Final answer:
Marshall Ney would likely argue that Napoleon, as a product of the French Revolution, had a more legitimate claim to rule based on merit and the principles of equality, than did the Bourbon Kings, whose claim was based on traditional hereditary rights and conservative values.
Step-by-step explanation:
Marshall Ney's perspective on Napoleon's right to rule as opposed to the Bourbon Kings is founded on several contrasts between the principles of the French Revolution and the traditional monarchy. Napoleon rose through the ranks during the revolution, leveraging opportunities presented to him to become a symbol of meritocracy and legal equality. In contrast, European nobility, including the bourbons, were accustomed to rule through hereditary rights, cultural traditions, and specialized education designed for governance.
Napoleon's reign brought reforms, challenged outdated traditions, and expanded France's borders, whereas the Bourbon restoration signaled a return to the conservative, pre-revolutionary social order. However, Napoleon's insatiable need for conquest, his megalomania, and the establishment of puppet states revealed his pursuit of personal power over democratic ideals, eventually causing unrest and turmoil across Europe.
After his exile and the bourbon's return, French society saw the reclamation of privileges by the old nobility, exacerbating existing class tensions and economic woes. The return of the monarchy with Louis XVIII was characterized by an ineffective response to France's challenges. Yet, the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy was seen as a means to stabilize and preserve the traditional power structures at the Congress of Vienna.