Hello, I am from Abensberg in Niederbayern, the sight of an important battle in the 5th coalition war and quite nearby to Landshut, Eggmühl, Teugn and Hausen and Regensburg. In addition my grandparents live in Kelheim and throughout my life has taken me many times to the Befreiungshalle which is considered by he and I to be the most one of the important monument in Bavaria, comparable to Walhalla in Donaustrauf and in all of Germany along with the Hermannsdenkmal in Detmold and a few others. I am saying this to make the point that the Napoleonic Wars have always been a part of my life, and there is also the fact that my grandmother's ur-grandfather was a heroic who died as a cavalryman at the Battle of Wörth during the 1870-71 war against France, we still have his sword and armour as a heavy cavalry rider and it is displayed at our home. As for Napoleon himself, to me I have always seen him as very much like Julius Caesar, a genius who might once have been good intentioned but also an enemy of Germany and because of his over ambition the benefit he brought to his people in his time came with high cost later.
Anyhow, today at school a teacher of mine said an interesting thing, that both Napoleon and Napoleon III should be called German national heroes. He said that destroying the alte Reich and creating the Rheinbund was what created a German identity and that Napoleon making Austria weak so that Prussia could become the most powerful German state was necessary for a united Germany, because Austria was an old fashioned empire with a majority of people not being German and was on the edge of Germany but Prussia was a modern and totally German kingdom. Also, he said that French war in 1870 convinced the other German states that it was better to accept some domination by their fellow Germans in Prussia than dominations by France and this is what allowed the Kaiserreich to be made at Versailles.
My perspectives are perhaps different, it seems obvious that German identity was much older than Napoleon. The alte Reich gave up on Italy and places outside of Germany early on, took the name of Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, and I think that the fact of the Augsburger and Westfalisch settlements speaks to a German identity, the empire was not the new Rome of Karl der Große's dreams and it was not a Catholic state either, the Protestant states had no reason to accept a Catholic emperor and the emperor to accept Protestant states if they did not have a shared identity that was not sectarian. So I would say that Napoleon didn't not help create German identity or unity, he created Kleindeutschland and destroyed 1000 years of German unity. It also seems that this idea of the French war of 1870 gives too many credits to Napoleon III, he was delusional and desperate and it was obvious to all of Europe including the French that they could not win the war and Bismarck used this at the fact that after Königgrätz many German states were annexed by Prussia to give the other German states a choice between Prussian domination as part of a new German Empire or to be abolished in the way that Hannover was. Finally I think that it is wrong to say that Prussia was more German than Austria, neither were originally Stammesherzogtum and Prussia itself was originally part of Poland, with most Prussians being Germanized Wends and ancestors of migrants from the Ostsiedlung. Also the idea that Prussia was more modern is to me somewhat determinist, like the awful Sonderweg idea it has the implication that there is a proper way for a state to develop and that way is a bureaucratic state in the mold of France and Britain.
Also this might not be relevant but this teacher is not Bavarian, he comes from Potsdam and so this might give him a bias
Quite a lot to unpack there and also a lot depending on perspective and interpretation. First of all I’m from the Palatinate and my views both of Napoleon and Prussia are double-edged to say the least.
To consider Napoleon (or even Napoleon III) a national hero for the German cause is kind of a hard sell to me though. First of all, neither hat any intention of creating a unified German state of any kind. The Rheinbund was more meant as a buffer state between France and Prussia and not as a kernel for a greater Unification of all of Germany as far as I remember.
Even more importantly to state that Prussia was “more German” than Austria and was a “totally German kingdom” is not very convincing. While I understand what he says about Austria-Hungary I doubt the “total” German-ness of Prussia quite bit. Just think of the eastern and southern parts of Prussia which as mixed as parts of Austria-Hungaria.
On the other hand it is true that the coalition wars can be regarded as a catalyst for the national movement in Germany, something that lay dormant. Also, the Breaking of the Holy Roman Empire can be seen in different lights. For example Napoleon induced a lot of energy into the legal history by introducing his Code Napoleon in parts of the Germanies. This contributed to the codification movements that ultimately led to the HGB and BGB - and so indeed helped along the way to legal unification.
Saying Prussia was modern is also debatable. It had a modern army and parts of its society and setup were modern (industrialisation was way more advanced than in Austria) - yet parts of the society were also grotesquely backwards. These divides would torment Germany in the years to come and add their fair share to the catastrophe that was WW I. So here I would agree with being a bit sceptic about your teachers comment.
Where I would disagree with your assessment is the “1000 years of German unity”. This is a fiction and hard to base on sources in my opinion. The HRE was, as has been aptly quipped neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire. While it did offer a certain legal framework and organisation it can hardly be considered a true nation after the thirty years war (if before). A person growing up in Landshut is more like to identify as Bavarian in the 17th or 18th century than as German. It is comparable (and has been compared) to the EU. Do you identify as European (firstly, as a nationality)?
On a different note: I really dislike monument like the ones you mentioned and if I were to visit a monument about the coalition wars I would probably go to Leipzig. But I’m not a great fan of Ludwig anyway so maybe that is my bias speaking.
Another afterthought - even if you (and in part I) disagree with your teacher he seems to be able to pique your interest and challenge your views in historic persons and events. That’s a plus in my book for him.