TRHS AP Euro

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Napoleon

Again, no document, but food for thought:

Was Napoleon a tyrant or the savior of the ideals of the revolution?

Discuss, debate, go out on a limb...

Due: MIDNIGHT, Tuesday, Nov. 14

posted by RJS at 7:59 AM

7 Comments:

  • Napoleon, the little man with a surplus of emotional baggage. Napoleon seemed largely interested in accumulating land and power than he did in any ideal. He never claimed to conquer anything in defense of any ideal. If one were to perhaps disect the ideal that the whole should come before the individual, a chief idea of the revolution, could not it be said Napoleon's Conteniental System and other policies concerning conquered landes are in direct opposition with this because they put the welfare of France above that of the far more numerous peoples in all the other countries consumed by the empire? And by declaring himself emperor, Napoleon effectively makes the revolution come full circle by creating an absolutist monarch. Not what I'd consider a defender of any ideal.

    By Blogger laura, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:36:00 PM  

  • This time I will agree that Napoleon was a tyrant, and likely had no real cause in mind besides furthering his power and leaving his mark on history, which he was very successful at. He's very comparable to Mussolini, who was a socialist but joined the fascist party and allied with the Catholic populari because he saw that as his way to power, as it indeed was. That was Mussolini's only cause that lasted his entire life. And he was also very short. Napoleon was indeed a tyrant, but whether or not that was actually better for France than it would have been under someone else is unclear. He was very successful at most everything, but unfortunately for tyrants, it basically only takes one bad decision to ruin their reign, for in a democracy one can simply fire any of a number of people and blame it on them while keeping basically the same government.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:08:00 PM  

  • Heh.... I don't see a man with an overwhelmingly large desire to conquer an entire continent as the savior to revloutionary ideals. Some of the ideas he had, and some aspects of his ruling of his people may have been somewhat revolutionary, but he was by no means going on what revolutionaries thought government should be like. As Nate and Laura both state, Napoleon seemed far too interested in land and power than in how he was governing. He considered his rule to be the most important thing in Europe. Napoleon was a tyrant. He wasn't concerned with people individually or as a nationality, not even as an entire continent. He coprrupted anbd manipulated the french government, put whomever he thought suited the role on various thrones of foreign countries. it's not that his ideas were bad, and it may not even be that he didn't have revolutionary interests in mind, it just seems a bit like he was far too self absorbed to do anything about it. Poor man..
    Pinky and the Brain is a good TV show so something good came from it.
    (anyone know anything and matricies and determinants?)

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:33:00 PM  

  • I always try to go against the grain, fight the majority. But despite the savory thought of taking all my classmates on, I cannot argue that Napoleon was anything but a tyrant with a whole slew of problems. He had his own chapter in my Governor's school pyschology textbook! The words compensation, insecurity, and paranoia come to mind.
    Napoleon supported the Revolution in his military career becuase he recognized it as a way to gain power. Whatever else can be said about our diminutive man, he was not an idiot. He gained his power and very neatly turned France into an empire. He worked to establish a dynasty through Marie Louise. He conquered continental Europe and took on Britain. ( He also sold a good third of the United States to the U.S. for 15 mil... maybe he was just a little bit of an idiot). Even when exiled he refused to just go away and die like a good little midget, but had to come back again. What were the Revolution ideals? Not conquering the world, not creating an empire. He didn't help the Revolution- he killed it. He had more power than Louis XIV.
    Finally, I feel the need to share a rather interesting excerpt from THE GREAT DIVORCE, a novel by (as you have probably guessed based on past quotes in this blog) C.S. Lewis. He is speaking through a man who has stopped briefly in hell on a tour of the supernatural cosmos. (In the EXTREMELY condensed version.) In hell, the man hears a description of Napoleon's living arrangement. You must understand, Lewis' hell is just a dismal gray town where nothing is quite real, not a series of bonfires.
    "The nearest of those old ones is Napoleon. We know that becuase two chaps made the journey to see him. They'd started long before I came, of course, but I was there when they came back. About fifteen thousand years of our time it took them. We've picked out his house by now. Just a little pin prick of light and nothing else near it for millions of miles.'
    'But they got there?'
    'That's right. He'd built himself a huge house all in the Empire style- rows of windows flaming with light, though it only hsows as a pin prick from where I live.'
    ' Did they see Napoleon?'
    ' That's right. They went up and looked through one of the windows. Napoleon was there all right.'
    ' What was he doing?'
    ' Walking up and down- up and down all the time- left-right, left-right, never stopping for a moment. The two chaps watched him for about a year and he never rested. And muttering to himself the entire time. "It was Soult's fault. It was Ney's fault. It was Josephine's fault. It was the fault of the Russians. It was the fault of the English." Like that all the time. Never stopped for a moment. A little, fat man, and he looked kind of tired. But he didn't seem able to stop it.'"

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:58:00 PM  

  • Napoleon, like tyrants do, focused on himself and his own glory, which often made his decisions irrational and dangerous to the progression of his own country. This might have been acceptable, save the fact that he had ultimate power with no checks and balances to take over if he screwed up, or clean up his mess. The only thing that could remove him from power (and did) was a full fledged war on France. I agree with Laura in that he certainly was hypocritical to the ideals of the revolution, which to me never means someone was a savior of the ideals. Although he seemed to be the savior in the begining, ultimately he threw away all that France had gained once defeated by the Quadruple alliance. Whenever one's intrests come before the common good in nearly every case, I think that's when they can be classified as tyranical. Especially when he abandons his troops several times to save his own butt. He kind of does that in international affairs of all sorts.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:18:00 PM  

  • Napoleon started off being sort of connected to the revolution since he was fighting for it and everything. However, when he came to power that all went straight to hell and he became the tiny tyrant that we are all familiar with. He did enforce some of the ideas of the revolution though. There wasn't a monarchy, granted a dictatorship/ emperor isn't significantly different, there was religious tolerance, nationalism, and the like. So while he as a person was the polar opposite of what the ideal revolutionary leader would be (as in not a single person or whatever) he did keep some of the ideas which is what the question asked. The question says nothing of why he would do those things, which was obviously for personal gain and entirely selfish reasons. He didn't really save the ideals though, they were kind of just kept around. He was also a tyrant though since he pretty much randomly killed people to prove points such as that bourbon duke. just to wipe them out. So I think he is kind of both, he was a tyrant who supported some of the ideals of the revolution.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:34:00 PM  

  • I definitely agree that Napoleon was a tyrant. He exercised his power harshly and unjustly. Napoleon wanted absolute power and he was never in defense of any revolutionary ideas. He took control of the French government and declared himself emperor. He was never concerned with France as a people, just France as a power. This made him a tyrant, not a protector of revolutionary ideas.

    By Blogger taylor, at Tuesday, November 21, 2006 9:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home