Napoleon’s legend:

The son of the Revolution, the reformer or the enlightened despot

Xhensila Gaba

Course: World History and Civilization II

Instructor: Dr. Kosta Giakoumis

Date: January 27, 2011

1

Introduction

It is common that different personalities have shaped historical periods, and often

changed the tide of history. But only few of these “heroes” have thoroughly fascinated the entire

world for so many years and become as distinguished in different fields as Napoleon Bonaparte

has. William Channing claimed that probably the best way to approach the figure of Napoleon is

by building up new standards beyond those used for a common human being (Channing, year,

p.). It is beyond doubt that Napoleon Bonaparte has become the most prominent figure in

modern history. The period from 1799 to 1815 pertains to Napoleonic Age. His courage,

intelligence and ambition matched perfectly with the opportunities and chances offered during

the 18th century. The Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution all

introduced new ideas which posed a threat to the Old political and social regimes. Therefore,

time was ripe for genius like Napoleon to rise in power. Son of a Corsican immigrant, Napoleon

went to a military school, where his military talent was further developed. He belonged to a low-

rank noble family. Without the revolution, Napoleon probably would have never come to power.

Napoleon Bonaparte and the Napoleonic period became subject of many debates for historians,

political scientists and scholars whose ideas seem to be quite hesitant whether to categorize

Napoleon as the supporter and defender of the Revolution or as the saboteur and destroyer of it.

However, evaluating such charismatic and disputed personalities from a historical angle

objectively is a difficult task, because even before his death, a number of myths were mounting

about him. In order to analyze the Napoleonic phenomenon, one needs to marginalize as much as

possible the myths and the hyperbolizing of this man and his deeds, and try to grasp the facts

from sources uncovered by personal judgments or feelings. Second, it is important to properly

understand and build a contextual model in order that the conclusions deriving would be relevant

2

with the time period Napoleon lived and ruled. How did Napoleon rise to power and how much

has the French Revolution (which in this case is the contextual background) contributed to his

rise? What made Napoleon suffer this split personality of both the reformer and the despot—his

personal character or the circumstances of the period obliging him to be so controversial and

inconsistent? Before constructing the arguments and engaging into the debate with regard to

Napoleon’s figure, it is indispensable to have a clear view of the participants in this debate and

their arguments backing up either the reformer or the tyrant aspect of him. It is the peculiar and

colorful personality of Napoleon that had served as an incentive for taking such contradictory

stances, but despite the ambiguities on whether he had destroyed more than created, there is one

thing in which both the conclusions of his defenders and detractors converge: his greatness in

waking up Europe from its lethargic Old regime and making the decisive step forward for a

modern and united Europe.

Literature review

The vast materials and articles dedicated to Napoleonic figure are in a way a testimony

for the greatness of this man. He began with astonishing the world, with producing a rapid and

universal feeling such as modern times had not witnessed. This extraordinary man, having ruled

the world with unprecedented power during his life, is still now influencing it by his disputed

character. Conclusions and analyses with regard to Napoleon seem to be split into two major

blocks: one part refers to Napoleon as a hero who took the lead in imposing a modern system not

only in France, but throughout Europe; the other part refers to him as a despot who deviated the

real scope of the revolution by imposing a new form of despotism. Furthermore, there are

historians who like to associate Napoleon as a unique and unprecedented personality operating in

an unprecedented environment. Thus, this group of historians tends to explain the peculiarity of

3

Napoleonic phenomenon rather than labeling him under the reformer or despot category.

Another approach to Napoleon is attributing him the characteristics of a democrat and

businessman as Ralph Waldo Emerson did, despite the fact how irrelevant this vocabulary would

sound for the 18th century (Emerson). One of the research questions raised in the introductory

paragraph was why Napoleon is subject of such contradictory conclusions about his personality?

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand the model historians built to reach to

conclusions. Moreover, let’s think of this system as a process, where the conclusions are the

output, derived from the transformation process of analyzing the features of Napoleon both in the

personal and professional domain. Below I will focus in the schools of thought with regard to

Napoleon, which made up the “transformation process” of the system, or put in other words, the

lenses through which intellectuals see and conclude with regard to Napoleon Bonaparte.

The first group is composed of historians that argue of Napoleon as the preserver of the

Revolution. George Rude, a well-known British social historian, sees Napoleon as sympathetic

to and supportive of the Revolution (“The Age of Napoleon”,) . Although Rude does not deny

the inconsistent personality of Napoleon at various times, he believes that the proper way to

judge Napoleon is on what he actually did and not only on those things that usually mark the

course of a leader such as despotism and foreign conquest. His armies helped in “liberalizing”

the constitutions of many European countries. Napoleon Bonaparte was a revolutionary in the

sense that he established many of the ideals of the Revolution in Europe: the basic ideas of the

overthrow of aristocracy, of codifying law and religious tolerance. Other intellectuals are

fascinated by the geniality of Napoleon and amazed by the gift which Napoleon possessed to

such a superlative degree: imagination. Paul Valery addressed to Napoleon as the man who made

sure that Frenchmen would suffer no risk after him (Peyre, 1960, p.24). Moreover, he

4

emphasized on the reformist character of Napoleon which clearly reflected the ongoing events of

that time. Napoleon provided a rigid civil code, reforms in public administration, laws on

inheritance and economic developments. Furthermore, Paul Brousse and Henri Turot in their

volume of the Histoire Socialiste, are obviously fair to Napoleon’s achievements in the economic

and social realm (Peyre, 1960, p.26).

The other group of historians believes that Napoleon Bonaparte was more as an 18th

century enlightened despot than as anything else. Geoffrey Bruun portrays Napoleon as the

destroyer of a republic for substituting it with an empire, which was an outstanding proof of his

arrogant genius (“ The age of Napoleon”). To evaluate how largely it was a fulfillment rather

than a distortion of the reform program depends on how we want to address to the 18th century:

as the golden era of enlightened despots or the seedtime for political democracy. Alfred Cobban,

a scholar from the University of London and a well-known authority on French history, is

another representative of this group, but on harsher tones he refers to Napoleon as a dictator.

Napoleon used the idea of sovereignty of the people amalgamated with nationalism to come to

power. Michelet and Taine were the only truly outspoken opponents of the emperor among the

historians of the last century (Peyre, 1960, p.24). Taine painted a colorful and dispassionate

portrait of the emperor and in a new “Tainian” analytical way looks at various components of the

Napoleonic mind—no convictions, obeyed no higher principles, but personified energy and

unscrupulous cruelty, approaching more to the Machiavellian model of the Prince. Moreover,

Taine asserts that the historian can see no spiritual greatness in Napoleon, but mostly the

architect of a France forced to serve one man’s brutal ambition.

The third group of historians stands in the middle of the first two blocks, and maintains

that Napoleon was of a peculiar nature, because he was neither the aspirant of those wishing to

5

turn France to a more revolutionary course nor of those who wanted to return France to the

legitimacy of the Ancien Regime. Madame de Remusat justifies Napoleon by saying that at that

time Napoleon was just the man people wanted as a ruler —someone who could save them from

the threat of anarchy, as they were disappointed by the prior bloody revolutionary governments.

So there was this belief in France that despotism could at that epoch maintain order. Even from

the perspective of the political scientists, Napoleon was an example of mixing dictatorship with

democracy. No matter how awkward it might sound, in the modern world aroused the idea that

one man might himself represent the will of the people, and invest with all the authority of the

most despotic ruler in the name of democracy. The idea of sovereignty had given birth to the first

modern dictatorship. They refuse to see Napoleon as just one of the 18th century despots, because

what made the difference was the development of a dictatorship from a democratic system. The

author Melvin Richter in his article Toward a concept of political illegitimacy: Bonapartist

Dictatorship and democratic legitimacy, elaborated more on how a democratic regime would

produce not liberty, but the illegitimate prevalence of a single military leader (Richter, 1982,

p.196).

