Analysis Of Lynn Hunt´s The Failure Of The Liberal Republic In France

Another author who lends their work to this topic is that of Lynn Hunt, in her work The Failure of the Liberal Republic in France. The main purpose of the work is to discuss the power that political parties had during this time and times before it. Hunt also talks of the role that Napoleon played in the revolution and the effect that the directory had on France. Hunt elaborates on the faults that the directory had throughout the revolution and argues that Napoleon wasn’t any different from the directory and instead of being an extension of the revolutionary ideals of 1789. An aspect of the work that differs greatly from that of mine is how Hunt views Napoleon as being aligned with the Jacobin Revolutionaries, as opposed to the revolutionaries

of the first revolution. This can be seen as “In fact, however, he delivered continuity with trends developing between 1795 and 1799” (Hunt 758) Hunt ignores the impact that Napoleon had on the different developments such as social mobility and democratic politics that mirrored the beliefs of those in the 1789 Revolution. Hunt instead harps on the different missteps that Napoleon undertook and uses those missteps as justification that Napoleon wasn’t revolutionary to the extent that many make him out to be.
A work similar to Lynn Hunt’s The Failure of the Liberal Republic in France is that of Philip Dwyer’s Napoleon and The Foundation of the Empire.

The work details the change that the French republic underwent, with the thesis of the work is stated as “This article examines why empire as a particular political model came to the fore, how it was presented to the French people, and how they reacted to it” (Dwyer 341). Dwyer like Hunt Diminishes the contributions that Napoleon makes to the revolution. Instead of being this Revolutionary Hero, Napoleon is depicted as nothing more than a puppet at the will of his colleagues. This sort of degrading towards Napoleon can be seen as “Napoleon’s reaction to these urgings appears mixed, if not hesitant, when it came to adopting heredity, but he was eventually brought around to their way of thinking.” (Dwyer 341). This sort of statement is seen throughout the work, and differs from my work on the basis that Napoleon was more than a figure head of the revolution. Napoleon wasn’t a leader who wait for instructions from his peers, like the quote above demonstrates. Instead Napoleon was a critical individual in the French revolution and was truly a revolutionary aligned with those of the year 1789. Actions such as the abolishment of feudalism, the passage of law codes, and the changing of social hierarchy throughout France reemphasize just how prominent Napoleon was in the

revolution.
Conclusion
Napoleon Bonaparte has long been remembered as a villain in the history of the world. Napoleon had taken the failing nation of France from its tiny corner in Europe to nearly an empire that controlled all of the European continent. The Former general had accomplished this feat by winning the support of the French populace and by demonstrating his excellent military prowess. Many argue that Napoleon ended the Revolution, but quite the opposite is true as Napoleon prolonged the revolution and reintroduced the nation of France to early revolution ideals and implemented them in his vast empire.