NationStates Jolt Archive

Overall, would you say that Napoleon had a good or a bad influence on Europe?

I don't really know myself... on the one hand, he spread war over Europe in a way that was unknown since the Roman Empire or the invasion of Ghengis Khan.

On the other hand, he brought some stabiltiy to places like Germany, he introduced the "Code Civil" in so many countries, he spread the ideas of the French revolution and human rights in a way that made it impossible to ignore these concepts any more and in a way, he "united" Europe for the first time, even if it was only to destroy the common enemy...

One of my favourite eras of history is the Napoleonic one and most of his changes had no effect on future Europe. His Empire did little in most regions outside France except re-awaken nationalism in Spain, Italy and Germany against the foreign oppressor. Geographically he created countries similar to the current ones but that was changed back after his defeat in 1815. The Civil Code of Law was kept in place in France until about 1949 and the Legion of Honour was kept in place. He really didn't innovate military technology or army techniques - he refused to issue his army with the new rifles and the technique of en masse conscription was the idea of the Revolution not of Napoleon. However in destroying France, Napoleon confirmed Britain's domination of the continent that would not be effectively rivalled until the German unification of the 1870s.

I believe Napoleon did alot of good for Europe by standing up for nerds everywhere. He stood as a symbol for the socially challenged and those clueless on fashion. He was not afraid to make a fool of himself, and stood up for his friend against all odds. He gives hope to all those who have a hard time fitting in yet yearn for companionship. Napoleon Dynamite will live on in the memory of Europeans and Americans alike for years to come. Yessssss

I believe Napoleon did alot of good for Europe by standing up for nerds everywhere. He stood as a symbol for the socially challenged and those clueless on fashion. He was not afraid to make a fool of himself, and stood up for his friend against all odds. He gives hope to all those who have a hard time fitting in yet yearn for companionship. Napoleon Dynamite will live on in the memory of Europeans and Americans alike for years to come. Yessssss


Now, THAT is one side I have never seen before.... :)

One of my favourite eras of history is the Napoleonic one and most of his changes had no effect on future Europe. His Empire did little in most regions outside France except re-awaken nationalism in Spain, Italy and Germany against the foreign oppressor. Geographically he created countries similar to the current ones but that was changed back after his defeat in 1815. The Civil Code of Law was kept in place in France until about 1949 and the Legion of Honour was kept in place. He really didn't innovate military technology or army techniques - he refused to issue his army with the new rifles and the technique of en masse conscription was the idea of the Revolution not of Napoleon. However in destroying France, Napoleon confirmed Britain's domination of the continent that would not be effectively rivalled until the German unification of the 1870s.

In my opinion, Napoleon actaully contributed largely to the German unification, even if it took place decades after he was sent off to exile for the final time.
He secularised Germany and merged a number of states... if you look at a German map from before the Napoleonic wars, you'll see what a mess it was. Millions of small and smaller states, each with his own legislation, currency, customs, even with their own timezones. In merging them into bigger states and removing the churches from their traditional role in the German Union, Napoleon significantly spurred the German revolution of 1848 and the desire for unity and "one undivided German nation".

Even though the Code Civil is no longer in use as such, many legislative systems in Europe are based on it's principles.

One problem that could be attributed to Napoleon is Germany.
The various German states wanted to unite, with Austria/Bavaria as the cultural foundation of the union. After his disastrous war with Russia, Russia helped Germany unite but under the cultural influence of the Prussians, a very Militaristic society. This almost directly led to WW1. That and politicians.
Little known fact: Napoleon intended to destroy the debt-based monetary system that Europe was inflicted with. He lost and we have had it ever since.
If he had succeeded Europe would definitely be a very different place.

Little known fact: Napoleon intended to destroy the debt-based monetary system that Europe was inflicted with. He lost and we have had it ever since.
If he had succeeded Europe would definitely be a very different place.

How was he going to replace it?

Overall a bad influence spreading his evil commie Ideals
fraternity libertie egulitie
Bah i spit on it bah

Overall a bad influence spreading his evil commie Ideals
fraternity libertie egulitie
Bah i spit on it bah

If your grasp of the theory of communism is as good as your French... ;)

How was he going to replace it?
Government should print money to fund projects, as opposed to a private bank printing money to fund projects. And then charging interest.