The last approach to Napoleon is the Emerson’s model, in which Napoleon is painted as a

democrat and a businessman. His articles are influenced by an American perspective. In his book

Represantative man published in 1850, Emerson skips the tendency to name Napoleon neither as

the military genius, modernizer in public administration nor as the imperialistic conqueror who

terrorized Europe with his ruthless ambition. He analyzes Napoleon from a different angle: as a

democrat and businessman (Emerson, cited in Niemeyer). Apparently, Napoleon’s seizure to

power, the creation of the Consulate and the position of ultimate consul are far from democratic

means, but Emerson’s point is not really about elections but relates to the fact that France

6

identified itself with Napoleon, because he stood for the hopes and dreams of the common man.

He can be addressed as the representative of the people, at least at the beginning of the

Revolution. “If Napoleon is France, if Napoleon is Europe, it is because the people whom he

sways are little Napoleons”. Also Emerson states that Napoleon represented the class of

businessmen or the class of industry and skilled labours. The word business is used intentionally

to mean commerce. The ideas of democracy on one hand and business activity on the other are

both connected with the middle class.

Thesis Paragraph

The scope of this paper is to go through different approaches analyzing the character of

Napoleon Bonaparte and trying to understand his being so “colorful”—was just because of its

peculiar personality or was it a necessity of the time in order to finalize the Revolution’s goals? I

argue that Napoleon’s chameleonic attitude was a strategic and indispensable tool in preserving

and further developing the French Revolution, however the initial goals of the revolution were

deviated for accomplishing Napoleon’s great wish—creating the United Europe.

The revolution gives birth to its greatest “son”…

The 18th century was a period characterized with lots of movements and changes. The

Scientific Revolution was the input for new intellectual movements such as the Enlightenment,

and the latter being the impetus for social and political changes. Both these changes were core

features of the French Revolution. Of all its phases, the French Revolution experienced the

Napoleonic phase, probably the most striking and unique one with regard to the changes it

brought and consolidated within France and worldwide, and whose impacts still influence the

modern world. Napoleon was born in Corsica, in a low-rank noble family, educated in a military

academy. Napoleon arrived at the right time. The French Revolution gave him the opportunity to

7

rise to power, but the speed with which that opportunity got grasped was because of its

intelligence, courage, charisma and ambition. His rise was the wonderful result of that rapidity of

thought, by which Napoleon was marked, the indicative success of his new form of warfare, the

almost unbelievable speed with which his fame was extended through nations. Napoleon would

have never imagined that his own career could have thrived as it did without the interference of

the Revolution on the French society’s attitudes. Napoleon had read Rousseau and sympathized

much of the Jacobin beliefs. Napoleon was successful in his wars abroad in Italy, Egypt,

Ottoman Empire, and his military talent helped him in creating the image of a hero, the image of

the ruler people needed (Brummet, 2006). After his victories, he came back to France and took

advantage of the political crisis the Directory was surrounded. Also the second alliance, led by

Russia and Great Britain, threatened France from the outside, while a agitated inflation

devastated the economy domestically. Napoleon’s charisma made him seem the likely savior of

the country. France remained in theory a republic, but almost all power laid in the hands of the

31-year-old Napoleon, who ruled as First Council (Brummet, 2006, p.553). The Revolution had

brought new political ideas such as the power should come from the people, not God. But was

Napoleon indeed the ruler that people needed at that time? The social structure of the Old

Regime was gone and with it also the privileges of the nobility. So people needed a

representative ruler, not an aristocrat. Who else better than Napoleon could embody the

characteristics of the common man ruling the people? He did not belong to the aristocracy, but

he was elected by the people. Second, people of France were eager for peace and dominion,

given the fact that the previous governments were very radical and violent, therefore this made

people skeptical and doubtful about the word “republic”, because it was associated with terror.

