NationStates Jolt Archive

Called by the will of the French people to hold the highest office in the Republic, I think it proper, on assuming my functions, to inform Your Majesty of the fact by my own hand.

Is there to be no end to the war which, for the past eight years, has dislocated every quarter of the globe? Is there no means by which we can come to an understanding? How is it that the two most enlightened nations in Europe, both stronger and more powerful than their safety and independence require, consent to sacrifice their commercial success, their internal prosperity, and the happiness of their homes, to dreams of imaginary greatness? How is it that they do not envisage peace as their greatest glory as well as their greatest need?

Such sentiments cannot be strange to Your Majesty’s heart, for you rule a free nation for the sole end of making it happy.

I beg Your Majesty to believe that in broaching this subject, it is my sincere desire to make a practical contribution…toward a generous peace…The fate of every civilized nation depends upon ending the war which is embroiling the whole world.

This letter was written to King George III on Christmas Day, 1799; not long after Napoléon came to power in France. George III would not stoop so low as to reply to a commoner, so he he delegated the task to another. The British responded that there would be no peace unless (against the will of the French people) the Royalists were restored to power. And while you consider this, know that it was not Napoléon who started this war he clearly wanted to end. Source: The Age of Napoleon, by Will and Ariel Durant.

Was Napoléon a pacifist? Not quite: Napoléon did invade Russia (after it massed 214,000 soliders on the Polish border) and Spain, and he was far from a saint in many other ways. Yet most of the other "Napoleonic Wars" were not started by him; on the contrary, they were generally started or encouraged by Britain.

As we all know, Britain was to soundly defeat Napoléon; of course, they needed many nations, armies and years to do it. But that was not enough: many British seem to enjoy taking false credit for stopping a warmonger, even though heroic Britain started most of the wars.

This letter was written to King George III on Christmas Day, 1799; not long after Napoléon came to power in France. George III would not stoop so low as to reply to a commoner, so he he delegated the task to another. The British responded that there would be no peace unless (against the will of the French people) the Royalists were restored to power. And while you consider this, know that it was not Napoléon who started this war he clearly wanted to end. Source: The Age of Napoleon, by Will and Ariel Durant.

Was Napoléon a pacifist? Not quite: Napoléon did invade Russia (after it massed 214,000 soliders on the Polish border) and Spain, and he was far from a saint in many other ways. Yet most of the other "Napoleonic Wars" were not started by him; on the contrary, they were generally started or encouraged by Britain.

As we all know, Britain was to soundly defeat Napoléon; of course, they needed many nations, armies and years to do it. But that was not enough: many British seem to enjoy taking false credit for stopping a warmonger, even though heroic Britain started most of the wars.



That is nothing new. Same with the English in WW1. Considering the Kaiser was already pushing for peace talks in early 1915 for a diplomatic way out of the mess. Well not the Kaiser himself personally, but one of his aides on his majesties requests. Yet WW1 was proclaimed to be the fault of the German nation by clause of Versaille, despite Austria starting the war and the Serb province being the provocateur.

Who cares whose fault it vaguely more was? We won, that's what's actually important.

Same with the English in WW1.
Dunno about that. The British were in the middle regarding how strict the terms of the ToV were, I'd blame the French for most of it.

Dunno about that. The British were in the middle regarding how strict the terms of the ToV were, I'd blame the French for most of it.

Yeah, the French were pushing hard for the war guilt clause. The British felt it would only cause trouble down the road. The French also wanted heavy reparations.

typical USian attitude to side with Napoleon just because :p

He was a nothing more than a European statesman during a period on continual European warfare sparked by a hot period of Franco-Anglo rivalry and the influence of an increasingly European Russian empire

That is nothing new. Same with the English in WW1. Considering the Kaiser was already pushing for peace talks in early 1915 for a diplomatic way out of the mess.

make no mistake that all the powers of the conflict had tried to end the war even before it had begun as shown by the frantic telegrams between Germany and Russia

Yeah, the French were pushing hard for the war guilt clause. The British felt it would only cause trouble down the road. The French also wanted heavy reparations.

I would avoid using British and just go with Lloyd George myself considering what the public had called for

Yeah, the French were pushing hard for the war guilt clause. The British felt it would only cause trouble down the road. The French also wanted heavy reparations.


Which raises the question. Should World War I and II be treated as seperate wars since one is intricately linked to the other. Without the harsh demands of Versailles and the simmering German hatred for the Allies as a result, there would not have been a German rampage that left over 50million people dead.

Wouldn't calling it the second 30 years war be more accurate?


But yes it did cause only trouble down the road. But if one looks at it semantically, WW2 looking at it now was more beneficial for the German nation than simply being passive after WW1. The strains of WW2 ruined the English and French Empires, put England in insanely high debts. And led to a rebuild from ruins without any of the old structures left, leading Germany to become the strongest European economy. Also arguably the most powerful military in terms of total firepower. Something which probably would not have happened had England not been so heavily mauled after WW2.

Who cares whose fault it vaguely more was?

Many British, who seem obsessed with portraying Napoléon as a bloodthirsty supervillan, even though George III was responsible for most of the bloodshed.

We won, that's what's actually important.

Just like the U.S. won WWII in Europe, even though the USSR inflicted 80% of the German casualties.

He was a nothing more than a European statesman during a period on continual European warfare sparked by a hot period of Franco-Anglo rivalry and the influence of an increasingly European Russian empire


He was also an incredible statesman who reformed France in many important ways, such as Jewish rights. In addition, he was a spectacular general, who only lost when several nations fought against him at once, and even then they had to try many times over 15+ years, during which they were all defeated more than once.

And all that aside, he was not the conquering ogre brought down by the hero Britain, as many people believe.

No mention of the Crimean War yet?
I figured that'd come up in the first post >_>

Many British, who seem obsessed with portraying Napoléon as a bloodthirsty supervillan, even though George III was responsible for most of the bloodshed.
Eh, he was a baddie, but then so was George. *shrugs*
Just like the U.S. won WWII in Europe, even though the USSR inflicted 80% of the German casualties.
Eh, not really. We not only armed but also trained and fought along with the Portuguese, Spanish and other guerrilla movements who fought against Napoleon, in addition to waylaying the French navy all over the place and generally winning battles against him outside of his craziness in Egypt and in Russia, which we basically left alone.

Many British, who seem obsessed with portraying Napoléon as a bloodthirsty supervillan, even though George III was responsible for most of the bloodshed.

are you seriously hoping to pin the Napoleonic wars solely upon George III?

He was also an incredible statesman who reformed France in many important ways, such as Jewish rights. In addition, he was a spectacular general, who only lost when several nations fought against him at once, and even then they had to try many times over 15+ years, during which they were all defeated more than once.

1) here was a man who destroyed French democracy and established himself not only as emperor of France but also King of Italy among others

2) France was already a major military power with or without Napoleon as seen by its spectacular success against Europe

3) Napoleon's France was not alone in its battles I'm sure you know

And all that aside, he was not the conquering ogre brought down by the hero Britain, as many people believe

so if I went about creating an Empire on Europe I would not be considered a conquering ogre...

He was also an incredible statesman who reformed France in many important ways, such as Jewish rights. In addition, he was a spectacular general, who only lost when several nations fought against him at once, and even then they had to try many times over 15+ years, during which they were all defeated more than once.

And all that aside, he was not the conquering ogre brought down by the hero Britain, as many people believe.

True but he is overhyped. Even he knew his limits. When he arrived at Prussia one of the first things he did was visit the grave of Frederick the Great, and proudly stated that had this man been alive he never would have made it to the borders of Prussia. That was perhaps one of Napoleon's strengths, he didn't or at least not to too large of a degree fall victim of megalomania.

Another example is before the battle of Austerlitz where he was standing in the mud when looking up at a Russian prince on his steed. In this case successfully bringing the enemy through their own prejudices to underestimate him.



Eh, not really. We not only armed but also trained and fought along with the Portuguese, Spanish and other guerrilla movements who fought against Napoleon, in addition to waylaying the French navy all over the place and generally winning battles against him outside of his craziness in Egypt and in Russia, which we basically left alone.


Not to mention the English were actually being beaten at Waterloo and would most likely have sustained a loss, however luckily the Prussian infantry arrived two days ahead of time and assaulted Napoleon's flank. However of course in the English mind it seemed to have set that they singlehandedly defeated Napoleon oddly enough.

