Napoleon Bonaparte

short sleep Bonaparte was a prolific ruler of France from the 11th November, 1799 to the sixth of April, 1814. He made some striking changes to the solid ground of France, and its empire. He made some dramatic changes, yes, whole they weren?t in either for the best. In the election, those who voted against him were either bashed or sent to prison. In atomic number 53 of the elections, 3 million people voted for Napoleon, and only 1500 against. Napoleon utter that this stat suggested that the country was in favour of him. No, people were sc ared into take for him, fearing for their health and wellbeing. Some of the positive things Napoleon did for France were dropping the 10 twenty-four hours hebdomad, and all in allowing people to take Sundays of work. He withal allowed Catholics to hero-worship freely again, under the agreement called the ?Concordat.? This meant that they were allowed to worship freely, still all priests had to take an oath of loyalty to Napoleon, a nd he got to ask all the bishops in France. A nonher thing that Napoleon did for France was gift the decapitate as a form of capitol punishment. His view on this paper of equipment was that it would be quicker and less painful for the criminal. non everyone agree with this, as they thought it was too barbaric and graphic. at once Napoleon had become ruler of France, he intended to preserve France from the armies of the uphold coalition. This meant that he had to eliminate any threat to his country. He started turned this campaign by round outing Austria. He hoped to ramp them by sneaking around through the Alps and attack them from behind, but the journey took much longer than he expected, and just about failed. By the time he reached the b dedicate, the Austrian parade were ready... A few of your paragraphs, oddly the first few, seem underdeveloped.

You take up your information about the Catholics and the 10 day work week separated, but in reality, they should be together, given the length of the paragraphs. Also, your shade sentence is left to dissent alone, without evidence. I am not exactly sure whether you are arguing that Napoleon had a positive influence on France, or a ban one. You say that. solely this success for France was a fantastic gain ground, yet in your last sentence you write that, All in all, Napoleons costs definitely outweighed his benefits. Throughout your paper, you seem to be contradicting yourself. One last thing...I tell apart that you included a bibliography with your paper, yet you neglected to cite the address quote you utilize in the essay (If anyone chooses to rebel against these bare-ass decisions of the law, they will impart with their life.). How is the reader to know from where you obtained the quote? In the endeavor to give tongue to the repeated ironic twists, this essay indulges in statements of self-styled accuracy, and loses itself in efforts by the author to show how bright he is. In the end, it is unimpressive, unenlightening, and trite. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper