Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most controversial figures in European history. When in power, he claimed to be consolidating, perserving and even expanding the policies and benefits of the French Revolution. Many of his comtemparies, however, as well as many subsequent observers, believed that many of his actions betrayed the principles of the revolution. A number of modern historians have called him a military dictator, or even an "Enlightened Despot." Whose Napoleon represents the real Napoleon? Cite specific examples and evidence to support your case.
This post will close on January 15 at 5:00 PM.
Napoleon rose to power through a coup of the French government, and within a year declared himself emperor. In many ways, he returned to the system that existed before him, with a single powerful leader. However, he managed to be more succesful as a leader than Louis XVI, gaining more support from his subjects who wished for the end of the instability of the 10 years of the revolution. He was able to ward off invasion by numerous countries and expand the borders of France greatly, along with effectively using the powers at his disposal. Even though he returned to the previous system, Napoleon was a successful leader who managed to gain the support of the citizens of France, many of whom supported the revolution.
Napolean came into power after many other types of alternate government types were tried. Napolean was an incredible military leader and this helped him gain power and influence in France. Napolean was very militaristic but a very effective ruler all the same. In the English revolution Cromwell(Clint told me that was how it was spelled) was very militaristic, but not very good at setting up a new government. Napolean might have turned into a dictator, but the people all wanted him to hold power and it was not until he spread his power to far that we see him being kicked out of power. All the same Napolean ruled strongly and was supported by many.
Napoleon gained most of his power through his military, administrative and leadership skills. He did not reallty have any respect for unearned authority of others, as he felt he deserved his. He was head of the French goverment, and tried to maintain equality of the classes and codified the laws of France. He created the Code of Napoleon which pressed that equality was before law, and careers were open to talents, not necessarily according to their social status or rank. Because of his leadership the French administration became organized and functioned well. He conquered alliances with all the major powers and regions, yet he was welcomed for the reforms he brought. So although Napoleon was very militaristic and could be considered a dictator he did demonstrate prosperity, personal development and sometimes peace within the alliances he made through his reforms. I do not believe Napoleon could be fully considered an Enlightened despot, yet the result of this power is convincing. Therefore i feel that he is either between the two, or closer to a military dictator.
Napoleon Bonaparte was a critical leader in France's history and had a huge impact on European politics in the 19th century. I can agree with the modern historians who consider him a military dictator because there is support of this when dealing with the extent of his military campaigns and he is also paralleled by some with Hitler. However i disagree that he was an Enlightened Despot because his actions show that he wasn't influenced greatly by the enlightenment. For example, Napoleon was irrational when he only excepted the surrender of his enemies and ignored compromise. This irrational behavior is certainly not a characteristic of an Enlightened Despot.
Napoleon was a evil tyrant, that lead France thru a bloody and age. He was the greatest leader they had ever seen but his morals and methods where cruel and vindictive. He didn't care the cost as long as he obtained his goals. He is also the biggest hypocrite imaginable, he supports rank by merit yet puts his family in power. He get rid of slavery yet sends troops to San Domingo to enforce slavery. He preaches justice and liberty in France yet denies it everywhere else. And most importantly he failed. In the end he lost his followers and his land and was exiled and rejected by his people.
@ Audrey,
You look only at what he tried to do and not at the means of which he went about doing it. Is hitler a saint because he tried to make a perfect race no he is the devil for how he tried to do it. That is what you must look for in leadership his methods.
Napoleon's reign was a direct byproduct of the French Revolution. The revolution led to a change in power, but such a change required military support. Napoleon initially provided some of this support, but in the end he seized power for himself. However, just because he was a "son of revolution," his ideals and methods did not necessarily adhere to those of the revolution. First of all, the French Revolution came about partly as a revolt against the monarchy. However, Napoleon himself became an emperor in 1804, which is not very different from a monarch. He did, however, more accurately represent the will of the masses, as he issued the Civil Code in 1804 to ensure class equality (
[Sorry, I accidentally hit the enter key on my last post before I was finished]
He did, however, more accurately represent the will of the masses, as he issued the Civil Code in 1804 to ensure class equality (Spodek 501). He also reached an agreement, or concordat, with the church, while making sure that it did not have too much power. Napoleon would be most accurately described as an enlightened despot, which many of the philosophes saw as the most efficient leader. Therefore, although his actual power slightly contradicted the purpose of the French Revolution, his main intents more closely matched that of the people, so he was a change for the better for the people of France.
@Clint: I disagree with you point that Napoleon was not an enlightened despot. An enlightened despot does not necessarily have to compromise with his enemies unless that is obviously the wisest choice. While he may not have made the best decisions every time, Napoleon did provide more equality for the people of France, which was the main purpose of the revolution, so in that he represented the will of the people, which defines an enlightened despot. Therefore, while he was very militaristic, Napoleon can still be considered an enlightened despot.
Napoleon Bonaparte, with the help of Emmanuel Sieyes (a Director), overthrew the Directory to establish the French Consulate. He then took the position of First Consul, and was declared Emperor five years later. His ascent to power was in no way in accordance with revolutionary ideals. However, he had exceptional military, administrative, and leadership skills, and utilized them in a way that greatly benefited France. He greatly expanded the scope of the French Empire and brought about many important reforms. Although he was a single despotic emperor, he was an effective leader.
@Garrett: Although Napoleon was tyrannical in some respects, his invasion of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) was representative of the ideals of the revolutionaries. Although the revolutionaries preached "liberty, equality, and fraternity", they neglected to extend these rights to those in the colonies. Napoleon was a hypocrite, but was not contradicting the revolutionaries.
