What was greater: the French Republic or French Empire?

First off, sorry, this has nothing to do with alternate history. I just didn't know where else to put it.

In your opinion, what do you think was best for France? The French Republic, lasting 12 years, and at its height, a Consulate ruled by three men with the First Consul being Napoleon Bonaparte,

or the French Empire, lasting 10 years and being ruled by just one man: Napoleon?

Consider things like, their impact on the world, influence throughout the world, which one brought France glory, and which one was just overall better for the people of France to live under.
 
I'd say that Napoleonic France was the greatest and many countries still use the Napoleonic code as a basis for their civil code, even countries that have never been part of the french empire.
 
Which French Republic? There were 5 French Republics throughout France's history


AzureMagikz pretty obviously means the First republic. And as to the question, I gotta say the French Empire. Not just because of the Napoleonic code, but because of the shear power they held. France was the dominate power on the Continent with no rival under Napoleon. France was rich, powerful and in command. The Republic, on the other hand, was a constant revolving door of governments, corrupt officials, and instability. Say what you want about Napoleon, but internally France was stable.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
AzureMagikz pretty obviously means the First republic. And as to the question, I gotta say the French Empire. Not just because of the Napoleonic code, but because of the shear power they held. France was the dominate power on the Continent with no rival under Napoleon. France was rich, powerful and in command. The Republic, on the other hand, was a constant revolving door of governments, corrupt officials, and instability. Say what you want about Napoleon, but internally France was stable.

Agreed, France under Napoleon was probably the best thing to happen to France since the Revolution in 1789 in terms of internal affairs. It was stable, it was making mincemeat out of almost all of its enemies, and had Napoleon been reasonable, probably would've made the 19th century a second (or third, I don't know which) Pax Francia rather than a Pax Brittanica.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
First off, sorry, this has nothing to do with alternate history. I just didn't know where else to put it.

You can put threads like this in the Chat forum. It was set up pretty much for these kinds of questions, as ell as chatter about modern politics.
 
Agreed, France under Napoleon was probably the best thing to happen to France since the Revolution in 1789 in terms of internal affairs. It was stable, it was making mincemeat out of almost all of its enemies, and had Napoleon been reasonable, probably would've made the 19th century a second (or third, I don't know which) Pax Francia rather than a Pax Brittanica.

While what you say is utterly true, the fact that one has to add the caveat "had Napoleon been reasonable" does indicate a very fundamental flaw in the basic structure of the Empire. When a nation's ability to succeed depends entirely on one characteristically overambitious man's ability to be reasonable, I find that to be a reason for concern.

Napoleon wasn't reasonable. His Empire was ultimately destroyed and his wars (which were largely useless, and wouldn't have had to be fought if he had been, as you say, reasonable) killed between 3,35 and 6,5 million people.

I'll grant you this: Napoleon gets my vote over Robespierre any day. ;)
 
The vast majority of the Napoleonic wars weren't even started by Napoleon. So Napoleon is not the only responsible of the bloodshed. Hell it started even before he got to power.
 
The vast majority of the Napoleonic wars weren't even started by Napoleon. So Napoleon is not the only responsible of the bloodshed. Hell it started even before he got to power.

Yeah I agree. Really the only two that were directly started by Napoleon was the peninsula war and the invasion of Russia. All the others were encouraged and funded by Great Britain.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Yeah I agree. Really the only two that were directly started by Napoleon was the peninsula war and the invasion of Russia. All the others were encouraged and funded by Great Britain.

And yet sadly, the former could've been avoided had Napoleon not get the wrong message from the father vs. son spat between Charles IV & Ferdinand VII...the latter...well I suppose that one someone had to give and I feel (at least in theory) that Alexander probably could have decided to lead the charge against Napoleon regardless of whether or not he invades Russia.
 
Top