Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15, 1769 in Ajaccio on the Mediterranean island of Corsica. Through his military exploits and his ruthless efficiency, Napoleon rose from obscurity to become Napoleon I, Empereur
World, of great writers, film makers, and playwrights whose works have done much to create the Napoleonic legend it is sometimes difficult to separate the two. The events of his life fired the imaginations.
Napoleon decided on a military career when he was a child, winning a scholarship to a French military academy. His meteoric rise des Francais (Emperor of the French). He is both a historical figure and a legend—and
shocked not only France but all of Europe, and his military conquests threatened the stability of the
Napoleon was one of the greatest military commanders in history. He has also been portrayed as a power hungry conqueror. Napoleon denied beingsuch a conqueror. He argued that he was building a federation of free peoples in a Europe united under a liberal government. But if this was his goal, he intended to achieve it by taking power in his own hands. However, in the states he created, Napoleon granted constitutions,introduced lawcodes,abolished feudalism, created efficient governments and fostered education, science, literature and the arts. Emperor Napoleon proved to be an excellent civil administrator. One of his greatest achievements was his supervision of the revision and collectionof French law into codes. The new law codes—seven in number—incorporated some of the freedoms gained by the people of France during the French
revolution, including religious toleration and the abolition of serfdom. The most famous of the codes, the Code Napoleon or Code Civil, still forms the basis of French civil law. Napoleon also centralized France's government by appointing prefects to administer regions called departments, into which France was divided. Napoleon's own opinion of his career is best stated in the following quotation:
I closed the gulf of anarchy and brought order out of chaos. I rewarded merit regardless of birth or wealth, wherever I found it. I abolished feudalism and restored equality to all regardless of religion and before the law. I fought the decrepit monarchies of the Old Regime because the alternative was the destruction of all this. I purified the Revolution.The widespread notion of Napoleon's shortness lies in the inaccurate translation of old French feet ("pieds de roi") to English. The French measure of five foot two (5' 2"), recorded at his autopsy, actually translates into five feet six and one half inches (5' 6.5") in English measure, which was about the average height of the Frenchman of his day. It is also probable that the men of his Imperial Guard, with whom he "hung
out," were very tall, creating the illusion that Napoleon was short. If you are aware of books, movies, databases, web sites or other information sources about Napoleon Bonaparte or related subjects, or if you would like to submit comments please send us email.Back to Top.
►Napoleon & education:
Napoleon has been given much credit for modernizing France's education system. Among the institutions he set up or expanded were: Primary schools in every commune under the general supervision of the prefects or sub-prefects. Secondary or grammar schools that were under the control of the central government. Lycees (high schools) in every important town, with teachers appointed by the central government. Technical Schools, civil service schools, and military schools were regulated by the State. Establishment of the University of France to maintain uniformity in the
education system. Centralized recruitment and training of teachers. (Hayes; 539-540) Napoleon's goals for improving education in France were not altruistic. After coming to power he discovered he did not have enough trained personnel to administer his empire. This included architects, engineers,
and scientists. Additionally he viewed education as a means of indoctrinating the masses with the right principles. This meant removing education from the control of the church and placing it under state control. (This was something the Revolution had only partially achieved). That being said, "he expected two things from the schools. First was the training of middle-class boys to be civil and military leaders... Secondly, he wanted the educational system to be absolutely uniform. He wanted, he said, to be able to pull his watch out of his pocket at any time and tell what was going on at any school." (Holtman; 143). How successful was he at achieving these goals is questionable. By 1812, it was estimated that only one child in eight was enrolled in a primary school. The institutes of higher learning had a large percentage of its students in professional studies, with almost 30% studying medicine or science. However, "the difficulty of finding subordinates with the technical training to execute his industrial and engineering projects, and the bent of his own genius, led Napoleon to emphasize the training of the scientist as equally important with the training of the scholar, and his efforts helped to make France the home of scientific thought in the early years of the nineteenth century." (Bruun; 146-147) As an indoctrinating tool, it was more successful. In the latter years of the Empire, when manpower became scarce, French teenagers on the whole, enthusiastically responded to the call to arms even after almost twenty years of continual warfare. For more information about this topic, read: Bruun, Goffrey. The Rise of Modern Europe: Europe and the French Imperium 1799-1814. Harper Torchbooks: New York;1963.Hayes, Carlton. Modern Europe to 1870. MacMillan: New York; 1953. Holtman, Robert B. The Napoleonic Revolution. J.B. Lippincott: New York; 1967.
After Brumaire (9-10 Nov. 1799) —the coup d'etat which first set Napoleon on the path to becoming the supreme executive of a French empire— Napoleon declared, "The Revolution is made fast on the principles on which it began; the Revolution is finished." Since this famous utterance came so soon after he gained power, it is clear that Napoleon was saying something significant about what the role of his new-born regime would be to those which had preceded it. Like the man himself, this quote and the one at the head of this page are both highly complex and ambiguous. He is declaring that the new regime was both a break from the immediate past and part of a continuity with that past. What was Napoleon's relationship to the Revolution? To what extent was he its heir or its betrayer? Did he save the Revolution or liquidate it? To begin it is necessary to determine what one means by "the Revolution". There was not one Revolution, but really a series of them which occurred as the French struggled to create a new political and social system. By the "Revolution" do we mean that of Barnave, or of Mirabeau, or Lafayette, or Brissot, or Danton, or Robespierre, or Hebert, or Tallien, of Babeuf, or Barras? All of these were men of the Revolution, yet they all held differing conceptions of what that "Revolution" was. I will be considering many of those fundamental principles which guided most of these revolutionaries. In general, these principles include equal treatment under the law, one degree or another of centralization of the government, elimination of feudal rights, religious tolerance and careers open to talent not birth.
