Emperor Napoleon I, Some Thoughts

It was on this day in 1804 that Napoleon Bonaparte, formerly First Consul of France, was formally crowned Emperor of the French in a lavish ceremony at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, in the sight of Pope Pius VII. The coronation itself was a grand spectacle, meant to invoke memories of Imperial Rome as well as the Frankish Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. No expense was spared and the scene represented the height of glory for the new Emperor Napoleon I. Desiring the classical and medieval trappings, Napoleon was still egocentric enough to grab the imperial crown (which they named the Crown of Charlemagne, though of course it wasn’t) from the hands of the Pope and place it on his head himself. Some say this was a surprise, others maintain that the Pope had to have known this was the plan all along. In any event, even with the sumptuous paintings left to us, it would be hard to imagine what a magnificent sight this was. Napoleon intended the occasion to be the cornerstone of a new Napoleonic national mythology. That it certainly was as his nephew, Louis Napoleon III, later used the same date for his own adoption of the imperial title in 1852. One cannot help but wonder, if on that day in 1804, as Pope Pius VII solemnly called out in Latin, “May the Emperor live forever” (using the traditional Roman phrase) if Napoleon thought for a moment about how far he had come from his obscure, middle class origins on the island of Corsica.

Dealing with the legacy of Napoleon can be difficult even today and most people familiar with the subject, be they French or foreign, have very strong opinions on the subject of the “Little Corporal”. Was he a usurper or a deliverer? Yes. Was he a warmonger or a man of vision? Yes. Was he a cruel tyrant or a devoted patriot? Again, the answer is “yes”. Napoleon is one of those figures I have a hard time with because I am able to offend both his most ardent admirers and his most bitter enemies. However, I have found that I have been able to learn a lot about people by their reaction to the subject. For example, even though I am certainly not a Bonapartist, those who are Bonapartists are usually less upset with me than those who despise the man. This is just my own experience of course, but from what I have seen the difference is this: most supporters of Napoleon I have come across are willing to concede that the man had his faults whereas the enemies of Napoleon I have come across, more often than not, are unwilling to concede that he had any redeeming qualities at all. In other words, most of his enemies hate him far more than his supporters admire him. Supporters will admit that he made mistakes while detractors refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all to his rule of France.

That is all I can deduce from the fact that there is less anger between myself and Bonapartists even though I am a royalist than there is between myself and other royalists even though I count myself among them when you get right down to it. Perhaps I will be given some new feedback this time as I address the subject (a subject I plan to address further in the future; both empires) but so far I have only been confirmed in most of my observances of how predictable certain groups can be. There are certain subjects I can address, even in the most bland, vague and impartial way possible and yet will always elicit the predicted response. As a pan-monarchist, I consider it a pity that whether the subject is English monarchs post-1688, Spanish monarchs post-1833, Popes post-1958, any of the Italian monarchs or any of the French monarchist camps and so on and so forth, not only will there be opposition voiced but strident, adamant and unalterable opposition. Of course, the one big common denominator in all of these touchy subjects is the issue of Catholicism. [content edited out concerning squabbling Catholics as your humble blogger struggles to learn patience]

Catholicism is, of course, a major source of the opposition many have to Napoleon, so we might as well start there. For Catholics, the old Kingdom of France was a sacred thing, the “Eldest Daughter of the Church”, the cornerstone of Christendom and the Kings of France, fallibly human as all are bound to be, occupied an almost semi-divine office. Napoleon, and there is no getting around this fact, was a usurper. He denied the accusation himself of course; the Revolution had brought down the monarchy long before he appeared on the scene in the halls of power, yet he was occupying a position which he had no ancient, hereditary right to. Royalists looked at Napoleon and his relatively humble Corsican origins and saw simply an upstart, a poseur, an uncivilized provincial exalting himself well above his proper station in life. All of which, again, is perfectly true. And, because France is so special, his takeover of France was not just politically incorrect but downright blasphemous. Nor did Napoleon help his cause by taking the Pope prisoner at one point, invading Italy, annexing the Papal States and occupying Rome. Although not as vicious as the revolutionaries, he also suppressed Catholic royalists who rose up against him. All of this is true and all reasons why I could never be a Bonapartist. Outside of France he upset the balance of power, played havoc with the politics of Europe and instigated devastating wars that had far-reaching consequences long after they were over.

