为什么法国人民在如此坚决反对君主制之后，却又如此愿意接受拿破仑为皇帝？
Why were the French people so willing to accept Napoleon as emperor after they had so vigorously rejected monarchy?
译文简介
这个问题实际上说明了一个关于革命的常见误解，就连许多专业的历史学家将其作为事实接受，所以不要太难为自己。
正文翻译
Why were the French people so willing to accept Napoleon as emperor after they had so vigorously rejected monarchy?
为什么法国人民在如此坚决反对君主制之后，却又如此愿意接受拿破仑为皇帝？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
, B.A. History, University of Oxford (2021)
，牛津大学历史学学士（2021）
The French people as a whole did not vigorously reject Monarchy, the people of Paris did.
It was the populace of Paris who drove the Revolution, and thus drove the rejection of monarchy. As an urban population very near to the center of power of France, the Parisians were able to influence policy through the threat or actualization of violent revolution to a much greater extent than any other population in the country. Their support for and action in favor of the Revolution should not be taken as reflecting all of France. It certainly did not, for example, reflect the feelings of the people of the Vendee, who rose in favor of the King.
The people of Paris physically taking the center of power, which no one else in the country was able to do without taking a rather long walk
There is another element present, though, that is needed to understand why the people of France, even the people of Paris, accepted Napoleon so readily. See, the Republic that Napoleon overthrew, called the Directory, was not the Republic that the Parisians and other radical revolutionaries fought for. Far from being any sort of populist state, the Directory was run by and for the interests of a few wealthy commoners; whenever anyone, Royalist or Revolutionary, opposed to their interest won, they simply sent in the army to nullify the results. That was why it was called the Directory; it directed democracy to suit the interests of its ruling cabal.
The Directory was hated by Royalists and Revolutionaries equally, and its sole base of support was the army. Napoleon, through his victories in Italy, had gained the adoration of the soldiers, and thus the support of the army. When Napoleon launched his coup he didn’t win so much because he had wide support; he won because there was literally no one willing to defend the Directory. Because the Directory had already used the army to purge Royalism and Radicalism, there also wasn't that much support left for either alternative that could have capitalized on the chaos. In 1799, when Napoleon took power, the choice was not between Republicanism and Monarchy; it was between Oligarchy and Monarchy, and one led by a man who had proven himself to be competent.
By the time Napoleon had declared himself Emperor, he had truly turned France around. He had fixed the economy and instituted many reforms. At that point, no one but the most radical Republicans opposed him assuming the title of Emperor- and there weren't as many radical Republicans as many assume.
这个问题实际上说明了一个关于革命的常见误解，就连许多专业的历史学家将其作为事实接受，所以不要太难为自己。然而，这个误解是值得探讨的。
法国人民作为一个整体并没有强烈地拒绝君主制，而是巴黎人民拒绝了。
正是巴黎的民众推动了大革命，从而推动了对君主制的拒绝。作为一个非常接近法国权力中心的城市人口，巴黎人能够通过暴力革命的威胁或实现来影响国家政策，其程度远远超过该国的任何其他地区的人口。他们对革命的支持和行动不应该被认为是反映了整个法国。例如，它肯定没有反映旺代人民的感受，后者起义支持他们的国王。
巴黎人民可以身体力行地夺取权力中心的权力，在全国范围内没有人能够做到这一点，因为他们要走相当长的路来到这里。
不过，要理解法国人民，甚至是巴黎人民为何如此轻易地接受拿破仑，还需要另一个因素存在。你看，拿破仑推翻的共和国，其实被称为督政府，并不是巴黎人和其他激进的革命者所真正争取的共和国。督政府远不是什么民粹主义国家，而是由少数富有的平民为其利益而管理的；只要有任何人，无论是保皇党还是革命党，反对他们的利益，他们就会派军队来废除选举结果。这就是为什么它被称为督政府；它督导民主以满足其统治集团的利益。
保皇党人和革命党人同样憎恨督政府，后者唯一的支持基础是军队。拿破仑通过在意大利的胜利，获得了士兵的崇拜，从而得到了军队的支持。当拿破仑发动政变时，他的胜利并不是因为他有广泛的支持；他的胜利是因为简直没有人愿意捍卫督政府。因为督政府之前已经利用军队清除了保皇主义和激进主义，所以也没有多少人支持可以利用混乱的其它替代方案。1799年，当拿破仑掌权时，选择不是在共和主义和君主制之间，而是在寡头政治和君主制之间，而且是由一个已经证明自己有能力的人领导。
当拿破仑宣布自己为皇帝时，他已经真正扭转了法国的局面。他解决了经济问题并进行了许多改革。在这一点上，除了最激进的共和党人，没有人反对他担任皇帝的头衔--而激进的共和党人并不像许多人认为的那么多。
How close did the early USA come to such a failure? Is it mostly its decentralized nature that prevented it?
