The article entitled ‘Was Napoleonic France a Police State or Land of Liberty?’ interacts with the wider historical debate and reflects several prominent arguments. This is evident as both the article and historians discuss aspects such as censorship, surveillance, the function of the police force and reparations to provide a detailed analysis of the formation and execution of a police state. The aim of the article primarily is to illustrate these topics to contribute to the somewhat overstated conclusion that Napoleonic France was a police state. A police state is a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises its citizens. Many historians have provided their insight into this discussion and have created various conclusions. From Dwyer, who focuses largely on the police state as a defining attribute of Napoleonic France, to Brown who aims to abandon this terminology in favor of something more placid such as a security state. While these two historians have certified their stances, other historians such as Rose and Coffin have provided in-depth discussions on specific attributes of a proposed police state, which can be used to both support and degrade the overall conclusion of Napoleonic France’s reputation as a police state. The Project outlines the key attributes of this debate and should be discussed within its historical context.
The Article submitted is inspired by examples of the Napoleonic press, which is arguably a central topic of the wider debate surrounding the question of whether Napoleonic France was a police state or a free state exercising limited control over its citizens. Moreover, the article is aimed at people between the ages of 18 and 25. This is a suitable article for such an age range as the topics it discusses are arguably timeless. For example, censorship is of constant importance as people learn to use free speech and discuss their distaste with those around them, therefore interacting with the Napoleonic solution of surveillance. Furthermore, the undercurrent of the article is evident that dissatisfaction with the government was a problem for Napoleonic France. This is relevant as within modern-day society it is often believed that it is those of the younger generation, often students that see problems with authoritative institutions such as the government. This article is suitable for the audience as it limits the use of jargon and signposts the debate simply and effectively.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Firstly, the article illustrates the redaction of certain aspects of literature, which would be seen to be inappropriate for the press. This relates to the historical debate of censorship, as Napoleon used this to validate his place as head of state while restricting the damage of bad press to his regime. Press censorship in Napoleonic France was evident through tighter restrictions on the media including the closure of numerous press outlets. There are several examples to support this however, the most prominent example is of Parisian press. In Paris alone, the number of press publications dropped dramatically from 73 to just 17. This alone demonstrates the reduction in popular media but does not provide the answer to whether Napoleon was the leader of a police state. However, Ellis illustrates that those 17 that remained had undergone a major shift, in terms of what they published. He goes on to prove that such publications became the ‘mouthpieces of Napoleon’ printing what he wanted France to know. This therefore demonstrates that French citizens were being provided with propaganda rather than information. In terms of a police state, this would support the claims of a totalitarian state, as Napoleon had successfully internalized the media, ensuring little to no outside influence intercepted French minds, which could result in a meaningful rebellion. This line of argument is supported by Bergeron. Bergeron identifies the mood of Napoleon when discussing the media quoting Napoleon stating “The newspapers are always ready to grab at anything that can damage the public peace” which he pairs with the introduction of censor-attached media. From this, it is therefore clear, that Napoleon objected to the free press, and in turn internalized it to maintain control of the public image within France. Therefore, with both Ellis and Bergeron coming to a consensus, it is evident that for many the censorship and internalization of popular media, is a strong alliance with the role of a police state in Napoleonic France.
However, this only accounts for half of the censorship argument, which could be giving too much credit to Napoleon. Coffin for example, while providing support to the argument of censorship, provides a different insight claiming that it was of importance only to Paris, which successfully correlates with the data but undermines the overall character of a nationwide police state. When considering the work of Coffin, would It be more suitable that Paris was under the influence of tighter control due to its influence as a popular media outlet rather than creating an image of an oppressive nation under the control of Napoleon? Therefore, the two conflicting arguments surrounding censorship of the media suggest that while the majority would agree to place this within a police state, some technicalities limit its accuracy. However, through the arguments of such prominent historians, it is a common and somewhat accurate conclusion that Napoleon used the limited press to manipulate his power and validate himself as sole leader confirming the ideals of a police state in Napoleonic France.
