Origins Of Modern Politics

Answer : The French Revolution was one of the world shocking events of the world history. The material revolution of 1789 was preceded by a revolution in the realms of ideas.

This intellectual revolt was brought about by a group of French philosophers of whom the most prominent were Montesquieu, Voltaire & Rousseau. Their writings gave expression to the discontent and indignation which lay latest in the hearts of the French people Montesquieu was an ardent advocate of constitutional monarchy and spoke highly of English system of government. He exposed the fallacies of the theory of divine right of kings and the evils of absolute monarchy such as existed in French. Voltaire, a master of biting saltier enjoyed almost autoerotic authority by reason of his powerful writings. He advocated the supremacy of reason and mercilessly attacked everything that failed to stand its test. He denounced the abuses of the state but directed his attack especially against the bigotry and intolerance of church. His fiery shafts did much to undermine the respect for authority and loosened the hold of church over the minds of people. His destructive criticism did much to reduce the shock of the Revolution when it eventually came. Voltaire had harassed the bosses of reason, Rousseau unchained the fiber of emotion.

According to Rousseau, the society rests upon an agreement of the persons who compare it. “Man is born free yet everywhere he is chains” is the burden of his famous work – The social contract. According to its maxims, all the government rest upon the cogent of the governed. In other words, he proclaimed the doctrine of equality of all men and sovereignty of the people. Such a theory aimed not merely at reform but wholesale reorganization of society in accordance with the free will of the sovereign people.

Rousseau’s social contract was the gofer of democracy of the divine right of the people and of unfaithfully of their decisions.

The economic system of France was strongly criticized by a group of Economists known as physiatrist. They were strongly opposed to all forms of state interference in trade and commerce. They held that the land was the sole source of wealth and so all taxation should be reduced to a singly land tax.

Answer : No taxation without representation was the ringing slogan of the American War of Independence and captured the very core issue involved in the historic event. It basically connoted the people’s right to representation and their struggle to get it enforced.

Britain had been treating the American colonies to serve her own needs. Britain had imposed severe economic restrictions upon the colonies.

The Navigation Acts ensured that the colonies could trade only in British shops and with Britain acting as the source country to source imports and to organize exports.

Further, the colonies could not produce the agricultural products that competed with those produced in England.

The British moreover had imposed a government on the colonies in which the colonies had little say. The governors were appointed by the British government. Though the colonies had their assemblies in which their people were represented, the assemblies lacked any effective authority. In the eighteenth century, the colonies witnessed remarkable material progress and attained self sufficiency.

They felt self assured in their capacity to govern themselves. In this environment, the British sought to impose new taxes on the colonies and put some restriction on them. A series of Acts like the Molasses Act of 1733, the Sugar Act of 1764 were passed imposing duties on colonies’ imports. Agitation had been brewing for a while which burst into open when the British passed the stamp Act in 1765.

The colonists fiercely agitated against this and organized protests and the Act had to be repeated. Next came the towhead duties which led to further round of protests among colonists and further strained the relationship with Britain. After the duties on tea were retained, the needed spark was provided for the colonies to break out in open rebellion when the chests carrying tea were drowned off the coast of Boston. The rationale advanced was that the British Parliament had no right to tax them as they were not represented there. Ultimately the open war started, which the colonies won under leadership of George
Washington.

The American War imprinted the rule that without self determination, there can not be lasting rule.

Answer : The American Revolution and the US Constitution drafter after the defeat of imperial Britain at the hands of thirteen colonies constitute epoch making events in the political history of the world and in the constitutional development of modern times. Several factors worked in the drafting of the American constitution.

In drafting the constitution of America, the representatives of the 13 colonies met at the
Congress in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776 and made a declaration.

In the declaration, the representatives affirmed that “in course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve political bands and to assure among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal situation to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them a decent respect to the opinions of the Mankind”. It was further asserted that all Men are created equal, with certain inalienable natural rights like those of life, liberty and Le pursuit of happiness.

In the constitutional convention at Philadelphia, the very fact that the thirteen colonies had been exploited by the mother country in variety of ways acted as the primary spur with the representatives undertaking upon themselves the task of creating a new order free of exploitation. The colonists had fought a long drawn war to overthrow British control to achieve full liberty had its reflection in the American Constitution. Thus, Liberty was the primary driving force.

The colonists wanted to devise a system of government free from suppression and intrusion in their private life. This found ample expression in the Articles of Confederation, which linked central authority to certain well-defined fields. Thus, a constitutionally wanted government was envisaged by the delegates.

The Constitution’s drafting has also influenced by the principle of cheeks and balances. This principle first enunciated by Montesquieu. This implied the separation of powers of the government in three branches of executive, legislature and the judiciary. The post of American President elected by Electoral College and not responsible to the House of Representatives epitomized the incorporation of this principle.

Under the British sovereignty the colonists had been negated liberty and the fact that the American colonists by historical reasons had been lovers of liberty, the fathers of American Constitution wanted liberty as the supreme ideal of the Constitution. The liberty thus found in the American Constitution has the widest meaning including personal, religions and socio-cultural. Further, the Colonists also cherished highly the deals of political freedom system and its corporation of the same in drafting of American constitution. It led to the formation of an ideal federation with units having admissible autonomy and equal representation in the Senate.

The negative aspect of a monarchical form of government as it existed in the counterturning Britain and in continental Europe was the driving force that made the Constitution republican both in letter and in spirit. The colonists were fully seized of the denial of rights under the British colonial rule and hence incorporated the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Further, by incorporating judicial review the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the ideals incorporated in the Declaration of Rights and in the Constitution are not eroded in course of time.

The Constitution prepared under such circumstances was signed in 1787 and was ratified in June 1788 creating the United States of America. Thus, the historical, intellectual and the socio-economic currents of the time were factors working behind the drafting of the US Constitution.

Charles Beard in his classic “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution” created a sensation when it was published. He called into question the motives of the markers of the Constitution. He called them to be guided by vested self interest than by lofty pedestals. He argued that the delegates to the constitutional convention, though having diverse interests belonged to two economic categories of self interest. – Mercantile and Land ownership. Those with huge property assets and investments in trade unanimously lent support to the fledgling constitution. While the debtors happened to be the ones who disliked and opposed the constitution, by placing the delegates, class status, Beard pointed out that none of the framers were from farming or occupational artisan group. This coupled with the fact that many of the delegates were land speculators; Beard argued with force that the Articles of Federation suppressed Land values. Beard went on to intimate that the creation of a constitutional government was in effect a “coup”. The Authority granted to delegates was used by them to create a legal document. Moreover, as Beard argues that in the process of ratification of the Constitution, three-fourth of the qualified voters were excluded by some means or other thus aiding the rest who stood to benefit from the passage of the Constitution. The Constitution was therefore not created by the people but by those motivated by monetary interests.

However, Beard’s hypothesis, however thoroughly and well-researched it may have been, however is basically flawed. This attempt to analyse the social and economic standing of the delegates is commendable, but it has to be kept in mind that the US Constitution was prepared in tune with the historical developments in the American colonies in the 18^th century. It is true that the majority of delegates were from wealthy corporate class, but it cannot reduce the noble ideals and visions put forward in the constitution. Among these ideals, liberty is the most significant ideal. Further, the emphasis on individual rights also goes against Charles Beard’s hypothesis.

Answer : The first half of the 19^th century constitutes an important landmark in the history of Europe. For during this period, Europe saw many attempts at liberalism and democracy. The centre of such movements was France.

But it was England where the movements for liberalism got their solid foot hold. This was in form of the Great Reform Act of 1832. But the Act, landmark though it may have been, on hindsight it became subject of grave criticisms.

Reforms on liberal bourgeoisie lives were inevitable in Great Britain. What with the advances in the direction made and epitomized by the French Revolution and the concrete concessions offered by Napoleonic era measures to the bourgeoisie, in France. The French contagion soon however caught the imagination of the English bourgeoisie.

And not without reason, England had emerged as the industrial workshop of the world, which enhanced the sense of self-assurance of the bourgeoisie and in their capability to change the world as per their likings. The immense popular pressure had forced the government of the day to come out with laws concerning the catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, the law concerning to liberation to the Protestant Dissenters in 1828. Also, in 1824 was passed the legislation related to the Abolition of Combination Laws. The moderate liberty granted to associations was also shared by the politically radical movements which put pressure on the government for further dose of reforms. Also these made the reform inevitable in 1832.

