Explanation: After the French Revolution, the French executed their king and declared their allegiance to a REPUBLIC of the French PEOPLE!
… after a decade of political chaos, the French eagerly embraced an ambitious war hero by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte, who proclaimed himself First Consul of the French Republic, and then, after that, Emperor, to genuine applause and popular support.
The PEOPLE’S monarchy!
Napoleon was certainly a very different kind of monarch than the French king who was executed - Napoleon always regarded himself as a tool of the Revolution, and the other monarchs of Europe agreed, with disgust. But it also can’t be denied that Napoleon’s reign included severe democratic backsliding and the concentration of absolute power into the hands of an autocrat, which is pretty contrary to many of the nice, inspiring words proclaimed as the core ideals of the French people during the Revolution.
By all means. Napoleon was certainly a complex figure. While he shows the dangers of autocracy and ambition, he also was, probably, a genuine believer in Enlightenment-era ideals, while many of the anciens regimes against him were positively feudal.
it is nice getting good information from y’all who know history better than me. like, my minor prepared me to understand y’all, but not necessarily to figure it out on my own.
In Napoleon’s own reflections written during his exile on St. Helena…
War is becoming an anachronism; if we have battled in every part of the continent it was because two opposing social orders were facing each other, the one which dates from 1789, and the old regime. They could not exist together; the younger devoured the other. I know very well, that, in the final reckoning, it was war that overthrew me, me the representative of the French Revolution, and the instrument of its principles. But no matter! The battle was lost for civilization, and civilization will inevitably take its revenge. There are two systems, the past and the future. The present is only a painful transition. Which must triumph? The future, will it not? Yes indeed, the future! That is, intelligence, industry, and peace. The past was brute force, privilege, and ignorance. Each of our victories was a triumph for the ideas of the Revolution. Victories will be won, one of these days, without cannon, and without bayonets.
His ambition and massive ego made him into a tyrant, but he was certainly in opposition to an older and worse feudal tyranny that had ruled Europe for centuries.
yeah, sometimes people judge historical figures by their enemies and Napoleon is one of those. He was a tyrant but a lot of people think he was great because he fought against monarchies. like, a despot is still bad even if they have worse enemies is kind of my point.
then we look at politics today and say “well they all bad” and fail to apply the same “critical” thinking about history.
Yep. One of my ‘favorite’ Napoleon moments is when he falsified the already-vastly-in-favor plebescite to make him Emperor to an even more ridiculously-in-favor degree for the sake of his own ego.
RetroFed
PugJesus
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Explanation: After the French Revolution, the French executed their king and declared their allegiance to a REPUBLIC of the French PEOPLE!
… after a decade of political chaos, the French eagerly embraced an ambitious war hero by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte, who proclaimed himself First Consul of the French Republic, and then, after that, Emperor, to genuine applause and popular support.
The PEOPLE’S monarchy!
Napoleon was certainly a very different kind of monarch than the French king who was executed - Napoleon always regarded himself as a tool of the Revolution, and the other monarchs of Europe agreed, with disgust. But it also can’t be denied that Napoleon’s reign included severe democratic backsliding and the concentration of absolute power into the hands of an autocrat, which is pretty contrary to many of the nice, inspiring words proclaimed as the core ideals of the French people during the Revolution.
See also: Cromwell. Pretty much the same thing a hundred years earlier
THANK YOU. mind if i save your comment and refer people here next time i say “hey, napoleon was not that great?”
By all means. Napoleon was certainly a complex figure. While he shows the dangers of autocracy and ambition, he also was, probably, a genuine believer in Enlightenment-era ideals, while many of the anciens regimes against him were positively feudal.
it is nice getting good information from y’all who know history better than me. like, my minor prepared me to understand y’all, but not necessarily to figure it out on my own.
In Napoleon’s own reflections written during his exile on St. Helena…
His ambition and massive ego made him into a tyrant, but he was certainly in opposition to an older and worse feudal tyranny that had ruled Europe for centuries.
yeah, sometimes people judge historical figures by their enemies and Napoleon is one of those. He was a tyrant but a lot of people think he was great because he fought against monarchies. like, a despot is still bad even if they have worse enemies is kind of my point.
then we look at politics today and say “well they all bad” and fail to apply the same “critical” thinking about history.
Yep. One of my ‘favorite’ Napoleon moments is when he falsified the already-vastly-in-favor plebescite to make him Emperor to an even more ridiculously-in-favor degree for the sake of his own ego.
Well sure, but it was mostly to spite the British, so fair game.