:: wikimiki.org ::

Self-proclaimed Monarchy

Self-proclaimed monarchy

A self-proclaimed monarchy is a monarchy that is proclaimed into existence, often by a single individual, rather than occurring as part of a longstanding tradition. It is thus at least initially the opposite of most hereditary monarchies, although if a self-proclaimed monarchy is successful, it will evolve into a hereditary one.

History

Throughout history there has rarely been a political office higher in stature and power than that of king or emperor. In republican dictatorships these titles have often proven too tempting to resist, and often at the apex of his power, a dictator will sometimes decide to proclaim himself king, and thus turn the nation into a monarchy. In 1804 French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte decided to consolidate his power by proclaiming himself Emperor Napoleon I. Though this imperial regime would end with his fall from power, years later Napoleon's nephew Charles Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte would be elected President of France and proceed to declare himself Emperor, as well. In Haiti there were three such cases: Governor-General Jean-Jacques Dessalines became Emperor Jacques I (1804-06), President Henry Christophe became King Henri I (1811-20), and President Faustin Soulouque became Emperor Faustin I (1849-59). In 1915 Chinese President Yuan Shikai declared a restoration of the Chinese monarchy, with himself as the new Emperor. The plan was a huge failure, and he was quickly forced to step down. President Ahmet Zogu of Albania proclaimed himself "King Zog" in 1928, creating a short lived monarchy that would be eventually overtaken by Italy. A short-lived African empire was also created in 1976 when dictator Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic proclaimed himself "Emperor Bokassa I" and had a lavish coronation ceremony in 1977. Category:Monarchy

Monarchy

:For related meanings see also Monarch (disambiguation) A monarchy, (from the Greek monos, "one," and archein, "to rule") is a form of government that has a monarch as Head of State. The distinguishing characteristic of monarchies is that the Head of State holds their office for life, unlike in a republic, where a president is normally elected for a certain amount of time. The term monarchy is also used to refer to the people and institutions that make up the royal establishment, or to the realm in which the monarchy functions. Elective monarchies, distinguished by the monarchs being appointed for life, have in most cases been succeeded by hereditary monarchies. In the hereditary system, the position of monarch involves inheritance according to an order of succession, usually within one royal family tracing its origin back to a historical dynasty or bloodline. In some cases the royal family may claim to hold authority by virtue of God's choosing, or other religious-based authority. In most countries with monarchies, the monarch serves as a symbol of continuity and statehood. Many states have a strong convention against the monarch becoming involved in partisan politics (the Central African Empire was an exception). In some cases, the symbolism of monarchy alongside the symbolism of democracy can lead to division over the apparently contradictory principles.

History

Monarchies are one of the oldest forms of government, with echoes in the leadership of tribal chiefs. Many monarchies began with the monarch as the local representative and temporary embodiment of the deity: (King of Babylon). The monarch often ruled at the pleasure of the deity and was overthrown or sacrificed when it became apparent that supernatural sanction had been withdrawn: emperors of China, Mayan kings, Achaemenid kings of Persia. Other monarchs derived their power by acclamation of the ruling or of the warrior caste of a clan or group of clans: kings of the Franks, Roman emperors. Even where law is simply the monarch's will, the king must rule by custom. Since 1800, many of the world's monarchies have ceased to have a monarch and become republics, or become parliamentary democracies. Democratic countries which retain monarchy have by definition limited the monarch's power, with most having become constitutional monarchies. In England, this process began with the Magna Carta of 1215, although it did not reach democratic proportions until after the Glorious Revolution in 1689. Among the few states that have absolute monarchies are Swaziland, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. In Jordan and Morocco, the monarch retains considerable power. There are also recent (2003) developments in Liechtenstein, wherein the regnant prince was given the Constitutional power to dismiss the government at will.

Types of monarchy

In an absolute monarchy, the monarch has power over every aspect of the state, and a constitution may be granted or withdrawn. Modern versions tend to survive only in societies with sufficient technology to allow the concentration and organization of power, but not to allow education and rapid communication to flourish. The economic structure of such monarchies is that of concentrated wealth, with the majority of the population living as agricultural serfs. In some cases, a hereditary monarchy exists, but actual power resides in the military. This has often historically been the case in Thailand and Japan. In Fascist Italy a monarchy coexisted with a fascist party for longer than such co-existences occurred in Romania, Hungary or Greece. Spain under Francisco Franco was officially a monarchy even though there was no monarch on the throne; upon his death, Franco was succeeded as head of state by King Juan Carlos. There have also been situations in which a dictator or a group has proclaimed himself monarch in a republican state, thus starting a self-proclaimed monarchy with no historical ties to a previous dynasty. The most famous example of this was Napoleon Bonaparte who made himself Emperor of France after assuming control of the French Republic. On several occasions throughout history, the same person has served as monarch of separate independent states, in a situation known as a personal union. An empire was traditionally ruled by a monarchy whose leader may have been known by different titles in his different realms. Several former colonies of the British Empire, such as Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and New Zealand, continue to recognize the British Monarch as their own, under a separate title for each country. In other cases, such as England and Scotland, a personal union was the precursor to a merger of the states.

Succession

The rules for selection of monarchs varies from country to country. In constitutional monarchies the rule of succession is generally embodied in a law passed by a representative body, such as a parliament. The order of succession in most European monarchical states of the 21st century is by primogeniture, meaning the eldest son of the monarch is first in line, followed by his male, then female siblings in order of age. In earlier times, the succession was often unclear and this led to a number of wars. Currently, there is some controversy over the succession laws of some monarchies in the European Union (EU), such as that of the United Kingdom (UK) or the Scandinavian monarchies, which require their monarch to be of a certain faith (in the UK under the Act of Settlement 1701). This has been challenged as violating EU rules that prohibit religious disqualification for positions of state authority. Some autocratic states can appear to have introduced inheritance for the head of state without declaring themselves to be monarchies, such as Syria and North Korea. See family dictatorship.

Destruction of monarchies

Monarchies can come to an end in several ways. There may be a revolution in which the monarchy is overthrown; or, as in Italy, there may be a referendum in which the electorate decides to form a republic. In some cases, as with England and Spain, the monarchy has been overthrown and then restored. Countries may regard themselves as monarchies without a named monarch, as Spain did from 1947 to 1975, and Hungary from 1920 to 1944. A person who claims to be the legitimate heir to a deposed monarchy is called a pretender. See also abolished monarchies for a list of recently abolished monarchies.

Unusual examples

Sometimes, component members of federal states are monarchies, even though the federal state as a whole is not; for example each of the emirates that form the United Arab Emirates has its own monarch (an emir). Another unique situation is Malaysia, in which the national king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Paramount Ruler, is elected for a five year term from and by the nine sultans who are the hereditary rulers of the States of the Malay peninsula. In addition to his spiritual role, the Pope is the monarch of the Vatican City. He is elected by (and customarily from among) the College of Cardinals. (Since the Catholic episcopate is celibate, naturally there can be no official hereditary succession to the papal throne.) Notwithstanding this the papacy has often been under the control of powerful Italian families. Several popes have been succeeded by near relatives, in some cases by their own sons (officially described as nephews). Andorra has two co-princes, of which one is the Bishop of Urgell in Spain, and the other is the President of France—a unique case where an independent country's monarch is democratically elected by the citizens of another country. Samoa is often erroneaously described as a monarchy. The president-for-life, or "o le Ao o le Malo" is Malietoa Tanumafili II, is a member of one of the three princely families. The Constitution designates him Head of State for life, but he will be succeeded by an elected president.