The Reform Act of 1832 was passed in such circumstances. The Act provided for alteration in the representation of the people of England and Wales. The Act effected redistribution in the strength of the constituencies. It sought to bring down the number of representatives sent by the boroughs and raised the number of representatives sent by the countries. Such redistribution gave representation to the new industrial towns of the North, which had been hitherto not represented in the Parliament. Eighty six small towns lost the right to send members to the House of Commons. Twenty two new boroughs were allowed to return one or two members each and twenty others one member each.

However, the Reform Act of 1832 was criticized for it sought to protect class representation by assimilation of industrial interest. But it left the dominance of landed interests untouched. Moreover, the working classes were kept out of the electorate by the high property qualification for the voters. The Act made no provision for secret voting implying thereby that the prevalent tactics of bribery, intimidation and influence of elections combined like before. The electoral process in England turned out to be more expensive, unscrupulous and disorderly. On the whole, the reform Act of 1832 could not satisfy the popular urges and aspirations as it sought to protect the wealthy and landed classes’ dominance in policy making in England.

Nonetheless, the Act constituted a remarkable piece of legislation measured by the then prevalent yardsticks.

Answer : The French Revolution of 1789 was one of the path-breaking events in the modern history of the world,

however, it was the material revolution in the realm of ideas. In this connection, the writings of the philosophers had a tremendous influence.

The intellectual revolt was brought about by a group of French philosophers of whom the most prominent were Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau. Their writings gave expression to the discontent & indignation which lay latent in the hearts of the French people. Montesquieu was an ardent advocate of constitutional monarchy and spoke highly of the English system of Government.

He exposed the fallacy of the theory of divine right of kings and the evils of absolute monarchy. Voltaire, a master of batting satire enjoyed almost autocratic authority by reason of his powerful writings. He advocated the supremacy of the reason and mercilessly attacked everything that failed to stand its test. He directed his attack especially against the bigotry and intolerance of the church.

His fiery shafts did much to undermine the respect for authority on the minds of people. His destructive criticism did much to reduce the shock of the Revolution when it eventually came.

Voltaire had harnessed the horses of reason, Rousseau unchained the tiger of emotion. Voltaire aimed at destroying the existing institutions; whole Rousseau came forward with a plan of social reconstruction. According to him, society rests upon agreement of the persons who compose it. Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains in the main burden of his work, “Social Contract.” All government rests upon the consent of the governed. He proclaimed the equality of men, and sovereignty of people. Such a theory aimed not only at reform, but wholesale reorganization of society in accordance with free will of the sovereign people. The influence of Rousseau was tremendous in France and supplied the revolution with its fighting creed.

The economic system of France was strongly criticized by a group of Economists known as Physiocrats. They were strongly opposed to every form of State interference in trade & commerce. They held that land was the sole source of wealth and so all taxation should be reduced to a single land tax. They also advocated complete free trade. Their writings had great influence on the course of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution is ascribed to the influence of the writings of philosophers. The manifold ills and anomalies from which the nation suffered, coupled with the mistakes of the government, brought about the catastrophe. Nevertheless these writers were a powerful factor in the Revolution. In a soil prepared by social grievances, the French philosophers flung broadcast the seed of philosophical speculation, which is generally the presage of the Revolution.

Answer : There is no denying the fact that the French Revolution created Napolean (1769-1821). It was this man who, in 1799, combined a passion for power with his genius for leadership. Although much of what Napoleon accomplished over fifteen years seemed to undermine the principles of 1789, the end result was that many of the achievements of the Revolution were made French realities. Indeed, these realities were also made manifest across Europe. Napoleon was born in 1769, on the island of Corsica, the son of a petty or low noble. Wars of the French Revolution gave him the opportunity to test his skills. In 1793, when he was only 24 years old, Napoleon’s artillery pushed the British out of Toulon. In 1795, he saved the Convention from a Royalist insurrection. In 1796, he was given command of the French Army of Italy.

