NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

THIS PAPER IS THE WORK OF MAHLOSANE (NDUMISO MAGAGULA)
THE UNIVERSITY OF SWAZIOLAND
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

CONTACTS: http://mahlosanemagagula.blogspot.com
http://magagulandumisomahlosane.blogspot.com
mgwaja@gmail.com
mahlosane@yahoo.com
132614@uniswacc.uniswa.sz
+268-6530510



Napoleon
French Napoléon Bonaparte orig. Italian Napoleone Buonaparte

Napoleon in His Study, by Jacques-Louis David, 1812; in the National …
(credit: Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., the Samuel H. Kress Collection; photograph, Giraudon/Art Resource, New York)
(born Aug. 15, 1769, Ajaccio, Corsica—died May 5, 1821, St. Helena Island) French general and emperor (1804–15). Born to parents of Italian ancestry, he was educated in France and became an army officer in 1785. He fought in the French Revolutionary Wars and was promoted to brigadier general in 1793. After victories against the Austrians in northern Italy, he negotiated the Treaty of Campo Formio (1797). He attempted to conquer Egypt (1798–99) but was defeated by the British under Horatio Nelson in the Battle of the Nile. The Coup of 18–19 Brumaire brought him to power in 1799, and he installed a military dictatorship, with himself as First Consul. He introduced numerous reforms in government, including the Napoleonic Code, and reconstructed the French education system. He negotiated the Concordat of 1801 with the pope. After victory against the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo (1800), he embarked on the Napoleonic Wars. The formation of coalitions of European countries against him led Napoleon to declare France a hereditary empire and to crown himself emperor in 1804. He won his greatest military victory at the Battle of Austerlitz against Austria and Russia in 1805. He defeated Prussia at the Battles of Jena and Auerstedt (1806) and Russia at the Battle of Friedland (1807). He then imposed the Treaty of Tilsit on Russia, ending the fourth coalition of countries against France. Despite his loss to Britain at the Battle of Trafalgar, he sought to weaken British commerce and established the Continental System of port blockades. He consolidated his European empire until 1810 but became embroiled in the Peninsular War (1808–14). He led the French army into Austria and defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Wagram (1809), signing the Treaty of Vienna. To enforce the Treaty of Tilsit, he led an army of about 600,000 into Russia in 1812, winning the Battle of Borodino, but was forced to retreat from Moscow with disastrous losses. His army greatly weakened, he was met by a strong coalition of allied powers, who defeated him at the Battle of Leipzig (1813). After Paris was taken by the allied coalition, Napoleon was forced to abdicate in 1814 and was exiled to the island of Elba. In 1815 he mustered a force and returned to France to reestablish himself as emperor for the Hundred Days, but he was decisively defeated at the Battle of Waterloo. He was sent into exile on the remote island of St. Helena, where he died six years later. One of the most celebrated figures in history, Napoleon revolutionized military organization and training and brought about reforms that permanently influenced civil institutions in France and throughout Europe.
For more information on Napoleon, visit Britannica.com. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15, 1769. He was born on the small Italian Island of Corsica in the Mediterranean Sea. He was born at a very hectic time. Corsica was trying to gain independence when French troops invaded. He was born during a war, and he will die because of one.
When he turned ten his parents sent him to a military school, just outside of Paris. He devoted himself to learning and gaining experience to military tactics. All of this work eventually paid off. When he was sixteen, he became a lieutenant in the artillery. By the time he was twenty-four, he was a general. Revolution broke out the same year. He joined the military of the French Republic.
In October of 1705, a government official told Napoleon to defend the palace where the National Convention took place. He, with his small army, defeated the thousands of royalist in minutes. He is declared a hero. In 1796, the Directory appointed him to command a French army. He marched into Italy and liberated it from Austria, although some say he conquered it.
The Directory was not doing very well. In 1799, it accused the French people of being corrupt. Napoleon seized this opportunity to take it over. On Novembe
. . .
View the whole essay, without interruption
Napoleon then made the first of the three costly mistakes that would end his regime. r 9, 1799, he staged a coup d’ état and 500 soldiers took over one chamber of the National Legislature and drove out the members. Napoleon named himself First Consul. Davout's III Corps, which was around 29,000 strong, was following orders to cut off the Prussian line of retreat from Jena. Fierce fighting developed around these two villages.
Napoleon wanted to take over all of Europe, and he almost did.
On September 10, 1805, General Mack invaded Bavaria and occupied the city of Ulm with his 85,000 men.
Austria had been soundly defeated at Austerlitz in 1805. com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. Napoleon sent orders for all Corps to concentrate there by 14 October.
The Grande Army, which was now 200,000 strong, was assembled in camps all along the English Channel coast. The Battle of Trafalgar was his first loss because it was on water. Napoleon escaped from Elba and proclaimed that the French will be liberated with his help.
Napoleon as an Enlightened Despot
Enlightened despotism is defined as the theory that a ruler should rule in such a way as to efficiently better the lives of the people and the state. This theory comes from the enlightenment itself, and was a social revolution in terms of government. Rulers such as Maria Theresa of Austria, and Catherine the Great all worked toward the betterment of society, at times using their absolute rule to enforce this system of improvement. Napoleon is a classic example of such a ruler and clearly throughout his rule, exhibits the characteristics of an enlightened despot.
The first example of Napoleon’s despotism is seen in the multitude of military conflicts in which France was involved during his rule. Using the absolute rule which an enlightened despot possesses, he successfully def
. . .
View the whole essay, without interruption
In the case of France, a predominantly Roman Catholic country, the Pope granted religious investigure by coronation. The creation of a national bank system, as well as the simplification of the judicial system are two prime examples of the improvements that France underwent as a result of Napoleon’s rule. However, Napoleon chose to alter this trend when he wrested the crown from the hands of the pope and placed it on his own head. This indicates that Napoleon is not indebted to a higher power, that he is the ultimate authority, a classic sign of a despot.
Furthermore, evidence of the totalitarian and despotic nature of Napoleon’s rule can be seen in his coronation ceremony.
In contrast to the harsh rule imposed on the country by the despot, Napoleon, there were also a great amount of civic improvements that accounts for the “enlightened” portion of the title applied to Bonaparte. This dichotomy allows the title of “enlightened despot” to be applied most accurately to the French leader Napoleon Bonaparte. A democratic or republican government would have required votes and debate as to involvement in these numerous wars, however, under Napoleon’s rule, simply his desire to expand the French empire led to these campaigns, which resulted in the French continental empire stretching from southern Spain all the way to the Polish frontier. In addition, the codified system of laws known as the “Napoleonic Code” would come into effect and continue to be used to this day. At this point in the development of the monarchical structure of European society, it was common, if not necessary, for the monarch to receive endorsement from a religious power.
In conclusion, it can be said that Napoleon Bonaparte possessed many ruthless characteristics, namely the jingoistic attitude toward foreign relations, evidenced in his conflicts with Austria, Russia and Prussia. However, this, and the totalitarian attitude that he was not indebted to a higher power for his rule was balanced out by the civic and social improvements enacted in France. Subsequently, he crowned his wife queen
Napoleon's downfall
Overcoming the Impeding Factor to a Dominate Napoleonic Empire
“Oh, why could not this man (admiral Suffren, 1726-88) have lived in my time! Or why could I not find someone of his mold? I would have made him our Nelson, and things would have had a different turn . But I spent all my time looking for the man the navy needed without ever finding him. There is in the naval profession a specialized, technical mentality which blocked all my plans. ……According to them, one has to be born in the navy to understand anything about it.”
The preceding quote illuminates the fact that the only impediment to Napoleon’s quest for world domination was his inability to win the battle between the elephant and the whale. Though some might argue that the Royal Navy’s control on European waters was so strong that Napoleon would never be given the opportunity to even tarnish the British Empire directly, Napoleon could have used indirect tactics to help control and even diminish the power of Britain. In fact, if Napoleon had simply implemented the Continental System correctly by developing a structured naval institution, consolidating his empire, and industrializing, than he might have gained an advantage in
. . .
View the whole essay, without interruption
With control of access to southern Europe, Napoleon could enforce the Continental System more effectively and continue to chip away at the British economy. ” Due to the fact that the British military had always depended on their navy, there were various institutions in place that would ensure that British naval commanders were skilled and disciplined at sea.
Despite all of the circumstances that may have hindered the effect of the Continental System, Napoleon’s indirect approach to defeating the battle between the elephant and the whale could have been accomplished if Napoleon had set long –term goals for Continental System. This illuminates the fact that if continental Europe was still dependent on British goods, then the effects of the continental system will not only hurt Britain but also Europe as a whole. As a result, country’s like Russia and France would be left with no other choice but to breach the Continental System to sustain their own respective economies. After the treaty of Tilsit in 1808, the Napoleonic Empire was actually void of any immediate threat, which should have been sustained by Napoleon. Given all the newly gained resources in Napoleon’s Empire, it was possible for France to consolidate these resources and create an industrialized state that would rival the economy of Britain.
Another measure that would need to be undertaken to keep the continental system stable, is to consolidate the Napoleonic empire without engaging and new enemies. As a result, if these three measures were focused on and developed over time, than the Continental System would truly begin to take its toll on Britain. Without the resources from Europe, Britain truly would suffer the expected effects of the Continental System and would slowly be depleted of its resources, leaving Britain in a vulnerable position. For example, in 1807, Britain moved against Denmark when it became known there was a French move to grab the Danish fleet. First, the British were well aware of Napoleon’s increasing power in Europe, and therefore used their naval force to make sure that Napoleon could not enhance his military by gaining sea power. However, this time Napoleon would have to send a larger army to ensure that Ireland stay under French control. For example, if Napoleon had taken the initiative to actual attempt to consolidate his empire, instead of letting his tactical success “conquer himself to death”, then France would be allowed the opportunity to focus on developing a navy to control trade in local waters.
History Essay - Napoleon and the French Revolution
Was Napoleon An Heir to the French Revolution?
Of all the Events of European history, the French Revolution of 1789 is without doubt one of the most important and controversial. Similarly Napoleon Bonaparte has to be amongst the most written on and opinion dividing individuals world history has ever seen. Therefore the question as to weather Napoleon was an heir to the revolution, its saviour, hijacker, or simply consolidator is probably the most frequently asked question regarding the revolution and Napoleon.
In this essay I will be attempting to answer the question of weather Napoleon was an heir to the French Revolution. This will involve me firstly exploring my definition of the term heir, and my views on the explanations and definitions of the French Revolution. Having done this I will then move on to examine the reign of Napoleon. By doing this I hope to prove my view that, whilst Napoleon may be considered an inevitable consequence of the revolution, he was not its heir.
In my opinion the word heir describes a person’s or events natural successor. Therefore the term heir to the revolution would in my opinion be used to describe the next regime, which came to embody the principles and morals of the revolution. The revolution's heir must be the regime that follows on from were the revolution left France, and presides over, or creates the kind of society the revolutionaries of 1789 intended to. It is my belief that Napoleon and the Napoleonic regime did not either preside over or create this kind of society and as such Napoleon cannot be considered an heir to the French Revolution. In order for this view to be qualified the next aspect we need to look at, is the various definitions and interpretations of the French Revolution.
Put simply the French Revolution was, when in 1789 the old Ancien regime was overthrown, and France went from a monarchy-governed state to a republic. After this, France went through a number of different stages in terms of forms and types of government. The revolutionary government of 1789-1793 was the most immediate, until between 1793-1794, when Robespierre became the most powerful man in France overseeing the era known as the terror. This was followed by the Directory who ruled between the years 1794-1799, and this was the government Napoleon overthrew in the Coup of Brumaire on November 9-10th 1799.