早期的美国离这样的失败（指拥戴君主制）有多远？主要是其分散的性质阻止了它吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The USA was never in any danger of this. First off it wasn’t a popular revolution at all, but even if it was no American city had anywhere near the population to be as dominant as Paris.
美国从未遇到过这种危险。首先，它根本不是一场人民革命，但即使它是，也没有任何美国城市的人口能像巴黎那样占优势。
I can think of two rural rebellions and two military mutinies but can’t remember any urban mob eruptions.
我能想到两次农村叛乱和两次军事叛乱，但不记得任何城市暴民爆发的叛乱。
The American revolutionaries came close to re-instating a king as part of a constitutional monarchy to stave off mob rule, inviting Prince Henry of Prussia to become king but he refused.
Why America’s Founders Tried to Recruit a Foreign Prince to Be Their King—And How That Moment Holds a Warning for Today
美国革命者接近重新确立一个国王，作为君主立宪制的一部分，以避免暴民统治，邀请普鲁士的亨利王子成为国王，但他拒绝了。
为什么美国的国父们试图招募一个外国王子成为他们的国王——以及那一刻对今天有何警示（文章链接）
This was Gorham’s idea and unlikely to be accepted by Americans.
Prussian scheme - Wikipedia
The Prussian scheme is the name of a reported 1786 attempt by President of the Continental Congress Nathaniel Gorham , acting in possible concert with other persons influential in the government of the United States , to establish a monarchy in the U.S. under the rule of Henry of Prussia , a prince of the House of Hohenzollern , possibly to resolve the ongoing political crises occurring during the last days of the Articles of Confederation . The attempt may have died due to a lack of interest on Henry's part, popular opposition to a rumored proposal involving a different potential monarch, the convening of the Philadelphia Convention , or some combination thereof. Background [ edit ] Post-revolutionary monarchist tendencies [ edit ] Prince Henry of Prussia was reportedly offered the hypothetical throne of the United States. The protracted disturbances created by the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation as the United States' constitution, which culminated in Shays' Rebellion , reportedly gave rise to a "class of men in the community who gave very serious apprehensions to the advocates for a Republican form of government". [1] Prior to, and following, the May 1787 convening of the Philadelphia Convention, widely circulated rumors reported that the conclave was meeting for the purpose of offering to enthrone Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany as king of the United States. [2] So acute were the rumors that the convention issued a public denial that any proposal for a reestablishment of monarchy was being considered, the denial later being repeated in a letter sent by Alexander Martin to the governor of North Carolina . [2] American attitudes toward Prussia [ edit ] American public opinion at the time generally regarded Prussia warmly. [3] Prince Henry's older brother, Frederick the Great , harbored an "immense hatred" toward Great Britain for having abandoned Prussia near the end of the Seven Years' War . [3] During the American Revolution , he had closed Prussian territory to passage by the army of the Principality of Anhalt-Zerbst , a British ally. This required military forces from the landlocked nation to make a circuitous journey to reach a seaport for deployment to North America, during which nearly half of Anhalt-Zerbst troops deserted. [4] Similar restrictions were placed on troops from other British allies attempting to transit to North America, including the Principality of Bayreuth , the Margraviate of Ansbach , and the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel . [3] Proposal [ edit ] In the early 20th century a letter was discovered from Henry of Prussia to the Prussian-American general Baron Von Steuben (pictured) seemingly confirming the veracity of the "Prussian scheme" story. Early allegations [ edit ] According to Rufus King , at about the same time the rumors pertaining to Prince Frederick were circulating, Nathaniel Gorham secretly corresponded to Prince Henry of Prussia offering to create him as monarch of the United States.
这只是戈勒姆的想法，不太可能被美国人接受。
普鲁士计划 - 维基百科
普鲁士计划是1786年大陆会议主席纳撒尼尔-戈勒姆在可能与其他对美国政府有影响力的人合作的情况下，试图在美国建立一个由普鲁士的亨利（霍亨索伦家族的一位王子）的统治下的君主制政府，这可能是为了解决在联邦条款的最后日子里发生的持续性政治危机。这一尝试可能是由于亨利方面缺乏兴趣、民众反对一个涉及不同潜在君主的传言、费城会议的召开，或其中的一些原因的组合而失败。
背景--革命后的君主主义倾向：据报道，普鲁士的亨利王子被提出来担任美国的假想王位。据报道，由于《联邦条款》作为美国宪法的缺陷所造成的长期骚乱，最终导致了谢斯叛乱，"社会上有一类人对共和政体的倡导者产生了非常严重的忧虑"。在1787年5月费城会议召开之前和之后，广泛流传的谣言称，会议的目的是提议册封约克和奥尔巴尼公爵弗雷德里克王子为美国国王。谣言如此尖锐，以至于大会公开否认正在考虑任何重建君主制的提议，后来亚历山大-马丁在给北卡罗来纳州州长的信中重复了这一否认。
美国对普鲁士的态度：当时的美国舆论普遍对普鲁士持热情态度。亨利王子的哥哥，腓特烈大帝，对英国在七年战争结束前抛弃普鲁士怀有 "巨大的仇恨"。在美国革命期间，他关闭了普鲁士的领土，不让英国盟友安哈尔特-泽尔布斯特公国的军队通过。这就要求这个内陆国家的军队必须经过迂回的旅程才能到达一个海港，以部署到北美，在此期间，安哈尔特-泽尔布斯特的军队有近一半开小差。其他试图转运到北美的英国盟友的部队也受到了类似的限制，包括拜罗伊特公国、安斯巴赫侯爵和黑森-卡塞尔侯爵。
提议：在20世纪初，人们发现了一封普鲁士的亨利写给普鲁士裔美国将军冯-斯图本男爵（如图）的信，似乎证实了"普鲁士计划"故事的真实性。
早期的指控：根据鲁弗斯-金的说法，大约在与弗雷德里克王子有关的谣言甚嚣尘上的同时，纳撒尼尔-戈勒姆秘密地与普鲁士的亨利王子通信，提出要把他立为美国的君主。
Then why did the king not move the position of himself and his government to a place where the population supported him?
那么，为什么国王不把他自己和他的政府的驻地转移到一个人民支持他的地方呢？
He initially was away from Paris at Versailles; then he was kidnapped to Paris.
他最初确实是离开巴黎去了凡尔赛宫；然后他被绑架回了巴黎。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Louis XIV built Versailles in the 1660’s for precisely that reason actually. He’d grown up during a period of civil war and political tumult in Paris, and vowed to keep the monarchy safe from the filthy overcrowded corrupt city. But he was never able to get a firm handle on the state finances, and the mess he left behind wasn’t successfully dealt with by either of his successors.
实际上，路易十四在1660年代建造凡尔赛宫正是出于这个原因。他是在巴黎的内战和政治动荡时期长大的，他发誓要让君主制远离这个肮脏拥挤腐败的城市。但他从未能牢牢掌控国家财政，他留下的烂摊子也没有被他的任何一位继任者成功处理。
Calling Napoleon simply a “monarch” also seems to miss the point a bit. He fits the descxtion of a monarch well, but I doubt any of the kings and emperors of Europe would want to be grouped with him.