Georges Lefebvre wrote that the Emperor was "...a pupil of the philosophes, he detested feudalism, civil inequality, and religious intolerance. Seeing in enlightened despotism a reconciliation of authority with political and social reform, he became its last and most illustrious representative. In this sense he was the man of the Revolution." R. R. Palmer has observed that Napoleon considered the Jacobin government of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety the only serious government of the Revolutionary period. During the "Reign of Terror" Napoleon was strongly identified with the Jacobins. His dialogue published in 1793, Le Souper De Beaucaire, championed the Jacobins over the federalist Girondins. What Napoleon admired were the Jacobins' strong centralized government, their commitment to deal decisively with the problems facing
the fledgling republic, and their attempt to forge a strong stable France while winning the war against its enemies. Napoleon clearly felt, like the Jacobins, that an energetic centralized state was essential to consolidate the advances achieved by the Revolution and, at the same time, he wished to bring about the stability many French longed for after the upheavals of the past decade. In his eyes this meant the need for a strong executive. From 1799 until his death on the South Atlantic island of St. Helena, Napoleon spoke of himself as the man who had completed the Revolution. By this he meant that the basic goals of the Revolution enumerated above had been obtained and that now it was time to consolidate and institutionalize those gains. France, after ten years of revolution, had still lacked the proper foundation upon which to institutionalize the revolutionary achievements until Napoleon provided it with his administrative framework
."Bonaparte came, as he said, 'to close the Romance of the Revolution'," H.A.L. Fisher wrote, "to heal the wounds, to correct the extravagances, to secure the conquests. It was his boast that he did not belong to the race of the 'ideologues', that he saw facts through plain glass, and that he came to substitute an age of work for an age of talk...he would create a methodical government based upon popular consent, and conceived in the interests not of any particular faction but of France as a whole." As Napoleon himself explained to the Council of State in 1802: "I govern not as a general but because the nation believes that I have the civilian qualities necessary to govern. If I did not have this opinion, the government could not stand."Napoleon is generally credited with having consolidated the gains of the Revolution ("With the exception of fathering the Civil Code, Napoleon perhaps gloried more in his reputation as consolidator of the Revolution than in any other one title," Robert B. Holtman observed). In this sense he can be credited with having 'saved' the Revolution by ending it. Had the Bourbons come back to power in 1799 instead of Napoleon, they would at that time had less trouble "turning back the clock" to the ancient regime than they had in 1814. As François Furet has put it, "Revolutionary France was indeed under the spell of the new sovereign, who was its son and had saved it from the danger of a restoration...France had finally found the republican monarchy toward which it had been groping since 1789." The Code Napoleon, one of the Emperor's most enduring achievements, embodied many of the principles of the Revolution and made them permanent. To Prince Eugene, his viceroy in Italy, Napoleon wrote, "I am seeking nothing less than a social revolution." Feaudalism was suppressed and careers were open to all those with ability regardless of birth ("Wherever I found talent and courage I rewarded it." Napoleon, 1816) Napoleon became he personification of the revolutionary aims of the bourgeoisie. He reformed and modernized French institutions (historian Jacues Godechot has said that with Napoleon the medieval era ended and modern history began).
He brought much longed for order and stability to France and forged a sense of unity. He attempted to unite under his wing both the revolutionaries and the emigres —nobles, clergy and others who chose or were forced to live in exile under the Revolution ("I became the arch of the alliance between the old and the new, the natural mediator between the old and the new orders...I belonged to them both." Napoleon, 1816). The sales of the lands taken from the nobles who had emigrated or been declared enemies of the state, from the Church, or from the Crown (the "biens nationaux") —an important benefit for the middle classes and the peasants of the Revolution— were recognized not only in Napoleon's coronation oath, but also in the signing of the Concordat with the Pope. Robert B. Holtman observed, "This task of consolidation made Napoleon a conservative in France, desirous of keeping the gains of the Revolution, but a revolutionary in acien regime areas abroad." It has been said that many of Napoleon's reforms were just continuations of reforms begun under the Revolution (just as it has been said that many of the reforms of the Revolution were continuations of those begun during the ancien regime). It is important to keep in mind that Napoleon also brought these reforms to the countries with the Empire, where they were truly revolutionary. Owen Connelly has said that "Napoleon...was a conscious promoter of Revolution all over Europe. In fact, I firmly believe that this was the reason for his demise. He was, to the legitimate powers of Europe a crowned Jacobin...[These powers] were able to mobilize against him in the end the very people who stood to gain the most from the governments which Napoleon installed." The principles which Napoleon inherited from the Revolutionand consolidated in France, he exported to the countries which fell under the French imperium. If Napoleon's reforms in France were no longer revolutionary, outside of France these same reforms were profoundly revolutionary (Goethe described Napoleon as "the Revolution crowned.").
It had been the goal of many of the Revolution's leaders to "revolutionize" the rest of Europe. Napoleon accomplished this.The principle of equality was recognized in the destrucion of feudal rights and privileges in the Empire and in the submission of all members of society to a common scheme of justice, the Napoleonic Code. The Legion of Honor was also intended to foster equality, as well as reward talent. "...The establishment of the Legion of Honor, which was the reward for military, civil, and judicial service, 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." (Le Memorial De Sainte-Hélène, 1821) The Emperor, as the supreme executive, was deemed the representative of the general will. This powerful executive was a feature also of the relationship between the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety, as well as the Legislature and the Directory.
The Revolution, like Napoleon, bore a strong authoritarian streak. "It was Napoleon's function in history to fuse the old France with the new," H.A.L. Fisher observed. Napoleon declared that he wanted "to cement peace at home by anything that could bring the French together and provide tranquility within families." Like Mirabeau, Napoleon didn't see an incompatibility between the Revolution and monarchy. Napoleon did what the Bourbon King could not —reconcile the elements of the monarchy with elements of the Revolution— which was the failed goal of Mirabeau in 1790. Napoleon was largely successful in attracting men from all parties —from ex-Jacobins to ci-devant nobles— to his government. Signing the Concordat (15 July 1801) allowed Napoleon to reconcile the religious differences which had torn France apart during the Revolution. (At the same time, the Concordat insured religious freedom. It recognized Catholicism as the religion of the majority of the French, but did not make it an "established" religion as the Church of England was in Britain.