So, Napoleon=bad guy, simple enough; right? Not so fast devoted royalist! Napoleon may not have been the legitimate authority for France but he was a far better authority than what went before him. It was Napoleon who finally ended the French Revolution and all the horrors that went with that. He did, after so many years of nightmarish suffering, restore law and order, peace and stability and some sense of normalcy to the life of France. For me, the revolutionary republic was an absolute evil and it was Napoleon, with his elevation to the status of Emperor of the French, who finally did away with that monstrosity. His regime may not have been what I would consider ideal, but I certainly consider it preferable to the republic. Napoleon, for all his antagonism with the Papacy, also restored normalcy to the Church-State relationship in France so that the Church was once again able to carry out its duty which was not (sadly to some of us) promoting royalist government but administering the sacraments and preaching the gospel of Christ. Again, it was certainly not an ideal position from my point of view, but the Church was just as certainly better off under Emperor Napoleon than it had been under the republic. And, despite all the problems, even the Pope did finally make his peace with him.

Napoleon was a force to be reckoned with and he became a fact of life that all the powers had to either defeat or accept and defeating him was no small chore. His brother Louis was an admirable King of Holland, one of his marshals was elected King of Sweden (founding a dynasty that continues to this day) and even his greatest continental rival, the Empire of Austria, agreed to a marriage alliance with him. Tsar Paul I of Russia (who I have a bit of a soft spot for) who was as ardent a monarchist as anyone could be, and a stickler for legitimacy, ultimately went from being the most avowed enemy of Napoleonic France to being rather friendly toward them as Napoleon put the revolution behind him and began taking France in a more traditional, monarchist direction. I can never forgive Napoleon for his spreading of republicanism early in his career, yet it is also true that he became just as much an advocate of monarchy, albeit a new kind of monarchy. Today it is not much thought of but, across Europe and even into Latin America, the legacy of that Napoleonic style of monarchy was also to become quite popular for a time and that cannot be ignored.

None of this, to reiterate, is quite enough to make me a Bonapartist. Like many, my attachment to the ancien regime is too strong for that. Yet, it is still enough to anger many that I can understand why Napoleon was so popular in his time and why his memory evokes a sense of nostalgia for many in France even to this day. This is hard for some people (very much a minority I think) to understand who are so anti-nationalist that they have no sense at all of the tug on ones heart for their home and native land, regardless of the politics of the time. Those who feel no attachment at all to their native soil will never understand this argument, but I am certainly not one of them and even before I gave much thought to the political issues, religious issues or the issues of legitimacy I could understand why Napoleon would be an attractive figure to a great many people in France. The draw was, to put it in a single word, “gloire”.

Napoleon, for all else he did, made France great. From the horror and chaos of the French Revolution, he galvanized the public, built the Grande Armee and after an era which had known many French defeats, he crushed the armies of the enemies of France, expanded French rule and dominated Europe for a considerable period of time. He made France, for the first time since probably the long reign of King Louis XIV, the most powerful nation on the continent and, to a degree, perhaps the preeminent world power of the time. Naturally, for that very reason one could not expect the British, Spanish, Dutch or Austrians to have an impartial view of the man but also for that very reason I can understand how it would be rather difficult for a proud Frenchman, regardless of politics, not to look back on the Napoleonic era without just a little bit of pride at what France accomplished under his rule. In the end, his ambition and overreaching got the better of him, but for quite some time he changed the perception of France in the world. Even if that perception was not always one of admiration, he had at least changed it from one of horror and disgust to one of fear or even a little healthy respect.

As for myself, Napoleon occupies a position similar to a few other “strongmen” of history; not the ideal but an improvement and certainly better than the only other alternative at the time. I have a real problem with self-promoted “royalty” but, unlike many others, Napoleon managed to achieve a record of great success for a fair amount of time before being overwhelmed by the enemies surrounding him. In this, he was no mere victim; by his own actions he made it almost impossible for any of the great powers to ever trust him. However, he did end the revolution, he ended the republican era and he did, for a time, make things in France better. I oppose him for his efforts to destroy other nations near and dear to my heart but I also acknowledge that he brought to France an almost unprecedented level of greatness and I could not hold anger on any Frenchman for being rather proud of that fact. Although it can never be known for sure, I am also willing to entertain the possibility that his rule might have been necessary. Given the rather short life of the subsequent restorations of the Kingdom of France (and the short-lived Kingdom of the French as well) it may have been that the Revolution had simply produced an atmosphere in which the traditional monarchy simply could not function and only a regime like the Empire of Napoleon could have kept the country on an even keel after so many bridges had been burned. I would hate to think that was a certainty, but I must regard it as a possibility. And so, as it stands today, I look back on the good and the bad of Napoleonic France and while realizing I could never be a full blown Bonapartist, when looking at the fractured monarchist camp, legitimist, Orleanist and Bonapartist (although I have my own preference of course) my policy remains one of “ABR” - Anything But the Republic.