Studying the history of these events has gone through many stages and significant changes, especially in the last fifty years or so. For a long time after the revolution, the most dominant form historiography on the subject was the Marxist interpretation. This interpretation went largely unchallenged until the 1950’s and the arrival of the first generation revisionists. This was essentially a critique of the Marxist interpretation. This was followed up in the 1960’s and 1970’s by what is often called second generation revisionism, as historians such as Blanning and Doyle began to look more closely at the Nobility as a social group and found new definitions for the events in the years after 1789 up to when Napoleon took power. The most
recent historical study on the subject is known as post revisionism and this tends to place more emphasis on matters such as chance than previous approaches whilst also stressing the importance played by the aspects such as popular culture and the psyche of the days society and influential groups and people. Of these approaches I find the Marxist interpretation most convincing and therefore I will now move on to briefly explore this, in order to portray my definition of the French Revolution.
The Ancien regime saw an absolute monarch with complete power, running a feudal based society and economy. The Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution states that it was in essence a power struggle between the middle classes or the bourgeoisie and the upper classes, aristocracy and the nobility. This is proven by the view that it was the Third Estate, which began the revolution and this was dominated by the bourgeoisie. It is claimed that they had been motivated by political ideology inspired by the enlightenment and the fact their economic wealth did not reflect their share of power. The declaration of the rights of man on the 24th August 1789 and the abolishing of the feudal system are often pointed out as them most important evidence that the revolution was a bourgeois one, overthrowing the feudal Ancien regime after a power struggle.
The degree to, and speed with which French society changed after this has been much debated among historians. Many historians continue to define the revolution as the whole of the period 1789 – 1799. Historians such as Geoffrey Ellis who points out how Napoleon himself declared at the Coup of Brumaire that:
“Citizens the revolution is established on the principles which began it. It is finished.”
However I believe that the revolution is defined as the result of the power struggle between the old Ancien regime, and the newly emerging bourgeois middle class. The revolution is defined by the events of 1789 and 1789 alone. The founding principles and morals of the revolution were that of the bourgeoisie, and these can best been seen by such documents as the declaration of the rights of man, the decree abolishing the feudal system, the Cashier de Doleances referring to the middle classes, and the actions and constitution of the revolutionary government up until 1793 and the beginning of the terror.
Having established my definition of the French Revolution, it is first important not to gloss over without mention to the years 1793 – 1799, before going on to look at the nature of the Napoleonic regime itself. Inmy view these years can in essence be described as a crisis created by panic and a power vacuum. The execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793 created much panic within and outside France leading to foreign war and numerous insurgencies and political divisions inside France itself. In these years France became almost ungovernable and the terror can be seen purely as a reaction to the threats the new French Republic was facing. The era of the Directory, in my view, is summed up by the fact that, the revolution was under threat from Jacobins, Monarchists, foreign invaders, and the mass of the French population tired of war and political upheaval. Therefore the bourgeoisies tried to create a strong government that could defeat all of these enemies. However such a task soon proved impossible and with the coup of Brumaire in November 1799, France was once again to be ruled by a single authoritarian leader.
Having now explained my understanding of the term heir to the revolution, my definition of the FrenchRevolution, and briefly looked at the years before Napoleon came to power, I will now go on to look at the Napoleonic regime and convey my argument as to why I do not believe it is correct to describe Napoleon as an heir to the French Revolution. In order to prove this I will look the Napoleonic regime from two different viewpoints namely, politically and economically.
Up until the second half of the twentieth century historical study on Napoleon nearly always came down to historians being either for or against Napoleon. Some believed he was the revolution’s saviour, whilst others believed he was its destroyer. However such an approach came to be seen as inadequate and the political and social aspects of the Napoleonic regime began to be put under closer scrutiny in an attempt to better understand its nature. Today’s historians often look closely at the personality and motivations of Napoleon, subjects which previous generations have offered little on. Looking at Napoleon from a political point of view, there is much evidence to support the view he was not an heir to the revolution. Many recent historical studies on Napoleon, such as Correlli Barnett’s 1997 work Bonaparte, look closely at Napoleon’s character and motivations, and are often (as in this case) very critical of him. Studies such as these convey the view that Napoleon had very little political or ideological motivation in taking power, but was only concerned with gaining glory for France, its people, and himself.
I would largely agree with this view and claim there are many pieces of evidence to support it. Firstly is the fact that Napoleon always presented himself as a man above the revolution and the political factions it created. He never allied himself closely with any of the groups involved in French politics between 1789-1799, and one can look at Napoleon from an almost Machiavellian point of view and say that, this was a conscience decision on his part, taken to avoid becoming compromised, and thus allowing him to eventually take power.
Indeed looking at the political nature of the Napoleonic regime only supports this view further. On December 2nd 1804 Napoleon crowned himself emperor of France and this reveals two important things. Firstly it meant that Napoleon was now a single authoritarian leader with absolute power. The ethos of democracy, which had been the founding principles of all the revolutionary forms of government since 1789, had been disregarded completely. This was evident from as early as 1800 when Napoleon’s reforms of local government reduced the role of the electorate to simply producing a list of candidates for the legislation assembly, from which the government would select the members. After the revolution the franchise had been extended to almost all male citizens and these action are in direct contradiction to the ideologies of the bourgeois revolutionaries of 1789. In fact I believe its fair to say that all of Napoleon’s action during his reign were aimed at him keeping hold of power. As Clive Emsley says in Napoleon:
“An underlying, unifying element to many, perhaps most of the reforms... was the desire to foster and maintain loyalty to the regime.”
The second thing this event revealed was how Napoleon saw himself. When the pope went to crown him, Napoleon took the crown away from his hands and placed the crow upon his own head. The message was clear; he was the embodiment of the people and as such their natural leader. Such a belief in more in keeping with the beliefs of previous kings who believed they were ordained by god, than with the ideals of the liberal revolutionary bourgeoisies.The economic nature of the Napoleonic regime is often seen as the strongest area of support for those claiming Napoleon was an heir to the French Revolution. As historians such as Alexander Grab point out Napoleon implemented many economic reforms that both were bourgeois in nature, and did a lot to consolidate the gains the land owning classes made from the revolution. This is proven by the fact the reforms long outlasted the regime, as Grab himself puts it:
“Once Napoleon was gone, France and liberated Europe happily retained the efficient fiscal bureaucracies he had created.”
Indeed I will accept that the Code Napoleon of 1804 for example did do much to protect property rights and his wider economic policies were probably the for-runner of the European common market, which exists today. However I would still claim that such reforms were only made by Napoleon to keep the bourgeoisies on side. Whilst doing this Napoleon also brought back the Catholic Church into a central position within French society with the Concordat with the Pope in 1802, and he even created a new Nobility in 1808. It is my view that, as bourgeois and successful as the economic reforms were, they were not created because of any political or moral ideology on Napoleon’s part, but should be seen as concessions to those who had brought about the revolution. Napoleon clearly made concessions to both sides, as the above examples illustrate, and as this proves his aim was not to create a democratic capitalist society, I believe he cannot be seen as an heir to the French Revolution.
If one were to go on, and look at Napoleon’s policy in Europe I believe that the same aims, goals, and methods would be found on the international scene. War was Napoleon’s main weapon here, and he used it to expand his and the French’s glory, whilst basking in the loyalty his undoubted military skills afforded him from the mass of the French population.
In conclusion I believe that the French Revolution was a bourgeoisie one. The nature, instability, and divided nature of the revolutionary government, popular sovereignty under Robespierre, and the directory, were down to the fact that no political culture of difference and debate existed in France in 1789, unlike in countries such as Britain. Therefore the struggle for power between the different factions of the revolutionary bourgeoisie became inevitable. As did, as in almost all revolutions, the eventual arrival of a dictator to restore order and stability. In the case of the French Revolution, Napoleon was that dictator. Whilst he implemented many long lasting, bourgeois in nature reforms, he did not create the kind of society that can be truly seen as the revolution’s heir. Perhaps a regime such as Napoleon’s was required to stop France from destroying itself, and perhaps, in one way, Napoleon can be seen as an heir of the revolution as he was in many respects the first non-ideologue modern day politician. However it is my view that the real heir to the French Revolution was the kind of capitalist, democratic nation state France has become today. As D. G. Wright correctly points out:
“Modern political parties and class conflict both have their origins in the French Revolution. So do liberal democracy, communism and fascism.”
The debate over Napoleon will be one, which can never be resolved. Some will always see him as the revolutions saviour, whilst others will continue to claim he was the predecessor of men like Hitler and Stalin. The political beliefs of the historian, unfortunately, normally dictate which conclusion they come to as regards Napoleon Bonaparte. In my view though the French Revolution created a new kind of world; the liberal democracies of today’s Europe can be considered its true heir. Napoleon was just its inevitable, short-term consequence.
History Essays - Find your free history essays...
To prove the quality of our work and assure you of the standards we adhere to we’ve given you some samples from our vast library of history essays from our free essays section.
• Back to custom essays...
NAPOLEON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

"We have finished the romance of the Revolution, we must
now begin its history, only seeking for what is real and
practicable in the application of its principles, and not
what is speculative and hypothetical."

