‘Napoleon’s attempt to re-establish himself as ruler of France in the ‘Hundred Days’ shows his total misunderstanding of the situation in 1814/15.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2022
Topic
France in Revolution, 1774-1815
👑Complete Model Essay
‘Napoleon’s attempt to re-establish himself as ruler of France in the ‘Hundred Days’ shows his total misunderstanding of the situation in 1814/15.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Napoleon's Hundred Days: Miscalculation or Shrewd Gamble?
Napoleon Bonaparte's return from exile in Elba and subsequent attempt to reclaim his throne in the "Hundred Days" of 1815 is often portrayed as a desperate gamble, indicative of a profound misreading of the political and military landscape. This essay will analyze the validity of this view, exploring both the arguments supporting and challenging the notion that Napoleon's actions stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
Arguments for Misunderstanding: A Changed France and a United Europe
Proponents of the "misunderstanding" perspective highlight several key factors. Firstly, they point to the significant changes within France during Napoleon's brief exile. The nation, weary from years of war and yearning for stability, had begun to accept the restored Bourbon monarchy under Louis XVIII. The First Peace of Paris, while not without its critics, had granted France relatively lenient terms, allowing it to retain its 1792 borders and avoid crippling indemnities.
Secondly, Napoleon's European opponents remained united and resolute in their opposition to his rule. The coalition that had ultimately defeated him, comprising Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, possessed vastly superior resources and manpower. Napoleon's previous victories, while impressive, had ultimately proven insufficient against their combined might. His belief that he could once again triumph over such formidable foes suggests a dangerous level of overconfidence, bordering on delusion.
Furthermore, Napoleon's decision to challenge the peace settlement displayed a stark disregard for the diplomatic realities of the time. The Congress of Vienna, convened to redraw the map of Europe, represented a fragile consensus among the Great Powers. His return threatened to unravel this delicate balance and plunge the continent back into widespread conflict. This blatant disregard for international diplomacy reinforces the view of Napoleon as a man blinded by ambition and unable to comprehend the broader implications of his actions.
Counterarguments: Napoleon's Calculated Risk and a Divided Europe
However, this interpretation overlooks several crucial aspects of the situation. It is argued that Napoleon's return was not a desperate gamble but a calculated risk, rooted in a shrewd understanding of both the internal divisions within France and the emerging cracks in the Allied alliance.
While Louis XVIII enjoyed some support, his restoration had not erased the deep-seated resentment towards the Bourbons held by many, particularly within the army. Napoleon might have believed that his return would be welcomed by those who viewed Louis as an out-of-touch figurehead, imposed upon France by foreign powers.
Moreover, the Congress of Vienna, far from presenting a united front, was already rife with disagreements and tensions, particularly between Austria and Prussia regarding territorial ambitions. This growing disunity among the victors, coupled with the logistical challenges of mobilizing their armies from across Europe, may have led Napoleon to believe that he could exploit these divisions and achieve a decisive victory before a unified response could be mounted.
Furthermore, Napoleon’s ability to rally significant support upon his return, evidenced by his triumphal marches and the defection of prominent figures like Marshal Ney, suggests that his understanding of the French populace's sentiments was not entirely misplaced. His new constitution, the Acte Additionel, with its liberal reforms and promises of a constitutional monarchy, further indicates an attempt to adapt to the changing political climate and garner wider support.
Conclusion: A Complex Legacy of Ambition and Miscalculation
In conclusion, while Napoleon's "Hundred Days" campaign ultimately ended in failure at Waterloo, it is too simplistic to dismiss it as solely the product of a delusional mind out of touch with reality. While his actions undoubtedly display a high degree of risk-taking and an unwavering faith in his own abilities, they were not entirely devoid of strategic calculation. Napoleon correctly identified the underlying weaknesses within the restored monarchy and the burgeoning tensions within the Allied coalition. However, he arguably underestimated the resilience of the forces arrayed against him and the deep-seated desire for peace both within France and across Europe. Ultimately, Napoleon's gamble, fueled by a potent mix of ambition, calculation, and perhaps a degree of misjudgment, sealed his fate and brought about his final downfall.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
Napoleon’s Return: A Miscalculation or a Calculated Risk?
This essay will assess the validity of the statement: “Napoleon’s attempt to re-establish himself as ruler of France in the ‘Hundred Days’ shows his total misunderstanding of the situation in 1814/15.” By examining the factors surrounding Napoleon’s return and the subsequent period, we will explore whether his actions demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of the political and military landscape or a calculated gamble based on a deeper understanding of the situation.
Arguments Supporting Napoleon's Misunderstanding
The changed landscape in France: The period between Napoleon's exile and his return witnessed significant shifts in France. The Bourbon restoration, though initially welcomed, faced challenges, including Louis XVIII’s reliance on the Allies and the reinstatement of pre-revolutionary structures. This created a potential opening for Napoleon, but his understanding of the extent of this discontent and its potential for mobilizing support remains debatable.
Shifting power dynamics: Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 had solidified his control. However, by 1815, the balance of power had dramatically shifted. The Allies, specifically Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, had united against him, boasting superior resources and manpower. Napoleon's decision to challenge this formidable coalition demonstrates a potentially flawed assessment of the military realities.
