Napoleon A Revolutionary Or A Military Dictator Analysis

1963 Words 8 Pages
Essay Part One
Question: Was Napoleon a revolutionary or a military dictator?
To understand the question one must understand the meaning of a revolutionary and a military dictator. A revolutionary is someone who brings about change to set of laws in a country or state. Where as a military dictator is someone who rules through fear and force. Napoleon’s actions rendered many views of him, leading people to believe whether he was a revolutionary or a military dictator. However, to decide the answer, it is important to distinguish the answers to other questions that are considered necessary such as what people thought of him, what actions did he commit in his rule, what were the motives to his actions, and how did he treat his nation and the people.
…show more content…
One such examples has been stated by the historian Asa Briggs and Patricia Calvin ‘a Council of state in which no single minister had any independent authority of his own will.’ This act was formed from the cause of the revolution; it was mainly condoned by Napoleon. It leads to believe that this act shows that Napoleon was a revolutionary as a change in political government is a part of the meaning of a revolutionary. To the people this was advantageous as a change can be viewed good or bad. To the people Napoleon was a hero, to most historians it is coherent that this change brought about by Napoleon made him seem less like a military dictator and like a revolutionary. However, others may see this act as a method of control over France and its government. Control must be obtained there are methods of obtaining this, mostly through fear. Although in this case that can be ruled out as the governing policy made was so that no one man can make a change towards a law or idea. Therefore, the policy made was fair but could not be intervened, due to this Napoleon was commended on this act, thus proving that Napoleon's actions were that of a …show more content…
During his campaign in Egypt, he suffered a great loss; this loss was not known to the public in France. Thanks to the vague amount of information available, Napoleon's reputation did not dim, this act establishes that there is a dictator in Napoleon as well as a revolutionary. Dimming facts were done not to show that France had lost a large portion of soldiers, but for Napoleon's selfish needs. This fact lets Historians see that Napoleon was not completely a revolutionary but also a military dictator. Which can further answer the argument was a Napoleon, a revolutionary or a military dictator. The facts provided prove that he may have been both, the knowledge of this massacre was discovered by historians later in time. Historians such as Matthew Levinger and Charles Breunig have commented ‘The failure of the Egyptian expedition 1798-1799 did not dim his reputation, partly because the full story was not known until later.’ If the people at that time would have discovered this, they would have agreed that there was a selfish agenda in hiding the truth and would lead to believe that Napoleon was a dictator. On the other hand, others may have thought differently. The fact that part of the full story was not known conveys that the people at the that time contained respect for Napoleon, regardless of the situation he created. This

Related Documents