Napoleon I and the revolution...

[B0LSHEVIK]

Napoleon I emerged from the French revolution. But why? What led to his seizure of power? As Ive understood it, he was already popular for supposed military successes in Egypt, but so?? Why was he given a Consul-ship anyways in the first place, let alone being the first Consul. I know the facts, Im just curious to as what was the French internal urban situation. Ive read that many people wanted a restoration of an absolute power, calling it only natural.
And a few years down the road, why did Napoleon declare himself emperor? As I understand, because he was uber-ambitious. But really? What were the politics behind him deciding to crown himself emperor.

And just for fun, what do you think of Napoleon? Did he preserve and expand the revolution? Or did he betray it?
IMO, he expanded it. What do you think?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

While my knowlege of the French Revolution, it's causes and internal politics is very limited, I'd have to say that Napoleon betrayed it's very core ideals (equality before law, 'democratic' rule, a republic rather than a monarchy).

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Here's an interesting story:

In the fall of 1791 the French government was pushing for war. Among the very few who opposed it, a young politician argued that war would eventually destroy the Revolution: war was a way of postponing the conflicts between the King and his ministers, between the ministers and the people. It was a way of avoiding internal conflicts, class conflicts in particular. Sooner or later, war would empower a strongman who would destroy the Republic itself. The young politician's name was Robespierre.

Histories of the French Revolution tend to underestimate the ideological shifts that the next decade of warfare caused within the French political landscape: the idea that all equality, freedom, etc. could be imposed on others by force. Robespierre's Terror represents perhaps one-hundredth of the victims of military violence both inside and outside France.

[manic expression]

Histories of the French Revolution tend to underestimate the ideological shifts that the next decade of warfare caused within the French political landscape: the idea that all equality, freedom, etc. could be imposed on others by force. Robespierre's Terror represents perhaps one-hundredth of the victims of military violence both inside and outside France.
That's right. IIRC, it's pretty well established that the White Terror took at least as many lives as the Jacobins' Terror. The demonization of Robespierre was a rewriting of history by the Revolution's enemies and moderate supporters.

Anyway, Napoleon's ascent isn't simple, and I haven't read too much on it, but basically the French Republic was a tug-of-war between a bunch of groups, and Napoleon arrived on the scene in 1799 to support the right wing of the Republic in a coup. Later, his personal power outgrew that political base, and he put himself at the head of the whole thing...before ending the Republic itself. In the process, he subjugated all classes to himself while presiding over the economy established by the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Here's an interesting story:

In the fall of 1791 the French government was pushing for war. Among the very few who opposed it, a young politician argued that war would eventually destroy the Revolution: war was a way of postponing the conflicts between the King and his ministers, between the ministers and the people. It was a way of avoiding internal conflicts, class conflicts in particular. Sooner or later, war would empower a strongman who would destroy the Republic itself. The young politician's name was Robespierre.

Histories of the French Revolution tend to underestimate the ideological shifts that the next decade of warfare caused within the French political landscape: the idea that all equality, freedom, etc. could be imposed on others by force. Robespierre's Terror represents perhaps one-hundredth of the victims of military violence both inside and outside France.

I had never heard that before. Is it true? Can you cite?

So the Terror wasnt so bad, or the warfare produced outnumbers the Terror? Just want clear that up.

ON EDIT:

But if not for a declaration, the republic faced invasion? What option did the republic have other than declare first?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

White Terror, Red Terror. The number of bourgies legally executed under the emergency measures promoted by Robespierre was a couple thousand, max. Not to mention that a very high proportion were not of the upper classes, it was more a question of political payback than economic - at least that's one theory. Some of the revolutionary "delegates" (commissars, if you will) were vicious enough that a few were actually recalled and condemned by Robespierre's group for excessive brutality, and those easily involved tens of thousands executed, not to mention famine and such. (Fascist historians have tried to pin the label "Genocide" on the revolutionaries, kind of the way they've tried to pint it on Stalin: a lot of playing around with statistics.) Napoleon himself was involved in a couple of vicious reprisals, one in the South of France, the other one in the center of Paris. Meanwhile, he was getting closer to the center of power under the Directoire, the corrupt bourgeois elite that took over after Robespierre - actually they'd been involved in the Terror themselves and Robie was the fall guy. Napoleon eventually married Josephine, who had been Go-down Gussie no.1 for Tallien, the head (so to speak) of the Directoire. On Eighteenth Brumaire 1799, Napoleon took absolute power (fun scenes of his loyal soldiers chasing the elected representatives with bayonets), the so-called Consulate was just a fig-leaf until he could make himself Emperor.