Protestants and Jews were allowed to practice their religion and retain their civic rights.) A general amnesty signed by Napoleon (26 April 1802) allowed all but about one thousand of the most notorious emigres to return to France. These two actions helped to bring relative tranquility to those areas of France which had long been at war with the Revolution. Albert Sobould has written that "stabilizing society on the fundamental base of the Revolution, [Napoleon] integrated the returned emigres into a new social hierarchy; and, while reinforcing the principle of authority, he merged these emigres into a new order which at first had been constructed against them." What of liberty? Of the three key principles of the Revolution —liberty, equality, and fraternity— it was liberty which suffered most under Napoleon. Historian Albert Vandal has observed that "Bonaparte can be reproached for not having established liberty; he cannot be accused of having destroyed it, for the excellent reason that on his return from Egypt he did not find it anywhere in France." The French desiring to safeguard what they had acquired during the Revolution, be it rights or property, wanted these guaranteed. Many felt that guarantee could come only with the restoration and preservation of order. They were willing to sacrifice their liberties for that guarantee, for that order. "In the absence of political liberty, he would assure Frenchmen of their individual rights. In the Napoleonic Code, he would sanctify equality, their dearest possession. He would keep most of the revolutionary institutions while at times amalgamating them with those of the Old Regime, which were restored but adapted. His work would prove so solid that it made any total restoration of the past impossible," wrote Albert Mathiez. Napoleon was most of all a pragmatist, willing to adapt "what worked", whether it was borrowed from the Revolution or from the ancien regime. He dealt with the problems facing France in practical terms, not in the abstract ("To pursue a different course today would be to philosophize, not to govern." Napoleon, 1800) The solutions Napoleon came up with leave little doubt that he was the heir and preserver of the Revolution. François Furet has written that "...he was chosed by the Revolution, from which he received his strange power not only to embody the new nation (a power that others before him, most notably Mirabeau and Robespierre, had possessed) but also to fulfill its destiny." Napoleon had undoubtedly felta revolution had been necessary. When it had achieved its purpose he felt that it was necessary to end the Revolution and begin the work of governing. He exported to those countries under French hegemony many of the achievements of the Revolution. He embodied these achievements in the Code Napoleon. Without the Revolution Napoleon, despite his talents, would have been no more than an obscure provincial military officer. He unified a country torn apart by ten years of political and religious strife ("All titles were forgotten; there were no longer aristocrats or Jacobins..." Le Memorial De Sainte-Hélène, 1821). While liberty languished, he promoted equality and opened all careers to those with talent. "Risen to the throne," Chateaubriand wrote, "he seated the people there beside him.
A proletarian king, he humiliated kings and nobles in his antechamber. He leveled ranks not by lowering but by raising them." He insured religious tolerance. He consolidated and preserved the gains of the Revolution. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that Napoleon "fell, but what was really substantial in his work lasted; his government died, but his administration continued to live..." The Bourbon Prince de Conde summed up Napoleon as "One-third philosophe, one-third Jacobin, and one-third aristocrat.".
►What Kind Of Leader Was Napoleon Bonaparte?
Napoleon Bonaparte stirs the emotions. Some find him heroic and regard his opponents as reactionary and unimaginative. Others think him mad with ambition and responsible for many of the sins of his era. Between these extremes there are those who find some aspects of the man admirable and others regrettable. This is an examination of Napoleon to determine how his actions and achievements measure up against the opinion of his detractors. Traitor to the Revolution? One of the accusations often leveled against Napoleon is that he "betrayed" the higher ideals of the French Revolution, retarding democratic progress in both France and Europe. People making this argument apparently forget that the revolution had its truly dark side and fell a good deal short of being an ideal society. Life was not more secure nor more prosperous. France was not friendlier to Europe under the Committee of Public Safety or the Directory than it proved to be under the Consulate or Empire. Napoleon's initial achievements are a remarkable compromise with revolutionary ideals and the requirements of a country bled white by the excesses of failed governments. He signed the Peace of Amiens, which brought an end to years of war. His enthusiastic participation in and endorsement of the codification of law embodied and certified the social revolution.
He negotiated the Concordat and made peace with the Catholic Church, but on revolutionary terms, making it subordinate to the state, and the dominant faith of the French once again became a steadying and unifying influence on daily life.Yet given his singular opportunities, it is often said that he might have gone further and established a truly democratic state, a goal one might argue went against political trends both within France and on the continent. Democracies were more conceptual than actual in the era, with the American experiment still in its infancy, and it might be said that the violence of the previous decade had made the French population indifferent to the virtues of democracy.
Outside France, it might also be argued that whether France was a totalitarian state or a democracy made little difference to her enemies. If there was a perceived difference, perhaps a democracy might have caused more fear among the reactionary states than the civil monarchy that
actually came into being. If this was the case, perhaps Bonaparte acted more out of pragmatism than idealism, attempting to solve foreign and domestic problems by establishing a stable government that was theoretically more acceptable to everyone. He might have reasonably imagined that any man who could achieve that successful transition deserved the reins of power. Warmonger? Bonaparte is also frequently held responsible for the "Napoleonic" wars and seen as a prime cause of them. It is argued that he should have prevented those wars with better statecraft and convinced the rest of Europe that France's new and ideologically threatening government was not an enemy. Whenever that policy failed, he should have won wars he could not avoid and negotiated generous treaties, making friends of former enemies, showing the world that diplomacy and not warfare was the proper tool of statesmen.Yet could any one man, acting unilaterally, defy centuries of rivalry and aggression to end the state of recurrent war in Europe? Hardly a decade seemed to pass without one conflict or another in the previous two centuries. Would any leader of the day have even considered a durable peace to be a real possibility, or is this more of a modern-day concept?.
Bonaparte's use of war to defend and enrich the state of France was anything but unique, excepting that it was consistently successful, something the Bourbons might have envied him. If waging war is now considered strictly a policy of last resort and inherently wasteful, there doesn't seem to be a major player of Napoleon's day who was above employing it to achieve their aims. It may be fair to accuse Bonaparte of failing to create a durable peace, but a study of his contemporaries and their policies would likely prove there were other guilty parties.
