@ Jeroenrottgering,
You keep asking who the most important figure of the European history was, and I will keep telling you that such a question is ahistorical. First of all, history is at all times not a track of sequences with some more important than others. History is an anarchic collection of developments taking place in different time spheres and also in different areas such as political, social or economic aspects of society. Napoleon certainly did play an important role in military warfare of the 19th century, but does it make him more important than Caesar, Jomini or von Clausewitz?
I think the OP meant who had the biggest impact on political and social affairs and not science, philisophy or technology or something in the trent. Then if we take these two things apart I think you really undersestimate what Napoleon achieved in these films. Although Napoleon reversed some of the ideas of the revolution he also pushed a lot of them trough and added some new ideas from himself. His Code Napoleon made a big impact on a lot of countries in Europe and even in our own country many articles of the constiution are based on those of Napoleon. We owe most of our surnames to him, the development of some of the harbors in the low countries, penalty law, freedom for the Catholic and Jewish religions etc. These are really big things compared to what other national leaders have achieved in the course of history.
And what has Napoleon contributed to the social, cultural, religious and technological development of Europe? And I doubt his contribution to European political development since his revolutionairy policies were largely reversed by himself from 1801 and his political traces were completely whiped out by the Congress of Vienna and later reactionary European politics.
You asked for social, cultural, religious and technilogical development? Well here are a few
Social: Surnames, penalty law, abolition of serfdom, national registers, national bank
Cultural: Empire style, momunents
Religious: Religious freedom (even for jews which was special for that time)
Technilogical: Military reforms, a modern sewer system, infrastructure, metric system
Yes he reinstituted slavery in Haiti and yes a lot of the freedom woman achieved during the revolution was reduced, but even then he was ten times more progressive then his fellow monarchs. To say his political traces was simple whiped out by the Congress of Vienna is just wrong. These monarchies were placed there by force, but as we have seen in 1830, 1848 a lot of them failed because the people would really not let time go back after the progress made by the revolution and Napoleon.
What is left of Napoleon's legacy is the Jacobin ideology of separation of state and church and citizen rights - ideas that Napoleon embraced but didn't produce. Ideas that Napoleon himself didn't even strictly follow. Just like the communist revolutionaries such as Lenin, Napoleon produced very democratic civil codes but at the same time he ruled as a despot.
To my knowledge Napoleon did produce these meassures. Were all citizens not free to follow the highest political or military carreer regardness of their status or background? Was church eventhough restored by Napoleon not still seperated from state? Yes Napoleon ruled absolute, but he did it because he knew what was good for France and for Europe. Parliaments would only stand in his way. And as history has proven almost all of his ideas were embraced by the French and most of the rest of Europe.
But if you really insist that I name other candidates for the title most influential European, I would start to look at the Prince von Metternich.
Metternich house of carts would already fall after 30 years and after that instead of Metternich's conservatism, liberalism would dominate Europe. So I would say his legacy would only continue in countries like Russia, Prussia and his own. This is of course logical since these countries were never in the influence of Napoleon.
Napoleon redrew the maps of Europe with his conquests that were financed by taxes which he could raise through repressing all opposition. But it was eventually Von Metternich who reversed Napoleons conquests, and who altered the borders through advocating the formation of vassal states. Metternich would remain the most influential politician in the Austrian empire until 1848.
Yes until 1848! But afterwards? What do we still see today from Metternich and what do we still see today from Napoleon? That's the real question and if we look then who brought the biggest impact on Europe then the answer is quite clear.
Metternich represented one of Europe's greatest powers in that era. I agree, internally Austria was pretty backwards - but Metternich was able to hide it from the other monarchs. Metternich and Austria, greatly supported by the papacy, formed the political leadership in the European reactionary movement to restore the authority of the church, the aristocracy and traditional values.
This doesn't prove he had a bigger influence then Napoleon and furthermore like I told you his policies only survived to a certain era while those of Napoleon are still visable today.
