Napoleon: Enlightened or not?

OK, so this is a new post as well as a response to Sam's post and the comments people made on it.
If we define a enlightened despot as a ruler who has absolute power, but also rules with the ideas of the Enlightenment, then Napoleon was enlightened. He applied many of the Enlightenment's ideas while he ruled France. As Elise has already pointed out, he ended feudalism in France, going a step beyond enlightened despots such as Catherine and Frederick the Great. Napoleon supported scientific research and thought it was "the essential, rational foundation of modern knowledge" (pg. 410). Religious toleration was also a part of Napoleon's empire. Perhaps the greatest indicator of Napoleon's enlightenment is his belief that all men are created equal and want the same things. This is exhibited in his "careers open to talent" policy. If I remember correctly, we decided as a class that Joseph II of Austria was our most enlightened despot. He and Napoleon seem to have reformed the same things in their respective countries i.e. abolishing feudalism and religious toleration. To me, it seems that Napoleon's greatest mistake was the fact that he overreached himself. His ideas were good ones, but as Sam has already said, he tried to apply them everywhere using his military. Had he limited himself to France, he would have stayed in power much longer. Our book states that Napoleon: "carried over the rationalist and universalist outlook of the Age of Enlightenment" (pg. 406), "spoke endlessly of the enlightenment of the age" (pg. 410), and "may be thought of as the last and most eminent of the enlightened despots" (pg. 389).

Mary Wollstonecraft

I was born on April 27, 1759 in Hoxton, England. I spent most of my life living in London, but also traveled to France, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. My most famous work is A Vindication of the Rights of Women, but I am also known for Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, and A Vindication on the Rights of Men. This was a direct rebuttal to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. The subject I wrote most on was education reform, particularly for women, but for men as well. I believed that women were considered inferior to men because they were taught to please instead of having a real education. I advocated Bacon's inductive method and thought that women should learn using this method as well. The best was to make observations was to travel and learn form experience. The first editions of many of my works were published anonymously and my name was only added to the title page in subsequent editions. In A Vindication of the Rights of Women, I cited the ideas of Rousseau and agreed with some, but disliked how he did not extend his ideas to women. I was married only once, but had a daughter from a previous affair named Fanny. While married, my husband William Godwin and I lived in separate, but adjoining residences so that we could retain our independence. Our only daughter, Mary, would one day grow up to write Frankenstein. I am often considered to be the first feminist.

Which monarch was more important –Peter the Great or Frederick Wilhelm?

First of all, which Frederick Wilhelm? The Great Elector of Brandenburg or King Frederick Wilhelm I of Prussia? It's not going to change my answer, I was just confused. Anyway. I think that Peter the Great was more important because his actions set Russia on it's course through 1917. Before his reign, Russia was more Asian than European. He brought the culture and government of France and the economic policies of England to Russia. He encouraged mercantilism and conquered important territories for Russia. He made Russia European. I think though, that he influenced the history of Russia more strongly through his government. He got rid of the duma (which was useless anyway) and made himself an absolute ruler. He made it so the tsar had the power to choose a successor that was not his firstborn son. Most importantly, I think, all of his reforms excluded the peasants. The serfs were like the African slaves of the Americas. Through this exclusion of the serfs, they became wary of any type of central authority. The serfs became more oppressed during his reign while the nobility became more powerful. It was this imbalance between classes that led to things like the Russian Revolution of 1917. Without Peter the Great's reforms, major historical events like that would not have happened.
P.S. I'm really sorry if this is confusing. I was kind of just rambling.

Golden Age Prompt

I think that there are a lot of common factors in the making of a "Golden Age". If we compare the Elizabethan Era in England and the siglo de oro in Spain we will find some similarities. Both countries enjoyed immense artistic output during these times. Spain had artists like El Greco, playwrights such as Lope de Vega, and of course Cervantes's Don Quixote. England had the work of William Shakespeare, need I say more? Both kingdoms has strong rulers during these periods and had economic security. In Spain, this security came from the outside, and there was no innovation on the inside, but the economy was still in decent shape. If we compare different Golden Ages, we will see common factors in arts, government, and economics.

Prompt 5

There are absolutely have been recurring patterns in the fall of world powers. The two that come specifically to mind are the fall of the Roman Empire and Soviet Union. Both powers enjoyed immense military power, but in the end they killed themselves instead of others invading them. The Soviet Union was in terrible shape economically and Rome's government was corrupt. In short, they imploded. 16th century Spain also suffered from these problems. As we have discussed there was no innovation in an economic sense with almost no industry. During the reign of Charles II, the government was in tough shape too. A superpower tends to die from the inside out instead of from outside influences.

Prompt 4

For me, there is one very clear reason as to why France was able to recover from it's religious wars while Germany was not. In France the wars were purly of a religious nature. While it is true that the main reasons for the wars in Germany were religious, the states were also looking for independence from the Holy Roman Empire. The Huguenots in France wern't looking to break away from France, they just wanted the right to worship freely. At the end of the French civil wars, Henry IV passed the Edict of Nantes and solved the religious problem. When the Thirty Years' War ended in Germany, the Peace of Westphalia settled religious problems, but did nothing about the states plea for independence from the HRE. When it came to political matters, France was united, Germany was not.