将拿破仑简单地称为"君主"似乎也有点失之偏颇。他很符合君主的描述，但我怀疑欧洲的任何一个国王和皇帝会想和他摆在一起。
European Monarchs probably wouldn’t want to be associated with Napoleon is accurate. European royalty made great strides to meet “royal” bloodlines, to the point of accepting foreign born rulers that had the proper blood than a homegrown leader. Many of the European monarchs, even ones opposed to each other, were related. Much more so than many realize. Napoleon was a commoner, so reviled. The European aristocracy approved of France re-instituting a Monarchy but wanted it replaced with someone of the proper bloodline.
By the end of Napoleon’s reign, there was a slightly different take on him. Most accept Napoleon as a military genius but, he made institutional governmental changes that revolutionized the French government. Some of these institutions are still active in France today. While Napoleon may not have survived to succeed, he certainly left a legacy that placed France as a world power up to the 20th century.
欧洲君主可能不愿意与拿破仑联系在一起的说法是准确的。欧洲皇室在对"皇室"血统方面的需求非常强大，以至于愿意接受拥有适当血统的外国出生的统治者，而不是接受本土的领导人。许多欧洲君主，甚至是相互对立的君主，他们之间都有关系。比许多人意识到的要多得多。拿破仑是个平民，所以被谩骂。欧洲贵族们赞同法国重新建立君主制，但希望用具有适当血统的人取代他。
到了拿破仑统治的末期，人们对他的看法略有不同。大多数人接受拿破仑是一个军事天才，但是，他进行的政府机构改革彻底改变了法国政府。其中一些机构今天仍然活跃在法国。虽然拿破仑可能没有活着取得成功，但他肯定留下了一份遗产，使法国成为一个世界强国，直到20世纪。
He was like Putin.
他就像普京一样。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Few people in France fought for Liberté. What we meant with that word was more Égalité, and Napoléon was it fiercest advocate, alongside meritocracy.
Liberty is a need of well-off man who has nothing to do of his days and weeks… It was the case in Greece, it is the case today. The one who spent 12 hours scratching the soil to cultivate his crops only cares about what will be in his plate tonight.
在法国，很少有人为"自由"而战。我们对这个词的意思的解释更接近于“平等”，拿破仑是它最激烈的倡导者，同时也是功利主义者。
自由是一个富裕的人的需要，这些人在平日里和工作日里都无所事事......在希腊以前是这样，在今天也是这样。一个花了12个小时在土地里抓紧时间耕种庄稼的人，只会关心今晚他的盘子里会有什么。
Calling Napoleon’s government a “monarchy” is a bit misleading to begin with. Aside from his title he was really more of a dictator.
把拿破仑的政府称为"君主制"有点误导。除了他的头衔之外，他实际上更像是一个独裁者。
As was every contemporary monarch in Europe at the time, save the sovereigns of Sweden and the UK (the only truly constitutional monarchies at the time of the Revolution.) so what’s your point exactly?
当时欧洲所有的当代君主都是如此，除了瑞典和英国的君主（革命时唯一真正的君主立宪制国家），所以你到底想说什么？
Thank you for an excellent response that has enlightened me.
I remember studying the French Revolution in College and that my Professor was extremely interested in us gaining a full understanding of the how and why and what it meant, but at the end of the day, I’m not sure I really got it.
My original take aways were:
The circular nature of the French Revolution shows that Democracy with a capital ‘D’ is not ‘pre-destined’ and people need to be very careful of what they ask for because they might just get it.
People will accept almost any form of Government rather than complete Chaos.
Starving and taxing the people at the same time is not a winning strategy for maintaining power as History has proven over and over again.
The French Aristocracy were an anachronism who similar to the Russian Aristocracy sowed the seeds to their own destruction by refusing to grow with the times.
Cobble stone streets are a problem for the authorities, since a mob can tear them up and readily make barricades to thwart local enforcement.
Parisians are on the whole an excitable group and once they get rolling, it’s hard to get them to stop or back done.
Robespierre was not a good person.
Murat should have been more careful.