Current monarchies

(see also List of countries by system of government) In many countries that are legally republics, there is an heir to the throne who is recognized by part of the nation. A list of such countries is available in the pretender article.

External links

- [http://www.monarchy.net The Monarchist League]
- [http://www.royaltymonarchy.com Theodore's Royalty and Monarchy Page] Category:Forms of government Category:Political systems
- ja:君主制 ko:군주제

Hereditary monarchy

A hereditary monarchy is the most common style of monarchy and is the form that is used by almost all of the world's existing monarchies. Under a hereditary monarchy, all the monarchs come from the same family, and the crown is passed down from one member to another member of the family. The hereditary system has the advantages of stability, continuity and predictability, as well as the internal stabilizing factors of family affection and loyalty. For example, when the king or queen of a hereditary monarchy dies or abdicates, the crown is usually passed to the next generation, i.e, his or her child, typically in some order of seniority. When that child dies, the crown is in turn passed to his or her child, or, if no child exists, a sister, brother, niece, nephew, cousin, or other relative. Hereditary monarchies most usually arrange succession by a legislated, definite order of succession so that it is well-known beforehand who will be the next monarch. Nowadays, the typical order of succession in hereditary monarchies is based on some form of primogeniture, but there exist other methods such as seniority, tanistry and rotation, which were much more common in the past. Historically, there have been differences in systems of succession, mainly revolving around the question of whether succession is limited only to males, or if females are also eligible to succeed. Agnatic succession refers to systems where females are neither allowed to succeed nor to transmit the succession rights to their male descendants (see Salic Law). An agnate is a kinsman with whom one has a common ancestor by descent in unbroken male line. Cognatic succession previously referred to any succession to the throne or other inheritance which allows both males and females to be heirs, although in modern usage it specifically refers to equal succession by seniority. Elective monarchy can practically function as a hereditary monarchy, for example in case of eligibility being limited to members of one family (or even further, if allowed by the rules of precedence in the election). This has happened historically, usually slowly, in many past elective monarchies. One method was for the incumbent monarch to have his chosen heir (son, daughter, brother, sister, or other relative) elected during the lifetime of the incumbent, while he was still able to wield his influence to direct the election to the desired result. Many late-medieval countries of Europe were officially elective monarchies, but the same family had held the throne already even centuries, and that hybrid situation should be described as pseudo-elective, virtually hereditary monarchies, the succession system being in slow transition. Most of those hybrid monarchies became officially hereditary in early modern age.

Monarch

:For other senses, see monarch (disambiguation). A monarch (see sovereign) is a type of ruler or head of state. Monarchs almost always inherit their titles and are rulers for life. Historically monarchs have been more or less absolute rulers, though modern monarchs are typically figureheads with little power. Monarchs usually represent a larger monarchical system which has established rules and customs regarding succession, duties, and powers. A nation ruled by a monarch is called a monarchy. The word "monarch" derives from Greek monos archein, meaning "one ruler," and referred to an absolute ruler in ancient Greece. With time, the word has been succeeded in this meaning by others, like autocrat or dictator, and the word monarch in modern usage almost always refers to a traditional system of hereditary rulership (but see the discussion on elective monarchies below).

Possible definitions of the term

Which rulers are considered monarchs today is partially a matter of tradition, so there are no hard and fast rules. There are, however, a number of characteristics that are commonly, though not universally, distinguishing for monarchs:
- Most monarchs hold their office for life, while most other rulers do not. A monarch may chose to resign his position through abdication, though this is a rare and dramatic practice.
- Exceptions to this include the French co-prince of Andorra, who is not appointed for life (he is the French President, elected for a five year period by the French people), but still generally considered a monarch because of the use of a traditionally monarchical title. (Though, a purist might regard Andorra as a diarchy.) Similarly, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) of Malaysia is considered a monarch although only holding the office five years at a time. On the other hand, several life-time dictators around the world have not been considered monarchs.
- Most monarchs are raised within a royal family where they are taught to expect and obey their future "duties," and they are, formally or informally, succeeded upon their death or abdication by members of their own family, usually their eldest son or eldest child. As a result, most stable monarchies have a long legacy of rule by a single family or bloodline.
- Once again, Malaysia is an exception, as is the Vatican City (the Pope bears the title "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City"). Also, the practice is not totally uncommon in systems which are not considered monarchical, such as family dictatorships.
- Most monarchs hold titles that are traditional among monarchs (see below). While this is a fairly arbitrary characteristic, it might just be the best distinction between monarchs and non-monarchs at the moment.

Different types of monarchs

Monarchy is the form of government involving a monarch. It can be either absolute or constitutional, and constitutional monarchies may even restrict the powers of the monarch to the point where he is little more than a near-powerless figurehead, which is a common modern practice. The word monarchy can also be used about a country which has such a system. Normally however, such countries identify themselves more narrowly depending on the actual title used by the monarch – e.g., as a kingdom, grand duchy, or principality. Elective monarchies were once common, although only a very small portion of the population was eligible to vote. As the impact of the feudal system diminished, many monarchs were eventually allowed to introduce hereditary succession, guaranteeing that the title and office will stay within the family. Today, almost all monarchies are hereditary monarchies in which the monarchs come from one royal family with the office of sovereign being passed from one family member to another upon the death or abdication of the incumbent. Existing elective monarchies include Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the Holy See. The former system of the election of the doge in Venice is also widely known. A sovereign is the monarch of a sovereign state. Although non-sovereign states have often had monarchs historically (not least within the Holy Roman Empire), all European monarchs since 1918 have been sovereigns. Outside Europe there still exist several monarchs of subnational entities however, most notably in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. A more obscure example is that of Kings of the French Wallis and Futuna territory. In a few cases a monarch is associated with a particular group (or nation) within a state, such as Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu of the Maori (the Maori Queen) and Osei Tutu II of the Ashanti.