After Brumaire (9-10 Nov. 1799) --the coup d'etat that first set Napoleon on the path to becoming the supreme executive of a French empire-- Napoleon declared, "The Revolution is made fast on the principles on which it began; the Revolution is finished." Since this famous utterance came so soon after he gained power, it is clear that Napoleon was saying something significant about what the role of his newborn regime would be to those, which had preceded it. Like the man himself, this quote and the one at the head of this page are both highly complex and ambiguous. He is declaring that the new regime was both a break from the immediate past and part of continuity with that past. What was Napoleon's relationship to the Revolution? To what extent was he its heir or its betrayer? Did he save the Revolution or liquidate it?
To begin it is necessary to determine what one means by "the Revolution". There was not one Revolution, but really a series of them, which occurred as the French, struggled to create a new political and social system. By the "Revolution" do we mean that of Barnave, or of Mirabeau, or Lafayette, or Brissot, or Danton, or Robespierre, or Hebert, or Tallien, of Babeuf, or Barras? All of these were men of the Revolution, yet they all held differing conceptions of what that” Revolution" was. I will be considering many of those fundamental principles, which guided most of these revolutionaries. In general, these principles include equal treatment under the law, one degree or another of centralization of the government, elimination of feudal rights; religious tolerance and careers open to talent not birth.
Georges Lefebvre wrote that the Emperor was "...a pupil of the philosophes, he detested feudalism, civil inequality, and religious intolerance. Seeing in enlightened despotism a reconciliation of authority with political and social reform, he became its last and most illustrious representative. In this sense he was the man of the Revolution." R. R. Palmer has observed that Napoleon considered the Jacobin government of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety the only serious government of the Revolutionary period. During the "Reign of Terror" Napoleon was strongly identified with the Jacobins. His
dialogue published in 1793, “LE SOUPER DE BEAUCAIRE”, championed the Jacobins over the federalist Girondins. What Napoleon admired were the Jacobins' strong centralized government, their commitment to deal decisively with the problems facing the fledgling republic, and their attempt to forge a strong stable France while winning the war against its enemies.
Napoleon clearly felt, like the Jacobins that an energetic centralized state was essential to consolidate the advances achieved by the Revolution and, at the same time, he wished to bring about the stability many French longed for after the upheavals of the past decade. In his eyes this meant the need for a strong executive. From 1799 until his death on the South Atlantic island of St. Helena, Napoleon spoke of himself as the man who had completed the Revolution. By this he meant that the basic goals of the Revolution enumerated above had been obtained and that now it was time to consolidate and
institutionalize those gains. France, after ten years of revolution, had still lacked the proper foundation upon which to institutionalize the revolutionary achievements until Napoleon provided it with his administrative framework.
"Bonaparte came, as he said, 'to close the Romance of the Revolution',” H.A.L. Fisher wrote, " to heal the wounds, to correct the extravagances, to secure the conquests. It was his boast that he did not belong to the race of the 'ideologues', that he saw facts through plain glass, and that he came to substitute and age of work for and age of talk...he would create a methodical government based upon popular consent, and conceived in the interests not of any particular faction but of France as a whole." As Napoleon himself explained to the Council of State in 1802: "I govern not as a general but because the nation believes that I have the civilian qualities necessary to govern. If I did not have this opinion, the government could not stand."
Napoleon is generally credited with having consolidated the gains of the Revolution ("With the exception of fathering the Civil Code, Napoleon perhaps gloried more in his reputation as consolidator of the Revolution than in any other one title," Robert B. Holtman observed). In this sense he can be credited with having 'saved' the Revolution by ending it. Had the Bourbons come back to power in 1799 instead of Napoleon, they would at that time had less trouble "turning back the clock" to the ancient regime than they had in 1814. As Francois Furet has put it, "Revolutionary France was indeed under the spell of the new sovereign, who was its son and had saved it from the danger of a restoration...France had finally found the republican monarchy toward which it had been groping since 1789." The Code Napoleon, one of the Emperor's most enduring achievements, embodied many of the principles of the Revolution and made them permanent.
To Prince Eugene, his viceroy in Italy, Napoleon wrote, "I am seeking nothing less than a social revolution." Feudalism was suppressed and careers were open to all those with ability regardless of birth ("Wherever I found talent and courage I rewarded it." Napoleon, 1816) Napoleon became the personification of the revolutionary aims of the bourgeoisie. He reformed and modernized French institutions (historian Jacques Godechot has said that with Napoleon the medieval era ended and modern history began). He brought much longed for order and stability to France and forged a sense of unity. He attempted to unite under his wing both the revolutionaries and the émigrés --nobles, clergy and others who chose or were forced to live in exile under the Revolution ("I became the arch of the alliance between the old and the new, the natural mediator between the old and the new orders...I belonged to them both." Napoleon. 1816). The sales of the lands taken from the nobles who had emigrated or been declared enemies of the state, from the Church, or from the Crown (the "biens nationaux") --an important benefit for the middle classes and the peasants of the Revolution-- were recognized not only in Napoleon's coronation oath, but also in the signing of the Concordat with the Pope. Robert B. Holtman observed, "This task of consolidation made Napoleon a conservative in France, desirous of keeping the gains of the Revolution, but a revolutionary in ancien regime areas abroad." It has been said that many of Napoleon's reforms were just continuations of reforms begun under the Revolution (just as it has been said that many of the reforms of the Revolution were continuations of those begun
during the ancien regime). It is important to keep in mind that Napoleon also brought these reforms to the countries with the Empire, where they were truly revolutionary. Owen Connelly has said that "Napoleon...was a conscious promoter of Revolution all over Europe. In fact, I firmly believe that this was the reason for his demise. He was, to the legitimate powers of Europe a crowned Jacobin...[These powers] were able to mobilize against him in the end the very people who stood to gain the most from the governments which Napoleon installed." The principles, which Napoleon inherited from the Revolution and consolidated in France, he exported to the countries, which fell under the French imperium. If Napoleon's reforms in France were no longer revolutionary, outside of France these same reforms were profoundly revolutionary (Goethe described Napoleon as "the Revolution crowned."). It had been the goal of many of the Revolution's leaders to "revolutionize" the rest of Europe. Napoleon accomplished this.
The principle of equality was recognized in the destruction of feudal rights and privileges in the Empire and in the submission of all members of society to a common sceme of justice, the Napoleonic Code. The Legion of Honour was also intended to foster equality, as well as reward talent. "...The establishment of the Legion of Honour, which was the reward for military, civil, and judicial service, united side by side the soldier, the scholar, the artist, the prelate, and the magistrate; it was the symbol of the reunion of all the estates, of all the parties." (LE MEMORIAL DE SAINTE-HELENE, 1821) The Emperor, as the supreme executive, was deemed the representative of the general will. This powerful executive was a feature also of the relationship between the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety, as well as the Legislature and the Directory. The Revolution, like Napoleon, bore a strong authoritarian streak.
"It was Napoleon's function in history to fuse the old France with the new,” H.A.L. Fisher observed. Napoleon declared that he wanted "to cement peace at home by anything that could bring the French together and provide tranquility within families." Like Mirabeau, Napoleon didn't see an incompatibility between the Revolution and monarchy. Napoleon did what the Bourbon King could not --reconcile the elements of the monarchy with elements of the Revolution-- which was the failed goal of Mirabeau in 1790. Napoleon was largely successful in attracting men from all parties --from ex-Jacobins to ci-devant nobles-- to his government. Signing the Concordat (15 July 1801) allowed Napoleon to reconcile the religious differences that had torn France apart during the Revolution. (At the same time, the Concordat insured religious freedom. It recognized Catholicism as the religion of the majority of the French, but did not make it an "established" religion as the Church of England was in Britain. Protestants an Jews were allowed to practice their religion and retain their civic rights.) A general amnesty signed by Napoleon (26 April 1802) allowed all but about one thousand of the most notorious émigrés to return to France. These two actions helped to bring relative tranquility to those areas of France that had long been at war with the Revolution. Albert Sobould has written that "stabilizing society on the fundamental base of the Revolution, [Napoleon] integrated the returned émigrés into a new social hierarchy; and, while reinforcing the principle of authority, he merged these émigrés into a new order which at first had been constructed against them.” What of liberty? Of the three key principles of the Revolution--liberty, equality, and fraternity-- it was liberty which suffered most under Napoleon. Historian Albert Vandal has observed that "Bonaparte can be reproached for not having established liberty; he cannot be accused of having destroyed it, for the excellent reason that on his return from Egypt he did not find it anywhere in France." The French desiring to safeguard what they had acquired during the Revolution, be it rights or property, wanted these guaranteed. Many felt that guarantee could come only with the restoration and preservation of order. They were willing to sacrifice their liberties for that guarantee, for that order. "In the absence of political liberty, he would assure Frenchmen of their individual rights. In the Napoleonic Code, he would sanctify equality, their dearest possession. He would keep most of the revolutionary institutions while at times amalgamating then with those of the Old Regime, which were restored but adapted. His work would prove so solid that it made any total restoration of the past impossible," wrote Albert Mathiez.
Napoleon was most of all a pragmatist, willing to adapt "what worked", whether it was borrowed from the Revolution or from the ancient regime. He dealt with the problems facing France in practical terms, not in the abstract ("To pursue a different course today would be to philosophize, not to govern." Napoleon, 1800). The solutions Napoleon came up with leave little doubt that he was the heir and preserver of the Revolution. Francois Furet has written that "...he was chosed by the Revolution, from which he received his strange power not only to embody the new nation (a power that others before him, most notably Mirabeau and Robespierre, had possessed) but also to fulfill its destiny." Napoleon had undoubtedly felt a revolution had been necessary. When it had achieved its purpose he felt that it was necessary to end the Revolution and begin the work of governing. He exported to those countries under French hegemony many of the achievements of the Revolution. He embodied these achievements in the Code Napoleon. Without the Revolution Napoleon, despite his talents, would have been no more than an obscure provincial military officer. He unified a country torn apart by ten years of political and religious strife ("All titles were forgotten; there were no londer aristocrats or Jacobins..." LE MEMORIAL DE SAINTE-HELENE, 1821). While liberty languished, he promoted equality and opened all careers to those with talent. "Risen to the throne," Chateaubriand wrote, "he seated the people there beside him. A proletarian king, he humiliated kings and nobles in his antechamber. He levelled ranks not by lowering but by raising them." He insured religious tolerance. He consolidated and preserved the gains of the Revolution. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that Napoleon "fell, but what was really substantial in his work lasted; his government died, but his administration continued to live...” The Bourbon Prince de Conde summed up Napoleon as "One-third philosophe, one-third Jacobin, and one-third aristocrat."