Bad. He even instituted their driving on the wrong side of the road. He also is directly responsible for the third world status of Brazil, but I will leave you to work out how for yourselves for a while.

Government should print money to fund projects, as opposed to a private bank printing money to fund projects. And then charging interest.

Government printing money went horribly horribly wrong in Germany...

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/probs/infl7.html

Napoleon was teh l33t hAx0r.

Bad. He even instituted their driving on the wrong side of the road. He also is directly responsible for the third world status of Brazil, but I will leave you to work out how for yourselves for a while.

Napoleon responsible for the economic and social situation in Brazil? This has to be a good one... enlighten us!

Has something to do with the Portuguese court moving to Brazil after Napoleon invaded Portugal, no doubt.

* Brought the Rosetta Stone to Europe. This one (incidental) act led immediately to the understanding of Hyroglyps/Egyptology.

* Most everyone drives on the right. (Ok, except in GB, and the Scandinavians didn't convert until the 60s...)

* Created the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. :)

* Doubled the size of the US by selling the Louisiana Territory.

* Brought an end to the Reign of Terror.

* Brought the Rosetta Stone to Europe. This one (incidental) act led immediately to the understanding of Hyroglyps/Egyptology.



The Rosetta Stone! I had completely forgotten about that one! Very good point.

On the other hand, while collecting souvernirs in Egypt, one could also say that he stole some of the most valuable artefacts and set a really bad example for fellow-Europeans... for some while after, they regarded Egypt as some early form of self-service shop and forgot to pay...

Mixed bag, he implemented refoms that brough foreward warfare a great deal. Although all of them were ideas that had been proposed a generation before Napoleon was in the military, but he was the first to implement them.

Getting everyone to drive on the right. Hmmm if you wish for little piece of egotism then there we go. Napoleon converted everyone to walk on the right because he was left handed. Which meant he carried his sword on his right hand side. The reason why the whole continent before that walked, rode or drove carts in the left was because as the vast majority of people are right handed you carry you sword on you left, therefore if you are going to walk down a road you want to give any potential attacker the least chance at grabbing you sword and also being able to counter attack. For those who rode in a cart or on a horse, you held the reins with your left and used you swor din your right. Napoleon changed that out of simple egotism.

His beginning of the unification of germany is debateable.

his social reforms are also debateable.

Overall I would give a negative influence, esp considering how many died in some of his more pointless wars, and his costly mistakes like his march to moscow...and the aftermath of the march back cost nearly 700,000 lives IIRC.

Government printing money went horribly horribly wrong in Germany...

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/probs/infl7.html
Germany had a central bank printing all it's money at the time.
That's what inflation actually is: the value of money (a ten Euro note worth ten Euro) trying to catch up to it's cost (ten Euro+interest). As all the money in the economy is supplied with interest, the country actually owes more money to the bank than exists.
Non debt-economies are extremely stable (although idiots can of course ruin this, but then they can ruin anything). England had one until Cromwell got power and America used one until just before the revolution. It was also used by Lincoln to win the Civil war.
'No one paid income tax, yet prices remained stable with no inflation. There was not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds.
When Benjamin Franklin was asked how he could account for all this new found prosperity he replied:
"That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

Breaking all the modern conventions of economics, the Colonies continued to prosper producing their own unbacked interest free money, until the production of Colonial Script was made illegal by the Currency Act of 1764.'

* Doubled the size of the US by selling the Louisiana Territory.

A negative

* Brought an end to the Reign of Terror.

His policy of Imperialism was the Reign of Terror.

I am no fan of military dictators. If any country truly stood for justice at this time it was GB, protecting democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. Napoleon's Imperial ambitions seemed limitless (there are accounts of him planning to invade Canada and then the United States) and he would have forced his political ideals upon all those subjugated. It is one of the greatest blessings of history that this maniac was eventually defeated.

Mixed bag, he implemented refoms that brough foreward warfare a great deal. Although all of them were ideas that had been proposed a generation before Napoleon was in the military, but he was the first to implement them.

