STUDENTS WEB PROJECT

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA (IIUM)
KULIYYAH OF ISLAMIC REVEALED KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE
INSTRUCTOR: DR. HAFIZ ZAKARIA
SECTION 2
NAME OF STUDENTS: AZATUL IZZAH BT AMRAN (0714626)
NABILA AFIZA BT MOHD ALI (0621686)
NUR HAFIZAH BT AHMAD PUZI(0724198)
NURLIANA BT ABD AZIZ (0628132)
TENGKU AISYA AFZAN BT TENGKU MOHD ROSLAN(0726538)
ZAHIDAH BINTI KARIM (0715036)

Monday, March 2, 2009

An Analysis of Napoleon's Character


Napoleon carrier as an army is a great paradox. He can be considered as the greatest general of war for the time of him until today. Tactics that he used to win battles were gorgeous, organized and well planned. Unfortunately, Napoleon was failed to organize strategies in root. Confusion, egoism, and desire were scrambled in him, led failure of his invasion mission in Egypt and Russia. As compared to Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Tamer lane who were succeeded in every battle they went, Napoleon Bonaparte can not be considered as the first class worrier.

Egomaniac attributed to Napoleon is undeniable. He is resembled with Hitler and can be considered as Hitler the Second.

Napoleon was a person with high ambition and opportunist. But in term of dictatorship, brutality and insanity of impassioned desire, Napoleon was less as compared to Hitler. This is based on the number of armies that were killed in his war approximately 500 000 as compared to great number of armies and commoners who get killed during the misery period of Hitler’s rule (800 000).

During his campaign to invade Egypt, he tried to struggle for the sake of triumph by professing Mohammedanism.

He claimed commission and inspiration from the God, the only One (as written by him in a letter, "There is no God but the true God.") (3) and anxious to join the character of Prophet in order to win the Egyptians. This was the great weaknesses and he was betrayed by the spirit of self-exaggeration. On this expedition, Napoleon insulted God, to show his foolish but with impiety.


When Napoleon was thirst for crown, he installed France back to a monarch ruling system and he appointed himself to be the Emperor. Obviously, it was contradicted with Robespierre and French Revolution idea to bring France as a Republic country although he was among the one who supported Robespierre when revolution was at its climax. His insanity to become the greatest power in continental Europe made him to overthrow the Constitution and allied with Albe Sieyes. He forgot of what was deadly worked by the people in National Assembly that was pushing King Louis XVI to enact a Constitution. Clearly, it was a betrayal to french itself. His desire was fully contradicted with the idea of revolution that he himself spread all over Europe. On the other hand, Louisiana which before was one of the France soil was sold by him to Latin America by process of bargaining was a big betrayal to French because he sold Louisiana because he needed money.

What was Napoleon's attitude towards northern Italy? The remark made by Napoleon in the autumn of 1801 is rich with inferences: “I go to Lyons. The Cisalpine people have asked me to prevent the debate and agitation which would surely result if they gave themselves a constitution. I thought it good to agree to this and to help in the formation of a state whose independence was bought with French blood.” These three sentences reveal the broad lines of what remained Napoleon's policy guidelines regarding Italy. First, Bonaparte did not trust the Italians to govern themselves; second, he very definitely wanted to have a say in the redaction of the constitution of the new republic; and third, Italy belonged to France and more specifically to Napoleon, since it was he alone who had conquered it. In the end, this threefold concern was to dissolve into a decision to become ‘King of Italy' in the spring of 1805. This paper aims to consider how far this decision to become king was a long-term goal, how far Italian politicians wanted Napoleon to be king, and also how serious Napoleon was in offering the crown to his elder brother Joseph in the December of 1804. (4)



On the other hand, even though it is clear that Napoleon was a genius, quite mature and logical thinker, he was quite dependant upon others. Force and corruption were the greatest engines for Napoleon to implement his policy, a sign that he depended not upon powerful people only but on the other hand, the commoners. He enslaved the men in France to a military by implementing education system, in order to fit him for the field. He bore in the mind of French that the glory must come with arms, resulted hundred thousand of life died just to complete his desire. His egoism was reflected through sword and arms.

To sum up, Napoleon was a person with full of self-exaggeration, used by power and supremacy, despotism was his way, a man with no pleasure in love, no human sympathy and not a friend to anybody.



4 comments:

  1. good efforts.i like d layout. Could you also provide the sources of the info (from which website it is taken from) to avoid from intellectual property issues

    ReplyDelete
  2. i read a web regarding Napoleon's characteristics. But i summarised it using my own sentences. I'm so sorry because i forgot the web.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What are you? A historician or a Napoleon basher?

    There are certainly positive sides of Napoleon, he might still be an evil, dangerous man, but I consider "not a friend to anybody" historically wrong.

    ReplyDelete