Napoleon believed in the defeat of the old aristocracy of privilege, and on the other hand he

8

believed in a strong government, thus he was both authoritarian and egalitarian. So even in this

aspect, Napoleon seemed to fulfill people’s aspirations for a centralized government which

would implement social reforms and an authoritarian ruler who would work on behalf of the

people. It is beyond doubt that Napoleon belongs to the Revolution--he was its son, and yet he

helped in consolidating and institutionalizing some of the principles of the Revolution. Napoleon

eradicated once and foremost the privileges of the nobility eliminated the feudal rights and

confiscated the possessions of the Church. Moreover, Napoleon was a revolutionary because in a

way or another he embraced the Revolution’s slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity”. The principle

of equality was recognized in the destruction of feudal rights and privileges in the Empire and in

the submission of all members of society to a common system of justice, the Napoleonic Code.

The Legion of Honor was also intended to promote equality, as well as reward talent. It was the

award for military, civil, and judicial service, which united side by side the soldier, the scholar,

the artist, the prelate and the magistrate; it was the symbol of the reunion of all the estates, of all

the parties.

Time for changes: Napoleon as a reformer…

Once in power, Napoleon started to put into practice the revolutionary ideas. He has been

recognized as the chief architect of the modern French state, as the Napoleonic period had an

important influence on the institutions of France and Europe. Code Napoleon is still in force in

many European states and worldwide. The Legion of Honor continues to reward Frenchmen for

their achievements. The administrative system he built still governs the French people. The

reforms he made in the sphere of labor and industry with committee of masters and men is

another major contribution. It is obvious that Napoleon undertook a series of reforms to

encompass the ideals in which he believed and that brought him in power.

9

One of the major contributions of Napoleon in the field of justice is the emergence of the

Civil Code. The equality, liberty, fraternity principle is mirrored in this Code. The Code

embodied many principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Despite many

disputes over the direct involvement of Napoleon in the process of codifying the laws, there are

many friendly comments that attribute Napoleon the fact that the civil law of France was

codified, not only with more principles than other part of French law, but also with a sense of the

general interests of the state, which were civil equality, healthy family life, legal protection to

property, religious tolerance—in few words, the reforms which he stamped upon the Civil Code.

Despite of all, everyone should ask the question why the law was codified during the period of

Napoleon and not previously? The legal chaos prevailed in France before the revolution and a

single code for the whole country was the dream of King Louis XI in the 15th century, of

Dumoulin and Brisson in the 16th century, of Colbert and Lamooignon in the 17th century and of

D’Aguesseau in the 18th (Lobingier, 1918, p.130). But none of these attempts had a successful

end. So we have to accept somehow that the fulfillment of this difficult but vital task was

achieved thanks to the energy and ambition of Napoleon. The Code was the earliest practical

realization of a five-century-old dream in France. After the establishment of the Civil Code,

other codifications attempts followed, such as the Code of Civil Procedure in 1806, the Code of

Commerce in 1807, the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1808, and the Code Penal in 1810. So

napoleon is to be credited for putting the first stone in the making of the law system. The

movement was not confined only within the French borders, but other countries were soon to

discover its merits. The distinction of the Civil Code is that it has been regarded as the People’s

Law. Even napoleon himself realized that due to its popularity, the Code would be long-lasting.

At St. Helena, he wrote: “My true glory is not having won 40 battles; Waterloo will blot out the

10

memory of those victories. But nothing can blot out my civil code. That will live eternally”

(Lobingier, 1918, p.125).