Questions
1. 1. What evidence is provided in the article that would prove the Napoleon was “the last and most illustrative representative” of enlightened despotism?
2. 2. What was it about the Jacobins and their political ideas that appealed to Napoleon?
3. 3. What is significant about the statement made by Robert Holtman in the article which claims that “saved the Revolution by ending it”?
4. 4. What political reforms and consolidations did Napoleon make that stabilized and strengthened France?
5. 5. Define the term “pragmatist”. What evidence is there in the article that shows us this might have been Napoleon’s greatest personal quality.

The French Revolution: A Success or Failure?

Once the Spring of 1789 came along, the long-coming conflict between the French monarchy and the aristocracy erupted into a revolution which would assure that neither France nor Europe would ever be the same politically or socially. At the beginning of the Revolution in France, after the calling of the Estates General, the objectives were the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and the abolishment of all feudal codes and taxes from the Old Regime. The Third Estate also wished to be equally represented in the national assembly, and another initial objective was equal taxation and bringing France out of bankruptcy.
Throughout the course of the revolution these objectives were modified mainly due to the Girondists assuming leadership in the National Constituent Assembly. As these groups emerged, they fought to protect the Revolution, and were determined to oppose the forces of counterrevolution. As the Girondists gained power, the main objective of the French Revolution was modified from desiring a constitutional monarchy, as before, and now wishing to establish a Republic. Throughout the many years of the Revolution, it is believed that the Revolution was a success. France abolished the absolutist rule of previous monarchs, and later ended the monarchy which had orignally been its goal. The fact that the Third Estate were granted the representation which they had been seeking was in itself a great success of the Revolution. The success also came from abolishing the feudal taxes which had plagued the Old Regime, the acquisitions of the churches land, and the reestablishment of successful taxation.
Nearing the end of the eighteenth century, the government of the Directory already in place, France was a very unstable nation, and there existed a wish of stability in France. The one force which was able to lead France into a more stable nation was the army, under Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon, did manage to maintain some of the objectives from the Revolution. One of these was ending the Old Regime and abolishing hereditary privileges. During the Old Regime, due to the fact that Napoleon wasn't of noble birth, he wouldn't have been able to ascend to a higher position, but by abolishing the Old Regime, this was now possible for him. Likewise, Napoleon also represented the antithesis of the Revolutionary aim. This was mainly due to the fact that he created an empire, crowning himself emperor.
The French Revolution reshaped society in France, and later affected all of Western Europe, mainly through Napoleons numerous war campaigns. France, and later, much of Europe, effectively ended the Old Regime and the absolutist monarchy. From the Revolution, the figure who emerged, Napoleon, both maintained these objectives, and also repudiated them. The Revolution guaranteed that France, as well as Western Europe would not remain the same.

(idea) by Sondheim (6 mon) (print)
(I like it!)
2 C!s Wed Feb 26 2003 at 14:20:01
The French Revolution: Moderate to Radical Stages
The French Revolution began in a peaceful, conservative way as a call for reform within the monarchy. After the Seven Years War and the American Revolution -in which France assisted with arms and funds - the country was nearly bankrupt. The monarchy was in a financial crisis and attempted to reform some of the tax exemptions that the clergy and the aristocracy enjoyed. To that end, Louis XVI called a meeting of the Estates-General in order to present these ideas formally. This was not necessary; France was not a constitutional monarchy.
The Third Estate, as well as liberal members of the other estates each drew up a list of grievances to present to the King. Among the reforms presented were the beginning of a national assembly that would meet on a regular basis, freedom of the press, and consent in matters of tax rates and many other points regarding personal freedom. In essence, the Estates-General asked for a constitutional monarchy to be established. Later on, it became clear that though both the liberal nobles and the Third Estate wanted reform, they disagreed as to the details of such reform.
This strife between the monarchy and the estates became a struggle between the first two estates and the Third Estate. Even though the Third Estate represented the majority of citizens of France, each estate only garnered a single vote when matters were decided upon. Consequently, the first two estates banded together on numerous occasions to block the moves to reform suggested by the Third Estate. This lopsided balance of power began to enrage many political figures of the Third Estate, as well as the liberal minority in the other estates.
Emmanuel Sièyes described the Third Estate as encompassing every type of individual necessary to establish a nation. The Third Estate included all of the occupations to sustain a viable society; however this very group had been overruled and ostracized to the outskirts of representative government. "The modest intention of the Third Estate is to have in the Estates-General an influence equal to that of the privileged" (Sièyes "What is the Third Estate"). It is clear that even at this point, the violence to come was not premeditated or foreseen.
When the demands of the Estates-General were not met, almost all of the members of the Third Estate and some of the clergy retired to a nearby tennis court to convene what would become known as the National Assembly. The nervous nobility, suddenly left alone with the threat of the Assembly looming over them, quickly put aside their differences with the king and allied with Louis XVI in opposition to the National Assembly. He quickly ordered the National Assembly to dissolve, but it was to no avail. The storming of the Bastille by the bourgeois of Paris ensured the longevity of the National Assembly and forced Louis XVI and the nobility to assent to the legitimacy of the Assembly.
In August of 1789, the National Assembly ratified the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, but it wasn't until months later, after numerous insurrections by the people of Paris, that the King agreed to all the reforms contained therein. The Declaration established the equal rights of all men before the law, the opening of employment to all men based on merit alone, freedom of speech and of the press, due process of law and religious freedom. Such reform satisfied the majority of members of the National Assembly.
While the people of France felt empowered by the reforms brought about, the price of bread was still high, poverty was still rampant and while the idea of nobility by birth was all but abolished, it was replaced by the reality of nobility by wealth. The term "citizen" was now a badge of honor, but the honor helped the peasant little when it came to feeding his family. Insurrections continued: the radical sans-culottes called for extreme measures for the purpose of closing the widening division between the wealthy and the poor. These measures included a limit on property ownership, higher taxes for the wealthy and official equality with the aristocrats.
These rising pressures within France were aggravated by the onset of war with Prussia and Austria. The King and his family had already fled Paris. They were soon caught and returned as prisoners. The Girondin party used this incident to call for the dissolution of the monarchy altogether and the introduction of a republic. The Legislative Assembly was followed by the National Assembly and the National Convention. It was this National Convention that officially established a republic in France and executed Louis VXI in 1793.
The radical Jacobin party gained control of the National Convention by force of arms. In support of the war effort, they drafted most of the young, unmarried men in France to fight. They established an intense sense of nationalism in the militia; and also in the people of France through their control of the press. While the Convention was very involved in fighting their enemies outside of France's borders, Robespierre, an extreme Jacobin leader, seized the opportunity to tackle the problem of France's internal enemies. He introduced the use of terror as a viable method of protecting the republic. Stemming from extreme nationalism, he linked terror with virtue, stating that while France lived in a time of revolution and upheaval, virtue could not exist without terrible justice for those who opposed the nation.
Such was the beginning of the radical stage of the revolution, by equating the supposed enemies within with the enemies outside of the nation. During a few months during Robespierre's reign of terror, 269 people were executed and over 5,000 people were imprisoned (Robespierre's Justification of the Use of Terror).
It seems very strange that a revolution that began with the humanist ideas of the Enlightenment, such as the freedom of the individual, would evolve into one of the most terrifying chapters of European history. This conversion from representative government to terrifying despotism was eventually tempered, but it effects still ring in hearts and minds of people today; not only in France, but throughout the world.


