"Napoleon- saviour or enemy of the revolution?" Topic

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster here.

Just wondering what the general opinion of Napoleon's attitude towards the revolution were?

It could be argued that had brought stability to France, and increased equality in the Napoleonic Code.

However he did of course install himself as a dictator, and his increasingly large levels of conscription could be seen as taking away freedom…

Also the 'Client Republics' could be seen as either an expansion of the revolutions ideals, or just a creation of a European French Empire…

So wadd'ya think? Hero or Destroyer of the revolution?

Skyler

Blimey.

It's En Avant/Raul with betterish Inglish as she is spoke.

Interpretation, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

:-)

Pete

Why does it have to be "either/or"?

Actually, the Revolution destroyed herself. Napoleon just picked the pieces up and built a burgeoise empire.

Yaaawn!

Yep. Corsican Ogre and all that.

Savoir, more or less, through 1809.
Destroyer from 1810.

Chuvak

Napoleon did two things upon assuming power in 1799-he restored law and order and maintained the social gains of the Revolution for the French people.

Then he launched on his third 'mission' that of remaking France.

He (not in any particular order) restored the Church, granted amnesty to the emigres, settled the business in the Vendee, revamped the French education system, had the Code Napoleon written, debated, and approved. He also built 'harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps, and built canals.' He had trees planted along France's roads, built two trade roads across the Alps, introduced gas lighting, spread the ability to give smallpox inoculations, established a government office to protect France's natural resources, improved orphanages and hospitals, 'gave Paris better water and sewer systems, its first public fire department, an improved opera, and the modern system of street numbers.'

Napoleon was the first European ruler to give equal rights of citizenship to the Jewish people and 'Wherever his rule ran, there was freedom of religion, basic human rights, better hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation.' Napoleon also encouraged improvements in French agriculture and industry.

Napoleon also emphasized competence and honesty in government officials and established a 'corps' of auditors to see to the stamping out of corruption.

Sincerely,
K

Dear Jeff… you can called me in many ways… but mention me as … she?.
You are pointing your bad feelings SO HIGHT!. Ha!Ha!.

Amicalement
Armand

Je ne comprends pas mon ami, c'est une figure de style seulement.

Kevin

You forgot the part about the French killed in his wars.

A.

"You forgot the part about the French killed in his wars."
The streets of Paris had house numbers. Do you think such progress can be had without sacrifice ?
Hah !

=========================

Armand, the "she" refers to "the English language" – not to you, mi amigo.

:-)
Chuey

Maybe the wars were simply the "breaking the egg" part of his revolutionary omelet…

I often wonder if Julius Caesar would have fixed things also later on…

TW

I thought we were talking about civil accomplishments and not the military side. And it should be remembered that it was not Napoleon who broke the Treaty of Amiens or who was the aggressor in 1805, 1806, 1807, or 1809.

For the Spanish and Portuguese invasions, it should also be noted that the Spanish participated in the French invasion of Portugal. For Spain, Napoleon found a letter from Godoy stating that he would turn on Napoleon if the Prussians won. It was with the Prussian state papers that the French confiscated.

And Russia was on the order of a preemptive strike as Alexander definitely decided to fight the French as early as 1810.

The bottom line militarily is that all of the major powers of Europe were expanding empires and that set up the series of wars, one way or another. Napoleon inherited the situation when he became French head of state in 1799.

Sincerely,
K

He also restored slavery, which had been abolished by the Revolution. Not to put too fine a point on it, he not only allowed the reintroduction of slavery as a system, but forcibly returned men and women to a state of bondage.

His numerous improvements on behalf of the French people came at the cost of political liberty. Perhaps dictatorial rule was the only means of accomplishing the profound changes in French civil life, but it was dictatorship nonetheless. Political freedom and dissent were ruthlessly crushed.

The crowning insult (no pun intended) was his elevation to Emperor ( as well as King of Italy) and reestablishment of a hereditary monarchy, not to mention restoration of the nobility and placing various siblings and flunkies on the thrones of other countries.

Napoleon certainly saved France at the time, but he just as certainly betrayed the Revolution.

"For the Spanish and Portuguese invasions, it should also be noted that the Spanish participated in the French invasion of Portugal"
Agression on Portugal was ethically justifiable becasue Spain participated ? Huh ?

"Napoleon found a letter from Godoy stating that he would turn on Napoleon if the Prussians won"
Where is this letter ? When was it written ? What did it say ? Who really wrote it ? How do we know it even existed ?