Whether you like it or not, Napoleon was erased from history by Metternich. Metternich, to some extent, helped to shape the Europe that would eventually give rise to suppressed nationalisms that would spark WWI in 1914. Napoleon was long forgotten in 1914, even by the French.
Oh really? That's why Bonapartism ruled France for decades to come and that's why his nephew Louis Napoleon was elected president in 1848. The memory of Napoleon and the tales of glory he left behind lived on in France. Also it seems you keep denying the fact that most of the constitutions, penalty laws etc are all based on the ideas of Napoleon. Who today doesn't know Napoleon and who today (of the non-historians) knows Metternich?
Other candidates that I would propose are Otto von Bismarck, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, Nietzsche, Kant, Julius Caesar, Constantine the Great and so forth.
Bismarck's system fell apart in 1914 and outside Germany his legacy was practically zero, Karl Marx inspired Communism but never really took his hold in Europe, Adam Smith is a good candidate to compete against Napoelon, Nietszche and Kant why did you decide to pick them?, Caesar again his only legacy was internal reform and Constantine would just like Smith be a good candidate but I doubt he would beat Napoleon.
Furthermore, you make some pretty awkward claims to me:
''Napoleon was immensly popular amongst the French people except by some Royalist who desperatly wanted that fat Bourbon on the thrown.''
''Napoleon relied on the support of the people. If the people didn''t want him he would go, but since he was so beloved their was no reason for that.''
''Apparantly their wasn't a need for those things at that time. Parliaments had their change, but had thusfar only caused internal chaos (something the French were tired of). Oh and btw Napoleon respected and supported the improvements mentioned in the constiution. That's why he promoted freedom of religion, abolition of serfdom, abolishment of classes, civil constitutions etc all over the territories he had influence in.''
The reason that Napoleon could come and go as quick as he did - rise to power, conquests followed by defeat and never heard from again - has everything to do with the support he had from the French.
Doesn't that prove my point?
Like I stated earlier, Napoleon was a military leader and contrary to what you stated: no he did not come to power through legitimate channels.
Uhm yes he did. He was elected member of the Consulate in 1799 by the Senate and was proclaimed first consul by a referendum. Nothing inligitimate their I would say.
Well actually no. He became part of the Directoire which is like a government administration, but eventually seized all power by a coup d'etat. After that, Napoleon's authority rested entirely on his military.
First you say it relied on the French people and now it relies on his military? Which of the two is it?
Why did his military support him? Because Napoleon enabled low-ranking officers to achieve high ranking positions.
Not only that, but because they defended the revolution and followed Napoleon because he was the best man to defend it. His victories at Lodi, Arcole, the Pyramids, Marengo etc helped him gaining this trust.
When his military supporters were on the battlefield, politicians in Paris prepared coup attempts against Napoleon and when the military of Napoleon was defeated nobody in France objected Napoleon's banishment.
Now you act like coup were constantly formed in Paris. I am sorry but that's just not true. Two coups were formed and only when the empire was in crisis (Spain and Russia). Furthermore Napoleon's military wasn't defeated (he was still beating the allies in 1814 even to the point when Austria decided to negotiate to keep Napoleon on the thrown). He was betrayed by his marshal, but the army still gave him their full support. And was proven in 1815 his people did to.
The regime of Napoleon was quickly dismantled after his defeat on the battlefield, which proves the French at the home front weren't so full of him.
What could they do when the Cossack horses were drinking from the Seine?
Besides all that, I wonder what your sources are that Napoleon was adored and loved by everyone so much that they asked him to bypass the parliament and employ secret police services. I honestly have never read from historians making the claim that Napoleon was greatly loved.
Well then I guess you don't read the right historians. Man like McLynn and Dwyer both report in their biographies about Napoleon several times that when Napoleon returned from the battlefield he was jeered in every town and city. His only real enemies were the Jacobins and the Royalist, but especially the middle class adored this man. More examples are his return from Elba, the desire of the French people to get Napoleon back after 1815 and the fact that Bonapartism made such a fast increase after Napoleon's death. And if Napoleon was such a horrible unpopular tyrant in your eyes, isn't it then strange that no revolution occured under him?
