Napoleon was a great historical figure in Europe and had many impacts on the economic, social, and political systems throughout Europe as well. However, was he really the successful leader that France thought he claimed himself to be?
Two different people, Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney, give two polar opposite opinions on Napoleon, a leader to some and a tyrant to others. Madame de Stael wrote in disgust about how napoleons views on dignity and integrity and virtues were completely nonexistent in his eyes. She believed that he was clueless in his approach to becoming a ruler. Marshal, a soldier under command of Napoleon, worshiped him and thought of him as one of the greatest, most influential leaders Europe has had. He thoroughly believed in the liberty of the people in Europe and was heavily promoting the joining of Napoleon's dynasty. Despite these two Heavily biased opinions, from an outsider, Napoleon was considered extremely inconsistent in his ruling. Because of his inconsistency, if he were to die at different times during his ruling, he would be viewed as an entirely different man. Napoleon was a smart man indeed, yet his rush to turn into an absolute ruler eventually lead to his downfall. He pushed for the advancement of the race, yet near the end of his career, his ambitious and dominate side began to subside.
All in all, he was a genius of his time yet lacked the knowledge it took to know how to use his genius. He abused it, misused it, and it became his own destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment