Napoleon Debate: Hero or Tyrant?

The debate that we had in class on Friday in regards to Napoleon's legacy and committment to the ideals of the French Revolution was characterized, in my opinion, by the truth of both sides. Allow me to explain. Some historical facts simply can't be disputed; that is, they are facts. No one disputes that Robespierre ruthless killed numerous French citizens, or that Napoleon seized power via a coup d'état. These are accepted facts about the background detail of this rocky period of French history. However, when prompted with a serious question in regards to Napoleon's continuation/discontinuation of the principles of the French revolution, our class divisively yet intelligently proved that there is truth to both sides of the conundrum. For example, I thought that Leila's comments in regards to the weakened rights of the French women were valid and thoughtful. She stated that yes, women generally lost rights, but it wasn't like the French Revolution granted women one hundred percent equality! In general, the opposite side strived to prove that Napoleon did what was in the best interest of the French people: for example, the creation of the Napoleonic code. From my team, I thought that Caitlin's comments were insightful and necessary in proving that Napoleon was certainly not a "pure hero." She effectively argued that although Napoleon had many military successes while emperor, those same military success plagued France and its citizenry for many years to come. Napoleon had left the French people worse off than they had been prior to the Revolution, namely due to the massive debt he had accrued as well as the diplomatic issues he raised due to his military tactics. Overall, I believe that the debate proved that Napoleon can't be described simply as a tyrant or as a hero. Rather, he had both tyrannical and heroic features that shaped France for years to come.