You also contradict yourself. First you say there was no need for Napoleon to respect the democratic institutions such as the parliament, the next thing you say is that Napoleon respected and supported the reforms of the revolution.
I don't see this as a contradiction. Napoleo supported the social and some of the policial reforms of the revolution, but unlike the average Jacobin he loved order and structure. Revolutionaries digusted him, but at the same time gave him the change to make something of himself. That's why under his reign both meassures from the old world and new world combined formed the policy of Napoleon. So of course Napoleon wasn't a revolutionary but neither was he the same as the other monarchs of Europe. He was one of a kind and became the perfect middle way between both systems, but even for the ancien regimes this was to modern and a thread for their reign.
Well I can tell you, Napoleon did and he didn't. Yes, he increased citizen rights and he abolished serfdom in some countries. But he also suppressed the French parliament, and from 1801 parliaments in all satellite states. He was the first in history to employ secret police services and separation between state and church? Reversed by the Concordat of 1801 in which Napoleon had the French state reconcile with the church.
Weren't all revolutionary governments before Napoleon marked by signs of absolutism (Robbespiere, the directoire). The revolution did not gave guidelines how France should be governed. After years of chaos under several forms of government the French people welcomed the order and peace he brought. And later on after the peace of Amiens even all over Europe this man was admired even by a man like
Beethoven.
Yes Napoleon restored the church, but it would never get the power it once had and even we look how Napoleont treated the pope we can argue if he really believed in it himself or if it was just a present to the French people.
This is actually not entirely true. Austria and Russia remained the centre of European aristocratic reactionary politics. Prussia was even able to form an enormous reactionary state right in the middle of Europe: the German Empire.
Did it not also said that these countries were never directly ruled by Napoleon and because of this never came in contact with Napoleon's reforms and ideals? Countries like Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy let's say all the allies and satelites of Napoleon in the end (after the system of Metternich failed in 1830 and 1848) got liberal governments.
And the conservative kingdom of Sardinia Piedmont was able to unify Italy which became the Kingdom of Italy.
Can you tell me what is wrong about this event? Italy did not became united untill the second half of the 19th century and was mainly caused by Napoleon III not by Napoleon I. Also as far as my knowledge reaches this new italy became much more liberal and progressive then the conservative states of Austria, Prussia and Russia.
Absolutism returned to Spain after 1815.
But failed again soon later. Even how horrible the Napoleonic years in Spain it did abolish the inquisition, installed a liberal monarch and reduced the power of church and nobility severly. And as we see troughout the early years of the 19th century we see Spain struggling to gain these advantages again after they were reduced by our dear Metternich. In which the eventually succeeded like most people of Europe who ever came in touch with Napoleonic rule.
Only in France itself, reactionary kings were replaced with a constitutional king and after 1848 Napoleon III seized power by coup (family habit) and declared himself emperor of the people. The Kingdom of the Greater Netherlands fell apart into two constitutional kingdoms so there you are right. But the facts prove that the restoration movement after 1815 was pretty succesful in maintaining most absolutist monarchies until 1917/18.
Their wasn't much to restore in the countries of Austria, Prussia and Russia, but outside these countries most restorations failed many decaded before 1918.
And besides all that, even if for example the Hungarians revolted against Austria in 1848 - Napoleon wasn't really a source of inspiration for them.
Perhaps because Napoleon never really had any influence over Hunfary. You can't blame Napoleon for not being the inspiration of revolution if he his influence hasn't even reached there.
So like I said earlier: Napoleon is remarkable episode of European history is which a low aristocrat exploited the French revolution to consolidate his own military dictatorship. He was an adventurist much like Alexander the Great, who wanted to see how much he could conquer. But after his inevitable defeat, there was not a great legacy to look back on.
