Category: Napoleon

The history of Europe is a rather interesting and complex matter of study. However, there are certain personalities that make this history, and this paper will focus on three of such personalities. Napoleon Bonaparte, Klemens von Metternich, and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck are the great historical figures who successes and failures were the results of their own actions but not of their acting according to the circumstances under which they lived; these persons made events and processes happen rather than managed to be at the right place in the right time. Napoleon, Metternich, and Bismarck were the people to shape the history.

Thus, Napoleon Bonaparte (1769  1821) was one of the most prominent figures through the whole history of France (Stearns et al., 2005). To achieve this, Napoleon exercised his will much and finally, supported by few people, managed to carry out coup-detat that dismissed the Directory and placed Napoleon on the top of the French state authority in 1799, which would be impossible if he lived according to circumstances and not shaped them himself (Brummett, 2006, p. 553). Napoleon was a talented statesman who established the basics of the French state structure. Napoleon, based on the political reforms of 1802, managed to develop a state apparatus able of controlling and operating the army, economic and financial affairs of the country, exploiting the countrys natural and human resources, etc. (Brummett, 2006, p. 554). Thus, Napoleon was the man to shape himself and the history of France and the whole Europe.

The same, to some extent, can be said about Metternich, the Prime Minister and the actual ruler of Austria and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the early 19^th century after the Napoleonic Wars (Stearns et al., 2005). Pursuing the interests of his own and his country, Metternich was also concerned with the overall stability in Europe, and it was mainly his work at the 1815 Vienna Congress of the European nations that allowed the continent to have the 40-year long period of the peaceful co-existence of countries (Brummett, 2006, p. 753). Accordingly, Metternich needed a strong basis for his power, which he found in a backward system that helped him to win the 1830 elections and remain in power for almost a decade more (Brummett, 2006, p. 754) as contrasted to the liberalist and nationalist ideologies that dominated Europe after the Napoleonic Wars (Stearns et al., 2005). So, all the facts mentioned are results of Metternichs actions that met no support by the rich and powerful people. Metternich can also be viewed as the person who created the events and made history develop in the direction beneficial to him and his country.

Otto von Bismarck was also a person of strong will and great power. His concept of Realpolitik is still viewed as the role model for the modern politicians as it allowed achieving peace with Russia in 1863, waging the joint was against Denmark with Austria in 1864, and uniting Germany in 1871 (Brummett, 2006, p. 761). Being a skillful politician, Bismarck managed to control the state affairs in the united Germany which he himself created. The fact that Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck from the position of Chancellor in 1888 also evidences the strong will of this person, whom even the kings of Germany were afraid of and did not want to compete with (Brummett, 2006, p. 764). Thus, Bismarck can also be called the strong personality who shaped the history.

To conclude, Napoleon Bonaparte, Klemens von Metternich, and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck are the great historical figures who successes and failures were the results of their own actions but not of their acting according to the circumstances under which they lived. Descending from ordinary families, these people managed to achieve the highest state powers and leave their traces in the European history.

Works Cited

1. Brummett, Palmira J., Robert R. Edgar, Neil J. Hackett, George F. Jewsbury, Barbara S. Molony. Civilization: Past & Present, Volume II: From 1300. Longman, 2006
2. Stearns, Peter N., Stephen S. Gosch, Erwin P. Grieshaber. Documents in World History: The Modern Centuries, Volume 2 (From 1500 to the Present). Longman, 2005.

Introduction

Without doubt, the current civilization in the Western world is based on the exploits of the former leaders and conquerors. Through their exploits, geographical definitions were marked to identify the stretches of a kingdoms and empires. These later marked country boundaries. In addition, the socioeconomic, cultural and political interactions in the current world can be traced down the history line. These sentiments are clearly portrayed in Hunt and colleagues in their book The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. This book acts as a clear portrayal of the factors that have contributed to the formation of the current outlook of Western Civilization. The book identifies three main components of historical perspectives that have acted as the shaping forces of the evolved global entity. The three factors identified in the book include global influences, the interactions of the different sociopolitical and cultural factors and the roots of todays civilization in the historical backdrop. Accordingly, this paper will identify Napoleon Bonapartes exploits and how they have greatly contributed to the contemporary societys civilization. These contributions will therefore be used to support the argument that Napoleon Bonaparte was a hero.

Napoleons early life

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on 15^th August, 1769 in Corsica. He was named Napoleon di Buonaparte, a name that he adopted from his uncle who had died fighting in the Army. He later changed his name to Napoleon Bonaparte which had a more French touch as compared to the older version. Napoleon was brought up in a working class family as his father, Carlo Buonaparte served in the Louis XVI Courts as a representative of Corsica and he was an attorney. However, the greatest impact in Napoleons life was from his mother. With a strict sense of discipline, Maria Ramolino developed a rambunctious child from Napoleon.

Educational background

Coming from an affluent family, Napoleon was able to access an education level that was beyond other young men from Corsica. This was due to his connections and his background that was marked by Affluence. He attended his first few years of education in Autun before joining a Military academy situated in Brienne-le-Chateau later in 1779. Word from one of his instructors pointed out that Napoleon excelled in mathematics, History and Geography. From Brienne-le-Chateau he moved to Paris where he joined the Ecole militaire. Later, the death of his father resulted into Napoleons compressing of his two year study to a single year. Here, he trained as an artillery officer, a change from his initial ambition of becoming a sailor and joining the British Royal Navy.

Themes in the making of the west, their relationship to Napoleon

Considering the thesis of this paper, it is evident that Napoleon was a hero. With the events in his life, how can one justify this supposition? Hunt and colleagues point out that the contemporary society was founded on historical events. ³ This therefore means that without certain events in life, some very important cultural, social or political events in the contemporary society would not have been achieved. Therefore, whoever gets credit for having been the founder of these events becomes a hero for starting a cause that eventually bore fruits that are being enjoyed to this moment. Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the people who are recognized for having achieved this. By using the arguments from Hunt et al, the dynamism within the social interactions of the community acted as shaping forces that eventually resulted into contemporary societal civilization. What was Napoleons contribution to the social forces that later shaped the current society?

Napoleons contribution to human rights

Napoleon was a great contributor to the social cause. His contributions in these lines can be felt to this moment. To begin with, he was a father of great ideas that called upon people to be enlightened. Among these great ideas that he spread all through Europe and parts of Latin America were concepts of human rights, citizenship, equality and constitution. ⁴ These are great ideas that are still valued to this moment. They have been promoted through other organizations like the United Nations and the Human Rights Commission. More so, there are several other civil rights organizations that that have been fighting strongly to push for equality and the constitution. This means that Napoleon was a hero in championing for human rights and other civil rights including equality.

Napoleons contribution to France

The only country in the world that recognizes Napoleon in their National anthem is Poland. The country has attached significant importance to Napoleon because of his great contribution that helped the country attain independence after a long stint under the rule of Prussia and Russia. This notwithstanding, it was Napoleons effort that led to the removal of barbaric laws that had unfairly forced the Jews to the Ghettos. In addition, the laws and rules that, for a long time had restricted European Jewish community from enjoying free rights to worship, own property and pursue careers as other citizens of the countries did were abolished under Napoleons rule. Among the current benefits of this move was that the Rothschild banking family which has French Hunt et al, The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures, roots had its long successful exploits germinating in France under the rule of Napoleon.

Formerly, Europe had been dominated by the Holy Roman empire. Under Napoleon Bonaparte, the more than 1,000 small entities that had made up the empire were reorganized coming up with 40 streamlined states. These states were the foundation of the German Confederation. In addition, this acted as the basis on which the unification of Germany in future would be founded.

Another factor that Hunt and colleagues highlight to be among the greatest contributors to the molding of the current civilization is the political factors. Equally, Napoleon Bonaparte will be considered a hero because of his contribution to the political scene in history that have eventually shaped the current political civilization. During his time, Bonaparte is credited to have come up with the premier civil legal system in the whole continent of Europe. This was the Napoleonic code. We can attribute the heroic status to Napoleon considering that the Napoleonic code forms the basis of legal systems in Europe including those in France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain and many countries that were colonies of these mentioned countries. Without doubt, Napoleon was a hero in the legal realms.

In the same line, Napoleon served as protector of the French flag and National anthem which remain to this moment. Initially, these were simply symbols of the French revolution. In addition, Napoleon was the initiator of the metric system that was later proclaimed a system of measure in 1799. Currently, all countries in the world except the United States, Sierra Leone and Myanmar have adopted it as a measurement system that is universal.

Finally, the foundations of the current civilization have its roots in the cultural events that happened in history. Again, Napoleons contributions are had great impacts. To begin with, Napoleon was a devoted sponsor of most of those who are currently referred to as neoclassical artists. Among these benefactors of Napoleons charitable hand is Jacques-Louis David also known as Ingres. Furthermore, one of the greatest works in music- Beethovens Heroic Symphony was composed through Napoleons inspiration and was in fact dedicated to Napoleon Bonaparte. Finally, his contributions to the world of philosophical quotes cannot be down played.