[B0LSHEVIK]

White Terror, Red Terror. The number of bourgies legally executed under the emergency measures promoted by Robespierre was a couple thousand, max. Not to mention that a very high proportion were not of the upper classes, it was more a question of political payback than economic - at least that's one theory. Some of the revolutionary "delegates" (commissars, if you will) were vicious enough that a few were actually recalled and condemned by Robespierre's group for excessive brutality, and those easily involved tens of thousands executed, not to mention famine and such. (Fascist historians have tried to pin the label "Genocide" on the revolutionaries, kind of the way they've tried to pint it on Stalin: a lot of playing around with statistics.) Napoleon himself was involved in a couple of vicious reprisals, one in the South of France, the other one in the center of Paris. Meanwhile, he was getting closer to the center of power under the Directoire, the corrupt bourgeois elite that took over after Robespierre - actually they'd been involved in the Terror themselves and Robie was the fall guy. Napoleon eventually married Josephine, who had been Go-down Gussie no.1 for Tallien, the head (so to speak) of the Directoire. On Eighteenth Brumaire 1799, Napoleon took absolute power (fun scenes of his loyal soldiers chasing the elected representatives with bayonets), the so-called Consulate was just a fig-leaf until he could make himself Emperor.


Can you recommend any good reads on the rev?

[Kléber]

Napoleon Bonaparte was a contradictory character to whom their are few political comparisons, although it would be most accurate, in retrospect, to call him the Stalin of the French Revolution. Bonaparte began his political career as a leftist Corsican revolutionary who was jailed during Thermidor (1794) for being a suspected sympathizer of Robespierre. However, the constant political turmoil eventually offended his bourgeois sensibilities and by 1799 he had become a "man of the right," the savior of a degenerated bourgeoisie whose leaders hated the revolution, feared the proletariat in the wake of Babeuf's conspiracy, and wanted a military dictatorship to solve their problems. Bonaparte was selected by the reactionary officer caste as its strongman to take power from the five-man Directory in 1799 and replace it with an even less democratic three-man Consulate.

After taking power, Bonaparte officially declared the revolution to be over, bloodily repressed an attempted neo-Jacobin counter-coup, and sanctioned his regime with a rigged election. Over the following years the French state steadily turned back the gains of the Revolution; it restored the temporal power of the church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801) in 1801, restored slavery in 1802 at the behest of French planters (successfully in most places, unsuccessfully in Haiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Domingue_expedition)), purged the French army and navy of its Black and mixed-race officers, abandoned Republican vestiges of government in favor of an Empire in 1804, enacted conservative legislation based on feudal moralism such as reinstating the ban on anal sex which had been abolished in 1791, and even granted aristocratic titles to the French generals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility_of_the_First_French_Empire).

Some people still consider Emperor Napoleon to be a revolutionary, because he led a degenerated bourgeois state, fought against all the old monarchist powers under the tricolor flag, and officially abolished feudalism in those parts of Eastern Europe conquered by the French Empire. However, in spite of his military talents, Bonaparte should be remembered as a traitor to the revolution, the murderer of its heroes, and a racist genocidal warmonger who was foiled in his imperial schemes by the people of Haiti and Russia.


Can you recommend any good reads on the rev?
If you can get a hold of it, I'd recommend A Social History of France, 1789-1914 by Peter McPhee. It covers a lot more than just "the" revolution, ie the political events of 1789-1795, but then the bourgeois revolution didn't end in 1799 or 1815, there were actually two more French Revolutions (1830 and 1848) not counting the Commune of 1871.

For something online, try: A Short History of the French Revolution for Socialists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1890/french-revolution/index.htm)

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I had never heard that before. Is it true? Can you cite?

So the Terror wasnt so bad, or the warfare produced outnumbers the Terror? Just want clear that up.

