Reflections on Napoleon

From 1775 to 1779 France was in a tumultuous state. The revolution’s radicals had left the country with a destroyed government and the people were still not satisfied. Enter Napoleon Bonaparte, a dashing, successful military leader who was loved by the people of France. Apart from being smart and military-minded, Napoleon was one more thing: power hungry. Although Napoleon’s need to possess power assisted him as he patched together France’s government, it was also what led to his downfall as he crossed over the line from visionary leader to crazed dictator.

By 1798 the French government didn’t stand a chance. Not even the spirit of the French people could save the dictatorial Directory that was reversing all of the work that the French people had done to get equal rights. Could the French government have survived without Napoleon’s coup? In my opinion, it could not have. Napoleon’s intervention was necessary; a strong, cunning leader was needed to patch together of fractured France. Much of Napoleon’s government was about gaining power, manipulating deals, and getting the French people, and any other countries, to succumb to his will. Napoleon made peace with the Old Regime nobles, the church and the middle class. He set out the idea of a family unit where the father had complete power over his wife and children, much like Napoleon’s power over all of France. Could it be said that Napoleon’s creation of a patriarchal family unit be considered propaganda? Reflecting on the political environment, I believe Napoleon used this as a form of propaganda. As the southerners of the antebellum South in America in protecting their patriarchal power of both family and slaves promoted this concept of both paternal oversight and social stratification, so too did Napoleon wish to convey both an image of a protector and a ruler. This image is one that the French commoner would both understand and accept as the head of their government. It was Napoleon’s insight that finally led to unity in France, but Napoleon’s agenda went beyond the unification of France to the domination of a great empire.

It cannot be denied that Napoleon was a genius when it came to the strategies of the battlefield. Against most of Europe, Napoleon was able to amass a “Grand Empire”. By 1802, Napoleon had no need to battle others, he was popular with the French people, the government was stable, and all outside threats were gone; however, war was in Napoleon’s blood, so he fought. After a devastating loss to Lord Nelson in 1805 Napoleon defeated the third coalition, which was made up of Austria, Russia, Sweden and Britain. He began to organize a blockade, preventing British trade.

But war is costly. There is pay for the men, the purchase firearms and munitions, ships, food, lodging, training and countless other expenses necessary for success and Napoleon was successful. To afford these conquests, Napoleon began to tax the French heavily and draft copious numbers of men for his army. Napoleon’s attempt to blockade British trade backfired for Britain had decided to counter blockade. This kept the British from suffering from the French blockade while depriving the French middle class of their livelihood that was tied to trade. The cost of war and the deprivations linked to war dulled the golden light that had surrounded Napoleon and he was no longer a hero. He had become a tyrant.

Had Napoleon continued a successful march through Europe, conquering each subsequent country, his financial demands would have been met with a patriotic French populace but Napoleon committed military suicide in his attempt to overcome Moscow. Now crazed in his effort to gain power, Napoleon marched through Russia to the city of Moscow. But Moscow could not be defeated and Napoleon retreated, bringing home only half of the 600,000 men from his original army. Unclouded by his military ambition, Napoleon could have settled on a proposal to restore France to its former size. Instead Napoleon returned to France, raised a new army and set out to recover and then add to the land he had amassed, in earlier conquests.

Even after being exiled to the island of Elba, Napoleon attempted to stage a comeback. But such an attitude, originally viewed as heroic must be question. Napoleon provided direction and strength when the country needed a leader. But when does it go to far? It was said that if Napoleon had just accepted France at it’s historical size that he would have been saved, but his own persistence turned around and slapped him. However, was it possible for a man with less of a vision and thirst for power to restore tumultuous France, I’m not so sure. Like many other great historical figures, Napoleon was a blend of genius and crazy, and his forceful ways did help restore France after the bloodiest revolution in history.