Napoleon Bonaparte is often described by his detractors as a corrupt individual, bereft of morality, one who could not see that his actions were dangerous, damaging, and the cause of great anguish. His successes in war made him rely on war as an instrument of policy, and he was insensitive to its human cost. The execution of d'Enghien was criminal, the imprisonment of the Pope immoral, and Napoleon's quest for total dominance a reflection of his warped psyche. Lord Acton's adage "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has come to be permanently identified with Bonaparte as its foremost example of veracity. But was Bonaparte's theoretical depravity a thing apart from his contemporaries? The assumption seems to be that it must have been, or else we would not make so much of it, yet how does this assertion hold up when Bonaparte is compared to other monarchs or society as a whole? Bonaparte shouldn't be judged on a moral scale comparing him to a theoretical ideal, but against his contemporaries, people born in his day and living in his world. Comparisons of corruption are not hard to find. Britain financed and facilitated an assassination attempt on the First Consul. Tsar Alexander was implicated in the murder of his father. In America, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, and Jefferson used ethnic cleansing to further territorial expansion. Some of these incidents were natural enough in their day, although we now find them indefensible. If Bonaparte was corrupt, he certainly had some notable company. Megalomaniacal?.
Napoleon is often described as being ruled by a gigantic ego. His lust for power, the coup d'etat Brumaire, his dismissal of democracy and the establishment of Empire, are all seen as benchmarks of rampant ambition.Comparisons with contemporary leaders are regarded as irrelevant or even futile, presumably because Bonaparte is assumed to have been greater than they, and presented with unique opportunities, all squandered on a quest for personal aggrandizement.But if Bonaparte was indeed unique, and expected to accomplish deeds other men could only dream of, would he not need an ego as large as his ambitions? Achieving democracy in France and peace for Europe is not a task for a modest man, so was Napoleon's ambition simply a sin because it pursued goals we disapprove of, or that it pursued those goals using methods we disapprove of? As the leader of a totalitarian state, Napoleon made his own ambitions synonymous with those of France. With few abridgements to power, he was able to act as he saw fit, and is judged accordingly. Yet almost all the European states reflected the egos of their monarchs, and few of them were intent on fostering democracy, limiting their borders, or improving civil rights. Rather, each used their position to satisfy their ambitions, expand their borders, and increase their control over the nobility and populace. There was little respect for minor states like those in Italy or Poland and their borders were redrawn after each conflict. Bonaparte, in this company, seems to be regarded as megalomaniacal largely because he did not inherit his position, but achieved it by aggressively pursuing the same agenda as those born to power and doing so more effectively. It seems that absolutists may be forgiven their sins for being born to them, but parvenus are guilty for having freely chosen them.
►What was the name of Napoleon's horse?
- Introduction
Since so many of the paintings of Napoleon show him riding a horse, it has become a common trivia question to ask "What was the name of Napoleon's horse?". However, it is not an easy one to answer, for Napoleon owned and used over 150 horses during the course of his life. The most famous ones were:
Wagram, a gray Arab Napoleon rode from 1809 onwards, it was brought along during the Elba exile.Roitelet, an English-Limousin chestnut given to Napoleon by Prince Eugene de Beauharnais, it carried Napoleon back from Russia and was ridden at Lützen and Arcis-sur-Aube. Intendant, a pure white Norman nicknamed "Coco" by the Imperial Guard. He was mainly used for parades and reviews because of his calm, steady, and graceful nature during such ceremonies. Vizir, one of the Emperor's favorites, this gray Arab was a gift from the Sultan of Turkey in 1805 and 10 years later Napoleon brought it with him to Saint-Helena. It now resides — stuffed — in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris.
Marengo, a gray Arab captured after Waterloo. His skeleton is kept at the National Army Museum in London. Tauris, this gray was a gift from Alexander (Tsar of Russia) was ridden by Napoleon at Vitepsk, Smolensk, Borodino, during his entrance in Moscow, and during the retreat from Russia. After being brought to Elba, it was ridden from Golf-Juan to Paris during the Hundred Days.Cyrus, one of the horses Napoleon rode at Austerlitz. Styrie, ridden by Bonaparte across the Great Saint-Bernard, and at Marengo.Désirée, ridden at Waterloo.The names of some of his other horses include: Aboukir, Familier, Cheikh,Triomphant, Austerlitz, Calvados, Cid, Cordoue, Sagonte, Sélim, Bouffon, Conquérant, Extrême, Folâtre, Gracieux, Timide, Sahara, Major, Belle, Distingué, Gisors, Lowska, Favori, Harbet, Néron, Tamerlan, Hippogriffe, Kurde, Labrador, Sara, Épicurien, Embelli, Gessner, Bréant, Wuzbourg, Montevideo, Artaxercés, Aly, Coceyre, Sultan, Russe, Estime, Arabella, Babylonien, Euphrate, Hahim, Harbet, Helavert, Héricle, Lydienne, Lyre, Naïade, Nankin, Naturaliste, Naufragé, Nausicaa, Navigateur, Navire, Ninon, Emin, Gonsalvo.
►Who is to Blame for the Napoleonic Wars?
Wars are generally the result of some irreconcilable difference and the Napoleonic wars are no exception. Certainly "blame" can be awarded to either side in most conflicts - the ACW was the south's fault - they shouldn't have seceded. Or is it the north's fault - they should have just let them go. The American revolution can also be viewed from both sides (damn ungrateful rebels vs. tyrannical breakers of social contracts and inalienable rights). In the case of the Napoleonic wars, we have an expansionist revolutionary government that indisputably waged wars of aggression and conquest, emerging with extensive territorial acquisitions.
On the other side, we have the other powers of Europe looking on with alarm at an extraordinarily powerful France dominating Italy, Switzerland and the low countries and exerting considerable influence over the central German states. There is no other power in Europe that could accept that unless they were willing to simply lie back and accept a reality in which they were subservient to a dominant France. The options are for one side or the other to cave in and give the other side whatever they want or to reach a compromise.Napoleon certainly had an opportunity to do something about this, although he claimed (and actually believed, IMO) that had he relinquished any of the French conquests the French people would have booted him out. However, Napoleon was simply not the type to make concessions as later events proved. The one thing that is consistent throughout his career is an uncompromising determination to always deal from a position of strength - basically to dictate terms to a defeated enemy. I would suggest to you that this is very bad
diplomacy and an almost certain guarantee of future conflict. By 1799, France had backed the rest of Europe into a corner. It's very hard to see how Austria or Britain could have simply allowed France to remain in its dominant position without severely damaging their own interests.
This was apparent to Talleyrand, who had good diplomatic sense despite his numerous and oft-cited personality flaws, who had urged Napoleon not to treat Austria harshly in 1805. Napoleon ignored this advice and ignored the underlying causes that placed French and Austrian interests in direct conflict, not to mention French and British interests. I think that in order to assess blame, it is important to view the interests of each party and to see where the underlying conflicts lie. Naturally each country is seeking to improve their own position and promote its own interests. Often compromises can be reached whereby a win-win solution is the result. France, as she stood at the close of the war of the 2nd coalition, could not be accepted by Austria or Britain without dramatic sacrifice of their interests. To say that it is therefore their fault for renewing the conflict is naive at best, and is equivalent to saying that the other European powers should have simply accepted France as the dominant superpower, essentially betraying their own countries and people.
I do have some trouble, though, in placing the blame entirely on the shoulders of Napoleon the individual. As I noted above, I believe that he sincerely felt that a withdrawal from the conquered territories would topple him from power and plunge France back into chaos. Thus the failure of Amiens, where both sides are unwilling to make the concessions they had committed to (Netherlands vs. Malta). Further, possession of Switzerland guaranteed opposition from Austria, even with the partition of Italy and proposed adjustments in Germany to compensate for the Rhineland producing something that might conceivably have proven acceptable in the long run.
In a sense, I see 1805 as inevitable as both sides either would not or could not make concessions without either toppling themselves from power or sacrificing their national interests. Beyond 1805, however, I see Napoleon as being increasingly culpable as a result of the terms imposed on Austria, and after Tilsit forget it. Any nation that attempts to dominate Europe will be opposed by the rest of Europe at every opportunity, and after 1806 Napoleon, locked in his death-struggle with Britain, united Europe against him. In many ways, Napoleon is an amateur ruler, despite his obvious natural abilities. In trying to force all of Europe to further France's interests in a war against Britain he was ignoring some very obvious repercussions (was he so fixated on the defeat of Britain that he didn't see what was coming, or was he so arrogant that he didn't think it mattered?). In placing his kinfolk and minions on thrones across Europe he demonstrated to Europe an intention to wipe away the Europe that had been (continuation of revolutionary policy, despite monarchical rather than republican institutions), making the others wonder when their turn would come.
So Napoleon is central and pivotal to the continuation of the wars, not least because of his own actions. Napoleon made two basic assumptions - cannot relinquish territory without toppling the government, and MUST defeat Britain at any and all costs to the point of conquering all of Europe to do it. These two assumptions made lasting peace impossible and generated new wars of French aggression in Spain. If you accept those assumptions as correct, essential and ultimately beneficial, the blame is on Napoleon's enemies. But you can only do that if you look only at the French perspective to the exclusion of all others.
► Why is Napoleon depicted with his hand in his coat?
- Introduction:
Many theories have been presented as to why Napoleon is traditionally depicted with his hand in his waistcoat. Some of these theories include:
that he had a stomach ulcer, he was winding his watch, he had an itchy skin disease, that in his era it was impolite to put your hands in your pockets, he had breast cancer, he had a deformed hand, he kept a perfumed sachet in his vest that he'd sniff surreptitiously, and that painters don't like to paint hands. A simpler and more elegant theory is contained in an article entitled, "Re-Dressing Classical Statuary: The Eighteenth-Century 'Hand-in-Waistcoat' Portrait." by Arline Miller. Art Bulletin (College Art Association of America), Vol. 77, No.2, March 1995, p.45-64. Miller points out that the 'hand-in' portrait type appeared with "relentless frequency" during the eighteenth century and became almost a cliched pose in portrait painting. The pose was used so often by portraitists that one was even accused of not knowing how to paint hands. "In real life," Miller observes, "the 'hand-held-in' was a common stance for men of breeding." Miller goes on to give many examples of this posture in painted portraits dating from the early and middle 1700s, well before Napoleon's birth. In 1738 Francois Nivelon published A Book Of Genteel Behavior describing the "hand-in-waistcoat" posture as signifying "manly boldness tempered with modesty." Miller says that the hidden hand was a feature of some statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans and that later painters based their poses on classical models. The pose was recommended by certain classical writers as a useful posture for orators. Aeschines of Macedon (390-331 B.C.), an actor, orator and founder of a school of rhetoric, who wrote an important book on oratory, postulated that speaking with one's arm outside the toga was considered ill-mannered. A number of textbooks on oratory published in the eighteenth century, following Aeschines, recommended this gesture. Although Miller doesn't mention it, it is possible that the great French actor Talma, who reportedly trained Napoleon in Imperial comportment, may have been familiar with these works.
Miller concludes with an addendum on Napoleon: "Today the 'hand-in' gesture is, of course, best known from its personalized revival in the nineteenth century. Surely most people would recognize the pose as Napoleon's inimitable trademark — which David rendered indelible in his commanding portrait of 1812 ["Napoleon in his Study"]... It is not surprising that when Napoleon's reputation plummeted, a subtly arched postural inflection made the gesture decidedly imperious... The enduring French association is in fact somewhat ironic, in that the gesture had a voguish run as an English portrait convention long before it became Napoleon's quasi-military emblem."The painting by Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825), "Napoleon in his Study", the most famous expression of Napoleon in his classic pose, was not painted for the Emperor, but was commissioned by a Scottish nobleman, Alexander Douglas, an admirer of Napoleon. Napoleon did not sit for the portrait, so David painted it from memory. Etienne Delecluze, a student and early biographer of David's, opined that the painting was a "poor likeness" and "too ideal." Napoleon, however, told the artist, "You have understood me, my dear David.
Chronology of Napoleon’s life
The following chronology of Napoleon’s life is reproduced from the Chronology of Bonaparte's Life, pp. xliii - lii, of the Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, written by Bourrienne, his private secretary, and published by Charles Scribners Sons, 1891. Exactly 100 entries are included in this chronology which begins with Napoleon's birth in Corsica in 1769 and ends with his entombment in the Invalids in Paris in 1840.