It was during his Italian campaigns against the Austrians that Napoleon’s talent for military strategy was first demonstrated. While all this was going on, things were not that peaceful back in France. Political unrest, financial disaster, and war with Europe compelled Napoleon to return. France needed a savior and Napoleon recognized himself as that savior. In October 1799, and without informing his troops in Egypt, Napoleon landed in France. The French people welcomed Napoleon, the bourgeoisie, in particular, expected Napoleon to protect the wealth and influence they had gained as a result of 1789. In 1802, Napoleon was made first Consul for life with the right to choose his successor. In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French. So, by 1804, the fate of both France and Europe depended upon this one man. Like most men of stature and power, Napoleon’s was a complex personality. Napoleon provided France with a strong centralized government, a government he would himself dominate, as an emperor, a Caesar. Like all dictators we think of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, Napoleon relied on public opinion to prevent hostile criticism. In other words, dissent was nearly impossible. Printers and booksellers swore oaths of allegiance and all newspapers fell under state control. So, by repressing liberty, subverting republicanism and restoring absolutism, Napoleon reversed some of the liberal gains of the Revolution.

He instituted the CODE NAPOLEON which incorporated the great principles of 1789: equality before the law, careers open to talent, freedom of religion, protection of private property, abolition of serfdom, and the secularization of the state. The Code, however, also had its less-liberal side. Workers were denied collective bargaining, trade unions were outlawed, and a system of labor passports was instituted. Women were declared to be inferior to men by law, and children had no rights at all. Between 1805 and 1807, Napoleon defeated Austria, Prussia and Russia becoming the virtual ruler of the Continent. He tells us his aim was to defend the Revolution and consolidate its gains. However, he did help to consolidate many gains of the Revolution. But, such a view ignores the downside of Napoleon, his repression of liberty, the general subversion of republicanism, and the oppression of conquered peoples.

Answer : Radical British democratic movement, mainly of the working classes flourished around 1838 to 1848. It derived its name from the People’s Charter, a six-point programme comprising universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, secret ballot, annual parliaments, and abolition of the property qualification for, and payment of, members of Parliament. The movement grew out of the London Working Men’s Association, formed in 1836 by William Lovett. Two petitions were presented to Parliament (in 1839 and 1842), and were rejected. Under the leadership of the Irish parliamentarian Fergus O’Connor, Chartism became a powerful expression of working class frustration, and a third petition, also rejected, was presented in 1848. The long-term failure of the movement was probably due to greater prosperity among the populace as a whole, lack of organization, and rivalry among the leadership of the movement.

Background to the movement Chartism grew out of anger at the limited extension of the franchise offered by the 1832 Reform Act, popular hostility to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, and the failure of the Luddites and the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union (GNCTU), which led many working-class activists to abandon economic action (trade unionism) and espouse political action. Behind it lay working-class anger at the broader developments in society – the poor working and living conditions of the Industrial Revolution, class differences, and grinding poverty. The petition to Parliament of July 1839 was signed by 1.28 million people, the petition of May 1842 by more than 3 million. Both were rejected and a division grew up in the movement between the moderates, led by radicals such as Francis Place, Thomas Attwood, and William Lovett, who believed in using only peaceful ‘moral force’ (also called ‘New Move Chartism’), and those who were willing to use the threat of physical force as a bargaining tool – most without seriously contemplating its use – led by activists such as Fergus O’Connor.

After the rejection of the 1839 petition, there was a failed Chartist uprising in Newport, South Wales. After the 1842 failure, there were strikes and riots in Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, and the Midlands; and in the so-called Plug Plots, Lancashire Chartists removed the plugs from the boilers of factory steam engines. For many workers, Chartism was only one movement among many movements demanding their support, including the cooperative movement and the Anti-Corn Law League. An increase in prosperity also allowed the development of the New Model unions. Most of all, the government used troops and police to defeat the movement. Most workers were not prepared to fight to the death for the petitions, and there was little bloodshed during the Chartist agitation. In the Newport rising, a number of Chartists were killed, and the three leaders were transported. About 60 Chartists were transported to Australia after an armed rising in 1842.

The march and mass demonstration planned in support of the third Chartist petition caused the government great alarm, and they threatened to use the military against any demonstration. Faced with military action, Fergus O’Connor instead took the petition to Parliament by taxi. When it was delivered, it was found to contain 2 million signatures, not 5 million as claimed, and – since the petition had been collected by largely illiterate people – included such bogus signatures as ‘the Duke of Wellington’ and ‘Queen Victoria’. The charter was rejected, and the movement was humiliated, and collapsed. Many free emigrants to Australia in this period also supported Chartism, the principles of which appeared in associations such as the Ballarat Reform League (1854) and influenced the leaders of the Eureka Stockade.

