It's a curious thing. I guess we can say that the spirit and, as much as they existed, the principles of the Revolution were being exported in the early years, if we accept that was the intention of setting up republics in the Netherlands and Northern Italy as well as in the adjacent Balkan lands. The fact that that these subsequently turned into kingdoms firmly annexed to the Bonaparte family certainly compromised that process. The extinction of the Republic of Venice also cast any alleged principles of emancipation in a dubious light. If the establishment of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Duchy of Poland had the merit of liberating those regions from the rule of autocratic monarchies, we might have an interesting discussion as to the fire that flared up around those particular frying pans.Ultimately, if we look at Europe today, we see a balance between monarchies and republics, some healthier than others. As mentioned, it took most of the 19th century for a République Francaise to be established irrevocably, if not with absolute stability- I think we're on the 5ème, are we not? French colonialism continued apace through out that period. The German and Austrian monarchies finally bit the dust in 1918. The subsequent thirty years were- difficult. Germany is now the most prosperous and one of the most stable states in Europe. I can't quite remember the train of events in Italy but it is a republic today. UKGB remains a monarchy having relinquished most of Ireland. Oh, and the Empire. The future of the kingdom, although not the monarchy (for now) is uncertain. Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway remain cosy and prosperous monarchies. Belgium is something of a special case. And then there's dear old Luxembourg. I don't think the European project is relevant here as it seems to me to be a legacy of the C20th wars and the collapse of the continental empires. Nor is the former Soviet bloc. The legacy of the Russian revolution is not within the remit of the OP or, I dare say, of this forum. In the context of former Cold War paranoia, extreme right wing groups represent more of a threat to the social and political stability of Europe (and farther afield) than far left subversion. Does that mean that soft left bourgeois democracy holds the field? Could we say that this is the ultimate legacy of Jean Jaques Rousseau and Tom Paine? I have not mentioned post-colonial racism and revanchist Islam. There be dragons. I have woken early, and my caffeine levels are dangerously low.In a sudden flash, it dawns on me. I realise that if you want to look at a lasting legacy of the French Revolution- Belgium. If it didn't exist it would have to be invented.
@Kevin F. Kiley With the hefty caveat that absolutely no offence is offered or intended, just a different perspective, my take is that this view is American propaganda that has passed into folklore. When you deify your ‘founding fathers’ and endow them with super-human prescience objective historical enquiry is almost impossible. These are national articles of faith within a creation myth. With the levels of patriotic and emotional investment, particularly on a historic day like today, that is perfectly understandable and even from a certain point of view laudable.However, for us on this side of the Atlantic it is the reverse. To be patriotic for the days of empire is positively frowned upon by many and considered toxic by some. There was a time when we produced patriotic hagiography masquerading as history, but no more. We have no Jean D’Arc or George Washington. We might have voted WSC ‘the greatest Briton’ a few times, but his failings and weaknesses are well understood and articulated. In our Parliamentary system almost all political careers end in defeat.The French Revolution was of a completely different specie. As you rightly pointed out, there was a much rockier road and false starts. I’m afraid I ‘m not across enough contemporary French literature to know if Revolutionaries are lauded in the same way the US’s founding fathers are. I suspect not, as the extreme violence of the terror casts a different light. The French Revolution is soaked in considerably more blood than the AWI. But we are looking at for legacy and achievement.I suppose one would be the ability to accommodate radicalism and protest without the worst of extremism. Compare and contrast Gillet Jaune with more recent events for example.
The War of the Revolution (1775-1783) got rid of a monarchy in the new United States and started a republic and led to the US Constitution which is still in effect. That was 'revolutionary.' The American Revolution itself lasted from 1763-1789 with the adoption of the Constitution and the inauguration of George Washington as the first president.
