Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power through a radical republic produced by the french revolution. He was able to do this through his immense military success and the resulting support from the population. He had painted himself to be a war hero, and the public believed it willingly. His subsequent downfall from power fittingly came from his major military losses. During the french revolution, Napoleon was a supporter, from afar, and let that influence his policies during his reign as Emperor. However, he also let the power go to his head and became the absolutism ruler that the revolution had fought against. But when comparing his rule to that of the the monarchy and the national assembly, it still stands out as the best of the three for his better …show more content…
He kept the ones that he agree with while taking away those that he did not agree with. Almost every part of French society was under his direct control. This included using spies and controlling the press and plays at the time. In his effort to make a better country, he instead created what everyone despised the most. This shows something that happens many times after a revolution. People often react very extremely to difficult situations, one of the most well-known example being the reign of terror. So when something like the reign of terror happens, all they want is stability and sometimes that instant stability comes at a price. For the moment, the initial cause was forgotten and people allowed Napoleon to gain absolute power because it was easy. People forget and move one very quickly; Napoleon’s rise to power is a good example of that on a large scale. As there were many changes in the French government during the end of the 18th century, it begs the question, which system of government was France better off under? Towards its end, the French monarchy greatly struggled to support its growing population. Poverty and starvation were becoming increasingly more common, which was, in large part, caused