Napoleon was neither a enlightened despot nor a man trying to preserve the French Revolution. To put it simply he was a egomaniac who desired military conquests for his own self aggrandizement. Even he himself said, "with out my victories, I am nothing." Napoleon only ruled strongly because he thrived on the adoration of the French people. Napoleon didn't care about his nation, he referred to his army as "batches" and thought of his soldiers as disposable, though he may have feigned the opposite. Napoleon was simply a arrogant dictator, much like Hitler or Mussolini.
Responding to what Elan said. The French people only supported him until the strains of the war effort severly told on France. At the end of his reign all the French wanted was peace, but Napoleon wouldn't give it to him. By the time of his fall Napoleons popularity was already extremely low. In fact it had been steadily dropping due to him paying lip service to peace, but never actually trying for it.
I like where this going, but remember what the question asked, "whose Napoleon."
Garrett
You are right in saying that Napoleon was an "evil tyrant" for his methods, yet i am merely talking about who he is. As i said in some views he can be described as an enlightened despot yet overall i feel he is closer to a military dictator. He may have been considerably arrognant and hypocritical in his ways but still carries the various aspects of a dictator. As you said he preached justice and liberty in France and denies it everywhere else, yet this does not contradict his loyalty to the revolutionaries because he clearly is in favor of France. I do see that it is hard to consider him a enlightened despot, yet if he was so brutal, why were his reforms welcomed none the less?
@ Tommy
Napoleon was indeed a military dictator, only different in his power from a monarch in that he was not born into power but rather gained the power from a coup. Although he did support some liberties that were not present under the monarchy, this may have simply been a way to distance himself from the monarchy that was dismantled for such reasons only 10 years prior to his ascension to power. The Bourbon Restoration, the return of the monarchy right after the rule of Napoleon, did the same thing. Rather than being an Enlightened despot, Napoleon was likely a man who supported rights only to avoid a second French Revolution.
Responding to Garrett. His reforms were welcome because they gave coherence to France. Before France was a "soup", if you will, of competing factions. Napoleon wiped them out, he even went as far as to ban snuff boxes in the legislature because they displeased him (he himself still used snuff boxes though). Remember, all through his reign his popularity slowly but surely went to the dumps. He didn't preach justice and liberty in France, in fact when he took power he lessened the liberties. He even went so far as to institute a universal draft that theoretically was capable of calling up 2 million men. To further prove my point that Napoleon was an arrogant strongman, he frequently threw temper tantrums in which he threw down his hat, and threatened to kill people when he didn't get his way. Case and point when he was almost on the verge of defeat, and the diplomats offered him a peace treaty he began throwing a temper tantrum. You must remember ultimately all the gains he added to the French Empire were dismantled as soon as he was exiled to St. Helena. Napoleon was just another failed tin pot dicator in the long line of military strongmen throughout history.
First to everyone
You can't say that Neapolitan was loyal to the cause if not everywhere.Thats like saying I'm only Irish in Ireland. If he was truly loyal to the cause he'd promote it everywhere and not just France.
@ Ajay
You don't think that liberating a country from Spain only to turn around and enslave it isn't bad because that was my understanding, please correct me if i'm wrong. (no sarcasm)
@ Frank
The man had his short comings frank yet i wouldn't go so far as saying he believed in no independence. Also the usa drafts people and we have to much liberty for our own good. 1 for thing if you ever say case and point again i will personally see that you ... i'll let you think back to Idler.
Basically one word to describe Napoleon Power hungary.He felt the need to have alot of power.For example he recieved no orders from Paris saying they neede his help he just went over seas.From then on he pretty much worked his way to the top. He turns into the dictator of France.
@Frank: I agree that Napoleon was an unstable man, and this instability led to his demise. He suffered from what is known as the Napoleon complex - he was extremely short, and he overcompensated in everything to make up for his perceived inadequacy. However, for the majority of the time he was in power, he instituted many important reforms and brought many benefits to France. Although he was tyrannical and unstable, he was a successful leader.
Napoleon Bonaparte was a great military leader. This lead many of his colleagues and followers to also believe that he would be a great ruler of a country. By becoming the dictator of France he was bringing his country back to before the revolution. He became close to, as Garrett said, "an evil tyrant, that lead France thru a bloody age". He also became very hypocritical. Saying that you should recieve a job based on how good you are at something, not just who you are related to, and then giving more power to his family. He sent troops to San Domingo to enforce slavery after preaching against it. He told himself that he was working for the greater good of man and ended up being killed by the men he thought he was doing good for...So to answer the question, Napoleon is a person who worked toward the greater good without knowing exactly what that is.
@ Clint
Your right. I didnt even talk about Napoleons relationship to an enlightened despot. He wouldn't qualify as one, as you said, because to be an despot one must be influenced by the Enlightenment and working for the greater good of man EVERYWHERE
Agreeing with Garrett, I think you might have taken it a little too far. He had many Hitler-like qualities to him but its not so much that he did not care about France than that what he thought was right actually made no sense at all. He was brought in to take absolute power and help France, which is what he thought he was doing in my opinion. He just didnt realize that by going off to so many wars and spending more money he was harming the French. Its also possible that he knew exactly what he was doing but the pressure of having to take care of a whole country got to him.
Frank
I agree with your response to Garrett being that before Napoleon the French goverment was a mass of factions with out structure or true importance. It was very easy for him to begin rule and have his reforms welcomed, on account that it was new, and something different. He was once a man of fresh power the people were thrilled to hold, although his brutal and hyocritical personality eventually leaked through and as you said his reforms were further forgotten.
@Garrett: You have some very good points. However, I don't think that his military power means he was a bad leader. Other countries may have certainly seen him as tyrannical merely because he was destroying them on the battlefield. The main characteristic of an enlightened despot is that they reflect the will of the people. Remember that even before Napoleon became emperor, the revolutionaries made war with Austria. Therefore, Napoleon was not necessarily betraying the principles of the French Revolution. What other people are saying, about him having a temper and being a military strongman, is largely irrelevant to this question; the question is, in my words: was Napoleon really and Enlightened despot, or did he betray the ideals of the revolution? I am not saying he adhered to all of the revolutionary principles, but that he more closely represented them than the monarchy of Louis XVI. Therefore, although he may have been tyrannical in his military strategy, he was closer to being an Enlightened despot than his predecessors.
Obviously Napoleon was a great military leader. But He was also a good "dictator" for his country because yes he did get rid of slavery. But for other countries he wasn’t like the most favored guy where he went because yes he enforced slavery everywhere else, although he seemed like he was trying to do the best things for his country some of the time. He just was a lot better at leading warriors than a country.
@ Audrey
I agree with you that he did get most of his power through his military experiences. and no he didnt care about people that didnt earn their rank through military even though his whole family is like beastly
I believe that Napoleon was the mad dictator of popular sentiment. His declaration of a life long term went againdt everything the Enlightenment stood for. His headstrong views on foreing policy, i.e., conquering everything he saw.
-James
Napoleon was more than just a strongman, Frank. It requires charisma to unite a violent and scared people, and a kind of genius to win the battles he did, not to mention the invention of the can. Napoleon was a powerful leader lead astray by hubris.
-James
Responding to Tommy's response to me...
You certainly make an intresting point. I see where you are going with Napoleon's acts of aiding in the equality of the people, which would in turn make him have some enlightened despot qualities. I was probably wrong to just rule him out of the idea since he is on wikipedia's list. *(headslap) Yet still in the context of the question, in my opinion Napoleon was defenitely more militaristic dictator than an enlightened despot.
Responding to Mariha
Napoleon was indeed a great military leader, and this helped him rise to power, although he actually only received power through a coup of the failing government of France. Although his hypocrisy was present at times, such as the power that he gave to his family and his declaration of himself as the emperor of France, he was not killed by France. He was first exiled to Elba after his defeat in the invasion of Russia and then returned to power in 1815 for a short time, exiled again only after his defeat at Waterloo. His death was not an assassination, but simply death while in exile.
(Sorry for any spelling mistakes im writing this on my phone) napoleon rose to power in a time when france was in a very unstable condition. The people were hungry, angry and generally just wanting some sort of order that they could cling onto. Napoleon fit all of these requirements and more. He was a great leader and won many battles. Like most great leaders though, he became too greedy and eager and lost control over his need to gain more land. This led to his downfall. I think that although napoleon was a dictator he was what france needed at the time.
@Frank
I agree with the main points that you are stating but i just think that you are exaggerating a bit when you talk about him being an "egomaniac". This information is probably biased because Britain created a false image of him in the world, and even portrayed him as an evil person in nursery rhymes and the press aided this false image as well. Secondly just because he doesn't care about his army doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't care for his nation. Overall though I agree with what you are trying to say.
Napoleon was a very strong and persuasive leader and I think we all have established that in our answers. However, the questions is asking whose vision about Napoleon is true. Is he a betrayer of the principles of the revolution or is he expanding the policies of the French Revolution? Is he a military dictator or an Enlightened despot? I think the real napoleon is governed strongly by military and therefore he is a military dictator. Through military force (war) he wanted to spread the principles of the revolution. He got alliance with all of the major powers in Europe. He reached his downfall as a result of his military dictatorship. Because he tried so hard to get in control of Britain (and was defeated by Lord Nelson) his troops died because of the winter and then slowly all of the countries he conquered began to feel the stir of nationalism and wanted to rule themselves. Here we can see with this "story" that why Napoleon was a military dictator. However, I also agree with the people that think that Napoleon expanded the policies of the French Revolution. An example of this would be that he "introduced the principal legal and administrative reforms of the Revolution". Through codified law, religious toleration, and free trade he demonstrated that he was extending the policies of the Revolution.
Responding to the comment from Alicia Clark...
I agree with you that Napoleon was a military dictator. I also agree with you when you said that you believe that Napoleon is exactly what France needed at the time because the textbook explains that "Napoleon consolidated and expanded many of the innovations of the Revolution" (Spodek 501). France wanted it's revolution to last and create a booming affect and Napoleon did exactly this. Napoleon encouraged people to have access to professional advancement based upon how smart and able they are to perform a certain task, not based upon what class they were born into. This was a great step for France and Napoleon created many other lasting effects on this nation as well.
Napolean was a leader who could bring a country out of ruin. He was a leader that seemed to fit perfectly after the French Revolutions. He was definitely an "enlightened despot" followed the ideas of enlightenment, such believing in reason, rather than spiritual feelings. Though he used force to spread his principles, his principles were fair and just what the French wanted. From his Civil Code, we see that he wanted equality before the law and to have careers open to anyone who was capable of it, rather to be born into the job. He even soothed things out with the Church. However ruthles he may have been, he was widely accepted in the countries he built an alliance with because of his reforms and policies. However, as every leader does, he did have flaws, but this does necessarily mean he was a military dictator. However futile and whatever goals or expansion he had planned for France that led him to the decision to conquer Britain and Russia, while he was re-establishing slavery in Haiti, he paid for it in the end. Losing men and his position put an end to this enlightened despot.
