irishcrusader95

its a simple question, do you feel that the people of europe were better or worse under Napoleonic France, this being the places that were either annexed by france or were satellite states. i hope this will get an Inquisition discussion going and we can examine the effects but i feel any good answer is not going to be a simple yes or no as there will be ups and downs to it so what do you think?

my own view is that yes it was based on the liberal views that were brought to these areas which ended the feudalistic ways of old
-the jews were emancipated and given equal rights
-freedom of religion was guaranteed
-state torture was outlawed
-all people regardless of birthright were given equal rights
-the privileges of the nobles and clergy was abolished
-abolished serfdom

i understand that some may counter that by saying the people though were now taxed heavily and recruited as soldiers, that may be but would not there old sovereigns have done that as well if they were still under them. i contrast this as well with what happened in some areas once they were 'liberated' from napoleon.
for instance in spain when king Ferdinand took back the throne, being deeply conservative he first abolished the constitution drawn up by the Cortes. he then began persecuting anyone seen as being liberal and brought back the interesting. things were worse in italy when the sardinian king Emmanuel took over northern italy. the university in Turin was closed down, he decreed a return to the laws of 1770 which meant a return of flogging, torture, quartering and breaking on the wheel, along with ecclesiastical courts. all legal transaction that had taken place since 1789 such as sales of property, mortgages, contracts and inheritances were declared null and void and this was only reversed when the king was warned that his state would then cease to function

SPERRO

Iam not expert to European politics of this period, so I will start the replies as follows.

I think Napoleon took advantage of the petty rivalrys between the German principalities. His incorporation of these seperate states into the confederation of the Rhine was for the most part, resented. The Saxons were probably the most resentfull.

With major military enemies such as Prussia and Austria, the Confederation states were a 'Buffer' to their threats to some extent.

Darth Roach

I believe he was quite progressive in some ways, but he could never have held his empire together, due to his megalomania and the deep resentment against him held by every aristocrat in Europe.

jeroenrottgering

Yes I think it was. Although some may view Napoleon's look on society abit oldfashioned in comparison to the Revolutionary ideals, it was still an immense improvement on the rest of Europe. Your birth did no longer matter, but what you achieved in life. His nobility was no longer measured by who your parents were, but what you contributed to the state. Serfdom was abolished, no religion could be discriminated against anymore (even the Jews). His own family shared Napoleon's liberal ideas and put them in action in the by them controlled regions. And so the conservative ways of the old rulers were replaced by progressive ways by the new rulers. But we have to be honoust their was also such a thing as concription and although it was low, it was still their.

But overall I think people were better of under Napoleonic Europe instead of Ancien Regime Europe.

Also Napoleon improved the life of the EUropeans by other measures such as:

- Introduction of the surnames
- Metric system
- A fair justice system
- Better roads
- Sewers
- National registers
- National banks
- Etc

irishcrusader95

german nationalist did indeed resent the french presence and this actually lead to a greater desire for a unified germany yet you can see though that after the wars many germans equally resented the now prussian presence which had replaced the french. the saxons lost half their state to prussia and during the hundred days the saxon contingent of the prussian army almost mutinied over the bad treatment they were getting from the rest of the army. the view of the prussian-russian army sweeping in and liberating germany is played up too much and the reality was that other germans just saw it as another foreign presence. the german poet Goethe was so dismayed at the depredations of the supposed liberators in his home town of Weimar that he is recorded as saying-
"the medicine is worse then the illness"
holding any sort of european federation together would have been difficult and the rising nationalist feeling of many germans was evident yet at the same time they still hung back and even during the campaign of 1813 the allies expressed dismay and the lack of response to the calls for a war of liberation and there were little uprising against french rule, rather most states switched over once they found the allies on their doorstep.
that's something else i want to ask, i'm aware of the internal reforms made in france and the building projects yet what was the story in the satellite states such as the kingdom of italy and confederation of the Rhine. was a banking system set up here as well and public works improved?

*i should note as well that there's a small mistake in the OP were i say
he then began persecuting anyone seen as being liberal and brought back the interesting

stupid auto-spell check does it again!, that should be Inquisition

i also think this thread is probably better placed in the european history section so maybe a mod could please fix that

SPERRO

Getting down to basics for a moment, the systems that were introduced by Napoleon, were probably welcomed to some extent by the common people. However, when it came down to large garrisons for the french army, their supplies were taken from the surrounding countryside. This left the population wanting, so eventually the french presence would come to be despised.

If the Napoleonic European 'Empire' was to survive, the reforms introduced would need to be substantial to make things 'stick'.

irishcrusader95

any foreign military presence is going to be resented no matter who it is. so far as i know there was not much public disorder in germany other then maybe some students published pamphlets calling for the liberation of germany. how much of these reforms remained as well after the wars. i know for instance that the jews were forced back into the ghettos in germany yet what of the other liberal reforms like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. its interesting how the 'public opinion' in the years after became a common thing to be considered when monarchs were making decisions as the people were no longer the simple serfs but would now question things and the french revolution showed that people could rise up if pushed hard enough.

sylla1

You can't be serious.

The answer is simple, but fans are simply not going to like it.

Europe was exponentially worse, including some hundreds of thousands of casualties worse.

In economic terms, it was a total chaos (even leaving aside the absurd Continental System); his eternal universal conquest wars could only be paid at the expense of the systematic shameless exploitation of the whole continent.

In social terms, serfdom was often abolished only de Jure and slavery was notoriously reintroduced.
The old feudal nobility was displaced just for political reasons, and largely (but not entirely) replaced by his own brand new and naturally privileged nobility.

His empire was absolutely autocratic, hardly "liberal" (aside from some own self-promotion as First Consul); he was the first one to break his own laws whenever so was required.

And torture was of course widely used (legal or not) by his Gestapo-like secret policy services.

BTW, Fernando VII was certainly utterly conservative & incompetent, but the Constitution of Cadiz 1812 made by the core of the national opposition that so bravely neutralized his Grande Armée at Spain was extremely liberal, the top of its time.

In the long run, even his positive measures (like the abolition of the Spanish Inquisition) tended to be counterproductive, because such measures were identified with the brutal French oppression; meaning in practice that the Inquisition, which was already in frank decline, got some decades of additional oxygen from its identification with the popular fight against such an obviously unjustifiable imperialistic invasion. Thomas Jefferson
(On Buonaparte's first imprisonment at Elba, from a letter to John Adams. vi, 352 July 1814.)

irishcrusader95

back to this again are we, attacking my character will not do any good and is there really any way to have a civil conversation with you not judging what my motives or agenda is?
can you be more specific then that, how exactly. if you mean by war well then war is war but i'm asking here about what it was like for the people while under french rule.
you are correct as the continental system did make a mess of many nations economy yet we do know that a lot of smuggling was used and its been said that it encouraged more home industry which i'm curios to know how successful or not that was?
was that in the colony or did people in europe keep slaves as well?
yes but i believe the reforms allowed for ordinary people who had the brains to get ahead in life where as before all the posts went to those in the nobility, the view of the french army prior to the revolution is an example as it was more of a private club for the nobility who many know nothing of there profession.
can you be more specific here, were and how was it used?
[quote]
BTW, Fernando VII was certainly utterly conservative & incompetent, but the Constitution of Cadiz 1812 made by the core of the national opposition that so bravely neutralized his Grande Armée at Spain was extremely liberal, the top of its time.

not sure what Wellingtons reasoning was but he said of it that it was "amongst the worst of the modern productions of that nature"
its abolition was still well intended so that effect it actually had is irrelevant.

irishcrusader95

double post