Conclusion

Hunt and colleagues argue that the contemporary civilization is a repercussion of the historic political, cultural, social and economic events in history. This means that without some of these events, important societal developments would not have been achieved. Therefore, civilization would have been impeded. What does this imply in relation to the thesis? It implies that without Napoleons contribution in the legal system, there would not have existed the current legal system, the French national anthem and flag would have been changed, there would be a different form of metric system whose credibility could be questionable, citizens of Poland and the European Jewish population would have been subjected to endless tribulations under the old laws that ⁹Hunt et al. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures, hampered them from enjoying their civil rights, some of these neoclassical artists and composers who benefited from his charity would not have had a chance to explore their talents to their best and above all, we could not have had the opportunity to enjoy great compositions like Beethovens Heroic Symphony and the sweetness of some of Napoleonic quotes. According to me, this is the essence of heroism.

References

Hunt, Lynn, Thomas Martin, Barbara Rosenwein,Po-Chia Hsia and Bonnie Smith. 2008. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. (3^rd ed). New York: Bedford/St.Martins Publishers.

Napoleon on His Imperial Throne is a work of fine art that was created by the French painter Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres in 1806. The work exhibits a near-photographic depiction of the infamous French ruler who dominated Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Although there were many other portraits of the emperor, this work stands a cut above the rest. Starting from bottom to top, the theme is set by the imperial eagle. A crescendo of fine adornments and emblems leads to a climax with the emperor imposing himself upon his seat of power. Whether it is due to its countless idealized details or the paint-induced apotheosis of the subject, this work’s ability to captivate the viewer is undeniable. Ingres did not only portray the majesty of his emperor, he captured the grandeur of a legend.

The major forms used in this work are the human figure, along with hard, sharp squares and rectangles joined with soft, curving arches and spheres. These squares and rectangles are most noticeable in the stairs and the platform on which the throne sits, as well as the sides of the throne itself. Whereas the softer curvature is present in the back of the throne and the ivory spheres that adorn the armrests. Along with the forms, lines help to direct the eyes of the viewer. Horizontal stairs and long angled scepters provide a frame for the circular throne, crown, and neckwear of the emperor. The horizontal lines give the viewer a visual foundation while the circular shapes around the head provide accentuation. Angled lines from the scepters keep the viewer’s mind focused and direct attention toward the center where Napoleon sits.

Color and light are used together to provide depth and coherence while also creating impeccable idealized definitions. The dominant colors in this work are various shades of regal colors which remind the viewer that they are viewing royalty. Napoleon’s clothing is made up of dark crimson and soft white and black fur accentuated with golden embroidery. The throne is matte gold with ivory while the rug it sits on is bright red, black, and off-white. With the light coming from above and behind the viewer these colors keep the viewer’s eyes focused on Napoleon’s iconic frontal pose [2, p. 128]. Shadows from the outskirts of the paintings give the viewer a sense of depth and add to the realism of the portrayal. The placement of the light coming from the front of the subject makes the viewer feel like they are in the room with the emperor at that moment. This work makes Ingres’ mastery of light and color abundantly clear if not its main feature.

The different textures featured in this painting are used to draw the viewers’ eyes to the smaller details throughout the painting. Ingres sharp eye for detail along with his manipulation of light and color results in a painting that causes the viewer to look at the tassels of the robes as if they are in movement. The ivory spheres on the armrests are polished and reflect the light above. The metal scepters are regal and impose the will of the idealistic version of the emperor and his power therefore they seem cold and hard to the touch [2, p. 128].

The orientation, scale, and viewpoint are all aspects of the intended perception of the work. As it is a portrait, the orientation of the canvas is expectedly vertical. The scale of this work is an impressive 102 by 64 inches, causing the subject to be nearly life-size. The size also contributes to the larger-than-life impression that the viewer is expected to have of Napoleon and his god-like authority [2, p. 130]. As it is mounted on a wall at the Musée de l’Armée, in Paris, an average-height viewer’s eyes would likely be near the middle of the painting [3]. This results in a viewpoint where the viewer is forced to gaze up at a deified emperor in respect. A thought which would surely please the late French emperor.

The proportion in this piece functions to magnify the subject before the viewer. With Ingres completing this painting of the representations of other artists it seems to hide the fact that he was short in stature [3]. This in conjunction with his immaculate, flowing robes causes him to seemingly dominate the large throne on which he rests. As for the balance of this work, it pulls the viewer’s eyes to the center. All the outer edges of the painting are left nearly void of detail. There is only one focal point in this painting which is the emperor of Europe adorning his throne. It seems that Ingres used a balance of lighting and size to complement his emperor.

Contrast is another important factor in this work as well as its rhythm or the lack thereof. Ingres used contrast to create a nearly three-dimensional work of art. The light and texture are used together to set Napoleon apart from his surroundings. The bright red and gold colors of his clothing combined with the lighting reflecting off his face in contrast to the darker and dimmer throne and room keep the viewers’ attention from drifting too far from the subject. The circular throne and neckwear that cuts off the flow of Napoleon’s head from his body causes a sharp contrast between the humanity of his face compared to the regal stiffness shown throughout the rest of the painting [3].

There is a main message running through this painting, namely the merits and capability of the emperor. This message can be divided into four branches, Justice, Honor, Victory, and Empire. In Napoleon’s lap lays the Hand of Justice which is a royal French heirloom [3]. At the top of this scepter is a depiction of the Hand of God. Through this scepter, the wielder figuratively wields the power of god to dispense justice on its subjects. Similarly, on the rug under the throne, an emblem of the scales of justice is clearly visible. This is a classical Greek symbol used to depict justice or more specifically the one who weighs dispenses justice. It seems that Ingres is attempting to draw forth Napoleon’s ability to rule justly, unlike so many others who have gained such power.

The emblem hanging from Napoleon’s necklace can also be seen engraved into the throne behind his head. This is the symbol of the Legion of Honor which Napoleon founded after abolishing the French code of chivalry that had reigned since the medieval period. He established this order as a way to reward merit to those who proved themselves worthy and thereby obtain loyalty. This notion is obviously influenced by his military experience. He undoubtedly encountered those who merited great respect but received none, and inversely those who received great respect but deserved none. The Legion of Honor was Napoleon’s way to seemingly remove the ceiling and allow any who performed greatly to receive recognition as opposed to being locked behind class identity.

Victory is ideal with which Napoleon was intimately familiar. On the rug is a large depiction of an imperial eagle, and two more are engraved on the armrests of the throne. The eagle is specifically in reference to the Caesars. The laurel crown on his head has also been referred to as a victory wreath [3]. As the conqueror of Europe, it is obvious why Napoleon would surround himself with these symbols. The eagle and the laurel crown both share another meaning. They are both direct allusions to the classical Roman Empire. Since the fall of Rome, European nations claimed Roman heritage and their societies were the offspring of classical Roman society. Napoleon had crowned himself ruler of Europe and was thereby the next great Roman emperor in the eyes of many at that time.

The unmistakable message running through this portrait is that of an emperor. The scepter of Charles V, in his right hand, is another heirloom of French royalty through the ages [3]. On top of the scepter sits the statuette of Charlemagne who was the king of the Franks and created an empire that would become France. He is accredited with many achievements but the most relevant would be Charlemagne’s military prowess and reputation as a great historical figure. The crown on his head has a similar effect. It is a direct allusion to the classical Roman emperors. Napoleon, having also claimed kingship over Italy and thereby Rome, had completed his metamorphosis from man to emperor, like so many others before him had tried and failed to do.

Nothing exists in a vacuum and therefore everything has a setting or context. It is here that the context of Ingres’s work will be examined. The French Revolution began on the 5th of May 1789. With the Enlightenment ideas swirling around Europe, the old ways of the monarchy were quickly coming to an end. The French King Louis XVI was deposed, and a republic was created. With what started as a noble aim came a bloody time in France’s history culminating in what is known as the Reign of Terror. Political parties formed and waged wars with each other resulting in many murders and executions. As the French Revolution began neighboring countries who were against the revolution waged war with the revolutionaries in France. The French military was able to successfully defend itself and then expand its borders[4]. It was during this time that Napoleon rose to prominence.

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on the 15th of August 1769 in Corsica, an island south of the French mainland. He maintained loyalty to Corsica for much of his life and loudly advocated Corsican independence as it had been recently conquered by the French. Eventually, he attended school in mainland France and trained to be an artillery officer. He gained recognition during the French Revolutionary Wars due to his military prowess. While in Egypt on a military expedition, Napoleon heard that the French were being pushed back. He quickly sailed back to France where he led a coup and established himself as the First Consul of the French Republic [4].

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres was born on the 29th of August 1780. He studied under Jacques-Louis David, another well-known French painter. Ingres painted the detailed portrait of Napoleon in 1806 without a known commissioner and had it displayed in the Paris Salon. It was in stark contrast to the one he had been commissioned to paint three years before. This new painting focused on the glory and riches of the Emperor. It received considerable criticism as it was a deviation from the Neo-classical convention of the time. His Neo-classical contemporaries did not appreciate the gothic style portrait [1, p. 108].

Only Ingres knows the true origins and motivations behind the creation of this work. One can only assume that it was made to impress it immensely powerful subject or the judges at the salon. Although the portrait preceding this one had been commissioned directly by the emperor, this one seems to be his attempt to assert himself and his obvious talents [2, p. 127]. Whatever the reason, given the details and symbolic gestures it seems that Ingres may have been appealing to the Emperor himself. That appeal seems to be a flattering, compliment-laden challenge to be the great ruler that France needed so desperately.