Nope. It’s the American War of Independence. A colony gained it’s independence. The colonial and commonwealth governments exist still but within a federal system. No monarch was got rid of at all. His direct descendant sits on the same throne and still occupies a throne in North America today. The social fabric remained remarkably stable.There was no alteration to the internal social or power structures. No one was removed from the throne of America, because there wasn’t one. There was no Aristos to remove, because there was no American court or titles. There was no American Parliament to storm. There was no American Chamber of Peers to assault. A colonial slave became federal one, with very little change. Those who went to church before the Declaration of Independence went to the same church afterwards.Except for a very few loyalists who re-located, those who owned the land before the conflict generally did after it.The French Revolution was a real one. There was the removal of a throne, the abolition of monarchy. Regicide. The dispossession of an entire class. Their quasi-judicial removal. The disestablishment of a Church and the seizure of it’s lands. Slaves were emancipated. The machinery and mechanisms of government were completely overturned. They even changed the calendar. The social fabric was torn asunder.Perhaps more importantly to this thread, the US was not an inheritor of the French Revolution. It not only pre-dated it but was supported and aided by the Bourbon monarchy, the object of the revolution!
@david Tomlinson George III and Great Britain lost their American colonies through revolt and revolution. The former colonists stopped trying to be Englishmen and became Americans. The new nation did not have a monarch and became a republic.
That is a very large difference and was 'revolutionary.'
And the American Revolution predated the French Revolution, so it could not be 'an inheritor of the French Revolution.'
The object of the American Revolution was independence from Great Britain and her monarchy, and that was accomplished. The 13 English colonies became an independent nation and was no longer subject to a monarchy.
Can we actually focus on the REVOLUTION (ie what happened up to 1799), and not NAPOLEON (who ended it in the Brumaire coup). The point of the question wasn't to rehash discussions that we've had about Napoleon's legacy, but to actually focus on what the Revolution did. We all know that Napoleon embraced what he liked, and discarded what he didn't. So can we take the conversation in a more useful direction than recapping the what Napoleon did/did not do, which has been raised elsewhere.
Sorry, @Kevin F. Kiley we seem to have an enduring disagreement on the difference between fact and interpretation.History is an interpretive discipline, and you are choosing to view them as positive (which is a value judgement) and attributing them to the influence of one man (which is your belief). No matter how many others you quote as sharing those interpretations, they still remain judgements. No amount of repetition elevates the list to a fact though.This thread is asking us to share opinion, so it’s fair comment. I am prepared to concede one fact about the list though. It’s a fact people post-Napoleon have misguidedly come to believe it without question. It’s achieved the status of catechism amongst some.Please forgive me for respectfully not swallowing the propaganda whole though. Thankfully, I’m not required to, and that’s the beauty of historical enquiry. I’m fully prepared to give Napoleon due credit, where evidence exists of his direct input. However, I’m far too familiar with the politician’s propensity to dodge accountability and claim unwarranted credit to sign up to such sweeping generalisations. The list does have one useful function. It indicates the discussion has parted company with rational debate, so I’m content to take the role of bystander from here on in.
@Kevin F. Kiley No, because this is a thread on the achievement of the revolution, and not Napoleon. We've had this discussion elsewhere. Stay on topic.
@Kevin F. Kiley Of course you can separate the two. Napoleon embraced some elements of the revolution, and discarded others. But all of that took place after he had closed the revolution down on 18 Brumaire. The point of the thread is not to repeat the debate on Napoleon. If people want to do that they are at liberty to start a new thread. I wanted to start a discussion about the revolution itself. What it did, what it achieved. Not what Napoleon achieved. Everyone knows that some of the advances from the revolution made their way into the Code. That's a simple point, but lets move on from that. Your long list of 'what Napoleon did' is all about the period post 1799. Hence why I want to get back to the topic in question.
The listing I posted is some of the social and political reforms that Napoleon accomplished as head of state. They are not opinion but accomplished facts.
See The Napoleonic Revolution by Robert Holtman, Baron Fain's Memoirs, Marchand's Memoirs, and France Under Napoleon by Louis Bergeron for starters.
Other helpful references are Lavalette's Memoirs, de Thiard's Souvenirs Diplomatiques et Militaires de 1804 a 1806. Roederer's Journal is helpful for the Consulate.
@Kevin F. Kiley You really require proof that Napoleon was Emperor of the French? That Joseph was King of Naples and later King of Spain? That Jerome was King of Westphalia? That Louis was King of Holland? That he tried to abdicate in favour of his infant son (twice)?These are facts that are surely without contention?Would any supporting evidence make these facts any more compatible with revolutionary mottos like “Death to tyrants”?As to the list, it is not contemporaneous so therefore requires no primary evidence to refute. It is a modern confection, constructed by those calling themselves historians (I prefer the term hagiographers, but people can call themselves what they like). What one person can create, another can break asunder. The list is purely opinion. Historiography isn’t history. I find attributing all of these to one man difficult to swallow, and of course using what little brain providence gave me, I’m not obliged to. The burden of “proof” lies with those whom make the assertion. Perhaps best expressed by Monty Python “He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”
In point of fact, after Napoleon became First Consul Louis attempted to persuade him to bring him back as king. Napoleon politely refused but offered financial assistance.
Councillor Mollien was confided in by Napoleon: 'I am not afraid to look for examples and rules in the past; I intend to keep the Revolution's useful innovations, but not to abandon the good institutions it mistakenly destroyed.'
Napoleon had discovered before the coup that Barras, one of the Directors, had plans to bring back the Bourbons and Napoleon would not agree to that.
And if Napoleon had been assassinated during the Consulate, the 'candidates' to take over were the Bourbons, the Jacobins, or a military dictatorship, none of which were satisfactory by any means.
To be fair, Bonaparte was not so much confiding in Mollien as lecturing, He was not referring to the restoration of monarchy, but rather the need to subordinate principles of revolution and liberty to discipline and order, the essential principles of good governance, specifically in relation to their discussion of state finance. "Les principes d’un gouvernement revolutionaire ne peuvent pas être ceux d’un gouvernement qui doit tendre a la sociabilité par régularite."
Reforms made by Napoleon-they went further than either merely 'change' or 'transition.' The restored Bourbons kept in place those reforms as it would be unpopular to change of abolish them. And some are still in existence today. Some are as follows:
-Code Civile.
-Restoring the Church and granting religious freedom.
-Established the Bank of France.
-New tax system.
-Established the auditors of the Council of State.
-Created the prefecture in the departments.
-New Criminal Code.
-Governed as a civilian head of state-not a military dictator.
-Overhauled the French education system.
-Established the Legion of Honor.
-Established the Bourse.
-Established the Administration des Eaux et Forets.
-Established the first Paris permanent fire brigade.
-Ordered the streets of Paris to be paved.
-Established the first Bureau of Statistics.
-Increased food production such as butter, cheese, and vegetable oils.
-Improved horse breeding with six national studs and thirty depots d'etalons.
-Increased and improved French industry.
-Full employment.
-Stable prices.
-Improved the balance of trade.
-Brought about law and order.
-Patronized the arts.
I consider Napoleon's governmental and social reforms to be much more important than his military achievements.
Aah the list! I’ve so missed the list. I believe we’ve been round this buoy before? Napoleon was not above jumping on bandwagons and claiming responsibility for work that was already in train. Likewise, the legend mongers sell this idea that everything good that occurred in a nation of 38 million people was down to one man.If we follow this logic Queen Elizabeth the second has given us the world’s first commercial jetliner, oversaw the discovery of the structure of DNA and profiling, the first commercial transistor computer, carbon fibre, PIN numbers, cloning of mammals and popularised the Raspberry PIShe didn’t, of course, but she was on the throne when it happened, so that meets the criteria?But’ like all narcissists, it’s all about him “I am France and France is me” as the meme goes. Even in a thread about the revolution, we can only see it through the lens of Napoleon the Great? I don’t believe he supported the revolution, he was an unrepentant authoritarian who bent the revolution to his will when it suited him and ran roughshod over it when it didn’t. ‘Death to tyrants” doesn’t sit very well with establishing a dynasty and putting your brothers on the thrones of other countries by force (even when you create one for the purpose) does it?All the evidence is that Napoleon had little room in his heart for revolution or philanthropy except where it built his glory. For those still blinded by that glory, there is always the list!Much is made of British anti-Napoleonic propaganda, so what must we call this?
Perhaps you can refute any or all of it with credible resource material? That would be entertaining at least.
France was a complete mess internally when Napoleon became First Consul.
From Vincent Cronin's biography of Napoleon, 208-209:
'More important, a change occurred which escapes statistics. Of the Seine Inferieure a Government official had written on the eve of Brumaire: 'Crime with impunity, desertion encouraged, republicanism debased, laws an empty letter, banditry protected', and went on to describe how the Le Havre-Rouen stage-coach was regularly halted and pillaged. In 1805 the prefect Beugnot, a level-headed man, was able to paint quite another picture. People paid their taxes; the law enforced, children attended school, highway robbery was unheard of, farmers were applying new methods, people had real money to spend. 'Fifteen years ago there was only one theater in Rouen open three times a week, now there are two, open daily...A play by Moliere draws bigger crowds in Rouen than in Paris.' The wheels, in short, were turning, the machine worked. And Frenchmen-as far as their critical faculty ever allows them to be-were thankful. In 1799 there had been 'disgust with the government'; in 1805 Beugnot found an excellent public spirit.'
Regarding the French population, it numbered approximately 28 million in 1789. In 1801 it was over 27 million; over 29 million in 1806; and over 30 million in 1821. It had dipped because of the Revolution and ensuing wars and then had steadily increased.
A viewpoint of a British subject who lived in France from 1802-1805, Anne Plumptre, the daughter of the President of Queen's College:
'I was as perfectly free as I am in England, I went whithersoever I was desirous of going, and was uniformly received with the same politeness and hospitality as while peace still subsisted between the two countries. I never witnessed harsh measures of the government but towards the turbulent and factious; I saw everywhere works of public utility going forward; industry, commerce, and the arts encouraged; and I could not consider the people as unhappy, or the government as odious...I have found speech everywhere as free in France as in England: I have heard persons deliver their sentiments on Bonaparte and his government, whether favorable or unfavorable, without the least reserve; and that not in private companies only, among friends all known to each other, but in the most public manner, and in the most mixed societies, in diligences, and at tables-d'hote, where none could be previously acquainted with the character or sentiments of those with whom they were conversing, and where some one among the company might be a spy for the police for any thing that the others knew to the contrary-yet this idea was no restrained upon them.'-A Narrative of a Three Years' Residence in France...Volume III.
@Zack White Napoleon solidified the social and political gains of the Revolution, successfully concluding it. The gains of the Revolution were codified into law and Napoleon restored law and order, which is necessary in any society. Further, he ended the corruption of the Revolutionary governments which, in point of fact, brought on the coup that brought Napoleon to power. And Sieyes, who recruited Napoleon for the coup was a Director, albeit a new one.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the National Convention in Feb. 1794 abolished slavery in France’s colonies and declared freed slaves to have equal rights with white citizens.
Excellent point. And Napoleon regretted reestablishing it in the West Indies. It was finally abolished there by both Britain and France in the 1830s while Britain and the US outlawed the slave trade in 1807/1808.
@Kevin F. Kiley@tomholmberg But in a sense it didn't really 'last', by virtue of Napoleon reintroducing slavery? It was only the work of others that led to it becoming accepted across the world.
@Zack White "Napoleon's position on emancipation was that the policy would be tailored to each colony. In colonies where the revolutionary emancipation had never been in effect, either because the colony was lost to Britain during the revolutionary war or because the colony's officials never put it into effect, slavery would remain in force. In the case of Saint-Domingue, Girard's reading of the archival record was that Napoleon did not order Leclerc to reinstate slavery. He found no evidence that Napoleon ever announced an intention to restore slavery in Saint-Domingue. "Bonaparte's secret instructions to Leclerc thus specified that the republic would never force people 'back in irons' and that the end goal was to get 'free cultivators' back to work…" (Girard 2009, 605)"
@Kevin F. Kiley I’d rather use the terms ‘change’ or ‘transition’ rather than ‘reform’. Not all of that attributed to Napoleon was seen as positive, either today or at the time. Napoleon may have seen himself as the inheritor of the revolution, but not all of the unreconstructed old revolutionaries necessarily would!
