Not really. At the time, a republic meant a representative democracy, in contrast to the autocracy of a monarch or dictator. Which is why the American founding fathers talked about an "unmixed republic", where even the executive was directly elected.
True. But in Republics, even some of the oldest, the representants of the people were rarely elected for life. That was also the case in the different constitutions of the French Republic up to the reform of 1802 which made Napoleon consul for life.
Besides, the title Emperor is the title of a Monarch : you're instauring a monarchy even if Constitutionnal and very close to a Republican Regime. Napoleon only choosed this title for the following reasons :
1°) He didn't want to choose King. That would have seemed like a return of the Old Regime and Napoleon didn't wanted that. I'll agree that technically an Emperor is just a stronger King but they are not the same.
2°) Such as Charlemagne did when he was crowned "Emperor of the West" by the Pope, Napoleon wanted the title to show he was the heir of Charlemagne and not of the Old Regime. He also showed himself as the heir to the Roman Empire.
3°) The Roman Empire was technically the Roman Republic but with an Emperor. Napoleon learned and was very interested in Roman history. This influenced him when he proclaimed the Consulate, which was modeled on the Roman Republic, and later the Empire, modeled on the Roman Empire. This was shown on the coins which said on one side "Napoleon Empereur" and on the other "Republique Française".
Finally, Napoleon only proclaimed the Empire when the British started to become hostile once again. Hadn't that happened, he would probably have stayed as First Consul until he though the Empire was necessary.
maverick said:
Doesn't seem that hard.
It's basically just adding a line to the Treaty of Pressburg and giving Napoleon yet another title.
Not if you consider Napoleon's personnality.
Besides, becoming Holy Roman Emperor would have been of little help to Napoleon : it was practically become nothing more than an Honorary title. While the German Kings had to be loyal towards the Holy Roman Emperor, the latter had no real power over them and the German Kings could do as they pleased. Not to mention that the Title had been in Hapsburg hands since the reign of Maximilian I, and there were few exceptions.
maverick said:
I thought I had read on another thread that Napoleon did say this...
Well, never mind. Thanks for telling me I was wrong..