(idea) by turkeyphant (5.5 mon) (print)
(I like it!)
Thu Jun 08 2006 at 23:38:22
How did the French Revolution affect the conduct and organisation of the sciences?
Introduction
The French Revolution has been regarded as a crippling crisis for French natural philosophy at the end of the eighteenth century. Historians have argued that vital infrastructure for scientific discovery was demolished and science was viewed as an enemy of the republic that was incompatible with Jacobin ideologies. Scientific academies were abolished at the height of the The Reign of Terror and Charles Gillispie wrote that this was "a simple act of intellectual vandalism"1. A paradigm shift led to the association of counterrevolutionary thinking with learned pursuit of knowledge. However, there is another side - with the revolution came increased mathematisation and a more logical approach to organisation. The word "liberté" in the Republic's new motto allowed for open discussion of natural philosophy and a move toward meritocracy replacing the injustice of the admission processes to certain institutes of learning.
Anti-science?
Murmurs of enmity toward natural philosophy in the beginning stages of the revolution had escalated into full blown opposition in the mid 1790s. The Académie Royale des Sciences had been fundamental to the progress of French learning since its inception and was widely regarded and an institute for elite science before it was made to close in August 1793. Another important scientific organization, the Bureau de Commerce, was dissolved by revolutionaries in 1791 and the Jacobin Convention was cited as reason to abolish other academies devoted to the sciences.
Proponents of the revolution were not necessarily opposed to the idea of scientific study. Rather, there was a vague connection between aristocratic institutions with close ties to the previous system of government which, in the republican fervour of the Revolution, tended to be exaggerated. Lavoisier, who had contributed an enormous amount to the emerging field of chemistry, found himself presented as a reactionary member of the previous regime. Despite his novel ideas that removed the need for "phlogiston" he was killed for his involvement in pre-Revolutionary taxation - not even his prestigious role as a natural philosopher was sufficient to spare his life.
The idea that politics ought to be prioritised before natural philosophy became increasingly popular in the 1790s. The Académie was abolished for little other reason than it represented counterrevolutionary ideals. There was an air of perceived exclusivity that was intolerable in the new Republic and hence sufficient to override its positive scientific achievements. Even engineering schools were victims of extreme Jacbobinism almost entirely due to lingering associations to the French monarchy. Intellectuals were not judged on their erudition and contributions to science but instead by their personal affiliations and ideologies.
Rebirth
However, the desire for quantification had left some room for scientific institutions in the early stages of the revolution. Metrification was based on "pure reason" which was favoured at the time and the Académie's involvement was instrumental in the creation of the earliest versions of the Système International. Scientific institutions also suited the needs of the Revolution in its first years. A vast pillage of expensive silverware had been acquired from rich émigrés and the members of the Académie were of substantial assistance in assaying the silverware. Military innovations were also greatly sought after and intensive educational programmes in the sciences were established toward this end. However, it must be said that there was very little science for the sake of knowledge - the military slant means that most research was purely practical and utilitarian.
Science had become so integrated with France's central administration that it continued to be practised and work continued in several fields. Moreover, the new liberties under the Republic allowed for new academies to be founded as well as the reestablishment of societies such as the Société Philomathique. Compared to the old scientific academies, institutions such as the Institut de France tended toward being geniocratic with wealth and status no longer such significant factors in the admissions process. Publishing freedoms also allowed several the inception of several new journals promoting particular specialised aspects of science.
Inside France the practice of medicine also changed after the early 1790s. Prior to then, French hospitals had been in an appalling condition rife with overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. The military required more trained medics and the Revolution removed the affiliation of many hospitals with churches. Medical education was also overhauled and was radically restructured over the following decade. The understanding of physiology and pathology was greatly increased and, in the early nineteenth century "the French canonised the ritual of modern physical examination"2: patient were expected to cooperate with more intimate examinations that involved the four cardinal arts of bedside diagnosticians. Organisation in hospitals improved so that contagious diseases could be quarantined, and experiments were better deigned in that there was less bias toward preferred hypotheses.
Conclusion
The French Revolution affected the whole of science in varied ways. Where the revolutionaries found a use for innovation it was encouraged and supported. The new changes in thinking allowed science to distance itself from and even criticise religion's dictums. However, all too often scientific thought was restricted by the zeal of Jacobinism to obliterate all pre-Revolutionary traces - as the Terror continued theories were judged on the politics of whoever formulated them and institutions were broadly tarred with the same brush as stalwart antirevolutionaries. Only later could scientific institutions re-establish themselves and the communication made possible by established journals continue. Importantly, science in the Republic of France was largely without the aristocratic elitism of the Ancien Régime but there were still very few women involved. The whole organisation of medicine in France and conduct between doctors and patients was pushed into renovation after the Revolution. However, despite the vast progress made, latent xenophobia prevented several advances proliferating through Europe until some time later.

• i Gillispie, Charles Coulston. "Science In The French Revolution", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 45, issue 5, pp.677-684 (1959).
• ii Bynum, W. F. Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century, chapter 2, p.33. (Cambridge, 1994).
• Fara, Patricia. Pandora's Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment (2004).
• Hankins, Thomas L. Science and the Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1985).
• Russell, Colin A. Science and Social Change, 1700-1900 (1983).
• Outram, Dorinda. "New spaces in natural history", Cultures of Natural History pp. 249-265 (1996).

Napoleon I
Encyclopedia Article
Find | Print | E-mail | Blog It
Multimedia

16 items
Article Outline
Introduction; Early Campaigns; Napoleonic Rule in France; Wars of Conquest; Napoleonic Rule in Europe; Napoleon’s Downfall; The Napoleonic Legend; Evaluation
I INTRODUCTION
Print this section
Napoleon I (1769-1821), emperor of the French, whose imperial dictatorship ended the French Revolution (1789-1799) while consolidating the reforms it had brought about. One of the greatest military commanders of all time, he conquered much of Europe.
Napoleon was born on August 15, 1769, in Ajaccio, Corsica, and was given the name Napoleone (in French his name became Napoleon Bonaparte). He was the second of eight children of Carlo (Charles) Buonaparte and Letizia Ramolino Buonaparte, both of the Corsican-Italian gentry. No Buonaparte had ever been a professional soldier. Carlo was a lawyer who had fought for Corsican independence, but after the French occupied the island in 1768, he served as a prosecutor and judge and entered the French aristocracy as a count. Through his father’s influence, Napoleon was educated at the expense of King Louis XVI, at Brienne and the École Militaire, in Paris. Napoleon graduated in 1785, at the age of 16, and joined the artillery as a second lieutenant.
After the Revolution began in 1789, Napoleon became a lieutenant colonel (1791) in the Corsican National Guard. In 1793, however, Corsica declared independence, and Bonaparte, a French patriot and a Republican, fled to France with his family. He was assigned, as a captain, to an army besieging Toulon, a naval base that, aided by a British fleet, was in revolt against the republic. Replacing a wounded artillery general, he seized ground where his guns could drive the British fleet from the harbor, and Toulon fell. As a result Bonaparte was promoted to brigadier general at the age of 24. In 1795 he saved the revolutionary government by dispersing an insurgent mob in Paris. In 1796 he married Joséphine de Beauharnais, the widow of an aristocrat guillotined in the Revolution and the mother of two children.
II EARLY CAMPAIGNS
Print this section
Bonaparte was made commander of the French army in Italy in 1796. He defeated four Austrian generals in succession, each with superior numbers, and forced Austria and its allies to make peace. The Treaty of Campo Formio provided that France keep most of its conquests. In northern Italy he founded the Cisalpine Republic (later known as the kingdom of Italy) and strengthened his position in France by sending millions of francs worth of treasure to the government.

More from Encarta
Offer: Live online homework help
Math, Science, History and English
Try Tutor.com for free!
Educating mom
Colleges reach out to single parents.
Find out how.
Cats Quiz
Two parts furry, one part ferocious.
Test your feline smarts!

In 1798, to strike at British trade with the East, Napoleon led an expedition to Ottoman-ruled Egypt, which he conquered. His fleet, however, was destroyed by British admiral Horatio Nelson in the Battle of the Nile, leaving him stranded. Undaunted, Napoleon reformed the Egyptian government and law, abolishing serfdom and feudalism and guaranteeing basic rights. The French scholars he had brought with him began the scientific study of ancient Egyptian history. In 1799 he failed to capture Syria, but he won a smashing victory over the Ottomans at Abū Qīr (Abukir). France, meanwhile, faced a new coalition; Austria, Russia, and lesser powers had allied with Britain.
III NAPOLEONIC RULE IN FRANCE
Print this section
Bonaparte, no modest soul, decided to leave his army and return to save France. In Paris, he joined a conspiracy against the government. In the coup d’etat of November 9-10, 1799 (18-19 Brumaire), he and his colleagues seized power and established a new regime—the Consulate. Under its constitution, Bonaparte, as first consul, had almost dictatorial powers. The constitution was revised in 1802 to make Bonaparte consul for life and in 1804 to create him emperor. Each change received the overwhelming assent of the electorate.
In 1800, Napoleon assured his power by crossing the Alps and defeating the Austrians at Marengo. He then negotiated a general European peace that established the Rhine River as the eastern border of France. He also concluded an agreement with the pope (the Concordat of 1801), which contributed to French domestic tranquility by ending the quarrel with the Roman Catholic Church that had arisen during the French Revolution.
In France the administration was reorganized, the court system was simplified, and all schools were put under centralized control. French law was standardized in the Code Napoléon, or civil code, and six other codes. They guaranteed the rights and liberties won in the Revolution, including equality before the law and freedom of religion.
IV WARS OF CONQUEST
Print this section
In April 1803 Britain, provoked by Napoleon’s aggressive behavior, resumed war with France on the seas; two years later Russia and Austria joined the British in a new coalition. Napoleon then abandoned plans to invade England and turned his armies against the Austro-Russian forces, defeating them at the Battle of Austerlitz on December 2, 1805. In 1806 he seized the kingdom of Naples and made his elder brother Joseph Bonaparte king, converted the Dutch Republic into the kingdom of Holland for his brother Louis, and established the Confederation of the Rhine (most of the German states) of which he was protector. Prussia then allied itself with Russia and attacked the confederation. Napoleon destroyed the Prussian army at Jena and Auerstädt (1806) and the Russian army at Friedland. At Tilsit (July 1807), Napoleon made an ally of Russian tsar Alexander I and greatly reduced the size of Prussia (see Tilsit, Treaty of). He also added new states to the empire: the kingdom of Westphalia, under his brother Jérôme, the duchy of Warsaw, and others.
Napoleon had meanwhile established the Continental System, a French-imposed blockade of Europe against British goods, designed to bankrupt what he called the “nation of shopkeepers.” In 1807 Napoleon seized Portugal. In 1808, he made his brother Joseph king of Spain, awarding Naples to his brother-in-law, Joachim Murat. Joseph’s arrival in Spain touched off a rebellion there, which became known as the Peninsular War. Napoleon appeared briefly and scored victories, but after his departure the fighting continued for five years, with the British backing Spanish armies and guerrillas. The Peninsular War cost France 300,000 casualties and untold sums of money and contributed to the eventual weakening of the Napoleonic empire.
In 1809 Napoleon beat the Austrians again at Wagram, annexed the Illyrian Provinces (now part of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro), and abolished the Papal States. He also divorced Joséphine, and in 1810 he married the Habsburg archduchess Marie Louise, daughter of the Austrian emperor. By thus linking his dynasty with the oldest ruling house in Europe, he hoped that his son, who was born in 1811, would be more readily accepted by established monarchs. In 1810 also, the empire reached its widest extension with the annexation of Bremen, Lübeck, and other parts of north Germany, together with the entire kingdom of Holland, following the forced abdication of Louis Bonaparte.
V NAPOLEONIC RULE IN EUROPE
Print this section
In all the new kingdoms created by the emperor, the Code Napoléon was established as law. Feudalism and serfdom were abolished, and freedom of religion established (except in Spain). Each state was granted a constitution, providing for universal male suffrage (voting rights) and a parliament and containing a bill of rights. French-style administrative and judicial systems were required. Schools were put under centralized administration, and free public schools were envisioned. Higher education was opened to all who qualified, regardless of class or religion. Every state had an academy or institute for the promotion of the arts and sciences. Incomes were provided for eminent scholars, especially scientists. Constitutional government remained only a promise, but progress and increased efficiency were widely realized. Not until after Napoleon’s fall did the common people of Europe, alienated from his governments by war taxes and military conscription, fully appreciate the benefits he had given them.
VI NAPOLEON’S DOWNFALL
Print this section
In 1812 Napoleon, whose alliance with Alexander I had disintegrated, launched an invasion of Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. Thereafter all Europe united against him, and although he fought on, and brilliantly, the odds were impossible. In April 1814, his marshals refused to continue the struggle. After the allies had rejected his stepping down in favor of his son, Napoleon abdicated unconditionally and was exiled to the Mediterranean island of Elba. Marie Louise and his son were put in the custody of her father, the emperor of Austria. Napoleon never saw either of them again. Napoleon himself, however, soon made a dramatic comeback.
In March 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba, reached France, and marched on Paris, winning over the troops sent to capture him. In Paris, he promulgated a new and more democratic constitution, and veterans of his old campaigns flocked to his support. Napoleon asked peace of the allies, but they outlawed him, and he decided to strike first. The result was a campaign into Belgium, which ended in defeat at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815. In Paris, crowds begged him to fight on, but the politicians withdrew their support. Napoleon fled to Rochefort, where he surrendered to the captain of the British battleship Bellerophon. He was then exiled to Saint Helena, a remote island in the south Atlantic Ocean, where he remained until his death on May 5, 1821.
VII THE NAPOLEONIC LEGEND
Print this section
The cult of Napoleon as the “man of destiny” began during his lifetime. In fact, he had begun to cultivate it during his first Italian campaign by systematically publicizing his victories. As first consul and emperor, he had engaged the best writers and artists of France and Europe to glorify his deeds and had contributed to the cult himself by the elaborate ceremonies with which he celebrated his rule, picturing himself as the architect of France’s greatest glory. He maintained that he had preserved the achievements of the Revolution in France and offered their benefits to Europe. His goal, he said, was to found a European state—a “federation of free peoples.” Whatever the truth of this, he became the arch-hero of the French and a martyr to the world. In 1840 his remains were returned to Paris at the request of King Louis Philippe and interred with great pomp and ceremony in the Invalides, where they still lie.

