Napoleons Reforms in the Annexed Lands and Subject States of Italy and Germany - Essay Example

? Napoleon’s reforms in the annexed lands and s of Italy and Germany Assessment of Napoleon’s reforms in the annexed lands and subject states of Italy and Germany The Federal Republic of Germany is said made up of several Germanic tribes that came from Scandinavia to Germany around 100 B.C. probably due to overpopulation, which forced people to migrate to others areas. Sheenhan (1993) states that the Germanic tribes to the south of the Main River and west of the Rhine River were suppressed by the Romans and integrated into the Roman Empire. Other tribes to the north and south of the rivers mentioned earlier remained free, but they had less friendly relations with the Romans than those in the south and west of these rivers. The Franks, which was the largest Germanic tribe, took control of the territory that later became France and what is now Italy and western Germany. In 1989, the France’s feudal government exploded into an open revolt that drew the attention of all the European nations. This led to more than two decades of warfare as the empires tried to re-impose their own views in order to achieve a balanced power. According to Gooch (1948) this was the first true world war era and can be divided in to two periods: the Napoleonic Empire and the French Revolution. The French Revolution erupted in 1789 and involved most European countries including Germany and Italy. It gained the support and approval of some intellectuals in Germany and Italians. According to Sheenhan (1993), Germany is the only country where historians were majorly involved in the political process of nation building in which history was a powerful weapon in the struggle for national identity. Also, Germany was the only country where an official version where the past of the nation triumphed over its rivals entirely. In the middle of the 19th century, the advocates of the Prussian-led German country started to formulate an account of the German past that reinforced Prussia’s claims. However, this account of the German that was formulated became, as well as remained the history of Germany. Between 1842 and 1843, one of the founders of Prussian school of German history called Johann Gustav Droysen, interjected his work on the Hellenistic period to lecture about the age of wars of liberation where he discussed the developments of Germany from 1770 to 1815. As stated by Carr (1999) the French Revolution started in Germany in 1792 when the French troops invaded Germany and defeated the professional imperial army, which was protecting Germany. In 1794, France took control of the Rhineland that enabled it to keep Austria and Prussia apart, as well as controlled the small states of Germany for twenty years. Blanning (1983) argues that through the treaty of 1795, German forces and Prussian in the north of the main river declined efforts against the French. This was followed by several defeats on Austria with a notable one during the battle of Austerlitz, which took place in 1805. During this period, the Russians and the Australians fought together against the French who were aided by some German states such as Baden and Bavaria. However, in 1806, Prussia re-joined the war against France, but it was still defeated at the Battle of Jena. For this reason, Prussia lost its territory due to the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807, and it was also abandoned by Russia, which was its only ally. This motivated them to take up a serious program of social and military reform, which included reformers such as Karl August von Hardenberg and Karl von Stein among others who improved the education, military organization, laws, and administration of the country. In addition, Gerhard von Scharnhorst improved the military reforms and educated the army on the importance of moral incentives, responsibility and personal courage. This made Prussia stronger and in the late 1813, it joined forces with Russia, and Austria in order to defeat Napoleon during the Battle of Leipzig. After his defeat, Napoleon was driven out of Germany. However, the leadership of General Gerhard von Bluecher is what contributed to Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, by the Prussian forces, at the Battle of Waterloo. Despite his defeat and removal from Germany, some of the changes he had made in Germany when the French had occupied it, were retained. For instance, public administration was retained and improved, the power of the trade guilds decreased, feudalism weakened, and the Napoleonic Code replaced the traditional legal codes that were used in most places (Nipperdy, 1996). The legal code took effect mainly in Rhineland until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Moreover, Holborn (1982) argues that the advancement of these Napoleon reforms prepared some parts of Germany for the beginning of industrialization in the 19th century. Between 1789 and 1815, the political order, as well as the geographical shape of almost all states in Germany changed although the intensity varied from one state to another. For instance, the change was greatest in areas on the west of River Rhine, which were directly occupied by France while the weakest was in the northern and central states that were managed to stay out of France’s leadership. However, every German state had to bear the cost of the wars that were less punishing to the supposed allies France than her antagonists (Breuilly, 2002). In addition, most states of Germany had to come to terms with a radical redefinition of their territorial identity, and some also changed their rulers during this period. Thus, the financial burdens of the war and the political task of nation building expected that the governments find new ways to mobilize the social, spiritual and economic resources of their people. For this reason, the German states had to follow the French example whether they liked it or not. The decision of Napoleon to establish Mittelstaaten was