I am actually not judging him solely based on his actions as first consul of the Republic. He didn't stop reforming France once he became Emperor of the French... And I still think he did overall more good than bad in his reforms.This is an expression of 1802. He was right at this time, but he ruled until 1814, so we should consider his whole reign and not only the four years of the Consulate.
Quite frankly, given the mess that had come with the Revolution's liberal attempts, I wouldn't blame Napoleon for thinking a liberal regime couldn't hold. The first French Republic was after all one of the most unstable regimes in French history when you get down to it. Plus Napoleon was always a soldier and he probably favored a regime that followed the direction he wanted it to follow. Not saying he couldn't have taken a more liberal approach, but frankly that wasn't in the man's nature.You could have brought stability to France without establishing an absolute monarchy. That's the point. Napoléon brought stability to France, yes, but at what cost? In the last years of his reign, civil liberties were heavily restricted. People could be incarcerated without judicial review, and few people even bothered to read the newspapers because they had become so boring.
Besides, in terms of absolute monarch, I'm not sure he was that horrible: he had the flaws that come with the position sure, but he still proved rather good
You're kinda forgetting the Hundred Days in your story. Louis XVIII's regime wasn't exactly popular during the First Restauration: I'll give credit to Louis XVIII's attempts at reconciliating everyone but fact is that the Ultras weren't satisfied with his early decisions as they thought he wasn't going as far as he should and you also had an opposition that quickly arose from those who weren't happy with seeing the church come back in full force as well as in the army due to budget cuts. As for saying that the Restauration brought stability to France without suffocating it... It's kinda forgetting that the Charte is actually an extremly ambiguous text where everyone could read what they wanted. And then you have to remember that in 1820, when the Duke of Berry was assassinated, the Regime took a very conservative turn and gave up liberalism. So, I'm not really convinced about that.That's one of the reasons why many liberals of the time were Royalists. And indeed, Louis XVIII established a quite liberal system instead of restoring the Ancien Régime. After the white terror of 1815, the Restauration brought stability to France without suffocating it.
War fatigue did appear but Napoleon still had the aura linked to his near-invicibility and he was still in a strong position over the continent. Dissatisfaction to the regime was growing but as long as Napoleon was dominant militarily, he still had a pretty strong support. This changed after the Russian campaign where most of Napoleon's army was lost: by that point, the regime basically started to crumble. Napoleon still managed to hold on power but his defeat at Leipzig in 1813 definitely sealed his fate: the French campaign of 1814, though a strategic marvel, was nothing but a last hurrah as he pretty much had already lost all political and popular support.According to Jean Tulard's book Napoléon, the first evidence of war fatigue is visible in 1808; also, Tulard assesses that the climax of Napoléon's power wa sin 1806/7. In 1809, he had already lost the initiative to Austria, and the annexations until 1811/12 were IMHO nothing more than desperate measures.
It's not much that he lacked a grand strategy as much as he adopted the wrong one. The Blockade in itself wasn't a completely bad idea but the truth is that he had basically no means to enforce it except by use of his armies.Napoléon lacked a grand strategy. He tried to defeat Great Britain with his continental blockade, but the blockade wasn't working. Napoléon had to allow exemptions, and many states of Europe weren't obeserving the blockade. Therefore, he tried to gain direct control about more and more territories to enforce the blockade instead of reconsidering the whole Continental System.
The annexations weren't completely pointless, at least not from Napoleon's POV: they allowed him to have better direct control of what was going on in said regions. I can agree they weren't necessarilly smart moves, but still it was all a matter of control in the eyes of Napoleon by this point.Just that he didn't expanded by annexing hostile territories, but by eating his own allies and vassals! In 1809, he annexed Rome - he could have restored the Roman Republic of 1798, but that would have been to republican. In 1810, he annexed Holland and parts of Berg and Westphalia - all three states were ruled by his relatives. In 1812, he annexed Catalonia, even if Spain was his own brother's kingdom.
Such annexions were completly useless and only antagonized the conquered populations. And as I already wrote, the Frenchmen themselves didn't want them. They certainly weren't eager to die in a war to conquer a foreign territory.
The republic had more or less sabotaged itself when Napoleon took power: all the Revolutionnary violences as well as the political instability of the Directorate had doomed it. The Consulate itself is more or less a well-intentionned Dictatorship. The First Empire just took things a bit further.I never said that Napoléon Bonaparte was French worst leader. He was a brilliant general who repeatedly saved the French Revolution. He was an energic ruler and could get things done - the Code Civil is one example of a reform that was implemented due to his influence. But he held absolute power, and we all now that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He could have been a French Washington, serving his ten years as First Consul, defending the Republic against the monarchies of Europe and then leaving power after having created a stable, prosperous and free country. Instead, he decided to became France's Caesar, the gravedigger of the republic.
And Napoleon had every intention of creating a stable, propserous and free country. Each and everyone of his actions were made towards that goal. Even his coronation as Emperor was aimed towards that: it was basically an attempt at reconciliating the Ancient Regime with the Revolution by fusing them together. Napoleon ruled according to his own interpretation of the revolutionnary ideals: a centralised authoritarian power but one that strived to respect the ideals of the Revolution. That's why he basically forced every country he could to adopt his Code Civil and many of his reforms followed revolutionnary ideals.
That's what the First Consulate appears to be. In truth though, the balance of power was heavily advantaging the First Consul. I might admire him a great deal, but even I know that Napoleon wasn't really one to share power, even before his coronation.You keep emphazising on the Code Civil - I would do the same in your position. The Code Civil was one reform of the Consulate. During the first four years of his government, Napoléon was controlled by other institutions; the State Concil advised him and the Legislative Body voted on the laws, even rejecting some bills (among them was one of the first drafts of the Code). That's why the Consulate is so admired - you had an energic and competent leader on the top, who was checked by republican institutions like the parliament. Many Europeans intellectuals like Beethoven of the time praised the enlightened dicatorship of citizen Bonaparte.
Napoleon's rule became a bit more autocratic sure. But basing himself on the ideas of the Revolution, he basically became a sort of enlightened despot. Again, when you look at a good deal of the reforms he applied, even under the Empire, he still tries to follow his ideals, despite the bit of corruption that comes from him having absolute power.But I can only repeat it: this positive image of Napoléon is limited to his first six, four, maybe only to his first two years. As his power grew, he became more and more autocratic. Instead of behaving like a French Cincinnatus he clung to power. He first became Consul for life, then Emperor. He absolished the egalitarian etiquette of the Revolution and even restored the nobility in 1808! His wars became highly impopular with the French, and his foreign diplomacy lacked a real strategy. Without a working system of checks and balances, the general of the French Revolution became Attila, despised by both Europe and his own population. The press was strictly censored; the conscription became more and more crushing; Napoléon ruled by decree because he knew that even the parliament didn't support him unconditionally anymore.
And that's exactly how I make my judgement of the man. I still think he was a Great Man, both as First Consul and as Emperor of the French. I still think he was overall more good for France than bad. Like any Great Man though, he also had Great Flaws and that's eventually why he failed.We can't grasp Napoléon's true character by limiting ourselves to the First Consul Bonaparte who enacted the Code Civil. We also have to take the absolute monarch Napoléon I into consideration.