Mariha,
You have some good points, but Napolean definitely did not bring France back to pre-French Revolution. The class difference was not as harsh and a set of laws were set into place. It is true Napolean appointed his brothers as kings, but it could be possible that at the time, he believed his brothers were good choices. Napolean was a wise man and I don't think he would have blindly set his brothers up as king. However, I do somewhat agree with you about Napolean working towards the greater goal, without specifically knowing what it was. He obviously wanted more power to France, but obtaining it, in his means, meant more war and fighting.
Napoleon rose to power quickly, because he was thought to be someone who would pull the empire out of the dark hole that they had dug. He came to power through his military, he then began to gain and hlod any power available, afterward he acheived
political popularity by that he was able to be voted emperor for life. I think that he betrayed the revolution because his thirst for power eventually destroyed the empire that they had worked so hard to build, and because he wanted slavery.
I think there are many sides to Napolean. He gained power after a war and the country needed his guidance, support, and assurance. Yes Napolean did create the Civil Code in 1804 which put equality before the law and having careers based on talents. He did many more things also. However, do we know his real intentions? I think Napolean cared more about the glory and his military success. In order to do that he needed the support of the people, so he needed to satisfy what they desired. I believed he used his power and the people of France to get what he wanted. For example, Napolean appointed his brothers as kings of Spain, Holland, and Westphalia. This goes against his idea of advancement by talent. I feel Napolean was more of a military dictator and only cared for the glory in battle.
Alicia,
I agree with what you said about the people being hungry and angry and just wanting something to hold onto to. France had just gone through a huge revolution that resulted in the death of many people, including their own king. They needed someone who knew what he was doing and would support their cause that they had just fought so hard for. However, just like you said his greed brought about his downfall. I think, though, that greed was always there.
First of all, I need to say that I really respect Napoleon (if this won't be evident by the end of my post). No matter that he spilt blood, oftentimes innocent. He was a guy who could really get things done.
Now, on to who he was. I understand completely when historians say that he "betrayed the principles of the revolution". The revolution rebelled against monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, and would have never, at that time, submitted to an emperor. However, just years later, Napoleon became just that. As a brilliant political leader, he won the hearts of the people, and therefore, their votes.
If the term "dictator" is to be applied to Napoleon, then so be it. He WAS in complete power, as the sole leader of his empire. However, going off of the definition of an "enlightened despot" (absolute ruler in the interest of the people), I would classify him as such. He clearly acted in the interest of his people, if he was able to secure the popular vote so easily. Either that, or his brilliance in political and military rule must have been unmatched.
Of course, this is all ignoring his less-than-reputable end, which displayed quite clearly his wild, power-hungry side.
I also see a lot of attacks to his moral fiber here. Yes, he did strongly support getting a job through abilities instead of birth, and then turned around to give his relatives quite a bit of power. That would indeed make him hypocritical. But isn't Bill Clinton considered a great president (to most), despite his slight lack of standards? I mean, you don't see Richard Nixon being asked to give a lot of motivational and success speeches... whereas Clinton can ask for $200,000 a speech and still be fought over.
Food for thought!
Even though plenty of people have already responded to you, Garrett, I feel obligated to, as well. You really tore the poor man apart!
I see where you're coming from. But your argument is completely one-sided. Napoleon expanded the empire, pulled France out of its pathetic bloodbath, and transformed it into a force to be reckoned with.
He could be compared slightly to Hitler, but his ideas of expansion were nowhere near as radical as Hitler's intention to slaughter. Expansion by military force, naturally, spills blood. The motivation was not to kill, destroy, mutilate, and devour, but just to grow.
I have to stop fawning over this guy... In all actuality, he most definitely was NOT a saint...
I believe that the title of Enlightened Despot is quite appropriate for Napoleon. Howard Spodek seems to have a very favorable view of him: he lists all of the good things Napoleon did and then briefly lists his military failures as the explanation for his fall and exile. John Merriman (A History of Modern Europe) focuses more closely on the dirty tactics Napoleon used for power. His brother Lucien, who served in the lower assembly, forced all of Napoleon's opponents out of the Directory so an election would be guarunteed. However, the entire concept of Enlightened Despotism revolves around the philosophy of the ends justifying the means, so this only supports the argument for using this term to describe Napoleon. His reign was no doubt a huge step up from the impotent chaos of the Directory and was beneficial to France as well as Revolutionary ideals like equality and liberty (both of which are supported by the Napoleanic Code). The historians that call Napoleon an Enlightened Despot are quite correct.
Be excellent to eachother, and party on dudes!
Hadley, as I mentioned in my post, Napoleon's brother rigged the election, so your point about his election being proof of his popularity is moot, but I agree with you that he was a benevolent dictator.
McKinley, your questioning of Napoleon's motives are somewhat pointless. He was no doubt a narcissist (he was always building statues of himself), but I think he wanted what was best for France. I could argue that you don't care about learning at all, because you just want a good grade. I don't think you are acting out of shallow desires, but I know you can care about both things simultaneously. The same is true with Napoleon.
In my opinion Napoleon Bonaparte was a man with good intensions when he first started out. But once he came into power, he liked it and wanted more, so he decided to expand France further than he should have. This is probably why he made his brothers kings of Spain, Holland, and Westphalia (Spodek 503). His brothers would have helped him keep his power. As most people know, power corrupts people and that is what happened to Napoleon. As we discussed today in class, he was born to a good, moral familiy, so we can see that he was raised to be virtuous. When Napoleon started his giant extension of France and started to be more like a dictator, that is when he became a tyrant. And that is why most historians today do not like him.