谢谢你的精彩回答，让我豁然开朗。
我记得在大学里学习法国大革命时，我的教授对授予我们充分了解它发生的方式和原因以及它的意义非常在意，但到最后，我不确定我是否真的领悟到了。
我最初的收获是：
1.法国大革命的循环性质表明，大写的民主不是"预先注定的"，人们需要非常小心他们所要求的东西，因为他们可能真的会得到。
2.人们会接受几乎任何形式的政府，而不是完全的混乱。
3.饥饿和向人民征税并不是维持权力的制胜法宝，历史已经一再证明。
4.法国贵族是一个不合时宜的东西，他们与俄罗斯贵族类似，拒绝与时俱进，为自己的毁灭埋下了种子。
5.鹅卵石街道对当局来说是个问题，因为暴徒可以把它们碾碎，并随时制造路障来阻挠地方执法。
6.巴黎人总的来说是一个容易激动的群体，一旦他们开始行动，就很难让他们停下来或放弃行动。
7.罗伯斯庇尔不是一个好人。
8.穆拉特应该更加小心的。
Thanks, I've read a lot on Napoleon and how he became emperor was always a mystery to me, you've finally answered it.
谢谢，我读了很多关于拿破仑的书，他如何成为皇帝对我来说总是个谜，你终于回答了这个问题。
Perhaps another way to view this is, “was the French Revolution a movement of the people or was it a coup orchestrated by various factions and as such always doomed to replace the terrible monarchy with another terrible form of government?” Or did the thinking even extend beyond the benefit of the French? After all Napoleon quickly put an end to the concept of “egalite” by reinstating slavery and creating “royal” dynasties based around his relatives.
也许可以用另一种看法，"法国大革命到底是一场人民的运动，还是一场由各派别策划的政变，因此总是注定要用另一种可怕的政府形式来取代可怕的君主制？" 或者说，这种思维甚至超越了法国人的利益？毕竟拿破仑通过恢复奴隶制和建立以他的亲属为中心的 "王室"王朝，迅速结束了"平等"的概念。
Questions the education system was never bothered to ask or answer… so that we can remain in perpetual ignorance.
教育系统从来都不会费心提出或回答这种问题......这样就可以保证我们永远处于无知状态。
Indeed, but as we become educated (after leaving schools and colleges) we can inform ourselves and then we are entitled to have our own opinions.
的确，但随着我们受过教育（离开学校和学院后），我们可以自己去了解情况，然后我们就有权发表自己的意见。
The French Revolution, like the Russian Revolution, started as a popular revolution AGAINST something more than FOR something. What usually happens in these rebellions is that one of the factions tries to heist the Revolution after the Ancien Regime is ousted. In France, the radicals managed to out-leverage the moderates; in Russia, the Bolsheviks, originally one of the smallest factions, strong-armed the others. Neither of these factions would have been the popular choice nationwide. Had the moderates in France or Mensheviks or Social Revolutionaries gained power in Russia, their histories might have been far less bloody. It’s tempting to believe that the most radical factions have an advantage in these scenarios due to their ability to manipulate the mobs.
法国大革命，就像俄国革命一样，开始时是一场反对什么而不是支持什么的人民革命。在这些叛乱中通常发生的情况是，其中一个派别试图在前政权被赶走后抢夺革命果实。在法国，激进派成功地利用了温和派；在俄国，布尔什维克，原本是最小的派别之一，强行对其他派别使用武力。这两个派别都不会成为全国范围内的流行选择。如果法国的温和派或孟什维克或社会革命党人在俄国获得了权力，他们的历史可能就不会那么血腥。人们很容易理解最激进的派别在这些情况下是有优势的，因为他们有能力操纵暴民。
The people of Paris were used by the revolutionaries but they were a mere tool serving the revolutionary leaders. They were useful idiots who were sent back to their slums once the monarchy had been overthrown.
巴黎的人民被革命者利用了，他们只是为革命领袖服务的工具。他们是有用的白痴，一旦君主制被推翻，他们就会被送回他们的贫民窟。
I learned something new there. Succinct but really informative.
有用的知识增加了。
Very well put. You are right, the urban element is all to often, even completely ignored. Striking parallels all over the 1st world countries, including the U.S.
