Republican opposition to Napoleon

D

Deleted member 88

Guest
So I’ve tried to do some research on this and have come up short.

Basically were there devoted republicans who opposed Napoleon because he was Emperor?

Both people and books/pamphlets?

I can’t seem to find much evidence of say someone who opposed Napoleon on the basis he was basically a new monarch.

Anyone have any information on this or am I chasing shadows?
 
The only one I’m sort of familiar with is Malet.

Though I’m not sure how much his coup was driven by political ends.
 
I actually got a reminder of how much Republicans love Napoleon rather recently actually.



*reads the thread*

Oh... nevermind...


:sneaky:
 
Did a bit of reading and while Napoleon did use the bomb attack to crack down on his Jacobin critics, it was actually Royalists who pulled it off.
 
Did a bit of reading and while Napoleon did use the bomb attack to crack down on his Jacobin critics, it was actually Royalists who pulled it off.
Any indication as to who his jacobin critics were? Names?
 
@Arlos are there any good French-language sources on this subject that you know about, if I may? I garnered you were somewhat historically inclined.
 
So I’ve tried to do some research on this and have come up short.

Basically were there devoted republicans who opposed Napoleon because he was Emperor?

Both people and books/pamphlets?

I can’t seem to find much evidence of say someone who opposed Napoleon on the basis he was basically a new monarch.

Anyone have any information on this or am I chasing shadows?

Would the French Directory sending him off to Egypt for years count as Republican opposition? It seemed rather apparently the French Directory feared Napoleon and his growing power and celebrity after his impressive conduct after the Siege of Toulon. Of course it backfired when he did return from Egypt and the public and military simply overwhelmingly adored him.

The wikipedia article on the French Consulate mentions that Napoleon had to consolidate his power from Republicans but beyond his co-Consuls (especially Emmanuel Sieyles), it only mentions his pro-Republican military rivals, Generals Jean Victor Moreau and Andre Massena and little beyond that.
 
Hmm, perhaps the Jacobins were a spent force by then.

So there was no "left" opposition to Napoleon.

But maybe I haven't done enough research.
 
Jacobins were depleted, disgraced and demoralised by the time Napoleon took over. The revolutionary ardor largely petered out by then, many of the most prominent leaders were executed either by Robespierre or after his overthrow, with common people sick of constant upheaval, thus welcoming a strong ruler. So Fuchet didn't have much problem keeping down the remaining rabble rousers, with Royalists (financed from abroad) being seen as more acute threat.
 
Basically what I’m asking is if there was any “left” opposition to Napoleon.

Any remaining radicalism?

Or was it gone by this point in time?
 
Napoleon seemed to believe so, but you would have to do some detailed reading on Fouche who did most of policing and intriguing, but I can't find much in English.
 
Hmm, perhaps the Jacobins were a spent force by then.

So there was no "left" opposition to Napoleon.

But maybe I haven't done enough research.

The Jacobins were emasculated by the White Terror soon after the fall of Robespierre and Saint-Just, they weren't in condition of opposing anything.

EDIT:
Basically what I’m asking is if there was any “left” opposition to Napoleon.

Any remaining radicalism?

Or was it gone by this point in time?

There was a radical social movement around 1798, I forget its name... but it was quickly suppressed. After that, you don't have anything left(pun intended).
 
@Arlos are there any good French-language sources on this subject that you know about, if I may? I garnered you were somewhat historically inclined.

it is a bit light on details, but usually accurate.
otherwise you need to read books on the subject. (Of which there is no lack of, considering it is Napoleon we are talking about)

Jacobins loved Napoleon, since he was considered one of them due to his career.
it’s important to note that by the time Napoleon came to power, most people were tired of republican ideals, there had been so much bloodshed, so much instability, that they just wanted it to stop.
He managed to unify most of the nation behind him, and the republicans intelligentsia pretty much fell in line behind him after a short, leaderless opposition utterly lacking in support by this point.
After that, the Glory pretty much overwrote most opposition :p
That’s not to say there was no Opposition to him, but it was minimal throughout his rule.
As a matter of fact, « Revolutionary » France as we know it today is mostly a national myths build up by the successive French republics to shore up legitimacy, there’s a reason why it took until 1871 for a « stable » republic to emerge.....it takes times for memory to fade.
And even then, the third republic was considered a government of transitions for a long time, until they could get the claims sorted out.
 
Yes, I remember that the Third Republic was always intended as a transitional regime to a Bourbon restoration.
Yes it was, but because of dynastic dispute and the fact that the claimant at the time refused to use the tricolor, the opportunity slipped, and the republic stayed until WW1(with difficulty), where the republic shored up its legitimacy by winning the war(again, with difficulty) and having a lot of Nationalist and Monarchist die in the conflict.
 
The revolutionary ardor largely petered out by then, many of the most prominent leaders were executed either by Robespierre
After you country was ran by a man who though that a reign of terror is a good thing, a man who just wants to conquer the world seems like a pretty good deal.

Especially since he seemed to have a talent for the whole world conquest thing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top