Not to mention the English were actually being beaten at Waterloo and would most likely have sustained a loss
The Germans were Super Winning from 1939-1942. Things can change in wars, you know.
however luckily the Prussian infantry arrived two days ahead of time and assaulted Napoleon's flank.
Aye quite fortunate etc.
However of course in the English mind it seemed to have set that they singlehandedly defeated Napoleon oddly enough.
Uhu... that's a particularly stupid sweeping statement, you know.

Eh, he was a baddie, but then so was George. *shrugs*

Being a cynic, I agree with you. I would still say that Napoléon was the best of the ruler-lot, as far as his European contemporaries went.

Eh, not really. We not only armed but also trained and fought along with the Portuguese, Spanish and other guerrilla movements who fought against Napoleon, in addition to waylaying the French navy all over the place and generally winning battles against him outside of his craziness in Egypt and in Russia, which we basically left alone.

Britain may have taken the most wind out of Boney's sails, literally speaking, but as far as figurative goes, Russia did much more. Britain was in a massive economic depression due to the Continental Blockade; If the Czar did not continue trade with her, she would have been ruined. In addition, the Franco-Russian of war in 1812 did some hefty damage to the French army.

And then there is Austria, who broke its alliance with Napoléon, and brought much needed pressure the east. Then there is Leipzig, which had very little British involvement. As for Waterloo, is would certainly have been lost if not for the Prussians. As a final note, I must remind you that until 1807, Britain merely started and funded the wars, she did not fight them (except in a naval manner).

are you seriously hoping to pin the Napoleonic wars solely upon George III?

No; the existence of Napoléon made them happen, as Britain was more at war with him, than France. But as far as who kept-up the fighting? Yes, Britain was largely responsible, and to a lesser degree, Austria, Russia and Prussia.


1) here was a man who destroyed French democracy and established himself not only as emperor of France but also King of Italy among others

He "destroyed French democracy" with the people's permission; he was hoping that it would stop Europe from harassing France, as Europe hated democracies. Napoléon was also a very just ruler for his time.

Italy was previously under Austrian control. The Austrians attacked Napoléon and were completely beaten. And (boo-hoo) that nasty ogre oppressed Italy by making laws that said Jews did not have to wear yellow stars and go home to ghettos at hight. Pure evil!

2) France was already a major military power with or without Napoleon as seen by its spectacular success against Europe


There is no way in hell they could have defeated the first coalition without Napoléon. What you are saying is simply ignorant.

3) Napoleon's France was not alone in its battles I'm sure you know

Actually, for most of the time they were, with the Invasion of Russia a notable exception.

so if I went about creating an Empire on Europe I would not be considered a conquering ogre...

Not if that empire was created through defensive wars, and you substantially improved the lives of your subjects.

Being a cynic, I agree with you. I would still say that Napoléon was the best of the ruler-lot, as far as his European contemporaries went.

I wouldn't cut George III out so easily what with him presiding over the British rise to Hegemony

Britain was in a massive economic depression due to the Continental Blockade; If the Czar did not continue trade with her, she would have been ruined. In addition, the Franco-Russian of war in 1812 did some hefty damage to the French army.

huh?!

1) I don't know where your getting the economic recession from because the only powers that where crippled by this was the French bloc

2) Russia was part of the continental blockade at one point going as far as to invade Sweden for refusing to take part

Britain merely started and funded the wars, she did not fight them (except in a naval manner).

:eek:

Being a cynic, I agree with you. I would still say that Napoléon was the best of the ruler-lot, as far as his European contemporaries went.
Dunno about that.
Britain may have taken the most wind out of Boney's sails, literally speaking, but as far as figurative goes, Russia did much more. Britain was in a massive economic depression due to the Continental Blockade; If the Czar did not continue trade with her, she would have been ruined. In addition, the Franco-Russian of war in 1812 did some hefty damage to the French army.
Errr... French were also in a massive economic depression for that very same reason, not Britain... hence Copenhagen and all...
And then there is Austria, who broke its alliance with Napoléon, and brought much needed pressure the east.
Yep.
Then there is Leipzig, which had very little British involvement.
Not sure about that, to be quite honest. It was caused by a loss of morale after the Peninsular War, which the British certainly did have a fairly large hand in.
As for Waterloo, is would certainly have been lost if not for the Prussians.
Probably.
As a final note, I must remind you that until 1807, Britain merely started and funded the wars, she did not fight them (except in a naval manner).
Aye, well for one thing, we certainly were not responsible for much of the ensuing carnage, indeed the breakdown of the Treaty of Amiens was largely due to Napoleon imprisoning all English citizens in France after we supposedly took 6 French ships (something yet to be proven).

That and claiming that warring in a 'naval manner' was lesser than land actions is a bit much, seeing as the Battle of Trafalgar set France up to be blockaded, and the almost complete destruction of the Danish navy meant that a lot of the supply problems for the British in fighting on the continent were significantly reduced, which was pretty important as the Napoleonic Wars progressed.

I wouldn't cut George III out so easily what with him presiding over the British rise to Hegemony.

Presided over, but hardly aided.


huh?!

Just so.

1) I don't know where your getting the economic recession from because the only powers that where crippled by this was the French bloc

Try page 693, from The Age of Napoleon, by Will and Ariel Durant. It is 11th book in a series on Western civilization, you may enjoy it.

2) Russia was part of the continental blockade at one point going as far as to invade Sweden for refusing to take part


Yes. And Britain was certainly fortunate Russia made a turn-around an started trading again. Russias trade with Britain was the number one cause for the Czar's "Breaking-up" with Napoléon, remember?


:eek:

No; the existence of Napoléon made them happen, as Britain was more at war with him, than France. But as far as who kept-up the fighting? Yes, Britain was largely responsible, and to a lesser degree, Austria, Russia and Prussia.

so what your saying is the whole wars with France before the rise of Napoleon was just a bit of fun? no, this particular period of conflicts had a spark namely the National Convention

He "destroyed French democracy" with the people's permission; he was hoping that it would stop Europe from harassing France, as Europe hated democracies. Napoléon was also a very just ruler for his time.

1) a coup d'état followed by a new constitution giving him powers for life...not forgetting that this was not some mad plot by Napoleon to appease the European powers but rather spurred on by Emmanuel Sieyès own desires

2) a very just ruler who not only usurped democratic rights but also took part in the systematic pillaging of conquered territory's including the widespread theft of art

Italy was previously under Austrian control. The Austrians attacked Napoléon and were completely beaten. And (boo-hoo) that nasty ogre oppressed Italy by making laws that said Jews did not have to wear yellow stars and go home to ghettos at hight. Pure evil!

so your defending the man oppression by pointing out that he had thrown out a previous set of oppressors :confused:

There is no way in hell they could have defeated the first coalition without Napoléon. What you are saying is simply ignorant.

*sigh* I should point out that at this point Napoleon was not involved with the conflict to any great deal until 1795

the First Coalition was defeated because of French conscription and the massive army that was amassed as a result

Actually, for most of the time they were, with the Invasion of Russia a notable exception.

its so nice how you ignore powers like the Kingdom of Denmark

Not if that empire was created through defensive wars, and you substantially improved the lives of your subjects.

so its now okay to hold conquered territories as long as the territory was taken in defense? hmmm tell me now what you think of Britain choosing not to incorporate a defeated France into its empire...

" a German rampage that left over 50million people dead."

Actually, I'm fairly sure the Japanese take credit for a good share of that number.

Presided over, but hardly aided.
Oh please.
Just so.

Try page 693, from The Age of Napoleon, by Will and Ariel Durant. It is 11th book in a series on Western civilization, you may enjoy it.
The historical truth… can rarely be achieved outside the professional world of historians - J.H. Plumb, an actual historian.
Yes. And Britain was certainly fortunate Russia made a turn-around an started trading again. Russias trade with Britain was the number one cause for the Czar's "Breaking-up" with Napoléon, remember?
That and the fact that Napoleon was massing troops near to Russia and all.

Presided over, but hardly aided.

yeah all that business with the Agricultural Revolution never had any effect at all!