European monarchical titles

In Europe, a monarch may traditionally bear any of several titles. Although monarchs have normally been male, each of these titles also has a female counterpart. This is used not only in the (historically rare) case that the monarch is female, but also for wives of monarchs (when there is need to distinguish between the two cases, terms like Queen regnant and Queen consort are used). The converse is not true however: the husband of a queen regnant is not automatically a king (e.g., the Duke of Edinburgh is not King Philip of the United Kingdom). The more frequent use of the word monarch in recent years arises from this possibility of a male or female ruler. Formerly, the ruler was expected to be male, therefore a terminology of masculine words developed, the feminine words expressing a different role. The word monarch covers both sexes so is more acceptable in a general discussion in a gender-conscious culture. The normal monarch title in Europe – i.e., the one used if the monarch has no higher title – is Prince. It was a common title within the Holy Roman Empire, along with a number of higher titles listed below. Such titles were granted by the Emperor, while the titulation of rulers of sovereign states was generally left to the discretion of themselves, most often choosing King. Such titulations could cause diplomatic problems, and especially the elevation to Emperor was seen as an offensive action. During the 19th and 20th centuries most small monarchies in Europe disappeared to form larger entities, and so King has become the most common title today.
- As popes are usually Catholic priests (technically not a requirement, see Pope - Election), a celibate office forbidden to women, there is no female equivalent. Legends of female popes (see Pope Joan) refer to them as "pope." Some European languages have a feminine form of the word pope, such as the French papesse (to pape) or German Päpstin (to Papst), used, among other things, for the High Priestess tarot card. Note that some of these titles have several meanings and do not necessarily designate a monarch. A Prince can be a person of royal blood (some languages uphold this distinction, see Fürst). A Duke can be a British peer. In Imperial Russia, a Grand Duke was a son or grand-son of the Tsar. Holders of titles in these alternative meanings did not enjoy the same status as actual monarchs of the same title. Within the Holy Roman Empire, there were even more titles that were occasionally used for monarchs although they were normally noble; Margrave, Count Palatine, Landgrave. An actual monarch with such low titles still outranked a noble Duke. Today, there are seven kingdoms, one grand duchy, and two principalities in Europe, excluding the peculiar case of Andorra.

Monarchical titles in use by non-monarchs

It is not uncommon that people who are not generally seen as monarchs nevertheless use monarchical titles. There are three cases of this:
- Claiming an existing title, challenging the current holder. This has been very common historically. For centuries, the British monarch used, among his other titles, the title King of France, despite the fact that he had no authority over French territory. There have also been numerous antipopes.
- Retaining the title of an extinct monarchy. This can be coupled with a claim that the monarchy was in fact never, or should never have been, extinct. An example of the first case is the Prince of Seborga. Examples of the second case are several deposed monarchs or otherwise pretenders to thrones of abolished monarchies, e.g., Leka, Crown Prince of Albania who is styled by some as the "King of Albania." Retaining the title of an extinct monarchy can, however, be totally free of claims of sovereignty, as when Juan Carlos I of Spain includes "King of Jerusalem" in his full title. When it comes to deposed monarchs, it is customary to continue the usage of their monarchical title (e.g., Constantine II, King of the Hellenes) as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office, for the duration of their lifetime. However the title then dies with them and cannot be used by anyone else unless the crown is restored constitutionally. (Some republicans take offence at this custom.) Monarchs who have freely abdicated lose their right to use their former title. However where a monarch abdicated under duress (e.g., Michael I of Romania), it is customary to see the abdication as invalid and to treat them as deposed monarchs entitled to use their monarchical style for their lifetime.
- Inventing a new title. This is common by founders of micronations, and also may or may not come with a claim of sovereignty. When it does, it is most often disregarded by state leaders. A notable example is Paddy Roy Bates, styling himself the "Prince of Sealand," but not recognized as such by any national government, thus failing at least the constitutive condition for statehood (see Sealand for a fuller discussion of his claims).

Other monarchical titles

In China, "king" is the usual translation for the term wang, which designated the sovereign before the Qin dynasty and during the Ten Kingdoms period. During the early Han dynasty, China had a number of small kingdoms, each about the size of a county and subordinate to the Emperor of China. When a difference exists, male titles are placed to the left and female titles are placed to the right of the slash.

By region

- Africa
- Chieftain - Leader of a "primitive" people
- Pharaoh - early Egypt
- Negus - Ethiopia
- Oba - Yoruba people of Nigeria
- Americas
- Cacique - Aboriginal Hispaniola
- Hueyi Tlatoani - Aztec Empire
- Ajaw - Maya
- Inca - Tahuantinsuyu (Inca Empire)
- Asia
- Druk Gyalpo —heriditary title given to the king of Bhutan
- Chogyal — "Divine Ruler" — ruled Sikkim till 1975
- Hwangje - States that unified Korea
- Wang - States of Korea that do not have control over all of Korea
- Badshah - India (emperor)
- Huangdi - Imperial China
- Maharaja/Maharani - India
- Nawab, Wali - Muslim rulers of principalities or princes under Mughal (Mogul) or British Indian Empires
- Nizam - Hyderabad, India
- Susuhanan - the Indonesian princely state of Surakarta until its abolition
- Sultan - Aceh, Brunei Darussalam
- Meurah -Aceh before Islam
- Yang Dipertuan Agong - king of Malaysian Federations, elected each 5 years among the reining monarch in Malaysia.
- Tenno or Mikado - Japan
- Wang - pre-Imperial China
- Europe
- Arqa / Thagavor - Armenian king
- Germanic king
- Βασιλεύς-Greek
- Vezér - Ancient Hungarian
- Fejedelem - Ancient/Medieval Hungarian
- Vojvod (Serbian) / Vajda (Hungarian) - Serbian / Hungarian / Romany Title
- Rí and Ard Rí - Respectively King and High King in Ireland.
- Kniaz'/Knyaginya (generally translated as "prince") - Kievan Rus'
- Tsar/Tsaritsa - Imperial Russia
- Kunigaikshtis (Kunigaikštis) - Lithuanian,duke as in Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
- Middle East
- Bei
- Caliph - Islamic holy title
- Emir - Arabic holy title
- Khan - Mongol Emperor or Turkish, Afghan, Pashtun or other Central Asian chieftain
- Malik/Malika - Arabic leader
- Pharaoh - Ancient Egypt
- Shah - Persia/Iran, Afghanistan
- Shahenshah - Persia/Iran, "King of Kings" or emperor
- Shaikh - Arabic leader
- Sultan/Sultana - Arabic King
- Oceania
- Chieftain - Leader of a "primitive" people
- King - there were/are also kings in Oceania (i.e. Tonga,Wallis and Futuna, Nauru)
- Houeiki - Chief status in the Tongan traditional system.

General monarch titles

- Autocrat - General term for absolute monarch.
- Emperor/Empress - Empire
- Grand Duke/Grand Duchess - Grand Duchy
- King/Queen - Kingdom
- Prince/Princess - Sovereign Principality
- Sovereign Duke/Count/Baron - Sovereign Duchy/County/Barony - (Grand)Children have the title Princely-, like Princely-Lord

Succession

Succession from one monarch to another varies from country to country. Traditionally, hereditary succession within members of one family has been most common. The usual hereditary succession has based on some cognatic principles and on seniority, though also merits have influenced. Thus, the most common hereditary system in feudal Europe was based on cognatic primogeniture, where a lord was succeeded by his eldest son, and failing sons, by either daughters or by sons of daughters. The system of tanistry was semi-elective and gave weight also to merits and capability. The Quasi-Salic succession provided firstly male members of the family to succeed, and secondarily males also from female lines. In most feudal fiefs, females (such as daughters and sisters) were allowed to succeed, brothers failing, but usually the husband of the heiress became the real lord and most often also got title, iure uxoris. Great Britain and Spain are today continuing this old model of succession law, in form of cognatic primogeniture. In more complex medieval cases, the sometimes conflicting principles of proximity and primogeniture battled, and outcomes could have been idiosyncratic. As the average life span increased (lords limited their own participation in dangerous battles, and society's more wealthy had increasingly better sustenance and living conditions, which improved general health among princes), primogeniture began to win the battle against proximity, tanistry, seniority and election. Later, when lands were strictly divided among noble families and tended to remain fixed, agnatic primogeniture (practically the same as Salic Law) became the most usual: succession going to the eldest son of the monarch; if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the nearest male relative through male line. Some countries however accepted female rulers early on, so that if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the eldest daughter. (This, cognatic primogeniture, was the rule that let Elizabeth II become Queen.) In 1980, Sweden became the first European monarchy to abolish this preference for males altogether, declaring equal primogeniture or full cognatic primogeniture, so that the eldest child of the monarch now ascends to the throne, be that child male or female. Other kingdoms (Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1991 and the Netherlands) have followed. In some monarchies, e.g. Saudi Arabia, succession to the throne has passed to the monarch's next eldest brother, and only to the monarch's children after that (= agnatic seniority). In some other monarchies (e.g. Jordan), the monarch chooses who will be his successor, who need not necessarily be his eldest son.

