Lafayette vs. Napoleon True Revolutionary - 2498 Words

Lafayette vs. Napoleon: True Revolutionary Like many revolutionaries, Napoleon and Lafayette were both beloved by their followers and were forever praised for their accomplishments. There were different angles taken by each individual to reach their goal. As we find out in Lafayette in Two Worlds by Lloyd Kramer, Lafayette’s influence on America and how his legacy in both the American and French revolutions assisted one another to make him a important figure in both societies. In Felix Markham’s Napoleon, Napoleon is a revolutionary at heart, beginning in his childhood days. He wants the fame and power of a revolution and achieves it by climbing up the political ladder. It is important to understand that while both Lafayette and Napoleon†¦show more content†¦From the rich to the poor, from the governments to the protesters. This is because Lafayette would listen to the people and what it is they wanted. On Wednesday mornings, for example, the commander in chief would receive any citizen who visited headquarters. All of these interactions formed a direct bond between Lafayette and the crowd, a bond that deputies feared and the government respected. (Kramer 236) The people looked toward â€Å"Lafayette as their defender† (Kramer 236). And the government saw Lafayette as a mediator between the people and themselves. For the most part Lafayette loved this. He loved his country and he wanted to do anything he could to help the people of his country out. Because the people respected Lafayette in every manner, he was able to keep people calm. When there would be tension between the people and the government, it was Lafayette that would be able to calm the people to follow law and order. This love from the people is what allowed Lafayette to accomplish so many things. In 1791, Lafayette had lost his political and military power in France. With the French Revolution of 1830, this gave him the opportunity to regain the powers that he had lost and wants to regain. His role would be limited through, basically being â€Å"a symbolic status that constantly shaped and limited his action and influence† (Kramer 227). When Lafayette returned to Paris, he started to reinstate some of the ideas and precedents back from when he was in