@Imperious:
Exactly. Napoleon the despot was the determining factor. The Spanish people didn’t accept a French ruler but really had little choice.
You misunderstand why the Peninsular War happened. Even that was not an aggressive move on Napoleon’s part. One has to be cautious when making simplistic judgments of saying he invaded because he wanted to close down Europe to the Continental System.
It started with an appeal for Napoleon’s arbitration by King Charles IV, a degenerate Bourbon dominated by his wife and her lover, Godoy, who was Prime Minister. There was the influence of Talleyrand, Napoleon’s ex-foreign minister, who favored the expulsion of the Bourbons from all thrones and the accession of a prince from the Bonaparte family to the Spanish throne. There was also the irritation of a sovereign (guess who, Napoleon) who was engaged in a struggle to the death for his security and who realized that there was a door on the Iberian Peninsula still open to trade with the British. The only real mistake Napoleon made was misjudging the Spanish people, so proud, so noble, so independent, prepared to make any sacrifice and to rise up as one against any foreign interference. Events moved so quickly that once hostilities had begun it was impossible to change policy.
Madrid revolted (against the government, not against the French, whom they were not yet hostile against), and the people, drunk with fury, seized Godoy, threatening to kill him. Charles IV abdicated in favor of his son, and then retracted his abdication. Napoleon then had to decide between the king and the son as they exchanged insults in front of him at Bayonne. Charles IV named Murat, one of Napoleon’s Marshals, lieutenant general of the kingdom but, learning of a new uprising in Madrid (which Murat brutally took down, a brutality that Napoleon very much disapproved of), abdicated definitely in favor of “the great Napoleon” after a nasty scene with his wife and his son, and received in exchange a civil list and residence in France. Joseph Bonaparte was named king of Spain, but receiving a throne as a promotion and occupying the throne–-when the throne was that of Spain—were two different things!
The Peninsular War was definitely Napoleon’s biggest mistake (not his invasion of Russia), but he, as always, was not the only one responsible for it. The British were responsible for trying to return to the Continent by way of Spain; the Spanish royal family were responsible for being so inefficient and for their inability to run a country properly. Napoleon was responsible for even agreeing to mediate affairs at all.
Napoleon also took advantage of The french economic position which was just as poor as it was before the revolution to take power, not unlike Hitler except Hitler was elected and appointed to his first position.
Hmmm, so now you want to talk politics at that time too eh? Very well! :-D
Two things:
1)Napoleon did not simply take advantage of the “French economic system”. He never sought to take power in France until he was involved in a conspiracy to overthrow it and he realized that France needed a strong, central leader, not a “government of lawyers” as the Directory was called. Napoleon turned the French economy around in only a year. Even in 1814, when the Coalition was on France’s doorstep, France had little debt.
2)Napoleon was also elected and appointed to his position, but unlike Hitler he did not acquire that position via blackmail, backstabbing, and assassination. When he was First Consul Napoleon was not a dictator. Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls’ approval was required to enact a law. And what a sense of human relations the First Consul showed as he participated in the meetings of the Council, asking questions and encouraging discussion! In what democracy today do we find the head of state discussing and arguing about the country’s affairs with the citizens’ elite in this way? Where do we find that in Hitler’s tyranny?
Another political necessity was the Constitution of the Year XII, which established the French Empire with Napoleon as Emperor. This was a normal development of a strong regime; as the Emperor became more sure of himself, he showed less and less tolerance towards people who “talk but do not do anything”, and indeed became increasingly authoritarian. The legislative assembly became a mere recording chamber and the Senate was filled with people devoted to the Emperor. This was a logical consequence that the Nation, by a substantial majority, gave the only man who could save it. “The Nation threw itself at my feet when I arrived in government,” Napoleon said. “I took less authority then I was asked to take.”
But before crying dictatorship and condemning out of hand an authoritarianism that partially muzzled the democratic system of universal suffrage (which existed in no European country that that time), it’s important to go back to the role of the important Council of State, the basis of the legislative system. The council members, senior officials, and auditors made up a extraordinary body, surprising its worth and technical skill. It dealt with all bills, gave its opinions, and ruled on appeals addressed to the Emperor. Twice a week the Emperor chaired the meetings. The prescence of the man whose law ruled from the Atlantic to the plains of Poland did not inhibit those attending. On the contrary, the legislative policy of France was enacted there without the least absolutism, and in a way, it was the entire government.
Hitler only gave more and more political power to himself and to himself only. Hitler restricted basic rights and if you practiced a religion that he did not like, you were probably going to die. The Napoleonic Code encouraged the practice of religion and basic rights, which is why it’s the foundations of law for much of Western Europe.
Latter he maintained his hold upon the people with military victories. That is what Hitler did. He made a few victories to keep the people thinking that war could solve the national problems and victory carried his power further.
His position as First Consul certainly was strengthened with his reputation as a victorious general, but the stability of the government did not rest on victories alone. Otherwise, why did his government still function and why was he still popular after the first major French check at Eylau in 1807?
When Napoleon lost his Grande Army his support began to falter, just as the Opposition to Hitler mounted after Stalingrad.
This might be true. But there’s one huge difference between this. Today, Napoleon is seen as a hero and a man of the people in Western Europe. True, there might be people who also hate him for his supposed “tyranny”, but the man is as loved as he is hated. Hitler is, overwhelmingly, hated by the majority of civilization, worshiped only by fringe neo-Nazis groups. It is extremely difficult to form an objective view of Hitler: for Napoleon, as you can see above, is not.
Also, his support might have faltered, but the French people realized just how much their Emperor was a better ruler than the Bourbons who learned nothing from the Revolution.
And by his Heirs that continues far beyond the demise of Napoleon. Napoleon III was also a dictator who used his name to usurp power borrowed from the exploits of Napoleon I. He go the support of the people and threw out the opposition, like Hitler. He also took over Mexico. I don’t remember the Mexicans holding an election for a French ruler?
Napoleon III was an efficient ruler and greatly improved the prestige of France. He was not, however, like Napoleon I. He could indeed be called a dictator, unlike Napoleon I. That does not mean, however, that he was as bad as that monster Hitler.