ON EDIT:

But if not for a declaration, the republic faced invasion? What option did the republic have other than declare first?

On edit myself - which part should I cite? I can give you primary reference to the events around Robespierre opposing the war if you wish - there's some argument as to how vigorous his opposition was, and what, exactly his beef. Right now I'm following Scott and Rothaus, Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, which is pretty reliable and gives other reliable sources. (Wonk alert: I wrote my PhD on one aspect of the FR.)

Question 2 - Yeah, meanie Robespierre makes great footage, but historians have a hard time being objective: it's a question of how much blood you want to lay on the head of the revolution in general, and Robespierre in particular. There were folks inventing stuff about the wild mob, etc. from day one. My personal favorite is the story that Jacques Louis David, the painter who was also on Robespierre's team, kept a small guillotine in his studio in case the models didn't keep the pose.

Question 3 - By the Fall of 1791 the French Gov't consisted mostly of a newly elected "Legislative Assembly," a group of ministers, and the King. Unfortunately the voting restrictions limited participation, and the lower classes and their reps. had been pretty violently repressed. (One of the leaders of the repression was to head the Directoire.) Unfortunatelier, the King and Marie-A. (Mrs. King) had a right to veto and recall ministers, and they were playing both sides, secretly pushing their cousins the Kings of Europe to declare war against France while pushing the French ministers in the same direction and using their veto rights to stall action in the Assembly. The ministers were dumb enough to take the bait. Later an iron armoire was discovered in the Royal Palace, with a lot of very incriminating stuff on Marie-A and the ministers. And the heads did roll.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Sorry - good reads on the FR: Again, as posted elsewhere, Jule Michelet's History of the French Revolution, published mid-nineteenth century. Unfortunately it ends after the Fall of Robespierrre. A tremendously moving account and a great work of literature.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think the thing that is most interesting about the French revolution is the confluence of events and people. Almost every major french actor witnessed the storming of the Tuileries including Napoleon Bonaparte, then a young artillery officer, and Louis Phillipe, the future citizen king of France.

I'd also suggest The French Revolution by Albert Soboul for a marxist analysis of the revolution.

[Dimentio]

While my knowlege of the French Revolution, it's causes and internal politics is very limited, I'd have to say that Napoleon betrayed it's very core ideals (equality before law, 'democratic' rule, a republic rather than a monarchy).

Those ideals were betrayed since the Thermidor reaction anyways.

In 1791-1794, there had been an attempt to institute general male suffrage. There had been some kind of semblance of equality before law. There had been a political control of the lower petty-bourgeoisie in Paris.

But between 1794 and 1799, the democratic rights were rolled back by a new clique of plutocrats who just instituted voting rights for those affluent.

Napoléon did not betray the revolution, and neither did he do anything but killing the last semblances of republicanism. In some aspects, Napoléon preserved some of the gains of the revolution, in terms of structural reforms and the Code Napoléon. If Napoléon hadn't won power, some other general like for example Bernadotte or Ney would have played that role (in fact, Bernadotte was approached by Siéyes while Napoléon still was in Egypt).

Moreover, Napoléon meant extremely much for Europe. The last relics of feudalism were swept aside.

The only thing which was really unforgivable that Napoléon did was the reinstitution of slavery in Haiti.

He was not an ideologist, but a pragmatic authoritarian leader who did what he did to preserve his own power, the power of his family and clique and the power of The First French Empire.

[B0LSHEVIK]

On edit myself - which part should I cite? I can give you primary reference to the events around Robespierre opposing the war if you wish - there's some argument as to how vigorous his opposition was, and what, exactly his beef. Right now I'm following Scott and Rothaus, Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, which is pretty reliable and gives other reliable sources. (Wonk alert: I wrote my PhD on one aspect of the FR.)

Question 2 - Yeah, meanie Robespierre makes great footage, but historians have a hard time being objective: it's a question of how much blood you want to lay on the head of the revolution in general, and Robespierre in particular. There were folks inventing stuff about the wild mob, etc. from day one. My personal favorite is the story that Jacques Louis David, the painter who was also on Robespierre's team, kept a small guillotine in his studio in case the models didn't keep the pose.

