In the first installment of #Napoleon month, I explore the Emperor's life, unpick some of the myths, and offer a 'warts and all' assessment of the man's reputation. Be warned - this one won't please either those who adore Napoleon, or loathe him! I've done my best to be balanced! Can I just urge people to be polite when discussing this - I know it rouses people's passions on both sides of the debate, but I'm keen we all avoid slinging insults at each other! https://anchor.fm/the-napoleonicist/episodes/Napoleons-Life-and-Reputation-eluabj

To see this working, head to your live site.
118 Comments
Share Your ThoughtsSign up to leave a comment.
"Britain was taking military action against the current government of a nation that had just declared war on them for the second time in sixteen years. (On which occasion France had taken sides in "someone else's civil war"). War. Britain and France had been engaged in prolonged international rivalry since the reign of that blushing flower Louis XIV. France had built an international empire as well but was losing on points to Britain."
Factually true probably, but it doesn't change the big picture about what this war was all about. You only have to see what the 7th coalition did after Waterloo across Europe to illustrate the agenda. It was always about erasing the dangerous ideas of the French revolution and the enlightenment. It was about reinstalling their own royal authority, hierarchy, and privilege on Europe. They rolled back political freedoms held under French rule, the Civic code, and reaffirmed aristocratic privileges, the rights of lords and feudalism. When later there were uprising to try and seize back power these were in most cases brutally put down. If you see this as a simply war between different imperial powers you are missing the underlying political agenda and the bigger picture.
I agree that in France the monarchy was done after the Revolution, but reading the Eagle rejected I cannot see a common adulation of Nabulieone, the French had to find their own destination which finally ended in the French Republic and stayed so.
"It may also be worth considering that once Louis XVIII's ample rump was final planted securely on the throne, it was another fifty five years before the French got round to throwing off the yoke of monarchy, ironically in the figure of another Emperor named Bonaparte, who came to power through a coup d'etat..."
I can't see where the 55 years comes in...the Bourbons lasted just 15 years until their sudden lurch to autocracy forced another popular uprising and King Charles 10th was forced to flee. Then of course Louis Phillip d'Orleans succeeded the throne and was forced to make liberal concessions to survive, but the regime was still pretty authoritarian, and illiberal and continued to entrench social inequalities and hierarchy in society. It was finally overthrown after it tried to ban the opposition from meeting up to raise funds and criticise the governments in banquets, which provoked another uprising from the French and the King fled. Napoleon the 3rd was actually elected to power, and it wasn't until 1851 that he staged a coup d'état and become an emperor. That didn't go well for him in the end, although he abdicated, the popular uprising of the Paris Commune was a resounding rejection of him as emperor. After that was put down, the French state became republican for good.
So en resumé, I think we can say that the roots of monarchy were never fully established in France after the revolution or after 1815, and that the reason why the French accepted this was largely because they didn't have a choice - due to the foreign armies in 1815 that occupied the country for 3 years, the police state that operated, the purges of Napoleon supporters from the civil service and army, the white terror, the censorship. French people lost suffrage and the right to vote, as under the King this right was limited to a tiny percentage of wealthy people who were royalists.
I would however agree that the population were tired of wars (which was largely, but not exclusively, due to the ambitions and anti republican aggression of foreign powers) and the French people were prepared to live with a king if it brought stability and peace. History shows that the people and the values of the revolution had not died and there was an ongoing uneasy relationship between the French and their rulers. Historians point to three further revolutions or uprisings against kings and monarchy post 1815 and finally they freed themselves of both king and emperor in 1871.
It should also be noted that Napoleon was also very popular during this period. He was so popular in fact that even after Waterloo, the British didn't want to risk destabilising France and the new political arrangements by executing him.
Hans - Karl Weiß >Otherwise I attach a compilation of Susan Howard.<
I'd repost the equally long list of Wellington's similar statements, but I won't take up all that space. I'm sure someone can find it if they are interested (which they probably aren't).
But republicanism was defended and established in France by Napoleon, and thats what this war was ultimately about.
I wish it was, Nabulieone was one of the greatest traitors of the Republic, soon realized by those initial supporters like Moreau.