Harsh criticism

In the political realm, historians debate whether Napoleon was "an enlightened despot who laid the foundations of modern Europe" or "a megalomaniac who wrought greater misery than any man before the coming of Hitler".^[4] Napoleon had grandiose foreign policy ambitions across Europe and the Americas.^{[citation needed]} The Continental powers as late as 1808 were willing to give him nearly all of his gains and titles, but he was overly aggressive and pushed for too much, until his empire collapsed.^[5][6]

Although Napoleon did end lawlessness and disorder in post-Revolutionary France, his enemies attacked him as a tyrant and usurper.^[7] His critics charge that he was not troubled when faced with the prospect of war and death for thousands, turned his search for undisputed rule into a series of conflicts throughout Europe and ignored treaties and conventions alike. His role in the Haitian Revolution and decision to reinstate slavery in France's overseas colonies are controversial and affect his reputation.^[8]

French liberal intellectual Benjamin Constant (1767–1830) was a staunch critique of the political homogenization and personality cult that dominated Napoleonic France. He expressed his condemnation of Bonapartism through various books, including as "The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation" (1814) and "Principles of Politics Applicable to All Representative Governments" (1815). Constant asserted that Napoleonic regime was even more tyrannical than the Bourbon monarchy, since it forced the masses to support its ideological narratives through imperialism and jingoism.^[9]

Napoleon institutionalized plunder of conquered territories: he loaded French museums with art stolen from across Europe. Artefacts were brought to the Musée du Louvre for a grand central museum; an example which would later be followed by others.^[10] Claude Ribbe in 2005 argued that his racism toward blacks inspired Hitler in his treatment of Jews.^[11] David G. Chandler, a historian of Napoleonic warfare, wrote in 1973 that, "Nothing could be more degrading to the former [Napoleon] and more flattering to the latter [Hitler]. The comparison is odious. On the whole Napoleon was inspired by a noble dream, wholly dissimilar from Hitler's ... Napoleon left great and lasting testimonies to his genius—in codes of law and national identities which survive to the present day. Adolf Hitler left nothing but destruction."^[12]

Critics argue Napoleon's true legacy must reflect the loss of status for France and needless deaths brought by his rule: historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost."^[13]

McLynn states that, "He can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life for a generation by the dislocating impact of his wars."^[7] Vincent Cronin replies that such criticism relies on the flawed premise that Napoleon was responsible for the wars which bear his name, when in fact France was the victim of a series of coalitions that aimed to destroy the ideals of the Revolution.^[14]

British military historian Correlli Barnett calls him "a social misfit" who exploited France for his personal megalomaniac goals. He says Napoleon's reputation is exaggerated.^[15] French scholar Jean Tulard provided an influential account of his image as a saviour.^[16] Louis Bergeron [fr] has praised the numerous changes he made to French society, especially regarding the law as well as education.^[17] His greatest failure was the Russian invasion. Many historians have blamed Napoleon's poor planning, but Russian scholars instead emphasize the Russian response, noting the notorious winter weather was just as hard on the defenders.^[18]

American historian Paul Schroeder (1927–2020) is willing to grant that Napoleon was a genius regarding "military, administrative, organizational, political, even literary [efforts]....[with] an extraordinary capacity for planning, decision making, memory, work, mastery of detail, and leadership." The problem is that he used this genius for criminal ends:

...he repeatedly and deliberately violated the neutrality of small states; that he resorted to judicial arrests and murders against foreign subjects; that he ordered his generals and satraps to use preventive terror to control their domains; that he not only conquered and suppressed other states in war, but also used tactics of bullying, manipulation, and extortion on them in times of peace, almost without regard to whether they were hostile or friendly; that he frequently violated understandings, promises, and treaty commitments; that on principle he ruthlessly subordinated the interests of all the states and peoples he ruled to those of France and ultimately of himself personally....[and so on].^[19]

Propaganda and memory

Napoleon's use of propaganda contributed to his rise to power, legitimated his régime, and established his image for posterity. Strict censorship, controlling aspects of the press, books, theatre, and art were part of his propaganda scheme, aimed at portraying him as bringing desperately wanted peace and stability to France. The propagandistic rhetoric changed in relation to events and to the atmosphere of Napoleon's reign, focusing first on his role as a general in the army and identification as a soldier, and moving to his role as emperor and a civil leader. Specifically targeting his civilian audience, Napoleon fostered a relationship with the contemporary art community, taking an active role in commissioning and controlling different forms of art production to suit his propaganda goals.^[20]

In Britain, Russia and across Europe—though not in France—Napoleon was a popular topic of caricature.^[21][22][23]

After Nazi Germany conquered France in 1940, Hitler marched in triumph in Paris and paid homage to Napoleon at Les Invalides.

Long-term influence outside France

Napoleon was responsible for spreading the values of the French Revolution to other countries, especially in legal reform.^[32] Napoleon did not touch serfdom in Russia.^[33]

After the fall of Napoleon, not only was the Napoleonic Code retained by conquered countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, parts of Italy and Germany, but has been used as the basis of certain parts of law outside Europe including the Dominican Republic, the US state of Louisiana and the Canadian province of Quebec.^[34] The code was also used as a model in many parts of Latin America.^[35]

The memory of Napoleon in Poland is favorable, for his support for independence and opposition to Russia, his legal code, the abolition of serfdom, and the introduction of modern middle class bureaucracies.^[36]

Napoleon indirectly began the process of Latin American independence when he invaded Spain in 1808. The abdication of King Charles IV and his son, Ferdinand VII created a power vacuum that was filled by native born political leaders such as Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín. Such leaders embraced nationalistic sentiments that were influenced by French nationalism and fought for independence which ultimately succeeded.^[37]

Everett Rummage says Napoleon, “is nearly synonymous with the spread of the modern bureaucratic state, not only the institutions themselves, but the modern outlook that goes with them: meritocracy, liberal property rights, public service and equality before the law.”^[38]