Assess the impact of Napoleon on Europe

The Napoleonic Empire came into existence following the coronation of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor of France at Notre Dame in 1804. The frontiers of the ancien regime had been expanded up to and beyond France’s natural borders, with the momentum of expansion following in direct correlation with the pace of France’s military conquests under the leadership of Bonaparte himself. The ‘Great Empire’ is often referred to as a single entity embracing French controlled Europe, but territories were in fact separated depending on the levels of French control. Territory ruled directly from Paris was known as the pays reunis which compromised of France’s natural frontiers (borders of the Rhine, Alps and Pyrenees) as well as annexed territories of Piedmont, Parma, Papal States and Holland after 1810. It was also divided into the pays conquis, which were nominally independent satellite states and formed a zone protecting the borders of the French Empire from attacks from countries such as Britain. These were ruled by Frenchmen who were usually close to Napoleon as a family member or as a close friend, such as Jerome Bonaparte who was King of Westphalia and Joachim Murat who was King of Naples. When discussing impact, the effects of Napoleon and his policies on factors such as economies, religion and nationalism in satellite states that composed the Napoleonic Empire will be taken into account, whether positive or negative on the states.

Napoleon changed the running of countries in the European Empire to promote stability. For example, Napoleon appointed family members and close friends as leaders of countries within his Empire. His brother, Louis, is an example of this as he was placed on the throne by Napoleon following the Batavian Republic being replaced by the Kingdom of Holland in 1806. This can suggest that Napoleon planned to use the Empire as a method of gaining dynastic respectability as this links to the states of Naples, Westphalia and Spain where Napoleon’s other brothers Jerome and Joseph ruled for periods of time. By having a strong dynasty, Napoleon would have the Bonaparte name remembered just like that of the Hapsburgs as an example, leaving Europe in control of the Bonaparte family in the future and lead to high levels of power. This also links to Napoleon’s early life while in Corsica, where the clan system was highly valued. The clan system was based on the principle of supporting family members or friends due to the fact their loyalty could be rarely questioned. It also links to the structure of Napoleon’s government as prefects which were head of independent departments were often friends of Napoleon and were appointed by the First Consul because of Napoleon’s confidence in them completing their job to the best of their ability through their loyalty to Napoleon, which is why Napoleon is likely to have appointed family members and friends such as Murat in high positions. Napoleon’s impact could therefore be seen as one to gain continental power for himself and his family rather than putting France first while many could say it Napoleon failed to consider ways in which to improve Europe, but in fact it should be argued that by appointing people close to him such as Louis Bonaparte, it is very likely these people will respect Napoleon and be determined to work hard for the state and more importantly Napoleon, which would as a result provide leadership which would take the state’s issues seriously while also being likely to offer stability due to their reign being long term due to their association with Napoleon. Louis, who became King of Holland shows this as he became popular with the Dutch people due to the fact he looked to reform the Kingdom of Holland and strived for improvement, showing that in fact Napoleon’s use of the clan system and appointment of those closest to him did make attempts to improve the outlook for European states and provide stability and improvement. By appointing people close to him, it also shows how Napoleon liked to centralize power around himself as by having loyal people around him, he could easily influence their role and in effect manage the country/state himself through the use of a family member or close friend, showing that Napoleon in fact looked to manage Europe as independently as possible. This trend is also followed in countries such as Holland, Poland, Italy and Germany with these countries gaining more centralized power, allowing for more stable governments. As well as this, Napoleon’s level of control on different countries differed based upon their location. Lands that had been annexed to France were directly ruled from Paris which included Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine. This shows that countries geographically close to France were directly ruled because they would act as a protective zone to France from attacks from enemies and troops could quickly be called upon if required by France, which agrees with Napoleon when he justifies that the creation of the Empire is for the protection of France and for France to gain the rewards from. Provinces such as Illyria and Catalonia which had not been annexed were administered by prefects from Paris