"as Alexander definitely decided to fight the French as early as 1810"
Not that there is any source that actually supports this – but it is one of our K's favorite fantasies, so please don't correct him.

:-)
Chuey

Hi Donald

There's not much out there in English but the following may be of help:-

The Brusilov Offensive by Tim Dowling –haven't read it yet but looks good

Tannenberg The first thirty days in East Prussia Gen Sir Edmund Ironside, the Scholar's Bookshelf – good solid operational history

August 1914 by Solzhentsyn for period flavour

Carpathian Disaster by Geoffrey Jukes, Pan Ballantine – bit lightweight but good pictures

Blood on the Snow: The Carpathian Winter War of 1915 by Graydon Tunstall – out in the summer, definitly on my to buy list!

Hoffman's own history of Tannenberg is also on the net but I've lost my link for it

Hope this helps

Cheers

Nick

"the crowning insult (no pun intended) was his elevation to Emperor"

Well, yes. But not simply yes.

There was a plebescite. Rigged, very possibly. But still a nod in the general direction of consent of the governed. Nothing like that in Austria, Russia or Prussia – for sure.

And he was, at least nominally a rather strange Empereur. He swore allegiance not to Divine Will or similar, but instead took this very civil oath of office:

Je jure de maintenir l'intégrité du territoire de la République, de respecter et de faire respecter les lois du Concordat et la liberté des cultes, de respecter et de faire respecter l'égalité des droits, la liberté politique et civile, l'irrévocabilité des ventes de biens nationaux, de n'établir aucune taxe qu'en vertu de la loi, de maintenir l'institution de la Légion d'honneur, de gouverner dans la seule vue de l'intérêt, du bonheur et de la gloire du peuple francais.

"His" nobility was by merit (mostly, except for a few examples). He recognized the old nobility, but did not restore to them any privledges or their lost assets. He did, however, extend preference to some of them. His Empire was NOT dynastic until the decisions to arrange a marriage with the Austrian princess. He could have adopted, in the Roman tradition (the whole ethos was quite neo-classical, so this would have fit) – and his adoption of Eugène was seen by some in that light.

So, yes – the Empire in the end detroyed the Révolution. But it was a slow motion destruction, and not at all a fait accompli at the time of the coronation.

Anyway, that's my opinon at least.

Chuvak

I am not "Nick".
The post from him (second above) did not come from me.

Weird bug,
Chuey

There was a plebescite. Rigged, very possibly. But still a nod in the general direction of consent of the governed.

I'm aware of that and don't dispute it. I'll even go so far as to add that some of the most fervent ex-Republicans were in favor of, or at least accepted, the transition from Consul for Life to Emperor.

As far as his new nobility, one would well expect that he would recognize his most talented and loyal subordinates. Yet how is this different than what had happened centuries before across Europe? A successful warlord establishes himself as monarch and elevates his lieutenants and those who are politically useful in an effort to cement his power base. Go back far enough and all titles of nobility were merit based.

My point was not about the relative merits of these acts, only that they were contrary to the Revolution.

Cher Enfant,

I agree with your comments completely. These acts were clearly "contrary" to the Révolution. My point was, and you seem to see the point as well, "how contrary?"

To me, and it's just opinion, the Révolution had lost its "purity" in the series of coups, the pogroms, the denounciations, the necessities of waging war agianst the reactionary powers, etc. And then we have the Consulate. Then the Life Consul. The Empire. And so on.

When did we lose the chance to have some substantial share of the goals of the Révolution achieved? In 1795? In 1799? in 1804? In 1810 (my perosnal choice)? or never (as the most ardent supporters of Napoléon might argue)?

Judging by analogy to my own life, I might have been in the génie, or the marine, or operating a manufacture. I come from a Protestant bourgeois background – perfect candidate to support the idea of the Révolution (as my ancestors did in America). Rather nationalistic, I likley would have still been a "believer" for some time into the Empire, specially while my country was at war.

But at some point, I would have given up any ideals.

And I think that when people no longer could be brought to believe that the "bests parts" of the Révolution were still preserved and defended by the Empire – well, then I think that Napoléon would have to be cast as the "Destroyer". But – not until then.

Anyway, totally personal opinion. Smarter folks likely would think it thorugh better, and more literare folks describe it better as well.

Bien amicalement, as they say,
Chuey

'Agression on Portugal was ethically justifiable becasue Spain participated?'