1769 1771 1778 1779 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796
1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812
1813 1814 1815 1821 1840
...1769Aug 15.--Napoleon Bonaparte born at Ajaccio, in Corsica. Fourth child of Charles Bonaparte and of Lititia, née Ramolino.
11771July 21.--Napoleon Bonaparte baptized in the Cathedral of Ajaccio.
91778Dec 15.--Napoleon embarks for France with his father, his brother Joseph, and his uncle Fesch.
91779Jan 1.--Napoleon enters the College of Autun with Joseph.
91779Apr 25.--Napoleon enters the Royal Military School of Brienne-la-Château.
151784Oct 23.--Napoleon enters the Royal Military School of Paris.
151785Feb 24.--Charles Bonaparte, father of Napoleon, dies from cancer in the stomach, aged thirty-eight years.
161785Sep 1.--Napoleon appointed Lieutenant en second in the Company d'Autume of Bombardiers of the 5th Brigade of the 1st Battalion of the (Artillery) Regiment de la Fère, then quartered at Valence.
161785Oct 29.--Napoleon leaves the Military School of Paris.
161785Nov 5 to Aug 11, 1786.--Napoleon at Valence with his regiment.
171786Aug 15 to Sep 20, 1786.--Napoleon at Lyons with regiment.
171786Oct 17 to Feb 1, 1787.--Napoleon at Douai with regiment.
171787Feb 1 to Oct 14, 1787.--Napoleon on leave to Corsica.
181787Oct 15 to Dec 24, 1787.--Napoleon quits Corsica, arrives in Paris, obtains fresh leave, and
181787Dec 25 to May 1788.--Napoleon proceeds to Corsica and returnes early in May.
18-191788May to Apr 4, 1789.--Napoleon at Auxonne with regiment.
191789Apr 5 to Apr 30.--Napoleon at Seurre in command of a detachment.
19-201789May 1 to Sep 15, 1789.--Napoleon at Auxonne with regiment.
20-211789Sep 16 to Jun 1, 1791.--Napoleon proceeds to Corsica; engages in revolutionary movements; returns on 13th February 1791, having overstayed leave from 15th October 1790; absence excused on account of contrary winds.
21-221791Jun 2 to Aug 29, 1791.--Napoleon joins the 4th Regiment of Artillery at Valence as Lieutenant en premier.
221791Aug 30.--Napoleon starts for Corsica on leave for three months; elected in April 1792 as second Lieutenant-Colonel of 2d Battalion of Corsican Volunteers; engages in fresh revolutionary attempts; quits Corsica, 2d May 1792; for France, where he has been dismissed for absence without leave.
221791Dec 12.--Marie Louise, daughter of Emperor Francis, born.
221792Jun 20.--Attack of mob on Tuileries; King wears cap of liberty; Napoleon looking on.
221792Aug 10.--Sack of Tuileries; slaughter of Swiss Guard; King suspended from his functions.
231792Aug 30.--Napoleon reinstated; explaining his absence as serving with volunteers, and is promoted as Captain of 4th Class, with ante-date of 6th February 1792.
231792Sep 14 to Jun 11, 1793.--Napoleon in Corsica engaged in revolutionary attempts, till, having declared against Paoli, he and his family have to quit Corsica. Meanwhile France declared a Republic, 21st September 1792; Louis XVI. guillotined 21st january 1793.
231793Jun 13 to Jul 14, 1793.--Napoleon with his company at Nice.
23-241793Jul 14 to Oct 9, 1793.--Napoleon with Army of Carteaux in the south, acting against Marseilles and Toulon.
241793Oct 9 to Dec 19.--Napoleon placed in command of part of artillery of army of Carteaux before Toulon; made Chef de Bataillon (Major), 19th October; Toulon taken, 19th December.
241793Dec 22.--Napoleon nominated provisionally General of Brigade; approved later; receives commission, 16th February 1794.
24 1793Dec 26 to Apr 1, 1794.--Napoleon appointed Inspector of the coast from the Rhone to the Var, and on inspection duty.
24 1794Apr 1 to Aug 5, 1794.--Napoleon with army of Italy under Dumerbion; preparing plans, etc., with the younger Robespierre, etc.; at Genoa, 15th-21st July.
24-251794Aug 6 to Aug 20, 1794.--Napoleon in arrest after fall of Robespierre on suspicion of treachery.
251795Sep 14 to Mar 29, 1795.--Napoleon commanding artillery of an intended maritime expedition to Corsica.
251795Mar 27 to May 10.--Napoleon ordered from the south to join the army in La Vendée to command its artillery; arrives in Paris, 10th May.
25-261795Jun 13.--Napoleon ordered to join Hoche's army at Brest, to command a brigade of infantry; remains in Paris; 21st August, attached to Comité de Salut Public as one of four advisers; 15th September, struck off list of employed generals for disobedience of orders in not proceeding to the west.
261795Oct 5, 13th Vendémiaire (Jour des Sections).--Napoleon defends the Convention from the revolt of the Sections, and fires on the people, as second in command under Barras.
261795Oct 16.--Napoleon appointed provisionally General of Division.
261795Oct 20.--Napoleon appointed General of Division and Commander of the Army of the Interior (i.e., of Paris).
261796Mar 2.--Napoleon appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Army of Italy; 9th March, marries Josephine Tascher de la Pagerie, Vicomtesse de Beauharnais, widow of General Vicomte Alexandre de Beauharnais, and leaves Paris for Italy on 11th March.
261796Apr and May--First Italian campaign of Napoleon against Austrians under Beaulieu, and Sardinians under Colli. Battle of Montenotte, 12th April; Millesimo, 13th April; Dego, 14th and 15th April; Mondovi, 21st April; Armistice of Cherasco with Sardinians, 28th April; Battle of Lodi, 9th May; Austrians beaten out of Lombardy and Mantua besieged.
261796Jul and Aug--First attempt of Austrians to relieve Mantua; battle of Lonato, 31st July; Lonato and Castiglione, 3d August; and, again, Castiglione, 5th and 6th August; Wurmser beaten off, and Mantua again invested.
