Historical figures are always judged on ‘current values’.
When he was in charge he was near-holy. After the restauration he was reviled on a level with Hitler and bonapartists were persecuted. With a new Empire he became a glorious figure again and then remained a national hero up until recently.
For a lot of people he still is a Great Man, but times are again changing.
Dictators are not as much accepted any more and even the picture of a long time Geat Man like Ceasar, is under revision. Didn’t he want to kill the Republic and become a king?
Uhmm, come again?
He was about the only non-king head of state!
Everybody else still had monarchs. That was the whole reason behind all the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon wanted peace but the monarchs feared the French Revolution might spread. A non-monarchic France could not be tollerated.
Well . . . not everybody. And even the Brits had the limited monarchy thing going on, what with George III talking to trees and all that.
Pretty much what I said, the fact that Napoleon appeared to be in control of a modern apparatus of state might lead (some of us, fairly or unfairly) to judge him on more modern terms.
No, they’re not, at least not by anyone writing seriously & worth reading.
The America’s were an irrelevant backwater, far far away.
Ah, OK. I see.
But that’s rather the issue, isn’t it? We see France as a more modern nation. Ahead of it’s neighbors on science, organisation and statehood. But now it’s even more modern not to have dictators, and thus we are starting to see him more as a kind of Saddam Hussein or a Khadaffy.
Historians are children of their times too. Having ‘new insights’ in a bit of accepted history, is exactly what makes interresting articles. But yes, as a rule, writers of history books should do their utmost to remain neutral.
In college I remember being suprised when a friend who was Belgian called him a fascist. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, I think it would be fair to say he was a militaristic dictator.
Yep. Carried out a genocide in the North of England with the Harrying of the North and subsequent scorched earth policy. Arguably its effects are still seen today.
Napoleon was not a fascist because fascism didn’t exist yet. However, some historians have argued that many aspects of Napoleon’s governance paved the way for the totalitarian states of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini and that the only reason Napoleon didn’t exert such oppressive control over his citizenry was because the technology that later made totalitarian rule possible (e.g., mass media, transportation, and industry) wasn’t developed.
Of course, in practice, it doesn’t make that much difference to the peasants. Espescially when an emperorship becomes heridatary.
To a “noble” king from an established family, a Napoleon is just a revolutionary upstart.
Napoleon did his best to get himself acknowledged as an equal, amongst the noble houses of europe.
They would not have it though.
When I look up ‘emperor’ in my dictionary here* the relevant definition is: ‘The ruler of an empire, having power either absolute or subject to constitutional restrictions.’
When I look up ‘king’, the relevant definition is: ‘A male monarch.’ Looking up monarch gives us: ‘1. A sole and absolute ruler of a state. 2. A sovereign, such as a king or emperor. 3. One that presides over or rules.’
I see little practical difference between the two words.
*Houghton Mifflin’s The American Heritage Dictionary, New College Edition
You did read my second, qualifying post?
I guess the Idea of nobility/aristocracy is very foreign to you.
The difference is, as I said not too big.
To us.
To a nobleman the difference is huge. An aristocrat is born an aristocrat, anyone else is beneath them.
A king is born to be king. He is of royal blood, ordained by God.
A usurper is someone who has no right to the throne.
Nope, the Netherlands and Venice were Republics, and had been so longer than France.
Coincidentally, both were also constantly being invaded and attacked by their neighbouring monarchies. England had no less than four major wars with the Netherlands in the span of a century. They even allied with France (who was still a monarchy at the time), of all nations. That’s how you know they really couldn’t fucking stand the Dutch
Of course it does. Not only does it put the very foundation of the social order into question, but it also means that anyone can become king/emperor. All you have to do is have the balls to seize the throne. In a very real way, Nappy was inspirational in the same way Eminem or Michael Jordan are today: sure, only one kid out of a hundred thousand is going to make it big and leave the ghetto behind. But every last one of those hundred thousand thinks it could be them. Dreams and hopes go a long way, even if day-to-day life remains the same.
In a more realistic sense, Napoleon’s meritocratic system (or at least partially meritocratic, since he wasn’t above a lil’ bit of nepotism here and there, there, there, also thataway but that hardly counts) was a fantastic idea at the time, in the literal sense of the word. Imagine getting social status, fame and a fat wad of cash based on your talents and hard work rather than just because you’re some degenerate, inbred streak of piss born under the right stars. Madness !
That’s the kind of thing that threatens to give the proles the idea they get to be all uppity and socially mobile. Could even give them a sense of self-worth, make them clamour for social justice, all that jazz. Very bad precedent.