I never said that nor implied it. There were reasons but to my mind it was an error, as was the entire Spanish war.
Why not ask before you accuse? Perhaps you should take a course on how to conduct a civil conversation/discussion/debate? It would help immensely.

'"Napoleon found a letter from Godoy stating that he would turn on Napoleon if the Prussians won"
Where is this letter ? When was it written ? What did it say ? Who really wrote it ? How do we know it even existed?'

See Napoleon's Wars by Charles Esdaile, pages 307-310 and there is also material on this issue in Esdaile's book on the War in Spain. The author is Godoy, at the very least he had it written and sent to Prussia.

'"as Alexander definitely decided to fight the French as early as 1810"
Not that there is any source that actually supports this – but it is one of our K's favorite fantasies, so please don't correct him.'

First, start with the Esposito/Elting Atlas in The Introduction to the Russian Campaign:

'As for Alexander, he had decided on war sometime early in 1810. Taught by defeat, he had decided to remain on the defensive militarily, but to employ diplomacy, subversion, and economic pressure aggressively everywhere. This threw the onus for any open hostilities completely onto Napoleon-hence the popular 'historical' picture of a lovable, liberal Czar, subjected to unprovoked assault by a squat little Corsican bounder.'

From there you can refer to Esdaile's Napoleon's Wars, The Military History of Tsarist Russia edited by Frederick Kagan and Robin Higham, Adam Zamoyski's Moscow 1812, and Dominic Lieven's Russia Against Napoleon.

For Esdaile, see pages 437 to at least 449 for the situation before the invasion in 1812, much of it surrounding the Duchy of Warsaw which Alexander wanted and which the Poles rejected, remaining a French ally. See also pages 405-407 for the lack of support Napoleon and the Poles received from the 'ally' Alexander in 1809, some of it being interference in Polish military operations against Austria. Lieven also maintains this situation on page 76. Russia was not a good ally to France and by this had violated the Tilsit agreement.

For Kagan and Higham, see pages 116-117 in that not only was Alexander preparing for war with France between 1810 and 1812, but offensive war was for a time a Russian option, if not a preference among the Russian generals.

According to Zamoyski, growing numbers of Russians were visiting European capitals 'trying to incite people against France.'

Lieven discusses Russian planning for war as early as 1810 on pages 78-79. On page 85 Lieven states that 'From the summer of 1810 onwards it was clear to Alexander and most of his key advisors that war was inevitable, and sooner rather than later…the key point was to prepare as effectively as possible to fight the coming war.' Lieven also states on page 97 that 'Napoleon's greatest rivals, the British and Russian empires, were not peace-loving demoncracies anxious to stay at home and cultivate their gardens. They were themselves expansionist and predatory empires.'

So, Alexander proved himself to be a poor and treacherous ally to Napoleon, much as Russia was the same to the allies in War II. For example, on 15 June 1809 two Russian divisions refused to come to the aid of the Poles at Sandomir and effected what in fact was a 'non-aggression pact' with the Austrians in theater. This was later broken to the Russians' benefit (see Esdaile, page 405). In the same vein, the Russians refused to help the Polish Home Army in 1944 in Warsaw and didn't cross the Vistula until the Poles had lost and were in large part destroyed. Two incidents, over 100 years apart, against the same Poles for the benefit of the Russians themselves. Better to have them as an open enemy than a treacherous ally.

Sincerely,
K

So, Alexander proved himself to be a poor and treacherous ally to Napoleon, much as Russia was the same to the allies in War II.

Poor ally, huh? It wasn't American and Commonwealth tanks that ended up parked outside the Reichstag.

I'd say not helping troops of a territory you consider part of your own nation is pragmatic as much as treacherous….

Whether Napoleon betrayed the Revolution or not, I think it's fair to say he was a disaster for France – engaging on a series of wars of aggression that killed a generation of Frenchmen.

Mind you, given that the Revolution itself was built on the blood of thousands of innocents, to say such behaviour is a betrayal might be stretching the point.

The Revolution was built on the deaths of thousands. The Reign of Terror kiled some 20,000 in Paris and the provinces. But the ancien regime wasn't clean handed. 30,000 were killed during the Irish risings of 1798. Suvorov's Russian army killed 20,000 in one week putting down the rebellion in Warsaw. A tiny fraction of these last two were rebels in arms. Most were massacred.

'Poor ally, huh? It wasn't American and Commonwealth tanks that ended up parked outside the Reichstag'

And the Russians enslaved eastern Europe for over 40 years for nothing but the benefit of the Russians.

