Napoleon 's Letters From An Italian Nobleman 's Family

Napoleon liked attention and was self centered. Not only did he like attention, but he also liked people seeing him in control. Napoleon considered himself to be superior. An example being, “Since I have worn the crown I have shown clearly enough…” (doc 7).

There is no question in the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte was a significant character in France. However, there have been debates among historians for years around the central question: “Was Napoleon Bonaparte a hero or a villain?” The answer here relies on how one looks upon the situation. Was Napoleon Bonaparte a savior to the French, or was he a tyrant to the French? Although many historians’ answers do rely deeply onto perspective, their answers also lie within which stage of life Napoleon Bonaparte was in, as well as the shift in opinions that come as time changes. Paul Stock and Phillip Dwyer analyze Napoleon Bonaparte’s influence and through the analysis, debate on whether Napoleon Bonaparte should be considered a hero or a villain,

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

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

It can be easily said that the intended audience for this letter was to Marie Antoinette’s mother, Maria Theresa the empress of Austria. Marie states several times throughout the letter of her many thanks to her mother for the reciprocating letters. The excitement in Marie’s tone is evident that she is astonished, despite the chaotic excitement upon their arrival, the amount of order there is. Marie is overjoyed that despite the hardships that the peasants faced, such as taxes, they remain loyal to her and her husband Louis, and show their affection with cheering and excitement. In response to the love that they received, Marie makes a point to tell her mother that the dauphin and herself wished the citizens not to be harmed despite the fact that they were unable to move for hours from the sheer masses of people who gathered upon their arrival.

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.

Like many revolutionaries, Napoleon and Lafayette were both beloved by their followers and were forever praised for their accomplishments. There were different angles taken by each individual to reach their goal. As we find out in Lafayette in Two Worlds by Lloyd Kramer, Lafayette’s influence on America and how his legacy in both the American and French revolutions assisted one another to make him a important figure in both societies. In Felix Markham’s Napoleon, Napoleon is a revolutionary at heart, beginning in his childhood days. He wants the fame and power of a revolution and achieves it by climbing up the political ladder. It is important to understand that while both Lafayette and Napoleon

Although it is often debated, the character of Napoleon was neither strictly tyrannical or heroic. Connelly understood this and displayed both sides of Napoleon throughout the book. For example, Napoleon made a great impact on the education system in France that is still evident today. He founded lycèes, collèges, and the Imperial University that allowed those that wanted an education to receive it, sometimes with the help of scholarships (Connelly, 49). However, he did have an ulterior motive driving his work in education: as Napoleon put it, the “means of directing political and moral opinion” (Connelly, 51). Connelly points out that Napoleon was upfront about his motives, and says, “In education, Napoleon’s influence is often decried, but he left a lasting legacy” (Connelly, 49). Fortunately, the same can be said for many of Napoleon’s other endeavors, including his impact on culture. Napoleon enjoyed the arts and had a great influence on what the French people accepted. He reorganized France’s National Library, shaped the Louvre into the phenomenal museum it is today, patronized famous artists, and supported many scientists during that time (Connelly, 52-53). “Repression of political expression there was. But those who say Napoleon created an intellectual desert in France and Europe are wrong” (Connelly, 54). Misconceptions about Napoleon’s work in France have run rampant for years. While some truth lies in

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.

In 1796 as a young officer of 27 years old, Napoleon was given command of the French army in Italy. In his proclamation to his troops, Napoleon said, 'The two armies which but recently attacked you with audacity are fleeing before you in terror; the wicked men who laughed at your misery and rejoiced at the thought of the triumphs of your enemies are confounded and trembling.' Acts like this display the strong personality that Napoleon possessed and how his endearing nature captivated his troops. The control and support of the army was effective in enabling Bonaparte to eventually seize power.

Amerigo Vespucci’s uncle who was also an ambassador of Florence, sent his nephew on a brief diplomatic mission to Paris where he served as an assistant for his older cousin.

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

At the start of Napoleon’s reconciliation with the Church, it appeared that he intended to bridge the gap between the Church and the State. Most of France was Catholic, and Bonaparte knew that he could take advantage of the status of the Catholic Church. The Church had long seen a reduction in its influence as well, so the prospect of an agreement with France appeared to be beneficial for

For this assignment, I will be comparing two different sources; the first was written within the chronicles of Fouché (Count of Otranto) who worked for a time as Napoleon’s chief of Police. The second is a biography written by Stendhal who served Napoleon within the army and administration. Composed between the months of November 1817 to August 1818, it is the only biography written with an in-depth eyewitness account about the tumultuous Life of Napoleon. (Lentin and Gant, 2004. p.13)

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.