271796Sep--Second attempt of Austrians to relieve Mantua; battles of Calliano, 4th September; Primolano, 7th September; Bassano, 8th September; St. Georges, 15th September; Wurmser driven into Mantua and invested there. Meanwhile Jourdan has been forced back across the Rhine by the Archduke Charles on 21st September; Moreau, after two celebrated retreats, recrosses the Rhine, 25th October.
271796 Nov--Third attempt of Austrians to relieve Mantua; battles of Caldiero, 11th November, and Arcola, 15th, 16th, and 17th November; Alvinzi driven off.
271797Jan--Fourth attempt to relieve Mantua; battles of Rivoli, 14th January, and Favorita, 16th January; Alvinzi again driven off. 27 1797Feb 2.--Wurmser surrenders Mantua with 18,000 men.
271797 Mar 10.--Napoleon commences his advance on the Archduke Charles; beats him at the Tagliamento, 16th March; 7th April, armistice of Judenbourg; 18th April, Provisional Treaty of Leoben with Austria, who cedes the Netherlands, and is to get the Venetian territory on the mainland; Hoche advances, crosses the Rhine same day, and Moreau on 20th April; till stopped by news of peace.
281797Sep 4.--Coup d'état of the 18th Fructidor; majority of Directors, supported by the Jacobins and by Napoleon, put down Royalist movement and banish many deputies to Cayenne.
281797Oct 17.--Treaty of Campo-Formio between France and Austria to replace that of Leoben; Venice partitioned, and itself now falls to Austria.
281798Jan 19.--Congress of Rastadt formally opens, continues till 28th April 1799.
281798--Egyptian expedition. Napoleon sails from Toulon, 19th May; takes Malta, 12th June; lands near Alexandria, 1st July; Alexandria taken, 2d July; battle of the Chebreisse, 13th July; battle of the Pyramids, 21st July; Cairo entered, 23d July.
281798Aug 1.--Battle of the Nile.
291799Mar 3.--Napoleon starts for Syria; 7th March, takes Jaffa; 18th March, invests St. Jean d'Acre; 16th April, Battle of Mount Tabor; 22d May, siege of Acre raised; Napoleon reaches Cairo, 14th June.
291799Jul 25.--Battle of Aboukir; Turks defeated. Meanwhile the Austrians and Russians have driven the French out of Italy, Macdonald being beaten by Suwarrow on the Trebbia, 18th to 20th June, and Hoche being defeated and killed at Novi, 15th August; French in same position as when Napoleon took command in 1796.
301799Aug (22d August, Thiers; 24th August, Bourrienne; 10th September, Marmont).--Napoleon sails from Egypt; lands at Frejus, 6th October.Meanwhile Masséna beats the Russians and Austrians, 25th and 26th September, at Zurich; Suwarrow forces his way over the Alps, but withdraws his army in disgust with the Austrians in October.
301799Oct 9 and 10, 18th and 19th Brumaire.--Napoleon seizes power. Provisionary Consulate formed--Napoleon, Siéyès, and Roger Ducos.
301799Dec 25.--Napoleon, First Consul; Cambacérès, Second Consul; Lebrun, Third Consul.
301800Apr 25.--Moreau commences his advance into Germany, and forces Austrians back on Ulm.
301800 May and June.--Marengo campaign. 14th May, Napoleon commences passage of St. Bernard; 2d June, enters Milan; 4th June, Masséna surrenders Genoa to Austrians; 9th June, Lannes gains battle of Montebello; 14th June, battle of Marengo; Desaix killed (Kléber assassinated in Egypt same day); armistice signed by Napoleon with Melas, 15th June; Genoa and Italian fortresses surrendered to French; Moreau concludes armistice, 15th July, having reached middle of Bavaria.
311800Nov 28.--Rupture of Armistice with Austria; 3d December, Moreau gains battle of Hohenlinden.
311800Dec 24. (3d Nivôse).--Affair of the Rue St. Nicaise; attempt to assassinate Napoleon by infernal machine.
311801Feb 9.--Treaty of Luneville between France and Germany; Venice partitioned; left bank of Rhine and the Austrian Netherlands secured to France.
311801Jul 15.--Concordat with Rome; Roman Catholic religion restored in France.
32 1801Oct 1.--Preliminaries of peace between France and England signed at London.
321802Jan 26.--Napoleon Vice-President of Italian Republic.
321802 Mar 27.--Treaty of Amiens; England restores all conquests except Ceylon and Trinidad; French to evacuate Naples and Rome; Malta to be restored to Knights [of St. John].
321802May 19.--Legion of Honour instituted; carried out 14th July 1814.
321802Aug 4.--Napoleon First Consul for life.
331803Feb 25.--Recess (or Reichs Deputation) of the German Empire; mediatisation of the smaller and of the ecclesiastical State of Germany.
331803Mar 5.--Civil Code (later, Code Napoléon) decreed.
331803May.--War between France and England.
341804Mar 21.--Duc d'Enghien shot at Vincennes.
341804May 18.--Napoleon, Empereur des Francais; crowned 2d December.
361805--Ulm campaign; 25th September, Napoleon crosses the Rhine; 14th October, battle of Elchingen; 20th October, Mack surrenders Ulm.
361805Oct 21.--Battle of Trafalgar.
361805Dec 2.--Russians and Austrians defeated at Austerlitz.
361805Dec 26.--Treaty of Presburg; Austria cedes her share of Venetian lands to Kingdom of Italy, and the Tyrol to Bavaria, which, with Würtemberg, is recognized as a Kingdom.
361806Feb 15.--Joseph Bonaparte enters Naples as King.
361806June 5.--Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.
361806Jul 1.--Confederation of the Rhine formed; Napoleon protector; German Empire dissolved 6th August; Francis I. takes title of Francis II. of Austria.
371806--Jena campaign with Prussia. Battle of Saalfeld, 10th October; battles of Jena and of Auerstadt, 14th October; Berlin occupied, 25th October.
371806Nov 21.--Berlin decrees issued.
371807Feb 8.--Battle of Eylau with Russians, indecisive; 14th June, battle of Friedland, decisive.
371807Jul 7.--Treaty of Tilsit. Prussia partitioned; Polish provinces forming Duchy of Warsaw under Saxony; provinces on left of Elbe, with Hesse Cassel, made into Kingdom of Westphalia for Jerôme Bonaparte.
