Napoleon's Influence

          Napoleon Bonaparte (or "Little Boney) is said top be one of the greatest leaders of all time. Conquering countless countries, taking power of most of Europe, all at a mere 5 and a half feet tall. Countries in Europe hated Napoleon, but at the same time most respected him for his great leadership and power. The way people viewed Napoleon was varied because some people had different ways they were effected by Napoleon. Whether or not they liked him didn't matter at all, because they all know how huge his effect on Europe was. He effected Europe in 3 main ways; economically, politically, and socially. 

          Napoleons political effect on Europe was definitely his biggest effect. This is because of all of the countries that he conquered. He didn't only conquer European countries, but he definitely focused on those ones and also those had the greatest impact. He had power over many European countries, such as France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and many others. He also strongly influenced Austria and Prussia. Napoleon would conquer these countries and then change the way their government work. He created Meritocracy, which is a way of government in which social class depended on skill and not wealth. When Madam de Stael talks about how Napoleon had an influence on government, she says "His system was to encroach (Intrude) daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence...By alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated (Conquered) Europe." Here, she's talking about how she viewed the doings of Napoleon. She was more a part of the Old French Government so she wasn't really ready for the change. But Marshal Michel Ney was all for Napoleon, he said "To the emporer Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country." So there were many views on what Napoleon was doing to the government. But eventually Napoleon changed the government system for the better, which allowed people to benefit, which is why his impact on political changes were so great.

          Napoleon also had a great effect on Europe's economy. Napoleon expanded trade routes and allowed countries to trade with countries that they weren't able to trade with before. He did this by creating new canals and roads, this allowed trade to happen faster and easier. So this fast and easy trading allowed Europe to start making lots and lots of money really fast. Now that Europe was making all of this money, Napoleon established the Bank of France. This was balancing out the money in France which was make money less of a problem. This gave Napoleon a good view from his country, people were really starting to like him more and more because of how much of a great impact he had on Frances economy. This shows how much of a great impact Napoleon had on France's government. 

          Napoleon also had a very big social effect on Europe. When Napoleon created Meritocracy, he gave everyone a chance to move up in social class. The social classes were based off of skill and not money, or what family you were born into. The middle class was in love with this idea, and the middle class consisted of 98% of people in Europe. But the higher classes weren't too happy about this. Due to Napoleons change in the way things worker, they actually had to do work! It was quite an outrage. People were loving Napoleon but at the same time they were hating him. in The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians it says "Avoiding the large collection of Napoleonic memoirs and those authors who fall into either the hero-worship or anti-Napoleon categories, a review of the handful of the thousands of out-of-print biographies is useful, especially when focusing on those historians who freely shared their opinions about Napoleon." This shows how Napoleon created tons of different opinions and views on him not only back then, but even today. 

          So Napoleon did all that he could to change things in Europe. Whether it was socially, economically, or politically. He did manage to influence all of those things though. Whether you hated him or loved him, he had one of the greatest impacts on Europe as a whole in all of history. 

http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-NapoleonicAge.htm

       

Blog Post #4 (Marx vs. Smith)

          Class last Thursday was a very fun and delicious class. We, as a class, were distributed Starbursts as we walked into the door. Most students were handed 3 Starbursts, but some were handed 10. This uneven handing out of Starbursts represents the uneven distribution of money during the Industrial Revolution. Skill sets did not matter back then, if you were born into a poor family, you grew up poor. The people who were given 3 Starbursts represented those people. The people who were given 10 Starbursts represented the people who were born into rich family. Then students would play rock paper scissors, and the winner would take a Starburst from the loser of the game. Mrs. Bailey represented the government in this game, all she did was give out the Starbursts and then let everyone play. People ended up broke, cheating, and even stealing. This whole situation of uneven distribution represented Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. This also represented Marx's idea of Laissez Faire , this means that the government let people do their own thing. But after after the class struggle and everyone complaining about all of the mayhem, Mrs. Bailey (The government) collected all of the Starbursts and redistributed an even amount to everyone. Then, she watched over and made sure there was no stealing but still allowed the people to make their own decisions. This represented Smith's idea of the Invisible Hand. After the redistribution of Starbursts, everyone seemed to be more happy with what they had and things worked out on their own.

