Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

During the Napoleonic Wars (especially towards the end), France and most of its allies (e.g. Kingdom of Italy, Duchy of Warsaw, Kingdom of Spain) are absolute monarchies. However, they seemed to genuinely claim that they were revolutionary forces fighting a revolutionary wars.

How did the governmental or societal structure in the First French Empire and its allied states significantly differ from their enemies, that allows them to claim to be revolutionary?

share|improve this question
    
"However, they seemed to genuinely claim that they were revolutionary forces fighting a revolutionary wars." Do you perhaps have a citation to back up this claim? –  user2590 Jul 21 '13 at 9:19

3 Answers 3

There was a set of reforms introduced by Napoleon into conquered countries

The law based on Napoleonic code. The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs should go to the most qualified.

  • The code declared presumption of innocence, competitive trial and right to an attorney.

  • The code prohibited secret and ex post facto laws

  • The courts were prohibited to refuse justice citing incompleteness of the law.

  • As a consequence, serfdom and slavery were abolished

  • Jews and other minorities were emancipated

The metric system Napoleon introduced in all conquered states the metric system which facilitated trade. The previous diverse measurement units were abolished.

The abolition of intrastate borders All borders inside a country were abolished as well as taxes for crossing such borders. This greatly expanded trade. The intrastate borders were especially common in Germany.

share|improve this answer
1  
There was no state of "Germany" until 1871 –  T.E.D. May 7 '13 at 12:27
1  
@TED is right, though the answer is not inaccurate. All those people identified as German, though they existed as independent states. So change "Germany" to "the German States" and the answer still works. –  Odysseus May 7 '13 at 17:53

What differentiated the monarchies of France and its allies from other European monarchies was that the "monarchs" were "nouveaux riches," (nouveau empowered, actually) as opposed to "established" monarchs. As for their claims to being "revolutionary," these monarchies were "born" in the French Revolution, and paid "lip service" to "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite."

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for the first part; -1 for the second :) –  Felix Goldberg May 7 '13 at 8:13
1  
Napoleon III was not an old-line monarch at all, even for his time. Why, he even married for love! It is true that he loved military glory and ran a very tight ship, quashing the opposition in what in the 19th century was considered heavy-handed ways. However, he also supported liberal and revolutionary causes (for instance, Italian unification) and there was a vaguely socialist strand in his thought (IIRC). Perhaps his son, or grandson (which he never had), would have been more like old-line monarchs, given the chance too become such... –  Felix Goldberg May 7 '13 at 8:18
    
@FelixGoldberg: the post has been edited (and the second part deleted). –  Tom Au May 7 '13 at 12:12
    
Okay, a straight +1 now :) –  Felix Goldberg May 7 '13 at 12:24
    
If it were me, I'd phrase the first point more around rulers' acceptance/rejection of the Divine Right of Kings vs. newer governing philosophies. The phrase "nouveaux riches" implies the difference is centered on money. –  T.E.D. May 7 '13 at 12:34

Well, Napoleon's empire and his satellites were born out of the French Revolution and presumably in his first years in power as First Consul, before he became emperor, he might have well retained some of the revolutionary rhetoric. (Did he actually? It'd be a good technical follow-up question).

However, once he became emperor, Napoleon didn't seem to have much use for revolutionary language or ideas. As you correctly point out, he was an absolute monarch himself and did not seek on principle to dethrone other absolute monarchs; instead he married the daughter of the Austrian Emperor. So I am a bit hard-pressed to recall examples where Napoleon or his minions claimed that "they were revolutionary forces fighting a revolutionary wars" - what did you have in mind?

Another telling example (for which, alas, I do not have a reference at the moment) is that Napoleon did not even conceive of offering Russian serfs freedom when he invaded Russian - arguably the only political move that could have allowed him to achieve victory (of course, actually winning his battles there also could have helped....).

share|improve this answer

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.