dictated by the national interests of France where the emperor wanted a band of states that was large enough for stabilizing his eastern frontier, but not so powerful to challenge France. However, the main distinction of German and French views on revolution was that the in public discussions held in France, the legacy of 1789 was known as a positive and integral part of republican and democratic identity of the modern French state. Thus, the revolution could serve as a framework for providing integrative and positive, symbolic codes that bind the historical and political experiences and expectations respectively. According to Woolf (1991), Napoleon built a centralized, well-policed bureaucratic state, which had a powerful executive that was not challenged by representative bodies. In addition, it had a well-ordered economic status and massive military establishment. Ellis (1991) argues that Napoleon received a lot of resistance to many of these reforms mostly within those lands that were administered directly from Paris. He also managed to outmaneuver opposition. In other parts of Germany, obstruction and protests prevented the full imposition of the Napoleonic system. Thus, the most powerful of the monarchies of the 18th century was finally put into practice in the systematic reorganization of the administrative, financial and bureaucratic institutions that was done during the short period of the French rule. This is also true for other nations in Europe that were under Napoleon. However, according to Blanning (1983), the most memorable and obvious legacy of the Napoleon era was the model of a centrally-controlled, hierarchical and a uniform administration, which had an executive chain that descended from without any interruption from the minister to the administration, and transferred the law, as well as government’s orders to the furthest implications of the social order. This legacy is best understood within the context of Napoleon’s radical reorganization of the dominant government after the coup d’etat of 18 Brumaire. Napoleon amalgamated and increased the size of the government ministries especially the ministry of the interior, as well as the police and war ministries. In addition, he reformed the treasury and modernized the accounting system (Woolf, 1991). Also, Napoleon stabilized a system of prefectures in the financial department of France and gave them a key role in a centralized administrative system. The prefects were agents of the central government, who were appointed by Napoleon and responsible to him alone. They also supervised the administrative structures of the local government, as well as arrondissements, who were also appointed by Napoleon. The arrondissements were divided into communes or communities, which also chosen by Napoleon and led by mayors. Moreover, the prefects were in-charge of collecting taxes and overseeing the policing and education. They also controlled the recruitment on which the aggressive and massive army of Napoleon was depended. The rise in Napoleon’s ambition to create a centralized state is also evident in the treatment of the administrative personnel. For example, the public official got better salaries; the servants of the state were trained, as well as their employment and promotion were regulated according to seniority and talent within the administration, instead of family connections or privileges of class that were a characteristic of the ancient regime (Blanning, 1983). The Civil Code of 1804 is said to be the greatest victory of Napoleon (Ellis, (1991). The Civil Code confirmed the revolutionary principle of legal equality, as well as legal rights of property, property inheritance and property-acquisition. The reforms in education reflected a significant approach that would drive the state control and standardization. These reforms included a secondary school system in which the curriculum, libraries and examinations among others were subject to strict governmental regulation (Simms, 1997). Ellis (1991) argues that, during the Napoleonic era, some mechanisms were developed in order to provide detailed information on all aspects of the economy, as well as a society in all departments. This was clearly revealed in the systemic collection of statistical data, as well as the in the responsibility that was given to the prefects in order to ensure that first-hand knowledge was available under their jurisdiction. The Napoleonic legacy had a significant influence on the Italian state during the 19th century. Davis observes the impact of the French rule on the longer development of the Italian Mezzorgiono. The French rule was one that comprised of intensive administrative and judicial reforms. The French regime was one that set bout dismantling the ancient regime state. The French regime is responsible for laying out the foundation for a centralized, beaurocratic and autocratic monarchy. The French regime was also responsible for the abolition of feudalism, and the reorganization of the central and peripheral administrative institution of the state. The French also reconstructed the financial administration and that of taxation. They did all this in their first month of occupation of the state. To show their devotion on the southern state they went ahead and collected d data concerning the economy of the southern state. Davis states that the reform programme was the sole responsibility of Joseph while the implementation of the reform programme was the role of Murat. The French rulers had inherited a debt of over 100 million, and this was the challenge they faced during the restricting of their monarchy. The two principal challenges during this era were attempts to reorganize the administrative institution and to obtain adequate sources of revenue for their kingdom. The administrators who accompanied Bonaparte to Naples were ones with immense political and administrative experience, these people had survived through the French revolution, and these people included Miot de melito, Cristoforo Saliceti and Pierre