I won't explain it again, but like I said his legacy is probably the biggest compared to other legacies left behind by national leaders.
Napoleon is and remains part of that historical struggle between modern politics and aristocratic conservatism. Napoleon lost that battle, and the fact that modern politics eventually won the war doesn't make Napoleon any more important.
I think it does. This revival of his policies must have been based on something. Without it every being produced it can't also revive at a certain point in history.
He, and his successor Napoleon III, remain power hungry dictators (yes even for their age, since they seized power through both unconstitutional channels and also through untraditional channels. Neither of them was of high aristocratic rank. So both to French liberals and aristocrats, the Bonapartists were disgraceful dictators).
I am sorry to tell you, but Aristocrats during the election of 1848 favored Napoleon III above any other candidate and the same for the liberals. Both achieved power by the will of the people. Not like Hitler who not even got more then half of the support, but most times by more then 90%.
Let me give you the sources from which it can be proven both Emperors were legal heads of state.
French constitutional referendum, 1800 which asked for the aproval of the new Consulate:
Party % of votes Votes Yes 99.94% 3,011,007 No 0.06% 1,562
Total 100%
French constitutional referendum, 1802 which asked for aproval to elect Napoleon consul for life:
Party % of votes Votes Yes 99.76% 3,568,885 No 0.24% 8,374
Total 100%
French constitutional referendum, 1804 which asked for the aproval for Napoleon as Emperor of the French:
Party % of votes Votes Yes 99.93% 3,521,675 No 0.07% 2,579
Total 100%
French presidential election, 1848 which elected the new president of France:
Candidate Ideology Percent [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III"]Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapartism"]Bonapartist[/ame] 74.44%
Louis-Eugène Cavaignac Centrist republican 19.65%
Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy"]Republican social democrat[/ame] 5.08%
François-Vincent Raspail Socialist 0.49% [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_de_Lamartine"]Alphonse de Lamartine[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism"]Classical liberal[/ame] 0.28%
Nicolas Anne Théodule Changarnier [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimists"]Legitimist[/ame] 0.06%
Total
100%
French constitutional referendum, 1851 which asked for the aproval of Louis Napoleon as president:
French constitutional referendum, 1851 Choice Votes Percentage
Yes 7,481,231 92.0% No 647,292 8.0% Valid votes 8,128,523 99.5% Invalid or blank votes 37,107 0.5%
Total votes 8,165,630 100.00%
French Second Empire referendum, 1852 which asked for the aproval for Louis Napoleon as Emperor:
French constitutional referendum, 1851 Choice Votes Percentage
Yes 7,824,189 96.9% No 253,145 3.1% Valid votes 8,077,334 99.2% Invalid or blank votes 63,326 0.8%
Total votes 8,140,660 100.00%
Especially Napoleon relied on his ability to give the military what it wanted. Napoleon and Napoleon III legitimized their rule through supporting Jacobin ideology but it never quite worked out for them so they both attempted to legitimize their autocratic rule by blatantly adopting the highest possible aristocratic titles and installing relatives as fellow monarchs.
Above all they relied on the support of the French. Did the French wanted to get rid of them they could easily start a revolution like the did under Louis XVI, Charles X and Louis-Philips I. The fact that this didn't occur already says a lot.
I admit, Napoleon as an extension of the French revolution, made Europe shake on its foundations. But the long term effects of the Napoleonic era are minimal due to the Congress of Europe. The long term effects on Europe of people like Constantine the Great, von Metternich and Otto von Bismarck were much greater. And then I haven't even mentioned the effects of Plato's ideas on the shaping of European thinking.
Again I think you underestimate that a lot of things we see today are owed to Napoleon.
Yes 7,481,231 92.0% No 647,292 8.0% Valid votes 8,128,523 99.5% Invalid or blank votes 37,107 0.5% Total votes 8,165,630 100.00% 
