"Napoleon as Head of State" Topic

The Directory was corrupt. Barras, one of the Directors was trying to get the Bourbons to return to France, which at the very least would be unpopular and undoubtedly would have been met by force. Napoleon upon his return from Egypt wanted to become a Director, but was told that by law he was too young. Unemployment was rife, and the civil servants had not seen a paycheck for some time. Barras was selling offices to finance his lavish lifestyle. The Vendee and Brittany were again in revolt.

Sieyes, another Director, began the idea for a coup against the corrupt Directory, and they had to have a general involved as the army was the only stable organization in France. Napoleon agreed and after the successful coup he came out on top, the other conspirators finding that Napoleon was both smarter and more able than they.

On becoming First Consul, Napoleon set out to reform France and consolidate the social and political gains of the Revolution. France remained a republic under the Consulate.

Napoleonic Reforms:

Fiscal:

-Established the Bank of France.
-Created two ministries, Finance and Treasury, to manage France's finance.
-Created an Audit Office to check on public spending.
-Balanced the budget annually.
-Created a stable tax system.

Legal:

-Established the Code Civile by having it written and approved.
-Established a new Penal Code.
-Established a new Criminal Code.
-Established the prefects.

Education:

-Had the primary schools reopened.
-Closed the ecoles centrales because part of their curriculum was ideologie.
-Established the lycess which replaced the ecoles centrales.
-Kept the private secondary schools and allowed new ones to open.
-Established twelve law schools.
-Established the Ecole Normale Superieure to train teachers.
-Established the University that was responsible for turning out good citizens in the schools.

Religion:
-Reestablished the Roman Catholic Church.
-Established the principle and practice of freedom of religion.
-Gave the Jews full rights of citizenship.

Awards:

-Established the Legion of Honor for both military and civilian awardees.

Civic Improvements/Public Works:

-Built three canals.
-Built three trade roads across the Alps.
-Improved France's roads and had trees planted along those roads.
-Founded Paris' first professional fire brigade.
-Developed the modern system of street numbers.
-Established the Administration des Eaux et Forets to protect France's natural resources.
-Created the Bourse.
-Improved the French sheep industry.
-Established national studs and depots d'etalons to improve French horse breeding.
-Improved French industry, such as the textile industry.
-Brought the smallpox vaccine to France.
-Granted amnesty to the emigres.
-Ended the revolt in the Vendee.

In short, Napoleon remade France and the basic civil rights given during the Revolution remained. He also firmly reestablished law and order in France, ridding the country of the abuses and lawlessness that had developed under the revolutionary governments.

Napoleon was both a lawgiver and a reformer and he governed by the rule of law.

Regarding the wars, Napoleon ended the Wars of the French Revolution which he inherited as head of state in 1799. Austria was again defeated in 1800 which led to the Peace of Luneville, and the Treaty of Amiens with Great Britain in 1802 ended the war with her.

It can be argued who was responsible for the rupture of Amiens, but it was Great Britain who declared war against France.
Great Britain was the paymaster of the succession of coalitions against France and persuaded Austria to attack France and her allies in 1805 in order to get the Armee des Cotes off the English Channel coast. Napoleon was not the aggressor in either 1805, 1806, 1807, or 1809-Austria, Russia, and Prussia were.

Napoleon found out in Berlin that the Spanish were willing to fight against France if Prussia won in 1806, and that was a prompt for the invasion of Spain in 1808. Prior to that, as Portugal was an ally of Great Britain, both France and Spain agreed to invade Portugal.

Regarding Russia, Alexander was a faithless ally (as she always had been no matter who her allies were-witness her ‘performance' in Poland in 1809 when she was supposed to be supporting France against Austria) and planned on war with France as early as 1810. Alexander tried to persuade the Poles of the Duchy of Warsaw to recognize him as suzerain, but the Poles refused. These actions led to war with Russia in 1812.
The wars of 1813 and 1814 were a continuation of the 1812 war and it is noteworthy that Russia, Prussia, and Austria could not have taken the field in 1813-1814 without massive British subsidies in cash, supplies, uniforms, and weapons.

His civil achievements lasted much longer than his military successes.

Napoleon found out in Berlin that the Spanish were willing to fight against France if Prussia won in 1806, and that was a prompt for the invasion of Spain in 1808.

What document did he find in Berlin?

A treaty, an alliance, a pact signed by both kingdoms?

Considering Europe is currently having a sheep crises, they could use his ovine guidance.

link

Napoleon found an official Spanish governmental document prepared and signed by Godoy.

I believe reference to it can also be found in one of Esdaile's books.

His civil achievements lasted much longer than his military successes.

Agree. But it is his military campaigns that people usually study and ignore the civil accomplishments.

Didn't he create the Appelation Controlle (and other designations) system for French wine ? Or is that a myth ?

Not to mention the Metric system.

If you impose harsh peace terms on defeated enemies it is hardly surprising if they seize any chance to redress the balance.

His civil achievements lasted much longer than his military successes.

Agree. But it is his military campaigns that people usually study and ignore the civil accomplishments.

His Military achievements are eternal. Just like Britain's civil achievements lasted longer than its Empire, but I still like reading about that period's military history.

The list would look similar for whoever was in charge during the consolidation phase of a revolution--fiscal reforms, new constitution and laws, a new education system and some sort of deal with the church, along with capital improvements. Mao, Castro and Lenin and Stalin as a team, would have pretty much the same accomplishments.

But I see no mention of restoring prosperity and stability to the Caribbean (by reimposing slavery) and the establishment of a smooth-running censorship and political police are not mentioned among his legal or civic improvements.

Give it up, Brechtel. The man's dead: he's not going to grant you an estate in some conquered land.

@peipenbrink

Are they offering half off for irony this week?

Where is this version of you?

Au pas, I know how much it upsets you and Brechtel, but lese majeste is not a crime under the laws of the United States. People can describe tyrannous usurpers who declare themselves hereditary absolute monarchs any way they wish--a category which includes Bokassa I, "Papa Doc" Duvalier and His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, Emperor of the French.

Try defending Bonaparte's military and administrative gifts, which were considerable, without demanding that everyone speak of him as his police insisted they should.

According to you, it's alright for a handful of posters to muck up every single post about Napoleon but Brechtel cant post on his own thread?

Also, why are you telling him how to approach Napoleon? You gave me the impression that the guy who invents facts and stats on Napoleon is well within his rights to rant and rave against Napoleon like the man owes him 20 euros and, additionally, that I should tolerate his screeds and stick to defending his military gifts?

Oh, you cant make this stuff up folks. Must be a full moon.

Speaking of making things up, Napoleon did not reinstate slavery and he ultimately abolished it. That's a mischaracterization of what happened. Im not excusing him, but let's exercise a little academic honesty, eh?

Give what up?

Recounting history and the achievements that were long-lasting in France and other places in Europe should be discussed as an important part of the period.

Trying to compare Napoleon with 'Mao, Castro and Lenin and Stalin' is not only incorrect historically, but a great insult to Napoleon and a great compliment to those four mass murderers and totalitarian dictators, of which Napoleon was neither.

What should be done, to my mind, is to compare Napoleon and his government to those of his contemporary heads of state and their governments. No other head of state in Europe accomplished more for their people than Napoleon did, including the government of Great Britain which was much more repressive, including official censorship, than anything Napoleon introduced.

Funny how that gets ignored, especially among the absolute monarchs of Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Further, the bankrolling of the continental powers to maintain the war against France by Great Britain is usually overlooked or ignored.

…you cant make this stuff up folks.

Absolutely correct. Again, +1.

Honestly I brace for the seethe whenever I see Brechtel post. :). Like mom saying set the table.

Keep it up.

Napoleon found an official Spanish governmental document prepared and signed by Godoy.

Regardless of whether it was a letter signed by the sender (Godoy) or other document, the fact is that it did not take the form of an official treaty or alliance signed by both kingdoms.

So, as a brief summary, the real facts are the following (you can correct me if you think I am wrong):

1. The Spanish government never mobilized its army with the intention of attacking Napoleonic France, and it never concentrated troops close to the French border.

2. The Spanish government always complied with the terms of the treaties with France: 1801 (War of the Oranges), 1805 (Trafalgar), 1807 (Denmark), 1807-1808 (Portugal).

3. The Spanish government and Napoleon signed, in 1807, the Treaty of Fontainebleau. So, both Napoleon and the Spanish government acted as allies.

4. In 1808, Napoleon acted in bad faith. It was not a mere supposition or remote possibility, as in the case of Godoy's letter from 1806. It was a treacherous and dishonourable invasion and occupation. It was Napoleon, and not Spain, who effectively broke his word and the Treaty and betrayed his ally.

5. In conclusion, Napoleon was the real aggressor.

The real causes of the invasion are quite different: international situation related to the continental blockade, a complete and effective control of Spanish policies (poor king Joseph, a straw man), the possibility of obtaining resources and troops (in case of easy conquest), among other causes. It had nothing to do with letters found in Berlin in 1806.

It had nothing to do with letters found in Berlin in 1806.

Napoleon believed he had to deal with the apparent treachery of his Spanish ally.

And you're leaving out the 'reason' for the entry of French troops into Spain-the attack on Portugal, a combined French and Spanish effort.

Part I

Taken from A History of the Peninsular War by Charles Oman, Volume I, 4.

'The determining factor in [Napoleon's] subsequent action was undoubtedly supplied in the autumn of 1806 by the conduct of the Spanish government during the campaign of Jena. There was a moment, just before that decisive battle had been fought, during which European public opinion was expecting a check to the French arms. The military prestige of Prussia was still very great, and it was well known that Russia had not been able to put forth her full strength at Austerlitz. Combined it was believed that they would be too much for Napoleon. While this idea was still current, the Spanish king, or rather his favorite Godoy, put forth a strange proclamation which showed how slight was the bond of allegiance that united them to France, and how hollow their much vaunted loyalty to the emperor. It was an impassioned appeal to the people of Spain to take arms en masse, and to help the government with liberal gifts of men, horses, and money. 'Come,' it said, 'dear fellow countrymen, come and swear loyalty beneath the banners of the most benevolent of sovereigns.' The God of Victories was to smile on a people which helped itself, and a happy and enduring peace was to be the result of a vigorous effort. It might have been pleaded in defense of Charles IV that all this was very vague. amd that the anonymous enemy who was to be crushed might be England. But unfortunately for this interpretation, three whole sentences of the document are filled with demands for horses and an instant increase in the cavalry arm of the Spanish military establishment. It could hardly be urged with seriousness that horsemen were intended to be employed against the English fleet. And of naval armaments there was not one word in the proclamation.'

Part II, 4-5:

'This document was issued on October 5, 1806: not long after there arrived in Madrid the news of the battle of Jena and the capture of Berlin. The Prince of the Peace was thunderstruck at the non-fulfillment of his expectations and the complete triumph of Napoleon. He hastened to countermand his armaments, and to shower letters of explanation and apology on the Emperor, pointing out that his respected ally could not possible have been the 'enemy' referred to in the proclamation. The document had reached Napoleon on the very battlefield of Jena, and had caused a violent paroxysm of rage in the august reader. But, having Russia still to fight, he repressed his wrath for a moment, affecting to regard as satisfactory Godoy's servile letters of explanation. Yet we can hardly doubt that this was the moment at which he made up his mind that the House of Bourbon must cease to reign in Spain. He must have reflected on the danger that southern France had escaped; a hundred thousand Spaniards might have marched on Bordeaux or Toulouse at the moment of Jena, and there would have been no army whatever on the unguarded frontier of the Pyranees to hold them in check. Supposing that Jena had been deferred a month, or that no decisive battle at all had been fought in the first stage of the struggle with Prussia, it was clear that Godoy would have committed himself to open war. A stab in the back, even if dealt with no better weapon than the disorganized Spanish army, must have deranged all Napoleon's plans, and forced him to turn southward the reserves destined to feed the 'Grand Army.' It was clear that such a condition of affairs must never be allowed to recur, and we should naturally expect to find that, the moment the war of 1806-7 was ended, Napoleon would turn against Spain, either to dethrone Charles IV, or at least to demand the dismissal from office of Godoy. He acknowledged this himself at St Helena: the right thing to have done, as he then conceded, would have been to declare open war on Spain immediately after Tilsit.'

Note: The Proclamation is in Appendix I of the reference,4.

It had nothing to do with letters found in Berlin in 1806.

According to Oman and Col Elting, it certainly is looking that it did…

Part I

The document's content was vague and imprecise. So, Oman offered his own interpretation, his own opinion. But the document's content was ambiguous. There is nothing explicit. It did not establish a clear timetable of actions in order to begin negotiations to agree a treaty or alliance.

The fact is that there was not an official treaty or alliance signed by both kingdoms. I prefer historical facts, not opinions.

Part II, 4-5

Concerning Spanish primary sources, Oman is outdated nowadays.

As I wrote previously, there was no Spanish army mobilization in 1806 and there was not a heavy concentration of troops close to the French borders. The Spanish army was scattered throughout the Spanish territory and it lacked resources, supplies and strength. A complete mobilization and resource allocation would have taken months. This did not in fact happen.

So, it is evident that the Spanish government did not intend to attack France and there was no threat of invasion.

In 1808, in wartime, the Spanish line infantry, the backbone of the army, did not reach their theoretical strength. Battalions' average strength was 428 men (56,9%). In 1806, in peacetime, that number was even more reduced (approximately 300 men). The cavalry was in worse shape. For example, at Medina de Rioseco (1808) the ratio of cavalryman to infantryman and artilleryman was 1/29. In comparison, the French ratio was 1/7. And that ratio was even more unfavourable in peacetime (1806-07).

Data source: Arsenio García Fuertes. El ejército español en campaña en los comienzos de la Guerra de Independencia, 1808-1809.

It is evident that, given its situation in 1806-07, the Spanish army in no way could have invaded France.

Those are historical facts, not opinions.

The importance of the document found in Berlin in 1806 was negligible. This is demonstrated by the fact that Napoleon and the Spanish government signed the Treaty of Fontainebleau in 1807. So, France and Spain remained allies, as before.

Those are historical facts, not opinions. As John Adams wrote: "Facts are stubborn things".

The Proclamation itself is in Oman, Volume I, Appendix I.

Source material?

Regarding the Civil Code, some work was done in the area by the revolutionary governments, but it was Napoleon that had the work done in order to write, publish, and enforce the Code.

Old French law was still in effect in France in 1799 regardless of the Revolution. France was 'a nation with 300 books of laws yet without laws.'

'Customary law' was practiced in northern France. Roman law was practiced in southern France. The four chosen by Napoleon to write the Code were Tronchet and Bigot de Preameneu from northern France and Portalis and Malleville from southern France.

Napoleon gave the four six months to furnish a draft of the Code which was then debated 'point by point' in the Council of State. Napoleon presided over 57 sessions, which was more than half of the total sessions.

The 2,281 articles of the Civil Code were drafted between July and December 1800.

For Napoleon's fiscal system, an excellent reference is France Under Napoleon by Louis Bergeron.