The Allies’ stance: The First Peace of Paris granted France lenient terms, including retention of its pre-1792 boundaries and no indemnity. Napoleon's return was a direct affront to this settlement and would inevitably invite harsher punishments. His failure to acknowledge the allies' determination to prevent his return suggests a miscalculation of their resolve and their willingness to use military force.
The French desire for stability: Years of war had exhausted France, leading to a widespread longing for peace and stability. Louis XVIII, although seen as a figurehead of the old regime, offered the promise of peace. Napoleon, however, represented the continuation of conflict, potentially clashing with the French desire for a more peaceful future. His return without considering this desire suggests a lack of understanding of the French public sentiment.
Arguments Challenging Napoleon's Misunderstanding
Napoleon's shrewd assessment: The argument that Napoleon acted without understanding the situation is contradicted by his mobilization of support and his attempt to build a new constitutional framework. The Acte Additionnel, with its emphasis on free elections and a constitutional monarchy, suggests an attempt to appeal to the French people’s desire for change and greater political participation, demonstrating a degree of awareness of their desires.
Napoleon's understanding of the Allies' divisions: The Allies, despite their alliance, were not a unified bloc. Their internal disagreements, particularly between Britain and Russia, presented a potential opportunity for Napoleon to exploit. He could strategize against them individually, hoping to divide and conquer, leveraging their political differences to his advantage.
Napoleon's charisma and popularity: Despite his defeat and exile, Napoleon retained his charisma and popularity among a significant portion of the French population. His triumphant entries into cities, including Lyons and Paris, demonstrate his ability to rally support. This suggests that he understood the potential for a popular uprising in his favor.
Conclusion
Ultimately, whether Napoleon's return was a product of a misunderstanding or a calculated risk remains open to debate. His ability to mobilize support, draft a new constitution, and exploit Allied divisions suggests a degree of understanding of the situation. However, his failure to fully grasp the power dynamics of the post-war era, the French desire for stability, and the unwavering resolve of the Allies ultimately led to his downfall. The 'Hundred Days' remain a testament to Napoleon’s ambition and his conviction in his own abilities, but they also highlight the limited understanding he had of the complex political and military landscape of post-Napoleonic France.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments Supporting Napoleon's Misunderstanding
Arguments supporting the view that Napoleon's attempt to re-establish himself as ruler of France in the 'Hundred Days' shows his total misunderstanding of the situation in 1814/15 might include:
⭐The situation in France changed while Napoleon was on Elba. The French were no longer in a position to decide their own fate.
⭐Napoleon had been decisively defeated in Europe, and the allies would never condone his return to power.
⭐Napoleon showed little understanding in believing he could carry off a coup. France (and Napoleon) had been generously treated by the allies: The First Peace of Paris (May 1814) allowed France to keep 1792 borders, with no indemnity or army of occupation. Napoleon had been awarded an allowance (£200 000) and Elba.
⭐Napoleon failed to appreciate this liberality and totally misunderstood that a challenge to the settlement could only bring harsher terms.
⭐France had a new ruler, Louis XVIII, who had a legitimate claim and a carefully limited position, being bound by the Charter. He had allied support behind him; he offered the French the peace they needed.
⭐Napoleon totally misunderstood a France glad of stability and exhausted after the constant years of war.
⭐The powerful Coalition which had fought against Napoleon (including the Great Powers, Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia) were ready to protect the new France and could call on far greater numbers of men and resources. Napoleon totally misunderstood a situation in which the military odds were firmly stacked against him.
Arguments Challenging Napoleon's Misunderstanding
Arguments challenging the view that Napoleon's attempt to re-establish himself as ruler of France in the 'Hundred Days' shows his total misunderstanding of the situation in 1814/15 might include:
⭐Napoleon's bid for power was not totally misguided. Many French were ready to welcome him back.
⭐He could expect military defections to provide an army. In the event, even higher-ranking men joined him, e.g. Marshal Ney.
⭐He enjoyed triumphal entries into cities including Lyons and Paris. He retained his charisma and rapidly built support.
⭐The return of Louis XVIII was very unpopular - maybe Napoleon understood this better than the allies. Louis refused to accept responsibility to an assembly, maintained high taxes and conscription, and brought rumours that the biens nationaux would be seized. Louis XVIII was a pompous, but characterless, Bourbon, reliant on the allies for his power.
⭐Napoleon showed understanding in his actions. He put together a new constitution (Acte Additionel) which was likely to be acceptable because of its liberal features such as free elections, free press, and constitutional monarchy. The Acte was supported by plebiscite - suggesting Napoleon understood the wishes of the French.
⭐Napoleon well understood that the allies were disunited. The Russians were not in a position to intervene in the West, and, with the Austrians and Prussians, disagreed with the British at Vienna.
⭐It was not unrealistic for Napoleon to believe he could defeat them, given his military record. He understood the need to engage each separately and believed this strategy could be effective.
Conclusion
Napoleon's motives for leaving Elba in the 'Hundred Days' can never be known exactly, and it is up to students to debate how well he understood the changes that had come about in 1814/15 when he embarked on his bid for power. Some will argue that his challenge to the first peace settlement was born of a sensible, perhaps even perceptive, understanding of the political and military situation within France and undertaken with a carefully thought-out strategy. Some may see it simply as a huge gamble based on a (perhaps even wilful) misunderstanding of the actual situation. As always, reward any line of argument that is well-supported and convincing.