More from Encarta
Offer: Live online homework help
Math, Science, History and English
Try Tutor.com for free!
Educating mom
Colleges reach out to single parents.
Find out how.
Cats Quiz
Two parts furry, one part ferocious.
Test your feline smarts!

VIII EVALUATION
Print this section
Napoleon’s influence is evident in France even today. Reminders of him dot Paris—the most obvious being the Arc de Triomphe, the centerpiece of the city, which was built to commemorate his victories. His spirit pervades the constitution of the Fifth Republic; the country’s basic law is still the Code Napoléon, and the administrative and judicial systems are essentially Napoleonic. A uniform state-regulated system of education persists. Napoleon’s radical reforms in all parts of Europe cultivated the ground for the revolutions of the 19th century. Today, the impact of the Code Napoléon is apparent in the law of all European countries.
Napoleon was a driven man, never secure, never satisfied. “Power is my mistress,” he said. His life was work-centered; even his social activities had a purpose. He could bear amusements or vacations only briefly. His tastes were for coarse food, bad wine, cheap snuff. He could be charming—hypnotically so—for a purpose. He had intense loyalties—to his family and old associates. Nothing and no one, however, were allowed to interfere with his work.
Napoleon was sometimes a tyrant and always an authoritarian, but one who believed in ruling by mandate of the people, expressed in plebiscites. He was also a great enlightened monarch—a civil executive of enormous capacity who changed French institutions and tried to reform the institutions of Europe and give the Continent a common law. Few deny that he was a military genius. At Saint Helena, he said, “Waterloo will erase the memory of all my victories.” He was wrong; for better or worse, he is best remembered as a general, not for his enlightened government, but the latter must be counted if he is justly to be called Napoleon the Great.
See French Revolution; Napoleonic Wars. See also separate articles on individual battles mentioned

Was Napoleon good for France?
Was Napoleon a good leader for France?
There have been many successful military leaders throughout history, but no leader has ever taken over the whole world. This was nearly accomplished by the greatest military leader in history better known as Napoleon Bonaparte. Although his conquest for power and territory were great for France, it was not as good for the rest of Europe. As a self-appointed uncrowned king, Napoleon was known to many as an extraordinary military leader and a great reformer. His domestic policy continued many reforms of the revolution. Through his wars he expanded the political boundaries of Europe.
In 1802 Napoleon, by popular vote became First Consul. Then in 1804 he declared himself Emperor of the French. As soon as this happened Napoleon obtained absolute power. His domestic policy continued many reforms that the revolution had started. He kept the system of splitting France up into department and he helped to end Feudalism, which had given the nobles and clergy their special privileges. But he also allowed many 魩gr鳠to return to France as long as they did not try to get their old privileges back. Napoleon came up with a law code that brought together many reforms of the revolution, an
HISTORY


1) Origin and Middle Ages
2) From the 15th to the 19th century
3) The 20th century
4) Andorra since the adoption of the Constitution

http://www.andorra.ad/arxius/index.html



1) Origin and Middle Ages Ç

The origin of human habitation in Andorra goes back to prehistory.
The inhabitants of the Valleys were first mentioned in a text by the Greek historian Polybius (2nd century B.C.), who described Hannibal's crossing of the Pyrenees and referred to the « andosin » tribes.

Life in the Valleys of Andorra was indirectly influenced by the Roman Empire, the Visigoth monarchy, the Arabs and the Franks successively.
Under Frankish rule Charlemagne defined the border with Spain : the «Ularea» circumscribed Andorran teritory.

Next, in the 9th century, the Emperor Charles the Bald handed over the Valley of Andorra to Count Sunifred I of Cerdagne-Urgell.

In the Charter granted by Charles the Bald to Sunifred in 843 the territory of Andorra was defined as a possession of the County of Urgell, and in the Act of Consecration of the Cathedral of the See of Urgell, signed in 860, it was made clear that the County was subject to the Church.

On 27 January 1133, Ermengol VI, Count of Urgell, donated all his possessions in Andorra as a freehold to the
Bishop of Urgell, Pere Berenger, and asked the inhabitants of the Valleys to do homage to the Bishop of Urgell as their Lord.

This transfer of powers was confirmed in 1186 and 1199 when the Andorrans swore an oath of loyalty to the Bishop, thus recognising his sovereignty over Andorra.

From the 11th century onwards the power of the Bishops of Urgell over Andorra gradually increased.

But the shifting alliances among the Catalan nobility and the conflicts between the Church and the feudal lords created a certain tension forcing the Bishop of Urgell to look for powerful support elsewhere to help him preserve his domain and his power.

On 19 July 1159 a treaty was signed between Arnaud de Caboet and Monseigneur Bernard Sanç, Bishop of Urgell.
The text of the treaty confirmed the sovereignty of the Episcopal See over the Valleys of Andorra and gave the Andorran territory in fief to the House of Caboet.

The instability of this era, brought about by the activities of the cathars in Occitania (in particular in Ariège and in Urgell) and the revolt of the Catalan counts against the crown of Aragon, resulted in a conflict between the two Lords.

The shifting alliances among the nobility caused the rights to Andorra to pass first from the House of Caboet to the House of Castellbó in 1185 and then to the Counts of Foix in 1208, when Ermesenda de Castellbó i Caboet married Count Roger Bernat II of Foix.

The discord and violent confrontations between the Bishops of Urgell and the Counts of Foix ceased thanks to the efforts of King Peter II of Catalonia-Aragon and some Catalan counts who were concerned about keeping their prerogatives.
Peace was restored following two judgments by a Court of Arbitration; these judgments are known as the
« Paréages » ( 1278 and 1288).
These two judgments, marking the birth of the current political system, were the most important constitutional documents of Andorra until the proclamation of the Constitution in 1993. They were accepted by the Bishop of Urgell, Pere d'Urg, in 1278 and by the Count of Foix, Roger Bernard lIl, in 1288.

The uniqueness of the two Paréages rests especially in the fact that they remained in force for seven centuries and in the course of the years proved to be adaptable to a variety of changes and developments.

Their longevity is due to the willingness of the two Lords to compromise and to the tolerance of the Andorrans, who, though they were not consulted about the texts that determined their destiny, adopted them as their first basic law.

Following a series of marriages, the Co-Lordship of the Count of Foix passed first to the Viscounts of Béarn and then to the French Head of State when Henry IV of Béarn, Count of Foix and Navarre, became King of France. Henry IV was thus the first King of France also French Co-prince of Andorra, titles he transmitted to his son, Louis XIII.

2) From the 15th to the 19th century Ç

In 1419 the « Consell de la Terra » was established, a kind of primitive Parliament that was the main representative body of Andorra and preceded the current « General Council of the Valls » (http://www.consell.ad). Its membership consisted of all the heads of the most prominent Andorran families.

The political structure that emerged during the Middle Ages was consolidated in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries : during that era the political and economic power of the leading Andorran families was strengthened.

Andorran society, poor and without significant resources owing to the rigours of the climate and the landscape, did not experience the population explosion occurring elsewhere in the West from the 11th to the 13th century. Until the end of the 17th century the population of Andorra was limited to approximately 3000 people.