A topic, closely associated with censorship, that is also present within the newspaper is that of surveillance, especially of public opinion. This is evident as the article discusses the daily bulletins, which was a document Napoleon had received each day that reported on each province noting the mood of the people and in some cases examples of opposition. Historiographically, this has been a topic with a somewhat consensus of conclusions. In this way, it means that many historians have all agreed on the presence of surveillance, and its use to keep up to date with revolutionaries and slanderous citizens. While discussing the role of surveillance in Napoleonic France, Brown has outlined that surveillance was a way for Napoleon to ride out the old regime, by limiting the memory of pre-revolutionary France to stabilize the new settlement, while validating his authority amongst the new. This work therefore recognizes that surveillance was a key aspect of Napoleon's control, and contributed to the wider image of a police state. Moreover, the role of surveillance had a wider impact which can be identified through primary data. As outlined earlier, the role of surveillance was used to suppress opposition to the new regime, meaning that public displays against Napoleon were often reported. Emsley provides a document that records the holding of a French citizen after being arrested for opposition to the regime. Such an arrest came after she was commenting on the failings of Napoleon as a leader. Within the document, it is evident that the matter was in public therefore identifying the presence of surveillance within Napoleonic France. Therefore, using the primary data, and the work of numerous historians, it is evident that Napoleon successfully implemented state surveillance across France and used it to validate and maintain his place as head of state. In terms of the police state connotation, when looking at the definition, it would be an oversight not to attribute this method of control to such an accurate term. For this topic, at least, it is evident that Napoleon was the head of a totalitarian state.
Consequently, through the role of surveillance, it is evident that reparations were enforced in Napoleonic France to strengthen and validate Napoleon's power. This is identified within the article as it outlines the use of detention without trial, through to extreme reprimands such as exile. Exile, while one of the rarest and harshest forms of suppression was used skilfully by Napoleon, as identified by Bergeron. Bergeron claims that Napoleon often exiled the leader of what he deemed to be a revolution to suppress following attempts at rebellion. This, therefore, demonstrates a serious threat of terror in some people’s minds which is a notable connotation of what is deemed to be a police state. From such work, it is possible to argue that Napoleon, while avoiding physical means, did instill terror into his regime as a means of suppression. Also, while this is one of the more major consequences of slander or an anti-regime act, it arguably defines the Napoleonic era. Emsley outlines the role of suppression while discussing the move for ‘preventative detention’ in which he outlines those that would be impacted by it. He outlines that such reprimands were applied to those in religious, political, and even republican conspirators who had the opportunity to initiate a rebellion which would be damaging for Napoleon as head of state. Therefore, the threat of consequence, while mainly legal, can be attributed to a police state. This is evident as while Napoleon refused to use physical threats to coerce society into obedience, he used the threat of incarceration or exile, which was arguably more successful.
Additionally, while opposition to the regime directly was an issue within Napoleonic France, it can be argued that somewhat unrelated crimes, such as banditry and opposition to conscription, played a role in the formation of a police state as an example of crime could be argued to undermine Napoleon's authority. This is made evident within the article, as it outlines the functions of the different police departments mainly focusing on the Gendarmerie and the Secret agents. Within the wider debate, various historians have provided insight into the functions of these forces and provided clear inferences as to what this meant for Napoleonic France. Broers for example, outlines the functions of the Gendarmerie, clearly identifying their place amongst society, used to suppress crime while enforcing taxation and conscription. This illustrates that the Gendarmerie, arguably the public police, used to enforce the changes of the new regime. In terms of the argument of a police state, it could be argued that due to exerted control over taxation and conscription liberty was limited within France, giving strength to the argument that Napoleon did run an efficient police state. Another historian who supports Broers is Brown as he supports the role of legislative bodies by identifying that Napoleon used legal institutions to enforce taxation and conscription because left to freedom of choice it would lead to a break to public peace. Therefore Brown is suggesting that for Napoleon, opposition to taxation and conscription were a direct threat to his regime as citizens undermined his requests which could be interpreted as citizens questioning his authority. Therefore, it is evident that while the Gendarmerie functioned as a standard police force, there were still undertones of a police state and governmental control in civic life.
Collectively, the article has successfully contributed to the historical debate as it has signposted the argument for Napoleonic France to be labeled a police state. The role of censorship so evidentially portrayed, is a key topic of the debate as it eludes to the oppression of French citizens and the deprival of their knowledge, giving Napoleon sole control of French affairs. Furthermore, it identifies the centralization of faculties, which ultimately supports the title of a totalitarian leader. Moving on from this the article moved to the discussion of surveillance, with the mentioning of sections of authority such as the Gendarmerie, which efficiently silenced opposition to the regime making it somewhat unlikely that a rebellion would be likely never mind successful. Finally, the article signposts the threat of consequence, linked evidentially to surveillance. This contributes to the debate because it demonstrates that Napoleon used a passive accent of terror to bend the nation to his will giving him full validity as leader, with little if any viable opposition. Both the article and the relevant historiographical debates in correspondence agree to the conclusion that through his skillful leadership, and fearless approach Napoleon had successfully formed and ran a police state in France.
Stuck on your essay?
