Of all the Events of European history, the French Revolution of 1789 is with no doubt probably the most critical and controversial. Similarly Napoleon Bonaparte has being amongst probably the most written on and opinion dividing folks world history has ever seen. For that reason the question as to weather Napoleon was an heir to the revolution, its saviour, hijacker, or merely consolidator is one of the most frequently asked question relating to the revolution and Napoleon.
In this essay I am going to be attempting to answer the question of weather Napoleon was an heir on the French Revolution. This will involve me firstly exploring my definition on the term heir, and my views over a explanations and definitions from the French Revolution. Getting done this I am going to then move on to examine the reign of Napoleon. By creating this I hope to prove my view that, while Napoleon may be regarded an inevitable consequence in the revolution, he was not its heir.
In my opinion the term heir describes a person’s or events natural successor. Consequently the term heir on the revolution would in my opinion be applied to describe the following regime, which came to embody the principles and morals on the revolution. The revolution's heir must be the regime that follows on from were the revolution left France, and presides over, or creates the kind of society the revolutionaries of 1789 intended to. It's my belief that Napoleon as well as the Napoleonic regime did not either preside more than or create this sort of society and as such Napoleon cannot be regarded an heir on the French Revolution. In order for this view to be qualified the following aspect we have to seem at, will be the a number of definitions and interpretations from the French Revolution.
Put simply the French Revolution was, after in 1789 the old Ancien regime was overthrown, and France went from a monarchy-governed land to a republic. Right after this, France went via various numerous stages in terms of types and varieties of government. The revolutionary government of 1789-1793 was one of the most immediate, until in between 1793-1794, when Robespierre became the most powerful man in France overseeing the era referred to as the terror. This was followed by the Directory who ruled in between the many years 1794-1799, and this was the government Napoleon overthrew during the Coup of Brumaire on November 9-10th 1799.
Studying the history of these events has gone through numerous stages and important changes, specifically inside last fifty years or so. For your extended time following the revolution, the most dominant form historiography on the subject was the Marxist interpretation. This interpretation went largely unchallenged until the 1950’s and the arrival on the very first generation revisionists. This was essentially a critique of the Marxist interpretation. This was followed up in the 1960’s and 1970’s by what is often referred to as second generation revisionism, as historians including Blanning and Doyle began to look additional closely at the Nobility being a social group and discovered new definitions for your events during the many years following 1789 up to when Napoleon took power. Probably the most recent historical understand on the subject is named article revisionism and this tends to place much more emphasis on matters including chance than previous means whilst also stressing the importance played by the aspects for instance popular culture and the psyche with the days society and influential groups and people. Of these approaches I discover the Marxist interpretation most convincing and therefore I am going to now move on to briefly explore this, to be able to portray my definition in the French Revolution.
The Ancien regime saw an absolute monarch with complete power, running a feudal based society and economy. The Marxist interpretation with the French Revolution states that it was in essence a power struggle among the middle classes or the bourgeoisie and the upper classes, aristocracy and also the nobility. This is proven by the view that it was the Third Estate, which began the revolution and this was dominated by the bourgeoisie. It's claimed that they have been motivated by political ideology inspired by the enlightenment and also the simple fact their economic wealth did not reflect their share of power. The declaration of the rights of man on a 24th August 1789 and also the abolishing with the feudal procedure are often pointed out as them most important evidence how the revolution was a bourgeois one, overthrowing the feudal Ancien regime after a power struggle.
The degree to, and speed with which French society changed after this has been a lot debated in between historians. Numerous historians continue to define the revolution as the whole of the period 1789 – 1799. Historians including Geoffrey Ellis who items out how Napoleon himself declared at the Coup of Brumaire that:
“Citizens the revolution is established over a principles which began it. It's finished.”
However I think how the revolution is defined as the result in the power struggle between the old Ancien regime, and the newly emerging bourgeois middle class. The revolution is defined by the events of 1789 and 1789 alone. The founding principles and morals in the revolution were that with the bourgeoisie, and these can greatest been noticed by this sort of documents as the declaration in the rights of man, the decree abolishing the feudal system, the Cashier de Doleances referring towards the middle classes, as well as the actions and constitution in the revolutionary federal government up until 1793 and also the commencing in the terror.
Having established my definition in the French Revolution, it is very first important not to gloss over with out mention for the years 1793 – 1799, prior to heading on to look at the nature on the Napoleonic regime itself. Inmy view these years can in essence be described as a crisis made by panic including a power vacuum. The execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793 made a lot panic within and outside France leading to foreign war and many insurgencies and political divisions inside France itself. In these years France became almost ungovernable as well as the terror can also be observed purely like a reaction for the threats the new French Republic was facing. The era from the Directory, in my view, is summed up by the reality that, the revolution was under threat from Jacobins, Monarchists, foreign invaders, and also the mass from the French population tired of war and political upheaval. As a result the bourgeoisies tried to build a strong federal government that could defeat all of these enemies. Nevertheless this sort of a job soon proved impossible and from the coup of Brumaire in November 1799, France was again being ruled by one authoritarian leader.
Having now explained my understanding in the term heir on the revolution, my definition with the FrenchRevolution, and briefly looked at the many years previous to Napoleon came to power, I am going to now go on to consider the Napoleonic regime and convey my argument as to why I don't think it's proper to describe Napoleon as an heir on the French Revolution. So that you can prove this I'll glimpse the Napoleonic regime from a couple of numerous viewpoints namely, politically and economically.
Up until the second half from the twentieth century historical understand on Napoleon nearly often came down to historians getting either for or against Napoleon. Some believed he was the revolution’s saviour, although others thought he was its destroyer. Nonetheless such an procedure came being observed as inadequate and the political and social aspects on the Napoleonic regime began to become put under closer scrutiny in an attempt to far better realize its nature. Today’s historians often look closely at the personality and motivations of Napoleon, subjects which previous generations have out there little on. Searching at Napoleon from a political thing of view, there is a lot evidence to help the view he was not an heir on the revolution. Several recent historical studies on Napoleon, just like Correlli Barnett’s 1997 work Bonaparte, glimpse closely at Napoleon’s character and motivations, and are often (as in this case) quite crucial of him. Studies for instance these convey the view that Napoleon had extremely tiny political or ideological motivation in taking power, but was only concerned with gaining glory for France, its people, and himself.
I would largely agree with this view and claim there are many pieces of evidence to aid it. Firstly is the reality that Napoleon usually presented himself like a man over the revolution as well as the political factions it created. He in no way allied himself closely with any in the groups involved in French politics in between 1789-1799, and one can think about Napoleon from an virtually Machiavellian point of view and say that, this was a conscience decision on his part, taken to avoid getting compromised, and thus allowing him to eventually eat power.
Indeed looking at the political nature with the Napoleonic regime only supports this view further. On December 2nd 1804 Napoleon crowned himself emperor of France and this reveals two significant things. Firstly it meant that Napoleon was now 1 authoritarian leader with absolute power. The ethos of democracy, which have been the founding principles of all of the revolutionary varieties of federal government mainly because 1789, have been disregarded completely. This was evident from as early as 1800 when Napoleon’s reforms of local government reduced the role on the electorate to simply producing a list of candidates for ones legislation assembly, from which the federal government would choose the members. Right after the revolution the franchise have been lengthy to practically all male citizens and these action are in direct contradiction to the ideologies on the bourgeois revolutionaries of 1789. Actually I consider its fair to say that all of Napoleon’s action during his reign have been aimed at him keeping keep of power. As Clive Emsley says in Napoleon:
“An underlying, unifying element to many, perhaps most on the reforms... was the desire to foster and keep loyalty towards the regime.”
The second point this event revealed was how Napoleon saw himself. When the pope went to crown him, Napoleon took the crown away from his hands and placed the crow upon his own head. The message was clear; he was the embodiment on the persons and as this sort of their natural leader. Such a belief in more in keeping on the beliefs of previous kings who believed they have been ordained by god, than in the ideals on the liberal revolutionary bourgeoisies.The economic nature with the Napoleonic regime is usually noticed as the strongest area of support for individuals claiming Napoleon was an heir towards the French Revolution. As historians including Alexander Grab issue out Napoleon implemented many economic reforms that both have been bourgeois in nature, and did significantly to consolidate the gains the state getting classes produced from the revolution. This can be proven by the reality the reforms long outlasted the regime, as Grab himself puts it:
“Once Napoleon was gone, France and liberated Europe happily retained the efficient fiscal bureaucracies he had created.”
Indeed I will accept how the Code Napoleon of 1804 such as did do a lot to protect property rights and his wider economic policies had been probably the for-runner from the European well-known market, which exists today. Nonetheless I would even now claim that these kinds of reforms had been only made by Napoleon to hold the bourgeoisies on side. Whilst doing this Napoleon also brought back the Catholic Church into a central position within French society with the Concordat of the Pope in 1802, and he even produced a new Nobility in 1808. It is my view that, as bourgeois and successful as the economic reforms were, they had been not made due to any political or moral ideology on Napoleon’s part, but needs to be seen as concessions to those who had brought around the revolution. Napoleon clearly created concessions to each sides, as the around examples illustrate, and as this proves his aim was not to create a democratic capitalist society, I believe he cannot be noticed as an heir towards the French Revolution.
If a single have been to go on, and take into account Napoleon’s policy in Europe I consider that the exact same aims, goals, and methods would be observed over a international scene. War was Napoleon’s main weapon here, and he applied it to expand his as well as the French’s glory, whilst basking from the loyalty his undoubted military skills afforded him inside mass on the French population.
In conclusion I think that the French Revolution was a bourgeoisie one. The nature, instability, and divided nature on the revolutionary government, well-known sovereignty under Robespierre, and also the directory, have been down for the fact that no political culture of difference and debate existed in France in 1789, as opposed to in nations just like Britain. Consequently the struggle for power between the several factions in the revolutionary bourgeoisie became inevitable. As did, as in virtually all revolutions, the eventual arrival of a dictator to restore order and stability. During the situation of the French Revolution, Napoleon was that dictator. While he implemented many long lasting, bourgeois in nature reforms, he did not produce the sort of society that may be truly observed as the revolution’s heir. Perhaps a regime for instance Napoleon’s was needed to stop France from destroying itself, and perhaps, in a single way, Napoleon can be witnessed as an heir with the revolution as he was in several respects the very first non-ideologue modern-day politician. Nevertheless it's my view that the genuine heir towards the French Revolution was the kind of capitalist, democratic region region France has become today. As D. G. Wright properly issues out:
“Modern political parties and class conflict each have their origins within the French Revolution. So do liberal democracy, communism and fascism.”
The debate more than Napoleon will probably be one, which can by no means be resolved. Some will often see him as the revolutions saviour, even though others will continue to claim he was the predecessor of men like Hitler and Stalin. The political beliefs with the historian, unfortunately, usually dictate which conclusion they occur to as regards Napoleon Bonaparte. In my view whilst the French Revolution made a new kind of world; the liberal democracies of today’s Europe can also be regarded as its true heir. Napoleon was just its inevitable, short-term consequence.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.