They immediately turned on the western allies as soon as their strategical goals were gained.

They attempted to blockade Berlin ca 1948 for the purpose of controlling the city and its population.

The Cold War was the result of Russian aggression and a failure on the part of the western allies to see them as a threat in 1945.

They took western aid during the war without so much as a thank you, and it is likely that aid was instrumental in helping them defeat the Germans. Without that aid I highly doubt that they would have made it to Berlin.

So, yes, I'd say they were a poor ally.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin – what happened post-war has absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Unions's WW2 record as being a reasonable ally.

After all ,it wasn't the Soviet Union who spent much of the post-war period undermining the British & French Empires….

They may not have been forthcoming in their thanks, but they were forthcoming in their blood which, given we couldn't have won without them, is somewhat more important.

Yes, thousands were massacred during the 1798 Irish uprising. Chalk them too down to French interference.

'Whether Napoleon betrayed the Revolution or not, I think it's fair to say he was a disaster for France – engaging on a series of wars of aggression that killed a generation of Frenchmen.'

Interesting viewpoint, Stu, but inaccurate. Napoleon inherited the wars as head of state and England had no inclination to leave France as it was in 1799 and it was they, not Napoleon, who broke the Treaty of Amiens.

Who financed the coalitions against France year after year while their own investment in manpower was not great. England hired the major states of Europe to fight the French as coolly as she did mercenaries from the German states to help put down the Jacobite rising in Scotland in 1745 and to try and put down the War of the Revolution in America.

England's main goal during the wars was to control colonial trade and she freely snapped up colonies without regard to international law, wasted good troops in two failures at Buenos Aires, attacked the Danes twice without provocation, the second time terror bombing Copenhagen into submission. England's attitude brought on an unwanted war with the new United States in 1812 in which honors were about even.

England was as high-handed as Napleon could be as were Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Do you know how many casualties in deaths that the Grande Armee suffered from 1805-1815? Napoleon conscripted 1,350,000 men who actually went on active duty. The total levy was 2,646,957. The difference weren't called up. When their turn finally came in the late Empire, they were either overage or then had a family. Your idea of the French losing an entire generation is just a little far-fetched. If that is so, then the other main belligerents suffered just as much, except for England whose investment in manpower was way below what her allies gave. You're overstating your case.

Sincerely,
K

Amiens broke down because neither side was interested in peace – Napoleon was as bad as the British when it came to undermining it.

And the '45 was mainly eventually put down by Lowland Scots….

There wasn't really any international law at the time…though all the major powers could be high handed.

That said, it was France that declared war on the UK, not the other way round. Had Napoleon wan't peace with Britain, I'm sure he could have got it, perhaps by withdrawing to the 1787 borders and declaring he had no interest in territorial aggrandisement?

Certainly Europe bled white, but that was mainly due to the French invading or provoking the major powers by re-drawing borders or isntalling Bonapartes as monarchs around Europe.

How exactly was France improved by the Napoleonic Wars? She suffered occupation, the loss of her colonies, ruination of her economy, destruction of her navy and hudnreds of thousands of deaths.

Odd you should advance that argument Stu, given how much effort England put forth to overthrow the commies.

Bonie would have been all right had he stuck to France. By trying to conquer the rest of Europe he becomes just another meglomaniacal dictator.

K,

'"Napoleon found a letter from Godoy stating that he would turn on Napoleon if the Prussians won"
You have offered this supposed letter as the justifiction for Napoléon's attempted conquest of Spain. Such a letter must have been written in late 1805 or early 1806 – three years before the Spainish war started. It must have been a really interesting letter. However, I cannot find the text of it in the Esdaile that you referenced. Can you please provide this letter?

Exactly why Spain's interest in preserving their position in the event of a defeat of their ally the French is so worthy of condemnation is a mystery to me. What else were they to do in the event of a PRussian victory? Were the supposed to resisit to the last drop of Spain bllod to avenge teh defeat fo the French ?

=====================================

With regard to Napoléon's aggression toward Russia, you have attmepted to paint Alexander as treacherous and aggressive. You adduce for this a few modern English-language secondary/tertiary sources, some of Cold War vintage. Others written by modern eastern Europeans. You have not quoted them at length, but instead cherry-picked them to support your view. If one were to actuallly read these sources in full, it is clear that the Russians were concerned about a possible French attack (for which events in Spain provided an example) and sought to take defensive measures. They were quite resolved not to be the aggressor, but sought to adequately defend themselves from a potential attacker.

However, it is clear from your strange and extensive off-topic remarks about the Soviet Union in the 20th century that you harbor a strong and specific bias – seemingly some kind of hold-over from Cold War propaganda – so that any balanced consideration of events concerning the Russian Empire in the Napoleonic era cannot be expected of you.

Too bad.

=====================================

In both instances, it appears that you condemn first the Spainish and then the Russiasn for looking out for their own countries' interests. It appaears that your definition of a "good" ally of the French is a nation that does not concern itself with its own interests but instead gives blind obediance to Napoléon. I do not think this is an especially reasonable view.

Sincerely,
C

The text of the Godoy letter is not in Esdaile and I didn't say that it was. Esdaile in both books refers to the Spanish being prepared to turn on Napoleon, their ally, in case the French lost in Prussia in 1806. That's somewhat treacherous and not what one would expect from an ally.

The same goes for Alexander after Tilsit. Napoleon expected a loyal ally and the support Alexander gave in 1809 ranged from not supporting at all to interference in Polish military operations. The object was to take as much of Poland as Alexander could get.

That was one of the problems, if not the most important problems, between France and Russia between 1809 and 1812. Alexander wanted Poland, and the Poles said no. That he eventually was 'rewarded' with Poland at Vienna in 1814 speaks volumes for intent. There is a reason that Napoleon referred to the Russian invasion as the 'second Polish war.'

Russian foreign policy, whether under Tsar or Commissar, changed little since Ivan the Great. Signs of that are still visible, witness the 2008 invasion of Georgia, a weak neighbor, and Russia's present support of Iran. It's a pattern which is quite easy to demonstrate.

Sincerely,
K

By the way, which 'tertiary' reference did I use? All that I have mentioned are credible secondary sources.

Sincerely,
K

This is way off topic, but perhaps interesting. Perhasp not

I doubt that the Soviet government ever said "thank you" for the West's rôle in the war against fascism. But if you want to hear the words, just go talk to an old veteran or civilian who received western assistance. They say it rather readily. They remember who was on their side in those hard years.

monument in Moscow, erected by the Soviets, still there
picture
link
Ever see something like that in Washington, New York or London ?

post-war Soviet propaganda painting (late 1940's)
picture

modern coin of the Russian Federation (1994)
picture

at Murmansk – ceremony of remembrance at the military memorial for Soviet, Canadian, British and American fighters (2004)
picture
picture

Chuvak

Strange that the OP hasn't been back to the 10th Marines Napoleon love story.

"2008 invasion of Georgia and Russia's present support of Iran"

Are current events off limits or not ?
This is way off-topic, but I thought it was also not permitted.

Please, someone clarify.

Thanks,
Chuey

Chapter 42:

"In 1806, just after crushing Prussia at Jena, Napoleon had discovered in the Castle of Charlottenburg, which had just been hastily abandoned by Frederick-William and Louise of
Prussia, written proof (See chapter 26) of a collusion between the Russians, Prussians and the "Prince of the Peace", Godoy, and worse still, a personal letter from Charles IV to Frederick-William in which he promised to attack France from the rear."

Chapter 26:

"… there were also instructions to the Prussian ambassador in Madrid urging him to incite Spain to enter into the coalition, together with all sorts of instructions that were hostile to Napoleon and France. A few examples: "Napoleon's claims to power are still only those of a usurper for some of the great powers in Europe. For the other cabinets that have recognised him, they are only dictated by force. It would take only a moment to destroy a political edifice which was erected on the ruins of all the principals [of divine right, of course], on the debris of all the interests most cherished by nations and men in general [!]. This edifice rests on the head of Bonaparte alone, should he weaken, should he fall, he will be swept away with unheard of violence. These thoughts should suffice to dissuade any state guided by honour and foresight from sealing a pact of friendship with the French government."

I'm getting closer!

Of possible interest:

THE INFLUENCE OF NAPOLEON'S CONTINENTAL SYSTEM ON RUSSIAN ECONOMY:

link

[Quote]Napoleon found a letter from Godoy stating that he would turn on Napoleon if the Prussians won.

And that, quite naturally, is all the justification a tyrant would need to invade a country whose people he despised, a country which he bullied again and again, and a country that he didn't respect and whose only interest in were her presumed riches.

By the way, much better than the passing commentaries in Esdaile's general history of the wars give it a look to André FUGIER: Napoleon et l'Espagne. 1799-1808. Even if Fugier is sympathetic to Napoleon and the book is from the 30s it's still the best book on the subject that has been written so far.

And it should be remembered that it was not Napoleon who broke the Treaty of Amiens or who was the aggressor in 1805, 1806, 1807, or 1809.

That isn't correct. Napoleon did break the Treaty of Amiens at least as much as the British did. Neither of them meant to keep it for long.

And yes, Prussia declared war… after the French violated her territory during the campaign of 1805. May be you have studied different International Law that I did, but in my all my books there are agreement that to violate the territory of a country is deemed an act of war.

I can't buy the whole thing about poor Napoleon reacting to enemy aggression.

"there were also instructions to the Prussian ambassador in Madrid urging him to incite Spain to enter into the coalition"

Steven,

Yes, I saw that too …. that would be from a Prussian to a Prussian.

What we are looking for is a letter from Godoy to the Prussians, written in late 1805/early 1806 that was so important that it provided the justification for Napoléon to go to war with Spain three years later.

I don't know of any such letter. Our coleague K asserts – unreservedly and most assuredly – that the letter exists. I don't think it's too crazy to expect him to copy/paste it here so that we can see it.

Is it likely that our colleague K would be so sure about a letter so important – according to him – that it justified a war of aggression, unless he had seen the text of the letter?

:-)
Chuey

But I fail to see how he maintained popularity??

obviously military victories helped,
but surely the people knew he was becoming a dictator, or did they simply not mind?

also how did conscription and the ever-demanding increase for soldiers not lose him popularity/ drain support for war

Skyler

Military victory and loot.

When Louis XVIII got onto the throne in 1814, in addition to being an idiot, the loot was gone and the economy tanked. Which helps explain how he was overthrown without a shot fired with a year.

Forgot to add- were all of France's colonial positions lost? I know of Haiti and Louisiana Purchase but what of the rest? and how was this loss (or sale in case of the Purchase) seen in France?

Skyler

Certainly we didn't give all of the colonies back….

Duck is right – had Napoleon restricted himself to reforming France, he'd have been a great leader.

Alas, being a megalomaniac he decided that he was going o reform Europe as well, at the point of a bayonet if necessary.

As for the Soviets, they were good wartime allies. That is to say they did all an ally could be expected to do when there was a war to be one.

Once the war was over, things went downhill rapidly. But during the war they were OK.

Stu,

There is absolutely no evidence that Napoleon was a megalomaniac. That is part of the allied propaganda that came out of the period.

Sincerely,
K

K,

"Napoleon was a megalomaniac. That is part of the allied propaganda that came out of the period."

That's amazing.
Do you suppose they time-travelled from 1815 to 1890, when the word was coined and the illness was first described?
link

<shrug>, but a sincere <shrug>,
C

No, of course not. However, while he was alive Napoleon was accused of almost every evil known to man including murder, incest, treachery, theft, blasphemy, an uncontrolled 'ambition' and whatever else you want to think of. There is a biography in print, and if the author doesn't accuse him of megalomania, then he tries real hard to accuse him of mental illness. That's a little hard to diagnose after someone is dead.

However, accusations of that kind, including megalomania, come out of the evils Napoleon was accused of in the allied propaganda of the period. Don't take everything so literal.

If there had been psychiatrists of that type during the period the commanders in the Grande Armee would undoubtedly have had them shot, to everyone's relief. ;-)

Sincerely,
K

Rossenheimer,

Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire Of Louis Bonaparte" might give a little insight into the revolutionary side of your question. It deals more with his uncle, but has plenty of content about the French Revolution.

BTW, I think there are some excellent points above regarding Allied propaganda about Napoleon…they also apply quite well to the Soviet Union…

C.

Whoops! Above should read "nephew" instead of "uncle"…

The plans of Napoleon for Europe weren't pacific. He did recognized his intentions in a letter to his brother Joseph, dated 26 January, 1806: "Je vous ai, je crois, déjà dit que mon intention est de mettre le royaume de Naples dans ma famille. Ce sera, ainsi, que l'Italie, la Suisse, la Hollande et les trois royaumes d'Allemagne, mes États fédératifs, ou véritablement l'Empire français." (letter 11.335; p. 63.) (in Correspondence Paris: Ed. Fayard-fondation Napoleon, 2009.: this a new edition of the letters of Napoleon, way better than the letters published by Napoleon III's orders).

Just a cursory look to Napoleon's correspondence makes clear that for him aggression and war were just tools of the trade. He wasn't provoked into war. He wanted war… and his Empire needed war to survive.