At this time society was divided into two distinct social groups :
• The squires (focs), representing the Houses of the heads of the prominent families, who included all the heirs (hereus) and heiresses (pubilles).
• The householders (Casalers), consisting of the common people and/or the non-inheriting children of the squires (cabalers and/or cabaleres), who had no right to the revenues from their father's or mother's domain and were forced to leave to find a livelihood elsewhere.
At this time the Andorrans survived thanks to the meagre trade made possible by tax exemptions granted by France and Spain.

At the beginning of the 18th century Andorra was faced with economic and institutional upheaval, mainly as a result of domestic conflicts in neighbouring Spain.
Spain was dismantling the Catalan institutions and threatened to apply the " nova planta" decree of 1714 to all third states exporting goods to Spain, which meant that all products imported in Spain would be subject to a tax equivalent to 10% of their value.

The decree introduced a new tax system in Spain and meant the end of the tax exemptions granted to the Andorrans.

The economy of Andorra, totally dependent on its neighbours, was seriously disrupted.

The Andorrans had to negotiate for several years to obtain a special agreement : the "Sentència Manutenció" of 1738. This document granted tax reductions on products from Andorra.

The 18th century saw an improvement in the economic and social conditions of the people of the Principality. Progress was due to the effects of the industrial revolution introduced in Andorra through the smithies. The large-scale emigration of non-inheriting descendants ceased, which in the 18th and 19th century resulted in the growth of the population, in particular of the "Casalers" community.

This increase in the number of Casalers created, however, a major change in the social structure of Andorra, as the number of Casalers increased beyond that of the "squires", i.e. the leading families.

At the end of the 18th century and during the 19th century Andorra was faced with a series of conflicts and upheavals and with social, economic and even institutional instability.

The French Revolution led to the non-recognition of Co-Principality status by the French revolutionary authorities.

The Qüèstia, a tribute paid by the Andorrans to the French and the episcopal Co-Princes alternately as a token of allegiance was regarded by the revolutionaries as a relic of feudal servitude, which was contrary to everything the Revolution stood for.

For several years Andorra continued to survive precariously, with the Bishop as its only ruler.
The country lost all the privileges granted by France, including tax exemptions. Its judicial system lost its impartiality, and instability reigned in foreign affairs and trade.

But in 1806, in response to a request by the Andorrans, Napoleon reestablished the status quo, restoring all links, prerogatives, advantages, exchanges, franchises and institutions that had united Andorra with the late King of France.

From then onwards, the obligations of the French Co-Prince were assumed by the highest authority in France, thus becoming a settled issue that was never again questioned by the various successors to Napoleon, from Louis XVIII to Jacques CHIRAC.

Relations with the Bishop deteriorated from the second half of the 19th century.
The Bishop of the time, Mgr CAIXAL, could not accept the social, political and even economic changes taking place in Europe and Andorra. His opposition to every hint of reform was fierce, even though eventually he accepted the "Nova Reforma" project the Andorrans submitted to him in the person of the then Síndic, Guillem d'ARENY i PLANDOLIT.

The « New Reform » was signed by the Spanish Co-Prince in 1866 and two years later, in 1868, by the French Co-Prince, Napoleon III.
The reform brought about various political and administrative changes, in particular the introduction of the right to vote for all Andorran heads of families ( until then only the heads of the leading families had been entitled to vote).

The successors to Bishop CAIXAL had difficulty in accepting this progressive movement and strongly opposed any reforms in Andorra. The domestic conflicts in Spain, where the Carlist wars were raging, only heightened the conflicts in Andorra itself and those between the Andorrans and the Bishop.

In this period the Andorrans were often torn between the wishes of the episcopal Co-Prince and those of the French Co-Prince, and domestic social strife became an everyday occurrence. (Revolutions of 1866, 1881, etc.)
3) The 20th century Ç

The 20th century saw a complete change of the traditional appearance of the country, thanks to the introduction of communication links.
The building of a road link with Spain in 1913, and of another with France in 1933, as well as the construction of roads in the valleys, the introduction of electricity, the establishment of a postal service (Spanish and French), the introduction of radio in 1935, the establishment of a ski station in 1934 - all these were tangible proof of those changes.

Institution-wise, democracy took another step forward in 1933 when the right to vote was given to all adult men. Women did not get the right to vote until 1971, when the economic expansion and prosperity of Andorra were already assured (boom of the 1960s).

A new institutional reform process was initiated towards the end of the 1970s, ending with the creation, in 1981, of an executive body (the Government) and a legislative body (the General Council) http://www.consell.ad

More recent institutional developments have led to the adoption of the first written Constitution of the Principality of Andorra on 14 March 1993. This event has resulted in the international recognition of the country.

4) Andorra since the adoption of the Constitution Ç

The Constitution was the result of a conflict between the General Council and the Co-Princes about various issues, but especially about the concept of a constitutional State and the definition of a State in international law.

The Constitution was the object of a plebiscite, and was approved by the Andorran people om 14 March 1993 with a majority of 74.2% of all votes, representing 75.7% of the 9,123 registered voters.
The Constitution entered in force on 4 May 1993 after it had been signed by the two Co-Princes and the General Syndic.

The Constitution confers on Andorra the status of a constitutional State and of a State under international law.

The characteristics of the State as defined by the Constitution are these :
• Constitutional State : (Articles 3, 4, 6-1, and 13 and passim)
• Independent State : (Articles 3-1, 3-4 and passim)
• Democratic State : (Articles 1-1, 1-3, 51, 58-2, 76, 79-3, 80-3c and passim)
• Welfare State : (Articles 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.)
It is a modern Constitution, closely linked to the social, political and institutional reality of Andorra and the world. It takes into account the difficulties associated with the development of international constitutional law.

The Constitution has been translated into English, German and French :
http://www.coprince-fr.ad/index.html
http://www.consell.ad

The Constitution has brought about many changes in the institutional, political, economic and social life of the Principality.

NAPOLEON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

"We have finished the romance of the Revolution, we must
now begin its history, only seeking for what is real and
practicable in the application of its principles, and not
what is speculative and hypothetical."

After Brumaire (9-10 Nov. 1799) --the coup d'etat which first set
Napoleon on the path to becoming the supreme executive of a French
empire-- Napoleon declared, "The Revolution is made fast on the
principles on which it began; the Revolution is finished." Since this
famous utterance came so soon after he gained power, it is clear that
Napoleon was saying something significant about what the role of his
new-born regime would be to those which had preceded it. Like the man
himself, this quote and the one at the head of this page are both highly
complex and ambiguous. He is declaring that the new regime was both a
break from the immediate past and part of a continuity with that past.
What was Napoleon's relationship to the Revolution? To what extent was
he its heir or its betrayer? Did he save the Revolution or liquidate
it?
To begin it is necessary to determine what one means by "the
Revolution". There was not one Revolution, but really a series of them
which occurred as the French struggled to create a new political and
social system. By the "Revolution" do we mean that of Barnave, or of
Mirabeau, or Lafayette, or Brissot, or Danton, or Robespierre, or
Hebert, or Tallien, of Babeuf, or Barras? All of these were men of the
Revolution, yet they all held differing conceptions of what that
"Revolution" was. I will be considering many of those fundamental
principles which guided most of these revolutionaries. In general,
these principles include equal treatment under the law, one degree or
another of centralization of the government, elimination of feudal
rights, religious tolerance and careers open to talent not birth.
Georges Lefebvre wrote that the Emperor was "...a pupil of the
philosophes, he detested feudalism, civil inequality, and religious
intolerance. Seeing in enlightened despotism a reconciliation of
authority with political and social reform, he became its last and most
illustrious representative. In this sense he was the man of the
Revolution." R. R. Palmer has observed that Napoleon considered the
Jacobin government of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety the
only serious government of the Revolutionary period. During the "Reign
of Terror" Napoleon was strongly identified with the Jacobins. His
dialogue published in 1793, LE SOUPER DE BEAUCAIRE, championed the
Jacobins over the federalist Girondins. What Napoleon admired were the
Jacobins' strong centralized government, their commitment to deal
decisively with the problems facing the fledgling republic, and their
attempt to forge a stron stable France while winning the war against its
enemies.
Napoleon clearly felt, like the Jacobins, that an energetic
centralized state was essential to consolidate the advances achieved by
the Revolution and, at the same time, he wished to bring about the
stability many French longed for after the upheavals of the past
decade. In his eyes this meant the need for a strong executive. From
1799 until his death on the South Atlantic island of St. Helena,
Napoleon spoke of himself as the man who had completed the Revolution.
By this he meant that the basic goals of the Revolution enumerated above
had been obtained and that now it was time to consolidate and
instituionalize those gains. France, after ten years of revolution, had
still lacked the proper foundation upon which to institutionalize the
revolutionary achievements until Napoleon provided it with his
administrative framework.
"Bonaparte came, as he said, 'to close the Romance of the
Revolution'," H.A.L. Fisher wrote, " to heal the wounds, to correct the
extravagances, to secure the conquests. It was his boast that he did
not belong to the race of the 'ideologues', that he saw facts through
plain glass, and that he came to substitute and age of work for and age
of talk...he would create a methodical government based upon popular
consent, and concieved in the interests not of any particular faction
but of France as a whole." As Napoleon himself explained to the Council
of State in 1802: "I govern not as a general but because the nation
believes that I have the civilian qualities necessary to govern. If I
did not have this opinion, the government could not stand."
Napoleon is generally credited with having consolidated the gains of
the Revolution ("With the exception of fathering the Civil Code,
Napoleon perhaps gloried more in his reputation as consolidator of the
Revolution than in any other one title," Robert B. Holtman observed).
In this sense he can be credited with having 'saved' the Revolution by
ending it. Had the Bourbons come back to power in 1799 instead of
Napoleon, they would at that time had less trouble "turning back the
clock" to the ancient regime than they had in 1814. As Francois Furet
has put it, "Revolutionary France was indeed under the spell of the new
sovereign, who was its son and had saved it from the danger of a
restoration...France had finally found the republican monarchy toward
which it had been groping since 1789." The Code Napoleon, one of the
Emperor's most enduring achievements, embodied many of the principles of
the Revolution and made them permanent.
To Prince Eugene, his viceroy in Italy, Napoleon wrote, "I am
seeking nothing less than a social revolution." Feaudalism was
suppressed and careers were open to all those with ability regardless of
birth ("Wherever I found talent and courage I rewarded it." Napoleon,
1816) Napoleon became the personification of the revolutionary aims of
the bourgeoisie. He reformed and modernized French institutions
(historian Jacues Godechot has said that with Napoleon the medieval era
ended and modern history began). He brought much longed for order and
stability to France and forged a sense of unity. He attempted to unite
under his wing both the revolutionaries and the emigres --nobles, clergy
and others who chose or were forced to live in exile under the
Revolution ("I became the arch of the alliance between the old and the
new, the natural mediator between the old and the new orders...I
belonged to them both." Napoleon. 1816). The sales of the lands taken
from the nobles who had emigrated or been declared enemies of the state,
from the Church, or from the Crown (the "biens nationaux") --an
important benefit for the middle classes and the peasants of the
Revolution-- were recognized not only in Napoleon's coronation oath, but
also in the signing of the Concordat with the Pope.

