Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The historical discussion surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism is one of fierce debate, with varying levels of validity and evidence. The role of imperialism is the policy of extending power and influence through colonization and other means, which is most notable within the creation of the Napoleonic empire. This is a highly debated topic as many historians disagree on the aims Napoleon had for such an enterprise. The three main discussions follow the lines of revolutionary expansion, economic extraction, and dynastic aspirations. The argument surrounding the expansion of the revolution is derived from the presence of policies like those in France post-revolution. The expansion of the revolution is mostly analyzed through the introduction of the code Napoleon and the wider civilization of the satellite states. Broers like many other historians has addressed the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism largely through the application of the code Napoleon which is widely associated with the French Revolution. However, somewhat linked to such revolutionary policies is the second argument, of economic extraction for Napoleon and France. The argument that places economic gain at the center of Napoleon’s imperialism focuses greatly on the satellite contribution to the military as well as the enrolment of a continental blockade, all concluded to benefit France and Napoleon economically. This line of argument is popular amongst numerous historians including Thierry Lentz. Lentz argues that while Napoleon himself had never clarified the aims of his own imperial power, the common conclusion to be made was that Napoleon used the satellite states to extract resources that would benefit himself and France as the empire’s homeland. The final argument, also leading back to revolutionary expansion was the dynastic aims of Napoleon, pursued through imperial power. The role of the dynasty is prominent within this debate as Napoleon, in some cases, removed hereditary leaders of the satellite states and replaced them with his own family. The motive for such aspirations is often that Napoleon aimed to legitimize his own power which would be easier with a unified empire that holds more than one crown. Therefore, through these varying interpretations of the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism, it is evident that the role of revolutionary expansion was the central ideal as the role of economic extraction and dynastic attributions were subject to the success of the such revolutionary expansion. This essay will therefore argue that the primary nature of Napoleonic imperialism was based on the expansion of the French revolution throughout the satellite states.
Firstly, the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism is arguably an extension of the French revolution which was present throughout the European satellite states. The extension of the revolution is most notable within the satellite states through the presence and operation of the code Napoleon. The Code Napoleon, also referenced as the civil code, is symbolic of the French revolution. Sutherland supports this as he states that the civil code reflected many of the aspirations of the revolutionary period. Therefore, as Sutherland suggests that the code Napoleon is the revolution in one whole system its introduction beyond France can be identified as the expansion of revolutionary processes. Moreover, this is further represented by Napoleon himself as, within private correspondence with Louis in Holland, Napoleon is noted to have claimed that The Romans gave their laws to their allies why should not France have hers adopted in Holland? . Through the utterances of Napoleon, it can be identified that the code Napoleon played a great part in his imperial aspirations. Through the comparison of his own imperial aspiration with the legitimate success of a great empire, such as that of Rome, Napoleon prioritizes the expansion of revolutionary politics, most notably French laws embodied within the code Napoleon. Therefore, it is evident that for Napoleon alone the code which embodied the revolution was to be distributed amongst his subject states, which interacts almost seamlessly with the wider historiographical research. When discussing the adoption of the code Napoleon throughout the empire, several historians have provided their own interpretations, however the most prominent is provided by Broers. Broers has argued that the code Napoleon was a pillar of the empire. Broers identification of the code Napoleon as a pillar of the empire, illustrates its significance, as it implies that it supported Napoleon’s imperial power rather than being a product of it. Furthermore, when comparing Broers’s identification of the code Napoleon and Napoleon’s own intention, it is evident that the Code Napoleon, and the French revolution which it represented, were the main nature of Napoleon’s own imperial power.
Furthermore, the argument that the French revolution underpinned the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism can be identified through the evident expansion of Napoleonic policies that culminated to appease revolutionaries within homeland France. The introduction of the code Napoleon largely represented the revolution amongst satellite states through administrative reform and the inference of civilization which many believed that the French revolution represented. This had been discussed widely amongst historians including Fisher. For example, Fisher has identified that the Civil Code was a combination of liberty and order which is an important interpretation when discussing the importance of the code and its impact on civilization. This is a somewhat prominent argument in the historiographical debate surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism as it combines the motives of the revolution, which Napoleon arguably represented, with the expansion of an empire. The incorporation of liberty resonates with the representation of Napoleon’s imperial power as well as the revolution. Therefore, the combination of liberty and order, which Fisher identifies contributes greatly to the representation of the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism. Additionally, the theme of liberating the satellite states through the code of Napoleon supports the ideology that Napoleon’s main aim was to expand the revolution for the benefit of the satellite states. Furthermore, the introduction of the code Napoleon can also be assessed by its companion schemes and forces such as the Gendarmerie. Broers for example outlines that the Gendarmerie was the first imperial institution to be introduced in any satellite state while representing its importance as part of a wider civilizing mission. As the Gendarmeries main purpose was to enforce its code of Napoleon, Broers’s argument provides a clear inference to the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism. By identifying the Gendarmerie as an imperial institution, he, therefore, indicates that the code Napoleon and therefore the French revolution, was at the center of Napoleon’s imperial campaign, as it was the first aspect of French society enrolled in each satellite state. Moreover, through the connotations of liberty and order as well as the identification of a civil mission, it is somewhat easy to conclude that the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism was the extension of the revolution to further civilization, beyond France.