Try page 693, from The Age of Napoleon, by Will and Ariel Durant. It is 11th book in a series on Western civilization, you may enjoy it.

please don't tell me this is the only book you have read because for god sakes there does happen to be some big criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Napoleon#Criticism) of the work

Yes. And Britain was certainly fortunate Russia made a turn-around an started trading again. Russias trade with Britain was the number one cause for the Czar's "Breaking-up" with Napoléon, remember?

so your going to ignore the British drive towards world markets and the lack of any proof that the blockade had any effect what so ever?

yes Russia was certainly spurred on by it but your ignoring the annexation of Western Galicia

so what your saying is the whole wars with France before the rise of Napoleon was just a bit of fun? no, this particular period of conflicts had a spark namely the National Convention

It had do with the fact that Europe wanted a Louis ruling France, which Napoléon was not.

1) a coup d'état followed by a new constitution giving him powers for life...not forgetting that this was not some mad plot by Napoleon to appease the European powers but rather spurred on by Emmanuel Sieyès own desires

Followed by a far better constitution. And remember, one of Napoléon's earliest acts was to write the letter mentioned in the first post. Anyway, I meant his being crowned emperor when I referred to appeasement.


2) a very just ruler who not only usurped democratic rights but also took part in the systematic pillaging of conquered territory's including the widespread theft of art


Yes, it was most rude. What are you trying to say? That Britain is excused for millions of deaths because Napoléon (as many of his contemporaries did) stole art?

so your defending the man oppression by pointing out that he had thrown out a previous set of oppressors :confused:

I am saying if you chose to call him an "oppressor", you still must remember he was the most enlightened ruler in Europe at the time.

*sigh* I should point out that at this point Napoleon was not involved with the conflict to any great deal until 1795

The conflict was won before then?

the First Coalition was defeated because of French conscription and the massive army that was amassed as a result

The opposing armies were just as massive, and far better equipped and trained.


its so nice how you ignore powers like the Kingdom of Denmark

It was with him to the end...but it fought in few wars. Are you trying to compare it with the likes of Russia, Austria, and Prussia?

so its now okay to hold conquered territories as long as the territory was taken in defense?

If you make the lives of its citizens far, far better, yes.

hmmm tell me now what you think of Britain choosing not to incorporate a defeated France into its empire...

I do not think anybody would be stupid enough to demand a major power for winning a war back then. Notice, Napoléon did not take Austria, though he defeated it many times.

I would avoid using British and just go with Lloyd George myself considering what the public had called for

I would agree.

Which raises the question. Should World War I and II be treated as separate wars since one is intricately linked to the other. Without the harsh demands of Versailles and the simmering German hatred for the Allies as a result, there would not have been a German rampage that left over 50million people dead.

Just because wars are linked does not mean they are the same war. The Crusades come to mind. While they can be grouped, each crusade is inherently separate from the others. Even though they shared common combatants and fields of battle (something the two world wars don't), they were not one war.

Wouldn't calling it the second 30 years war be more accurate?

No, because that would imply a constant state of warfare for those 30 yrs. A combined WWI-WWII slate would only be 10ish years of war for a '30 year' war. Also, the interwar period could not be considered war in the Cold War sense, as there was no overt hostility between the parties.

But if one looks at it semantically
Wait, what? Sematically?

yeah all that business with the Agricultural Revolution never had any effect at all!

Clarify.

please don't tell me this is the only book you have read

Does an unfavorable 870 page biography of Napoléon count for something else?

because for god sakes there does happen to be some big criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Napoleon#Criticism) of the work

I am not exactly sure what that means. If you are saying I need something more complete...longer, I ask you to show me such a book you have read. If you are saying the book is inaccurate, I ask you to show me a book that sites half the sources this one does. If you are saying there are people who do not like the book, I ask you why you are bothering to say this.

so your going to ignore the British drive towards world markets and the lack of any proof that the blockade had any effect what so ever?

In years 1806-1808 Britain exports feel from £40,800,000 to £35,200,000. Imports of cotton fell 95%. The price of corn rose from sixty-six to ninety-four shillings per quarter. What is your definition of "effect"?

yes Russia was certainly spurred on by it but your ignoring the annexation of Western Galicia

Please clean-up this statement, then tell me what you mean by "ignore".

It had do with the fact that Europe wanted a Louis ruling France, which Napoléon was not.

In November the allies offered Napoleon peace if France would return to her natural boundaries, the Rhine and the Alps. Napoleon rejected the offer, and the allies continued their advance. They closed in on Paris, which fell to them on Mar. 31, 1814.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/Napoleon1.html (it took me bloody ages to find that)

Followed by a far better constitution. And remember, one of Napoléon's earliest acts was to write the letter mentioned in the first post. Anyway, I meant his being crowned emperor when I referred to appeasement.

1) I would not call a constitution that allows a person to rule for life "better"
2) if Napoleon was looking for appeasement he would of taken the allies offer and simply proclaimed himself King if he wanted the position

Yes, it was most rude. What are you trying to say? That Britain is excused for millions of deaths because Napoléon (as many of his contemporaries did) stole art?

actually Napoleon was the first to do this on a systematic scale

I am saying if you chose to call him an "oppressor", you still must remember he was the most enlightened ruler in Europe at the time.

thats a rather shaky claim to make surely?

The conflict was won before then?

no, however the idea that Napoleon was a super general who saved France is folly

The opposing armies were just as massive, and far better equipped and trained.

actually at the time France created the largest army Europe had ever seen (1,500,000) which dwarfed that of its adversaries who had never seen conscription to the level of Levée en masse

It was with him to the end...but it fought in few wars. Are you trying to compare it with the likes of Russia, Austria, and Prussia?

yes, considering it was a major problem for the Royal Navy and a source of considerable drama in the Baltic

If you make the lives of its citizens far, far better, yes.

oh well thats good then because the French government only sought to enrich itself particularly how it went about with the continental blockades economics

I do not think anybody would be stupid enough to demand a major power for winning a war back then. Notice, Napoléon did not take Austria, though he defeated it many times.

your ignoring the Holy Roman empire and Holland?

Clarify.

he was responsible for spurring on the Agricultural revolution to its peak (and no he didn't just sit there he was a farmer King of sorts)

Does an unfavorable 870 page biography of Napoléon count for something else?

it just seems that your being a tad biased in all this

I am not exactly sure what that means. If you are saying I need something more complete...longer, I ask you to show me such a book you have read. If you are saying the book is inaccurate, I ask you to show me a book that sites half the sources this one does. If you are saying there are people who do not like the book, I ask you why you are bothering to say this.

I suggest using multiple sources and not just one book (use a textbook for these things at least)


In years 1806-1808 Britain exports feel from £40,800,000 to £35,200,000. Imports of cotton fell 95%. The price of corn rose from sixty-six to ninety-four shillings per quarter. What is your definition of "effect"?

on the European markets that is as the inter-empire trade skyrocketed at this point, the market slowdown was rather caused by 3 years of bad harvest than anything

Please clean-up this statement, then tell me what you mean by "ignore".

I would say the annexation of Western Galicia was the utmost cause of the war rather than trade as it put Alliance troops of Russia doorstep

Many British, who seem obsessed with portraying Napoléon as a bloodthirsty supervillan, even though George III was responsible for most of the bloodshed.

He is nothing more then a typical European statesmen.



Just like the U.S. won WWII in Europe, even though the USSR inflicted 80% of the German casualties.

with material from the US.

This letter was written to King George III on Christmas Day, 1799; not long after Napoléon came to power in France. George III would not stoop so low as to reply to a commoner, so he he delegated the task to another. The British responded that there would be no peace unless (against the will of the French people) the Royalists were restored to power. And while you consider this, know that it was not Napoléon who started this war he clearly wanted to end. Source: The Age of Napoleon, by Will and Ariel Durant.

Was Napoléon a pacifist? Not quite: Napoléon did invade Russia (after it massed 214,000 soliders on the Polish border) and Spain, and he was far from a saint in many other ways. Yet most of the other "Napoleonic Wars" were not started by him; on the contrary, they were generally started or encouraged by Britain.

As we all know, Britain was to soundly defeat Napoléon; of course, they needed many nations, armies and years to do it. But that was not enough: many British seem to enjoy taking false credit for stopping a warmonger, even though heroic Britain started most of the wars.

History is always written by the winners, and Britain as the winner, so general perception of Napoleon is generally the same as how Britain portrayed him at the time, inlcuding the myth that he was short.


1) here was a man who destroyed French democracy and established himself not only as emperor of France but also King of Italy among others

And brought an end to the inquisition in Spain and the religiious persecutions of the Papal states in Italy.


