Napoleon Bonaparte And Kamehameha Comparison

437 Words2 Pages
King Kamehameha was the man who conquered and united all of the Hawaiian islands. Despite not being in line to inherit any of them, Kamehameha forcefully took control of every island except for Kauai and eventually united all of the islands under his rule. Comparatively, Napoleon Bonaparte, originally born into the minor nobility class, became the head and political leader of the French empire during the French Revolution and made lasting, positive changes to the French law, education, and most notably the military. Both King Kamehameha and Napoleon I were effective leaders during their rule. King Kamehameha and Napoleon’s empires, while in drastically different locations and different cultures, functioned much the same way. One example was when Kamehameha gained control of all the Hawaiian islands, he made himself the executive decision-maker and always remained informed on what was happening on each of the islands. Napoleon, though focusing on military prowess, also aimed to gain political power and popularity among the citizens of his territories, to be able to retain…show more content…
One of them is how they treated relationships with other countries. Kamehameha loved to trade and gain new resources, so he monitored the trade deals Hawaiians made and maintained good relations with countries such as Britain. On the other hand, Napoleon did attempt to form a temporary peace with European nations such as Britain, but the peace was unsteady and did not last long, and war resumed afterward. The second difference is how they grew or extended their existing empires. Kamehameha, as mentioned before, extended his power using trade and by making Hawaii into a port city, while Napoleon focused on extending his military power. Although Napoleon’s empire eventually fell in 1815, at his prime, the First French Empire was the dominant power of continental
Open Document