          Both Marx and Smith had very hands-off approaches for government leadership. Both of them wanted to help out the poor by changing the ways of the government. Marx's idea of Laissez Faire was that the government would take no role and let the people do their own thing. The idea was that people would take their own course and they would fix their ow things their way. Smith's idea of the Invisible Hand was a similar idea on how the people would make their won decisions on how they wanted their government to go. But the difference was the Invisible Hand was different then Laissez Faire, in the Invisible Hand, the government gave people guidance and then leave people alone and then the market would improve on its own. The Invisible Hand allowed people to  make their own prices and keep lowering prices and keep competing with each other. Both of these ideas both help out the poor. During the Socratic Seminar we talked a lot about  how both theories helped out the poor during this period of time. Julianne talked about how some people can be born into rich families and then have no ambition, and also some people are born into poor families and then have a huge ambition to proceed to do good and work hard. When we talked about how they both helped the poor, Mrs. Bailey said how not everyone get what they deserve and how people should be given the opportunities that everyone else gets. This shows how much of a change these theories were from the government at this time, and how this changes helped out the poor.

          In my opinion I think that the Invisible Hand is a better theory is a better solution. I think this because even though both theories are hand off, the Invisible Hand theory gives guidance to the people. I think personally that this is a great solution for government because there is no main rules that hold people back. Also people aren't being held back by the social class they were born into. Also, people take their own roles in what they o, but it isn't just one giant free for all. People get their say, but also have the idea of whats going on. The market is being improved, but the government isn't doing it on their own. The people actually are doing most of the work, but aren't completely oblivious to what they're doing.

           

Blog Post #3 (Luddites:Taking Sides)

          Describing the Luddites isn't an easy things to do. They were a very controversial group back then, and still cause debates on whether or not what they did was right today. The Luddites were a group of skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans who attacked machines and factories in early industrialization. They were followers of a mythical man named "Ned Ludd" (who still to this day hasn't been proven to have existed) and Ludd apparently got fed up with working and destroyed a machine in one of the factories. The Luddites loved this idea of a man who stood up againts the man and did what he wanted to because he was driven by himself to do this, and not forced to by someone else. And whether or not Ned Ludd was a man or myth, he influenced this group of people to just start destroying machines in the factories . Men would dress in women's clothing and call themselves "General Ludd's Wives" and destroy these machines. They would do it out of mockery to the people who feared them. These men didn't break these machines for no reason, they were protesting. They were protesting against things like reduced skill in work, factory owners, and especially economic hardship.  The next paragraph will be written in letter format. This is a mock letter from a skilled weaver to his/her cousin who lives in America describing the Luddites, what they do, how they have effected the weaver, and whether or not the weaver likes the Luddites.



Dear Adam Joos,
          Hello cousin, how is everything? How do you like living in America? Lots of things have been happening lately here! Have you heard about these "Luddites" recently" They are a group of weavers, mechanics, and other workers who have been DESTROYING the machinery in factories! All I know about them is that they are rebelling against the government and destroying these machines because of things like the reduced skill in work, the factory owners, and because of the economy. As you know, I am a very skilled weaver, and these guys destroying the machines is costing the factories lots of money so I am afraid that I will be fired from my job. All of these factories opening up have given me a chance at making some money and being able to work all the time. But at the same time, I understand why these men are doing what they are doing. Like I said, these men are fellow weavers. I really like that these men are rebelling and destroying these machines. No one is in favor of the economy right now, not to mention these factories are awful. I am thinking of joining these Luddites and helping them proceed to do this so that the government will change their ways. Write back to me soon!
                                                                               Yours Truly,
                                                                                         Sean Conroy