Loius Roederer. The administrative changes these people applied were seen to be the prerequisite for any broader process of economic and social progress (Davis, 1991). This group employed rational administration, which allowed free enterprise, and this focused on establishing partnership that led towards economic and social progress. However, it should be note that the principle beneficiaries of the French reforms were those people who were already wealthy. It is evident that the administrative and juridical reforms that the French introduce in the 19th century accelerate the process of economic and social change; however, the political reorganization done by the French was rather ambiguous. This failure in providing a political solution to the southern state had serious repercussions. For instance, it inhibited the development of a new administrative institution. For some time, the state remained weak and ineffective; this was against their initial focus, which aimed at ending the devolution of power that was a characteristic of the ancient regime. The reason why the French had managed to take over most part of the southern state is because the French invaders claimed to support liberty and this made most of the Italians believe them. These groups comprised of young educated students, advocates, notaries, doctors, writers, some priests and friars. This group had the genuine enthusiasm for liberty, equality and progress (Davis, 1991). The French constitution received an appraisal for most regions of Europe and this served to their ease for occupying Italy. The French regime guaranteed free press, free association, freedom of worship and the equality of citizens before the law. It is to be noted that French ruled via the army. When the French needed local administrators, they turned to minor nobles rather than idealistic patriotic. This move by the French administrators’ disillusioned the idealistic patriots leading them to form clubs and secret societies. These societies pushed for greater social and political changes than the ones available. The French became unpopular due to their high land taxes and their habit of constant requisition of food. Locally anti-French revolts arose; these were marked by violent episodes. These revolts were widespread. The real impact of the French was through the legal and administrative decision this was undertaken by the state officials. The French administrators raised taxes and sold land, for about twenty years Italy wracked by constant, unpredictable war. During this war food prices rose, trade and tourism was halted. Lastly the French influenced the ideas or mentalities if the Italians. Laven and Riall look at the whole idea of centralization of Europe in the 18th century. Europe was looking at the possibility centralizing the government, rationalizing administrative structures and the possibility of curbing the power of the church, provincial orders and provincial estates. They saw the possibility of building bigger military machines than the ones they had. However, many are the times that French revolutionists faced rebellions that forced them to abandon the modernizing programmes (Clark, 1998). This is what differentiates Napoleon from other revolutionists because Napoleon managed to raise a well-policed centralized bureaucratic state with a powerful executive. The napoleon regime faced little resistance they had a well-ordered finance and a vast military establishment. In his radicalization of the central government, he increased the size of the government ministries that are the ministry of the interior, ministry of police and the ministry of war. Napoleon also reformed the created a central bank. Treasury modernized the accounting system and stabilized the currency. The impact of the napoleon rule influenced different parts of Europe in different ways some of the Italians state chose to maintain some degree of continuity to the Napoleonic system. Other states such as piedmont sort to return to the norms of the ancient regime. Among all Italian states, Sicily was the only region that was never subjected to the French rule. However, the other Italian states did adopt the changes presented by the French administrators. In spite of their lack of exposure to the French rule the Sicily did adopt some of the changes advocate by the French rulers, Sicily did impose a centralized administration, and it also adopted the social and economic reforms suggested by the French administrators. Laven and Riall observe that European nation admired the napoleon system of Ruling, and they even tried to adopt it. It is also evident that both Italy and Germany adopted the Napoleon system of ruling after the fall of the Napoleon regime. The adaptation of a centralized form of government is evident in most of the European states Italy and Germany included. The French regime was successful in spreading its influence in both Italy and Germany although it faced numerous revolts. All the influence and the revolution are directed to Napoleon and his system of revolution which will remain an admirable and historical form of ruling in European history forever. Napoleon the father of the French revolution doe link the past and the present historically (Laven and Riall, 2000). It is through the study of the past that we get to appreciate the journey of Italy and Germany as independent states in 21st century. The most innovative aspects of Napoleon’s era were not only in the growth of policing, but also in the trends towards administration and centralization, which represented a continuation of policies introduced by his forerunners. Moreover, the way in which the administrative nature of Napoleon involved a renegotiation of the relations between the society and the state revealed his innovative aspects. Gooch (1948) argues that the appointed of judges, teachers and the affirmation in the Civil Code of a highly patriarchal bias related to marriage inheritance, poverty and subordination of the provinces to the central power. This was also evidenced