The Bourbons were famous imbeciles in terms of ruling from after Louis XIV, all the way down. Yet Napoleon III was a puffed up buffoon. And when all is tallied, Napoleon I, who I am sorry but in the eyes of the European powers (who he hoped to either join or dominate through exactly the same process of rewarding the nobility to govern the people) and some in France signally failed to provide stability for his country by constantly ending up embroiled in dynastic and territorial wars that would have been avoided if he'd simply remained First Consul and not attempted to create a Bonaparte Dynasty which could not be recognised as legitimate while the Bourbon line still continued.

He was a strong leader, a man with good intentions in regards French society, a undeniable military genius, but all he did was give France about 8 years of prosperity (by constantly invading other countries and ruining them), which even the pre Revolution Bourbons were capable of, even the flawed Charles X was able to give 7 years and then what Louis Phillip I? Both of these reigns did both good and bad but offered arguably more stability, if less satisfaction than Napoleon's decade as Emperor. Who is to say that eventually Napoleon would not have been ousted by the French when someone better came along, or he ticked off the wrong supporters? Certainly not while he was loved by the army, yet French history from 1792 to 1920 is littered with revolutions and coups.

Josh.