“The European strategy of Napoleon, devised in conjunction with his brilliant Minister of Foreign Affairs, Talleyrand, was to ensure the hegemony of France. People would be grouped ad hoc into states which were entrusted according to dynastic principles to Napoleon’s brothers or generals, and used like pieces on a vast chess board in a game to checkmate the powers that contested his supremacy, Austria, Russia, Prussia and Great Britain,” Robert Gidea’s words refute the notion that Napoleon was a liberator and encapsulate his imperial ambition.
Contrarily Napoleon was seen as a reformist, this quote from Dave Thomson’s Europe Since Napoleon intimates Bonaparte had a cleansing effect, “If the French Revolution had thrown Europe into the melting pot, Napoleon stirred it about, making sure that much of the dross was removed and giving it a shape it was never to lose.” The truth is that Napoleonic rule was a medley of liberal and illiberal ideas. From Napoleon Bonaparte nineteenth century states inherited a legacy that was both progressive and oppressive. Meritocracy is a word often used in accounts surrounding Napoleon’s legacy. In his first political pamphlet Letter to Matteo Buttafoco Bonaparte writes to Buttafoco in relation to his native Corsica, “Your favourite plan was to share out the island between ten barons. Not content to forge the chains with which your country was restrained, you wanted to go further and subject it to the absurd regime of feudalism.” It was not just Napoleon’s words that demonstrated an aversion to a society that is solely hierarchal; his belief in seniority through hard work is perhaps best evinced by the story of Emmanuel Cretet. Cretet’s family were shopkeepers from a small town but this did not prevent him from rising to be Governor of the Bank of France and Minister of the Interior before being bequeathed the title Comte de Chapmol. Jean Antoine Chaptal was from a peasant family and also made his way into Napoleon’s ministry. However these meritorious instances were aside the appointment of his brothers to positions of power such as Louis as King of Holland. Here Bonaparte demonstrates oppressive rule as an outside ruler imposing an appointed monarch on the people of another country. The officer corps in the army was made inclusive by Napoleon, before his time officers were drawn from only the nobility but Napoleon broadened the pool from which to comprise the officer corps. “Service within the officer corps was seen as the means of overcoming the division between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, or between old and new citizens and subjects of France,” The demands Napoleonic rule placed on the military engendered a programme of conscription, “pre-revolutionary armies and navies with the partial exception of Prussia, were composed of more or less willing volunteers.” Jordan Delbrel’s law of September 1798 stated, “Every Frenchmen is a soldier and has the duty to defend his country.” Napoleon advanced the culture of conscription already in place to the misfortune of peasants; when they were rendered the majority group of the army- due to the system of substitution that enabled those who could afford it to buy exemption from service. The method used to muster troops is emblematic of the paradox in claims that Napoleon was a meritocratic ruler. Yes it was true that if you were a peasant you could climb the military ladder like Jean Antoinee Chaptal, on the other hand you were forced into the line of fire due to your impecunious reality leaving you unable to purchase a more serene existence. More profound than making a military career more accessible were the changes wrought by Bonaparte’s Civil Code of 1804. This “hammered out a synthesis between the liberal, customary and natural law theories of the Revolution and the Roman law theories which under the Directory had been revived in reaction against the Revolution,” In the code Napoleon used his authority to reconcile principles that derived from Revolutionary France with more traditional ideas. The right of private property and the position of a married man as head of his house were avowed over the Revolutionary inclination of equality of all and the “equal division of property,” although the equality of all before the law was ratified in the code. The code “reassured all who had acquired the former lands of church and nobility that their existing rights would be preserved.” Contrarily in Poland, “Napoleon did not even seek to remove noble privileges,” and The Imperial Nobility was founded in 1808, the Emperor bestowed titles and land to garner the co-operation of those he needed. In Europe from 1780-1830 Franklin L Ford said this act, “expressed the Emperor’s rejection of social equality among his subjects.” These deeds tampered what Napoleon had previously ratified in his Civil Code by abolishing feudalism. In annexed territory the people of the defeated nations were embraced into one of the core elements of Napoleon’s legacy: the science of administration. Once initially in possession of new land Napoleon was coy in recruiting from the native populous as it was difficult to, “reconcile Parisian certainties with local expectations. Later on though subject peoples were subsumed by the centrality of the Napoleonic experience, in Naples for example an 1808 constitution stipulated all positions of office were to be reserved for Neapolitan subjects. Prefects were in charge of taxes, conscripts, road building, and secondary educationand governed annexed departments. Although they were not multitudinous enough to suggest that the volume of foreign ones appointed constituted the elevation of any particular social group, at one point a quarter of them originated from occupied territories. This fact reflects the collaborative nature of French rule which was a prerequisite for furthering the regimes hegemony. Prefects’ native to the conquered states played a pivotal role in aiding the French to overcome linguistic barriers and, “were appointed as a manifestation of continuity.” “The great statistical topography of the departments of France, initiated by the Directorial minister of the interior, Francois de Neufchateau, and actively pushed forward by his consular successor, Chaptal, gave official consecration to the widespread optimism of intellectual and political circles in the possibility and desirability of collecting and ordering information on every aspect of the human environment. This massive enterprise, which at its peak (1802-3) involved the activities of 20 percent of the personnel of the economics division of the ministry of the interior and represented an attempt to engage the collaboration of the local intelligentsia. This quote particularly the words, “collecting and ordering information on every aspect of the human environment,” highlights the depth of Napoleon’s thirst for knowledge. It also highlights the obsession with control and reveals Bonaparte’s more despotic tendencies. Furthermore the fact that enquiry sought to discern conquered peoples, “attitude towards the French, their level of education or religious prejudice,” tells us the importance with which everything pertaining to the security of the imperial project was given. Perhaps the most progressive measure implemented by Bonaparte was the separation of church and state. The 1801 Concordat re-established Catholicism in France, rescinding its banishment at the hands of the French Revolution but did not recognise it as “a privileged or state religion,” The register of births, marriages and deaths were retained as a state affair and the appointment of “Bishops and Priests required the approval of the government.” Freedom for Jews was also introduced and these measures did not placate everybody when they traversed borders, “religious equality and Jewish emancipation were resented by the landowning nobles of Westphalia, subordination of the Church was resisted by Catholics in Belgium and the former Papal States.” The organisation of lower schools, the prestige of the lycees, the unparalleled centralization of French higher education, all survived the Universite Imperiale when it died with the Empire.” Educational reform was a ubiquitous feature of The Emperor’s legacy; targeted programmes ensured the future of the Empire’s administrative arteries. “He envisaged an imperial education system, monitored by the new University of France, in which state run lycees provided secondary education to the gifted with a level of public instruction made available to all.” Napoleon opened up careers to people who may have never had the chance to advance in society. However the secondary education he introduced was only available to those already able to attain some form of education. Despite bringing what many would perceive as beneficial initiatives with him Bonaparte was never willing to jettison his tyrannical tendencies. This is best illustrated by his denial of a free press that “reflected the regime’s extreme sensitivity to public criticism,” by 1810 “just four papers appeared in Paris.” Furthermore Bonaparte enforced state persecution, “A decree of 1810 virtually revived the of the old regime, for it set up state prisons and allowed arrest and detention without trial for the authority of the Council of State.” From Napoleon’s legacy nineteenth century states inherited some progressive ideas. The reintegration of Catholicism without allowing it to be appointed state privilege along with the emancipation of the Jews did much for both religious freedom and secularism. Secondary education made schooling more inclusive and created a conduit for rewarding talent with pivotal positions within the administration. The abolition of feudalism, the upholding of individual property rights and the affirmation of the equality of all before the law in the Napoleonic code were policies conducive to social ascendancy. Conversely nineteenth century states also inherited a legacy that was oppressive. Nepotistic appointments of Bonaparte’s family to rule over conquered peoples and conscription were deeds that rejected democracy and freedom. Exemptions were also made to the abolition of feudalism ratified in the Napoleonic code for the expediency of the Empire. The modus operandi behind the mass collation of statistical data was to ascertain the means needed to maintain authority over conquered territories, the Napoleonic phalanx concentrated on censorship of the press was done to strengthen Napoleon’s hegemony. The medley of liberal and illiberal, inclusive and authoritarian fused throughout the Napoleonic era; nineteenth century states inherited the ideas created by both the oppressive and progressive tools that furthered Napoleonic expansion.
References: “The European strategy of Napoleon, devised in conjunction with his brilliant Minister of Foreign Affairs, Talleyrand, was to ensure the hegemony of France. People would be grouped into ad hoc into states which were entrusted according to dynastic principles to Napoleon’s brothers or generals, and used like pieces on a vast chess board in a game to checkmate the powers that contested his supremacy, Austria, Russia, Prussia and Great Britain,” If the French Revolution had thrown Europe into the melting pot, Napoleon stirred it about, making sure that much of the dross was removed and giving it a shape it was never to lose.” Your favourite plan was to share out the island between ten barons. Not content to forge the chains with which your country was restrained, you wanted to go further and subject it to the absurd regime of feudalism.” It was not just Napoleon’s words that demonstrated an aversion to a society that is solely hierarchal; his belief in seniority through hard work is perhaps best evinced by the story of Emmanuel Cretet. Cretet’s family were shopkeepers from a small town but this did not prevent him from rising to be Governor of the Bank of France and Minister of the Interior before being bequeathed the title Comte de Chapmol. Jean Antoine Chaptal was from a peasant family and also made his way into Napoleon’s ministry. “Service within the officer corps was seen as the means of overcoming the division between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, or between old and new citizens and subjects of France,” “pre-revolutionary armies and navies with the partial exception of Prussia, were composed of more or less willing volunteers.” “Every Frenchmen is a soldier and has the duty to defend his country.” More profound than making a military career more accessible were the changes wrought by Bonaparte’s Civil Code of 1804. This “hammered out a synthesis between the liberal, customary and natural law theories of the Revolution and the Roman law theories which under the Directory had been revived in reaction against the Revolution,” The right of private property and the position of a married man as head of his house were avowed over the Revolutionary inclination of equality of all and the “equal division of property,” although the equality of all before the law was ratified in the code The code “reassured all who had acquired the former lands of church and nobility that their existing rights would be preserved.” Contrarily in Poland, “Napoleon did not even seek to remove noble privileges,” In Europe from 1780-1830 Franklin L Ford said this act, “expressed the Emperor’s rejection of social equality among his subjects.” Once initially in possession of new land Napoleon was coy in recruiting from the native populous as it was difficult to, “reconcile Parisian certainties with local expectations. Prefects were in charge of taxes, conscripts, road building, and secondary education. Prefects’ native to the conquered states played a pivotal role in aiding the French to overcome linguistic barriers and, “were appointed as a manifestation of continuity.” “The great statistical topography of the departments of France, initiated by the Directorial minister of the interior, Francois de Neufchateau, and actively pushed forward by his consular successor, Chaptal, gave official consecration to the widespread optimism of intellectual and political circles in the possibility and desirability of collecting and ordering information on every aspect of the human environment. This massive enterprise, which at its peak (1802-3) involved the activities of 20 percent of the personnel of the economics division of the ministry of the interior and represented an attempt to engage the collaboration of the local intelligentsia. The 1801 Concordat re-established Catholicism in France, rescinding its banishment at the hands of the French Revolution but did not recognise it as “a privileged or state religion,” The register of births, marriages and deaths were retained as a state affair and the appointment of “Bishops and Priests required the approval of the government.” “Religious equality and Jewish emancipation were resented by the landowning nobles of Westphalia; subordination of the Church was resisted by Catholics in Belgium and the former Papal States.” The organisation of lower schools, the prestige of the lycees, the unparalleled centralization of French higher education, all survived the Universite Imperiale when it died with the Empire.” He envisaged an imperial education system, monitored by the new University of France, in which state run lycees provided secondary education to the gifted with a level of public instruction made available to all.” “reflected the regime’s extreme sensitivity to public criticism,” “just four papers appeared in Paris.” A decree of 1810 virtually revived the lettres de cachet of the old regime, for it set up state prisons and allowed arrest and detention without trial for the authority of the Council of State.”
historytocontemporay 