Given the symbols throughout the portrait, and discussed in the iconography analysis above, there are motifs in this work that symbolize virtue. Justice was a craving that had long panged the people of France but seldom sated. Honor had been excluded only to the rich and powerful, the nobility and the clergy, not every man. Victory in the face of France’s looming threats was its only hope for safety. But the references to the great empires of the past, that is what beg the question. Could Napoleon truly rival the legends of Caesar and Charlemagne? Or was he doomed to fail and take France down with him? In 1806 these questions would have surely been at the forefront of every French mind, including Ingres who immortalized them in an immaculate portrait for all to ponder.

Bibliography

1. P. Condon, Ingres: in pursuit of perfection: the art of J.-A.-D. Ingres. Louisville, KY: J.B. Speed Art Museum, 1983.
2. P. ten-D. Chu, Nineteenth-Century European Art, Third. Prentice Hall.
3. “World Art,” Annenberg Learner. [Online]. Available: https://www.learner.org/courses/globalart/work/7/index.html. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2019].
4. H. Editors, “Napoleon Bonaparte,” History.com, 09-Nov-2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.history.com/topics/france/napoleon. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2019].

Introduction

Napoleon Bonaparte is a historically important person. He was a military genius, a smart politician, and an ambitious leader whose actions changed the course of history. Napoleon was born on the small island of Corsica in 1769, just after it became a French colony. He came from humble beginnings and became Emperor of France, making an indelible mark on the world stage. His meteoric rise to power after the French Revolution, which was marked by a series of spectacular military battles across Europe, shows how smart he was as a leader and how charismatic he was as a person. The Napoleonic Code, Napoleon’s law change, has had a lasting effect on the laws of many countries. But his never-ending desire for power and growth caused a lot of trouble, killed a lot of people, and eventually led to his downfall. His legacy is complicated. It includes new ideas in the military, better ways of running the government, and spreading revolutionary ideas. But it is also tainted by tyranny, war, and the desire for personal fame.

The goal of these essays is to break down Napoleon Bonaparte’s life, looking at the many ways he affected France and the world, figuring out the contradictions in his personality, and judging the lasting effects of his rule.

100 Words Essay on Napoleon

From being unknown in Corsica to becoming Emperor of France, Napoleon Bonaparte made history by having a huge effect on the whole world. His combat skill made it possible for France to quickly gain new land and for revolutionary ideas to spread across Europe. One of his most important accomplishments was the Napoleonic Code, which set the standards for modern legal systems. Napoleon did many great things, but his never-ending desire brought him down and sent him into exile. People will always be interested in and debating him because his legacy is a complicated tapestry of military genius, administrative changes, and the effects of unchecked power.

250 Words Essay on Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte, a name synonymous with military brilliance and imperial ambition, dramatically shaped the early 19th-century geopolitical landscape. Born in 1769 on the island of Corsica, Napoleon’s rise from modest origins to the pinnacle of French power epitomizes the tumultuous era of the French Revolution and its aftermath. His remarkable military campaigns across Europe, known for their strategic depth and rapid maneuvers, not only expanded the French Empire but also spread revolutionary ideals, challenging the old monarchic order.

Napoleon’s governance was marked by significant reforms that had lasting impacts beyond France’s borders. The Napoleonic Code, a comprehensive legal framework, rationalized legal systems and influenced numerous countries, promoting principles of equality before the law, property rights, and secular governance. His administrative reforms streamlined government functions, setting a precedent for modern statecraft.

However, Napoleon’s relentless pursuit of power and territorial expansion led Europe into a series of devastating wars, culminating in the infamous Russian campaign of 1812, which marked the beginning of his downfall. The immense human and economic toll of these conflicts, coupled with growing resistance across occupied territories, eventually led to his defeat and exile to the island of Saint Helena, where he died in 1821.

Napoleon left behind a lot of different things. He is praised for being a great leader and for making great military breakthroughs, but he is also criticized for wanting to rule the whole world and being too authoritarian. His life and work are still interesting to both historians and regular people because they show how desire, power, and the forces of history can interact in complicated ways.

400 Words Essay on Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte rose from the chaos of the French Revolution to become the most powerful person in Europe in the early 1800s. His impact is both huge and controversial. He was born in 1769 on the island of Corsica and quickly rose to power thanks to his unmatched combat skills and a time when things were ready to change. Napoleon’s battles across Europe are praised for being very smart in terms of strategy. They changed the way wars are fought by making big changes to mobility, logistics, and the use of artillery, which have been studied by military leaders ever since.

Even though he was an autocrat, Napoleon’s rule was marked by a strong desire to retain power and spread the ideas of the French Revolution. Napoleon’s most important addition may have been the Napoleonic Code, which changed the law and set the standards for modern legal systems by writing down laws about property, family, and individual rights. This code got rid of aristocracy and pushed for meritocracy, religious freedom, and the separation of church and state, which were all ideas that came from the Enlightenment and helped start the revolution.

Beyond legal reforms, Napoleon’s impact on Europe was profound and multifaceted. He initiated widespread administrative reforms, modernizing and centralizing the French government, which became a model for others. His ambitious infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, and canals, revitalized the French economy and enhanced its military logistics. Furthermore, Napoleon’s influence extended into the realms of education and science, with the establishment of institutions like the Lycée system of secondary education and the promotion of the metric system.

Nevertheless, Napoleon’s legacy is not without its dark chapters. His insatiable appetite for conquest plunged Europe into a state of continuous warfare, leading to millions of casualties and widespread devastation. The Continental System, aimed at crippling Britain’s economy, backfired and led to economic hardship across Europe.

The downfall of Napoleon, culminating in his exile to Saint Helena after the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, marked the end of an era but not the end of his influence. The Congress of Vienna, convened to restore European stability, had to contend with the political and social changes wrought by Napoleon’s rule. His legacy is a complex tapestry, interwoven with themes of genius and tyranny, reform and destruction. Napoleon Bonaparte remains a towering figure in history, embodying the contradictions of a period that laid the foundations for the modern world, marked by struggles for national identity, democratic ideals, and the balance of power in international relations.

500 Words Essay on Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most famous and controversial people in history, left behind a legacy that will never be erased. He was born in 1769 on the island of Corsica. His rise from an unknown military officer to the Emperor of France shows how ambitious, smart, and good at leading people he was. Napoleon had an effect on many areas, from new ideas in the military and changes to the law to reorganizing government and supporting culture. This effect lasted long after he died.

Napoleon’s military campaigns are legendary, showcasing his strategic genius and altering the course of European history. His tactics, characterized by rapid movements, decisive engagements, and the integration of artillery, set new standards in warfare. The battles of Austerlitz, Wagram, and the Pyramids stand as examples of his military acumen. However, these victories came at a significant human cost and led to widespread devastation across the continent, illustrating the dual aspects of his campaigns as both brilliant and brutal.

Outside of war, the Napoleonic Code may be his most significant legacy. Today’s civil law systems are based on the idea that everyone should be treated equally before the law and that private property should be protected. This complete legal system got rid of the last traces of feudalism. Many European countries later copied his changes to the way the government worked by getting rid of unnecessary rules and regulations and making things run more smoothly.

Napoleon’s influence on the socioeconomic fabric of Europe was profound. He championed public works, improved infrastructure, and supported the arts and sciences, fostering a climate of intellectual and cultural growth. The establishment of the Banque de France, the revival of the Louvre, and the promotion of the metric system are testaments to his vision of a rational, enlightened society.

However, Napoleon’s quest for dominance also led to policies that engendered widespread suffering. The Continental System, intended to cripple Britain economically, resulted in severe hardship across Europe. His Spanish campaign ignited a guerrilla war, foreshadowing modern warfare’s attritional nature. The disastrous Russian campaign of 1812, marked by hubris and a catastrophic lack of foresight, decimated his Grande Armée and signaled the beginning of his downfall.

The political landscape in Europe was irrevocably altered by Napoleon’s reign and subsequent downfall. His final defeat at Waterloo in 1815 and subsequent exile to Saint Helena did not just signify the end of an era; it set the stage for the Congress of Vienna and the reshaping of European borders and political dynamics. The reactionary policies adopted in the aftermath sought to contain the revolutionary ideals that Napoleon had spread across the continent, yet the seeds of nationalism, liberal governance, and constitutionalism had been irrevocably sown.

To sum up, Napoleon’s legacy is a patchwork of progress and destruction, enlightenment and tyranny. He is praised for changing the law and the way things were run, but he is also criticized for wanting to rule the whole world and the damage his wars did to Europe. His life story is a powerful story about the pros and cons of power, how one person can change history, and how human desire lasts forever.

Napoleon Bonaparte is depicted to be a goal-oriented french military general, warrior, tyrant, and the principal sovereign of France. He would govern more than 70 million individuals at his pinnacle and would change the substance of Europe in his lifetime. Napoleon upset military association and preparing supported the Napoleonic Code, Established the seemingly perpetual concordat with the papacy, and redesigned training in France.

Napoleon Bonaparte was conceived on August 15, 1769, on the island of Corsica. He started his training at a young men’s school in Ajaccio and at age 10 he entered the most esteemed military school in France, the College of Autun in Burgundy. He later exchanged to the College of Brienne, another military school. As a tyke, he was harassed for his position and for talking in Spanish as he didn’t have even an inkling of how to communicate in French smoothly. His youth encounters held an enduring impact on his character as he became more seasoned.

In 1875 Napoleon is doled out as a second lieutenant in the ordnance. This position turned out to be ideal for him as he turned into a specialist in moving field weapons and telling separations. He was particularly extraordinary at utilizing guns in fighting against armed forces. In his childhood, he partook in a power battle between Pasquale Paoli(1725-1807), an innovator in the battle for Corsican autonomy, and those supporting the French. After Paoli was triumphant he turned on Napoleon and his family and they were compelled to escape to France. Napoleon earned an advancement by crushing the British at Toulon and extending Frances’s domain upon his arrival.

The French Revolution started in 1789 and Napoleon was there to observe it. A development to oust King Louis XVI and build up a republic had started. One of the incredible discussions of the age became exposed, government against the popular government. On one hand, sat the advantaged few, aristocrats and gentry that delighted in the lap of extravagance for quite a long time, totally not interested in the enduring of their kin, and on the other poor people and enduring lion’s share, the individuals who kicked the bucket of starvation yet fuelled by the thoughts of rationalists spreading radical new thoughts on human rights and reviving around the cry ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Napoleon grasps the beliefs of the unrest yet he is no revolutionary. On August 10, 1792, the pressure and bloodthirst rise over and the crowd attacks the place of King Louis XVI with assistance from the Paris national gatekeeper. Napoleon looks like the King’s own swiss gatekeeper endeavors to shield the castle however as they are dwarfed and outgunned the crowd washes over them and ages of contempt are discharged on their bodies as the horde mangled their bodies by removing their ears and private parts. Napoleon is alarmed, and for whatever is left of his life groups will scare him.

Napoleon was detained for ten days on doubt of injustice and for rejecting a task to lead the military of the west. He at that point worked for the guide division in the French war office. Napoleon’s vocation nearly finished notwithstanding the King’s endeavor to recover control in Paris in 1795. Napoleon ceased the uprising and was delegated leader of the Army of the Interior.

Josephine de Beauharnais was the main lady that genuinely caught Napoleon’s heart. Josephine cherished Napoleon beyond all doubt as well and in 1796 against the exhortation of her legal advisor, who thought Napoleon had nothing to offer they married. Their marriage did not start well. Napoleon was three hours late for his very own wedding and amid their wedding night, he was nibbled in the leg by her lapdog.

Two days after their wedding Napoleon left Josephine to aid the war against Italians and Austrians. Napoleon touches base in Italy to discover a multitude of 37,000 French men shredded, they were extraordinarily dwarfed, ineffectively provisioned, and totally debilitated. Their initial introductions of him were not ideal, Napoleon was scarcely 5 feet 2 inches tall however he wasn’t short on boasting and cerebrums. He helped their spirit by disclosing to them that extraordinary territories will be in their influence and that magnificence and wealth would anticipate them upon their arrival to their country if Austria was vanquished. The French armed forces’ absence of provisions enabled them to travel a lot quicker through Italy. Napoleon adjusted an eccentric procedure where he would strike the principal blow at the foe’s middle and after that assault its flanks. He picked up the moniker ‘Minimal Corporal’ because of his prosperity and ability for the initiative. In a great many villages on their way to triumph Napoleon plants trees of freedom, living images of their transformation flourishing all through Europe. By April 1797 Napoleon had driven the Austrians back to inside 75 miles of Vienna and verified a peace negotiation. The harmony arrangement he arranged gave France control of thousands of miles of the domain from Belgium to Greece. He had crushed a domain and changed the guide of Europe ascending to the highest point of Frances’s positions. Every one of that was left to vanquish was Great Britain. Anyway, the imperial naval force was responsible for the English channel. Napoleon moved toward this errand mindfully and he chose to attack Britain in a roundabout way. In July 1798 35,000 officers cruised not for England but rather for Egypt as Egypt was the focal point of Britain’s Mediterranean exchange at the time and was arranged near India. As he looked at the marvels of old Egypt Napoleon advised his troops to recollect ‘you have 40 centuries looking down on you’. To the stool Turks who ruled Egypt, the French were viewed as unbelievers. As the french attack their country they pronounce a heavenly war. Be that as it may, their obsolete strategies are no counterpart for Napoleon’s very much taught armed force and strategies.

While in Egypt Napoleon had a mystery agenda.500 specialists, architects, and researchers set out to find and record everything they jar of the fortunes of old Egypt, among them, the rosetta stone, the extremely valuable key to unraveling hieroglyphics and the historical backdrop of the antiquated pharaohs. Yet, regardless of its extensive charm Egypt turns out to be a dangerous snare. 4 months after Napoleon’s entry, in August 1798 the British crushed the French with a remarkable triumph in the Battle of the Nile, cutting the French from their country. Napoleon left the military under the order of General Jean Klebér and came back to France with a bunch of officers. The French fighters that were crushed, yearning to go home and filled with bubonic plague were stranded in the desert for one more year.

While he was away at fight bits of gossip about Josephine having an unsanctioned romance started to surface. More awful still, letters to his sibling Joseph about the issue were spilled to the British press making him a fool. At the point when Napoleon returned home in 1799, he would not see his significant other. After Josephine implores him to take her back, he surrenders. From that point on he started to have numerous courtesans. Napoleon’s first love Désirée Clary met him furtively on his arrival home from Egypt. In any case, she never excused him for not wedding her, and rather married one of his archenemies. The well-known soprano Giuseppina Maria Camilla charmed napoleon with her voice and conveyed his representation wherever she went. Pauline Fourès was known as Napoleon’s Cleopatra, he requested her significant other, one of his lieutenants back to Europe so he could live with her in Cairo. Marie Walewska a clean noblewoman would mask herself as a laborer to meet him, at initial a hesitant special lady, she would at long last bear him a tyke, his originally conceived son. The political disturbance started destroying France. Napoleon’s old partners including his sibling Lucien arranged an upset. Supported by Napoleon’s troops they catch control of the administration without shooting a solitary shot. Inside a month the standards of the French upset will be cleared away, and the initiative of France will trouble the shoulders of one man. Napoleon would pick up the situation of first emissary and practically boundless powers after the clash of Marengo.

In February 1800 the fascism of Napoleon started, following quite a while of war and routines filled with debasement and inadequacy Napoleon’s first errand is to reestablish their request. He streamlined the administration transforming it into an effective military machine and rectifies the nation’s funds by making the national bank of France, he rearranges the legitimate framework with another arrangement of common laws, the code napoleon directs about each part of life in France. He revived the Roman catholic houses of worship restricted amid the transformation despite the fact that he himself wasn’t an adherent. Reestablish ties between the Roman Catholic church and the legislature.

Despite the fact that the French needed harmony, Austria and England trusting them to be a danger started the clash of Marengo in 1800. Napoleon drives a military into Italy and vanquished the Austrians, he paid a dear cost for his triumph losing practically a large portion of his military. Poor observation and a snare lead to the French scarcely getting away from annihilation. Sources express that Napoleon recognized this fight a devastating triumph despite the fact that it is a long way from reality. The Treaty of Amiens closes the war and allows France several miles of land. This lead to the appreciative country selecting him as the head of state forever.

According to historians and expert tacticians and military commanders as a group say that Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the most successful and influential generals in the history of the world. To begin with, Napoleon was the one who changed the face of war, which set the way for modern-day warfare. The career that Napoleon led as emperor of France and being the commander of the battlefield we can compare him to being such as the famous historic figures such as the great leader Alexander the great who Napoleon wanted to be like. He can be compared to men as Hannibal the conqueror and other great leaders. The conquest of Napoleon would take his empire through all Europe leading to the rule of about 70 million people. I ask the question what was it about Napoleon that made him as successful as he was as a leader in his time period, the questions are was it his skill as a leader, could it be his intelligence and wisdom of his strategic warfare and tactics?

Napoleon was lucky in that he became a master of Europe in such a short period of time, Napoleon really changed the world, here you have Napoleon a man that raised not completely on the basis of his blood, not on his background but it was surely based on his ability. A good portion of his victories and the success he had can be owned by the millions of people who supported him and loved him. Napoleon had the advantage of being a student at the military academy being educated in the arts of war, Napoleon was just nine years old when he attended the prestigious Royal Academy in France. At fifteen Napoleon would make a move to start training as an officer at the Royal Military Academy, it was almost a year later that Napoleon who was then sixteen years old was given a promotion to 2nd Lieutenant and then transferred to the prestigious artillery unit where he would gain his experience and knowledge in warfare, artillery, and becoming a leader being able at a young age to lead troops, the troops felt comfortable with Napoleon leading them into battle he was a natural at being a leader.

Napoleon had this astounding life and was a military genius, he was able to capture the imaginations of two centuries, It was August 15th, 1769 that Napoleon Bonaparte was born and came into this world, Napoleon was the 2nd child of a total of 8 children and was living on an island called Corsica. His family made the move from Italy too there in the 16th century. Interestingly enough Napoleon did not like the French original, the reason being he thought that the French were oppressing his country. Napoleon’s father as an occupation was a lawyer, his father was not a friend of the French, being raised in a family of radicals helped Napoleon to become the military leader and revolutionary he was.

