one point but they were also demanding many things that were not possible to be changed during this point. But Napoleon can not be considered a horrible dictator soley, because he helped France move out of the tragic slump that they had sunken into.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Naz and Jose that Napoleon dictated France as he saw fit. The French Revolution was an extremely messy ordeal and needed to move forward. Napoleon did the best that he could with the circumstances that was left with. Napoleon was able to conjure the inspiration of France to change and turn it into a fight to preserve its country's power to protect their rise back to stability.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that during the entire French Revolution and Napoleon's rule, the people of France thought that they were acting rationally and that their actions were for the best interest of the people of France, and yet accomplished a greater number of deaths in their nation than effective reforms.Napoleon was a neccessity following the Revolution and did the best that was available to come from him, while he did not fully move ahead( putting the catholic church back at the head of the state) he found little ways to keep the country from further running a-muck.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjpbatVfG-g&feature=fvst
ReplyDeletecool video and has good maps post the six collitions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCVfaGmpeak
ReplyDeletei know it's late, but i thought this was somewhat relevant. Enjoy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI ultimately would agree with the majority in saying that Napoleon was a destroyer for a multitude of reasons. Firstly he took control of France while the country was struggling both economically, and internally in the government. Rather than taking over, and attempting to build up a stronger infrastructure, and political stability Napoleon saw it as a chance to gain power and complete control over a collapsing nation. He did not take in regard the people, and their essential needs. He rather did what he felt was "necessary" like applying censorship in literary works, and newpapers.He attempted to destroy any and all revolutionary thought. As he also hired secret police, and had many killed in attempt to maintain "control" over a country in which he felt was political unsound and chaotic. Ultimately making me believe he never had the people first in his mind but rather he held himself. One must foremost take into consideration the people before one can evaluate and assume what is truly necessary for advancement and true progression which Napoleon truly never did. Ultimately making the difference between him being a "Savior" or as many have come to know him as a "Destoyer".
ReplyDeletepolitically unsound*
ReplyDeleteI definitely have to agree with the majority of the post here. Napoleon was more of a "destroyer" than a "savior". Granted he did unify France and spread nationalism, but that doesn't over write his power hungry-ness and dictatorship. Napoleon like said from everyone else, stripped away democracy. The French gave up freedoms for security and that allowed forNapoleon to take more power. Not only did he have power over France, he put his family members on the throne of other countries and nations. This allowed for extra support when he needed it. That showed his disregard of other countries and used them for his personal gain only. Napoleon was more interested in his own rise than of France's.
ReplyDeleteI found this comic funny as it pokes fun at the height of Napoleon.
ReplyDeletehttp://napoleon.thepodcastnetwork.com/2011/10/21/how-tall-was-napoleon/
after doing this assignment I felt like looking further into it, and seeing what would truly make Napoleon a savior or a destroyer. In this article both sides are argued quite well and found it very informative.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=22915