The Role of Napoleon Bonaparte in the French Revolution Essay

Introduction

The greatest military commander of all times Napoleon Bonaparte still stirs different emotions as per his personality at various critics’ appraisals. The historical period of 1799-1815 was a significant turning point for the French and other adjacent countries. Napoleon Bonaparte left a nonerasable print in the world of political history that still makes millions of people wonder who he really was and what impact he actually had. This paper will unveil the premises and aftermath of the French Revolution and the role Napoleon Bonaparte played in those crucial events. He is doomed to be heroic and a wise reformer by some people, others consider him to be ambitious and megalomaniac. The following examination of Napoleon’s figure will unveil his political agenda and prove him to be loyal to his nation as well as not traitorous to the French Revolution.

Historical Excursus

The revolutionary thoughts and moods in France have been emerging since 1787 when the bourgeoisie was heavily levied with taxes in order to support the aristocratic lifestyle. At that time France was the richest country in all of Europe and its economical state was considered a perfect one, unlike its internal political problems. Since the taxes were unbelievably high in order to support the unreasonably luxurious lives of the aristocracy, the French nobility and Lois XVI started losing their popularity. The chain of unpleased and rebellious riots consisted of profitable farm owners, merchants, tradesmen who in their turn were allied with lower-class Frenchmen. Among the latter were thinkers and philosophers of the Enlightenment who proclaimed totally different political orders that contradicted the privileged authorities’ views. As the revolution was going forward at a steady gait, American diplomats, living in France, showcased their confidence in the successful overthrow of the monarchy as per their own American Revolution. Not only did the masses begin demanding freedom of speech and the overthrow of the Roman Catholic Church, but the allied republicans also faced disagreements and even bloodsheds among their group. The French Revolution was not a matter of one event. It was a long-term buildup of dissatisfaction among different layers of French society. So, the revolution had its culmination in 1789, July 14^th during the seizure of Bastille.¹ The revolutionary events continued for about ten more years. Napoleon, the general of the French army, had many victories over the times passed and in 1804 he was coroneted and became Emperor of the French in his First French Empire putting an end to French Consulate.

Was Bonaparte a Traitor to Revolution?

Although Napoleon Bonaparte is deemed a traitor to a revolution in France by many historians, they forget about the actual dark side of the revolution and neighboring political forces around France back then. France used to be friendlier to European countries under Empire than it was under Directory, for example. Napoleon represented the utmost flexibility within the political views of Europe of those times. He understood the disadvantageous state of France that was bled white by the former political failed forces. Not only did he realize the misery of the country and the inability to fight on, but he also took action and signed the Peace of Amiens. This, of course, brought an end to the war and was a spectacular compromise between revolutionary ideals and the economical state of France. The economical and military ambitions of France were extremely low but Napoleon managed to consider the social issues, as well. He certified social revolution and established peace with the Catholic Church which was definitely the right decision in order to reunify the people of France. However, the peace with the church was established on a revolutionary beneficial basis – it became subordinate to the state legislature after Concordat.

Napoleon could have done more and could have established way more democratic orders if the impact of previous decades and its violence had not been so memorable for the society. The aftermath of the revolutionary actions was disastrous and the society would have faced the need to readjust to more alternations in political orders. The notion of democracy in France of the early nineteenth century was more conceptual rather than actual. Totally democratic state could become a real threat to the reactionary states. However, Napoleon reasonably built up his political agenda out of pragmatism understanding that this would make difference within the foreign and domestic problem-solving. He deemed that such political agenda of the Empire was much acceptable for the people. He was looking for a compromising political order and deserved the reins acquired.

Accusations of Being a Warmonger

Having established such half-revolutionary-derived order in France, Napoleon is now frequently accused of being a warmonger. However, it is not realized by many people that Napoleon did try to keep the results of the revolutionary times. This is exactly why the countries of Europe regarded France to be an enemy with its new political order. They considered the Empire to be threatening because of the new ideology. They say that Napoleon is to blame in ‘Napoleonic’² wars that he could have avoided due to wiser governing. In response to this, it has to be noted that the decades before the First French Empire and centuries after that the statesmen could hardly dream of living without conflicts. Therefore, it is evident that Napoleon could do nothing except for fighting and prove France’s stability and dominancy. The times regarded are crucial for history in terms of evolving democratic values that changed the future and the contemporary times a lot. Therefore, even being an extremely wise and experienced governor, Bonaparte, could not convince the other states in the peacefulness of democracy, while France still needed military protection and defense. Of course, Bonaparte used common tactics in order to protect his Empire –warfare which was not totally unique. Remarkably though, he was amazing in this craft and there was hardly a governor by those times to have won so many victories. Such enrichment of France was determined by the era. Although the Emperor is accused of failing the revolutionary concepts, he achieved long-term peace in the country. However, a more thorough look at political facets of those times will prove guilty other parties, whereas Bonaparte was a marvelous lobby at all political and warfare issues.

