What changed?

Although it only lasted for twenty-five years, Napoleon Bonaparte’s French Empire was strong during its existence and utilized many of the same governing principles from prior empires. Like many former imperial leaders, Napoleon “cast himself,” according to Parsons, as the ruler. With great military success and persuading words, Napoleon promised to “restore Italy to its former glory.” Yet, in the midst of doing so, he crowned himself king.

This seems to be a reoccurring problem within imperial powers; one leader emerges as a capable militant or administrator and, not long after, is sitting on the throne, ruling over subjects. Some unique points about Napoleon’s rule however, were his specific goals of ralliement and amalgame.

Oddly enough, the definition of Napoleon’s ralliement is just how it sounds. A major goal was to ‘rally’ his imperial subjects. “The goal was for “revolutionaries and the men of the ancient regime to work together for the glory of France under Napoleonic rule.” From urban nobles, wealthy landowners, and former radicals, to men of talent with jobs and social honors, Napoleon needed to recruit elites to help maintain his empire. But this was a difficult task. In theory, the elites would be loyal to Napoleon and his regime, as well as provide financial assistance and resources for his rule. But just as there were problems in earlier empires, Napoleon struggled to acquire loyalty. Still, Napoleon’s goal to ‘bridge the gap,’ might have proved valuable if his empire had lasted longer. This bridging of the gap is evident his Napoleon’s amalgame. Using conscription, to mix revolutionary armies and French troops, Napoleon created a large army. He even “promoted amalgame by establishing prestigious secondary schools to train their sons for state service.”

And although these two shining aspects of Napoleon’s regime could be support for Parsons’ underlining argument, in this chapter, Parsons states that “Napoleon’s empire did not last long enough to give these experiments in social engineering a chance to…produce a loyal imperial citizenry.” It seems as if Parsons does not have as much evidence as usual for the ‘wrongness’ of Napoleon’s empire.

So what changed? Was Napoleon’s empire not as brutal as previous ones? Why did it only last for twenty-five years if it utilized many of the same principles and tactics? “Napoleon was no revolutionary,” but then why was his empire so different?