Many people are saying how Napoleon was exactly like Hitler. I have to disagree. Sure Napoleon was a bad person, and caused many problems for people. But Hitler was MUCH worse. He was a tyrinnical, evil, scheaming dictator who manipulated people with words. I highly doubt that Napoleon was as good with words as Hitler was. More likely Napoleon was more like Benito Mussolini. They were both killed by their own people because they were not liked. Hitler, on the other hand is said to have committed suicide. It might seem like their deaths do not count as similarities, but they do. The death of Napoleon was caused when he was exiled by his country, this shows just how much the people of Europe hated Napoleon. Overall all of these men were evil, its just that Hitler was a much more evil man than the others. If you really think about it though how different is Napoleon from other dictators? They all go rouge at some point. Im not saying its ok just because everyone else is doing it, but merely that if we think about it almost all dictators who came into power were corrupted, which leads me to what i said before, power currupts people and so Napoleon became evil.
@Mariha
I agree with what you said. Napoleon was more like a child who kept wanting more. He saw something shiny and wanted it, what he didn't think about was his people. He tried very hard to turn things around that he ended up actually angering everyone. He cannot be considered enlightened because he never knew what he was doing!
I believe that Napoleon went against what the revolution was for in the first place. The revolution was partly fought to remove monarchy, and though not directly, he ruled similar to one. Though he didn't come into power like a normal king, he ruled like one and, he also gave his family speicial treatment by chosing his family members as kings for Spain and Italy and so on... He also went against the main thing that most revolutions fought for, freedom. When he tried to conquer stop Haiti's revolution and re-start slavery there which went against equal freedom and rights that he was supposedly giving.
Napoleon Bonaparte was an enlightened despot who took over the recently revolutionary France through his merit as a military officer in a particularly tumultuous time. He was very similar to the kings of recently overturned system in his absolute power over the entire empire, but upheld the ideals of the people for the most part. This sets him apart from all of the kings with which revolutionaries had problems. That he assigned people to positions of power based on proficiency, allowed for the continuation of personal freedoms among citizens, and spent effectively and efficiently also illustrates this point. This was sometimes compromised, such as when nepotism appears in his appointment of relatives to extremely high positions of power despite the fact that they may not be the best for the job. Overall, however, Bonaparte lead in the interest of the general public and deserves recognition as such a leader. Though his military conquests were the center of his power and rule, he didn't let it get in the way completely of actually ruling his people efficiently and fairly, as far as absolute rulers go. For this, I believe that he is not a military dictator but an enlightened despot.
I completely agree, Ajay. Napoleon for the most part upheld all of the ideals of the revolutionaries. His attempt at Haitian re-enslavement was backed by the French and, though hypocritical in nature, completely in line with their desires. If Napoleon had not acted as closely as he did to the beliefs of his people, there would be outrage and revolt at home as these were a revolutionary people at home. With his rule, however, came a much more peaceful time within France than that predating Napoleon's seizure of the government as his to rule alone. This seems to me to be proof that the French were behind Napoleon in all of his major pursuits.
Many different alternative governments were tried to put into action, before Naoplean came into power, which changed everything. He was an extraordinary military leader, and this alone was what made him gain power, especially over France. Over time, Napolaen turned into a dictator, but it was the people who kept him in power, so it was also partly their fault. He was a very material oriented person. Overall, Napolian was a good leader and was very powerful.
Cindy:)
I totally agree with you that Napoleon had the power to bring his country out of an awful situation, but I think he just took it too far. And that he was just the right person to take over after the revolution in France. I also agree with the comparison that you made with Haiti, Britian, and Russia. Over all I think that you made man y good points! Im proud of you Cindy!
Although it may be difficult to assume a side within the debate over whether Napoleon Bonaparte was a military dictator or a beneficial ruler to the French Revolution, I believe that he was indeed a dictator or even an “Enlightened Despot”. This can be clear as he desired to become more than First Consul. The need to become emperor was unnecessary as it retracted the right of free elections from France (Spodek 500); therefore, it is clear that this action has already betrayed principles of the revolution. Again, despite the codifying of many significant laws in France which had been in favor of the Third Estate and therefore of the revolution, his thirst for increased power became dominant and the military dictator appeared. Out of fear of the power of the church, Napoleon created a Concordat (which guaranteed pay for the clergy while he ruled their lands (Spodek 501). As he continued to conquer countries, Napoleon’s greed grew strong and eventually led to his downfall in Russia by 1813 (Spodek 506). In conclusion, although he pleased the people, his method of rule (appearing to be dictatorship) somewhat betrayed certain ideals of the revolution and his greed for more power (ownership of surrounding countries) clearly support the common belief of Napoleon Bonaparte as a military dictator.
McKinley, I completely agree with your above comment as you cleverly stated that Napoleon’s goal was to simply gain the “glory” that follows military accomplishments. In addition, I comply with your statement that he only passed laws to please the people as he would need their support for his sensitive military decisions. Therefore, it makes complete sense as to why many would believe that he benefited the revolution; however, in reality, he simply wanted the support of the people so that he could perform military duties and continue to conquer.
Mariha, I agree with your statement as you mentioned that Napoleon Bonaparte was indeed a great ruler although he was a dictator (some would even call him a tyrant). Additionally, it was a very nice observation as you noticed that he was without a doubt hypocritical as he allowed for jobs/power to be given to the people who possess the talent (again, so he could please the people to gain support), whereas he simply handed out power to his brothers. As a result, I completely agree with your response.
