Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 8 down vote favorite
1

I wonder why the Allies did not execute or imprison Napoleon in Bastille for life after both times when he was captured. Even more, they risked by granting him an island in possession. This is quite illogical given that they portrayed him as an evil murderer and usurper.

Only two reasons come to mind in this light:

  • That they did not want to create a precedent of murdering a head of state so that they not to be murdered similarly in case of defeat.

  • That they somewhat recognized Napoleon as a legitimate leader or at least recognized something of his impact as positive.

May be there were other reasons, for example, the Catholic church did not want to revoke the title of emperor from him?

What were the actual reasons?

share|improve this question
Just to add that the Bastille was demolished at that time. – Nikko Sep 20 '12 at 10:57

3 Answers

up vote 4 down vote

Napoleon WAS imprisoned. The first time, at Elba, was under "house arrest." Security was lax, and he escaped and started the "100 Days."

The British didn't make the same mistake the second time. The venue chosen for his exile was St. Helena Island in the South Atlantic, one of the most isolated places in the world. It is more than 1000 miles from Angola to the east, then uninhabited by "civilized" people. It is several thousand miles to Brazil, to the west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena

A British garrison guarded the island, to prevent escape off the island. A British fleet patrolled the waters around the island, and would have recaptured him if he had somehow launched a boat into the South Atlantic.

As to why he was not put in a conventional prison in Europe, "out of sight, out of mind."

share|improve this answer
1  
Elba was given to his possession. He became a governor of that island, not a prisoner. – Anixx Apr 17 '12 at 13:44
@Anixx: But he was clearly imprisoned the second time around. Even the first time, I would call it a "gentleman's agreement," that he didn't abide by. – Tom Au Apr 17 '12 at 13:51
Well, according to Wikipedia he was given a souvereignity over Elba and even retained the title of Emperor. So he was somewhat recognized as a legitimate ruler. The excile on Elbe also little resebles imprisonment rather than an excile. The British even planned to use him to institute a new empire in South America. – Anixx Apr 17 '12 at 14:24
I'd also imagine that much of this effort was in large part due to the realization that if Napoleon was executed he would become a martyr and risk causing unrest in France where he was still widely respected. It makes a lot more sense to place him in comfortable isolation until he died of natural causes as his direct connection to the French people started to fade. – BrotherJack Apr 23 '12 at 22:57
up vote 4 down vote

He was probably lucky that he managed to surrender to the British (strictly speaking he claimed political asylum) rather than the Prussians.

Even then he had a number of political supporters in Britain that thought imprisonment was a bit severe!

"To consign to distant exile and imprisonment a foreign and captive Chief, who, after the abdication of his authority, relying on British generosity, had surrendered himself to us, in preference to his other enemies, is unworthy the magnanimity of a great country; " Lady Holland

share|improve this answer
Thinks. So he probably was not in hands on the French royal dynasty nor in the hands of the Germans. The British simply wanted to use him for their purposes. And his well-being was probably a condition of surrender. – Anixx Apr 11 '12 at 15:45
2  
@Anixx - although there probably was a political element of not making a martyr I think there really was still a feeling that it would be dishonourable to execute the loser. Or at least a loser from a proper civilized country that fought by the rules with a proper army. Even at the end of WWI the same attitude applied – mgb Apr 12 '12 at 2:44
Interestingly Wikipedia claims that the British were against the Treaty of Fontainebleau because they did not want to recognize him as an emperor of France which was inscribed in the treaty's terms. So it was some other party that was responsible for the mild terms. – Anixx Apr 17 '12 at 14:32
@Anixx, their position that recognising him as Emperor and installing him on an easily accesble island close by might be a mistake was shown to be pretty accurate in 1815! So dumping him on an island in the middle of the ocean with no rank or pirvilige to be forgotten about seems like a smart solution – mgb Apr 17 '12 at 15:38
up vote 4 down vote

Considering he escaped from an island prison and re-rallied the country, putting him in the Bastille (in the middle of France) and then leaving and demobilzing your army would quite obviously have been a Bad Idea.

As for not executing him...I don't think they could really do that either. His only real "crime" was leading armies against them and losing. If people got executed for that, then any one of them might be executed too if they had lost. Not the best of precidents to set, if you yourself happen to be a general or a monarch.

So they tried to put him somewhere out of France where he couldn't restart things. Even gave him a small kingdom there to keep him busy. He escaped and restarted things. Then they put him somewhere quite a bit further out, and kept a closer guard on him.

share|improve this answer
1  
He escaped from the island because he was NOT imprisoned there There were many people under his command there and even military units. Anyway he could be imprisoned not only in France but, say, in England or elsewhere. As for the crimes, he was accused in usurping the power which is capital crime everywhere in the world. – Anixx Apr 11 '12 at 14:17
4  
@Anixx - Well, I'd argue about every point of analysis in that comment, but I doubt I'd convince you. The last sentence in particular though...how do you think every ruling dynasty in Europe got there? Taking over power in a country is historically only cause for execution when you fail and the person you tried to usurp is still around to see it carried out. See Machiavelli's The Prince. – T.E.D.♦ Apr 11 '12 at 14:32
And he failed so he could be punished for that. – Anixx Apr 11 '12 at 14:45
2  
@Anixx - No, he succeeded most spectacularly at taking over France. It was his military adventures that he ended up failing at, and (as discussed above) that's a very different matter. – T.E.D.♦ Apr 11 '12 at 16:25
"His only real "crime" was leading armies against them and losing." - If they wanted to, they could have painted him as a criminal monster. The anti-Napoleonic propaganda in Britain was already doing that with great success: stanford.edu/group/ww1/spring2000/Bogdan/Essay.html – quant_dev Apr 14 '12 at 11:35

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.