Current monarchs

NOTE: The table comprises all sovereign monarchs of the world today, but is severely incomplete with regard to the non-sovereign monarchs.

External links

- [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm A Glossary of European Noble, Princely, Royal and Imperial Titles]
- [http://www.archontology.org Archontology]
- Monarch Monarch Category:Titles zh-min-nan:Ông ko:군주 ja:君主

Republicanism

Republicanism is the idea of a nation being governed by an elected representative instead of a king. In a broad definition a republic is a state or country in which sovereignty is invested in the people. Most commonly such principle beyond the control of the state's citizens is a hereditary principle, and in this sense a republic is the opposite of a monarchy. Thus the term republicanism is often used to describe any movement that is opposed to monarchies. Republic can also refer to a political system that has a system of law (as in a constitution or bill of rights) that protects individual liberty from the forces of democracy with elected representatives governing according to such law. Republicanism refers to both the advocacy for this form of government and the ideology of this movement. Republicanism can also refer to the ideologies of any of the many political parties that are named the Republican Party. Some of these are, or have their roots in, anti-monarchism. For most parties republican is just a name and these parties, and their corresponding platforms, have little besides their names in common.

Anti-monarchial republicanism

One meaning of republicanism is the opposition to monarchies. Republic comes from the Latin word res publica and one meaning of this term is the form of government that began with the overthrow of the last tyrant known as the Roman Republic. While this government was much lauded by its contemporaries, once it was replaced with the empire, republicanism became all but nonexistent throughout Europe for several centuries. Outside of Europe, opposition to monarchy before the modern period is not generally termed republicanism. Islam, for instance, is opposed to monarchies seeing the ideal state as one where the ummah, caliph, and sharia all play a role in governance. This concept shares some of the same classical roots as European republicanism and in modern times this form of government is called "republican" in English, but in pre-modern times it is not generally called republicanism.

Early History

In Europe republicanism was revived in the late Middle Ages when a number of small states embraced republican system of government. These were generally small, but wealthy, trading states in which the merchant class had risen to prominence. Haakonssen notes that by the Renaissance Europe was divided with those states controlled by a landed elite being monarchies and those controlled by a commercial elite being republics. These included Italian city states like Florence and Venice and the members of the Hanseatic League. At this period the school of thought known as classical republicanism or civic humanism came into being outlining how best to run a republic. These authors, most prominent among them being Niccolò Machiavelli, based republicanism on the states of the classical world, such as Athens, Sparta, and the Roman Republic as well as the ancient works of political philosophy such as Aristotle, Polybius and especially Cicero. In the Renaissance the classical states were dubbed republics, and are today still sometimes referred to as classical republics. While many Renaissance authors spoke highly of republics they were rarely critical of monarchies. While Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy is the period's key work on republics he also wrote The Prince on how to best run a monarchy. One cause of this was that the early modern writers did not see the republican model as one that could be applied universally, most felt that it could only be successful in very small and highly urbanized city-states. Anti-monarchism became far more strident in the Dutch Republic during and after the Eighty Years' War. This anti-monarchism was less political philosophy and more propagandizing with most of the anti-monarchist works appearing in the form of widely distributed pamphlets. Over time this evolved into a systematic critique of monarchies written by men such as Johan Uytenhage de Mist, Radboud Herman Scheel, Lieven de Beaufort and the brothers Johan and Peter de la Court. These writers saw all monarchies as illegitimate tyrannies that were inherently corrupt. Less an attack on their former overlords these works were more concerned with preventing the position of Stadholder from evolving into a monarchy. This Dutch republicanism also had an important influence on French Huguenots during the Wars of Religion. In the other states of early modern Europe republicanism was more moderate. In England a republicanism evolved that was not wholly opposed to monarchy, but rather thinkers such as Thomas More and John Milton saw an monarchy firmly constrained by law as compatible with republicanism. The small minority that was actively opposed to all monarchy was largely discredited by the regicide of Charles I and later republicans strove to distance themselves from that act. In Poland moderate republicanism was also an important ideology. In Poland republicans were those who supported the status quo of having a very weak monarch and opposed those who felt a stronger monarchy was needed. These Polish republicans such as Lukasz Gornicki, Andrzej Wolan, and Stanislaw Konarski were well read in classical and Renaissance texts and firmly believed that their state was a Republic on the Roman model and called their state the Rzeczpospolita. Unlike in the other areas Polish republicanism was not the ideology of the commercial, but rather of the landed aristocracy who would be the ones to lose power if the monarchy was expanded. In the Enlightenment anti-monarchism stopped being coextensive with the civic humanism of the Renaissance. Classical republicanism, still supported by philosophers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, became just one of a number of ideologies opposed to monarchy. The newer forms of anti-monarchism such as liberalism and later socialism quickly overtook classical republicanism as the leading republican ideologies. Republicanism also became far more widespread and monarchies began to be challenged throughout Europe.

Modern History

Anti-monarchial republicanism remains an important political force in many states especially in the Commonwealth nations such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and Barbados. In these countries, republicanism is largely about the post-colonial evolution of their relationships with the United Kingdom. In the surviving European monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden there has not been much contemporary popular support for republicanism, though in most cases it nonetheless commands a significant minority position. In such states republicanism is usually motivated by decreasing popularity of the Royal Family, who may be increasingly embroiled in scandal or conflict. However the classical argument against monarchy versus the egalitarian aspects of republicanism will often remain prominent as well. See also: Abolished monarchy, Australian republicanism, Australian Republican Movement, British republicanism, British republican movement, Irish republicanism, Canadian republicanism, Citizens for a Canadian Republic, Republicanism in New Zealand, Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand

Republicanism in political science

A different interpretation of republicanism is used among political scientists. To them a republic is the rule by many and by laws while a princedom is the arbitrary rule by one. By this definition despotic states are not republics while, according to some such as Kant, constitutional monarchies can be. Kant also argues that a pure democracy is not a republic as the unrestricted rule of the majority is also a form of despotism.

Classical antecedents

Ancient Greece

In Ancient Greece several philosophers and historians set themselves to analysing and describing forms of government. There is no single expression or definition from this era, written down in Greek, that exactly corresponds with a modern understanding of the term "republic". However, most of the essential features of the modern definition are present in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and other ancient Greeks. These elements include the idea of mixed government and of civic virtue. It should be noted that the modern title of Plato's dialogue on the ideal state (The Republic) is a misnomer when seen through the eyes of modern political science (see Republic (Plato)). Some scholars have translated the Greek concept of "politeia" as "republic", but most modern scholars reject this idea. A number of Ancient Greek states such as Athens and Sparta have been classified as classical republics, though this uses a definition of republic that was developed much later.

Ancient Rome

Both Livy (in Latin, living in Augustus' time) and Plutarch (in Greek, a century later) described how Rome had developed its legislation, notably the transition from kingdom to republic, based on Greek examples. Probably some of this history, composed more than half a millennium after the events, with scant written sources to rely on, is fictitious reconstruction - nonetheless the influence of the Greek way of dealing with government is clear in the state organisation of the Roman Republic. The Greek historian Polybius, writing more than a century before Livy, was one of the first historians describing the emergence of the Roman Empire, and he had a great influence on Cicero, when this orator was writing his politico-philosophical works in the 1st century BC. One of these works was De re publica, where Cicero links the Latin res publica concept to the Greek politeia concept. As explained in the res publica article, also this concept only exceptionally links to the modern term "republic", although the word "republic" is derived from res publica. Among these many meanings of the expression res publica, it is only most often translated to "republic" in the case where the Latin expression refers to the Roman state with the form of government it had between the era of the Kings and the era of the Emperors, which was the Roman Republic. This Roman Republic would in a modern understanding of the word still be qualified as a true republic, even if not excelling in all the features Enlightenment philosophers saw for an ideal government system, for example there was no systematic separation of powers in the Roman Republic. Occasionally Romans could still refer to their state as "res publica" in the era of the early emperors. The reason for this is that on the surface the state organisation of the Roman Republic had been preserved without the slightest alteration by the first emperors. They only had several offices, that in the era of the Republic were reserved to separate persons, accumulated in a single person, and had been successful in making some of these offices permanent, and thus had gradually built sovereignty in their person. Traditionally such references to the early empire as "res publica" are not translated as "republic". As for Cicero, his description of the ideal state in De re publica is more difficult to qualify as a "republic" in modern terminology, it is rather something like enlightened absolutism - not to say benevolent dictatorship - and indeed Cicero's philosophical works, as far as available at that time, were very influential when Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire developed these concepts. Cicero related however with some ambiguity towards the republican form of government: in his theoretical works he defended monarchy (or a monarchy/oligarchy mixed government at best); in his political life he generally opposed to those trying to realise such ideals, like Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian. Eventually, that opposition led to his death. So, depending on how one reads history, Cicero could be seen as a victim of his own deep-rooted republican ideals too. Tacitus, a contemporary of Plutarch, was not concerned with whether on an abstract level a form of government could be analysed as a "republic" or a "monarchy" (see for example Ann. IV, 32-33). He analyses how the powers accumulated by the early Julio-Claudian dynasty were all given to the representants of this dynasty by a State that was and remained in an ever more "abstract" way a republic; nor was the Roman Republic "forced" to give away these powers to single persons in a consecutive dynasty: it did so out of free will, and reasonably in Augustus' case, because of his many merits towards the state, freeing it of civil wars and the like. But at least Tacitus is one of the first to follow this line of thought: analysing in which measure such powers were given to the head of state because the citizens wanted to give them, and in which measure they were given because of other principles (for example, because one had a deified ancestor) — such other principles leading more easily to abuse by the one in power. In this sense, that is in Tacitus' analysis, the impossibility to return to the Republic is only irreversible when Tiberius establishes power shortly after Augustus' death (AD 14, much later than most historians place the start of the Imperial form of government in Rome): by this time too many "untouchable" principles had been mingled in to keep Tiberius away from power, and the age of "sockpuppetry in the external form of a republic", as Tacitus more or less describes this Emperor's reign, began (Ann. I-VI).

Civic humanism

:Main article: Classical republicanism The idea of the Republic is drawn from Ancient Greece and Rome but it was truly created during the Renaissance when scholars built upon their conception of the ancient world to advance their view of the ideal government. The usage of the term res publica in classical texts should not be confused with current notions of republicanism. Despite its name Plato's The Republic also has little connection. The republicanism developed in the Renaissance is known as classical republicanism because of its reliance on classical models. This terminology was developed by Zera Fink in the 1960s but some modern scholars such as Brugger consider the term confusing as it might lead some to believe that "classical republic" refers to the system of government used in the ancient world. "Early modern republicanism" has been advanced as an alternative term. Also sometimes called civic humanism, this ideology grew out of the Renaissance writers who developed the idea of the republic. More than being simply a non-monarchy the early modern thinkers developed a vision of the ideal republic. It is these notions that form the basis of the ideology of republicanism. One important notion was that of a mixed government. Both Plato and Aristotle saw three basic types of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. First Aristotle, and especially Polybius and Cicero developed the notion that the ideal republic is a mixture of these three forms of government and the writers of the Renaissance embraced this notion. Also central the notion of virtue and the pursuit of the common good being central to good government. Republicanism also developed its own distinct view of liberty, though what exactly that view is much disputed.

Enlightenment republicanism

From the Enlightenment on it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the descriptions and definitions of the "republic" concept on the one side, and the ideologies based on such descriptions on the other. Up till then the situation had been different: even those Renaissance authors that spoke highly of republics were rarely critical of monarchies. While Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy is the period's key work on republics he also wrote The Prince on how to best run a monarchy. One cause of this was that the early modern writers did not see the republican model as one that could be applied universally, most felt that it could only be successful in very small and highly urbanized city-states. In antiquity writers like Tacitus, and in the renaissance writers like Machiavelli tried to avoid to formulate an outspoken preference for one government system or another. Enlightenment philosophers, on the other hand, always had an outspoken opinion. However, Thomas More, still before the Age of Enlightenment, must have been a bit too outspoken to the reigning king's taste, even when coding his political preferences in a Utopian tale. French Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu expanded upon and altered the ideas of what an ideal republic would be: some of their new ideas were scarcely retraceable to antiquity or the Renaissance thinkers. Among other things they contributed and/or heavily elaborated notions like social contract and separation of powers. They also borrowed from and distinguished it from the ideas of liberalism that were developing at the same time. Since both liberalism and republicanism were united in their opposition to the absolute monarchies they were frequently conflated during this period. Modern scholars see them as two distinct streams that both contributed to the democratic ideals of the modern world. An important distinction is that while republicanism continued to stress the importance of civic virtue and the common good, liberalism was based on economics and individualism. While liberalism developed a view of liberty as pre-social and sees all institutions as limiting liberty, republicanism sees some institutions as necessary to create liberty. It has long been agreed that republicanism, especially that of Rousseau played a central role in the French Revolution. In recent years a debate has developed over its role in the American Revolution and in the British radicalism of the eighteenth century. For many decades the consensus was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role. A revisionist school was pioneered by J.G.A. Pocock who argued in The Machiavellian Moment that at least in the early eighteenth century republican ideas were just as important as liberal ones. Pocock's view is now widely accepted, but there is still fierce debate over the ideas of those who have tried to extend his thesis. Bernard Bailyn, for instance, pioneered the argument that the American founding father's were more influenced by republicanism than they were by liberalism. This thesis has been fiercely attacked. Kramnick, for instance, argues that it is a baseless right wing plot to undermine the importance of liberalism in American history. Eventually, the French Revolution, which was to throw over the French monarchy at the end of the 18th century, installed, at first, a republic. Only a few decades later also kingdoms, like the Belgian state emerging in 1830, would start to adopt some of the innovations of the progressive political philosophers of the Enlightenment too.