However, this approach has been openly critiqued due to a lack of consistency. Due to numerous historians claiming that revolutionary action was the nature of Napoleonic imperialism it becomes expected that its enrolment is one of uniformity amongst the satellite states. This is represented within Napoleon’s own correspondence with Louis in Holland as he claims, If you tamper with the Napoleonic Code, it will no longer be the Napoleonic code . Through this, it is evident that Napoleon had intended on a uniform enrolment of the code Napoleon further supports its prominence in the argument surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. However, the work provided by Broers somewhat outweighs this claim and therefore calls into question the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism. While Broers identifies that some parts of Italy were subject to full enforcement, it was often dependent on the ruling elites, and if they could provide the support Napoleon needed, they would experience a diluted version of reform, which ties into his claims of a zonal organization of the empire. This theory epitomizes the diversity of revolutionary expansion, therefore undermining any claim to a uniform civilizing mission. However, while the uniformity of enforcement is somewhat compromising, the presence of reform amongst the satellite states provides a solid basis for the conclusion that the expansion of the revolution was the primary nature of Napoleon’s imperialism.
While the argument for a civilizing ambition is somewhat compelling, the historiographical debate had developed and shifted towards the ambitions of exploitation and mistreatment of the satellite states for the benefit of France as the heart of the Napoleonic empire. The discussion surrounding the economic exploits of the satellite states is often the product of assumption in the absence of clear direction Napoleon. For example, Lentz identifies that as Napoleon had failed to establish his aims for the imperial society and empire, it must be one of the questionable morals, leading to the determination of exploitation. While this was a somewhat new argument for historians, it was an accusation noticeable throughout Napoleon’s reign. In the writing on Saint Helena, Napoleon is quoted to have said whatever fell under the hands of the sovereigns was turned to the advantage of each of them. At least in my time I was the butt of all the accusations of this kind . Through Napoleon’s identification of such accusations, it is evident that the role of extortion is key to the identification of the nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. Moreover, this identification provides clear support to the argument which focuses greatly on the economic nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. The debate associated with this accusation is one of validity and is often supported by a log of statistical evidence. For example, Sutherland outlines that while France provided almost 50% of facilities for the military, the other 50% was derived from the subject states of the empire. Elmsley furthers this argument by claiming that between 470 and 517 million Francs were extracted from Prussia in the years 1806-1812 which is when the Napoleonic empire was arguably at its peak. Therefore, it is evident that while France had been contributing to the grand empire’s military, it no longer provided for it wholly. Consequently, through the redistribution of responsibilities France would experience greater economic liberties while Napoleon would gain a consistent contribution to his military from lands, he intended to bring liberty. Additionally, through the clear benefit for France, the argument that Napoleon’s imperialism was based on the economic progression for France, gains more validity as it was evident in practice.
While the extraction of resources for military development is a large part of the debate, one must consider the other economic initiatives that took place under Napoleon’s imperial expansion. The continental blockade created jeopardy for the satellite states and not only gave Napoleon greater power but also provided France with greater economic income increasing the living standards of many French citizens. The economic benefit for France was most evident during the French first campaign, which directed a lot of custom to French production, therefore, benefitting France economically. This argument is evident in the wider historiographical debate. Ellis, for example, identifies that for Napoleon the continental blockade served a dual purpose which was to benefit the French market and therefore the French economy. This is supported by Elmsley who reaches the same conclusion claiming that the French first approach bettered the position of France economically. Conclusively, it is evident that the continental blockade which was introduced using imperial force had carried the aspiration to gain economic resources from the satellite states to further benefit France.
One final point, however, is that even the economic aspirations of the imperial power tie back to the expansion of a revolution. This is evident as within mainland France the revolution had removed the old fiscal approach to economics and had instead to new Napoleonic approaches to taxation which were arguably more equal. This is evident throughout the satellite states and is dually noted amongst historians who identify Napoleon as a financer. Holtman for example identifies that for areas such as Naples and Tuscany, fiscal reform was prominent, and followed the French revolution closely in this aspect of governmental administration. Therefore, while the tax was a main income from the satellite states for Napoleon, is it an oversight to dismiss the revolution, which evidently made the extraction of resources possible? Therefore, it could be argued that although exploitation is clear within the context, it was done through revolutionary processes making the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism revolutionary which allowed the movement for extraction.
