So, if Napoleon abolished feudalism, are the titles and honours he bestowed on his acolytes purely nominal? Were there no estates or rights that went along with them? And if so, where did the money come from?As his reign results in foreign troops occupying Paris. Not once but twice, sort have a difficulty seeing France as ‘winners’
Regarding the Code Civile (as it was brought up on this thread), later dubbed the Napoleonic Code, before it was written, debated, and finally approved there had been no uniform code of French law. Napoleon noted in 1798 that France was 'a nation with 300 books of laws yet without laws.'
During the Revolution the overall legal situation in France had been complicated by 14,400 decrees, a good many of them 'contradicting earlier laws.'
Overall, there were two types of law in France when Napoleon became First Consul. 'Customary law' was practiced in northern France while Roman Law held sway in the south of France. Napoleon's desire was to combine the best in the old French law with the Rights of Man.
To write the new Code, Napoleon chose four men, two from each region. Tronchet and Bigot de Preameneu were from northern France and Portalis and Malleville from the south. Napoleon gave them six months to produce the new Code. When written, the Code was debated in the Council of State with Napoleon presiding in 57 of them, which was more than half of the total sessions held.
The 2,281 articles contained in the Code were drafted by Napoleon and the Council of State between July and December 1800. Tronchet and Portalis were the major players in getting the Code written and finally passed into law. Napoleon played a major part in getting the Code written, debated, and passed, and he didn't always get his way with the passing of the articles.
@Zack White And by instituting over 14,000 decrees during the Revolution, some of which contradicted existing law, did nothing to advance the reform of French law.
It's just a little bit more than mere 'influence.' Napoleon was the driving force behind getting the Code done and approved.
Napoleon, those four who actually wrote the Code, and the Council of State got the job done, not the string of corrupt Revolutionary governments.
@Zack White More on the Code Civile from the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France 1799-1815, edited by Owen Connelly.
The entry, by historian Robert Holtman (295-296) reads as follows:
'Law, Codes of. Napoleon considered these his greatest contribution. The cahiers of 1789 demanded uniform laws, and the French Revolutionaries had been interested in replacing the approximately four hundred codes use in France (roughly divided into Roman law in the south and common law in the north). But they made little progress, except for preparing the way by sweeping away old legislation. He appointed a committee of four to prepare a civil code, and he presided over more than half the sessions devoted by the section of the Council of State to considering the commissions' draft.'
'The Civil Code (also known as the Code Napoleon), promulgated in 1804, was more important than the Code of Civil Procedure (1806), the Commercial Code (1807), the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure (1808), the Penal Code (1810), and the Rural Code (this last never went into effect). It has been adopted, or has influenced the codes of law, in all other European countries and those under European influence and control. The Code Napoleon is divided into three sections: persons, property, and the acquisition of property. The property aspects are significant because they provide for the division of estates; indeed, landed property was the kind most evident in the code, which tended to sanctify property. (In varying degrees all of the codes were conservative or reactionary). The section on persons is important for the mastery it gives to the head of the household, and the inferior status accorded women. Its overriding importance , however, lies in the civil rights it enumerates and its guarantee of equality in the eyes of the law.'
@Zack White"Napoléon réussit là où tous les gouvernements royaux et révolutionnaires avaient échoué avant lui : l’adoption d’un Code des lois civiles bien rédigé, facile à interpréter, triomphe du droit écrit sur les coutumes. Il fut le moteur de ce grand œuvre pensé et préparé par une cohorte des juristes de premier plan, auxquels il fournit les moyens de travailler, non sans intervenir pour trancher certains débats."
LENTZ, Thierry. Napoléon : dictionnaire historique (French Edition) (p. 209). Place des éditeurs. Kindle Edition.
Napoleon's main contribution is that he made it happen.
Napoleon himself, and for something called the Civil Code. In his own words.
My true glory is not to have won forty battles ... Waterloo will erase the memory of so many victories. ... But ... what will live forever, is my Civil Code
He literally built Modern France, it’s constitution, it’s laws, it’s institutions. The first central bank in France, Banque De Central was his initiative. And above all the Napoleonic Code, a set of civil laws, prepared by committees of legal experts, that laid the foundation for a modern nation state. It laid down a clearly written, accessible law, with it’s own codes, that could be adopted by any one. He codified the civil, criminal and commerce laws, established due processes.
The influence of that Civil Code can be seen in the fact that most of the territories occupied by him, have adopted it, even after his defeat at Waterloo. This code in a way, accelerated the process of ending the feudalism in Western and Central Europe. The Holy Roman Empire with more than a 1000 entities was now reorganized into a 40 state, Confederation of the Rhine.
And this in a way actually led to German unification as well as the formation of Italy as a nation state. Napoleon contributed greatly to the rise of nationalism in Europe, and the rise of the Nation States that would change it’s history.
Apart from that he liberalized property laws, ended the manor system, gave encouragement to entrepreneurship by abolishing the merchant guilds, and gave equal rights to Jews.
He also ensured the adoption of the metric system in France, though it was quite unpopular with a section. He bought in a modern education system in France, incorporating elements from the Enlightenment, Revolution. While primary education was still in the hands of some church orders, he ensured that the State had primary responsibility in the support of secondary education. Students were taught modern sciences along with classical and modern languages, religious studies were given lesser importance. The system also introduced scholarships, strict discipline, and this secular, public education system would be adopted later in Europe.
Fact is though Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, he changed Europe irrevocably forever. He in a way laid down the foundation of Modern Europe, as well as European colonialism too. Others had political victories, this guy left behind a legacy, which made others catch up. Is there a greater victory than that.
By destroying the Reich - Nabulieone paved the way for the Prussians to become the dominating power in post Napoleonic age in Germany, not the Confederation of the Rhine filed the void after destroying the Reich but Prussia.
Classic one dimensional history of the point of the view from Nabulieone only, did the author define feudalism? And what kind of feudalism was in place in some German states, say Bavaria, or Württemberg, or Saxony.
As I recall those states - the so called anti feudal Nabulieone - created Kingdoms and not Republics (how could be - being a royalist as well) - weren't forced to adopt any system of Napoleon.
Long before Nabulieone there were reforms in all kinds (Montgelas) to "modernize" those states.
Nabulieone wasn't at all a faithful heir but a reactionist of the worst kind, the luck would have had it, that he was disposed off before those traits would be manifested - and his already feudal system he created out of a Republic - might become even more feudal as other existing feudal states in Europe.
I agree Nabulieone himself - all his propaganda and lies still seen as face value, a Napoleonic centered approach and view of history, seen through his eyes and the cult he created.
I see only praise how well doing he was - nothing about creating a police state, sniffling in private mails to find out how even his most trusted subordinates thoughts, re establishing a hereditary monarchy, waging unnecessary wars - devastating a lot of countries, and others.
@john fortune 'QED' is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase 'Quod Erat Demonstratndum' which is usually used or said after an argument to show that you have proved something that you wanted to prove.-The Cambridge Dictionary.
I first 'encountered' the phrase/abbreviation when taking calculus at West Point. It was used by the cadets when completing a calculus proof, meaning in that context 'end of proof.'
It is used improperly in the above posting as nothing has been proven by the user, and is undoubtedly misused and intended as some type of 'slight.'
@john fortune In september 1830 the attack on Brussels was meant to break the revolution. In October 1830 the fact of the separation had been accepted in the North. All Belgian soldiers who wished so were dismissed from the service.The fighting in 1831 (10-days campaign) was over the terms of separation. the original terms had been amended in favour of Belgium on the insistance of their new king Leopold. In so far the campaign was successful as the term were amended again, this time in favour of the Netherlands.Only William I refused to sign the treaty until 1839, probably because in his heart he wanted to retain/regain Belgium.
The United States. Napoleon sold the U.S. about 828,000 sq miles (2,140,000 km2; 530,000,000 acres) of land for $15 million and double its size.
So, if Napoleon abolished feudalism, are the titles and honours he bestowed on his acolytes purely nominal? Were there no estates or rights that went along with them? And if so, where did the money come from? As his reign results in foreign troops occupying Paris. Not once but twice, sort have a difficulty seeing France as ‘winners’
Regarding the Code Civile (as it was brought up on this thread), later dubbed the Napoleonic Code, before it was written, debated, and finally approved there had been no uniform code of French law. Napoleon noted in 1798 that France was 'a nation with 300 books of laws yet without laws.'
During the Revolution the overall legal situation in France had been complicated by 14,400 decrees, a good many of them 'contradicting earlier laws.'
Overall, there were two types of law in France when Napoleon became First Consul. 'Customary law' was practiced in northern France while Roman Law held sway in the south of France. Napoleon's desire was to combine the best in the old French law with the Rights of Man.
To write the new Code, Napoleon chose four men, two from each region. Tronchet and Bigot de Preameneu were from northern France and Portalis and Malleville from the south. Napoleon gave them six months to produce the new Code. When written, the Code was debated in the Council of State with Napoleon presiding in 57 of them, which was more than half of the total sessions held.
The 2,281 articles contained in the Code were drafted by Napoleon and the Council of State between July and December 1800. Tronchet and Portalis were the major players in getting the Code written and finally passed into law. Napoleon played a major part in getting the Code written, debated, and passed, and he didn't always get his way with the passing of the articles.
Code Napoleon - The Napoleon Series (napoleon-series.org)
Napoleon himself, and for something called the Civil Code. In his own words.
My true glory is not to have won forty battles ... Waterloo will erase the memory of so many victories. ... But ... what will live forever, is my Civil Code
He literally built Modern France, it’s constitution, it’s laws, it’s institutions. The first central bank in France, Banque De Central was his initiative. And above all the Napoleonic Code, a set of civil laws, prepared by committees of legal experts, that laid the foundation for a modern nation state. It laid down a clearly written, accessible law, with it’s own codes, that could be adopted by any one. He codified the civil, criminal and commerce laws, established due processes.
The influence of that Civil Code can be seen in the fact that most of the territories occupied by him, have adopted it, even after his defeat at Waterloo. This code in a way, accelerated the process of ending the feudalism in Western and Central Europe. The Holy Roman Empire with more than a 1000 entities was now reorganized into a 40 state, Confederation of the Rhine.
And this in a way actually led to German unification as well as the formation of Italy as a nation state. Napoleon contributed greatly to the rise of nationalism in Europe, and the rise of the Nation States that would change it’s history.
Apart from that he liberalized property laws, ended the manor system, gave encouragement to entrepreneurship by abolishing the merchant guilds, and gave equal rights to Jews.
He also ensured the adoption of the metric system in France, though it was quite unpopular with a section. He bought in a modern education system in France, incorporating elements from the Enlightenment, Revolution. While primary education was still in the hands of some church orders, he ensured that the State had primary responsibility in the support of secondary education. Students were taught modern sciences along with classical and modern languages, religious studies were given lesser importance. The system also introduced scholarships, strict discipline, and this secular, public education system would be adopted later in Europe.
Fact is though Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, he changed Europe irrevocably forever. He in a way laid down the foundation of Modern Europe, as well as European colonialism too. Others had political victories, this guy left behind a legacy, which made others catch up. Is there a greater victory than that.
Prussia. Most of Britain's gains it probably would have gotten anyway, by hook or by crook.
Great Britain and Prussia. Unfortunately, the latter would end up leading/controlling a united Germany with catastrophic results-twice.
Britain/ Prussia and Russia are the obvious winners