2) France was already a major military power with or without Napoleon as seen by its spectacular success against Europe

Not so. His reform of the French military greatly increased it's effectivness. The conquests he conducted would have been all but impossible by the previous French military forces.


3) Napoleon's France was not alone in its battles I'm sure you know


Actually, for a lot of the time they pretty much were.

More importantly, he gave the Enlightenment in Europe a major foothold, by forcing back the Church and giving a much freeer hand to the thinkers of the time.

And brought an end to the inquisition in Spain and the religiious persecutions of the Papal states in Italy.

And replaced it with racial segregation, particularly in the lands of the Rhine confederation. But I guess one can't be perfect hmm?







More importantly, he gave the Enlightenment in Europe a major foothold, by forcing back the Church and giving a much freeer hand to the thinkers of the time.

I call bullshit. He nigh destroyed the mostly secular states of Holland, Prussia and Saxony.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/Napoleon1.html (it took me bloody ages to find that)

What are you saying? That the wars were Napoléon's fault because he would not use pieces of the French Empire to bribe nations not to attack him?

1) I would not call a constitution that allows a person to rule for life "better"

Ever other major power had a life ruler, and besides, France needed stabilizing, or else continual bickering and in-fighting would lead to more messes like the one which involved Robespierre.

2) if Napoleon was looking for appeasement he would of taken the allies offer and simply proclaimed himself King if he wanted the position


See above.

actually Napoleon was the first to do this on a systematic scale

Okay....

thats a rather shaky claim to make surely?


Certainly arbitrary; it is still my opinion.

no, however the idea that Napoleon was a super general who saved France is folly


He not only saved it, he built into the most powerful nation in the world. He was not merely a good general; he reorganized the army on an incredible level.

actually at the time France created the largest army Europe had ever seen (1,500,000) which dwarfed that of its adversaries who had never seen conscription to the level of Levée en masse

But without much equipment or training. Napoléon asked for horses in a few war concessions, as he originally had "unmounted" cavalry for the most part.



yes, considering it was a major problem for the Royal Navy and a source of considerable drama in the Baltic

"Major problem"? That is an exaggeration, to say the least. I suppose you could call bombarding Copenhagen a "drama", but by that scale a minor land engagement is an "epic".



oh well thats good then because the French government only sought to enrich itself particularly how it went about with the continental blockades economics


What government does not seek to enrich itself? Britain enriched itself by wars costing millions of lives, France enriched itself with a blockade.


Except your ignoring the Holy Roman empire and Holland?


I fear your definition of major power is different than mine.

he was responsible for spurring on the Agricultural revolution to its peak (and no he didn't just sit there he was a farmer King of sorts)

That does not compare with Napoléon's reforms, nor does it justify George III's wars.



it just seems that your being a tad biased in all this

And you are not? Aside: I am not prejudiced.



I suggest using multiple sources and not just one book (use a textbook for these things at least)


How many have you troubled to read for this debate, and how long were they? School textbooks rarely have the detail I need.

Something I find strange on this forum is that users who often accept Wikipedia articles as the voice-of-God, challenge an 800-page book written by expert scholars filled with thousands of citations.

on the European markets that is as the inter-empire trade skyrocketed at this point, the market slowdown was rather caused by 3 years of bad harvest than anything


It would have to be a "bad harvest" of Biblical proportions to cause cotton imports to drop 95%.

I would say the annexation of Western Galicia was the utmost cause of the war rather than trade as it put Alliance troops of Russia doorstep

The cause of what war? The invasion of Russia?

And replaced it with racial segregation, particularly in the lands of the Rhine confederation. But I guess one can't be perfect hmm?


He ended far more segregation than he started. If you did even minimal research before venting your emotional assumptions you would know this.


I call bullshit. He nigh destroyed the mostly secular states of Holland, Prussia and Saxony.

"Destroying", or more properly, incorporating, secular states hardly helps the church. You do know that Napoléon had the Pope put under house-arrest?

He is nothing more then a typical European statesmen.

Not according to me or Goethe.

i think Bonaparte falls into a typical catagory of european statesmen, he enjoys the company of Marcus Aurelius, Theodoric, Charlemagne, Louis The Pious, Maximillian the great, Charles the fifth, Phllip the forth, Frederick the great... the list continues. they all believed that the national instincts of europeans were maleable in the hands of a great man or a great ideal, their theories have reached their apotheosis in the creation of the european union which nearly all nations which are not members assiduously seek membership of.
Napoleon might only object that no one man is autocrat of the european union a dream he held very dear. as an englishman i celebrate his defeat, as a european i thank him for his belief that nationality might be a secondary concern.

He ended far more segregation than he started. If you did even minimal research before venting your emotional assumptions you would know this.

Really? How so? It was his blatant actions against the German populace under his control that led to the birth of German nationalism. You do know the present national colors of the German flag are those that were carried and worn by the German resistance against Napoleon? Or to have wikipedia quote it for me:

the German struggle against the occupying French forces were significantly symbolised by the colours of black, red and gold. This was largely attributed to the uniforms of the Lützow Free Corps, a volunteer unit of the Prussian Army. The uniforms for this unit were black with red facings and gold buttons. The colour choice here was a pragmatic one, even though it was also a popularisation of the former black-red-gold colours used by the Holy Roman Empire.[18] Members of the corps were required to supply their own clothing and, in order to present a uniform appearance, it was easiest to dye all clothes black. Gold-coloured buttons were widely available and pennons used by the lancers in the unit were red and black. At the time, the colours were symbolised as: Out of the darkness (black) of servitude through bloody (red) conflict to the (golden) light of freedom. As the members of this unit came from all over Germany and were mostly university students and academics


It was the sort of backfire effect one sees often enough. Napoleon through his rather dictatorial, segregationist and brutal ways started the pan-germanism movement that sought the unification of all German peoples to ever prevent in future another tyrant from brutalizing the people. Or at least that was the thesis of it from the view of the academics and university students of the time.

Since I'm sure your handy book also states how Napoleon changed the "innocent until guilty" clause to "guilty until innocent." Or the amount of innocent people executed in the German territories since all legal proceedings had to be held in French instead of the native language of the region, leading to most uneducated defendants standing before trial without being able to understand a word.

However history has it's ironies. The one thing Napoleon didn't want, a strong German nation, which was one of his fears and what he saw as a direct security risk to France, bordering France (hence his policies such as ethnic segregationism, splitting up of German states, attempted crippling of the State of Prussia, etc..) solely came about due to his own actions.

No mention of the Crimean War yet?
I'm still struggling to put on my Balaclava.




Boom boom!

Really? How so? It was his blatant actions against the German populace

What are "blatant actions"?

under his control that led to the birth of German nationalism.

Source?

You do know the present national colors of the German flag are those that were carried and worn by the German resistance against Napoleon?

Therefor?

It was the sort of backfire effect one sees often enough. Napoleon through his rather dictatorial, segregationist and brutal ways

Not specific enough. It sounds like you are German to me, and you are merely spouting patriotism.

started the pan-germanism movement that sought the unification of all German peoples to ever prevent in future another tyrant from brutalizing the people.

:p

Or at least that was the thesis of it from the view of the academics and university students of the time.

It is flawed. If Napoléon had kept control over Germany, there would never have been problems like Bismark and Hitler.

Since I'm sure your handy book also states how Napoleon changed the "innocent until guilty" clause to "guilty until innocent." Or the amount of innocent people executed in the German territories since all legal proceedings had to be held in French instead of the native language of the region, leading to most uneducated defendants standing before trial without being able to understand a word.

Source, please.

However history has it's ironies. The one thing Napoleon didn't want, a strong German nation,

Could that be because he did not enjoy being attacked by Germans? I assume you know Prussia was the aggressor....

which was one of his fears and what he saw as a direct security risk to France, bordering France (hence his policies such as ethnic segregationism, splitting up of German states, attempted crippling of the State of Prussia, etc..) solely came about due to his own actions.

The only "segregation" I know of was done to the Jews via ghettos and yellow stars, until Napoléon stepped-in.

The only "segregation" I know of was done to the Jews via ghettos and yellow stars, until Napoléon stepped-in.
Aren't you being a tad... anachronistic here?

Not according to me or Goethe.
History was not among Goethe's strong points.
He not only saved it, he built into the most powerful nation in the world.
Why, then, could he never defeat the Royal Navy, whose actions against French shipping meant that they lost basically all of their colonial imports such as coffee and sugar cane, leading them to have to produce sugar from root vegetables?

