My personal opinion of the man is that it was good for Europe to have him, but also good that he was defeated ultimately. It was good that he was defeated mainly due to the issues that he had no definite successor, so how Bonapartist France would continue was kind of a mystery; and due to the fact that he would always "want more" for himself and France. Austria and Metternich in particular was not really opposed to keeping him around, as seen in the Frankfurt overtures - which would reduce France to a frontier along the Rhine and Savoy, but keep the emperor in power - but Bonaparte himself rejected this. Austria WANTED to keep Bonaparte around as a counterweight to Prussia and Russia, but alas.
He had military victories, yes, but to what extent …show more content…
If the Republic had been crushed in 1795, I think, Europe would have been for the worse. The liberal ideas of the French Revolution didn't have the time in 1795 to spread and benefit the world. As well, France would still have been racked with the instability of Jacobins, Vendeeans, Royalists, the Directory, it was a mess. As well we cannot ignore the significance of his law codes and civil reforms. I think it has been oft quoted Napoleon personified "middle-class values", and I don't really find this inaccurate. There is much difference between the chaotic, terrorist government of Year II and the streamlined, moderate government of Year …show more content…
I can't really take those who say the British opposed Bonaparte because he was a tyrant in the style of Hitler. They opposed him because he was a threat both in foreign policy (French hegemony would naturally be dangerous for the other powers) and because he was a threat politically (liberalism is dangerous in monarchies like Prussia, Austria, and Russia). His opponents could not work together at the beginning due to divergent values, but I think the lessons they learned in cooperation in a uniform task would help create the peace of the Congress era. However they also used this cooperation to crush liberal ideas wherever they saw it, certainly not so
He had military victories, yes, but to what extent …show more content…
If the Republic had been crushed in 1795, I think, Europe would have been for the worse. The liberal ideas of the French Revolution didn't have the time in 1795 to spread and benefit the world. As well, France would still have been racked with the instability of Jacobins, Vendeeans, Royalists, the Directory, it was a mess. As well we cannot ignore the significance of his law codes and civil reforms. I think it has been oft quoted Napoleon personified "middle-class values", and I don't really find this inaccurate. There is much difference between the chaotic, terrorist government of Year II and the streamlined, moderate government of Year …show more content…
I can't really take those who say the British opposed Bonaparte because he was a tyrant in the style of Hitler. They opposed him because he was a threat both in foreign policy (French hegemony would naturally be dangerous for the other powers) and because he was a threat politically (liberalism is dangerous in monarchies like Prussia, Austria, and Russia). His opponents could not work together at the beginning due to divergent values, but I think the lessons they learned in cooperation in a uniform task would help create the peace of the Congress era. However they also used this cooperation to crush liberal ideas wherever they saw it, certainly not so