说得非常好。你是对的，城市因素经常被忽视，甚至完全被忽视。第一世界国家，包括美国，都有惊人的相似之处。
It is weird — Both of Europe's largest land empires were created by a man who didn't call himself a king because the people murdered their last king.
这很奇怪--欧洲最大的两个陆地帝国都是由一个不称自己为国王的人创建的，因为人民谋杀了他们的最后一个国王。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Good point, the logistics of older times; scarcer and slower transport and communication were crucial factors.
很好的观点。古时候的物流、更稀缺和较慢的运输和沟通是关键因素。
Very good explanation ! I would add Napoléon Always managed to présent himself as a son of the révolution, and, for some aspects, it was true since he fought in the revolutionary army and he succeded in conforting and spreading the principle from the révolution of the egality before the law with the civil code.
非常好的解释! 我想补充的是，拿破仑总是设法把自己说成是革命之子，而且，在某些方面，这是真的，因为他在革命军队中作战，他成功地在民法典中确认和传播了革命中法律面前人人平等的原则。
Perfect Answer. Paris mob ,an assorted collection of Intellectuals and Goons overthrew Monarchy and murdered their king .France is a highly centralized state Anarchy in Paris will render entire country dysfunctional. Napoleon saved the revolution at Siege of Toulon,Oct 1795,counter revolution Austrian offensive in Italy . Finaly he took over through a military coup in 1799 .Similarly Petrograd mob caused revolution in Russia. Unfortunately there was no Russian Napoleon
完美的答案。一群由知识分子和暴徒组成的巴黎暴徒推翻了君主制并谋杀了他们的国王。法国是一个高度集中的国家，巴黎的无政府状态将使整个国家失去功能。拿破仑在1795年10月围攻土伦时拯救了革命，并在意大利反击了奥地利的反革命攻势。最后，他通过1799年的军事政变夺取了政权。同样，彼得格勒的暴徒也在俄国引发了革命。不幸的是，俄国没有拿破仑。
I’m not sure if “Paris mob” covers it. There were crazed intellectuals and anarchists and drunkards and whoremongers aplenty in ‘89 and ‘30 and ‘48 and ‘71, and co-optation from the very start in every case, but the Paris insurgencies were basically movements of workers and artisans. And I dare say the same was true of Petrograd.
Today in the US, the question needs to be asked: behind the political co-optation and infiltration and provocation, is there a real movement of people tired of racist/classist oppression and stagnating at the edge of poverty?
我不确定"巴黎暴徒"一词是否能涵盖它。在1789年、1830年、1848年和1871年，有很多疯狂的知识分子和无政府主义者、酒鬼和嫖客，而且每一次都是从一开始就被收编了，但巴黎的叛乱基本上是工人和工匠的运动。我敢说彼得格勒也是如此。
今天在美国，需要问的一个问题是：在政治上的合纵连横和渗透挑衅的背后，是否有一个厌倦了种族主义/阶级主义压迫和停滞在贫困边缘的人群的真正运动在酝酿？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
, lives in Paris
，住在巴黎
法国人民根本不反对君主制，他们最初是为了建立君主立宪制。共和国由嗜血的狂热者领导，他们杀害了许多爱国者，原因往往微不足道。拿破仑结束了这种混乱，使人们同意他的崛起。
, Passionate in 20th century military history
，对20世纪的军事史充满了激情
Also the revolutionaries were against monarchy because you become a king not because of your merit but because of bloodline. Napoleon became emperor because he was a good general an a national hero at that time. Many of his reforms and civil codes are still in place even after he was dispossessed.
法国大革命起初并不反对君主制。它的目的是废除贵族血统的权利和特权，使每个人都能平等地接受法律。国王起初被保留下来，但当他试图逃离巴黎，加入入侵法国的外国军队时，他被视为叛徒，这就是为什么他后来被处决。
另外，革命者们也反对君主制，因为你成为国王不是因为你的功绩，而是因为血统的关系。拿破仑成为皇帝是因为他是一个优秀的将军，是当时的民族英雄。他的许多改革和民法即使在他被剥夺权利后仍在实施。