Napoleon And The Pope

These historians have done a phenomenal job of keeping the topics portrayed in their theses as well as about a comparatively unbiased view on Napoleon and bring about a deeper and hidden meaning behind why Napoleon is considered a hero or a villain. Paul Stock brings about the idea that there was a “romantic appropriation” of Napoleon, especially by the British in the early nineteenth century.

Napoleon was religiously tolerant, influenced by the philosophe Voltaire. He signed an agreement with the Catholic Church in 1801, entitled “The Concordat.” Within this agreement, the Church would be reinstated in France. Napoleon was still able to depose bishops; but he had little control over the Church as the Church was able to elect bishops. Additionally, Napoleon recognized Catholicism as the major faith among the French. However, it was not recognized as a state religion. Napoleon himself was not religious; he was more of a

This document speaks to how in many ways they put Napoleon on a pedestal and how he took this view in order to gain more power. The purpose of this document is to show Napoleon as a more godly figure and to move him into the view of an absolute ruler. This helps to show how Napoleon betrayed the legacy of the French revolution by taking on an absolute

Napoleon Bonaparte was a great leader until he took his power too far. He helped France get out of their debt and also won multiple territories from winning wars. He continued to strengthen France with his great leadership and military strategies. Eventually, though, he began to abuse his power. He proceeded through a war, without forfeit and experienced a great defeat. During his time of power Napoleon was a paradox. Napoleon’s fall from being a great leader taught us that, sometimes when people get too used to having so much power and authority, they may abuse their powers to a large extent.

Although Napoleon’s military conquests started off based on the ideals of the French Revolution, Napoleons relentless quest for personal glory lead to a dictatorship. “In Napoleons hands the state had become the instrument of dictatorship.” The Ultimate betrayal was the institution of a hereditary monarchy. This hereditary monarchy began in Napoleons action of crowing himself Emperor and Culminated in his marriage to an Austrian Hapsburg princess “the moment his power became hereditary it cut itself off

Napoleon Bonaparte, an influential leader of France, was a man of many facets. On one the one hand, Napoleon was a strong leader who created durable institutions and strengthened France, but on the other, there is a more pitiful view of Napoleon. The view of Napoleon was initially very positive: he viewed himself as a protector of the people, and the people saw this too; however, over time, this image was greatly worsened, due to military hardship.

Napoleon as an emperor told people that there would be public schools and that there they would teach things such as science, language arts, etc. This benefitted the people of France. Now everyone would receive education. Back then, those in the government did not want anyone uneducated to vote. Now they had a chance to voice their opinion. As stated in Document 8. I think this motivated Napoleon because again he wanted to win their support and love and wanted them to feel empowered as well as others who can vote and feel as they can too do the things they can. In the book, it stated that he won many wars and that also ties into being the son of the revolution because he did not let his country down and kept it strong. It kept the enemies away and kept the people happy. He used propaganda every time he won a war. He usually asked someone to paint a mural of him seeming superior to please the people of France. Napoleon is the son of the revolution to those he pleased. The motivation for this was as well to win over the people's support and love as well as to show them that he can protect them and be a good leader to them and him showing them that he can win many wars would make them feel safe around him, I

Napoleon Bonaparte is seen by historians in a variety of lights. Some judge him for his lack of mercy for those in his warpath along with his unmatched air of confidence. Others choose to see him for the leadership abilities and keen mind that fueled his remarkable triumphs as a general, commander, First Consul of France, and even emperor. Owen Connelly uses his work, The Epoch of Napoleon, to bridge the gap that other historians and authors have skimmed over, giving the reader an inside look at not only Napoleon’s military life, but also his political and personal life. Furthermore, Connelly achieves this by showing both the ruthless and heroic sides of Napoleon, including non-military details from the life of Napoleon, and lastly, including quotes from Napoleon and those that interacted with him.

He said, "Fifty . . . bishops paid by England lead the French clergy today. Their influence must be destroyed. For this we need the authority of the Pope." Through the concordat, the Catholic church was able to gain back authority that it had lost during the revolution, however, it was never allowed to recover its former autonomy or power. Napoleon kept the French church in his pocket. He paid the clergy directly, and he made them financially dependent on his treasury. As a child of the enlightenment, Napoleon used cold authority and calculation to wield one of the most powerful weapons in the world—religion—and he did it successfully.

