Napoleon Bonaparte vs. Otto von Bismark

Napoleon vs. Bismarck

How were they alike? How were they different?

Napoleon Bonaparte and Otto von Bismarck affected not only the outlook of their own countries, but the outlook of Europe as a whole. These two men were solely responsible for their countries preeminence during their reign. Although, Bismarck was not the king of his country he seemingly ruled it. Bismarck and Napoleon compare through military success, dominance in Europe, and ruthlessness. The two men differ by military expansion, governing ideologies, and religion. The greatest accomplishments of the two had to be the successes of their military.

The reason for military action by both Napoleon and Bismarck was coherently to unify their countries. Bismarck however was trying to bring Prussia and the German states together as a whole. France was already one nation. Napoleon found that by military success through victories against Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Spain he strengthened France as a nation, which was not the case during the French Revolutions. Napoleon Bonaparte "was one of the greatest military commanders in history" (see http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95aug/napoleon.html). Bismarck may have not been a commander but he was very skillful when it came to military conquest. He also succeeded in strengthening his country through the military successes in Schleswig, Austria, and France. Military success led way to the dominance of France, during Napoleons reign, and Germany, during Bismarck 's reign, in all of Europe. Another factor which both men compare to is, that both were very ruthless in the advancement of their countries interests.

Napoleon "joined a conspiracy that pulled down the Directory, the government he had earlier preserved" and became the First Consul (Civilization in the West, 662). Bismarck used illegal means and violence in the pursuit of a unified Germany. Both Bonaparte 's and Bismarck 's ruthlessness expanded beyond their own countries

through war. Napoleon inflicted horrors of war with his armies all over Europe. Bismarck on the other hand instigated wars for the sole reason of unifying Prussia and the German states, not because of any real turmoil between countries. As ruthless as both men were the difference was expansion after military success.

Napoleon steadfastly kept expanding his rule and influence all over Europe Whereas, Bismarck 's primary objective was to unify Germany. After that was accomplished he did not want to further expand his nation. Napoleon used military action as the backbone of the strength of France. He conquered countries than depleted their resources and established new rulers for French gain. Bismarck defeated Austria and France, but did not attempt to cripple or take over the countries. Governing ideologies and religious beliefs are where Napoleon and Bismarck differ as well.

Napoleons Empire was that of a dictatorship ran by a liberal government that fostered education, science, literature and the arts. Bismarck rule was under a constitutional Germany. "His position on constitutional issues and representative government" led to a more modern form of government as opposed to Napoleons dictatorship (see http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/bism.htm). Religion was another contrasting view of both. Napoleon realized the importance of religion in maintaining peace. He reestablished relations with the Catholic Church when he seized power. Bonaparte saw Catholicism as the religion of the French. Bismarck on the other hand backed German liberals in their antipapal campaigns. The campaigns were geared towards declaring the Catholic Church as the enemy of the German state. Views on religion differed profoundly, but seemingly religion did not affect Bismarck 's reign as Chancellor. Napoleon retrospectively relied on religion to maintain order.

Napoleon and Bismarck compare and differ in a lot of aspects concerning states business, foreign affairs, and military action. These two men have shaped the outlook of Europe profoundly. Two questions enter my mind when contemplating if these men would have not existed. Would France have continued into their revolutions or ever became dominant in Europe. Would Germany ever been unified as one whole nation? It is hard to answer these questions, but it is my belief that great men shape great futures and both countries would have not seen preeminence if these two individual were not there to guide their countries.

Works Cited

Chew, Robin. "Napoleon I Emperor of the French" Lucid Interactive Article

August, 1995 http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95aug/napoleon.html

Hoffman, J.H. "Bismark, Otto von" Ohio.edu.

30 May, 1998 http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/bism.htm

Kishlansky, Mark, Geary, Patrick, and O 'Brien, Patricia. Civilization in the West.

Addison-Weasley Educational Publishers Inc., 2003

Cited: Chew, Robin. "Napoleon I Emperor of the French" Lucid Interactive Article August, 1995 http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95aug/napoleon.html Hoffman, J.H. "Bismark, Otto von" Ohio.edu. 30 May, 1998 http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/bism.htm Kishlansky, Mark, Geary, Patrick, and O 'Brien, Patricia. Civilization in the West. Addison-Weasley Educational Publishers Inc., 2003