Had he led the most powerful nation in the world, this could easily have been stopped.
He was not merely a good general; he reorganized the army on an incredible level.
No question there.
What government does not seek to enrich itself? Britain enriched itself by wars costing millions of lives, France enriched itself with a blockade.
George III's wars cost less lives than those of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Also, France did not enrich itself with a blockade. The blockade had a limited impact on British industry, and led to the wars which Napoleon decisively lost. If the complete destruction of Napoleon's state and army is somehow the 'enrichment' of France, you have an extremely skewed version of history.
That does not compare with Napoléon's reforms
In land? You're right, it was vastly superior.
nor does it justify George III's wars.
You're quite right, that's because it's not particularly related to it.
Something I find strange on this forum is that users who often accept Wikipedia articles as the voice-of-God, challenge an 800-page book written by expert scholars filled with thousands of citations.
Uhu... directly quoted professional historian says the book is full of errors and the writers of the book are directly cited as saying that the work is flawed.

Aye, these statements appear on Wikipedia, but seeing as they're straight from the prospective horses' mouths, and cited as such, I see nothing wrong about this.
It would have to be a "bad harvest" of Biblical proportions to cause cotton imports to drop 95%.
Not really, it would be more 'a bad harvest and also people cutting off their supplies, for example the US'.

From 1809-1815, however, I can assure you that the situation rapidly improved for the UK, as it used Spanish and Portuguese ports, and eventually Russian and even Turkish ports to land in smugglers of goods into Europe, making huge amounts of money in doing so. Happy days for us.

:p

The ironies of history, eh? :D

Source?

History? The general alienation of Germans towards the French. The fact that the French quarter of Berlin which numbered in several hundred thousand as a sign of solidarity as well made the overt effort to speak only German to distance themselves from France and it's foreign policy.



Therefor?

Kind of keys in with resistance against Napoleon being a key facet of German culture and the stated he brought about a strongly nationalist mood in Germany as I previously said?



Not specific enough. It sounds like you are German to me, and you are merely spouting patriotism.

Hardly. And how is it patriotism to state he made a policy of marginalizing a specific people?

:p


The old good in theory, doesn't work in practice. Although to be fair the German Kaisers were never despots, even Wilhelm II was enlightened by the definition of the word.



It is flawed. If Napoléon had kept control over Germany, there would never have been problems like Bismark and Hitler.

How was Bismarck a problem?

And Hitler was also a by product of French foreign policy not particularly German one. It is very doubtful that Hitler would have even gotten near power if there had not been a particular thing called the Versaille treaty, which harsh terms were mostly demanded by....France. Not to play the blame game, but meh, without the emberassing surrender and the democratic goverment being forced to sign the rather lopsided treaty of Versaille (which in the eyes of the common people they never forgave the said democratic government for) the political circumstances for Hitler to come to power would not have taken place.

Also one of the key factors that favored Hitler and extreme right parties at the time was the French occupation of the Ruhr in the 1920s. Generally going into a region, evicting 120,000 people from there homes, murdering a few dozen people through unrestrained police violence, etc.. doesn't get one too cozy with you. It also again undermined the democratic government, which was seen as without a backbone. Of course France eventually pulled out of the Ruhr after enough pressure from England/US.



Source, please.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A06E6DB133DE433A25757C1A9629C94649ED7CF

Or to pick the relevant quotes out of that link for you:



“Guilty until proven innocent” was a precept of the old Civil Law that continued in the Napoleonic Code. Contrasted this “inquisitorial method” with the “adversarial method” of British and American justice (“presumed innocent until proven guilty”),




Could that be because he did not enjoy being attacked by Germans? I assume you know Prussia was the aggressor....


When was France ever attacked by the Germans prior to the Napoleonic era? I can name more than a few examples of France however acting imperial to neighboring German principalities and regions.

The only real issue with Prussia was that France could no longer pillage and rape if it wanted to through the German countryside so much as before, as it had a counterbalance in the region.

I believe the only war where Prussia was the aggressor was the Franco-Prussian war, which was almost 70 years after Napoleon.







The only "segregation" I know of was done to the Jews via ghettos and yellow stars, until Napoléon stepped-in.

I call bullshit. Source it. Prussia is cited as the model of tolerance of the time, I doubt they'd be that if they forced their jewish population to wear yellow stars...

Not according to me or Goethe.

thus far his policies are in line with ever major European power to date.
expand when your powerful. and bitch about others expansion when your not.

History? The general alienation of Germans towards the French. The fact that the French quarter of Berlin which numbered in several hundred thousand as a sign of solidarity as well made the overt effort to speak only German to distance themselves from France and it's foreign policy.

The Germans were patriotic and rivals with the French since before the time of Frederick the Great.

Kind of keys in with resistance against Napoleon being a key facet of German culture and the stated he brought about a strongly nationalist mood in Germany as I previously said?

To blame German nationalism upon Napoléon's occupation would be like blaming Spanish nationalism on his war with the guerrillas.

Hardly. And how is it patriotism to state he made a policy of marginalizing a specific people?

It would not be patriotism if you did not exaggerate so much--perhaps you do not exaggerate in few ways, but your words seem riddled with so many negative adjectives describing the German condition that you sound like a "freedom fighter" yourself.



The old good in theory, doesn't work in practice. Although to be fair the German Kaisers were never despots, even Wilhelm II was enlightened by the definition of the word.

He was decent ruler, but if he was "enlightened", then I would certainly say Napoléon was.


How was Bismarck a problem?

He would not be to a German who loves his nation, any more than Napoléon would be to a like Frenchman. I am just that saying Bismarck was somewhat of an enemy of the working class (you would have to be to abolish minimum wage). For building a strong nation the fellow gets an A+, but I would not say he was kind to his people.


And Hitler was also a by product of French foreign policy not particularly German one. It is very doubtful that Hitler would have even gotten near power if there had not been a particular thing called the Versaille treaty, which harsh terms were mostly demanded by....France. Not to play the blame game, but meh, without the emberassing surrender and the democratic goverment being forced to sign the rather lopsided treaty of Versaille (which in the eyes of the common people they never forgave the said democratic government for) the political circumstances for Hitler to come to power would not have taken place.

Also one of the key factors that favored Hitler and extreme right parties at the time was the French occupation of the Ruhr in the 1920s. Generally going into a region, evicting 120,000 people from there homes, murdering a few dozen people through unrestrained police violence, etc.. doesn't get one too cozy with you. It also again undermined the democratic government, which was seen as without a backbone. Of course France eventually pulled out of the Ruhr after enough pressure from England/US.

Here we concur.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A06E6DB133DE433A25757C1A9629C94649ED7CF

Or to pick the relevant quotes out of that link for you:



“Guilty until proven innocent” was a precept of the old Civil Law that continued in the Napoleonic Code. Contrasted this “inquisitorial method” with the “adversarial method” of British and American justice (“presumed innocent until proven guilty”),

Your point is very well made. However, the did not mention the hundreds of Germans being falsely convicted that you spoke of, nor do I find mention of a German not being allowed to defend himself in court because he does not speak French (which many Germans would at that time). I also noticed the article said that: "It seems now that the Emperor was justified in his own estimate of the code as likely to be the most lasting and the most useful of all the benefits which he bestowed upon France."


When was France ever attacked by the Germans prior to the Napoleonic era?

This debate concerns the Napoleonic era, so let us contend ourselves with that. Not in any of the wars with Prussia was Napoléon at fault. Every single one was declared against him.

I can name more than a few examples of France however acting imperial to neighboring German principalities and regions.

We are speaking about Napoléon's actions, not about the actions of France committed before or after his reign.

The only real issue with Prussia was that France could no longer pillage and rape if it wanted to through the German countryside so much as before, as it had a counterbalance in the region.

No, Prussia thought they could defeat France on their own, and they attempted to invade. That is what started the wars.

"The idea that Prussia could take the field against me by herself, seems so ridiculous that it does not merit discussion." -Napoléon

An arrogant, but truthful statement.

I believe the only war where Prussia was the aggressor was the Franco-Prussian war, which was almost 70 years after Napoleon.


You believe wrong.



I call bullshit. Source it. Prussia is cited as the model of tolerance of the time, I doubt they'd be that if they forced their jewish population to wear yellow stars...

