Napoleon (1) some help

[Finder]

Hey everyone. I'm doing a research paper for UoT on Napoleon. Sounds easy I need a billion and one primary and second sources plus historic journal articles.

Ok my problem was this was going to be easy. I usually write my papers with a marxist historic/economic lean to them (I'm not marxist but class and economics are easy to render in a paper and are impressive to most proffs and TA's.) The problem here was I was going to use classical referances to legitize my paper this time instead of marxist economic theories.

The next problem came when I totally confused myself on where I'd go with my paper when I looked at the argument. "Was Napoleon the natural conclusion to the French revolution" I was going to use a lot of classical referances such as Augustus and Ceaser this time and a few others. But I'm thinking I should not use it as much now, after reading into Mr N more and finding out he was generally extremely Liberal and democratic compaired to the people he fought and what he did in many of the nations. I could really use some help and perhaps some sources which I could quote on this matter. Also if anyone has a Historic Article on this it would greatly help. The one's I know abvout I have to pay for membership to review the articles.

What I'm not looking for is wars, dictionary quotes, battles and general history. Just looking for things which were said around the time of Mr N about his rise to power. Basically a historic article such as. "Napoleon's continuation of the french revultion" or something on that line. ANY help would be kewl. Thanks.


In need of sources

 

[The Gunslinger]

Just look and you'll find it. Napoleon is the most written about man in history aside from Jesus.

 

[Finder]

Thats what they say. I went to the UoT book store and could find barely anything on his rise to power or the late french revolution.

 

[cortez]

The problem with the Marxist/ economic angle is that it is, as you have found out, difficult to find research papers on, because really, people find this concept just a wee tad dull. Have you considered a Freudian angle to the whole thing- the importance of the anal retentive nature of Napoleon - while papers have written about the downfall of Napoleon because of his hemorrhoids, I haven't seen a thesis explore the psychological/ physiological and proctological root causes in Napoleon's childhood for the actual development of hemorrhoids in the first place.

 

[Finder]

Not that simple since Marxist analist is really needed in any paper these days. Because class conflic and economics has definitly pushed historic events. But at the same time social and religous aspects do as well. It's just finding the right amount of balance. I've been trying to prove this one on more of a social level but every time I start writing I can not ignore the different class presurers on any of the governments and movements. The fact that Napoleon was devistaed by the paris mobs when he visited paris when he was only a unimportant general says a lot to how he governed often by open plebisite to the paris mob.

Plus when you look at the players just before the directory fell they were drawn between conservative republicans who secretly wanted the monarchy restored, the directory who was more laiser-fair, the radical republicans of the jacobins who wanted back into power, the paris mob which pushed government policy and then more republican conspiritors who wanted a strong and small executive which Napoleon ultimately joined.

But the history of the second republic almost echo's that of the first too... well minus the terror and the radical republicans having little power.

I've totally confused myself for this paper. How can I prove or disprove that Napoleon was the natural conclusion to the french revolution. It's to late to change the topic too. lol I'm screwed.

 

[cortez]

Not that simple since Marxist analist is really
.

I've totally confused myself for this paper. How can I prove or disprove that Napoleon was the natural conclusion to the french revolution. It's to late to change the topic too. lol I'm screwed.

what i would suggest is that you not concentrate on Marx but rather Nietzche- ie that what is ALWAYS operative in history is THE WILL TO POWER- and that as the French revolution disrupted the established power relationships it made available excess power/energy that a UBERMAN could REORGANISE and utilize--- this is natural in the sense that the French society of that time HAD such a person. if they hadnt- then things might of spiralled further out of control and france may have totally collapsed- and become invaded rather than attempt an outward expansion.
in otherwords when these power relationships arre disrupted the two scennarios- and everything in between - are all NATURAL-
the two paths by their outcome show what phase of their NATURAL lifespan they are in- asension or decline

unfortunately all the above sounds fascist-- and offensive to center leftists like myself----
but as perhaps , as you may have already heard- if you go futher left and yet further left you eventually meet the right wingers coming in your direction---- ie stalin ie napoleon ect-- they meet there because that is where the will to power lives.

 

[Finder]

I was just reading Alan Wolfe and the relationship between the French Revolution and the bolshivic revolution and both the terrors and how the Bolshivics are basically moduled after the Jacobins. He used how the writings of Rousseau and other Utopians had on the effect of these "common good" revolutions. Plus the useage of a dictator to make sure the "common good" is doing good.

If the project was on the terror and if it was going to happen or not that would be easy to write. But if Napoleon was the natural conclusion to the french revolution, I'm not sure how to prove or disprove this. I'll most likely just ramble on and use histoic referance's to the second republic and the second empire to prove that it was a natural conclusion since it ended up happening a second time. I could however point out this was supported by the working class but the first and second republic, and the first and second empire didn't really support the needs of the working class, though the two empirers were closer to giving the working class more rights and this is why the first two republics may have failed where the first two empirers were much more successful.

hmmmmmmm

 

[The Gunslinger]

I always try to take the military side of papers, which makes it much easier. There's a lot more armchair generals than retired Maxists...

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Napoleon (1) some help

I always try to take the military side of papers, which makes it much easier. There's a lot more armchair generals than retired Maxists...

Problem is unless you take a course in university called "Great battles" of whatever battles don't really fly in history courses anymore. Both my professors (west-civ) take a social aspect to history. Which is as conservative as it gets. lol.