Mckinley,
I like your position on this issue and that he address his multi-faceted leadership. Many polarize his actions, either over- or under-glorifying him as an emperor. He, as is true of most other leaders, displays both sides of the spectrum with his leadership decisions. It seems to me that an accurate judgement of the effectiveness of an emperor is how his people supported and benefited from his rule. Both of these seem to be very positive in the grand scheme of things. Here I'll have to draw from Hadley, as well, when I say that these accomplishments are not lessened by the man's intentions. Personal achievement and betterment is always a goal of a leader and Napoleon is no exception to this, but what matters is what he did for his people. I disagree with your overall conclusion, however. It seems a harsh judgement. Leaders have to have at least a small part of the aforementioned motivation in them in order to lead, but many more of them become tyrannical and completely dictatorial. This did not happen with Napoleon. He served the overall good of his people and did not become too obsessed with military power and total despotic rule.
*you address
Aaryn,
I totally agree with you when you say that the people kept Napoleon in power so it was sort of their fault that he continued to gain power. If they had wanted to the could have voted him out of power. Good idea! :)
Napoleon was a revolutionary. When he first began to take control of France, Bonaparte supported the Third estate, this made him a revolutionary because it was cohesive with the current political and military revolution of the time. Furthermore, Napoleon had the favor of the former "Jacques," this enforced his role as a revolutionary even more.
@ Elan:
I like your point about overthrowing the government. This made him a revolutionary. However, couldn't Napoleon's returning to the original system undermine his stance as a revolutionary? Just food for thought.
As many people have already said, I think Napoleon was a military dictator. He was brilliant in battle and the thing he cared about most was the military. I think at one point he could have been considered an Enlightened Despot but he became hypocritical when he gave his brothers countries to run when he had previous expressed his belief in advancement by talent. Before his downfall, he showed a side of himself that was crazy and power hungry that in a way went against everything he once stood for. I think that there were many different sides of Napoleon so it makes it hard to completely pinpoint him as one thing or another.
Hadley,
After reading your post, I thought a lot about what you said about Napoleon’s morals. I see the point you are trying to make when you reference Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon but I think that example is sort of not the same thing. Clinton and Nixon both did things most people would consider bad and then tried to cover it up and lie about so nobody would find out. Napoleon could not have thought that people would not find out about him giving away countries so he must not have really cared what people thought about him.
I did really enjoy reading your post, it was very you.
Napoleon is a great leader when it came to military because he won many battles for france.This may have gave him the real backbone needed to take control of a country in the state it was. But that does not neccessary give him the upper hand when it comes to actually political problems inside france. Yes, he did do good things here and there to help the people of france and the revoultion but maybe that was all part of a inside plan.
I think Napoleon Bonaparte was a military leader, he did do some good for his country, but he was mainly military. He came to power through his military skills, so i would consider him a military leader not an enlightened despot.
@Darrin
I agree with you Darrin. He was mainly military and he did good for his country, but he did not always know what to do in political situations.
Victoria,
I agree with what you said about there are many different sides of Napolean, so it makes it hard to completely pinpoint him as one thing or another. We cannot say he is one thing or another because which one of us actually knew him? However, I agree with you and believe he was a military dictator.
Victoria-
Yes I can follow your thoughts on how it was hard to choose which one he could possibly be. But you have to also have to think about what Mr. Waddell said in class, " just because he was a great general and Military hero does not mean that once put at that status the outcome will be the same." Plus the giving away of conquered territory to family makes me lean even more to military dictator.
Sean S,
I see what you mean about him having personel goals like any leader and doing all that good for his people. But say that was exactly his plan, "make everyone see him as a in between leader, when all of a sudden he jumps out and pushes all the right buttons to make everyting go his way".
It was the actions of Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès that pushed Napoleon Bonaparte into power but clearly Napoleon was a political and military dictator. Although Napoleon had exceptional military skills and tactics, they unfortunately did not help him with political rule, a area where Napoleon fell quite short with experience (no pun intended).
@ Elan:
I think you stress an excellent point about Napoleon. The points you make clearly classify Napoleon as a revolutionary.
@Cindy
I can see what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree. As I precieve it, Napoleon was not an enlightened despot. He was not very smart and was not affected by the Enlightenment so he cannot posibbly be one. Although you do make good points about how he was doing things for the good of the people. I also like how you mentioned that he re-established slevery in Haiti, I forgot to put that in my post.
I recently found out a cool fact, Napoleon had green wallpaper in his room, and green is the color of avarice, so Napoleon was greedy. Which he was because he just kept conquring nations in Europe. This wallpaper also might have killed him, historians are not sure, because it had a certain toxin in it and Napoleon was breathing it in every day.
okay while all of this is true he still can't be considered an enlightened despot by just being a good military leader. the question is was he LEADERSHIP worthy of the title. i think not, while he may have done some good he still lost in england, a strong naval power, on the sea. what kind of supposed great leader just charges headfirst into a naval battle with the strongest naval power in the world just for the sake of expansion in the name of a country with a still low economic point.
He was not a great leader there in not worthy of the title enlightened despot.he gave his brothers HUGE chunks of land simply because they were family not because they were the most qualified to assist in the empire. he reinstated slavery because it was EASY not because it was best for the country. he engaged with two countrys, russia and britan, he should not have he did it because he was a gready short little powe hungry man, who sought to expose his military "briliance" anytime he could wether it was good for the country or not.and he stormed russia during the winter what did he not know that russia is inhospitable during the winter without the help of alot of fur coats and vodka neither of which he supplied the trops with sooooo they lost and died so he could feel like a big man in front of his followers and soilders( most of which are probably dead because of him by now).
he didn't declare himself nor nominate himself into that position of power.
