The Napoleon Debate allowed us to
analyze the infamous leader in different lights and gave an opportunity for us
to create our own opinions based on the facts. Since I have always heard of
Napoleon with a negative connotation, I picked the “pro” side to be able to
recognize the success Napoleon brought to France; however, the “con” side made
interesting points that stood out. One of the main reasons Napoleon might be an
unrespectable leader is because he stripped the women away from the little
power they had. As Ben mentioned, these women specifically went on March of
Versailles to protest against the heavy prices on the bread that was needed to
feed their families. This act of rebellion gave the third estate women power
that they wanted but could never have before the Revolution, yet when Napoleon
took control, they once again lost that little power. Napoleon was power
hungry, and continued to lust for more land. Cameron argued that Napoleon’s
expansion for France was not beneficial because of the lives all the wars cost.
Similar to what Machiavelli stated in The Prince, it is difficult to
control land that is more spread apart, and requires strategic placement of
people the leader trusts. Those who argued for Napoleon defying the Revolution taught
me about the greed and selfishness Napoleon based his choices on, while those
who believed Napoleon represented the Revolution gave me insight on the
decisions he made to help his country grow. Napoleon was a balanced leader:
every good came with bad.
Ashley Xu
Great post, Ashley! I really enjoyed reading about your perspective in regards to Napoleon and his legacy. I definitely agree with you that Napoleon was a balanced leader; he wasn't completely good or completely bad. Additionally, I thought that it was so interesting that you brought Machiavelli into your post. Great cross-cultural (cross-time period) historical analysis!
ReplyDelete