Napoleon would suffer at the hands of fellow students at the French military government school called Brienne, the students would relentlessly tease the young Napoleon who would make it known that he had a destiny and even had dreams of being a great leader in the military The years 1784 and 1785 he received military training in artillery and then joined the French Army. Napoleon would suffer a personal tragedy when his father died when he was just 16 years old resulting in him having to support his family.

Napoleon was probably one of the most famous figures in France history, he was famous as not only an officer and then a general, but he would also be famous as an emperor. Napoleon was a genius when it came to psychology, one of the things that made him so good with his troops is that he was able to keep hold of a talented and well-disciplined army by showing them support, Napoleon would express his pleasure and how proud he was of his troop’s bravery which helped to create cohesion among the troops. Napoleon would give motivating speeches by telling them how proud he was of his troops going on long marches and going without by sometimes marching with lack of equipment, they would march without shoes and even have to camp at the end of the day without any bread.

Napoleon would push his troops to their limit but the troops would not complain because Napoleon created an atmosphere where his troops not only trusted him but would stand behind him and back him up no matter what the challenge. It was the year 1805 when his troops were able to accomplish a great feat, that wasn’t attempted since the days of Hannibal, as Napoleon and his troops approached the mountains of the Alpine to cross over and surprise the Austrians. The strength and endurance needed to do this show how Napoleon through his leadership instilled the mental and the physical strength needed to succeed. The battles Napoleon and his troops engage in were Toulon, Arcola, and the Lutzen. Napoleon at these battles would put himself in the open in the line of artillery fire to increase his troop’s motivation.

The accomplishments that Napoleon did were based on his military expertise, about 60 battles were won by Napoleon using his military strategies and tactical knowledge along with his genius knowledge in military maneuvers to take advantage of the enemy, Napoleon would bring modern warfare to Europe, he would mobilize the largest and well defined Army Europe had ever seen. The 1790s would see a French Army that had an estimated 1 million troops, the Italian campaigns were successful after Napoleon was made commander of the Army which was being neglected transformed into an unstoppable force that won many battles at the beginning of the war. Napoleon would inflict three times as many deaths on the allied side.

The Royal Academy issued a report on Napoleon which the academy would give a description of Napoleon as a proud, go-getter, ambitious, and full of ego which would serve him well in his future battles with different countries, a few facts that made Napoleon a successful general a general who created fear in the countries who were against him and became his enemy to which this fear was the factor that allowed him to conquer almost all of Europe. To many Napoleon was considered a military genius and the military tactics he learned at the academy would mold him into this successful general. Within the people and his troops, he was very popular which helped with his success as a leader.

It was in 1792 that Napoleon was promoted to the rank of captain, he also was given the responsibility and honor of directing artillery fire against the city of Toulon. This tactical engagement was a success and after the fall of Toulon Napoleon received the honor of being promoted to the rank of brigadier general. It was after this time period that he was made the commander of the French army in Italy, his accomplishments include defeating a dozen Austrian generals, it was soon after that France made peace with Austria that should have allowed Napoleon to continue his rise in the French Army but it was not made to be.

In 1795 Napoleon to his shock was taken away from his command on the pretense that he was committing treason, not long after Napoleon when a revolt threaten the French government it was Napoleon who saved the French government. This act of heroism convinced the French military commanders to give him back his rank but also most importantly his respect. At this point Napoleon was given back command of the French Army, he was good at making up plans that work well in military tactics. Napoleon came up with a genius idea to take the enemy’s army and break it up into two, his idea was to surprise one part of the enemy attack and then the other side of the enemy army would be slow to come to their defense. Napoleon would defeat the Sardinian army almost half a dozen times within a two-week period.

Napoleon was at this point seemed impossible to stop, at this point he was conquering most of Europe, Austria would be the first country he would conquer. Napoleon would take all the money and whatever treasures he gained and send it back to Paris a good gesture that would help France with the shambling economy. The Austrians would eventually surrender once Napoleon moved ever closer to Vienna, this event would force the Austrians to create a peace pact with France, this would give France the Netherlands increasing power, Napoleon, however, made an attempt that did not succeed to move into Egypt however the strength of Egypt was too much. It was in 1799 that Napoleon would make his return to France and find some changes that occur, mainly the French government itself was in shambles and completely disorganized. The French people loved Napoleon the year 1802 brought a peace treaty between England and Germany. His successes outweighed the defeats.

The year 1809 was a disappointing year for Napoleon when he made a judgment error with the Austrian Army, Napoleon severely underestimated the number of troops the Austrian Army had and ended up fighting almost 50,000 more troops than he had, which ended in him being defeated. Napoleon tested his ability in other countries as well to including trying to invade Spain, which also was an ugly defeat, Napoleon would face challenges that included rebel revolts, those revolts happened because Napoleon replaced their king with his brother, Napoleon was fighting several war fronts that made his troops weak and exhausted and that was the reason he failed not only in Spain but Napoleon tried unsuccessfully to gain territory from Russia. Napoleon’s power would be decreased by moving his troops all over.

Napoleon’s talent was a contributing factor in his promotions, but the military successes he had do not automatically back up him being given the title of a great commander, although he was considered one of the greatest generals of all time mainly because of him being a genius. Piedmontese at Diego who was defeated by Napoleon would say that “it is to the ability of the general of artillery that I owe our success”. G. Smith, A Nunez, and Z Olszewski, Napoleon, Bonaparte Napoleon’s invasion of Europe

Napoleon’s great knowledge and Napoleon’s military tactician skills allowed him to succeed. The troops saw how Napoleon was a natural at leading and could rely on him to take command and lead them, the troops even though as discussed earlier sometimes would take these ruck marches without the proper gear and sometimes while camping went without bread and other foods knew that Napoleon would take care of them and give them direction.

Napoleon did have some political pull by knowing certain people, Napoleon would rise from a 2LT all the way to ruler of France, his rise was fast and swift. Napoleon knew from the time he was a youth that he wanted to rule France. Napoleon had dreams when he was just a boy that he ruled France, while the other youths made fun of him it was evident through his talent as a leader in military school that he would someday become a great military leader and ruler.

Napoleon did other good works like taking the University of France and restructuring it, he also took the current education system and reformed it. A common fact not known is he created the bank of France; Napoleon would make himself ruler of France. In the year 1809, Napoleon would divorce his current wife Josephine and remarry a lady named Marie Louise, who just happened to be the daughter of the Austrian empire. Whether this was to expand his power or just out of love is not known, of course, King Louis the XVI married an Austrian to secure peace with them and create an alliance. His second wife would bore him a son to which would be made king of Rome, “when Napoleon was in Egypt and his fleet destroyed there was a rumor that Napoleon had been killed, the government body moved swiftly to make his son who was just a toddler emperor”, “Presentation: Napoleon’s Conquest of Europe, 1805–1809” Napoleon could now be what he so many times dreamed of and wanted the one thing that he was made fun of for saying it would happen he became the ruler of an empire that was great.

Napoleon upon his return to France made a swift decision to create a new government and broke into the chambers after becoming inpatient, while Napoleon stood outside with his troops waiting for the governing body to decide on a new constitution, after Napoleon went into the chambers there was an uproar and the committee was outraged that Napoleon pushed his way into the chambers, no outsiders were allowed into the chambers, then someone shouted that Napoleon was trying to take over the government in a coup. It was Napoleon’s brother who calmed the men saying with his sword pointed at Napoleon’s chest that if his brother was trying to take over he would thrust his sword into Napoleon’s chest which that point the people calmed down. “Presentation: Napoleon’s Conquest of Europe, 1805–1809”

In conclusion, never less Napoleon’s success would not last and after attempting to invade the country of Russia who was a strong country Napoleon failed and it was at this point that the empire he had helped create would start to fall apart, in the year 1814 Napoleon was forced removed from the throne and he retreated to the island of Elba, it was almost two years later that he would be able to assemble over a thousand men go to Paris and take it back. It was only a short triumph, Napoleon surrendered to the English. Napoleon who was once a great ruler and ruled an empire would be reduced to just a prisoner of British identity, he was once one of the most brilliant and greatest military strategists probably in the history of warfare, In the year 1821 Napoleon died. His death was disputed as what caused him to die but it is believed in succumbed to cancer. It was the end of a great military leader and empire. Napoleon’s remains were to be transferred back to Paris where he was interned in the Hotel des Invalides where he lies today. Napoleon’s fame is widely known and today all it takes is a picture of him and people say that is Napoleon.