in other areas of the Napoleonic system. However, as stated earlier, the impact of Napoleons rule varied largely from one European nation to another, as well as his responses to his legacy. A look at the policies that were pursued by the different restoration governments after 1815, showed that there were other factors that contributed to long-term influence of Napoleon’s rule other than proximity to France and the duration of and infiltration of Napoleonic rule. An essential factor in the nature of restoration response to Napoleonic legacy was the personal outlook of the restoration leader and his close advisers (Holborn, 1982). The way the Restoration governments responded to Napoleon’s rule was partly determined by the ideology and aims of individual rulers, and in part by certain alliances and conflicts within different states. Also, it was partly determined by the political, economic and social circumstances that were created by the defeat of Napoleon (Holborn, 1982). Therefore, it is not surprising that one of the most significant aspects of Restoration for government is its puzzling variety. According to Gooch (1948), the impact of Napoleon’s legacy can only be understood in a pan-European setting, although the character of what came after him depended on the different factors such the proximity of France, the duration of the French rule, socio-economic conditions, the confessional differences, and the impact of war. For this reason, Napoleon’s reforms were not more said than done as stated by Ellis (1991). Gooch (1948) argues that Napoleon produced his most valuable reforms during the Consulate period after being advised by his council of state, which was a non-political body of experts. These reforms included economic management, the Code of Napoleon of 1804, education and the Concordat of 1801. Napoleon left the leadership of education of women and the poor to the local, municipal and church schools. In addition, he created a system of selective secondary schools that were mainly designed to train the future leaders, as well as the administrators of France. About a third of the places in schools were reserved for the civil servants and the sons of officers. The economic management reforms were such as the labor control in which passbooks were introduced to control the freedom and movement of workers. Also, trade unions were banned. In 1800, Napoleon established the Bank of France, which restored the stability to the nation by giving a monopoly of note issue to the new central bank, and backed it firmly with gold and silver. Moreover, the control of prices and the supply of food were introduced; thus, there were no bread riots to impend this rule. The Code of Napoleon was one of his greatest contributions. This included the codification of French law especially the Civil Code that replaced the 360 local codes of the Ancient regime. The Civil Code was a combination of the authoritarianism of Napoleon and the egalitarianism of the Revolution. Thus, as stated by Simms (1997), the old paternal authority in the family was restored e.g. the rights of women were strictly limited. In conclusion, Ellis (1991) states that Napoleon despite Napoleon being a capable of human gestures, they never came between him and his ambition. His military ability comprised of his mass conscript armies and rapid movement of by living off the country. Additionally, his victories were due to logistical planning than tactics, which were essential for his success. Thus, Napoleon’s reforms were not more said than done as stated by Ellis (1991). Gooch (1948) argues that Napoleon produced his most valuable reforms during the Consulate period after being advised by his council of state, which was a non-political body of experts. These reforms included economic management, the Code of Napoleon of 1804, education and the Concordat of 1801. In addition, it is evident that both Italy and Germany adopted the Napoleon system of ruling after the fall of the Napoleon regime. The adaptation of a centralized form of government is evident in most of the European states Italy and Germany included. Clark (1998) argues that all the influence and the revolution are directed to Napoleon and his system of revolution which will remain an admirable and historical form of ruling in European history for a ver long time. Bibliography Blanning, T. C. (1983). The French Revolution in Germany: occupation and resistance in the Rhineland, 1792-1802. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Breuilly, J. (2002). Austria, Prussia and Germany, 1809-1871. Birmingham: Longman. Clark, M. (1998) “The Impact of France.” The Italian Risorgimento: 7-15. Carr, W. (1999). The origins of the wars of German Unification. London: Longman. Davis, J A.( 1991) “The Napoleonic Era in Southern Italy.” Proceedings of the British America: 133-148. Ellis, J. G. (1991). The Napoleonic Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gooch, P. G. (1948). ‘Germany’s debt to the French Revolution’, in Studies in German History. London: Longmans, Green. Hamerow, T. S. (1969). The social foundations of German unification: 1858-1871: ideas and institutions, Volume 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Holborn, H. (1982). A History of modern Germany: 1840-1945, Volume 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Holborn, H. (1982). A history of modern Germany: 1840-1945, Volume 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Laven, D., Riall, L. (2000) “Restoration government and the Legacy of Napoleon.” Napoleons Legacy. Problems of Government in Restoration Europe: 1-28. Nipperdy, T. (1996). Germany from Napoleon to Bismarck, 1800-1866. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Simms, B. (1997).The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Executive, 1797-1806. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheenhan, J. J. (1993). German history, 1770-1866. New York: Oxford University Press. Woolf, S. (1991). Napoleon's integration of Europe. London: Routledge. Read More