Coming back again to the notion of the governance by Bonaparte in France during 1799-1815 years and whether he was a traitor to his nation, it has to be denoted that warfare was the most prominent skill of his that everyone was seriously jealous of. Nevertheless, many historians claim that he was a corrupt individual, a lacking morality person, and a cause of great pains of the nation. This does not seem to implement a democratic course. However, the real intentions and the times of the post-revolutionary period have to be taken into consideration. Of course, some of his actions were obviously outrageous. For example, the execution of d’Enghien and the imprisonment of the Pope were considered insane. Napoleon had to establish total dominance of the Emperor and that was the mean and cost of power. He was senseless to human losses because he regarded war as a tool for setting up the policy system. This is not an excuse for thousands of deaths during military operations, though he went down in history as the most efficient ruler and negotiator. So, the phrase frequently associated with Napoleon “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”³ is seemingly true but the reasons and premises have to be taken into consideration.

For the sake of justice, it has to be said that Bonaparte needs to be compared to his contemporaries. Indeed, the beginning of the nineteenth century was way far from modern democracy and morality and so the contemporaries of Napoleon were far from mercy and kind-hearted rulers. Provided that Bonaparte was depraved, why not look at those times’ society or other monarchs overall? Even if said that his actions were far from keeping up the revolution’s ideals, one could hardly deny he has done more than any other ruler would have contributed in order to keep at least some features and issues of freedom that society was striving for. And who knows, maybe this very harshness and somewhat vandal methods of pursuing dominance helped Napoleon create a half-revolution-based political power in the scope of the rest of European countries. And so, even if Napoleon was corrupt he certainly had a wise and flexible agenda to maintain old and revolutionary-new methods of governing.

Exercising Power: Revolution-Wise?

There were many people accusing Bonaparte of abusing his power. However, if one looks at the historical times more precisely, the obvious advantage of the French is seen – it was their Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. He was the one to finish the revolution that was extended for too long for France to have lost many soldiers. France started out revolution being the richest and the most powerful state in Europe and ended up having no adult soldiers to fight. Napoleon made the war end and signed several vital treaties to give France an opportunity to recover and claim its superiority again. He fulfilled the ideals that Frenchmen demanded at the very beginning of the revolution. The bourgeoisie was now pleased with the equality, justice, and many rights they were granted with. Furthermore, economics experienced great times when the franc was established as the most stable European currency. France had its major uplift politically and economically to be able to establish beneficial relations with surrounding countries.

Megalomaniacal or a Savior?

There were many more representatives of that society who did not think Napoleon was a traitor of the Revolution and a destroyer of the ideals people strived for. Among those were the soldiers that he fought alongside. They cherished and worshipped the Emperor who stood for them in many battles and lifted up their spirits every time they needed inspiration. And so, they were ready to ‘follow him to the stars’⁴ if Napoleon ordered to. Such loyalty to general Bonaparte would never take place in case he was not a fair ruler and general. This democratic feature definitely speaks for Napoleon’s adherence to revolutionary ideals which he never neglected. The battle cry of the French Revolution was ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’⁵, all of that was granted to people who waged the Revolution. One of the main contributions that Napoleon made to society was the Civil Code. It is widely known as Napoleonic Code. It is one of the most outstanding deeds of Bonaparte because at those times’ France the discrimination was furiously widespread. Thus, he decided to give equality and liberty to Jews, Protestants, and the rest religions of France.

Therefore, it is evident that a person who was about to stand against the entire Europe with the revolutionary political order had to have a large ego to survive and drag France out of the disaster the previous governors put it to. It is ridiculous to accuse Bonaparte of being megalomaniacal because he had a huge Empire to rule over and this needs frantic strength and wisdom.

Conclusion

Napoleon Bonaparte is unreasonably thought to be a traitor to the revolution. He was the one to support the Revolutionary ideas loyally. In fact, many ideologies established during the French Empire have echoed in the contemporary democratic political order of the country. Although Napoleon’s ruling was followed by two other French Revolutions the one held in 1787 was significant for it gave rise an opportunity for the democratic order to emerge gradually. Napoleon was a harsh governor who had no fear before the losses in wars but this was a cost of peace. Many think of him as a bloody and warped-psyche-emperor but this is the cost of dominance and superiority of the glorious and wise Napoleon Bonaparte who did not have another way except for balancing between old and new stream of politics.

Bibliography

Bergeron, Louis, and Richard Palmer. France under Napoleon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Furet, Francois. The French Revolution: 1770-1814. Carlton: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Days of the French Revolution. New York: William Morrow Paperbacks, 1999.

Levack, Brian and others. The West: Encounters & Transformations, Concise Edition, Combined Volume. New York: Longman, 2006.

Stephen, James, and Richard Posner. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: And Three Brief Essays. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1992.

Footnotes

1. Levack Brian and others, The West: Encounters & Transformations, Concise Edition, Combined Volume (New York: Longman, 2006), 578.
2. Furet Francois, The French Revolution: 1770-1814 (Carlton: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996), 144.
3. Bergeron Louis and Richard Palmer, France under Napoleon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 201-204.
4. ChristopHibbert her, The Days of the French Revolution (New York: William Morrow Paperbacks, 1999), 245.
5. Stephen James and Richard Posner, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: And Three Brief Essays (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1992), 62-63.