You are correct, there were no Jewish ghettos in Prussia that I know of. But Prussia was not the "model of tolerance". To say that is absurdly nationalistic.

"Napoleon was the only government leader that gave Jews equality when most other nations kept them in bondage. He also abolished the special taxes on Jews in Germany and gave them, for the very first time, civic and political equality. When strong opposition in France manifested itself, Napoleon stood firm in his support of Jewish equality."

http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_jews.html

The Germans were patriotic and rivals with the French since before the time of Frederick the Great.

Hardly. They used to be one nation. Founded by the Germanic chieftain Karl the great (Charlemagne).

Also you use the term Germans. There was no German nation until 1870. There was only the Holy Roman Empire, and when that collapsed there were at one point over 1,600 different sovereign principalities.



To blame German nationalism upon Napoléon's occupation would be like blaming Spanish nationalism on his war with the guerrillas.

Actually no. German nationalism while not taking it's roots in the Napoleonic wars (took it's roots in the 30 years war), certainly exploded in fervor during and after the Napoleonic war. In short Napoleons mistreatment of German proper was the straw that broke the camel's back.

It is kind of telling that even today many of Germany's national symbols are derived from signs of resistance against Napoleon. The official flag, the military flag, the drape of Germania, etc..

I'm sure almost none of Spain's national symbols come from their struggle against Napoleon.

This is in no small part because most of the free German elite, from the liberal university students/academics to the deeply conservative nobles all fought under a united rally. Especially the students and acadamia kept it alive with their more than dramatic poems and colorful descriptions of it.



It would not be patriotism if you did not exaggerate so much--perhaps you do not exaggerate in few ways, but your words seem riddled with so many negative adjectives describing the German condition that you sound like a "freedom fighter" yourself.

My bad then. I just have a penchant for the dramatical, it does sound better with a bit of pepper behind it.


He was decent ruler, but if he was "enlightened", then I would certainly say Napoléon was.

Kind of hard to say. Wilhelm II simply didn't have the stuff needed for an Emperor. His issue was he was at heart an academic, not a ruler. He certainly didn't have much of a taste for war per se, and most of the actions were done because he was smart enough to realise his ignorance with war and left it at the hands of his generals. For the better or worse.

Napoleon on the other hand personally subjugated and went around conquering. He took pleasure in assembling armies and taking in new territories. Also his legacy is a bit mixed in regards to modernization. One can claim he was a liberator of the people if one looks as you said at his laws about Jews or the lower classes in some cases. However then one would have to ignore his rather unbeautiful policies against the Ruhr-Germans in particular.



He would not be to a German who loves his nation, any more than Napoléon would be to a like Frenchman. I am just that saying Bismarck was somewhat of an enemy of the working class (you would have to be to abolish minimum wage). For building a strong nation the fellow gets an A+, but I would not say he was kind to his people.

However is comparing Bismarck to Napoleon a fair comparison? Bismarck couldn't lead an army at all. Bismarck was a politician who excelled at.....politics. The actual intricities of warfare and leading an actual army on the field were beyond him.

Napoleon was arguably a terrible politician. But a genius military tactician. So quite the opposite.

Napoleon should be better compared to the likes of Frederick the Great. Or perhaps loosely to Von Clausewitz.




Your point is very well made. However, the did not mention the hundreds of Germans being falsely convicted that you spoke of, nor do I find mention of a German not being allowed to defend himself in court because he does not speak French (which many Germans would at that time). I also noticed the article said that: "It seems now that the Emperor was justified in his own estimate of the code as likely to be the most lasting and the most useful of all the benefits which he bestowed upon France."

I'll work on finding a link. I admit to seeing it on a documentary. Also they were allowed to defend themselves, but it's kind of hard to defend yourself when you don't have a clue what the judge or prosecution is saying no?

Also very few Germans spoke French. One would think they would, but no. For some reason there is a cultural barrier that made it's spread very weak. Such as the Saarland which has been in totality probably been on and off occupied by the French for over 100 years, no one speaks French.

In Alsace-Lorraine today they at least speak French after over seventy years of heavy suppressing of German culture and forced assimilation to French culture. However the French spoken there is done with mostly German pronounciation and breathing,...which leads to a very interesting accent to say the least.


No, Prussia thought they could defeat France on their own, and they attempted to invade. That is what started the wars.

"The idea that Prussia could take the field against me by herself, seems so ridiculous that it does not merit discussion." -Napoléon

An arrogant, but truthful statement.

All the more the deep irony that the hammer to Napoleons downfall was the Prussian army arriving two days before his estimation of their arrival.

Also I'm sure you know the Prussians defeated the Grande Armeé in German proper and North-Eastern France repeatedly. Battle of Leipzig was one of the bigger ones.

The mistake the Prussians made was to forget their station. Their strength lied in having the best trained military of Imperial Europe. Since early on Frederick the Great realised that Prussia with few natural resources and a low population could not compete against super powers such as France, Sweden or Russia on an attrition basis. Hence the backbone of the Prussians became efficiency. As the Duke of Wellington said after seeing the Prussians, he never saw an army pull such beautiful maneuvers in the heat of battle.

However after their initial humiliation and defeat they returned to their roots as you are bound to know. And followed a policy of attacking the Grand Armeé whereever Napoleon wasn't. Since they knew they were superior to Napoleon's army on a 1:1 basis. Leading them to engage only Napoleons officers who were not in the main contigent and so could not win by sheer mass of numbers. Since the general Prussian consensus was that they were superior to the French army, as it showed by the successful campaigning they were, as long as Napoleon wasn't in the enemy camp leading the army, then it became a risk game.

So meh. In the end the Prussians did more than their part in bringing about Napoleons downfall. Perhaps they were cheap in avoiding large open conflicts, but then again, why purposely put yourself at a disadvantage when you saw it didn't work?

You believe wrong.

My bad.





You are correct, there were no Jewish ghettos in Prussia that I know of. But Prussia was not the "model of tolerance". To say that is absurdly nationalistic.

Hardly. Prussia was a beacon for oppressed minorities before there was the option of emigrating to the US. Over 40,000 French huegnots settled in East Prussia escaping the heavy persecution of France. Again lots more fled to Prussia for asylum during the Reign of Terror.

To quote Frederick the Great:

"All religions are equal and good and as long as those practicing are an honest people and wish to populate our land, may they be Turks or Pagans, we will build them mosques and churches."

This at a time when Europe still remembered the Ottoman attempts of conquest in the 17th century.


"Napoleon was the only government leader that gave Jews equality when most other nations kept them in bondage. He also abolished the special taxes on Jews in Germany and gave them, for the very first time, civic and political equality. When strong opposition in France manifested itself, Napoleon stood firm in his support of Jewish equality."

Simply because one supports one minority does not mean one has the leisure to oppress another.

When Was France Ever Attacked By The Germans Prior To The Napoleonic Era?
409

Hardly. They used to be one nation. Founded by the Germanic chieftain Karl the great (Charlemagne).

That was some time before the Napoleonic Wars...the two were also one nation under the Caesars. Anyway, then, one nation under Charlemagne, one nation under Napoléon.

Also you use the term Germans. There was no German nation until 1870. There was only the Holy Roman Empire, and when that collapsed there were at one point over 1,600 different sovereign principalities.


Yes, I am aware of that fact. Many German states fought against and were occupied by Napoléon, so when I say "Germans", I am referring to people of all of them, though especially to Prussians.

Actually no. German nationalism while not taking it's roots in the Napoleonic wars (took it's roots in the 30 years war), certainly exploded in fervor during and after the Napoleonic war. In short Napoleons mistreatment of German proper was the straw that broke the camel's back.

You might call it "mistreatment", but I would simply attribute the German anger to the fact that they did not like being ruled by a pudgy Italian who wore a large black hat, much less being reminded of the fact by mustache-twirling foreign soldiers carousing about their cities.

It is kind of telling that even today many of Germany's national symbols are derived from signs of resistance against Napoleon. The official flag, the military flag, the drape of Germania, etc..

Germany wanted to lose its imperialistic image after WWII, so a new theme was picked which concerned fighting imperialism.

I'm sure almost none of Spain's national symbols come from their struggle against Napoleon.

But the Spanish did not have to completely purge their national symbols.

