Criminal
11-11-2001, 11:58 PM
In my younger years I read Tolstoy's War and peace. (Don't I sound like some kind of old geezer?) I found the subject of the story to be most interesting. Historical fiction has always been an interest of mine. The impression I got from reading that book was that Nepolian and the French were the bad guys. Napolean was a nasty, greedy man who wanted to conquer the whole world to gratify his own ego.
Later on I read a bit more on this subject. A more objective witness to the invasion of Russia stated that as the invading French entered Russian villages and towns they were greeted by peasants and towns people who offered them gifts of bread and salt (a traditional russian offering of welcome). Russian peasants were aware that the French favored a program of liberation of all serfs and hoped that they would loose their bondage to their cruel overlords. When Moscow was taken by the Grand Arme, a number of intellectuals, including the Masonic leader Nabachov, tried to persuade Napolean to declare a general emancipation of all serfs.
Those who know the subsiquent history of Russia know that this never happened. Napolean tried to make peace with the Czar Alexander, who refused to make any peace. Napolean, confronted with a coup at home was forced to leave Russia. The French army was forced to leave and was virtually anihilated by a terrible winter coupled by the Russian Army. It was not until after Russia's defeat in the Crimean War in 1864 that another Alexander, the second, was to proclame emancipation.
As far as most people today can gather, Napolean was not a supporter of Democracy or of Freedom, but rather he was a self promoting despot. All the same he did carry the ideals of the French Revolution throughout all lands that he visited.
When Napolean first appeared on the political scene it was during the years of the French Revolution. He led the revolutionary armies and defended the young republic. Later on he led the Revolutionary army throughout Italy and elsewhere.
Being a millitary man, however, he had a great deal of contempt for any sort of civilian authority. Angered by what he saw as an arrogence and lazyness in the French Republican government, he seized power. He then ruled with great cruelty, imprisoning and putting to death many.
While it may be easy at this point to dismiss the French Emporer as a tyrant, we should also remember that Napolean did bring many liberal reforms throughout Europe and beyond. He supported such causes as Polish independence, the establishment of democratic rule in Italy, the independence of Ireland, the abolition of serfdom throughout Europe.
Not all of Napoleans reforms were welcome, however. When the French occupied Spain, spanish conservatives, led by priests and monks led peasants groups to rebel against the French. This led to a war marked by acts of cruelty on both sides. Eventually it was a horrible defeat for the French.
In closing I would mention one reason why Napolean got a bad rap from most English speaking historians and that was simply because of a Brittish bias in the world of English speaking acedemia. Wellington and Nelson are thought to be the great heros of the war. We see the French as being barbarians. I think that if we look at the events during the Napoleanic era objectively, we would find that there was a great deal of good and bad brought about by the empire. For starters, there was the metric system, a result of French Scholarship. There was the Code Napolean, a legal code copied throughout the world. Millitary reforms instituted by Napolean, particularly pertaining to the recruitment of common people rather than mercenaries, and the advancement of officers based on merit, are still practiced today.
Perhaps we should see Napolean as being part hero and part villian. The wars he started were costly and led to much suffering but through this suffering the world was changed forever.
Later on I read a bit more on this subject. A more objective witness to the invasion of Russia stated that as the invading French entered Russian villages and towns they were greeted by peasants and towns people who offered them gifts of bread and salt (a traditional russian offering of welcome). Russian peasants were aware that the French favored a program of liberation of all serfs and hoped that they would loose their bondage to their cruel overlords. When Moscow was taken by the Grand Arme, a number of intellectuals, including the Masonic leader Nabachov, tried to persuade Napolean to declare a general emancipation of all serfs.
Those who know the subsiquent history of Russia know that this never happened. Napolean tried to make peace with the Czar Alexander, who refused to make any peace. Napolean, confronted with a coup at home was forced to leave Russia. The French army was forced to leave and was virtually anihilated by a terrible winter coupled by the Russian Army. It was not until after Russia's defeat in the Crimean War in 1864 that another Alexander, the second, was to proclame emancipation.
As far as most people today can gather, Napolean was not a supporter of Democracy or of Freedom, but rather he was a self promoting despot. All the same he did carry the ideals of the French Revolution throughout all lands that he visited.
When Napolean first appeared on the political scene it was during the years of the French Revolution. He led the revolutionary armies and defended the young republic. Later on he led the Revolutionary army throughout Italy and elsewhere.
Being a millitary man, however, he had a great deal of contempt for any sort of civilian authority. Angered by what he saw as an arrogence and lazyness in the French Republican government, he seized power. He then ruled with great cruelty, imprisoning and putting to death many.
While it may be easy at this point to dismiss the French Emporer as a tyrant, we should also remember that Napolean did bring many liberal reforms throughout Europe and beyond. He supported such causes as Polish independence, the establishment of democratic rule in Italy, the independence of Ireland, the abolition of serfdom throughout Europe.
Not all of Napoleans reforms were welcome, however. When the French occupied Spain, spanish conservatives, led by priests and monks led peasants groups to rebel against the French. This led to a war marked by acts of cruelty on both sides. Eventually it was a horrible defeat for the French.
In closing I would mention one reason why Napolean got a bad rap from most English speaking historians and that was simply because of a Brittish bias in the world of English speaking acedemia. Wellington and Nelson are thought to be the great heros of the war. We see the French as being barbarians. I think that if we look at the events during the Napoleanic era objectively, we would find that there was a great deal of good and bad brought about by the empire. For starters, there was the metric system, a result of French Scholarship. There was the Code Napolean, a legal code copied throughout the world. Millitary reforms instituted by Napolean, particularly pertaining to the recruitment of common people rather than mercenaries, and the advancement of officers based on merit, are still practiced today.
Perhaps we should see Napolean as being part hero and part villian. The wars he started were costly and led to much suffering but through this suffering the world was changed forever.