Column Article: Standing Up for The Little Guy
I was a fan of Napoleon Bonaparte.
I understood his faults, sure, but it was his successes that far outweighed his blemishes, in my eyes. Unfortunately, others weren't so understanding. My peers often disagreed with me on the matter, but I held fast to my opinion, and still do. Over time, the popular opinion of Napoleon has still remained the same: The man who conquered the conquerors was remembered as a villain, and his opponents as heroes. Chances are you think of Napoleon Bonaparte as an evil tyrant, wreaking havoc on the rest of Europe because of some mad power trip, but history suggests to me that perhaps it was misconstrued against him. What I most certainly disagree with is the comparison of Napoleon Bonaparte to Adolf Hitler, a claim so exaggerated that an actual comparison of the two quickly dismisses this myth, which I have unfortunately heard quite a bit in popular opinion.
Napoleon, while ruthless, did what every other ruler of the time did: He worked to grow his nation, and defend it's territory. What separates him from the rest, and why he is hated in history, is that he did this better than anyone else. Napoleon was such an effective emperor, such a brilliant military strategist, and such a popular ruler among his own people, that the success of France under his reign was almost too much for the rest of the world powers... combined.
I sat down with Dr. Robert Harrison, a history instructor here at LBCC, and asked what his views on Napoleon were.
"I think this is a complex man. You know, it's interesting, I think Napoleon advanced the ideas of the revolution, and it was summed in three words, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' He worked to end what is called 'the old regime', the monarchy. He believed in your actions deciding your place, not your birth."
Dr. Harrison later said that while Napoleon did fight for the revolution and it's ideas, he later undid most of it when he made himself emperor. I agree on this matter, Napoleon may have turned on most of the ideas of the revolution, but perhaps it wasn't because he didn't believe in democracy, but rather he believed in himself more.
I believe the nature of Napoleon's rise to power is a little less than devious on his part. You see, during the revolution, the new government under the French Republic was failing. The Council of Five Hundred was corrupt already, and had violated the rights of the people on multiple occasions. Many people urged Napoleon to take the reigns of France and sort everything out, and multiple assassination attempts on his life when confronting the council resulted in him obliging, and doing so in an abrupt military coup.
After being appointed First Consul of France, Napoleon realized his work could quickly be undone in the case of his untimely death. With him gone, what would become of France? The return of a monarch? A bloody reign of the execution-happy Jacobins? Napoleon needed his own heir to take his place when he died, so that his work may continue for France.
Napoleon wasn't alone in this either. As written in the book, "Readings in Modern European History," "The French people, by a free and independent expression, then manifested it's desire that the imperial dignity should pass down in a direct line through the legitimate or adopted descendants of Napoleon Bonaparte, or through the legitimate descendants of Joseph Bonaparte, or of Louis Bonaparte." How could the people who casted off the chains of the monarchy suddenly become so enthused at the idea of a French emperor? Perhaps it wasn't so much an inconsistent mood among the people, but a consistent opinion about one man. They didn't just want any emperor, they wanted Napoleon Bonaparte.
When Napoleon came to power, France turned from a warring hell-scape of political upheaval to one of the biggest world powers of the time. Matching the power of Great Britain (but not the navy) and the armies of Prussia, Napoleon managed the impossible.
In terms of warfare, a lot of blame is pinned on Napoleon. Certainly the other poor, innocent world powers had nothing to do with starting these wars, right? Actually, the reason the first war started was because the other world powers of the time (Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria) didn't want the French Revolution spreading to their populace as well. Liberty, equality and fraternity don't suit a monarchy very well, and revolutions spread like wildfire. In the midst of France's bloody revolution, the other world powers formed a coalition and declared war, plunging France into a deeper crisis than it was in before. Napoleon was an officer in the French Army during this war, and led a campaign through Italy, trouncing the Austrians along the way.
And what of the other wars? The second war was also declared by the Coalition, with the intent of trying to suppress the revolution again. The Coalition did fairly well in the first half of the war, but then Napoleon became the leader of France. Napoleon's armies secured the borders of France, and managed to even expand into enemy territory. To the monarchs of the Coalition, the idea of a simple Corsican from a mediocre family becoming the leader of France was abhorrent to them. On top of that, Napoleon was considered, even in his status as emperor, the champion of the ideals of the revolution, and that wouldn't do at all for the other countries of Europe.
The invasion of Russia, one of the few offensive wars Napoleon fought, came about when Russia broke an agreement with France to embargo Great Britain. The embargo on Great Britain came from their aggression towards France's economic growth under Napoleon.
Another interesting point about this invasion is how the Polish were involved. Did you know that the Polish national anthem honors Napoleon by name? Through invading Russia, Napoleon liberated Poland from a harsh occupation that sought to rid them of their culture. The Russians and the Prussians had disdain for Poland, and felt that because they held so little political power, they didn't have to be recognized as a country.
Napoleon thought different. After liberating Poland, he established the Duchy of Warsaw, and abolished the old feudal system that still plagued the Polish region, and introduced modern civil laws. French and Polish forces alike marched onto Moscow, which as we all remember, ended in tragedy. For the Poles, though, their liberation was a beacon of hope, something they hadn't experienced in a long time.
Without Napoleon, the world would have looked much different. Through him, modern civil laws were introduced that are still in use today. Napoleon Bonaparte considered his civil code to be his greatest achievement, more so than any of the battles he won. I believe that even though he threw away the Republic, Napoleon successfully implanted the ideas of the revolution into Europe, which caused the slow death of the reign of monarchs. New things can come from revolutions, but without organization and order, you just get a lot of bloodshed, and little to show for it. Had our (supposedly) pint-sized Corsican never rose to power, the revolution and it's ideas would have been stomped out by the invading monarchs of Europe.
Sure he was a bit narcissistic, but it wasn't entirely misplaced. There's a reason it's called the Napoleonic Era, and during this time came a multitude of political ideas. I don't have a problem with not liking Napoleon, though. Though nowadays, we like to just go by what the common opinion is, and leave the details aside. Through deeper investigation, though, we can learn a lot about the famous figures before us, and how they contributed to the world as we know it today. Through this, perhaps we can learn to pave the road ahead of us easier.
...Or we can just bring those awesome looking uniforms back into style.
Links
https://archive.org/details/readingsinmodern01robi (pg 334-336)
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Napoleon-I
Image: "Napoleon crossing the Alps" By Jacques-Louis David
Comments
Post a Comment