Another important contribution of Napoleon was the establishment of the conseil de

prud’hommes, or the committee of masters and men, which was a specialized institution in labor

and industry. It was composed of manufacturers and workers in various industries, elected by

their respective peers and charged with the task of terminating by conciliation or by judicial

action industrial disputes between employers and their employees. Why is this reform so

important? What new things does this committee represent for the time period? The importance

of this reform consists in three major points: first, it was an early illustration of democracy in

industry; second it represented the institution which filled in a sense the gap between the guild

system of the ancient regime and the modern trade union; third it made France the first modern

state to have a court for industry (Higby & Willis, 1948, p.465). The committee was based upon

two major principles: specialization (competent to judge industrial disputes) and equality (parties

to dispute had equal representation). Its aim was to protect the industrialist from the practices of

the unrestricted worker and would enable the worker to secure justice promptly and cheaply

through an institution in which he was represented. It started with the silk industry in Lyons, but

the intention was to spread similar councils in other cities of France. And actually by the time of

the fall of Napoleon, they were spread in 26 French cities. What attract mostly the attention at

this committee is its composition and the method of election. It was composed of manufactures,

foremen, licensed workers, who were elected by their peers. Each council had to had an odd

number of members since decisions where reached by an absolute majority of those voting

(Higby & Willis, 1948, p.472). We are mentioning words such as representation, voting system,

majority of voting, all these are terms that belong to a democratic system and a democratic

11

language in a period where we are just few steps away from the Old regime, and still Napoleon

has to be credited for making possible the usage of this language. The method of election was

fairly democratic, representing once more the revolution’s principles and slogan.

Moreover, his administrative polity with regard to education, finance and religion

resembles a dimension of his reforms. Napoleon wanted to establish a state system of public

education. This means that the schools would be run and managed by the state instead of the

church and the education would be paid by the state. Education would also teach the young

obedience and authority. But women were excluded from education. The economy was yet

another reasonably important topic for Napoleon, as the French revolution was partly caused by

poor economy. To ensure that the French economy would please the people, Napoleon made sure

that careers were open to men of talent and that bread prices would be low so that more people

could afford it. Also, to stimulate the economy, Napoleon aided industry through tariffs and

loans and built bridges, roads, so invested in infrastructure. A bank of France was also

established by Napoleon later on (Coffin, 1908, p.10).

Looking at the dark side of the story: napoleon as a despot…

As it is mentioned in the introductory debate, Napoleonic period has been perceived as

despotic, but Napoleon was to fit more in the group of enlightened despot. To figure out how

accurate this analysis is, it is necessary to give an insight of the term “enlightened despotism”

and then try to find out what are some of the facts that back up the link between Napoleon and

this new form of despotism. In the 18th century, some kings gained the reputation of enlightened

despots by popularizing the idea that monarch was the “first servant of the state”. Those

monarchs contributed in social progress, improving infrastructure, public facilities, education,

12

improving opportunities for industry and trade, but at the same time they aimed at having or

establishing a centralized authority. Probably that is the reason why the reforms failed to be

implemented properly and be sustainable, because as the society develops and as experiencing

social progress, the greater becomes the threat towards the absolute regimes and the shorter their

lives. If we draw a parallel line between Napoleon and the 18th century enlightened despots such

as Frederick the great, Joseph II, Catherine the great of Russia, there are obviously similarities to

be underlined (Brummet, 2007, p.539). Military preparedness and economic self-sufficiency

were the cardinal principles guiding the royal reformers, but they also shared a common desire to

substitute a unified system of law for the juristic chaos inherited from earlier centuries, to

eliminate the resistance and confusion offered by guilds, corporations, provincial estates and

remainders of feudal institutions, and to transform their embryonic possessions into centralized

states dominated by despotic governments of incomparable efficiency and dynamism. In

crowning the work of the Revolution by organizing a government of this type in France,

Napoleon became part of the most powerful political tradition of the age, the emphasis more on

centralization and power rather than the demand for social equality or democratic institutions.