Question 3 - By the Fall of 1791 the French Gov't consisted mostly of a newly elected "Legislative Assembly," a group of ministers, and the King. Unfortunately the voting restrictions limited participation, and the lower classes and their reps. had been pretty violently repressed. (One of the leaders of the repression was to head the Directoire.) Unfortunatelier, the King and Marie-A. (Mrs. King) had a right to veto and recall ministers, and they were playing both sides, secretly pushing their cousins the Kings of Europe to declare war against France while pushing the French ministers in the same direction and using their veto rights to stall action in the Assembly. The ministers were dumb enough to take the bait. Later an iron armoire was discovered in the Royal Palace, with a lot of very incriminating stuff on Marie-A and the ministers. And the heads did roll.

1) Well my request for a citation was for the claim that Robespierre was young in 1791 (lol), and that he had opposed war for so long. I didnt know that part.

2) So, how many people died in the Terror then? Ive seen 40-60K cited. Obviously, the wars that followed saw much bloodier acts. I was just wondering if you are saying that the Terror didnt kill as many.

Also, the victims of the terror, were the aristocracy and their 'friends' right?

3) So, that being the case, what other option did the First Republic have other than declare war first in order to postpone any aristocratic invasion of revolutionary France? I mean, really, their hands were tied, were they not?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Okay,
1) Robespierre was 33 (born 2/12/1758, in case you feel like baking him a cake). He did'nt "oppose" the war once it started, he simply opposed the bourgeois government using the declaration of war as a way to "unite" the people. The guy was smart - and complex, and very, very forthright. They called him 'L'incorruptible." 'Nough of that, why Robbie opposed it, what that said about him, etc. gets into heavy areas of discussion.

2) This one's more fun. Obviously there are widely divergent opinions, depending on the bias of the historians. Here's my take on Richard Bienvenu's numbers, from my trusty Scott and Rothhaus. It's an interesting "middle" position.

Basically, Bienvenu's arguing that "The Terror" is the name one gives to the civil war in France between the September 1793 and July, 1794 (fall of Robespierre), the period when the Jacobin-led Government decided to consciously use violence against civilians to protect the Revolution. Bienvenu figures about 40,000 victims of the Government, including combatants who were shot or murdered or died in jail after surrendering or being captured, not including those killed in combat. Of the 40,000, 17,000 were actually condemned by a tribunal and (usually) guillotined. However, 80% of the total number occurred in areas of high civil conflict (e.g., not in Paris). In other terms, most of those executed were accused of taking up arms against the Republic. Which is why only 8% were of the nobility, and another 25% bourgeoisie. The rest were peasants and such.

Victims of the "White" terror (viz., royalists), is a whole 'nother ball game.

Another interesting point: most of the victims occurred before Robespierre got going in Paris: by then (February through July of 1794) the country was somewhat more pacified. That's the part they love to show in the movies, the so-called Great Terror, with the tumbrels going through the streets of Paris the noblemen and women, etc. That would account for somewhere under 3,000 victims.

3) "Their hands were tied" because they were going to be invaded sooner or later? It's just one instance of what historians of the French Revolution call "la fuite en avant," the flight forward:the bourgeois government of 1791 was desperate to stop the radicalization of the Revolution; by declaring war they radicalized the people even more.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Okay,
1) Robespierre was 33 (born 2/12/1758, in case you feel like baking him a cake). He did'nt "oppose" the war once it started, he simply opposed the bourgeois government using the declaration of war as a way to "unite" the people. The guy was smart - and complex, and very, very forthright. They called him 'L'incorruptible." 'Nough of that, why Robbie opposed it, what that said about him, etc. gets into heavy areas of discussion.

2) This one's more fun. Obviously there are widely divergent opinions, depending on the bias of the historians. Here's my take on Richard Bienvenu's numbers, from my trusty Scott and Rothhaus. It's an interesting "middle" position.

Basically, Bienvenu's arguing that "The Terror" is the name one gives to the civil war in France between the September 1793 and July, 1794 (fall of Robespierre), the period when the Jacobin-led Government decided to consciously use violence against civilians to protect the Revolution. Bienvenu figures about 40,000 victims of the Government, including combatants who were shot or murdered or died in jail after surrendering or being captured, not including those killed in combat. Of the 40,000, 17,000 were actually condemned by a tribunal and (usually) guillotined. However, 80% of the total number occurred in areas of high civil conflict (e.g., not in Paris). In other terms, most of those executed were accused of taking up arms against the Republic. Which is why only 8% were of the nobility, and another 25% bourgeoisie. The rest were peasants and such.

