Over the course of history, there have been many influential figures who have greatly changed the world. Recently, in class we discussed Napoleon Bonaparte, man whom many people either love or hate. In order to gain a better understanding of Napoleon, we completed a few activities, which included a fast paced video of his life. While focusing on his life story, the video also spoke about the countries that Napoleon invaded (and in some cases robbed). A few of these countries include Russia, Egypt, and Spain, along with countless others. Aside from the video, we analyzed documents written by people from Napoleon's time period. These specific documents include commentary by various people on Napoleon, and whether or not they believe he made a positive impact. Most of the activities I completed required highlighting. By highlighting, this allowed for me to directly focus on the key characteristics of Napoleon. Along with the documents, we analyzed maps as well. The first map showed how much of Europe was under the control of France. However, the second map mainly focused on Spain, Portugal, and France, showing that Napoleon had gained immense power among many countries.
The essential question for this specific lesson is, "What was Napoleon's impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe?". This question can be argued, as many people had differing opinions on Napoleon. Napoleon was a hero to many people in France, but others saw him as a tyrant. Madame de Stael is one writer who bitterly opposed Napoleon. In a excerpt written by Madame de Stael, she describes, "He would like to persuade men by force and by cunning, and he considers all else to be stupidity or folly......"(1). Looking at this quote, it is evident that Madame de Stael did not support Napoleon. She goes on to claim that his system was to intrude daily on France's liberty and Europe's independence, which she did not agree with. Seeing that Madame de Stael was part of the nobility and the daughter of King Louis XIV's formal financial advisor, she most likely wasn't happy that someone was attempting to take over and capture France. On the other hand, Marshal Michel Ney conveyed a very different opinion on Napoleon. Dissimilar to Madame de Stael, Ney admired Napoleon. He even describes him as "our august emperor". In the context of this quote, 'August" is defined as someone who is admired or immensely impressive. In Marshal Michel Ney's except, he says, "To the emperor Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country"(1). Throughout the whole excerpt, Ney promotes Napoleon and preaches that he is a gift to France. However, Michel Michael Ney's background may have greatly influenced his perspective on Napoleon. As one of Napoleons soldiers, Ney obviously would have benefited from Napoleons reign. In addition,knowing Napoleon on a more close level, might have influenced him to promote Napoleon in a Postitive way. Looking at a chart showing the effects Napoleon had on France and around the world, it is clear that he greatly affected France and other countries economically, politically, and socially. Napoleon based the value of people not on what social class they were apart of, but on their personal skill. If a poor citizen was skillful they would be more valuable compared to a rich citizen who lacked skill. This aspect of Napoleon was positive in France, but not necessarily for other countries. Politically, Napoleon had a positive impact on all countries. Even though he looted many cities, he allowed the rulers to still rule. Although, they did have to abide by his rules. Economically, he restored economic prosperity, controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and even built new canals and roads. This was in France specifically, but in other parts of Europe that may not have been positive.
Aside from the documents mentioned above, "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians" also gives readers an insight into different opinions on Napoleon. Throughout the article, there are various opinions that often contradict each other. Many of the people that write about him explain that he had good and bad qualities. This shows that even some educated historians are not set on one answer. As described in the document, John C. Ropes wrote, "While we do not hesitate to speak with proper severity of Napoleon's reckless course in 1813 and 1814, of his obstinate adherence to a military solution of the difficulties which encompassed his Empire, of his indifference as a soldier to the evils of war, of his forgetfulness as soldier of his duties as a sovereign, -- while we recognize these defects and faults, let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity." John C. Ropes shows that although his course was often reckless, he was devoted to the public and humanity. (The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political, and Military). Despite invading many countries, he valued education and built infrastructure as well. Additionally, P.C. Healy, a clergyman and author of biographies wrote, f "Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war....His imagination was under the guidance of reason, whose intuitions were clear as morning light, and as rapid in their comprehensive action." P.C Headley believes that Napoleon was intelligent, and was almost a genius when it came to wear tactics. However, Headley also wrote that "Napoleon was a "moral dwarf" who even in his "magnanimous deeds, always advanced his fame. He aspired after unquestioned preeminence among the thrones of Europe, but he had not the higher qualities of heart and the pure philanthropy which would have made it safe to hold the power that seemed at times within his grasp."
(The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte ). This shows Headley's multiple views on Napoleon. In my opinion, I think that Napoleon had a positive impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe. Although he was not always viewed positively, I believe that he was a military genius and extremely intelligent . To be fair, he even let rulers still rule after invading their country. Also, he built infrastructure, spread education, and focused a lot on humanity. In France, he judged people based on their skill, rather than their social class. Napoleon was a great leader who had a lot of ambition, and lots of leadership skills. Overall, even though Napoleon could be seen as a tyrant, I think that he made many positive impacts, especially in France.
Napoleon Himself.
Citation:http://jcvalda.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/napoleon-bonaparte-3/
A Video Describing Napoleon Bonaparte.
Citations
1. Two Views of Napoleon Document
No comments:
Post a Comment