Napoleon lent his name to an epoch because he symbolized the philosopher-prince who gave to

the dominant tendency of the age its most typical, most determined, and most glorious

expression. Napoleon believed that conceiving political freedom would result in a state of

anarchy. He believed that he could solve these problems by acting in favor of the people’s

interests as an enlightened despot.

All these facts let our analysis converge in the despotic nature of Napoleon covered and

glorified by the Enlightenment philosophies and ideals. But how can his despotism be measured?

What attitudes we should look through? William Ellery Channing asserts that the way a ruler

13

gets into power is very important and indicative for its future direction in political and social

sphere. In analyzing whether Napoleon was a guardian of liberty or an usurper, one can ask the

question: what hides behind its success? What tactics did he use to rise in power? Now it is time

to analyze how the son of the revolution grew up. William Ellery Channing, a contemporary of

Napoleonic age, has written a document about the Memoirs of Napoleon, and in this document

he harshly accuses Napoleon for being a tyrant, for using the revolution as an instrument for

fulfilling his ambition in being the emperor of a European empire. Mostly have justified

Napoleon for acquiring necessary attitudes due to the time period and problems France was

facing with all the bloody revolutionary governments that came to power prior to Napoleon.

Probably Napoleon understood well what would work and what would not, because his genius

mind could grasp the chance and opportunities when they were offered to him.

First, he used his great military skills and talent to build up the image of a hero. His wars

in Egypt were glorified and covered up with heroic rhetoric. His splendid victories achieved in

Italy were spread rapidly throughout the civilized world. But were these wars really great? Well,

if destroying everything in the conquered place, if massacring people, if making of a friend an

enemy are defined as greatness, then the answer is yes. In Italy he seized the part of Leghorn and

mined the flourishing commerce of Tuscany (Channing, n.d.,p.70). An Italian cannot forgive him

for robbing that country of its noblest works of art, treasures and glories, which had made of it a

place of pilgrimage. The massacre of Jaffa where 1200 prisoners who has surrendered

themselves to Napoleon and were apparently admitted to quarter, were 2 days afterwards

marched out of the fort, divided into small bodies and in case the musket was not effectual, were

dispatched by bayonets. He acted as a bandit, a criminal and these actions have nothing to do

with the slogan liberty, and probably the saddest part is not Napoleon being a despot but him

14

using the ideals and principles of the French Revolution and doing despotic things in name of

liberty, he obviously sabotaged the revolution, it was just the tool he needed which came to be in

the perfect time. Channing argues that the war in Egypt was merely used as a theater where all

eyes could be turned upon him. Egypt was the natural ally of France, and France was in profound

peace with it at that time. The next despotic event was the usurpation of the supreme power of

the state and the establishment of military despotism over France. This is considered as an

assault, outrage on liberty and justice. Usurpation in the name of liberty is considered the

blackest crime. Once he came in power, what ways did he used to consolidate his power till

raising it to imperial dignity? First, having seized the first dignity in the state by military force

and leaning on a devoted soldiery, he was under no necessity of binding himself to any of the

parties, which had distracted the country, thus he employed them, because they showed selfish.

Napoleon linked and fortified the link and interdependence of finance with the war department.

Second, brilliant campaign immediately following his rise to the Consulate, and which restored

to France the greatness which she had lost during his absence. The energy which leaded an army

with its cavalry, artillery, supplies, and the capacity to inspire that army, gave the impression of

his supremacy to nature, as well as to human opposition. Probably this was a fearful sign for

France and Europe showing a power over the minds of its soldiers, the effects of which were to

be considered. Napoleon was offering people what they really needed: security, glory, success.

Thus the economic model of demand and supply seems to stand in its equilibrium during

Napoleon’s rule, but probably in a short term.

Moreover, he created the system of Espionage, called the Police, which is the typical

element of a tyrant, chaining free thoughts. Napoleon built such a system where the spies

themselves were spied, and thus the information was more balanced and checked for getting to

15

the truth. Fourth, manipulation of the press was a step back to a more despotic regime. Napoleon

was a master in manipulated the press. It all started when he was conducted wars abroad, and

therefore the war at home was supported by the media, contributing in the rapid spread of his

victories and his image. It is well-understood that free writing and despotism hardly go hand by

hand together, thus the scope was in turning the press, that great organ of truth, into an

instrument of public delusion and brainwasher. Last, Napoleonic despotism could be viewed in

his attitude with regard to religion. He extorted the Concordat from Pope and declared himself an

emperor. He professed to re-establish the catholic religion in France. Although he lived in

unprecedented times, where you should implement new ways of performing, still Napoleon used

ordinary means of power. Old governments had found a convenient support in religion.

Napoleon imagined that it was a necessary attachment and support of his sway, and resolved to

renovate it. It was an intelligent move; because at this moment in France there was no foundation

for religious establishment-- how the religion can strengthen the supreme power then, when there

is no faith, no devoting feelings, and even no superstition to supply the place of these. Probably

what Napoleon was seeking was to establish a new religion—the Napoleonic one, which would

not sound so weird giving his narcissistic personality.

As we mentioned in the previous sector, the civil code has been considered as one of

great contributions of Napoleon, but still Code Civil did not escape the polluting mark of

despotism. Looking beyond the greatest achievement of Napoleon, the Civil Code, which was

the codification of most principles inspired by the French Revolution and other movements such

as Enlightenment, suffered from the despotic touch that Napoleon left there (Lobingier, 1918,

p.117). Some authors argue that he deviated and somehow distorted the role of the Civil Code.

Often historians accord to Napoleon the merit of bestowing a nation with a codified law, and

16

here they let apart his figure as despot or as usurper. Channing accuses Napoleon for making the

Code inefficient in its pure scope. The Code could provide justice between man and man, but not

between citizens and ruler (Channing, n.d, p.190). Moreover when it comes to women, the

principle of liberty and equality had been neglected and denied for them. A woman was

economically dependent upon her husband; the Napoleonic Code defined the space women

would occupy in the new regime as matrimonial, maternal and domestic-all public matters would

be controlled by men. A woman had no control on property. The principle of liberty and

equality is undermined here, because when it came to women, the term of “estate” as a way of

describing an unchangeable way of life seemed to fit the most, but this belong to the Old regime,

and still was somehow mirrored in this very modern achievement as the Civil Code. Estates had

been abolished for men in favor of mobility, but it continued for women.

The despotism of Napoleon is mostly observed outside the borders of France where the

principles of equality, liberty and fraternity were totally forgotten and substituted with

oppression, slaves, mistreatment of people there. His foreign policy seemed to be far away part

of the reformist system, but instead it remained the domain on which Napoleon was attacked the

most for his despotic nature. The Continental System was a strategy impeding all the European

stated to engage in trade with England for the aim to weaken the economy of England, which at

that time was a maritime power and most of her gains came from commerce and trade (Sloane,

1898, p.216).

The theory of a closed state, which had been developed in defense of the final stage in the

construction of European nationality, was itself undergoing an expansion in the direction of

clarifying the international relations of states in commercial affairs. Defining the closed state as a

limited body of men part to the same laws and to the same sovereignty, he affirmed that the same

17

body of men need to be strictly limited to support reciprocity of commerce and industry, and that

any other not under the same legislative power should be expelled from participating in this

relation. In this way, it would be shaped a closed commercial state equivalent to the closed

judicial state, which was the ambition of Napoleon. Bonaparte was accused of embracing a rigid

protectionist doctrine that he endeavored to be relevant to the domination which when acquired

by conquest, he intended to incorporate in a European Empire having its capital in Paris. The fact

was that the First Consul was using the peace to expand the protective system of France over all

the lands which he had conquered in Northern and Central Italy and also to oblige Holland and

Switzerland into his customs unions (Sloane, 1898, p.218). In consequence, English commerce

was suffering and the mission of diminishing English trade was already under way. Napoleon

said that the independence of a nation should be viewed together with the absolute control of any

trade activity. To destroy British commerce was like striking England straight through its heart,

and that was the purpose of Napoleon.