His tactics were successful against everyone except the British, who defeated the French in almost every confrontation on land and at sea. The lesson we learn is that Napoleon's tactics may have seemed modern in the continental context, but they were already out dated by British standards ergo not particularly up to date tactics.

The Rosetta Stone! I had completely forgotten about that one! Very good point.

On the other hand, while collecting souvernirs in Egypt, one could also say that he stole some of the most valuable artefacts and set a really bad example for fellow-Europeans... for some while after, they regarded Egypt as some early form of self-service shop and forgot to pay...

Graci.

Yeah, but everyone's been doing that since the 13th dynasty fell to the Persians around 340 BC. :(
Shoot, even Julius Caesar did some pilfering...

Overall a bad influence spreading his evil commie Ideals
fraternity libertie egulitie
Bah i spit on it bah

Napoleon was a bit like Stalin in that regard. Essentially he rode the ideals of the Revolution (liberte fraternite egalitie) to gain power and then cast them aside while still using them to motivate patriotic feelings amongst his people.

He was quite a big fan of Rosseau in his youth but later condemned him.

I am no fan of military dictators. If any country truly stood for justice at this time it was GB, protecting democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. Napoleon's Imperial ambitions seemed limitless (there are accounts of him planning to invade Canada and then the United States) and he would have forced his political ideals upon all those subjugated. It is one of the greatest blessings of history that this maniac was eventually defeated.

How on earth was the US buying the Louisiana Territory a negative?

That's fair enough re: GB, but how else could the Reign of Terror ended except WITH the rise of a powerful personality? (Be it a new King or Napoleon).

Oh, I agree that it is good that he was defeated, but he did SOME good. The Conference of Vienna, for example, set the tone for European/Great Power diplomacy for generations... and he was the cause! ;)

His tactics were successful against everyone except the British, who defeated the French in almost every confrontation on land and at sea. The lesson we learn is that Napoleon's tactics may have seemed modern in the continental context, but they were already out dated by British standards ergo not particularly up to date tactics.

Most of Napoleon's tactical successes were not due so much to his renovations but to the advances made in the Revolution and the overall crappiness of the Austrian/Prussians armies.

France had discovered that mass conscription into the army using patriotic vibes created far better and far more motivated armies than the mercenary armies used by most of Europe at the time. The great method of massive columns and fierce charges was also developed during the Revolution rather than under Napoleon.

Napoleon renovated the army very little. He refused to introduce new tactics and also refused to use new technologies, such as the rifle.

The British army/navy were different from the others of Europe as the British forces were better trained and better equipped even though they were almost always outnumbered. There was also no conscription in the British army and far less use of mercenaries.

How on earth was the US buying the Louisiana Territory a negative?


The USA in its current state evidence enough for you?;)

Most of Napoleon's tactical successes were not due so much to his renovations but to the advances made in the Revolution and the overall crappiness of the Austrian/Prussians armies.


It is a common misconception that Prussian, Russian and Hapsburg armies were crap. They weren't, they were simply led rather poorly in general. The Hungarians and other Hapsburg minorities were usually very good soldiers, with Hungarians being some of the finest horsemen in Europe. The standards of British cavalry were actually far lower than their central/eastern european counterparts, they simply had the advantage of better steel and amongst the best infantry behind them.

It is a common misconception that Prussian, Russian and Hapsburg armies were crap. They weren't, they were simply led rather poorly in general. The Hungarians and other Hapsburg minorities were usually very good soldiers, with Hungarians being some of the finest horsemen in Europe. The standards of British cavalry were actually far lower than their central/eastern european counterparts, they simply had the advantage of better steel and amongst the best infantry behind them.

The fact is that the Prussian and the Hapsburg armies were still fighting 18th Century warfare with mercenary armies which is why the French Revolutionary armies managed time and time again to steam over them. The mercenary armies of the other powers were not motivated in the same way that French troops were: they were held in place only by money and in the end, what are you going to choose: money to stay put or your life? Much later in the war, the other armies did sort themselves out which is why Napoleon began to fail so disasterously during his later campaigns.