Napoleon used the system of conscription across the Empire to improve the French military, while pressuring countries across Europe to provide a number of troops for the French. Between 1807-1813, French military expenditure rose from 462 million francs to 817 million francs. Frequently, Napoleon’s imperialism and desire to create an Empire led to military conquests which paid for these campaigns, with an example being after the battle of Jena in 1806, where the Prussians were forced to pay the French 311 million francs. By using conscripts from across Europe, Napoleon could lower this expenditure while using money received from his conquests internally within France. Holland, who were led by Louis Bonaparte, provided conscripts for the French. Initially, Louis rejected the idea of conscription due to his pro-Dutch beliefs and concerns of the strain it may place upon the Dutch military. Following Napoleon’s strained relationship with the Kingdom of Holland, it was later annexed in 1810 when conscription was then forced upon them. For the Russian Campaign in 1812, Napoleon took 14,000 troops from the Kingdom of Holland, which ended in disaster, with only a small number of the initial troops from Holland returning. Inevitably, this would lead to rebellions within Holland as well as pressuring the relationship between Napoleon and his brother Louis who shared the feeling of the Dutch public. This then led to the Dutch welcoming the methods of the Prussians and Russians, rather than following French rule. By doing this, Napoleon would fail as being seen as a liberator following the arrival of Prussian and Russian rule in 1813. Napoleon is therefore portrayed as having a negative impact on Holland militarily by using Dutch forces for a campaign which ended in a disaster for himself and France, leading to more social tension within Holland as a result due to rebellions against the rule of French powers and a weakening in the identification between the people of Holland and Napoleon. After defeating the Austrians in 1792, France were seen as potential liberators from the perspective of people in Belgium. However, the French soon began to impose heavy demands on the Belgians to support the French Army. As in Holland, this led to rebellions and protests from the Belgian population which indicates the unwillingness of some satellite states in supporting the French Army, which is understandable due to the economic impacts it could have on replacing troops given to the French and the frustration it could cause within a country socially. Despite this, in 1798, the French later imposed conscription on the Belgians. From this, Napoleon only received a quarter of expected recruits from Belgium, but they were efficiently used by Napoleon. Between the period of 1798 and 1813, 216,111 Belgians were used in the French Army. Therefore, it shows the reluctance of countries such as Belgium in providing conscripts just like Holland due to the economic and social impact it could have on the country. However, it shows that any resistance to the system of conscription would leave Napoleon enforcing conscription upon the states, which could show that Napoleon used conscription because he was determined for France to have the strongest army possible in terms of numbers and would not let the threat of loss for France become less important than causing tension in relationships between himself and inhabitants of states under French control. Napoleon also used Poland in order to gain troops for the French Army. Within Poland, Napoleon was seen as the leader who could bring independence to Poland which was decreasing in power. In order to gain troops, Napoleon made vague promises of potential independence for Poland away from Austria, Prussia and Russia. Independence was something the Polish people had been seeking for years, so it was clear that the Polish would obviously commit men towards the French Army. For the 1812 campaign in which the French sought to invade the ‘motherland’ Russia, the Polish committed over 98,000 troops in hope the promises made by the French Emperor Napoleon would be kept. Throughout Napoleon’s military career in France, it would be Poland who would provide the French with the most military support in terms of conscripted troops as the number of Polish troops in the French Army totaled 200,000 overall. As well as this, around 2/3 of Poland’s state budget went on military expenditure. In analysis, it is evident that Napoleon saw Poland simply as a supply store of soldiers to his Army. As it may be expected, Napoleon failed to fulfill his vague promises in exchange for Polish troops and re-iterates the point on how Napoleon’s main focus was on improving France as a military force and also how the Empire was centralized around France as by improving France’s military, it represents the way in which the Empire helped protect France’s natural borders from enemies such as Britain, which is one of the reasons Napoleon wanted to compose the Empire. Also, Napoleon also failed to understand the impact this would have on Poland. Socially, this would have been likely to cause anger within Poland due to the fact they had been lied to by Napoleon, a man they saw who could change Polish history while their hopes of gaining independence away from the powers of Austria, Russia and Prussia was temporarily put on hold due to Napoleon’s failed promises. Napoleon’s impact also is likely to have had an economical impact on Poland, as in theory the Poles committed between 60-70% of their finances to funding the French Army and it’s military campaigns rather than spending it on internal issues which is also likely to have caused social tension within Poland. The lack of troops now available for Poland due to the conscription to the French Army could also be seen to have a negative impact on Poland, as if they had a stronger Army, they could have added more resistance towards Austria, Prussia and Russia to seek independence, so Napoleon can be seen as an indirect factor in the amount of time it took for Polish independence due to his failure to fulfill the needs of the Polish people and weakening Poland in order for his Army and France to reap the rewards. The Kingdom of Italy also was theoretically used as a production line of troops for Napoleon and