This is in no small part because most of the free German elite, from the liberal university students/academics to the deeply conservative nobles all fought under a united rally. Especially the students and acadamia kept it alive with their more than dramatic poems and colorful descriptions of it.

Some fine poetry. Of course, after the Napoleonic Wars, a youth generation emerged in Germany who idealized Napoléon for building the universities they were graduated at, which did much to irk their parents, who had spent years fighting Napoléon. And, of course, there were other German (http://www.theatrehistory.com/german/goethe008.html)s who liked Napoléon.


My bad then. I just have a penchant for the dramatical, it does sound better with a bit of pepper behind it.

Ah, my lad, now you are mingling the spice of poetry with the sauce of debate.


Kind of hard to say. Wilhelm II simply didn't have the stuff needed for an Emperor. His issue was he was at heart an academic, not a ruler. He certainly didn't have much of a taste for war per se, and most of the actions were done because he was smart enough to realise his ignorance with war and left it at the hands of his generals. For the better or worse.

Marcus Aurelius.

Napoleon on the other hand personally subjugated and went around conquering. He took pleasure in assembling armies and taking in new territories.

What ruler did not back then? Except Napoléon did not start the wars he fought. So how ever much we may enjoy hating him for winning so many of them, he is not the blame for the bloodshed.

Also his legacy is a bit mixed in regards to modernization. One can claim he was a liberator of the people if one looks as you said at his laws about Jews or the lower classes in some cases. However then one would have to ignore his rather unbeautiful policies against the Ruhr-Germans in particular.

I would say as far as a "conquerer" goes, Napoléon was fairly kind to any people he subjugated. However, if we turn back the clock to before Napoléon ruled France, when he was but a general, we see some nasty spots on his reputation concerning Italy, particularly with plundering, and with his very harsh reaction to Pavia during an uprising. Since the Italian campaign, I know of no instance in which Napoléon repeated these measures, though his general, Murat, came close in Spain.

However is comparing Bismarck to Napoleon a fair comparison? Bismarck couldn't lead an army at all. Bismarck was a politician who excelled at.....politics. The actual intricities of warfare and leading an actual army on the field were beyond him.

Naturally. I am simply comparing the two on how they treated their subjects. Though Bismarck was rude to his people, he was successful in his national endeavors, which Napoléon was not; this is one reason people will cherish Bismarck as a ruler more

Napoleon was arguably a terrible politician. But a genius military tactician. So quite the opposite.

Napoléon studied an awful lot of Machiavelli....

Napoleon should be better compared to the likes of Frederick the Great. Or perhaps loosely to Von Clausewitz.

He was a great admirer of Frederick's, and Von Clausewitz used him as a source for his book.

I'll work on finding a link. I admit to seeing it on a documentary. Also they were allowed to defend themselves, but it's kind of hard to defend yourself when you don't have a clue what the judge or prosecution is saying no?

Yes. But though it may not be out of Napoléon's character, it seems strange that he would ship French judges out to maintain German provinces.

Also very few Germans spoke French. One would think they would, but no. For some reason there is a cultural barrier that made it's spread very weak. Such as the Saarland which has been in totality probably been on and off occupied by the French for over 100 years, no one speaks French.

In Alsace-Lorraine today they at least speak French after over seventy years of heavy suppressing of German culture and forced assimilation to French culture. However the French spoken there is done with mostly German pronounciation and breathing,...which leads to a very interesting accent to say the least.


During Napoléon's time, French was a much more widespread language. It was also the only language Frederick I would allow Frederick II (the Great) to learn besides German. Of course, many Germans probably ceased speaking French when they grew irritated with hearing it from the mouth of an occupying army,




All the more the deep irony that the hammer to Napoleons downfall was the Prussian army arriving two days before his estimation of their arrival.

Also I'm sure you know the Prussians defeated the Grande Armeé in German proper and North-Eastern France repeatedly. Battle of Leipzig was one of the bigger ones.

The mistake the Prussians made was to forget their station. Their strength lied in having the best trained military of Imperial Europe. Since early on Frederick the Great realised that Prussia with few natural resources and a low population could not compete against super powers such as France, Sweden or Russia on an attrition basis. Hence the backbone of the Prussians became efficiency. As the Duke of Wellington said after seeing the Prussians, he never saw an army pull such beautiful maneuvers in the heat of battle.

However after their initial humiliation and defeat they returned to their roots as you are bound to know. And followed a policy of attacking the Grand Armeé whereever Napoleon wasn't. Since they knew they were superior to Napoleon's army on a 1:1 basis. Leading them to engage only Napoleons officers who were not in the main contigent and so could not win by sheer mass of numbers. Since the general Prussian consensus was that they were superior to the French army, as it showed by the successful campaigning they were, as long as Napoleon wasn't in the enemy camp leading the army, then it became a risk game.

So meh. In the end the Prussians did more than their part in bringing about Napoleons downfall. Perhaps they were cheap in avoiding large open conflicts, but then again, why purposely put yourself at a disadvantage when you saw it didn't work?


The Prussians were decisive in defeating Napoléon. I would say that next to Russia (due to the incredible blow it dealt Napoléon in 1812), Prussia did the most to topple Napoléon's empire. How they did it is of no consequence; one does not allow the idea of "fairness" to take precedence over the destiny of one's nation.

The main reason Napoléon was so successful against them before is because Prussia still used tactics from the time of Frederick the Great, which was later to change.

My bad.

It is not an unimportant fact.

Hardly. Prussia was a beacon for oppressed minorities before there was the option of emigrating to the US. Over 40,000 French huegnots settled in East Prussia escaping the heavy persecution of France. Again lots more fled to Prussia for asylum during the Reign of Terror.

To quote Frederick the Great:

"All religions are equal and good and as long as those practicing are an honest people and wish to populate our land, may they be Turks or Pagans, we will build them mosques and churches."

This at a time when Europe still remembered the Ottoman attempts of conquest in the 17th century.


Russia had become less tolerant since the reign of Peter the Great, and Prussia may have lost some of its tolerance since the time of Frederick the Great and the earlier Thirty Years War.

Simply because one supports one minority does not mean one has the leisure to oppress another.

Of course not. But I would still appreciate a source on how Napoléon specifically oppressed the Germans as a race.

The British responded that there would be no peace unless (against the will of the French people) the Royalists were restored to power.
As we all know, Britain was to soundly defeat Napoléon; of course, they needed many nations, armies and years to do it. But that was not enough: many British seem to enjoy taking false credit for stopping a warmonger, even though heroic Britain started most of the wars.

Royalty provides stability in 18th Century Europe. You can't marry into presidencies.

If We Start a War to defeat a bad person, how does that make us bad?

Royalty provides stability in 18th Century Europe.
Ummmm...

French Revolution? Rakoczi, Cossack and (multiple) Jacobin Rebellions? Russo-Turkish War? Wars of the Spanish, Polish and Austrian successions? Seven Years' War?

18th century Europe was hardly stable.

Parkus, I'd still love to know why you think that the Continental System enriched France, despite causing a loss of exports for the French and the wars which ended Napoleon's reign, something you've yet to address.

Or, indeed, how the most powerful nation on earth couldn't defeat the navy of a 'lesser' rival, and in doing so lost almost all trade with its colonies.

Napoléon studied an awful lot of Machiavelli....
And I've studied a lot of Shakespeare. This doesn't make me a genius playwright. Nor does studying a lot of John le Carré's work make me a fantastic writer of spy tales.

Might help with a bit of background. But that's about it. Real skill needs genuine practise, you know. Something a poor Corsican-turned-French-General did not actually have.

Parkus, I'd still love to know why you think that the Continental System enriched France, despite causing a loss of exports for the French and the wars which ended Napoleon's reign, something you've yet to address.

Or, indeed, how the most powerful nation on earth couldn't defeat the navy of a 'lesser' rival, and in doing so lost almost all trade with its colonies.

The Continental System would enrich France in theory. I was merely rebuffing the statement that the French government was out for itself with blockade, by saying that Britain was out for itself with the wars too, but the blockade cost fewer lives.

As for "lesser", I meant as far as army, territory and general political influence goes. I have no doubt that Britain had a navy far superior to Napoléon's.

And I've studied a lot of Shakespeare. This doesn't make me a genius playwright. Nor does studying a lot of John le Carré's work make me a fantastic writer of spy tales.

Might help with a bit of background. But that's about it. Real skill needs genuine practise, you know. Something a poor Corsican-turned-French-General did not actually have.

