Legacy of Napoleon
The large and steadily expanding historiography in French, English, Russian, Spanish, and other languages has been summarized and evaluated by numerous scholars.
[1][2][3] In the political realm, historians debate whether Napoleon was "an enlightened despot who laid the foundations of modern Europe" or "a megalomaniac who wrought greater misery than any man before the coming of Hitler".
[7] His critics charge that he was not troubled when faced with the prospect of war and death for thousands, turned his search for undisputed rule into a series of conflicts throughout Europe and ignored treaties and conventions alike.
[8] French liberal intellectual Benjamin Constant (1767–1830) was a staunch critique of the political homogenization and personality cult that dominated Napoleonic France.
He expressed his condemnation of Bonapartism through various books, including as The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation (1814) and Principles of Politics Applicable to All Representative Governments (1815).
Constant asserted that Napoleonic regime was even more tyrannical than the Bourbon monarchy, since it forced the masses to support its ideological narratives through imperialism and jingoism.
"[13] McLynn states that, "He can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life for a generation by the dislocating impact of his wars.
"[7] Vincent Cronin replies that such criticism relies on the flawed premise that Napoleon was responsible for the wars which bear his name, when in fact France was the victim of a series of coalitions that aimed to destroy the ideals of the Revolution.
American historian Paul Schroeder (1927–2020) is willing to grant that Napoleon was a genius regarding "military, administrative, organizational, political, even literary [efforts] ... [with] an extraordinary capacity for planning, decision making, memory, work, mastery of detail, and leadership."
Strict censorship, controlling aspects of the press, books, theatre, and art were part of his propaganda scheme, aimed at portraying him as bringing desperately wanted peace and stability to France.
[21][22][23] After Nazi Germany conquered France in 1940, Hitler marched in triumph in Paris and paid homage to Napoleon at Les Invalides.
[25] Datta (2005) shows that, following the collapse of militaristic Boulangism in the late 1880s, the Napoleonic legend was divorced from party politics and revived in popular culture.
Concentrating on two plays and two novels from the period—Victorien Sardou's Madame Sans-Gêne (1893), Maurice Barrès's Les Déracinés (1897), Edmond Rostand's L'Aiglon (1900), and André de Lorde and Gyp's Napoléonette (1913)—Datta examines how writers and critics of the Belle Époque exploited the Napoleonic legend for diverse political and cultural ends.
[29]: xlvi, 616–618 Other French presidents have usually avoided mention of Napoleon; for a conservative to praise him would often mean counterattacks from the left, and vice versa for left-wing politicians who are typically critical of the emperor.
President Emmanuel Macron has praised him, saying that "Napoleon is the man who gave shape to our political and administrative organization, to the uncertain sovereignty that emerged from the Revolution.
[35] The memory of Napoleon in Poland is favorable, for his support for independence and opposition to Russia, his legal code, the abolition of serfdom, and the introduction of modern middle class bureaucracies.
The abdication of King Charles IV and his son, Ferdinand VII created a power vacuum that was filled by native born political leaders such as Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín.
It brought humiliating military defeat and occupation for Prussia, the demise of the Holy Roman Empire, and a complete territorial and structural reorganization for the region.
Most recent scholars reject the old notion of separate national paths typified by models of the German "Sonderweg" or the French "singularité française".
[49] As presidents, Jefferson and Madison were at several points on the verge of war with Napoleon before 1812 in response to violations of America's neutral rights such as seizing ships and cargoes and imprisoning sailors.
[52] According to Jill Morris, Napoleon commissioned Gros to paint Bonaparte Visiting the Plague Victims of Jaffa (1804) to counter reports of French atrocities.
The scepter of Charles V, the sword of Charlemagne the rich fabrics, furs and capes, crown of gold leaves, golden chains and emblems were all presented in extremely precise detail; the Emperor's face and hands were almost lost in the majestic costume.
The insignia conveys the inter-relations of old French traditions and the new imperial formation, an empire for which Napoleon provided the brain but many others ultimately helped create.
In the case of Ingres's remarkable portrait … the sacrality of the new ruler was displaced to the secular realm of history and, more specifically, to the pose, insignia, and costume that denoted the emperor's status....“The state was no longer equated with the person or the body Napoleon as the speaking subject …, but rather with the nation, via its history.”[55]