his Army through the further use of conscription. The French forced Italy to maintain an Army of 55,000 for the use of the French Army whilst they also had to pay for 25,000 French soldiers to be within their borders. When conscription was introduced to the Republic of Italy, the population of Rome fell from 136,000 in 1809 to 112,000 in 1814 due to the Italian population’s resistance to being called up to fight for the French. From this, it can be established that conscription also led to a negative impact on the Kingdom of Italy as Napoleon failed to understand the economic impact of forcing the Italians to pay for 25,000 French troops and would lead to rebellions within Italy due to anger of French rule. The reducing population of Rome signifies the negative view countries such as Italy had on the conscription system forced upon by the French, with the impact reducing the strength of the military available to the Italians while inevitably having a negative impact on the economy due to the funding they must pay to the French for housing their troops within Italy and how they would have to replace the troops that had to be conscripted to Napoleon and his Army. Therefore, Napoleon had a negative impact on Europe in terms of conscription. It can be seen that all satellite states opposed conscription, and although Poland were the main state to assist the French militarily, this was only through bribery and false promises from Napoleon which exaggerates Napoleon’s desire to build France as the greatest nation and inevitably him and his reputation as one of the greatest leaders of all time. Napoleon’s impact improved France’s military as you may expect and had a direct factor in gaining victory in Napoleon’s military campaigns as they helped outnumber France’s enemies, but the impact was almost totally negative in European states due to the way in which it weakened the military of these states, resulted in the states spending more money to replace conscripted troops and it caused social and frustration within countries due to the French rule which damaged the relationship between France and the rest of the Empire, suggesting why the Empire was in power for only a short period.

Also, Napoleon exported nationalism across Europe following the composition of the Napoleonic Empire. Nationalism was a product of the French Revolution which began in 1789 following a desire for social and political upheaval that united the nation of France. When Napoleon became First Consul in 1799 following the Coup of Brumaire/the overthrow of the Directory, the Revolution was deemed over and thought to be a success due to the belief in Napoleon being the ‘Son of the Revolution’. It’s success and spirit of unity within France gave nationalistic aspirations to countries across the European continent. The Revolution brought productive change to France such as economically and socially and was to be envied not just in Europe, but also worldwide. Napoleon’s imperialism was to provoke a spirit of resistance against French rule due to the sense of patriotic pride citizens felt towards their country, such as in Spain prior to the Peninsular War in 1808 when peasants revolted against French troops on their soil. Germany is a prime example of a country which impacted positively from nationalism exported by Napoleon and the French. In the 18th century, Germany consisted of 400 states such as Prussia, Wurttemberg and Saxony. At this time, Germany was enjoying a cultural renaissance with music, philosophy and literature becoming extremely popular with the German public. In 1806, Germany’s situation changed following the defeat of the Prussian Army against the French at the Battle of Jena in 1806. The recovery from the Prussians led to growth in national confidence following the successful manner in which the Prussians looked to recover and rebuild their Army which was known across Europe as one of the best in terms of the quality of soldiers. From the defeat at Jena, the Prussians adopted ideas from the French following their domination over Germany. Also, following recent Austrian defeat and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the influence of the Hapsburg dynasty weakened significantly over states such as Prussia. This therefore shows clearly that with a reduced influenced from the Hapsburgs, any potential ideas from the German public regarding an all-united German state would be encouraged due to a rise in the importance of public opinion following reduced control from the Hapsburg following military defeat. Austrian defeat was caused by Napoleon and the French Army, resulting in Napoleon becoming an indirect factor in Germany gaining momentum towards an all united state due to the fact he reduced the Hapsburg influence to allow these ideas of a unified state spread across Germany and be welcomed. As well as this, Prussia introduced new reforms both militarily and administratively for improved organisation and also efficiency. From this, they created a new national army; strong and stable government as well as an improvement in the country’s education system. These reforms were based upon the model set by France as the strong, stable and efficient government which was composed by Napoleon allowed France to be successful both militarily and also as a country with improvements in the economy, political situation and socially noted following Napoleon establishing power. By doing this, it is evident that the aim of this was to create patriotic devotion towards German nationalism and unify the German public in gaining this one desire. Prussia was a country which failed to reform for years following it’s success as a military state in which they failed to discover a need to reform, but the French Revolution as well as Napoleon can