jeroenrottgering

Well he undid some reforms of the revolution but he also introduced many. In most of the countries he conquered their was no such a thing as a free citizen. When Napoleon came along he introduced the Code Napoleon and so citizen were not longer at the mercy of the governments. He restored the aristocracy because he saw that Europe was not ready for a full democracy yet and the Aristocracy was a good working system he could control. But don't think he did it because he loved them so much and because he liked balls, because he hated that. The wars he began were not all his fault. In most cases the British started countless of coalitions to oppose France. Napoleon had to react otherwise they might have invaded France. The rest of his campaign were mostly because he wanted to introduce civility in countries their was none and when his allies betrayed him like Russia did. I don't think it really inflicted the economy because during and after their was an enormous explosion called "the Industrial Revolution".

But of course with every leader in history you have people who see him as hero and those who see him as a tyrant.

spellbanisher

It is true that he introduced many reforms. The most important was the principle of equality before the law. He also introduced some educational reforms, although that was just for a few elite. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I believe his reforms were based on four or five pillars or foundations of society, which were something like church, aristocracy, fatherhood, and monarchy. The fatherhood pillar was the worst reform, because it meant a rollback of many of the rights that women had achieved during the revolution. The aristocracy originally was one of merit, but it eventually devolved into a hereditary one, although that occurred mostly during the Restoration.

Whether or not the wars were his fault was debatable. Napoleon was very ambitious, as evidenced in his writings; in his personal diaries he says that "My power proceeds from my reputation, and my reputation from the victories I have won. My power would fall if I were not to support it with more glory and more victories." England was ostensibly responsible, but Napoleon was engaging in his own hostile activities. I'll quote Gordon Wright's France in Modern Times:

"Superficially, the fault was England's for refusing to evacuate Malta in accordance with the peace terms. England's stubbornness, however, was inspired by the obvious fact that Bonaparte was not ready to rest content with the share of Europe he already controlled. During the year of peace he annexed Piedmont outright, tightened his domination of satellite Switzerland, embarked on a series of intrigues in the German states, and sent an agent to the Near East to explore possibilities for extending French influence there."

It's debatable whether or not Napoleon was justified in doing these things or not. I believe that his ambition was to ever extend his power, so peace would have never lasted long while he reigned.

As far as economic progress, that is debatable. England did industrialize, but the rest of Europe didn't really catch up until decades later. England had the advantage of being an island, so their lands were not devastated by the Napoleonic wars. However, it could be argued that the nationalist movements ignited by the Napoleonic conquests unified European regions in a way that made industrialization possible. The argument that the Napoleonic wars set Europe back economically stem mainly from the fact that much of the infrastructure in continental Europe was damaged or destroyed in the wars, in addition to the millions of young men that died.


It also must be remembered that when Napoleon was deposed the Bourbon monarchy was restored. There have been many additional revolutions since then. In France, at least, Napoleon's role in the revolution is slightly overstated.

Finally, I don't think one needs to see Napoleon as a hero or as a tyrant. There have been Napoleonic myths (like that he was the embodiment of the French Revolution), and countermyths (he was the worst dictator that ever lived). As is usually the case, the actual history is not so tidy and very very messy.

jeroenrottgering

I don't wholly agree with you here. Napoleon introduced a lot of Lyceums, he introduced a law so that Priests could no longer perform the profession of teacher and so removed the powerful grip of the Catholic church. Thereby students could specialize more into one proffesion like a military career, law, medicine etc.

Napoleon loved order and so also in the family. He looked at how the Romans did it with the Patre Familias and found it a good working system. Of course for woman this was a setback but also like in the rest of Europe woman rights would evolve later in the late 19th and early 20th century. He did no more then what the rest of Europe was doing. And like I said his love for order and power was greater then his hatred against the Aristocracy and he saw in the Aristocracy a good way of ruling, but not because he liked them so much. I don't know if you know much about Napoleons court life well that was far from Aristocratic. He left the table directly when he finished his foot, often he showed some rude behavior and he disliked etiquette's.

He was ambitious indeed, but his ambition reach further then just color the map of Europe blue. His ambition was to make Europe like he wanted: stabilized, free and civilized. His wars that came out of his own intentions were based on these three values.

All true but England had no reason to worry. If they hadn't messed things up with the treaty of Amiens then Napoleon would not have made it his life purpose to oppose Britain. But England has always tried to intervene on continent affairs: Hundred Years war, seven years war, Napoleonic wars, first world war, second world war etc.

Here do opinions differ.


Well the point that England developed better because they weren't inflicted by the Napoleonic war is not entirely true. First of all Britain spend millions (at that time a lot of money) trying to support the coalition partners in their campaign this damaged their economy seriously. Secondly Britain had something the rest of Europe had but in a much smaller scale, they had the "British Empire" that extended over large parts of the earth and with that Empire they could bring up a strong economy and so a strong industry. Even without the Napoleonic wars continental Europe still would have been decades behind Britain because the just didn't had the means. But of course I admit that the Napoleonic wars had influence, but I don't think significant influence.


Yes their have, but I think Napoleon laid the basis for them to come.

True true but everyone has his hero I think

spellbanisher

"True true but everyone has his hero I think "
...

duskbrood

Though Napoleon was a great general, I think that someone else would have stepped up had he not. The French Revolution was such a powerful force it would have continued.

jeroenrottgering

In what way if I may ask, because many governments hold their people seized off of the ideas of the revolution. Napoleon overthrew those governments and so they could never restore themselves like before the pre-Napoleonic era and so the people could develop themselves. Well of course after napoleon you had the restoration governments but those didn't hold out very long. So I think their was a war needed to have spread the ideas of the revolution. Besides the revolution in Holland (that was crushed by the Prussians) I can not recall another revolution in Europe before Napoleon. But if you can then I am willing to hear it.

Fourteen

Apart from the fact that there would have been enormous early leaps in feminism, slavery, greater suffrage, it would really be speculative. I wouldn't say it would have failed, but certainly one would require a strong leader to carry out a successful coup d'etat - that said, I believe without Sieyès, Napoleon would not have been able to stage the coup d'etat.

However, while we're on the topic of Napoleon not being there for the Revolution - it in fact very well did happen, almost.

Most of us know the story of La Pérouse: he was commissioned by Louis XVI to embark on a political and scientific investigation in the Pacific; this included finding out more about potential planned English activity around what is today, of course, Australia. The expedition left in 1785. In 1788 - after exploring and sailing to Alaska, Japan, and dropping of de Lesseps at Petropavlovsk (who became thus the only survivor), he arrived in Australia. In fact, he came to Botany Bay, where landed four days after the First Fleet. He could not enter the bay due to the weather, and it so happened that Arthur Phillip, the Governor, returned at the same time. They did not meet personally, but La Perouse was given a few supplies, and likewise the expedition's valuable documents were able to be sent back to France - through the English ships.

Of course, La Pérouse was never seen again. The expedition vanished somewhere in the pacific; anyway, the point of all this is that a young Napoleon, a few years back (in 1785), at the tender age of 16, had applied to join the expedition. He made the preliminary list, but did not successfully continue. As we've done, one wonders just what might have happened...

Fourteen

I wouldn't exactly say that; while his plans led France ultimately to be forced to concede to the Coalition, and thus resulting in the Bourbon Restoration, a different ruler may successfully have resolved peace and established or continued a republican France.