Napoleon Bonaparte and His Influence on Europe

Napoleon is often remembered as a strong, and often power-hungry leader who conquered as much land as he could.  While this has some truth, Napoleon also greatly impacted Europe politically, economically, and socially.  Napoleon impacted the world socially by changing how people view other classes.  Before Napoleon, only upper class people were recognized and had good jobs.  He thought that people should be rewarded based on their skills, not social class.  He spread meritocracy through the countries he invaded.  Joel Tyler Headley, a 19th century author, once described Napoleon's beliefs of meritocracy in his book, Napoleon and his Marshals,“as a friend of human liberty, and eager to promote the advancement of the race, by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns”.  Napoleon also banished titles of nobility and serfdom.  He didn’t care about classes and influential families, he cared about skill, a trait that we still value today.

Napoleon also affected Europe and the countries he conquered politically.  When he took control of Egypt, he reorganized the government and changed the political structure.  Napoleon also was a supporter of the French Revolution, and he helped change the political system of France.  He supported Nationalism, which lead to a wave of Nationalism throughout Europe.  He believed that Nationalism brought people together, and it made them stronger as a country.  Marshal Michel Ney described Napoleons political power in a speech to soldiers by saying, “The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights”.  Napoleon didn’t force people to suppress their rights, like a few other leaders. He also influenced the governments of other countries and spread ideas.

Europe was also greatly impacted by Napoleon’s economic changes.  Napoleon controlled prices, encouraged the growth and creation of industries, and improved the infrastructure by building roads and canals.  This improved the quality of life for many and caused some businesses to earn more money.  He also established the Bank of France.  While this mostly affected France, it served as a model for other banks and economic systems.  Under Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule, France’s budget was balanced, and massive work programs were created.  Although Napoleon Bonaparte is viewed as a greedy, selfish leader who took control of countries and started wars, he impacted Europe socially, politically, and economically, and made changes to pave the way for generations to come.

Link to Map: http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site21/napoleon%20web%20page.htm 

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism: Which is Better?

In class, we were given Starbursts.  Most people (including me) got three, but three people got around ten Starbursts. Then, we played “Rock, Paper, Scissors” with other people in the class. The loser gave a Starburst to the winner.  Some people got extremely competitive, and were very protective of their Starbursts.  In some cases, people would steal Starbursts, use violence, or hide with their candy.  Personally, I was kind of glad to get out because the activity was a little too crazy for me, and also I didn’t really think that fighting for a piece of candy was worth it.  After, our teacher collected all the Starbursts and gave everyone three pieces.  The people who had a lot of candy were unhappy, and the people who didn't have any candy were glad to be equal.  This activity started out as Capitalism, and it ended as socialism.  

Karl Marx believed that eventually the poor people would become angry with the unfairness of society.  He predicted that they would want to be equal to the rich people in society, and they would have a revolution.  The government would then take control of the situation by taking hold of all the property and redistributing throughout the social classes. This would be called socialism.  Eventually, the people would learn how to share among each other and no government would be needed, resulting in Communism.  A man by the name of Adam Smith created a mix of Capitalism and Socialism called the Invisible Hand. Every part of society would be the same as Capitalism except the market. The government would let the businesses and people run the economy. Eventually, the markets could efficiently run themselves and prices would even out. Unfortunately, there would often be pauses and the government would have to step in and regulate prices.  

   In a class discussion, all forms of government were discussed. Some felt that Capitalism was very "everyone for themselves".  However, they did not think Communism was a good idea. They agreed that humans are too greedy for Communism to really work, and it would lead right back to the beginning.  It was decided that Socialism is better than Communism. But, people said that Socialism takes away the natural right to want to succeed. Hard-working people would still only do as well as lazy people.  

Between Communism and the Invisible Hand, I think neither is a good solution.  Both end up needing the government’s assistance.  Also, they have never actually been achieved.  However, I think that the Invisible Hand would work better than Communism because most people are too greedy for Communism.  Overall, I feel that a slight mix between Socialism and Capitalism.  People can make a lot of their own decisions, and there is not an extremely large gap between rich and poor.  There also isn’t a complete feeling of having to fight for yourself which can sometimes be seen in Capitalism.  Although good in theory, most government-less societies never work.    

The Luddites

The Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans who followed the mythical figure of Ned Ludd.  The were angry because factories began to hire inexperienced people to complete the task that typically only a skilled artisan would be able to do.  The Luddites responded to this injustice by attacking machines and factories.  They would also set fire to the factories.  Contrary to popular belief, the Luddites were not anti-technology.  While they were destroying factories and machines, the Luddites would dress up as women.  This helped people agree with the Luddites and sympathize with them.  In order to show the perspective of a Luddite, the following paragraph is a mock primary source letter.

Dear cousin,

As you know, I have been having a difficult time making money recently.  I was an artisan, but now no one needs my skills.  The cheap factories hires anyone willing to work.  Jobs that once required skill and experience are being done by anyone and everyone.  Now, i cannot find money because no one wants to pay more money for an artisan.  A group called the Luddites also feels this way.  They break into factories and destroy the machines and the factory.  The destruction makes me feel uneasy, but i can’t help but want to join the Luddites.  Change must happen, and if some vandalism is what it takes to bring the change, then it may be worth it.  The more I think about it, the more I see myself becoming an artisan.  

Luddites breaking a machine in a factory. 

America vs. England: Conditions in the Mills

Although the Industrial Revolution was a time of wonderful inventions, it had its drawbacks.  Mills in both England and America were dangerous, and conditions were truly horrendous.  However, England clearly had the shorter end of the stick, and therefor had even worse conditions than America.  Accidents were unfortunately common in mills, and although America had its share of gory and heart wrenching experiences, the worst and most frequent accidents almost always took place in England.  A British doctor by the name of Michael Ward recalled the injuries, stating that, “...the muscles, and the skin [were] stripped down to the bone, and in some instances a finger or two might be lost”.  Fatalities were also an occasional occurrence in the mills, and they were horrifying to watch.  Mary Richards, a ten year old who worked in an English mill was killed when her apron was caught in a machine.  Instantly, the gears pull her in the machine, and what came next was a sickening sight.  One boy, Robert Blincoe, who was seven at the time remembered seeing “the bones of her arms, legs, thighs, etc. successively snap asunder, crushed, seemingly, to atoms, as the machinery whirled her round, and drew tighter and tighter her body within the works, her blood was scattered over the frame and streamed upon the floor, her head appeared dashed to pieces”.  

Accidents were not the only downside of the mills.  Food and living conditions were also less than desirable.  The English workers ate right at their machines, and by account of Sarah Carpenter, “Our common food was oatcake. It was thick and coarse. This oatcake was put into cans. Boiled milk and water was poured into it. This was our breakfast and supper. Our dinner was potato pie with boiled bacon it”.  In a video, it was said that the workers were given food “...of a bluish complexion”.  Sometimes, food would have pieces of wool on it, and the workers had to pick it off.  In America, however, the mill girls left the mills to eat, and they were provided meals by their boarding houses.  The meals were of a much better quality than the English meals, with meat and some flavorings.  The American girls also lived in boarding houses with a few other girls.  By contrast, most british factory workers lived in slums, which were filthy, crowded areas that were barely livable.  Clearly, England faced the worst of the conditions, with the quality of life being uncomparable to American living.  When American mills suffered a downfall, the conditions still never plummeted as low as England had.