It is moot point as to exactly how long the French rid themselves of monarchy: Ten years? Twenty? On the face of it, the republican experiment took a good ninety years to mature, after which it has managed to weather some serious threats, although not from recusant monarchists as such.
Revolutions, such as the French Revolution, can also become corrupted. Robespierre and the Representatives on Mission became obsessed with ideology and with it capital punishment to bloody excess.
I agree, revolutions have a tendency to loose focus and quickly get derailed. As 'freedom' becomes terror and anarchy this opens the door to a succession of strong men (or at least those who claim to be) offering stability.
In France's case it leads full circle, from one hereditary monarchy and aristocracy, the Bourbons to another albeit Imperial one, Bonaparte's. Undoubtedly more competent and effective, and arguably more benign. But the Imperial nobility seemed no less interested in land and titles, nor was the Imperial family any less nepotistic. Begs the question whether all that blood was worth it?
One could argue that the real benificiary of the French Revolution was Great Britain. The resulting revolutionary and then long Napoleonic wars gave her the opportunity to expand her empire even further. The prestige of Waterloo cemented her pre-eminence in Europe until the rise of a united Germany half a century later. None of that would have been possible without the catlyst of the revolution.
An even more suble argument is that the spectre of The Revolution is eventually what brought the British establishment to it's senses. The avoidance of it's repetition helped produce Catholic emancipation, repeal of the Corn Laws, The Great Reform Act etc. These are the waymarkers for the free, democratic, multi-cultural, pluralist and largely peaceful monarchy we have today. All without the need to resort to the guillotine or the tumbrel.
Showing what the power of people can do, it can sweep away any government.
Tremblez tyrans - but this lesson is very much forgotten, so not lasting unfortunately - otherwise Revolutions would happen on almost a daily interval.
Getting rid of a corrupt monarchial system was a great achievement, along with the overriding influence of the Church. Those two things opened the way for lasting reforms that would eventually take place in France and in western and central Europe.
this podcast is quite good about some aspects of the French Revolution and abolition of slavery
https://anchor.fm/alexander-stevenson/episodes/Episode-02-Q2-1792---War-eoncov
It's a curious thing. I guess we can say that the spirit and, as much as they existed, the principles of the Revolution were being exported in the early years, if we accept that was the intention of setting up republics in the Netherlands and Northern Italy as well as in the adjacent Balkan lands. The fact that that these subsequently turned into kingdoms firmly annexed to the Bonaparte family certainly compromised that process. The extinction of the Republic of Venice also cast any alleged principles of emancipation in a dubious light. If the establishment of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Duchy of Poland had the merit of liberating those regions from the rule of autocratic monarchies, we might have an interesting discussion as to the fire that flared up around those particular frying pans. Ultimately, if we look at Europe today, we see a balance between monarchies and republics, some healthier than others. As mentioned, it took most of the 19th century for a République Francaise to be established irrevocably, if not with absolute stability- I think we're on the 5ème, are we not? French colonialism continued apace through out that period. The German and Austrian monarchies finally bit the dust in 1918. The subsequent thirty years were- difficult. Germany is now the most prosperous and one of the most stable states in Europe. I can't quite remember the train of events in Italy but it is a republic today. UKGB remains a monarchy having relinquished most of Ireland. Oh, and the Empire. The future of the kingdom, although not the monarchy (for now) is uncertain. Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway remain cosy and prosperous monarchies. Belgium is something of a special case. And then there's dear old Luxembourg. I don't think the European project is relevant here as it seems to me to be a legacy of the C20th wars and the collapse of the continental empires. Nor is the former Soviet bloc. The legacy of the Russian revolution is not within the remit of the OP or, I dare say, of this forum. In the context of former Cold War paranoia, extreme right wing groups represent more of a threat to the social and political stability of Europe (and farther afield) than far left subversion. Does that mean that soft left bourgeois democracy holds the field? Could we say that this is the ultimate legacy of Jean Jaques Rousseau and Tom Paine? I have not mentioned post-colonial racism and revanchist Islam. There be dragons. I have woken early, and my caffeine levels are dangerously low. In a sudden flash, it dawns on me. I realise that if you want to look at a lasting legacy of the French Revolution- Belgium. If it didn't exist it would have to be invented.
@Kevin F. Kiley With the hefty caveat that absolutely no offence is offered or intended, just a different perspective, my take is that this view is American propaganda that has passed into folklore. When you deify your ‘founding fathers’ and endow them with super-human prescience objective historical enquiry is almost impossible. These are national articles of faith within a creation myth. With the levels of patriotic and emotional investment, particularly on a historic day like today, that is perfectly understandable and even from a certain point of view laudable. However, for us on this side of the Atlantic it is the reverse. To be patriotic for the days of empire is positively frowned upon by many and considered toxic by some. There was a time when we produced patriotic hagiography masquerading as history, but no more. We have no Jean D’Arc or George Washington. We might have voted WSC ‘the greatest Briton’ a few times, but his failings and weaknesses are well understood and articulated. In our Parliamentary system almost all political careers end in defeat. The French Revolution was of a completely different specie. As you rightly pointed out, there was a much rockier road and false starts. I’m afraid I ‘m not across enough contemporary French literature to know if Revolutionaries are lauded in the same way the US’s founding fathers are. I suspect not, as the extreme violence of the terror casts a different light. The French Revolution is soaked in considerably more blood than the AWI. But we are looking at for legacy and achievement. I suppose one would be the ability to accommodate radicalism and protest without the worst of extremism. Compare and contrast Gillet Jaune with more recent events for example.
I agree, it was a War of Independence.
Other achievements, still lasting, the decimal system, metrical, and weight, kilos, this seems trivial to the human rights.
Can we actually focus on the REVOLUTION (ie what happened up to 1799), and not NAPOLEON (who ended it in the Brumaire coup). The point of the question wasn't to rehash discussions that we've had about Napoleon's legacy, but to actually focus on what the Revolution did. We all know that Napoleon embraced what he liked, and discarded what he didn't. So can we take the conversation in a more useful direction than recapping the what Napoleon did/did not do, which has been raised elsewhere.
Sorry, @Kevin F. Kiley we seem to have an enduring disagreement on the difference between fact and interpretation. History is an interpretive discipline, and you are choosing to view them as positive (which is a value judgement) and attributing them to the influence of one man (which is your belief). No matter how many others you quote as sharing those interpretations, they still remain judgements. No amount of repetition elevates the list to a fact though. This thread is asking us to share opinion, so it’s fair comment. I am prepared to concede one fact about the list though. It’s a fact people post-Napoleon have misguidedly come to believe it without question. It’s achieved the status of catechism amongst some. Please forgive me for respectfully not swallowing the propaganda whole though. Thankfully, I’m not required to, and that’s the beauty of historical enquiry. I’m fully prepared to give Napoleon due credit, where evidence exists of his direct input. However, I’m far too familiar with the politician’s propensity to dodge accountability and claim unwarranted credit to sign up to such sweeping generalisations. The list does have one useful function. It indicates the discussion has parted company with rational debate, so I’m content to take the role of bystander from here on in.
The listing I posted is some of the social and political reforms that Napoleon accomplished as head of state. They are not opinion but accomplished facts.
See The Napoleonic Revolution by Robert Holtman, Baron Fain's Memoirs, Marchand's Memoirs, and France Under Napoleon by Louis Bergeron for starters.
Other helpful references are Lavalette's Memoirs, de Thiard's Souvenirs Diplomatiques et Militaires de 1804 a 1806. Roederer's Journal is helpful for the Consulate.
@Kevin F. Kiley You really require proof that Napoleon was Emperor of the French? That Joseph was King of Naples and later King of Spain? That Jerome was King of Westphalia? That Louis was King of Holland? That he tried to abdicate in favour of his infant son (twice)? These are facts that are surely without contention? Would any supporting evidence make these facts any more compatible with revolutionary mottos like “Death to tyrants”? As to the list, it is not contemporaneous so therefore requires no primary evidence to refute. It is a modern confection, constructed by those calling themselves historians (I prefer the term hagiographers, but people can call themselves what they like). What one person can create, another can break asunder. The list is purely opinion. Historiography isn’t history. I find attributing all of these to one man difficult to swallow, and of course using what little brain providence gave me, I’m not obliged to. The burden of “proof” lies with those whom make the assertion. Perhaps best expressed by Monty Python “He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”
In point of fact, after Napoleon became First Consul Louis attempted to persuade him to bring him back as king. Napoleon politely refused but offered financial assistance.
Councillor Mollien was confided in by Napoleon: 'I am not afraid to look for examples and rules in the past; I intend to keep the Revolution's useful innovations, but not to abandon the good institutions it mistakenly destroyed.'
Napoleon had discovered before the coup that Barras, one of the Directors, had plans to bring back the Bourbons and Napoleon would not agree to that.
And if Napoleon had been assassinated during the Consulate, the 'candidates' to take over were the Bourbons, the Jacobins, or a military dictatorship, none of which were satisfactory by any means.
Reforms made by Napoleon-they went further than either merely 'change' or 'transition.' The restored Bourbons kept in place those reforms as it would be unpopular to change of abolish them. And some are still in existence today. Some are as follows:
-Code Civile.
-Restoring the Church and granting religious freedom.
-Established the Bank of France.
-New tax system.
-Established the auditors of the Council of State.
-Created the prefecture in the departments.
-New Criminal Code.
-Governed as a civilian head of state-not a military dictator.
-Overhauled the French education system.
-Established the Legion of Honor.
-Established the Bourse.
-Established the Administration des Eaux et Forets.
-Established the first Paris permanent fire brigade.
-Ordered the streets of Paris to be paved.
-Established the first Bureau of Statistics.
-Increased food production such as butter, cheese, and vegetable oils.
-Improved horse breeding with six national studs and thirty depots d'etalons.
-Increased and improved French industry.
-Full employment.
-Stable prices.
-Improved the balance of trade.
-Brought about law and order.
-Patronized the arts.
I consider Napoleon's governmental and social reforms to be much more important than his military achievements.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the National Convention in Feb. 1794 abolished slavery in France’s colonies and declared freed slaves to have equal rights with white citizens.
It took two more revolutions, 1830 and 1848, to finally rid the French of monarchies.
Napoleon as head of state was a period of social and political reform, most of which survived the retrograde to Bourbon rule.
It is moot point as to exactly how long the French rid themselves of monarchy: Ten years? Twenty? On the face of it, the republican experiment took a good ninety years to mature, after which it has managed to weather some serious threats, although not from recusant monarchists as such.
When asked about the influence of the French Revolution, the late Chinese premier Zhou Enlai is reputed to have said: 'Too early to say.'
Though it's not really true, apparently.
Not letting the facts ruin a good story | South China Morning Post (scmp.com)
Revolutions, such as the French Revolution, can also become corrupted. Robespierre and the Representatives on Mission became obsessed with ideology and with it capital punishment to bloody excess.
The French Revolution and the Birth of Modernity (cdlib.org)
Showing what the power of people can do, it can sweep away any government.
Tremblez tyrans - but this lesson is very much forgotten, so not lasting unfortunately - otherwise Revolutions would happen on almost a daily interval.
Getting rid of a corrupt monarchial system was a great achievement, along with the overriding influence of the Church. Those two things opened the way for lasting reforms that would eventually take place in France and in western and central Europe.