The historical discussion surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism is one of fierce debate, with varying levels of validity and evidence. The role of imperialism is the policy of extending power and influence through colonization and other means, which is most notable within the creation of the Napoleonic empire. This is a highly debated topic as many historians disagree on the aims Napoleon had for such an enterprise. The three main discussions follow the lines of revolutionary expansion, economic extraction, and dynastic aspirations. The argument surrounding the expansion of the revolution is derived from the presence of policies like those in France post-revolution. The expansion of the revolution is mostly analyzed through the introduction of the code Napoleon and the wider civilization of the satellite states. Broers like many other historians has addressed the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism largely through the application of the code Napoleon which is widely associated with the French Revolution. However, somewhat linked to such revolutionary policies is the second argument, of economic extraction for Napoleon and France. The argument that places economic gain at the center of Napoleon’s imperialism focuses greatly on the satellite contribution to the military as well as the enrolment of a continental blockade, all concluded to benefit France and Napoleon economically. This line of argument is popular amongst numerous historians including Thierry Lentz. Lentz argues that while Napoleon himself had never clarified the aims of his own imperial power, the common conclusion to be made was that Napoleon used the satellite states to extract resources that would benefit himself and France as the empire’s homeland. The final argument, also leading back to revolutionary expansion was the dynastic aims of Napoleon, pursued through imperial power. The role of the dynasty is prominent within this debate as Napoleon, in some cases, removed hereditary leaders of the satellite states and replaced them with his own family. The motive for such aspirations is often that Napoleon aimed to legitimize his own power which would be easier with a unified empire that holds more than one crown. Therefore, through these varying interpretations of the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism, it is evident that the role of revolutionary expansion was the central ideal as the role of economic extraction and dynastic attributions were subject to the success of the such revolutionary expansion. This essay will therefore argue that the primary nature of Napoleonic imperialism was based on the expansion of the French revolution throughout the satellite states.

Firstly, the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism is arguably an extension of the French revolution which was present throughout the European satellite states. The extension of the revolution is most notable within the satellite states through the presence and operation of the code Napoleon. The Code Napoleon, also referenced as the civil code, is symbolic of the French revolution. Sutherland supports this as he states that the civil code reflected many of the aspirations of the revolutionary period. Therefore, as Sutherland suggests that the code Napoleon is the revolution in one whole system its introduction beyond France can be identified as the expansion of revolutionary processes. Moreover, this is further represented by Napoleon himself as, within private correspondence with Louis in Holland, Napoleon is noted to have claimed that “The Romans gave their laws to their allies – why should not France have hers adopted in Holland?”. Through the utterances of Napoleon, it can be identified that the code Napoleon played a great part in his imperial aspirations. Through the comparison of his own imperial aspiration with the legitimate success of a great empire, such as that of Rome, Napoleon prioritizes the expansion of revolutionary politics, most notably French laws embodied within the code Napoleon. Therefore, it is evident that for Napoleon alone the code which embodied the revolution was to be distributed amongst his subject states, which interacts almost seamlessly with the wider historiographical research. When discussing the adoption of the code Napoleon throughout the empire, several historians have provided their own interpretations, however the most prominent is provided by Broers. Broers has argued that the code Napoleon was a pillar of the empire. Broers identification of the code Napoleon as a pillar of the empire, illustrates its significance, as it implies that it supported Napoleon’s imperial power rather than being a product of it. Furthermore, when comparing Broers’s identification of the code Napoleon and Napoleon’s own intention, it is evident that the Code Napoleon, and the French revolution which it represented, were the main nature of Napoleon’s own imperial power.

Furthermore, the argument that the French revolution underpinned the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism can be identified through the evident expansion of Napoleonic policies that culminated to appease revolutionaries within homeland France. The introduction of the code Napoleon largely represented the revolution amongst satellite states through administrative reform and the inference of civilization which many believed that the French revolution represented. This had been discussed widely amongst historians including Fisher. For example, Fisher has identified that the Civil Code was a combination of liberty and order which is an important interpretation when discussing the importance of the code and its impact on civilization. This is a somewhat prominent argument in the historiographical debate surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism as it combines the motives of the revolution, which Napoleon arguably represented, with the expansion of an empire. The incorporation of liberty resonates with the representation of Napoleon’s imperial power as well as the revolution. Therefore, the combination of liberty and order, which Fisher identifies contributes greatly to the representation of the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism. Additionally, the theme of liberating the satellite states through the code of Napoleon supports the ideology that Napoleon’s main aim was to expand the revolution for the benefit of the satellite states. Furthermore, the introduction of the code Napoleon can also be assessed by its companion schemes and forces such as the Gendarmerie. Broers for example outlines that the Gendarmerie was the first imperial institution to be introduced in any satellite state while representing its importance as part of a wider civilizing mission. As the Gendarmerie’s main purpose was to enforce its code of Napoleon, Broers’s argument provides a clear inference to the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism. By identifying the Gendarmerie as an imperial institution, he, therefore, indicates that the code Napoleon and therefore the French revolution, was at the center of Napoleon’s imperial campaign, as it was the first aspect of French society enrolled in each satellite state. Moreover, through the connotations of liberty and order as well as the identification of a civil mission, it is somewhat easy to conclude that the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism was the extension of the revolution to further civilization, beyond France.

However, this approach has been openly critiqued due to a lack of consistency. Due to numerous historians claiming that revolutionary action was the nature of Napoleonic imperialism it becomes expected that its enrolment is one of uniformity amongst the satellite states. This is represented within Napoleon’s own correspondence with Louis in Holland as he claims, “If you tamper with the Napoleonic Code, it will no longer be the Napoleonic code”. Through this, it is evident that Napoleon had intended on a uniform enrolment of the code Napoleon further supports its prominence in the argument surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. However, the work provided by Broers somewhat outweighs this claim and therefore calls into question the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism. While Broers identifies that some parts of Italy were subject to full enforcement, it was often dependent on the ruling elites, and if they could provide the support Napoleon needed, they would experience a diluted version of reform, which ties into his claims of a zonal organization of the empire. This theory epitomizes the diversity of revolutionary expansion, therefore undermining any claim to a uniform civilizing mission. However, while the uniformity of enforcement is somewhat compromising, the presence of reform amongst the satellite states provides a solid basis for the conclusion that the expansion of the revolution was the primary nature of Napoleon’s imperialism.

While the argument for a civilizing ambition is somewhat compelling, the historiographical debate had developed and shifted towards the ambitions of exploitation and mistreatment of the satellite states for the benefit of France as the heart of the Napoleonic empire. The discussion surrounding the economic exploits of the satellite states is often the product of assumption in the absence of clear direction Napoleon. For example, Lentz identifies that as Napoleon had failed to establish his aims for the imperial society and empire, it must be one of the questionable morals, leading to the determination of exploitation. While this was a somewhat new argument for historians, it was an accusation noticeable throughout Napoleon’s reign. In the writing on Saint Helena, Napoleon is quoted to have said “whatever fell under the hands of the sovereigns was turned to the advantage of each of them. At least in my time I was the butt of all the accusations of this kind”. Through Napoleon’s identification of such accusations, it is evident that the role of extortion is key to the identification of the nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. Moreover, this identification provides clear support to the argument which focuses greatly on the economic nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. The debate associated with this accusation is one of validity and is often supported by a log of statistical evidence. For example, Sutherland outlines that while France provided almost 50% of facilities for the military, the other 50% was derived from the subject states of the empire. Elmsley furthers this argument by claiming that between ‘470 and 517 million Francs were extracted from Prussia in the years 1806-1812’ which is when the Napoleonic empire was arguably at its peak. Therefore, it is evident that while France had been contributing to the grand empire’s military, it no longer provided for it wholly. Consequently, through the redistribution of responsibilities France would experience greater economic liberties while Napoleon would gain a consistent contribution to his military from lands, he intended to bring liberty. Additionally, through the clear benefit for France, the argument that Napoleon’s imperialism was based on the economic progression for France, gains more validity as it was evident in practice.

While the extraction of resources for military development is a large part of the debate, one must consider the other economic initiatives that took place under Napoleon’s imperial expansion. The continental blockade created jeopardy for the satellite states and not only gave Napoleon greater power but also provided France with greater economic income increasing the living standards of many French citizens. The economic benefit for France was most evident during the French first campaign, which directed a lot of custom to French production, therefore, benefitting France economically. This argument is evident in the wider historiographical debate. Ellis, for example, identifies that for Napoleon the continental blockade served a dual purpose which was to benefit the French market and therefore the French economy. This is supported by Elmsley who reaches the same conclusion claiming that the French first approach bettered the position of France economically. Conclusively, it is evident that the continental blockade which was introduced using imperial force had carried the aspiration to gain economic resources from the satellite states to further benefit France.

One final point, however, is that even the economic aspirations of the imperial power tie back to the expansion of a revolution. This is evident as within mainland France the revolution had removed the old fiscal approach to economics and had instead to new Napoleonic approaches to taxation which were arguably more equal. This is evident throughout the satellite states and is dually noted amongst historians who identify Napoleon as a financer. Holtman for example identifies that for areas such as Naples and Tuscany, fiscal reform was prominent, and followed the French revolution closely in this aspect of governmental administration. Therefore, while the tax was a main income from the satellite states for Napoleon, is it an oversight to dismiss the revolution, which evidently made the extraction of resources possible? Therefore, it could be argued that although exploitation is clear within the context, it was done through revolutionary processes making the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism revolutionary which allowed the movement for extraction.