Victims of the "White" terror (viz., royalists), is a whole 'nother ball game.

Another interesting point: most of the victims occurred before Robespierre got going in Paris: by then (February through July of 1794) the country was somewhat more pacified. That's the part they love to show in the movies, the so-called Great Terror, with the tumbrels going through the streets of Paris the noblemen and women, etc. That would account for somewhere under 3,000 victims.

3) "Their hands were tied" because they were going to be invaded sooner or later? It's just one instance of what historians of the French Revolution call "la fuite en avant," the flight forward:the bourgeois government of 1791 was desperate to stop the radicalization of the Revolution; by declaring war they radicalized the people even more.

1) So what was Robespierres solution? And, where would he stand on the political spectrum in revolutionary France? Was he liberal or conservative?

2) Ok. About the White Terror, how was it carried out? And could you as a favor give a timeline from the storming of the Bastille up to the Consulate? I know its asking a lot, but Id appreciate it! The white terror sure is downplayed historically.

3) I see what youre saying. But my main question here is with debates aside, could the republic have avoided the years of war ahead? Did it have an option other than to prepare for war? And, Napoleon was a Jacobin correct?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

1) So what was Robespierres solution? And, where would he stand on the political spectrum in revolutionary France? Was he liberal or conservative?

2) Ok. About the White Terror, how was it carried out? And could you as a favor give a timeline from the storming of the Bastille up to the Consulate? I know its asking a lot, but Id appreciate it! The white terror sure is downplayed historically.

3) I see what youre saying. But my main question here is with debates aside, could the republic have avoided the years of war ahead? Did it have an option other than to prepare for war? And, Napoleon was a Jacobin correct?

1) I guess you could compare Robespierre to Lenin - Lenin would have liked that. Nominally supportive of wide rights for the proletariat, but these rights were temporarily suspended, so who knows? Mostly headed one of the first and most thorough state interventions in all facets of everyday life.

2) White Terror very different. First, it went on from 1789 until 1815 (fall of Napoleon). Not systematic, but consisting of local violence (almost mafia-like) on and off as the situation permitted.

3) It wasn't a Republic, it was a constitutional monarchy in early 1792. Yes, if Louis XVI hadn't been such a complete, self-destructive idiot it's possible war might not have happened. Hard to say. Robespierre's solution was to overthrow the King before he could screw things up even further. Would have probably led to war anyhow, but at least no-one to stab the French in the back. Napoleon was no Jacobin.

And here's the basic timeline:


I) Assemblée Constituante 1789-1791.

Formed out of the meetings of the Estates Generals called by the King to Versailles to resolve the fiscal crisis.

Abolition of feudal privileges (under pressure from peasant revolts), Declaration of the Rights of Man. Establishes a constitutional monarchy with limited voting rights. The idea that the Revolution, like England’s Glorious Revolution, is over, is shattered flight mid-1791 by the King’s attempted flight and by the civilian massacre of the Champ de Mars.



II) Assemblée Législative, 1791-1792.

Increasing tensions between factions. King declares war, leading to increasing military threat, and huge volunteer recruitment. On August 10 1792, French troops take the Tuileries Palace: end of the Monarchy, beginning of the Republic.



III) Convention, 1792-95.

Under popular pressure and as the threat of war increases, Government gradually shifts towards more and more radical (and violent) measures: first the Girondins (liberal politicians), then the Cordeliers (Danton, Desmoulins) are eliminated, then the populist leaders of the Paris Commune, leaving Robespierre and the Jacobins, the first political party in the modern sense. Extremely progressive constitution, with universal male suffrage and many rights, is passed but never fully implemented. Ends with the fall of Robespierre. (9 Thermidor).



IV) Directoire, 1795-99.

The bourgeoisie consolidates its power, alternately fighting left and right uprisings. Increasing importance of the military, due to victories of French army. Ends with Napoleon taking power in a coup. (Eighteenth Brumaire).