Napoleons’ rise to emperor in France was indisputable mostly because of his overthrow of the Directory. His success’s as commander of the French army in Italy, only led to his aspiring status change to “Emperor” of France after overthrowing the Directory in November of 1799. His undying ambition for expansion of the empire he was creating however would be his undoing. Napoleons rule as emperor of France was quit spectacular actually and many admired and adored him as ruler. His ways were very appealing, and as a speaker he was very persuasive and admired by most of his people until his later years in his fall and demise. However, Napoleon did not seriously adhere to the ideals of the French Revolution, he did that of the Enlightenment but his undying ambition and character as “Emperor” undermined the true need of the French Revolution.

Two of the more memorable emperors to the Romans were Augustus Caesar (27 BC to 14 AD), and Caligula (37 AD to 41 AD). Although only having ruled the empire by a separation of 23 years and belonging to the same family (through marriage and adoption), their empires couldn’t have been more different. It is possible to determine the impact of an emperor’s rule based on their many vices and virtues, as well as the choices that they make in relation to them. The author Suetonius expressed in his writings the many vices and virtues that put into perspective the kind of leaders that these emperors appeared as to their polis. As we explore the concept of vices and virtues, as well as what kind of ideals these two rulers represented, we will begin to be presented with a clearer picture of what an ideal emperor would have looked like. A vice can be described as an immoral or wicked behavior; while a virtue can be described as a behavior showing high moral standards. Suetonius and the Roman people had a high interpretation of the concept of virtue and vice, as well as their role in the ruler’s life.

Just as Pope Pius VII was coming into power, Napoleon Bonaparte, a young, military genius, was elected as First Consul of the Post-Revolutionary French government (O’Dwyer 43, 49). Both Napoleon and Pius VII saw the importance in ending the schism and restoring Catholicism in France. Napoleon saw the reestablishment of the Catholic Church in France “as a social bedrock and as an ideological anodyne” (Ellis 41) and used it to gain immediate political power. The Catholic Church wanted influence in France again and was willing to strike a deal with Napoleon to do so. In 1801 they officially published the Concordat, which restored Catholicism as the main religion in France (O’Dwyer 56). In 1802, Napoleon, without Pius’ consent, added an additional “a list of police regulations that severely restricted the Papacy’s role in France (Ellis 41), known as the Organic Articles, which aggravated Pope Pius VII. The Church’s support of the Concordat legitimized Napoleon’s autocratic rule, but it also stopped the schism that the Revolution had started. From Napoleon’s coronation in 1804 to the imprisonment of Pope Pius VII in Fontainebleau, the relationship

Napoleon Bonaparte was a powerful leader who established the foundations of modern Europe through an administration riddled with controversy. Napoleon came to power in 1799 by overthrowing The Directory in France and appointing himself as the emperor, thus having complete control over the country. Napoleon's most lasting achievements include instituting the Napoleonic code, taking control of nearly all of Europe, and engaging in numerous battles with European nations. After years of serving in Europe, Napoleon had many foreign interactions and made himself a reputation split between a hero and a tyrant. To be a tyrant means to be a cruel and oppressive leader, something Europe was familiar with from the absolutist monarchs in their history

Napoleon’s problem was that overtaking all of Europe was too difficult a task for any man. He was forced to divide rule over some of the states that he conquered and he was not intelligent in giving Spain to his brother. Spain revolted allowing a England to have a country to land on in Europe. This decision hurt Napoleon and ended with England uniting the remaining European countries against Napoleon in the battle of Waterloo. Napoleons ego and greed in expansion probably stemmed from his want for war as a militaristic person, but this became the end of his reign.

How have historians tried to evaluate the ultimate goal of Napoleon I, Emperor of the French? With such a variety of perspectives, there is no single theory that can fully answer the breadth of the question. Instead, kaleidoscopes of opinions that span centuries from Napoleon’s reign to contemporary research give us the best analysis of his ambitions. No matter the era, historian’s opinions of Napoleon shift between admiring his achievements, in varying contexts of establishing order or reorganizing governmental systems, to criticizing his personal lust for power. This essay will discuss the varying opinions by which historians view Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, and his fundamental objective as ruler.