While the argument focusing on the economic basis of Napoleon’s imperialism can be deemed somewhat redundant due to its evidential ties to the revolution, the role of dynastic aspirations is a somewhat new analysis of the Napoleonic imperial expansion. A key argument within this debate is that Napoleon had used the aspirations of his dynasty to cement his international authority. The debate focuses largely on the role of redistribution of power amongst the satellite states. Smith, who has attributed a great deal to the dynastic argument, has identified the importance of Napoleon and France as the mother of other European sovereign states. Smith claims that through the expansion of Napoleon’s dynasty, he would be able to create a system of unified states which are controlled by the dynasty, leaving France as the sovereign state and Napoleon as the head of the dynasty. Therefore, through the expansion of Napoleon’s power partnered with the introduction of the dynasty, the link between imperialism and dynastic aspirations raises the question surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. While the argument identifies the theoretical expansion of the dynasty, numerous historians have contributed to the argument with specific examples that provide a clear direction to the association between Napoleon’s imperialism and his dynastic aspiration. Smith expands upon his previous claims by providing a clear and valid analysis of Napoleon’s dynastic aspirations in action. Smith identifies that by placing Joseph on the throne of Spain, Napoleon had successfully strengthened his own presence within this state. Through this, it is evident that for Napoleon the expansion of his dynasty also contributed to his own imperial power. For example, by creating an association between the role of dynasty and imperial expansion, one could come to a somewhat valid conclusion that Napoleon’s dynasty was the basis of his imperial power. While Smith has provided a great analysis that holds a lot of power, Zamoyski provides an earlier example of Napoleon’s dynastic aspirations. He identifies that Napoleon had offered the throne of Italy to Joseph, prior to that of Spain, and the motive for such a move was to accommodate the acceptance of his own power. Therefore, it is evident that while Napoleon had intended a direct expansion of his imperial power, it would be unsuccessful without the use of his family, From this, it is evident that for the masses amongst the satellite states, the use of family was important in connection with the imperial expansion.

However, while the argument surrounding the dynastic aspirations of Napoleon’s imperialism is one of validity it can be undermined by its association with the French revolution. This association is evident both within Napoleon’s own descriptions and the wider historiographical debate. Within the publication of the memorials of Saint Helena Napoleon is noted to have claimed that “he has become the real national monarch, and an adherence to the same course would have rendered the fourth dynasty a truly constitutional one”. Through this, Napoleon identifies that the intention of his imperial power was to create a legitimate dynasty. However, through this, a link to the revolution is also evident. For example, Napoleon identifies that if he ascertained the dynasty similarly to the crown of France he would have succeeded. Therefore, as Napoleon had gained French sovereignty through the revolution it could be inferred that he aimed to create a dynasty through its expansion. The historiographical input into this debate also identifies the role of revolutionary expansion with that of dynastic aspirations through the theme of civilization associated with the unification of satellite states. For example, Broers identifies that Napoleon wanted to create one nation from the neighboring states that worked from the same system. Therefore, like the argument before this, it is evident that Napoleon had achieved such a move through the redistribution of power, however, the intention is somewhat polarising. Through Broers’s interpretation, it is evident that while the role of dynastic aspirations was somewhat present, the main aim of Napoleon’s expansion was largely related to the previously assigned civilizing mission representing the French revolution. Categorically, the role of dynastic aspiration, while somewhat relevant within the discussion surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism can be deemed as a by-product rather than a catalyst. Therefore, through the clear association with the French revolution, the dynastic argument is of less validity.

To conclude, it is therefore evident that the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism was the intention to expand the French revolution throughout the satellite states of the Napoleonic empire. Within the wider historiographical debate, this has been conveyed through Napoleon’s own utterances and the analyses of several historians. As Napoleon referenced the code Napoleon as a universal piece of legislation, by comparing it to the Roman empire, it is very difficult to discount its input on his imperial interest. Moreover, when discussed in context, the argument gains more validity as the code Napoleon, while limited in some areas, was present in each satellite state, and like the Gendarmerie was often the first imperial action within the state. However, the competing arguments such as economic gain and dynastic attributes do hold some weight, but they too carry the undercurrent of the revolution. While economic extraction is evident during the Napoleonic imperial campaign, with satellite states paying for 50% of their military, the extraction of such resources was successful through the reorganization of the tax system and clear fiscal reforms, which are key aspects of the French revolution. Moreover, while the dynastic approach to validating Napoleon’s imperial power throughout Europe is a somewhat convincing argument, the means of achievement significantly represent the revolution, therefore contributing to the popular analysis that the revolution was central to Napoleon’s imperial power. Therefore, while these three concepts can compete alone, the most valuable argument is that the nature of napoleons imperialism was clearly the intention to extend the French revolution noticeable through societal, economic, and political means.

“Memoirs of Napoleon’s Egyptian Expedition” is a book that details the experiences of a soldier who was part of Napoleon’s Bonaparte’s army. The events that are detailed in the chosen passage happened between 1798 and 1801, when the French Imperial army invaded Egypt.

The author of the chosen passage was a junior commander in Napoleon’s army. The writer traveled extensively through Egypt, and he had the opportunity to experience the Egyptian way of life both in rural and urban settings. In the above passage, the soldier offers a summarized comparison between the French and Egyptian lifestyles.

Moiret talks about his new experiences with Egyptian culinary, winning habits, mode of transportation, and leisure activities. The above passage is a small part of Mouret’s book, but it reveals a lot of details concerning the author, Egyptians, the French, and imperialism. This paper explores and critically reviews the above passage and the insights that it offers to its readers.

The tone that is used by Moiret in this passage reveals his discontent with the French occupation of Egypt. From the onset, it is clear that Moiret is not thrilled to be in Egypt either as a soldier or as a regular person. The root cause of Mouret’s discontent might be for several reasons.

For instance, Moiret might be against the intentions of his superior master Napoleon Bonaparte. Soldiers are usually aware of the hardships of war campaigns in foreign lands. However, Moiret appears to be oblivious of the compromises that accompany war campaigns in foreign lands. Mouret’s nonchalance indicates that there is something wrong with the soldiers’ predicament. For instance, it is possible that Moiret expects his country to lessen the discomforts of the soldiers who are in a tough environment.

Furthermore, Moiret notes that even the actions of his fellow countrymen are exploitive. For example, the writer observes that the Frenchmen who open inns and cafes in Cairo overcharge for their wine. Consequently, it is the soldier’s hope that an imperial regime like that of Napoleon should have the ability to check some of these injustices.

On the other hand, it is possible that the tone of disappointment that is found in Mouret’s passage is just a manifestation of the soldier’s dislikes. In the passage, Moiret compares almost all aspects of life in Egypt with those in France. Comparing the quality of life in an African desert country with that of a conquering empire is unrealistic and pointless. It is unlikely that the soldier had expected to find high standards of living in Egypt.

However, Mouret’s expectations come from his earlier experiences with a world-class army. Moiret was under the impression that the French army should only conquer countries and towns that are ‘worth conquering.’ The fact that Moiret lists some of the worthy towns that the French have conquered is proof that he does not hold Cairo in high regard.

For example, in his passage, Moiret compares Cairo with cities such as “Milan, Padua, Leghorn, Rome, Verona, Graz, etc.” (Moiret 57). All these cities were more advanced than Cairo in terms of their infrastructures and living standards. Moiret ponders on his experiences in Egypt with a nostalgia that indicates that he would rather be somewhere else.

Mouret’s memoirs are highly indicative of an imperialistic mindset. The first line in the passage reads, “their finest dishes have nothing to please the refined European” (Moiret 57). This line immediately calls the reader’s attention to the superiority of the writer. An air of superiority amongst the French characterized the Napoleon imperialistic military campaign. The Napoleon Empire was built upon a feeling of superiority among other countries in the world.

Consequently, the French set on their military campaign while trying to prove that they were the most advanced people in the world. Whenever the French army would invade a country; the soldiers would not expect to find sophisticated people. Subsequently, Moiret is quick to point out the things that make the French superior to the Egyptians.

Mouret’s first and obvious claim to superiority is the quality of the wine. Since the late eighteenth century, the French people have perfected the art of brewing wine, and their prowess is still apparent. Therefore, comparing the Egyptians taste in wine with that of the French is downright unfair. Egypt is largely a Muslim country, and its citizens care little about wine. However, according to Moiret, this disinterest in wine is “barbarous.”

The imperialistic mindset of the writer is also manifested by his dismissal of the Egyptians’ coffee drinking habits. According to Moiret, drinking coffee without sugar is not ‘classy’ enough for his liking. The need to impose culinary tastes on an already developed culture is imperialistic. In the passage, the writer does not point out any type of food that he fancies in Egypt. Mouret’s dismissal of an entire culinary culture indicates that he never had an open-minded attitude towards Egyptian food.

The most striking feature of Mouret’s passage is its vivid descriptions. Moiret refrains from complex and lengthy descriptions but instead chooses to engage the writer in simplistic visualizations. In one instance, Moiret describes how the French soldiers rode donkeys to “explore the city streets or visit the neighborhood” (Moiret 57).

The readers find these vivid descriptions to be of great use because they offer a clear picture of a seventeenth-century Egypt. Egypt remains to be one of the most advanced ancient civilizations in the world. Therefore, most of history’s greatest conquerors believed that their campaigns were not wholesome without subduing Egypt. For example, before Napoleon Bonaparte took his troops to Egypt, Alexander the Great had done the same thing a few centuries earlier.

However, Moiret offers the readers a vivid picture of the priced jewel that is the land of the pyramids. According to Moiret, Egypt was not a land of splendor or advanced civilization as most people tended to believe it was. Mouret’s vivid descriptions also offer the readers an insight into the Egyptian way of life. For example, Mouret’s description of an Egyptian brothel as a squalid establishment that is filled with chattering courtesans is quite vivid.