Robert B. Holtman observed, "This task of consolidation made
Napoleon a conservative in France, desirous of keeping the gains of the
Revolution, but a revolutionary in acien regime areas abroad." It has
been said that many of Napoleon's reforms were just continuations of
reforms begun under the Revolution (just as it has been said that many
of the reforms of the Revolution were continuations of those begun
during the ancien regime). It is important to keep in mind that
Napoleon also brought these reforms to the countries with the Empire,
where they were truly revolutionary. Owen Connelly has said that
"Napoleon...was a conscious promoter of Revolution all over Europe. In
fact, I firmly believe that this was the reason for his demise. He was,
to the legitimate powers of Europe a crowned Jacobin...[These powers]
were able to mobilize against him in the end the very people who stood
to gain the most from the governments which Napoleon installed." The
principles which Napoleon inherited from the Revolution and consolidated
in France, he exported to the countries which fell under the French
imperium. If Napoleon's reforms in France were no longer revolutionary,
outside of France these same reforms were profoundly revolutionary
(Goethe described Napoleon as "the Revolution crowned."). It had been
the goal of many of the Revolution's leaders to "revolutionize" the rest
of Europe. Napoleon accomplished this.
The principle of equality was recognized in the destruction of
feudal rights and privileges in the Empire and in the submission of all
members of socirty to a common sceme of justice, the Napoleonic Code.
The Legion of Honor was also intended to foster equality, as well as
reward talent. "...The establishment of the Legion of Honor, which was
the reward for military, civil, and judicial service, united side by
side the soldier, the scholar, the artist, the prelate, and the
magistrate; it was the symbol of the reunion of all the estates, of all
the parties." (LE MEMORIAL DE SAINTE-HELENE, 1821) The Emperor, as the
supreme executive, was deemed the representative of the general will.
This powerful executive was a feature also of the relationship between
the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety, as well as the
Legislature and the Directory. The Revolution, like Napoleon, bore a
strong authoritarian streak.
"It was Napoleon's fuction in history to fuse the old France with
the new," H.A.L. Fisher observed. Napoleon declared that he wanted "to
cement peace at home by anything that could bring the French together
and provide tranquility within families." Like Mirabeau, Napoleon
didn't see an incompatibility between the Revolution and monarchy.
Napoleon did what the Bourbon King could not --reconcile the elements of
the monarchy with elements of the Revolution-- which was the failed goal
of Mirabeau in 1790. Napoleon was largely successful in attracting men
from all parties --from ex-Jacobins to ci-devant nobles-- to his
government. Signing the Concordat (15 July 1801) allowed Napoleon to
reconcile the religious differences which had torn France apart during
the Revolution. (At the same time, the Concordat insured religious
freedom. It recognized Catholicism as the religion of the majority of
the French, but did not make it an "established" religion as the Church
of England was in Britain. Protestants an Jews were allowed to practice
their religion and retain their civic rights.) A general amnesty signed
by Napoleon (26 April 1802) allowed all but about one thousand of the
most notorious emigres to return to France. These two actions helped to
bring relative tranquility to those areas of France which had long been
at war with the Revolution. Albert Sobould has wrtten that "stabilizing
socirty on the fundamental base of the Revolution, [Napoleon] integrated
the returned emigres into a new social hierachy; and, while reinforcing
the principle of authority, he merged these emigres into a new order
which at first had been constructed against them."
What of liberty? Of the three key principles of the Revolution
--liberty, equality, and fraternity-- it was liberty which suffered
most under Napoleon. Historian Albert Vandal has observed that
"Bonaparte can be reproached for not having established liberty; he
cannot be accused of having destroyed it, for the excellent reason that
on his return from Egypt he did not find it anywhere in France." The
French desiring to safeguard what thet had acquired during the
Revolution, be it rights or property, wanted these guaranteed. Many
felt that guarantee could come only with the restoration and
preservation of order. They were willing to sacrifice their liberties
for that guarantee, for that order. "In the absence of political
liberty, he would assure Frenchmen of their individual rights. In the
Napoleonic Code, he would sanctify equality, their dearest possession.
He would keep most of the revolutionary institutions while at times
amalgamating then with those of the Old Regime, which were restored but
adapted. His work would prove so solid that it made any total
restoration of the past impossible," wrote Albert Mathiez.
Napoleon was most of all a pragmatist, willing to adapt "what
worked", whether it was borrowed from the Revolution or from the ancien
regime. He delt with the problems facing France in practical terms, not
in the abstract ("To pursue a different course today would be to
philosophize, not to govern." Napoleon, 1800) The solutions Napoleon
came up with leave little doubt that he was the heir and preserver of
the Revolution. Francois Furet has written that "...he was chosed by
the Revolution, from which he received his strange power not only to
embody the new nation (a power that others before him, most notably
Mirabeau and Robespierre, had possessed) but also to fulfill its
destiny." Napoleon had undoubtedly felt a revolution had been
necessary. When it had achieved its purpose he felt that it was
necessary to end the Revolution and begin the work of governing. He
exported to those countries under French hegemony many of the
achievements of the Revolution. He embodied these achievements in the
Code Napoleon. Without the Revolution Napoleon, despite his talents,
would have been no more than an obscure provincial military officer. He
unified a country torn apart by ten years of political and religious
strife ("All titles were forgotten; there were no londer aristocrats or
Jacobins..." LE MEMORIAL DE SAINTE-HELENE, 1821). While liberty
languished, he promoted equality and opened all careers to those with
talent. "Risen to the throne," Chateaubriand wrote, "he seated the
people there beside him. A proletarian king, he humiliated kings and
nobles in his antechamber. He leveled ranks not by lowering but by
raising them." He insured religious tolerance. He cosolidated and
preserved the gains of the Revolution. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that
Napoleon "fell, but what was really substantial in his work lasted; his
government died, but his administration continued to live..." The
Bourbon Prince de Conde summed up Napoleon as "One-third philosophe,
one-third Jacobin, and one-third aristocrat."

Tom Holmberg © 1998


Suggested Readings:

NAPOLEON: WAS HE THE HEIR OF THE REVOLUTION? David Lloyd Dowd.
(Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Pr,. 1957)

NAPOLEON: FOR AND AGAINST. Pieter Geyl. (New Haven, CT: Yale
University, 1963)

THE NAPOLEONIC REVOLUTION. Robert B. Holtman. (Baton Rouge: Louisana
State Univ., 1981)

NAPOLEON BONAPATRE AND THE LEGACY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. Martyn
Lyons (N.Y.: St. Martin's, 1994

Napoleon
French Napoléon Bonaparte orig. Italian Napoleone Buonaparte

Napoleon in His Study, by Jacques-Louis David, 1812; in the National …
(credit: Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., the Samuel H. Kress Collection; photograph, Giraudon/Art Resource, New York)
(born Aug. 15, 1769, Ajaccio, Corsica—died May 5, 1821, St. Helena Island) French general and emperor (1804–15). Born to parents of Italian ancestry, he was educated in France and became an army officer in 1785. He fought in the French Revolutionary Wars and was promoted to brigadier general in 1793. After victories against the Austrians in northern Italy, he negotiated the Treaty of Campo Formio (1797). He attempted to conquer Egypt (1798–99) but was defeated by the British under Horatio Nelson in the Battle of the Nile. The Coup of 18–19 Brumaire brought him to power in 1799, and he installed a military dictatorship, with himself as First Consul. He introduced numerous reforms in government, including the Napoleonic Code, and reconstructed the French education system. He negotiated the Concordat of 1801 with the pope. After victory against the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo (1800), he embarked on the Napoleonic Wars. The formation of coalitions of European countries against him led Napoleon to declare France a hereditary empire and to crown himself emperor in 1804. He won his greatest military victory at the Battle of Austerlitz against Austria and Russia in 1805. He defeated Prussia at the Battles of Jena and Auerstedt (1806) and Russia at the Battle of Friedland (1807). He then imposed the Treaty of Tilsit on Russia, ending the fourth coalition of countries against France. Despite his loss to Britain at the Battle of Trafalgar, he sought to weaken British commerce and established the Continental System of port blockades. He consolidated his European empire until 1810 but became embroiled in the Peninsular War (1808–14). He led the French army into Austria and defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Wagram (1809), signing the Treaty of Vienna. To enforce the Treaty of Tilsit, he led an army of about 600,000 into Russia in 1812, winning the Battle of Borodino, but was forced to retreat from Moscow with disastrous losses. His army greatly weakened, he was met by a strong coalition of allied powers, who defeated him at the Battle of Leipzig (1813). After Paris was taken by the allied coalition, Napoleon was forced to abdicate in 1814 and was exiled to the island of Elba. In 1815 he mustered a force and returned to France to reestablish himself as emperor for the Hundred Days, but he was decisively defeated at the Battle of Waterloo. He was sent into exile on the remote island of St. Helena, where he died six years later. One of the most celebrated figures in history, Napoleon revolutionized military organization and training and brought about reforms that permanently influenced civil institutions in France and throughout Europe.
For more information on Napoleon, visit Britannica.com. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Napoleon
(1769–1821) vanquished most of Europe. [Fr. Hist.: Harvey, 570]
See : Conquerors
Allusions—Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, or visit webmaster's page for free fun content.
Link to this page: