To what extent is it fair to see Napoleon as the betrayer to the French Revolution?

AS and A Level History

Fiona Slack

6 Upper ML

November 02

To what extent is it fair to see Napoleon as the betrayer to the French Revolution?

Napoleon Bonaparte has remained one of history’s most furiously debated characters. This is because there has been much speculation and many differing interpretations of his actions as leader of France from 1799-1815. Most historians tend to have been torn between the portraits of Napoleon as the heir of the Revolution or as the destroyer of the Revolution’s most sacred principles. However, a third opinion has emerged that suggests that Napoleon made revolutionary ideas practical and therefore acted as a bridge between the Ancien Regime and the lofty ideals of the Revolution.

Napoleon can be seen as the defender of the French Revolution for several reasons. When the Revolution broke out in 1789, Napoleon approved of its rational ideals and carried several of these through to the Consulate he created in 1799. In fact, Napoleon’s Consulate retained many of its features of the previous two constitutions for the Directory set up after the Revolution. Napoleon continually used plebiscites to justify his actions, which implies that his rule was not one of total autocracy. The legal system was reformed with the Code Napoleon, which was one of Napoleon’s greatest achievements. The Revolution had wanted to produce one code of laws for the entire country, which is exactly what Napoleon did. In this way he can be seen as the ‘Son of the Revolution’ carrying the teachings of liberty and equality forward, as he continually asserted that liberty and equality were at all times his chief concern. Napoleon confirmed the abolition of the remains of feudalism and ensured that the absolute monarchy swept away by the French Revolution in 1789 would never return again in that form. Napoleon even administered reforms the French Revolution had failed to do. Napoleon realised that religion was of great importance to the people of France. He managed to agree to a Concordat between France and the Pope that recognised Roman Catholicism as France’s principle religion and sees the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. However, Napoleon managed to introduce further terms that effectively made France in charge of religion.

The view that supports Napoleon as the defender of the Revolution is Napoleon himself! Emmanuel de Las Cases, who accompanied Napoleon into exile on St. Helena, was the author of Napoleon’s main biography, “The Legend of Napoleon”. In his writings, Napoleon became the founder of the Revolution and the protagonist of its achievements. He preserved the principles of liberty and equality, confirmed the destruction of feudalism, united the fractions within France and propagated the principles of the Revolution abroad. In the 1830s and 1840s, the Napoleonic Legend arose in France. People in France yearned for the excitement and adventure of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The view that supports Napoleon as the defender of the Revolution is Napoleon himself! Emmanuel de Las Cases, who accompanied Napoleon into exile on St. Helena, was the author of Napoleon’s main biography, “The Legend of Napoleon”. In his writings, Napoleon became the founder of the Revolution and the protagonist of its achievements. He preserved the principles of liberty and equality, confirmed the destruction of feudalism, united the fractions within France and propagated the principles of the Revolution abroad. In the 1830s and 1840s, the Napoleonic Legend arose in France. People in France yearned for the excitement and adventure of Napoleon and his legend provided this. Napoleon actually himself believed that he was the heir to the Revolution and that he made the principles work for France.

However, many historians view Napoleon differently. They see his reforms for France as increasingly autocratic. They perceive that the Legend glorified Napoleon concentrating on the pre-eminence, which we brought to France. The main argument for Napoleon being seen as the betrayer of the Revolution is the autocratic constitution established the dictatorship of Bonaparte. As Consul, Napoleon made a point of ruling as a civilian, but he was more authoritarian than Louis XVI. Napoleon himself declared that France had finished with the romance of the revolution. He centralised the administration, while giving local prefects considerable power in executing the policies of the central government. Officials and military officers were recruited from all over society but they were appointed, not elected. Elections no longer had any meaning. Napoleon set up a Legion of Honour to reward military and bureaucratic service to his state. It was the beginnings of a new nobility. Newspapers were suppressed, disruptive theatres closed, and critical authors sent into exile. He did put plebiscites to the French, yet Napoleon had the whole support of the army so this could be seen as a reign of terror. His use of such ruthless police chiefs as Joseph Fouche to suppress all opposition, if relatively mild by 20th-century standards, set an ominous precedent. Although Napoleon’s constitution retained features of the previous two constitutions, its liberal provisions were gradually decreased. However, one of the most crucial arguments for Napoleon as the betrayer of the French Revolution is that he made his role hereditary so that his title of Emperor of the French could be passed down to his son. This completely contradicts the ideas of liberalism and equality, the founding principles of the Revolution. He attempted to make the French people forget about the loss of political freedom by giving them civil order through Napoleonic Codes and national glory via his foreign conquests.

Many early historians, who began to analyse Napoleon while he still lived on St. Helena, remained violently opposed to Napoleon. Madame de Stael represented one of his most determined opponents. De Stael portrayed Napoleon as the destroyer of the ideals of the Revolution, a man who deceived the populace and shattered the principles of liberty. These historians disliked many aspects of his personality and rule, for example his blind ambition and his megalomania and see him as a dictator who created his own family dynasty.

A third, more contemporary, view has been offered. One that accepts Napoleon as a bridge between the Revolutionary principles and the Ancien Regime. He made the Revolution workable for France at this time. In this way, many historians have described him as an opportunist. He insisted that he would preserve the revolutionary principles that arose in 1792 yet looking back at his reign as Emperor it is clear that not much had really changed since the Bourbon monarchs. He was maintaining revolution but making it acceptable to the rest of Europe, thus he tried to find a compromise.

Napoleon created a new form of government in France, reshaped the boundaries of Europe and influenced revolutionaries and nationalists all over the world. Emperor Napoleon I had created a new kind of state in which certain revolutionary ideas (equality under the law, careers open to merit rather than birth, the abolition of feudalism) were combined with an authoritarian state structure and a new nobility to those who served the state well. As time passed, Napoleon increasingly emulated the court of the old regime monarchy. He hoped to take his place among the legitimate monarchs of Europe and even married a Hapsburg to establish his credentials. Therefore I conclude that Napoleon can neither be defined as either the betrayer or the defender of the Revolution only as mixture between the two.