Bailee,
It's interesting that you base your answer of who Napolean was on the fact that he was a good military leader, which he really was. I agree that he definitely earned his position among the people and the ranks through skills and that would have him lean towards a military leader, not necessarily a dictator leader kind of thing, but a military one.
Even though Napoleon took control in France and made many new rules to make it function more smoothly, I believe that he was, in fact, a military dictator. In the beginning of his rule, he might have seemed like an “Enlightened Despot,” but towards the end of his rule, his true self began to show. He put up a front so that the people of France would like him and appoint him as a consul, and eventually ruler. But he soon began to show the military officer side of him, and wanted to spread France’s new principles by force, showing how important conquering was to him.
McKinley,
I agree with you, and how you said that even though he thought that people should be in power based in their talents and not their family background, he made his brothers rulers of other countries, showing how hypocritical he was. I also like how you pointed out that we don’t know what his real intentions were. He could have actually wanted to help the people, or could have just wanted to make himself look good so he could be in power.
Darrin,
Winning battles does make someone seem like a great leader and definitely would have given Napolean experience and skill. However, this should have made him wiser, but as we all see, Napolean definitely had some issues with politics. But he did try to bring France out of its post-war state, such as creating new set of laws that everyone agreed upon.
Bailee:)
I campletly agree with your point of view ofhim being soley a military oriented person. Also when you said that he is not an enlightened despot that is also completly right. However, i als thing of him as a sort of learer for him country, becasue you have to have some skill to run a country at all, even if it was done in a poor fasion. But everything you said was completly true! Nice work!
Responding to Kalina..
I agree with you. Napoleon wasn't born as an evil military dictator. Once he was given such high power his mind was corrupted. He did a lot for France on the contrary. He instituted new policies and helped make for a better France. Although once he began to take over other countries his power overtook his mind and he had a thirst for power. Also, he instituted a new system in which people got jobs based upon their abilities rather than the "ranking" they were born in to. In my opinion, this new system as well as new policies were for the betterment of France and that Napoleon didn't really mean to become such a harsh dictator. I agree with you that slowly his power overtook his mind.
I would not compare Napoleon to Hitler. Napoleon was ruthless, but he had no irrational hatred for people in his own country. He was also a military genius, while Hitler's psycosis and addiction to amphedimine made him incompetant as a leader. It is an interesting comparison, but I don't think it is valid.
-James
Victoria,
I definitely agree with what you said about Napoleon having multiples sides. I also think he was a military dictator, but I think you have made a great point in saying that it is impossible to know EXACTLY who he was, because he could have been perceived in many different ways.
Kalina-
Exactly! You were able to put into words perfectly why Napoleon shouldn't be compared to Hitler. He wasn't bloodthirsty with "irrational hatred for people in his own country", as James said. He just knew how to get things done. Great insights!
Napoleon Bonaparte just had the same outlook on power as Ra's al Ghul (that's right, reference to Batman) did: he was willing to do all that was necessary. Therefore worthy of my adoration.
No one can go from being an enlightened despot to a military dictator, my fellow classmates. That's silly. Enlightened despots stay enlightened despots, has anyone ever suddenly lost their enlightenment and just fell into darkness? No, Napoleon(N Man) was another one of those marvelous public speakers who knew exactly what to say to make the people happy. To appease the French peeps, N Man played his part quite well, showing off his fabulous military skills and meeting needs. Then N Man went hypocrite style on everyone, and ate some banishment for "Defeat Dinner." Like most other Military Dictators.
Oh i was supposed to back up what i said with some evidence. What kind of Enlightened guy enslaves people? What kind of Enlightened guy enslaves people after discouraging slavery? How about that wonderful brother insta-power deal? The poor Bourbons got to meet the nasty military side of N man that brutally defeated them for his own hereditary line. He was definitely a military dictator.
to Garrett, Ajay, and Frank.
Holy cow guys, let's not be mean. that was the first thing i had to say. and Garrett, i think you were being sarcastic. Just saying. But i do mostly agree with Garrett, even though i think you laid on the extreme brutality of N man a little harshly. He was a pretty awful guy though, and definitely a military dictator.
As everyone else has stated, Napolean Bonaparte was a highly influential man and ultimately changed the French Revolution. I believe his true self should be based on perception because his actions reflect both sides of a military dictator and an Enlightened Despot. His continuing on from a military leader to the dictator of France, reminds me of an example used in class one day: that Napolean is similar to Julius Ceasar. Though Ceasar was not considered a dictator, the rise in power from a military base was apparent in both cases and reminescent of dictatorship. The fact that Napolean acted to better the people of France shows the Enlightened despot in him.
Frank, your opinions are obviously very strong concerning "the real Napolean", and I do agree with your opinion to a certain level. Napolean did become a dictator which developed more and more with the increase of power he obtained. Though, I do not necessarily feel he entered into with the main goal of becoming a dictator and nothing less.
the blog clock is behind an hour
Hadley,
i agree with your comment on how N man can't be compared to Hitler, that's just insane. And i admire but don't agree with your batman reference. :)
Ajay, I agree that ultimately, Napolean led to many reforms and his miltary and leadership skills were incredibly important in acheiving these changes. Though his rise to power did end in a sort of dictatorship, I agree that we can commend him for his skills :)
@Carly
I could not agree any more with your statements. NO ONE can go from an enlightened despot to a military dictator.
@Kalina:
You make a strong point about Napoleon not being like Hitler. Whereas Hitler was a great orator who controlled the people through his words and then rose to power, Napoleon controlled the people while in office, and got their support through helping the Third Estate. However, we can both agree that the leaders took two steps back for any step that they took forward.
Stephanie,
Considering we basically wrote the same thing, I agree with what you said. Napoleon acted one way when he was rising to power and once he had control, he showed who he truly was.
As many people have already said, I believe that Napoleon was an Enlightened Despot, not a military dictator. Although his ideas did not necessarily match those of the plilisophes they were relevant at the time and what the people of France liked. He had complete power as emperor, but he ruled for his people and did a good job representing them.
Carly
We are here to debate and discuss if things get a little heated its the nature of the game. No one here should be defending napolean, and i know i did a little bit. He helped franch this is undisputeded, what we are here to talk about is whether he was an enlightened despote. He is not because he broke the social contract of the peole. Therefore no one can claim he is.
@Brandond's response to me:
Thank you Brandon. I thought it was a very good statement indeed.
@Victoria's summary to Stephanie:
You guys summarized it pretty well. His hid his true self, and then showed everyone he was a mean Military Dictator
@Brandond's response to me:
Thank you Brandon. I thought it was a very good statement indeed.
@Victoria's summary to Stephanie:
You guys summarized it pretty well. His hid his true self, and then showed everyone he was a mean Military Dictator
Napolean was not a military dictator because he did not control the people of France but lead them to greatness instead. This is the same as Hitler because he did not hurt the people of Germany but helped them to grow stronger. Napolean was one of the graeatest leaders in French histoy that lead them through many wars and problems.
@Brandond's response to me:
Thank you Brandon. I thought it was a very good statement indeed.
@Victoria's summary to Stephanie:
You guys summarized it pretty well. His hid his true self, and then showed everyone he was a mean Military Dictator
Kalina, How you say he started out good and then went downhill, he started out wanting to change France, but ended up having to do the same things those before him did.
bulgarians are cool:p
Mariha, you are right when you say that napoleon wanted to work for the greater good without knowing what it was, and furthur more, i see napoleon as a better military than a political leader
Alex,
I totally agree. Napoleon might not have done what the people wanted after a while or what philosophes had envisioned, but he did lead France to greatness. Good thoughts :)
Victoria,
You are so right about Napoleon becoming “crazy and power hungry” towards the end of his rule and how it was the opposite of what his beliefs were in the beginning. I also like how you said that there were many sides to Napoleon, which makes it difficult to determine what kind of person he actually was. I believe that the source of his different sides is a result of him trying cover up his true military self, but being able to truly cover it up.
Hadley,
I do agree with you in saying that Napoleon was one to be greatly respected he was a good leader, to an extent. I respect his ability to gain the trust of so many indivduals that they would vote him emperor for life, and his military leadership. However, I do believe that, if you were one of his subjects, you might be a little ashamed for some of the things that he did.
Ross,
I don't think that it is quite fair to compare Napoleon and Hitler. Although they both had incredible leadership skills, they are not very much alike. Hitler rounded up and killed all of the Jews, Napoleon never did that. True they have some things in common, I believe that they are more different then alike.
Marcus,
I may change my perspective now because yes, we know he had great success with the military area of France but throwing his country into a head to head battle with Britain. Leads me to believe that he had to much confidants in his ability and that lead to his failure.
I do not believe that Napoleon betrayed Revolution. On the contrary, I think he helped it. Obviously things weren't going smoothly under the Directors so Napoleon stepped in and smoothed things out. He wanted what the people wanted and was therefore very popular and liked. He helped France, enforced equality and codified the laws that had been made before under the Civil Code. In the book it says, "...Napoleon consolidated and even expanded many of the innovations of the Revolution" (Spodek 501). How is this "betraying the revolution? Yes, he was technically a single ruler over the people, but he gave them what they wanted. They were heard and understood which was really the whole point in getting rid of the "single ruler" thing. They also say, "He had no respect for unearned authority" (Spodek 503). He believed everyone should get a fair shot at whatever they want.
He was a bit of hypocrite though when he made his brothers Kings of 3 different countries. Also, he did reinstate slavery, which he should not have. Overall, I think he was a great leader until the end.
This is my third time writing this because it won't submit. I'm getting frustrated. I do not think Napoleon betrayed the Revolution at all. In the book it says, "...Napoleon consolidated and even expanded many of the innovations of the Revolution" (Spodek 501). And he betrayed it how again? He didn't! No matter what France says they needed him at that point in time. The Directors were not doing they're jobs and everything was out of control. He smoothed things out and still kept the same beliefs. The only thing was that he was a single ruler. As long as the people were happy and got what they wanted how did he betray anything? He helped enforce and maintain equality throughout France.
I will admit it was hypocritical when he gave his brothers positions as kings in Spain, Holland and Westphalia. And he should not have reinstated slavery but no leader has EVER been perfect and I think France would've been worse off without him. And all the way up till the end he led a great military and really improved France in that area. Overall, Napoleon wasn't such a bad guy.
Sorry Mr. Waddell! The one above this is mine. I forgot to put my name.
@ Joshua F.:
I agree with you, I definitely think that Napoleon was a better military than political leader. He conquered many different cities and led France to success in that way. Also, when he did conquer he gave them the same rights as his own. He kind of messed up at the end though with Britain and Russia. Anyway, my point is I agree with you!
Oh...sorry again the one above this is mine too. Sorry, sorry , sorry.
Why are the others rulers considered enlightened despots anyway, i did a little snooping and to me only Catherine from Russia was truly an enlightened despot, and even she failed in the "cause". just food for though.