Why wasn't Napoleon put to death after the Battle of Waterloo?

Question

Why were the Europeans willing to risk the possibility of another escape from exile and more war?

Answer 1

i agree with david a, and would add the following.

1) Napoleon was captured and held by the British, who have always assumed a posture of opposing the strongest power on the continent, traditionally at this point in history, that power was France. Keeping Napoleon alive and in their custody gave the British a powerful wild card in international intrigue in the event that a resurgent royalist France, or a new republic in France, or a new upstart in France ever tried to menace British interests again.

2) Napoleon surrendered. At the time, an officer who surrendered was never executed. In fact, they were usually granted "parole", an amicable situation where they were allowed the trappings of their rank and status, including great personal liberty, but were on their honor bound not to escape.

3) he was a legitimate head of state and emperor. although he crowned himself emperor, it was in a ceremony presided over by the pope. killing a legitimate monarch would be regicide, a violation of existing international law (such as it was) and a very dangerous precedent.

Answer 2

Despite Napoleon's second capture by the Allies in early nineteenth-century Europe, the notables at the Congress of Vienna and the ruling Bourbons of France knew that Napoleon had a lot of support among the common (read: non-royal) people. Putting him to death would have created a mass rebellion that would make the storming of the Bastille look like a birthday party -- crude analogy, but I hope you get my point.

Far better, in the eyes of Louis XVII (?), Alexander, Castlereagh, Metternich, Wellington, et. al. to keep Napoleon out of sight where we can watch him and make sure he won't lead a third attempt on Europe. Besides, the French should be tired of blood after the Revolution, the Terror, and Napoleon's reign, tired enough to accept their "benevolent" dictates without making a martyr out of Napoleon.

Answer 3

No they are nevertheless debating it, even with the fact that the conflict seems at present forward an approximately 6 hour conflict,( their are maximum of different money owed of that conflict ),yet pondering the only component Napoleon grow to be no longer in need of and thats Cavalry ,easily the finding out component grow to be the absence of his veteran cavalry commander Murat (who gained the day at such battles as Borodino) incapable of commanding a defense force himself, he nevertheless did effective service under the command of Napoleon. He Murat might have a minimum of spiked the British weapons they (the french cavalry)had overrun for the period of their assaults throughout the time of the day,he might have confident Napoleon to no longer detach his horse Artillery faraway from him,and greater importantly with a extensive type of Curraisser (Heavy Cavalry)regiments under his own command he might have a minimum of finished greater effectual than Marshal Ney, and he ought to have broken Wellingtons centre,in basic terms my opinion.

Answer 4

I doubt the idea ever occurred to the European leaders of the time. After all, Napoleon was One Of Them, and they wouldn't have wanted the idea of executing defeated leaders to get around.

Chopping the heads of leaders was what revolutionaries did - not the Great and the Good.

Answer 5

For what crime? Certainly not for being a general. That was his job. Once the Europeans began to consider themselves civilized, it was thought barbaric to simply execute ones honorably defeated enemies. Otherwise treaties could never be honored.

To that, add the political atmospher of the time, it was considered safer to let him retire in the disgrace of defeat than to create a martyr of a well loved tyrant.

Answer 6

It isn't honorable to kill an opposing general. The Europeans realized that, so they just locked him up on another Island with air-tight security.

Answer 7

Ironically, he put himself in the hands of the British to escape his own people, some of whom would have been happy to kill him.

Answer 8

He still had a lot of supporters and putting him to death would have probably caused a rebellion.

Answer 9

They would have made him a martyr. If you're a student of history and of any armed conflict, the psychology would be apparent.

Answer 10

it's meaner to stick him on an island as an example to all those who attack England and it is mean to put someone in exile :]