Modern republicanism

This new school of historical revisionism has accompanied a general revival of republican thinking. In recent years a great number of thinkers have argued that republican ideas should be adopted. This new thinking is sometimes referred to as neo-republicanism. Engeman referred to republicanism as "an intellectual buzzword" that has been applied to a wide range of theories and postulates that have little in common in order to give them a certain cachet. The most important theorists in this movement are Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein who have each written a number of works defining republicanism and how it differs from liberalism. While a late convert to republicanism from communitarianism, Michael Sandel is perhaps the most prominent advocate in the United States for replacing or supplementing liberalism with republicanism as outlined in his Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. As of yet these theorists have had little impact on government. John W. Maynor, argues that Bill Clinton was interested in these notions and that he integrated some of them into his 1995 "new social compact" State of the Union Address. This revival also has its critics. David Wootton, for instance, argues that throughout history the meanings of the term republicanism have been so diverse, and at times contradictory, that the term is all but meaningless and any attempt to build a cogent ideology based around it will fail.

References

- Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.
- Brugger, Bill. Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual? Basingstoke: St. Martin's Press, 1999.
- Fink, Zera. The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England. Evanston: Northwestern university Press, 1962.
- Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v1, Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
- Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v2, The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
- Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.
- Kramnick, Isaac. Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
- Maynor, John W. Republicanism in the Modern World. Cambridge: Polity, 2003.
- Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0198290837 - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
- Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
- Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
- Sandel, Michael J. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.

External links

- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
- [http://makepeace.ca/respublica/en/ Res Publica: an international anti-monarchy Web directory]
- Emergence of the Roman Republic:
- Parallel Lives by Plutarch, particularly:
- (From the translation in 4 volumes, available at Project Gutenberg:) [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14033 Plutarch's Lives, Volume I (of 4)]
- More particularly following Lives and Comparisons (D is Dryden translation; G is Gutenberg; P is Perseus Project; L is LacusCurtius website): ::: Category:Republicanism

1804

1804 was a leap year starting on Sunday (see link for calendar).

Events

- January 1 - End of French rule in Haiti
- February 14 - First Serbian Uprising began.
- February 15 - New Jersey becomes the last northern state to abolish slavery
- February 16 - First Barbary War: Stephen Decatur leads a raid to burn the pirate-held frigate Philadelphia.
- February 21 - The first self-propelling steam engine or steam locomotive makes its outing at the Pen-y-Darren ironworks in Wales. Designed by Richard Trevithick, a Cornishman.
- March 7 - John Wedgwood founds The Royal Horticultural Society
- March 10 - Louisiana Purchase: In St. Louis, a formal ceremony is conducted to transfer ownership of Louisiana Territory from France to the United States.
- March 20 - Execution of the Duc d’Enghien for plotting against Napoleon
- March 21 - Code Napoleon adopted as French civil law
- April 26 - Henry Addington resigns as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
- May 10 - William Pitt the younger begins his second term as a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
- May 14 - The Lewis and Clark Expedition departs from Camp Dubois and begin their historic journey by traveling up the Missouri River.
- May 18 - Napoleon Bonaparte is proclaimed Emperor of France by the French Senate.
- June 15 - The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified by New Hampshire, and arguably becomes effective (subsequently vetoed by the Governor of New Hampshire)
- July 11 - Duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr results in the death of Alexander Hamilton.
- July 27 - The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified by Tennessee, removing doubt surrounding adoption.
- August 20 - Lewis and Clark Expedition: The "Corps of Discovery", whose purpose is to explore the Louisiana Purchase, suffers it first and last death when Sergeant Charles Floyd dies, apparently from acute appendicitis.
- September 1 - German astronomer K. L. Harding discovers the asteroid Juno
- Thomas Jefferson defeats Charles C. Pinckney in U.S. presidential election
- November 30 - The Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate begin an impeachment trial against Federalist-partisan Supreme Court of the United States Justice Samuel Chase (he was charged with political bias but was acquitted by the Senate of all charges on March 1, 1805).
- December 2 - At Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, Napoleon Bonaparte crowns himself as the first Emperor of the French in a thousand years (the Napoleonic Code is adopted).
- December 12 - Spain declares war on Britain

Unknown date

- Père Lachaise Cemetery a 118 acre (0.5 km²) cemetery in Paris, France is founded.
- Nicolas-François Appert (1750-1841) develops a method to preserve food by means of canning.

Ongoing events

- Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)

Births

- January 1 - James Fannin, Texas revolutionary (d. 1836)
- January 20 - Eugène Sue, French novelist (d. 1857)
- January 21 - Eliza Roxcy Snow, American poet (d. 1887)
- February 7 - John Deere, American industrialist (d. 1886)
- March 14 - Johann Strauss Senior, Austrian composer (d. 1849)
- March 17 - Jim Bridger, American trapper and explorer (d. 1881)
- June 1 - Mikhail Glinka, Russian composer (d. 1857)
- June 1 - George Sand, French writer (d. 1876)
- June 24 - Willard Richards, American religious leader (d. 1854)
- July 4 - Nathaniel Hawthorne, American writer (d. 1864)
- July 28 - Ludwig Feuerbach, German philosopher (d. 1872)
- September 8 - Eduard Mörike, German poet (d. 1875)
- November 18 - Alfonso Ferrero la Marmora, Italian general and statesman (d. 1878)
- November 23 - Franklin Pierce, 14th President of the United States (d. 1869)
- December 10 - Carl Gustav Jakob Jacobi, German mathematician (d. 1851)
- December 13 - Joseph Howe, Canadian politican (d. 1873)
- December 21 - Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (d. 1881)
- December 23 - Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, French literary critic (d. 1869)

Deaths

- January 4 - Charlotte Ramsey Lennox, English author and poet (b. 1727)
- January 15 - Dru Drury, English entomologist (b. 1725)
- February 6 - Joseph Priestley, English chemist (b. 1733)
- February 12 - Immanuel Kant, German philosopher (b. 1724)
- March 21 - Louis-Antoine-Henri de Bourbon-Condé, duc d'Enghien (executed) (b. 1772)
- March 30 - Victor-François, 2nd duc de Broglie, Marshal of France (b. 1718)
- April 9 - Jacques Necker, French statesman (b. 1732)
- April 15 - Charles Pichegru, French general (strangled in prison) (b. 1761)
- July 12 - Alexander Hamilton, American statesman (killed in a duel)
- September 4 - Richard Somers, American naval officer (killed in battle)
- October 2 - Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, French automobile pioneer (b. 1725)
- November 23 - Richard Graves, English writer (b. 1715) Category:1800s Category:1804 ko:1804년 ms:1804 simple:1804 th:พ.ศ. 2347

Napoleon III of France

Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte (20 April 1808, Paris, France - 9 January 1873, Chislehurst, Kent, England) was President of France from 1849 to 1852, and then Emperor of the French under the name Napoléon III from 1852 to 1870.