be associated with this change as French reforms made by Napoleon and the Consulate saw dramatic changes politically and within the Army in France, so by following the successful French model of changes and ‘updating’, Prussia would inevitably improve as a country which would become popular with the people, resulting in new nationalistic and patriotic views from the German public. Napoleon’s impact of nationalism on Germany may have also been part of his downfall. By spreading nationalism across Europe, it would be undeniable that European enemies of France and Napoleon would soon realize that if a country could be successful by having unity internally, then countries which are united together would be a major threat to anyone. Therefore, in 1814, the Treaty of Chaumont was signed by Austria, Prussia, Russia and Britain. With all these countries united together with one common aim which was defeat to Napoleon, there was simply no possibility of Napoleon being able to beat this monumentally powerful coalition and would therefore bring the end of Napoleon’s reign as Emperor of France and his Empire, showing that Napoleon and his exportation of nationalism to countries such as Prussia involved in the Sixth Coalition against him acted as an indirect factor of his own downfall in 1815. His downfall also led to the Congress of Vienna in 1815 where Germany was reduced to 40 states following Napoleon’s creation of the Confederation of the Rhine previously in 1806. Germany was later unified in 1871, meaning Napoleon’s impact of nationalism led to himself becoming a long term factor in Germany’s unification because of the fact his exportation of nationalism, whether deliberate or not following it being a factor in his downfall, led to the idea of Germans wanting a unified state and Napoleon’s military success paving the way for patriotic devotion and showing his impact in Europe and Germany. Italy was also affected by the exportation of nationalism. Unlike Germany however, Italy had no notion of Volk, meaning the population was not bound together by language or heritage. Italy was not anti-French however as the intellectual middle class welcomed the reduction of Catholic power within the Kingdom of Italy which links to the impact of Napoleon on religion in Europe, following the signing of the Concordat with Pope Pius in 1801 having a positive impact with the middle class Italians who were of course important as the middle class are the most arguably important class sector within a country due to it’s majority representation of the population as well as showing they tend to be the most active politically and socially as seen from the French Revolution. During the Hundred Days campaign in 1815, Murat who was the King of Naples declared war on the Austrians and proclaimed that the Italians should fight for unity and ultimately their independence. This ended in disaster however, and Murat was shot dead. Nationalism did begin to spread within Italy however, with many wanting away from French rule due how the country was used as a military source for Napoleon only which links to the factor regarding Napoleon’s impact on Italy through conscription. In 1820, 1830 and 1848, Italian revolutions occurred to gain independence which many claim is indirectly due to Napoleon and that his impact on Italian nationalism helped the Risorgimento movement progress toward ‘de facto unity’. Poland had been impacted by nationalism in the 18th and 19th century. Originally, Poland had been an independent state for centuries before being portioned between 1772 and 1795 between three major powers: Austria, Prussia and Russia. In 1807, Napoleon created the Grand Duchy of Warsaw to give the Polish an idea that an independent Poland could soon be formed. This links to Napoleon’s use of conscription however, as the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw was in fact a ploy in order to gain troops for his upcoming military campaigns as by offering the prospect of independence, he was confident and almost arrogant in thinking the Polish would agree, which they did. It shows the importance of winning battles to Napoleon as rather than positively striving to improve states in his Empire such as Poland, he is determined to have the strongest Army possible likely due to the fact he was only in power due to the ‘careers open to talent’ scheme in France following the emigration of 6,000 officers in France during the Revolution and that the only way to maintain power was to continue winning military conquests. The Poles continued to support Napoleon up until Waterloo, which resulted in defeat for Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna led to further partitioning of Poland. In 1830 and 1848 the Polish rebelled against the powers which controlled them, but lost both times. However, Poland did gain independence in 1918. Napoleon can be seen as an indirect and long term factor of Polish independence as the creation of Grand Duchy of Warsaw provided the Poles with the ambition to make Poland independent again although independence came costly to them in the sense that they previously lost rebellions in 1830 and 1848, but Napoleon’s impact on Poland in terms of nationalism should not necessarily be seen as successful due to the lack of direct action taken by himself. From this, we can learn Napoleon did export nationalism which was a product from the French Revolution, but not necessarily deliberately. Although he justified the composition of the Empire through claiming to export the gains of the Revolution, the exportation of nationalism led to countries such as Germany becoming united and therefore stronger, with Prussia co-working alongside Russia, Austria and Britain to lead to Napoleon’s eventual defeat at Waterloo in 1815.

Furthermore, Napoleon’s enforcement of the Continental Blockade in 1806 upon European states had a large impact, mainly economically. For example, many satellite states such as Belgium and Holland were forced to abide by the Blockade, which had the purposes of protecting domestic markets from foreign competition as well as defeating Britain due to the fact Britain was seen as a ‘country of shopkeepers’, meaning that a reduction of trade for Britain would have worse effects on them then perhaps a military defeat to Napoleon. The blockade had negative effects on the economies of European countries, such as Holland. The blockade blocked a number of trade routes Holland had used, which led to the effect of a lack of income and exports for the Dutch which led to the weakening of the economy. A satellite state close to France in the form of Belgium, however, actually became more successful following the enforcement of the Continental System. Industries in Belgium such as textiles and manufacturing began to thrive due to the fact that Britain, who was arguably the main worldwide supplier of textiles, could not longer openly trade with European powers following the introduction of the Blockade which blocked British exportation of goods. Although Belgium had a greater demand following the Blockade and earned more money through exports as a result, this did have a negative effect on other economies within Europe. Britain was one of the main exporter of goods for the simple reason that their goods were cheaper than foreign competitors, such as Belgium. With British goods then becoming unavailable following the introduction of the Continental Blockade, the amount of money countries would have to use to import foreign goods from countries such as Belgium would increase as these goods were more expensive than what the British offered. Therefore, it can be said that Napoleon’s introduction of the Continental System had a negative impact on economies within Europe as although the Continental System became a direct factor in the improvements of trade in Belgium so the amount of money received increased, many countries had to begin paying more money for imported goods which can link to the military and conscription as by having to pledge more money for imported goods, the budget countries had available became smaller so less money could be spent on military and the calling up of troops which could be used in Napoleon’s armies, which was one of his main aims of his foreign policy and therefore can be seen as being a negative for him also.

The Kingdom of Italy also suffered highly from the impact of the Continental System. Imperial decrees of 1806 and 1810 followed the introduction of the blockade and resulted in Italy’s trading links being abolished and led to them only being able to trade freely with France. It was seen as a kingdom reserved simply for French trade to be sold at high prices. Napoleon’s impact therefore was extremely negative on Italy as the reduction in trading links would of course lead to a reduction in financial prosperity and therefore the strength of the Italian economy, although this would provide beneficial to France directly following their goods being sold at high prices. This does link to the social tension Napoleon had already caused in Italy following the high levels of conscription placed on the Italians, and by weakening their economy for the gains of France, it would increase on the initial social frustration and is evidence of his impact on Italy. Following the years after the Continental Blockade was introduced, the French city of Lyon became a mass producer of high quality silk. This had been a trade industry in which the Kingdom of Italy and Piedmont had been successful in prior to the Blockade. Exportation of silk from Italy was then banned due to Napoleon wanting to encourage the production of silk within France and more directly Lyon, once again re-iterating the fact Napoleon wanted to use the Empire and the Continental System purely for the benefit of France without taking regard for powers within it’s Empire such as Italy. As France began to have successful years in agriculture and had surplus crops to export, other countries could not export crops as freely as before the blockade and had to import from France. This depressed agricultural prices across Europe, and caused a decrease in standard of living due to many being unable to pay for the inflated prices of imported French goods such as crops. This shows Napoleon’s Continental Blockade had a large impact on Europe and mainly negative as although Belgium improved under it- which links to the way in which countries are run, with nearby countries to France generally benefitting, but most countries lost trading links and had a worse economy, showing the Continental System was a direct factor in creating a negative impact on many economies across Europe.