ELI5: Why were there more French monarchs after the French Revolution and why did some take the title of Emperor and others not?
Posted Jun 24, 2014, 11:55 PM UTC
024
The French didn't do democracy very well after the French Revolution. The First Republic fell when Napoleon instituted a coup d'tat and overthrew the French "democracy." Then when Napoleon was deposed, they went back to a constitutional monarchy. Then they went back to a republic. Then there was another coup. Then they did the republic thing again. Now, they're on the Fifth Republic, their 5th shot at this thing.
Long story short, the 19th century was a pretty tumultuous time in Europe and France especially. They made a lot of mistakes along the way in their struggle to find the right government.
2
You forgot the July Revolution. And the 1848 revolution. Although, its pretty hard to remember all the times the French have forcibly removed their government.
1
I tried to ELI5 it. Just wanted to get across the notion that France sucked at stable government for 100 or so years.
1
History is a bit of a hobby of mine and I find European history to be particularly interesting. Without much detail, France essentially "lost" it's revolution once Napoleon was defeated and kicked out for good. France needed and leader and the other ruling powers of Europe basically put in the family (Bourbon) that the French people had kicked out during the Revolution. The French people didn't really like this so they had ANOTHER revolution in 1830 which allowed a new king from the house of Orleans (Louis Phillipe) to be put in. France has another Revolution in 1848 to get this guy out and Napoleon III (the short guy's nephew) pulled a few of the same strings his uncle did and became emperor.
2
So why did Louis XVIII and Napoleon I (and II) change places a few times? Why did it change from Napoleon to Louis to Napoleon I to Napoleon II and then to Louis again?
1
Napoleon was defeated and exiled from France and Louis XVIII was put in. However Napoleon escaped and returned to France during the period known as the Hundred Days where he kicked out Louis and took back over. He gets defeated at Waterloo and then exiled to a remote island in the Atlantic and Louis is put back in. Napoleon II ruled for a very short period and wasn't recognized by any major powers and is usually overlooked.
2
So did Napoleon I return and take back power by force, with the support of the French people, or was it more of a coup? Was Louis XVIII the favoured candidate for foreign powers, was he less of a threat? Thanks for your answers by the way, I appreciate it. I've studied a bit of French history from Louis XIV to the Revolution itself but I'm looking to start studying and learning more about French history after the Revolution because my course doesn't go that far. Can you recommend any books or whatever for a good view of the period?
1
Somewhat of all three, Napoleon had huge popularity in Italy which where he initially landed. He then marched to France where he was also still quite popular, this allowed him to to quickly raise an army to start fighting foreign powers. Louis XVIII was by far the favored candidate of foreign powers as they wanted to preserve their own monarchies, and the best way to do this was by making sure France couldn't expand militarily, politically, and culturally (ideas stemming from the initial Revolution). Louis XVIII wasn't really the main threat for Napoleon, most of the troops under his command defected immediately to Napoleon and he was forced to nope the fuck out and flee to either Belgium or the Netherlands, can't remember which one.
1
The French Revolution was unable to sustain a democratic government. The forces of the Revolution unleashed the Terror, then the Great Terror, and as a result they lost legitimacy in the eyes of a sizable portion of the people. The government was further weakened by numerous wars especially with the British.
Napoleon was a career military officer who used successes in battle and canny political maneuvering to become widely known and wildly popular with the common French people. When a window of opportunity opened, he took it, and converted the Republic into a military dictatorship. He used his powers to solidify his position and eliminate his enemies and when he felt secure, he named himself Emperor. The legal basis for the dictatorship and the creation of the Imperial state reseted on implausibly lopsided votes - but they gave everything a thin veneer of legitimacy.
Napoleon was not ultimately strong enough to withstand the challenges his rule faced. He was beaten in the field of combat, and deposed, exiled, escaped from exile, took up the mantle of Emperor a second time, was beaten again in the field, and ultimately exiled permanently.
After Napoleon the "ancien regime" of the Bourbons was restored. The people were tired of the chaos and constant warfare and they yearned for a return to a calmer more ordered society. Despite the rhetoric of the Revolution, many people still wanted a king - albeit a king constrained by law and custom like the British monarchy. France wrestled with the fundamental question of the necessity for a monarchy for nearly a hundred years after the Revolution, including a return of Napoleon's heirs, before finally giving it up for good.
2
Very informative answer, thanks, but why did Louis XVIII become monarch after Napoleon was exiled? Was that also because of the desire for strong leadership, or was that some kind of foreign interference? I don't really understand this part given he (Napoleon) became Emperor again even despite this.
1
France had many factions and many champions of those factions. The chaos after the Revolution and the downfall of Napoleon created a lot of opportunists.
The Bourbons fled the Revolution, despite the fact that the king and queen were guillotined. As long as members of the royal bloodline existed there would be "Loyalists" determined to put them back on the throne. Remember this was a religious issue as much as it was a political issue. Kings rule by "divine right" - God determines they should be Kings, and mere mortals should not interfere in the decisions of God. Some people believed that France would suffer as long as the rightful King was not on the throne and they worked to restore the monarchy.
When Napoleon was winning, everyone loved him. Then he went to Moscow, and frittered away the Grand Army. It was a devastating thing to the many, many families who lost sons and fathers and husbands in the campaign. After Moscow, Napoleon never controlled the hearts & minds of the majority of the French again. He became just one Champion of a faction among many.
After his exile the faction that wanted a Bourbon back on the throne was able to act decisively. The Napoleonic faction was in disorder (cults of personality don't work well when the personality is unavailable to direct them). The old Revolutionary forces were discredited (nobody wanted to find out if there could be a Greater Terror). It seemed for a while that the French could have what the British had - a Democracy, and a King. The Monarchists played up that potential as they moved to restore the Bourbons (and I'm sure some were bitterly disappointed when the King didn't live up to their expectations).
2
Ahhh, now I understand. Did the following kings simply not live up to expectations (i.e exceeding intended powers) and the monarchy was eventually entirely removed?
1
[deleted]
1
Some people expected the King to be a pure figurehead, ala Britain. I don't think any of the Bourbons invested as Kings ever really intended to act like that. They were clearly ready to assert Divine Right whenever it suited them - the histories seem to suggest they even engineered events to let them try to do away with the constitutional restraints that bound them every chance they got. The last Bourbon king seriously underestimated the power of the people and destroyed his reign by overreaching for absolute power. His replacement, the "last king of France" didn't test those bounds much and lasted until 1848, and was forced to abdicate in a wave of popular revolutions that swept Europe that year.
Napoleon's heir was more of a transitional figure - he was an elected President who staged a coup and named himself Emperor. He proved an inept war leader, got his ass handed to him by the Germans, and that was the end of the monarchical dreams of the French.
1
After the revolution, the monarchy was restored a couple of times and they called themselves King. Napoleon was more of a revolutionary and a man of the enlightenment. That being said, the enlightenment thinkers which were an extension of the renaissance, admired and wanted to model society after the Greeks and especially the Romans. Hence, the used of the term, Emperor.