Early life

Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, as he was known before becoming emperor, was the son of Hortense de Beauharnais, who was the daughter of Napoléon I's wife Josephine de Beauharnais by her first marriage. The identity of his biological father remains a subject of speculation, given his unhappily married mother's record of extramarital liaisons. His father for the record, however, was Hortense's husband, Louis Bonaparte, a younger brother of Napoléon I, and his whole career was built upon the (supposed) fact that he was the nephew of Napoléon I. During Napoléon I's reign, his parents had been made king and queen of a French puppet state, the Kingdom of Holland, meaning that Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte bore the title of prince. After Napoléon I's final defeat and deposition in 1815 and the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy in France, all members of the Bonaparte family were forced into exile, so the young Louis-Napoléon was brought up in Switzerland, Germany (studying at Heidelberg) and Italy. As a young man in Italy, he and his elder brother Napoléon Louis espoused liberal politics and became involved in the Carbonari, a resistance organization fighting Austrian domination of Northern Italy. This would later have an effect on his foreign policy. There remained in France, under both the Bourbon and then the Orleanist monarchy, a Bonapartist movement which wanted to restore a Bonaparte to the throne. According to the law of succession Napoléon I had made when he was Emperor, the claim passed first to his son, the Duke of Reichstadt, known by Bonapartists as Napoléon II, a sickly youth living under virtual imprisonment at the court of Vienna, then to his eldest brother Joseph Bonaparte, then to Louis Bonaparte and his sons. (Louis' elder brother Lucien Bonaparte and his descendants were passed over by the law of succession because Lucien had attracted Napoléon I's displeasure and had opposed Napoléon I's making himself Emperor). Since Joseph had no male children, and because Louis-Napoléon's own elder brother had died in 1831, the death of Napoléon II in 1832 made Louis-Napoléon the Bonaparte heir in the next generation. His uncle and father, relatively old men by now, left to him the active leadership of the Bonapartist cause. Thus he secretly returned to France in October 1836, for the first time since his childhood, to try and lead a Bonapartist coup at Strasbourg. The coup failed but he managed to escape. He tried again in August 1840, sailing a ship with some hired soldiers into Boulogne, and this time he was caught and imprisoned (in relative comfort) in the fortress of the town of Ham. During his years of imprisonment he wrote essays and pamphlets that combined his monarchical claim with progressive, even mildly socialist economic proposals. In 1844 his uncle Joseph died, making him the direct heir apparent to the Bonaparte claim. He finally managed to escape to the United Kingdom in May 1846 by changing clothes with a mason working at the fortress. A month later, his father Louis was dead, making Louis-Napoléon, in Bonapartist eyes, rightful Emperor of the French.

President of the French Republic

Louis-Napoléon lived in Great Britain until the revolution of February 1848 in France deposed King Louis Phillipe and established a Republic. He was now free to return to France, which he immediately did. He ran for, and won, a seat in the assembly elected to draft a new constitution, but did not make a great contribution and, as a mediocre public orator, failed to impress his fellow members. Some even said that having lived outside of France almost all his life, he spoke French with an accent. However, when the constitution of the French Second Republic was finally promulgated and direct elections for the presidency were held on December 10, 1848, Louis-Napoléon won in a landslide, with 5,454,000 votes (around 75% of votes) against his closest rival Louis Eugene Cavaignac's 1,448,000 votes. His overwhelming victory was above all due to the support of the non-politicized rural masses, to whom the name of Bonaparte meant something, contrary to the names of the other contenders for the presidency which were unknown to the masses. Louis-Napoléon's platform was the restoration of order after months of political turmoil, strong government, social consolidation, and national greatness, to which he appealed with all the credit of his name, that of France's national hero Napoléon I who in popular memory was credited with bringing the nation to its pinnacle of military greatness and establishing social stability after the turmoil of the French Revolution. On December 2, 1851, in the third year of his mandate, President Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte staged a coup and seized dictatorial powers. This move was triggered by a constitutional dispute. The Constitution of the Second Republic stated that the presidency of the Republic was to be held for a single term of four years, with no possibility to run for re-election. This had been written in the constitution for fear that a president would abuse his power to transform the Republic into a dictatorship or a sort of life presidency. Ironically, this very constitutional provision, intended to prevent the establishment of dictatorship, led Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte to establish the dictatorship. Louis-Napoléon argued that four years were not enough to fully implement his political and economic program. He asked the National Assembly for a revision of the constitution to enable the president to run for re-election. The National Assembly, which was dominated by the Monarchists, opposed to Louis-Napoléon and in favor of the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty, refused to amend the constitution. After months of stalemate, President Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte resolved to a coup, which he very symbolically staged on December 2, 1851, the exact 47th anniversary of Napoléon I's crowning as Emperor, and also the exact 46th anniversary of the famous Battle of Austerlitz. The coup was later approved by French people in a national referendum whose fairness and legality has been questioned ever since. The coup of 1851 definitely alienated Republicans from Napoléon III, and durably tarnished his reputation among later historians. Victor Hugo, who had hitherto shown support toward Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, decided to go into exile after the coup, and became one of the harshest critics of Napoléon III.

Emperor of the French

Authoritarian Empire

New constitutional statutes were passed which officially maintained an elected Parliament, but real power was completely concentrated in the hands of Louis-Napoléon and his bureaucracy. Exactly one year later, on December 2, 1852, after approval by another referendum, the Second Republic was officially ended and the Empire restored, ushering into the Second French Empire. President Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte became Emperor Napoléon III. In a situation that resembles the case of Louis XVIII of France, the numbering of Napoléon's reign treats Napoléon II, who never actually ruled, as a true Emperor (he had been briefly recognized as emperor from June 22 to July 7, 1815). That same year, he began shipping political prisoners and criminals to penal colonies such as Devil's Island (in French Guyana) or (in milder cases) New Caledonia. The emperor, hitherto a bachelor, began quickly to look for a wife to produce a legitimate heir. Most of the royal families of Europe were unwilling to marry into the parvenu Bonaparte family, and after a rebuff from Queen Victoria's German niece Princess Adelaide von Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Napoléon decided to lower his sights somewhat and 'marry for love', choosing the young, beautiful Countess of Teba, Eugénie de Montijo, a Spanish noblewoman with some Scottish ancestry who had been brought up in Paris. On 28 April, 1855 Napoléon survived an attempted assassination. In 1856, Eugenie gave birth to a legitimate son and heir, Eugène Bonaparte, the Prince Impérial. On January 14, 1858 Napoléon escaped another assassination attempt.

Liberal Empire

Until about 1860, Napoléon's regime was definitely authoritarian, using heavy press censorship to prevent the spread of opposition, manipulating elections, and depriving the Parliament of the right to free debate or any real power. In the 1860s, however, Napoléon III made more and more concessions to placate his liberal opponents, beginning with allowing freer debates in Parliament and free reports of parliamentary debates, continuing with the relaxation of press censorship, and culminating in the appointment of the Liberal Émile Ollivier, previously a leader of the opposition to Napoléon's regime, as (effectively) Prime Minister in 1870. This later period is known as the Liberal Empire.