371807Aug and Sep--English expedition against Copenhagen.
381807Oct 27.--Secret treaty of Fontainbleau between France and Spain for the partition of Portugal; Junot enters Lisbon, 30th November; Royal Family withdraw to Brazil.
381808Mar.--French, under Murat, gradually occupy Spain under pretense of march on Portugal; 2d May, insurrection at Madrid; 9th May, treaty of Bayonne; Charles IV. Of Spain cedes throne; Joseph Bonaparte transferred from Naples to Spain; replaced at Naples by Murat.
381808Jul 22.--Dupont surrenders to Spaniards at Baylen; this leads to evacuation of Madrid by French.
391808Aug 17.--Wellesley defeats Laborde at Rolica, and Junot on 21st at Vimiera; 30th August, Convention of Cintra for evacuation of Portugal by Junot.
391808Sep 27 to Oct 14.--Conferences at Erfurt between Napoleon, Alexander, and German Sovereigns.
391808Nov and Dec.--Napoleon beats the Spanish armies; enters Madrid; marches against Moore, but suddenly returns to France to prepare for Austrian campaign.
391809Jan 16.--Battle of Corunna.
401809--Campaign of Wagram. Austrians advance, 10 April; battle of Abensberg 20th April; Echmuhl 22 April; Napoleon occupies Vienna, 13th May; beaten back at Essling, 22d May; finally crosses Danube, 4th July, and defeats Austrians at Wagram, 6th July; Armistice of Znaim, 12th July.
401809Oct 14.--Treaty of Schœnbrunn or of Vienna; Austria cedes Istria, Carinthia, etc., to France, and Salzburg to Bavaria.
401809Dec 15-16.--Josephine Divorced.
401810Apr 1 and 2.--Marriage of Napoleon, aged 40, with Marie Louise, aged 18 and 3/12.
401810Jul 3.--Louis Bonaparte abdicates crown of Holland, which is annexed to French Empire on 9 July.
411810Dec 13.--Hanseatic towns and all northern cost of Germany annexed to French Empire.
41.1811.Mar 20.--The King of Rome, son of Napoleon, born.
42-431812Jun 23.--War with Russia; Napoleon crosses the Niemen; 7th September, battle of Moskwa or Borodino; Napoleon enters Moscow, 14th September; commences his retreat, 19th October.
431812Oct 22-23.--Conspiration of General Malet at Paris.
431812Nov 26-28.--Passage of the Beresina; 5th December, Napoleon leaves his army; arrives at Paris, 18th December.
43-441813--Leipsic campaign. 2d May, Napoleon defeats Russians and Prussians at Lutzen; and again on 20-21st May at Bautzen; (21st June, battle of Vittoria, Joseph decisively defeated by Wellington); 26th June, interview of Napoleon and Metternich at Dresden; 10th August, midnight, Austria joins the allies; 26- 27th August, Napoleon defeats allies at Dresden, but Vandamme is routed at Kulm on 30th August, and on 16th-19th October, Napoleon is beaten at Leipsic; 30th October, Napoleon sweeps Bavarians from his path at Hanau.
441814--Allies advance into France; 29th January, battle of Brienne; 1st February, battle of La Rothière.
441814Feb 5 to Mar 18.--Conferences of Chatillon (sur Seine).
441814Feb 11.--Battle of Montmirail; 14th February, of Vauchamps; 18th February, of Montereau.
441814Feb 23-24.--Wellington crosses the Abour, and beats Soult at Orthes on 27th February.
441814Mar 7.--Battle of Craon; 9th-10th March, Laon; 20th March, Arcis sur l'Aube.
441814Mar 21.--Napoleon commences his march to throw himself on the communications of the allies; 25th March, allies commence their march on Paris; Battle of LaFère Champenoise, Marmont and Mortier beaten; 28th March, Napoleon turns back at St. Dizier to follow allies; 29th March, Empress and Court leave Paris.
441814Mar 30.--First Treaty of Paris; France restricted to limits of 1792, with some slight additions, part of Savoy, etc.
451814Apr 2.--Senate declare the dethronement of Napoleon, who abdicates, conditionally, on 4th April in favour of his son, and unconditionally on 6th April; Marmont's corps marches into the enemy's lines on 5th April; on 11th April Napoleon signs the treaty giving him Elba for life; 20th April, Napoleon takes leave of the Guard at Fontainebleau; 3d May, Louis XVIII. Enters Paris; 4th May, Napoleon lands at Elba.
451814Oct 3.--Congress of Vienna meets for settlement of Europe; actually opens 3d November.
451815Feb 26.--Napoleon quits Elba; lands near Cannes, 1st March; 19th March, Louis XVIII. leaves Paris about midnight; 20th March, Napoleon enters Paris.
45181516th Jun.--Battle of Ligny and Quatre Bras; 18th June, Battle of Waterloo.
45-461815Jun 29.--Napoleon leaves Malmaison for Rochefort; surrenders to English, 15th July; sails for St. Helena, 8th August; arrives at St. Helena, 15th October.
461815Nov 20.--Second Treaty of Paris; France restricted to limits of 1790; losing Savoy, etc., pays an indemnity, and receives an army of occupation.
51 yrs. 8 mos.1821May 5.--Napoleon dies 5.45 P.M.; buried 8th May.
---1840Oct 15.--Body of Napoleon disentombed; embarked in the Belle Poule,
commanded by the Prince de Joinville, son of Louis Philippe, on 16th
October; placed in the Invalides, 15th December 1840
Conclusions
Of course, Bonaparte was anything but pure, anything but modest, anything but democratic, and anything but a peacemaker. But in the end, who else that sat on a throne in Europe could claim to be? Should he be assailed for sins that were so sadly common? What is it about Napoleon Bonaparte that makes him the object of such unique criticism? Is it because he holds a special place in our imaginations, a place that we hope would be an example of our better selves? Was his genius, good fortune, and opportunity enough to condemn him, not so much for what he did, but what he failed to do? In the end is our greatest disappointment in Bonaparte simply that he was merely human?
موضوع: Napoleon Bonaparte