In Britain, many of the Chartists’ demands were later introduced gradually. Chartism failed for a number of reasons; most obviously, it failed to gather support in Parliament - not surprising when you consider the threat it posed to the self-interest of those in power. Equally important, it failed to gather support from the middle-classes. The demands of Chartism were too radical for many of the middle-classes, who were comfortable enough with the status quo. The repeal of the Corn Laws helped improve the economic climate of Britain, and there was less interest in radical reform. As well, the mid-19th century spawned a variety of social-reform groups with special aims, and the Chartist moivement lost many of its members to these other groups.

Although the Chartist Movement failed to directly achieve its aims, a good case can be made that the movement itself was not a failure at all, but a powerful force that resulted in an increased awareness of social issues and created a framework for future working-class organizations. Many of the demands of the Chartists were eventually answered in the electoral reform bills of 1867 and 1864. It also seems likely that the agitation for reform that the Chartist Movement helped bring to the forefront of British society was responsible for the repeal of the Corn Laws and other social reforms.

Answer : French society was divided into classes or estates. There were two privileged classes—the elergy and the nobility. These were known as the first estate and estate respectively. These two classes together owned about 40 per cent of the total land of France. They were exempted from taxes and controlled most of the administrative posts and all the high ranking posts in the army. Their income primarily came from their large land holdings. A minority of these also depended on pensions and gift from the king. They considered it beneath their dignity to trade or to be engaged in manufacture or to do any work. The life of the nobility was everywhere characterized by extravagance and luxury. Due to what France was suffering economic crisis. There were of course poorer sections in these two top estates. They were discontent and blamed the richer member of their class for their misery.

The rest of the people of France were called the Third Estate. They were common people and numbered about 95 per cent population of the total. People of the Third Estate were unprivileged people. Louis XVI was the king when revolution broke out.

Every phenomenon in history has got an economic interpretation. And the revolution of 1789 was definitely an economic revolution. The cleavage between man and man, based upon the privilege which was enjoyed by a set of people and denied to another, was mainly an economic difference. It was that privilege that shifted the main burden of taxation upon the soulder of the poor and denied the high posts in the government to all but the well born. Thus the difference between privileged and the unprivileged was based on some opportunities lavishly bestowed upon some and totally denied to others. This inequality or desire for equality or the demand for social and economic justice was the fundamental reason of the revolution of 1789. As a result of the revolution all privileges were abolished and people started to avail equal opportunities. Thus the French Revolution attacked priviledged not the property.

Answer : The monarchial misrule as well as brain storming ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers had ignited the French revolution. The despotic rule in France had been highly exploitative and the income of the state in France was considered as the income for the ruler. Rulers also claimed that they had divine right to rule over France. Lui XIV claimed that he himself was the state. Lui’s XVI had an opinion that whatever he said was the law of the state. In France there was only one democratic institution that was called Estate General. It was no doubt a people’s representative body. But its meeting was not called since 1614. Even judicial posts in France had become subjects of hereditary rights. The whole administration system was formed by the privileged class. Common people had no right even to claim their participation in governmental affairs.

There was no local self government in France. France had not a universal civil code. There were 385 types of judicial codes which were in use in the different regions of the country. The language of the courts were Latin while mother tongue of the people was French.

When France was under the tyrannical rule of the cruel despots, awakening came in the middle class and a great number of philosophers and thinkers showed the people a new path that was of a desirable change in the society and also in the nation. Voltaire compared the French administration with British administrative system in his work called ;Letters on English’. Rousseo in his ‘Social Contract’ had very clearly defined that it is the public who forms the state and not the ruler. In his another book “Discousses on Science and Art” he had presented his critical view on modern civilisation. Monsteque criticised the hypothesis of ‘divine rights of the rulers.’

Thus these thinkers presented democratic, humanistic and revolutionary ideas which had given French revolution a great impetus.

Answer : The Napoleon’s Empire was doomed because of its inherent and self-defeating Contradiction. Its programme of conquest ensured remorseless British resistance. There was no truce from May, 1803 until Napoleon’s abdication in 1814. The failure of his attempt to invade Britain and the battle of trafalgar made it clear that Britain remained superior at sea. So Napoleon had to resort to the continental system in an effort to undermine the naval power by economic weapons.

Napoleon’s continental system proved to be suicidal for him. In order to humiliate England, Napoleon resorted to economic war which made him a strong rival of England. The British naval force was matchless. Perpetual resources for England for the procurement of provisions were his colonies which were spread all over the world. The continental system failed utterly. It adversely affected the economy of France and other countries of Europe. For want of essential commodities, common people in society too turned against Napoleon. In order to implement his system, he was compelled to achieve more regional conquests. Napoleon’s confrontation with Portugal, Spain, Russia and Rome is the most tragic aftermath of the enforcement of his policy. In this way, the continental system involved Napoleon into inevitable and fierce battles which accounted for devastating consequences and he had to sustain immense loss.

Napoleon’s despotism throttled liberty and he tried to flow against the contemporary temperament. His behavior aggravated his difficulties. After becoming an emperor, he stepped seeking advice from his competent advisors which also contributed to his down fall. It was impossible for a newspaper to criticise the working of the state in any way. People suspected of antagonism were thrust into prisons.

During his lifetime, he fought 40 battles and got victorious on most of them but he created more enemies then friends. After becoming the Emperor of France, he was carried away by the dream of world conquest. It contributed to his decline for the European states built an organisation and sowed the seeds of his ruin. His army was tired of fighting frequent battles and most of his meritorious commanders were killed in wars. He lost 5,00,000 soldiers during his Moscow campaign and another 1,20,000 soldiers in the battle of lipzig.

It became very difficult to feed Napoleon’s overwhelming requirements for soldiers. Consequently, he had to recruit soldiers of foreign nationality which added to his downfall.When all these steps too could not fulfill his needs, he was constrained to enlist Juvenile soldiers in his army. War can not be a solution of problems nor basis of existence. Napoleon’s empire developed in war; war remained the foundation of its existence and war proved its nemesis.

The key reason of Napoleon’s downfall may be attributed to the development of the spirit of nationalism among the conquered states. Impressed by the spirit of nationalism, European countries were justified in opposing the foreign rule. It is noteworthy that Napoleon placed his close relatives to rule over the subdued states, made administrative changes there according to his desire, levied undue taxes on people and compelled them to carry out mercantile boycott against England. Stimulated by the spirit of nationalism, the citizens of Spain, Portugal, Austria, Russia, Napoleon’s power began to shatter before the violent opposition of nationalists. Radical outlook generated the principle of having the right of self-decision but Napoleon wanted to strangulate that desire of the people. Antagonism towards Napoleon did not remain only political but people of several nations emotionally integrated started supporting their respective rulers against Napoleon.

Peninsular war proved to be suicidal for him. In 1807, Napoleon’s glory had reached its peak. At this occassion he should have displayed his foresight but he took an absurd and erroneous step. He dethroned the Spanish Emperor Charles IV in 1808, and placed his brother Joseph. There Napoleon dug his own grave. He could not win the peninsular war against Spain even at the cost of sacrificing three lakh French soldiers. It was the longest war of his life. Napoleon himself admitted, “The Spanish ulcer destroyed me”. The Spanish war had sucked up Napoleon’s vitality. Napolean’s Spanish capmaigh sharpened the spirit of nationalism not only in Spain but in central Europe also and Napoleon found it difficult to fight against the nations which were brimming over with nationalism.

Russian campaign proved no less suicidal for Napoleon. He marched towards Moscow with 6,10,000 soldiers but 5 lakh of them were killed in that campaign. This campaign destroyed Napoleon’s power and pride. Weakness of French army became apparent to European countries in that war and they started efforts for their liberty.

Napoleon’s undue attachment with his relations contributed to his decline. He was kind to them but they turned ungrateful to him. From among his brothers, Napoleon gave Holland to Louis Napoleon, Spain to Joseph and Westphalia to Jareim to govern. He married his sister Caralina to his commander murra and Murra was made the ruler of Naples. But no relation extended help to Napoleon at the time of crisis.

The violation of dynastic interests by diplomatic manoeuvres and the snatching away of territories after military victories eventually persuaded the great powers of Europe to combine in a concerted effort to destroy Napolean. It was only the threat posed by Napolean that united the governments of Europe in a solid and formidable alliance. It is therefore rightly observed that the methods by which the empire was created were one of the main reasons for its defeat. Napoleon made the grand empire and he destroyed it.