Your point about the British calvary is true but the British infantry was the best in Europe - of this there can be no doubt. They fired the quickest (all British troops were trained to fire 3 shots in the minute) and had the best discipline so they didn't run away when a French column marched at them. Once the psychological effect is removed a column is just a slow moving, bulky horde of men where only the front row can fire.

The USA in its current state evidence enough for you?;)

Nope. :D

Napolian however saw the ay millitary was going to evolve, he just didn't use the technology, at Waterloo, he used far more skermishes than ever before, whoch is how modern warfare evolved until the present day. If he had armed them with rifles he would have won.

However he stuck with colloms which where always out gunned by lines-there is no real genius in napolianic war, cavalry beat infantry lines- square beat cavalry, artillary beat squares, cavalry beat artillary, line beat collums, it was reconising that and disapline that was what made you win.

His tactics were successful against everyone except the British, who defeated the French in almost every confrontation on land and at sea. The lesson we learn is that Napoleon's tactics may have seemed modern in the continental context, but they were already out dated by British standards ergo not particularly up to date tactics.

Only after the development of the use of the line against the coloumn. Before that the French marched all over us. The Retreat to Corona was prehaps the best example of this.

As for French tactics being out dated, thats debateable at best. Napoleon's tactics were usually spot on. It was his Marshall's who screwed up most of the time.

Only after the development of the use of the line against the coloumn. Before that the French marched all over us. The Retreat to Corona was prehaps the best example of this.

As for French tactics being out dated, thats debateable at best. Napoleon's tactics were usually spot on. It was his Marshall's who screwed up most of the time.
He didn't do too well at Waterloo did he, indeed i think he lost a few times.

If your grasp of the theory of communism is as good as your French... ;)
Oh ho ho ho
bah i spit on j00 bah
*French enough for you?*
I cant be arsed looking up their shit speech
The Revolution is Commie!

Oh ho ho ho
bah i spit on j00 bah
*French enough for you?*
I cant be arsed looking up their shit speech
The Revolution is Commie!


Wow.... you're even worse in history :D

He didn't do too well at Waterloo did he, indeed i think he lost a few times.

Well up until (can't remember the name of the commander) defeated a French coloumn in Spain, by using the Line formation, Napoleons armies had, generally, run riot.

His campaign in Italy was pretty masterful. In fact, other than maybe his march to surround Ulm where he caught a whole Austro/Hungarian army without firing a shot, it was his best.

I think he got the victories he wanted because he was very very descisive. He kept pushing until he got what he wanted. His use of the column, although highly effective in his early years, was an incredible waste of man power. Also once an appropriate counter tactic was used (the line) it became obsolete.

Over the years Napoleon's strategic and battlefield tactics got worse. His army was stretched and he was constantly relying on new soldiers rather than experienced campaign veterans (mainly because Moscow gutted his army of them). He no longer out numbered his opponents so often either.

His defeat in 1815 was almost guaranteed as soon as he left France. A moderate victory at Quatre Bras (which was helped by the idiot the Prince of Orange) was insignificant when you think of the combined armies of Blücher and Wellington that were forming to take him apart. Napoleon had one army of 110,000 approx. where as the allies could rely on more armies coming asap.

In other words, Napoleon brought fourth a new age of war, utilizing techniques and have a great strategic awareness. His boldness won him victories, but over stretching his forces, refusing to keep modernising and gross egotism brought about his downfall.

Wow.... you're even worse in history :D
That makes no sense at all?
Ideals of France
Spread Revolution everyones equal
Ideals of Commies
Spread Revolution everyones equal
DONE AND DONE! :D

That makes no sense at all?
Ideals of France
Spread Revolution everyones equal
Ideals of Commies
Spread Revolution everyones equal
DONE AND DONE! :D

Nothing is better than world peace.
A hamburger is better than nothing.
Therefore, a hamburger is better than world peace.

:)

That makes no sense at all?
Ideals of France
Spread Revolution everyones equal
Ideals of Commies
Spread Revolution everyones equal
DONE AND DONE! :D

Oh, I hear a Christian talking here:

Spread the word, everyone is equal before god!