Foreign policy

Napoléon III was determined to follow a strong foreign policy to extend France's power and glory. His challenge to Russia's claims to influence in the Ottoman Empire led to France's successful participation in the Crimean War (March 1854–March 1856). He approved the launching of a naval expedition in 1858 to punish the Vietnamese for their mistreatment of French Catholic missionaries and force the court to accept a French presence in the country. In May–July 1859 French intervention secured the defeat of Austria in Italy, and the result of this was the unification of Italy, and the acquisition of Savoy and the region of Nice (the so-called French Riviera) by France in 1860, the last time France extended its territory in Europe. France took part in the Second Opium War along with Great Britain, and in 1860 the French troops entered Beijing. In the beginning of the 1860s, the objectives of the Emperor in foreign policy had been met: France had scored several military victories in Europe and abroad, the humiliation of Waterloo had been exorcised, and France was regarded again as the largest military power in Europe. However, the French intervention in Mexico (January 1862–March 1867) ended in defeat and in the execution of the French-backed Emperor Maximilian. More importantly, France saw her dominance on the continent of Europe in Europe eroded by Prussia's crushing victory over Austria in June–August 1866: tricked by the :fr:Dépêche d'Ems from Bismarck, Napoleon III foolishly engaged himself in the Battle of Sadowa. Due to his Carbonari past, Napoléon was unable to bring himself to ally with Austria, despite the obvious threat that a victorious Prussia would present to France.

Demise

Napoléon III paid the price for his Austrian blunder in 1870 when, forced by the diplomacy of the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Napoléon began the Franco-Prussian War. This war proved disastrous for France, and was instrumental in giving birth to the German Empire, which took France's place as the major land power on the continent of Europe. In battle against Prussia in July 1870 the Emperor was captured at the Battle of Sedan (September 2) and was deposed by the forces of the Third Republic in Paris two days later. He died in exile in England on January 9, 1873. He is buried in the Imperial Crypt at Saint Michael's Abbey, Farnborough, Hampshire, England. Napoléon stayed at No. 6 Clarendon Square, Royal Leamington Spa between 1838-1839. The building is now called Napoleon House and has a 'Blue plaque' put up by the local council. For more details on Napoléon III's reign, see the article on the Second French Empire.

Legacy

An important legacy of Napoléon's III reign was the rebuilding of Paris. Part of the design decisions were taken in order to reduce the ability of future revolutionaries to challenge the government by using the small streets of medieval Paris as a playground for barricade building. However, this should not overlook the fact that the main reason for the complete transformation of Paris was Napoléon III's desire to modernize Paris based on what he had seen of the modernizations of London during his exile there in the 1840s. With his characteristic social approach to politics, Napoléon III desired to improve health standards and living conditions in Paris: build a modern sewage system to improve health, develop new housing with larger apartments for the masses, create green parks all across the city to try and keep working classes away from the pubs on Sunday, etc. Large sections of the city were thus flattened down and the old winding streets were replaced with large thoroughfares and broad avenues. The rebuilding of Paris was directed by Baron Haussmann (1809–1891; Prefect of the Seine département 1853–1870). It was this rebuilding that turned Paris into the city of broad tree-lined boulevards and parks so beloved of tourists today. Napoléon III also directed the building of the French railway network, which greatly contributed to the development of the coal mining and steel industry in France, radically changing the nature of the French economy, which entered the modern age of large-scale capitalism. The French economy, the second largest in the world at the time (behind Great Britain), experienced a very strong growth during the reign of Napoléon III. Names such as steel tycoon Eugène Schneider or banking mogul James de Rothschild are symbols of the period. Two of France's largest banks, Société Générale and Crédit Lyonnais, still in existence today, were founded during that period. The French stock market also expanded prodigiously, with many coal mining and steel companies issuing stocks. Although largely forgotten by later Republican generations, which only remembered the non-democratic nature of the regime, the economic successes of the Second Empire are today recognized as impressive by historians. The emperor himself, who had spent several years in exile in Victorian England, was largely influenced by the ideas of the Industrial Revolution in England, and he took particular care of the economic development of the country. He is recognized as the first ruler of France to have taken great care of the economy, previous rulers considering it secondary.

Opinions

Napoléon III, to this day, has not enjoyed the prestige that Napoléon I enjoyed. Victor Hugo portrayed him as "Napoléon the small" (Napoléon le Petit), a mere mediocrity in contrast with Napoléon I "The Great", presented as a military and administrative genius. Karl Marx mocked Napoléon III by saying that history repeats itself: "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce" (in relation to the fact that both Napoleon I and subsequently Napoleon III seized power with dubious legality). Napoléon III has often been seen as an authoritarian but ineffectual leader who brought France into dubious, and ultimately disastrous, foreign military adventures. In France, the arch-opposition of the age's central literary figure, Victor Hugo, whose attacks on Napoléon III were obsessive and powerful, made it impossible for a very long time to assess his reign objectively. However, in the latter part of the 20th century historians have moved to rehabilitate somewhat the image of Napoléon III. The diplomatic, and above all, the economic achievements of the reign are now recognized (although diplomatic blunders must also be admitted - most noticeably, he was no match in diplomatic shrewdness for Bismarck). Historians have also emphasized his attention to the fate of working classes and poor people. He was one of the very few rulers of Europe showing concern for these issues, in an age where 'laissez-faire' economics were the unquestioned orthodoxy, the poor left to market forces and private charity. His book Extinction du paupérisme ("Extinction of pauperism"), which he wrote while imprisoned at the Fort of Ham in 1844, contributed greatly to his popularity among the working classes and thus his election win in 1848. Throughout his reign the emperor showed concerns to alleviate the sufferings of the poor in the empire, on occasion doing the unthinkable and using state resources or interfering in the market. Among other things, the Emperor granted the right to strike to French workers in 1864, despite intense opposition from corporate lobbies. The Emperor also ordered the creation of three large parks in Paris (Parc Monceau, Parc Montsouris, and Parc des Buttes-Chaumont) with the clear intention of offering them for poor working families as an alternative to the pub (bistrot) on Sundays, much as Victoria Park in London was also built with the same social motives in mind. For his combination of these economic ideas with monarchical pomp and an active foreign and military policy, Napoléon III has been called a "socialist on horseback".

Publications

:The leading comprehensive histories of the Second Empire are:
- De la Gorce, Histoire du second empire, (four volumes, Paris, 1885-98), and
- Taxile Delord, Histoire du second empire, (six volumes, Paris, 1869-76). :Other works are many, e. g.,:
- Bernhard Simson, Ueber die Beziehungen Napoleond III. zu Preussen und Deutschland, (Freiburg, 1882)
- Adolf Ebeling, Napoleon III. und sein Hof, (Cologne, 1891-94)
- Thirra, Napoléon III avant l'empire, (Paris, 1895)
- E. Ollivier, L'Empire libéral, (Paris, 1895-1909)
- A. L. Imbert de Saint-Amand, Napoleon III at the Height of his Power, (New York, 1900)
- T. W. Evans, Memoirs of the Second French Empire, (New York, 1905)

External links

- [http://www.insecula.com/contact/A006122.html/ Napoléon III]

Napoleon III of France Napoleon III of France Napoleon III Category:Knights of the Garter Category:The Bonapartes Category:Crimean War people Category:French emperors ko:나폴레옹 3세 ja:ナポレオン3世 (フランス皇帝)