Napoleon's Victory At Austerlitz Analysis

Napoleon was largely seen as a savior after he overthrew the Directory, ending the chaotic French Revolution. However, Napoleon only pretended to cater to the masses, and became dictatorial himself. His obsession with power and domination suggested the despotic tendencies of a villainous leader. Furthermore, Napoleon lost many significant battles during his reign. In the Battle of Trafalgar, he shamefully suffered defeat to French’s nemesis Britain, failing to bring glorious victory to France.

Napoleon Bonaparte is 19th century Europe's greatest opportunist because after a period of total governmental revolution, he was able to take advantage of a nation's citizens who were seeking a solution from any source. France was coming from an era so awful that it was appropriately named the “Reign of Terror”, so this was an extremely weak time for the country which made them desperate for a source of stability. Brilliantly, Napoleon recognized his nation's wants and needs in order to consolidate his power along with ultimately gain control over not only France but a massive portion of Europe. Napoleon consolidated his power by using his accomplishments, promising equality and liberty, and marrying for political alliances.

This resulted in a treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle in 1748 which its focus was that of Prussia annexing Silesia leaving France out of the picture, this of course insulted Louis XV. Britain was widely known for their superior navy. Being that Britain was an island, it makes sense that their priorities would be focused on building a large army to defend

The Treaty of Tilsit left Napoleon free to turn his attention to Britain, Sweden, and Portugal, which were the two remaining powers that were allies of Britain. It was decided that Russia would be the one to take care of Sweden, while Napoleon told their ports to close Britain and also declare war on them, this marks the beginning of something called “The Peninsular War”, his intention of doing that was to finish the Continental System, because according to Napoleon there was no other way to make Britain make peace than by hitting its trade system. When the Portuguese proved slack, Napoleon ordered General Andoche Junot, with 30,000 men, to march through Spain to Portugal (this is when Spain was an ally of France), this went on from October- November of 1807. Shortly before

Thus, Napoleon and his image of a united Europe under France were crushed as his armies had been. Napoleon would spend the rest of his days on the island of St. Helena where he died Thus, Napoleon was a more Shakespearean tragic hero. Napoleon existed as a tragic hero because

‘’Bearing in mind that on the request of the Imperial German Government an Armistice was granted on November 11, 1918’’ this excerpt from the Treaty of Versailles marks the end of World War One and the beginning of the of the rebuilding of the German Empire and the rise of its most notorious leader Adolf Hitler. Shortly after Germany's defeat the great depression set in, mounting more pressure on the already straining German economy. Newly drawn boundaries fueled German aggression, as large amounts of her territory, resources and armed forces were taken away. Not only did Germany owe 33 Billion US dollars in reparations but the entire blame for World War One was placed on Germany's shoulders. The treaty of Versailles can be directly linked and attributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP.

The Great Powers consisted of Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, although eventually France joined later. The most influential leader of the Congress of Vienna was Austrian Empire’s Foreign Minister, Prince Klemins Von Metternich. He believed in reinstating a balance of power, and restoring Europe’s royal families to the throne so order can be created in the form of a monarchy. . He accomplished his first goal (wanting to prevent future French aggression by surrounding France with strong countries) by making the countries around France stronger (the Austrian Netherlands and Dutch Republic united to form the Kingdom of the Netherlands; thirty-nine German states were loosely joined to create the German Confederation, which was dominated by Austria; Switzerland became an independent state; and the Kingdom of Sardinia was strengthened by annexing Genoa). Metternich’s second goal (wanting to restore a balance of power) was

During the Revolutionary War, America needed a leader. He possessed the perfect mix of qualities, such as “patience, self-discipline, administrative abilities, willingness to work hard, and faith in the American caus.” His troops were green and lacked supplies and cohesiveness, but

Referring to Russia, Wilson stated “The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naïve majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world…” (Merrill and Paterson 2010, 32). However, that same Russian revolution that deposed Emperor Nicholas II lasted less than a year and its government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks. This had to be a surprise to Wilson, who ended up sending troops to Russia right after the end of WWI to fight the communists. Certainly, I would have chosen the monarch over what was about to come for the Russian people and the

1. What were the differences between the reign of Paul I and the reign of Alexander I? Paul I receded from the coalition who were fighting Napoleon and this may be one of the starkest differences between Paul I and Alexander I as Alexander I reenlisted Russia into the efforts being made to fight Napoleon when he became czar. Additionally, Paul I ruled more like his father than his mother, Catherine, however, Alexander I determined and announced to rule like Catherine.

France and Great Britain realizing its vulnerability to Germany as it was regaining power and the Triple Alliance formed the Anglo-Franco Alliance; ending Britain’s “splendid isolation”. The Anglo- Franco Alliance began in 1904 and then the Anglo-Russian Alliance following in 1907. This began the dividing of allies for the First World

The War of 1812 involved three wars that were fought on separate fronts. Although America lost the war for Canada in the North, they won the western and southern war and the final war, the Battle of New Orleans under the leadership of the “war hero”, Andrew Jackson. Wrapping up the War of 1812 with the signing of the peace treaty in Belgium, in 1814, the British finally decides that the war with America just wasn’t worth it anymore. The end result was a negotiation between the U.S. and the British delegates. Each side drop demands one by one until the delegates agree to end the war officially.

The War of 1812 has been referred to as a victorious “Second War for Independence,” and used to define Canadian identity, but the British only remember 1812 as the year Napoleon marched to Moscow. This is not surprising. In British eyes, the conflict with America was an annoying sideshow. The Americans had stabbed them in the back while they, the British, were busy fighting a total war against the French Empire, directed by their most inveterate enemy. For a nation fighting Napoleon Bonaparte, James Madison was an annoying irrelevance.

Wilhelm II 's first act was to issue a proclamation to the German army forcing them to swear an unbreakable allegiance to him (Cecil 124). He next fired many military officers he deemed to old to effectively do their duties (Cecil 124). Cecil writes, “In the first years of his reign, Wilhelm 's existence centered exclusively around the army” (128). He also followed his grandfather 's parting advice and gave word to the Austrio-Hungarian emperor Franz Josef that Germany would stand by Austria and support the fellow empire even in times of war (Cecil 131). After multiple conflicts between Emperor and Chancellor in domestic and foreign affairs, Otto von Bismarck (the Iron Chancellor) resigned the post he had held for so long and was succeeded by General von Caprivi (Cecil 167).

But what of the United States’ attitude? After all, the guiding anecdote behind this essay has been formed over years of American socialization, so it would only be appropriate to question the veracity of my claims. In “Napoleon and Hitler,” Steven Englund, an American, discusses the purportedly common conflation of Napoleon and Adolf Hitler. In his essay, Englund’s tone towards Napoleon is altogether chastising, but he does make a clear point to differentiate the two leaders, stating, “The fact that l’Empereur [Napoleon] halted the headlong course of the Revolution … does not make him a counterrevolutionary, any more than the fact that Hitler ‘radically’ altered the German polity and society make him a revolutionary” (156). His argument is that Napoleon is indeed reprehensible in retrospect but not purely evil.