While the argument focusing on the economic basis of Napoleon’s imperialism can be deemed somewhat redundant due to its evidential ties to the revolution, the role of dynastic aspirations is a somewhat new analysis of the Napoleonic imperial expansion. A key argument within this debate is that Napoleon had used the aspirations of his dynasty to cement his international authority. The debate focuses largely on the role of redistribution of power amongst the satellite states. Smith, who has attributed a great deal to the dynastic argument, has identified the importance of Napoleon and France as the mother of other European sovereign states. Smith claims that through the expansion of Napoleon’s dynasty, he would be able to create a system of unified states which are controlled by the dynasty, leaving France as the sovereign state and Napoleon as the head of the dynasty. Therefore, through the expansion of Napoleon’s power partnered with the introduction of the dynasty, the link between imperialism and dynastic aspirations raises the question surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperial power. While the argument identifies the theoretical expansion of the dynasty, numerous historians have contributed to the argument with specific examples that provide a clear direction to the association between Napoleon’s imperialism and his dynastic aspiration. Smith expands upon his previous claims by providing a clear and valid analysis of Napoleon’s dynastic aspirations in action. Smith identifies that by placing Joseph on the throne of Spain, Napoleon had successfully strengthened his own presence within this state. Through this, it is evident that for Napoleon the expansion of his dynasty also contributed to his own imperial power. For example, by creating an association between the role of dynasty and imperial expansion, one could come to a somewhat valid conclusion that Napoleon’s dynasty was the basis of his imperial power. While Smith has provided a great analysis that holds a lot of power, Zamoyski provides an earlier example of Napoleon’s dynastic aspirations. He identifies that Napoleon had offered the throne of Italy to Joseph, prior to that of Spain, and the motive for such a move was to accommodate the acceptance of his own power. Therefore, it is evident that while Napoleon had intended a direct expansion of his imperial power, it would be unsuccessful without the use of his family, From this, it is evident that for the masses amongst the satellite states, the use of family was important in connection with the imperial expansion.
However, while the argument surrounding the dynastic aspirations of Napoleon’s imperialism is one of validity it can be undermined by its association with the French revolution. This association is evident both within Napoleon’s own descriptions and the wider historiographical debate. Within the publication of the memorials of Saint Helena Napoleon is noted to have claimed that he has become the real national monarch, and an adherence to the same course would have rendered the fourth dynasty a truly constitutional one . Through this, Napoleon identifies that the intention of his imperial power was to create a legitimate dynasty. However, through this, a link to the revolution is also evident. For example, Napoleon identifies that if he ascertained the dynasty similarly to the crown of France he would have succeeded. Therefore, as Napoleon had gained French sovereignty through the revolution it could be inferred that he aimed to create a dynasty through its expansion. The historiographical input into this debate also identifies the role of revolutionary expansion with that of dynastic aspirations through the theme of civilization associated with the unification of satellite states. For example, Broers identifies that Napoleon wanted to create one nation from the neighboring states that worked from the same system. Therefore, like the argument before this, it is evident that Napoleon had achieved such a move through the redistribution of power, however, the intention is somewhat polarising. Through Broers’s interpretation, it is evident that while the role of dynastic aspirations was somewhat present, the main aim of Napoleon’s expansion was largely related to the previously assigned civilizing mission representing the French revolution. Categorically, the role of dynastic aspiration, while somewhat relevant within the discussion surrounding the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism can be deemed as a by-product rather than a catalyst. Therefore, through the clear association with the French revolution, the dynastic argument is of less validity.
To conclude, it is therefore evident that the nature of Napoleon’s imperialism was the intention to expand the French revolution throughout the satellite states of the Napoleonic empire. Within the wider historiographical debate, this has been conveyed through Napoleon’s own utterances and the analyses of several historians. As Napoleon referenced the code Napoleon as a universal piece of legislation, by comparing it to the Roman empire, it is very difficult to discount its input on his imperial interest. Moreover, when discussed in context, the argument gains more validity as the code Napoleon, while limited in some areas, was present in each satellite state, and like the Gendarmerie was often the first imperial action within the state. However, the competing arguments such as economic gain and dynastic attributes do hold some weight, but they too carry the undercurrent of the revolution. While economic extraction is evident during the Napoleonic imperial campaign, with satellite states paying for 50% of their military, the extraction of such resources was successful through the reorganization of the tax system and clear fiscal reforms, which are key aspects of the French revolution. Moreover, while the dynastic approach to validating Napoleon’s imperial power throughout Europe is a somewhat convincing argument, the means of achievement significantly represent the revolution, therefore contributing to the popular analysis that the revolution was central to Napoleon’s imperial power. Therefore, while these three concepts can compete alone, the most valuable argument is that the nature of napoleons imperialism was clearly the intention to extend the French revolution noticeable through societal, economic, and political means.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.