Mouret’s passage also offers a historical outlook of the French-Egyptian relationship. In the passage, Moiret claims that unlike most of the other places that the French invaded, the soldiers had the chance to explore the beauty and the splendor of Cairo. In another part of the memoirs, Moiret reveals that his army unit came across a caravan of almost six thousand Egyptians who were astonished to find that the European troops were here to help (Moiret 59).

The French army had occupied Egypt to get rid of the Ottoman’s Empire stronghold on the North African country. Nevertheless, later on in the conflict, tensions between the French and a section of Egyptian citizens grew. However, the passage reveals that the French had no hidden agendas in their Egyptian military campaign. Mouret’s tone and clear disappointment with the Egyptian way of life show that the French had nothing to hide.

Although memoirs are meant to be private musings of their writers, they are always intended for a known or unknown audience. It is not clear who is it that Moiret intended to address in his memoirs although there are hints in the passage. It is clear that Mouret’s work was not intended for either Napoleon or any of the other French army superiors.

Napoleon would have found the junior officer’s lack of enthusiasm appalling and uncharacteristic of a dedicated soldier. On the other hand, it is likely that Moiret was hoping to impress the Bourbons who were Napoleon’s main opposition. It was also clear that any information detailing shortcomings in the French military campaigns would have impressed the Bourbons to a great extent.

Consequently, it can be speculated that some of the contents of Mouret’s memoirs were meant to endear him to the opposing camp. For instance, in this passage, Moiret constantly talks about how ‘out of place’ the French are in Egypt. In another part of the memoirs, Moiret talks about how the French army was forced to retreat in the vast deserts of Egypt.

Mouret’s passage is written in a simple but unapologetic manner. The passage’s writer simply knows what he wants to write about and does not seek to please his superiors in the army. The passage reveals how imperialist soldiers disregarded their hosts’ way of life. The passage also reveals a passive aggressive historical encounter between the French and the Egyptians.

Works Cited

Moiret, Joseph-Marie. Memoirs of Napoleon’s Egyptian expedition 1798-1801, London: Greenhill Books/Lionel Leventhal, 2001. Print.

Narrative of the event

• The most significant reform by Napoleon was the legislation of the civil code or code of napoleon of 1804.
• It was aimed at standardizing the French law. According to Hooker (1996), the code was based on two ideas namely:
  • “All men are equal under the law, but women are not, and All people have a property right.”
  • No self-government through elected legislative bodies.
• The first case implied that no person had privileges from any of the laws, tax laws included while the second case was focused on contractual laws, which was beneficial in ensuring the transparency of private land.
• December 2, 1804, Napoleon crowned himself hereditary Emperor of France.

Cause and effect

• European governments gradually started to implement some of the philosophies of the French revolution. According to Hooker (1996), “European territories such as Italy, Germany, and Holland were controlled by France, without being under the direct control of napoleon’s empire.” Hooker (1996), goes on to add that “These territories adopted principles such as the abandonment of privilege and the ideas of equality under the law.”
• Napoleon became ambitious and wanted to unite Europe, the way the Romans had done, with him and Paris at the center. According to Hooker (1996), “This led napoleon to adopt the roman culture, instituting roman architecture, art and sculpture all over France, as a symbol of the coming order.“
• Great Britain proved to be a challenge to him, and he, therefore, instituted a continental system, preventing the importation of European goods into Europe, though it was a failure due to the power of the British navy, who instead blocked trade against France.

Cause and effect

• In 1805, Britain declared war, where they defeated the navies of France and Spain, in the Battle of Trafalgar, under the command of Lord Horatio Nelson. This prevented further invasions by France and strengthened their dominance over world trade.
• Napoleon appointed his brothers and sitters as monarchs of the European territories that he controlled, to bring all the European states under the nepotistic and efficient monarchy. He even divorced his wife to marry Marie Antoinette, the daughter of the Austrian emperor.
• Napoleon’s territorial greed and monarchical pretensions led European powers to merge to contain his ambition. These countries were led by Britain and included Russia, Russia, and Austria.
• He won the Battle of Austerlitz and went on to take over Italy, being crowned king of Italy.
• “The Treaty of Tilsit was signed in 1807 after napoleon defeated both the Prussian and the Russian armies, allowing him to keep the territory seized from Prussia and Russia” (Hooker, 1996). In addition to this, the treaty required the two countries to take part in the continental system and stay away from all businesses with Britain. Prussia was also required to be an open ally of France.

Cause and effect

• The Treaty of Tilsit had forced Russia into the continental system, and a severe economic crisis caused Russia to break off the alliance. According to Hooker (1996), “This is because the Russian economy was mainly dependent on the exportation of raw goods including timber and grain to Britain in exchange for manufactured goods.” The only way Russia could evade economic collapse was to “allow a trade to proceed with Britain, despite protests from France” (Hooker, 1996).
• According to Hooker (1996), “The Wars of Liberation began due to the resistance of Spain to Napoleon after he overthrew their king and appointed his brother to the throne in 1808 in his attempt to getting Spain and Portugal to join the continental system”. In the Peninsula war from 1808 to 1814, the Spanish used guerrilla tactics since their weapons did not match up to those of France. The war prolonged until 1813 when the British assisted Spain in driving the French out of Spain.
• Four years of continued trade between Russia and Britain by disregarding the Treaty of Tilsit troubled napoleon. With the war in Spain going on, he decided to invade Russia in 1812, with an army of 600,000 men. They marched unchallenged till Moscow, and the Russians let them take over their capital, which they turned to ash. They stayed in Moscow for about a month, before beginning their journey back to France, but winter had already set in.

Conclusion and opinions

• According to Hooker (1996), “Napoleon’s troops found it hard to progress through Mountains of snow, acres of mud and flooded rivers.” The soldiers, who were having a hard time, were easily killed by mounted Cossacks. Others died from cold and starvation.
• By December, when napoleon got into Germany, he had lost half of his army, in the cold, and 100,000 had been taken, prisoner.
• This loss strengthened the Wars of Liberation, like Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Great Britain noticed the weakened French troops and attacked them. Most of the war took place in Germany. Napoleon forced were defeated at the Battle of Nations in 1813 near Leipzig. Napoleon lost 500,000 of his 600,000 Grand Army, in the largest battle in the world’s history before the 20th century, before retreating to Paris, and in March 1814, Tsar Alexander I and King Frederick William III of Prussia marched into the city and forced him to abdicate before being exiled to Elba, a small island off of Italy.
• Napoleon’s greed and ego could not let him solidify the territories that he had acquired and instead pursued more. Though he acquired many territories within a short period, his rule over them was short-lived. He could not handle reducing the size of his territory to that of France before acquiring new land, as it had been proposed to him by the Austrian foreign minister, Metternich, in exchange for his returning to the throne.

The Enlightenment era was a period of successive waves of changes in social, economic, political, and rational Europe during the Eighteenth Century. This was a period where individuals used creative intelligence in all spheres of life and uplifted the standards of the European continent. The enlightenment era produced many great intellectuals and Napoleon Bonaparte was one of them. Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “When a government is dependent on bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and decency; their sole object is gain.” The quote gives a view of his enlightened vision when we comprehend this concerning the global financial crisis and the Occupy Movements spreading to various parts of the world. This essay aims to outline the relationship between Napoleon and the enlightenment.

Radiance of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon was an enlightened genius. His extensive interest in books and readings provided him with great insights to understand society, economics, politics, science, and wars. His brilliance surpassed many and was well reflected in his attitudes and policies. From being a French military strategist, organizer, and political leader who had envisioned the concept of a Unified Europe through a series of sustained collaborations, social maneuverings, and military acquisitions to a continuous innovator in warfare technology. His legacy apart from a powerful general included social and economic reforms like higher education, a tax code, road and sewage systems, and the establishment of banks.

The method of religious tolerance was an instrument to win over the trust of the common masses. He gave religious freedom to the people of conquered lands just like Alexander the Great did. He negotiated the Concordat of 1801 to win the faith of the Catholics and regulated public worship in France. He bought the trust of the Pope and thus he was able to use religion as a weapon to control enemies and people alike. The ability to adapt the social customs made him popular. The writers have called him an ‘enlightened despot’, who believed in holding absolute powers to bring radical changes in the society through coded enforcement. His oratory and leadership skills were needed during those times of French unrest and upheaval. He advocated the system of voting for adopting his policies of reforms. He heavily taxed the upper classes to improve the conditions of the poor majority. His codified laws had a social bent of spirit and it impacted the majority. His social reforms sought to bring equality to society. Meritocracy was given due recognition. He initiated reforms in science when he became the President of the French Academy of Sciences. The importance of education and science arose. Many scholarships and institutions were established. His civil code of conduct, the Napoleonic Code, prepared by legal experts was brought to enforce a law against civil, criminal, and commercial cases. Critics do view him as not doing much for woman’s emancipation as he believed they had a rightful place in homes bringing up children (Blaufarb 120-200).

Napoleon was brilliance recognized by his opponents like Wellington, whose reflections could still be seen in military and public policy schools where his art of innovations and philosophies are being taught. Thus we may conclude that Napoleon was an enlightened genius who was born to transform the outlook of the world.

Works Cited

Blaufarb, R. Napoleon: Symbol for an Age, a Brief History with Documents. Bedford. 2007. Print.