Conclusion

Napoleon remains probably one of the most debated personalities of modern history.

When writing a paper about Napoleon Bonaparte, one should first apologize for not reading the

entire vast of literature dedicated to a single man who achieved to give his name two decades, the

Napoleonic Age. Many see napoleon as the supporter of the French revolution and the preserver

of its ideals and principles. Others judge Napoleon as deviating the real scope of the revolution

and using it as an instrument for achieving personal ambitions. There are other historians who try

to analyze Napoleon as a unique phenomenon, hardly to be repeated again, due to the

circumstances it operated and due to its special character. They address napoleon as the one who

18

broke up forever the ties with the old regime, with the past and the credited him for fathering

many of the modern reforms and institutions, such as the civil code, the modern administrative

framework. He represented the transition period Europe and the world was experiencing and in a

transitional period, where nothing is stable, where nothing is guaranteed, where a small step and

a small error parts you from the terror of the past, and lots of struggle to be one step forward and

embrace a new and modern world. In order to survive in such period you have to be partly

chameleonic and pragmatic, and this was the strategy that the genius mind of napoleon

undertook. That was the reason and partly the justification for him not being consistent and being

contradictory at various times.

He managed to preserve and consolidate some of the principles of the Revolution, he

managed to restore France economically and socially from the marks of the old regime and the

revolutionary failed governments, he also got very close to his personal ambition: becoming the

emperor of a united Europe. Napoleon gave lessons of universalism to many scholars. Why did

napoleon failed in his strategies? What went wrong? Probably it was the underestimation of the

circumstances of the time, those exact circumstances that he struggled so mush to establish, the

principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity that he taught not only within France, but

everywhere he conquered. He projected a universal empire in a modern Europe which was

composed of civilized states, interdependent on commerce, literature, common faith,

interchangeable thoughts and a system that would guarantee such a balance of power as would

secure national independence. To pretend a united Europe under these circumstances was viewed

as insulting the nationalist feelings of the times. Napoleon was trapped into his own circle, and

he is an example that trying to combine centralized authority with social progress, especially the

middle class is something in the short term, not sustainable. However, to conclude there is one

19

thing that all historians, political scientists and intellectuals agree: his greatness, whether it was a

military, moral or intellectual greatness. It left a striking mark on the modern world history.

20

References

Brummet P., Edgar R. R., Hacket N. J., Jewsbury G. F., Taylor A. M., Bailkey N. M., Lewis C. J., Wallbank T. W. (2006), Civilization: Past and Present, Eleventh E Edition, New York: Longman, OR 12th edition (2007).

Channing, E., W. (n.d). Memoirs of Napoleon. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=zCp9L9y0KKgC&q

Coffin, V. (1908). A preliminary study of the administrative polity of Napoleon I. The American Historical Review, 13(4), 753—778. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1834264

Higby, C. P., & Willis, C. B. (1948). Industry and labor under Napoleon. The American Historical Review, 53(3), 465—480. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/18840565

Lobingier, C. S. (1918). Napoleon and his code. Harvard Law Review, 32(2), 114—134. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1327640

Peyre, H. (1960). Napoleon: Devil, poet, saint. Yale French Studies, 26, 21—31. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2929219

Richter, M. (1982). Toward a concept of political illegitimacy: Bonapartist dictatorship and democratic legitimacy. Political Theory, 10(2), 185—214. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190575

Sloane, W. M. (1898). The continental system of Napoleon. Political Science Quarterly, 13(2), 213—231. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2140167

21

n.d. The age of Napoleon. Retrieved from http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/uhs/website/courses/wc/historiography/age_of_napoleon.htm

22