Is installing yourself as head of the government, writing a new code of laws, crowning yourself emperor, than setting-up alliance with Russia, Prussia and Austria considered "practice"?

Royalty provides stability in 18th Century Europe. You can't marry into presidencies.

France was very stable under Napoléon.

If We Start a War to defeat a bad person, how does that make us bad?

If one asks: how was Napoléon bad? a rejoinder might be: "he started wars that killed millions." But since it was Britain which did that, you will have to explain to me your definition of "bad".

What are you saying? That the wars were Napoléon's fault because he would not use pieces of the French Empire to bribe nations not to attack him?

1) it debunks your claim that Britain was only content with a French Monarchy

2) it debunks your claim that Napoleon destroyed Frances democracy in a method of appeasement (which is funny in itself I mean come on:p)

3) this was during November 1813 all was already lost and the mans delusions that he could somehow defeat the world is the only reasonable explanation of why he didn't take it (especially as it gave all that France had ever wanted) which I guess is backed up by how he failed to kill himself because he thought he would need extra poison

Ever other major power had a life ruler, and besides, France needed stabilizing, or else continual bickering and in-fighting would lead to more messes like the one which involved Robespierre.

1) America?
2) France was more than capable of operating under the government of the time but its regardless as Napoleon had absolutely no justification to create a dictatorship when the governments issues could of been resolved by reform

Okay....

your not going to defend his creation of systematic plundering of national treasures?

Certainly arbitrary; it is still my opinion.

isn't it hard on your relationship what with him being dead?

He not only saved it, he built into the most powerful nation in the world. He was not merely a good general; he reorganized the army on an incredible level.

yet I have never heard of the battle where Napoleon walked out into the field naked and single handedly defeated the armies of Europe

But without much equipment or training. Napoléon asked for horses in a few war concessions, as he originally had "unmounted" cavalry for the most part.

yes and its those numbers which allowed Napoleon to establish France as the dominant mainland European power as opposed to the pitiful display that was given by his Navy

"Major problem"? That is an exaggeration, to say the least. I suppose you could call bombarding Copenhagen a "drama", but by that scale a minor land engagement is an "epic".

Denmark's involvement removed British involvement in the Baltic along with causing significant logistical trouble to any British efforts in Northern Europe

What government does not seek to enrich itself? Britain enriched itself by wars costing millions of lives, France enriched itself with a blockade.

normally governments don't arm twist allies into disastrous treaties

I fear your definition of major power is different than mine.

thats weird because I seem to remember these being major obstacles for France

That does not compare with Napoléon's reforms, nor does it justify George III's wars.

ah yes what would a silly thing like the final transition from agricultural revolution to industrial impact upon the future of the world!:rolleyes:

And you are not? Aside: I am not prejudiced.

I wouldn't say I'm all that biased unlike say if I had just read a book and was trumpeting its findings as proof that we British go about poking fun at Napoleon all day

How many have you troubled to read for this debate, and how long were they? School textbooks rarely have the detail I need.

1) about 4 which is more than 1 :)
2) average textbook length I usually find to be about 200 pages
3) I'm sorry but your trying to sell me a book again

Something I find strange on this forum is that users who often accept Wikipedia articles as the voice-of-God, challenge an 800-page book written by expert scholars filled with thousands of citations.

1) thats because Wiki has quality control and a dedication to avoid bias
2) your using the term scholar rather liberally aren't you
3) I'm sorry but judging somethings merit by size would make my penis worthless

and finally I must settle on how ridicules it is to tell people to go read a 800 page book which is like me asking NL to read Green alternatives to globalization

It would have to be a "bad harvest" of Biblical proportions to cause cotton imports to drop 95%.

its Britain and cotton

The cause of what war? The invasion of Russia?

no, Russia falling out with Napoleon

France was very stable under Napoléon.



If one asks: how was Napoléon bad? a rejoinder might be: "he started wars that killed millions." But since it was Britain which did that, you will have to explain to me your definition of "bad".

Yeah, until the whole, oh whats it called, Collapse of Empire thing.

In this case: Person who creates an Empire that cannot sustain itself and without proper thought to colonialisation, native populations, or peace.

...

As for "lesser", I meant as far as army, territory and general political influence goes. I have no doubt that Britain had a navy far superior to Napoléon's.
Not debating anything here, but I thought this was interesting:

"Napoleon instituted a large scale shipbuilding program that produced a fleet of 80 ships of the line at the time of his fall from power in 1814, with more building. In comparison Britain had 99 ships of the line in active commission in 1814, and this was close to the maximum that could be supported. Given a few more years, the French could have realised their plans to commission 150 ships of the line and again challenge the Royal Navy, compensating for the inferiority of their crews with sheer numbers.

For almost 10 years after Trafalgar the Royal Navy maintained close blockade of French bases and anxiously observed the growth of the French fleet. In the end, Napoleon's Empire was destroyed before the ambitious buildup could be completed."

Richard Glover, The French Fleet, 1807-1814; Britain's Problem; and Madison's Opportunity, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 39, No. 3. (Sep., 1967), pp. 233-252. (but found on wikipedia... ofcourse)

That was some time before the Napoleonic Wars...the two were also one nation under the Caesars. Anyway, then, one nation under Charlemagne, one nation under Napoléon.

Actually no. The Romans were forced to stop their expansion at the Rhine. There was a certain man called Arminius who is known as the father of the German people, he delivered the greatest single loss ever inflicted upon the Romans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

The Romans then sent north 100,000 men, which after a seven year campaign were also defeated by Arminius. All at the height of Roman power mind you.

But the actual point behind this is, that for reasons above the collective of Germanic tribes never fell under Roman dominionship.



Yes, I am aware of that fact. Many German states fought against and were occupied by Napoléon, so when I say "Germans", I am referring to people of all of them, though especially to Prussians.


Fair enough. The word "German" in itself is a tricky word. By technicality meant ethnically it would mean all peoples descended from the Germanic tribes, which would be most of Scandinavia, Benelux, most of France, northern Italy, parts of Spain, definitely Austria.

But today the term "German" is generally used to designate citizens or people of the nation that is called Germany. This is further confused by people from the country of Germany calling themselves "deutsche" and their country "deutscheland." But by ethnicity are "Germanen," which is why Hitler used the term "Greater Germania" which in turn means a nation consisting of all Germanic peoples (see list of countries above again) not just of "deutsche."

It is also this which caused an issue when the Kaiser was crowned in 1870, his original title was to be Kaiser of the Germans. But several other nations (notably Austria) cried foul at that notion since they thought it meant he was also laying claim to their respective nations. Leading him through political pressure to take the lesser title of The German Kaiser.

But to the original point. When one uses the word "German" before there was a German nation as was created in 1870....one runs into nitpicky issues. Since by technicality most Frenchmans were Germans too by definition of the ethnic term. Hence at the time Prussians calling themselves Prussians, Saxons calling themselves Saxons, etc..


You might call it "mistreatment", but I would simply attribute the German anger to the fact that they did not like being ruled by a pudgy Italian who wore a large black hat, much less being reminded of the fact by mustache-twirling foreign soldiers carousing about their cities.

Probably that. But I'm sure his attempts to push French law and culture down their throats didn't help one bit. Then annexing German states into the French Empire simply so to send young German men per conscription into his army, yeah. I can see why that is bound to upset more than just a few.

Forcing men into conscription to fight their own brothers is not exactly too humane by any standards. It's almost a forced civil war. As well, since one couldn't duck out conscription, if you didn't attend the "musterung" or deserted at first opportunity you tended to get executed for treason.


Germany wanted to lose its imperialistic image after WWII, so a new theme was picked which concerned fighting imperialism.

You mean WW1. The current flag was also the flag of the shortlived Weimar Republic.

But the Spanish did not have to completely purge their national symbols.

True.



Some fine poetry. Of course, after the Napoleonic Wars, a youth generation emerged in Germany who idealized Napoléon for building the universities they were graduated at, which did much to irk their parents, who had spent years fighting Napoléon. And, of course, there were other German (http://www.theatrehistory.com/german/goethe008.html)s who liked Napoléon.


And today 1 out of every 2 German youths out of East Germany and 1 out of every 3 out of West Germany under 25 believes there were more positive sides to the Third Reich and Hitler's regime than negative sides.

Following generations have a trend of enthusiastically embracing that which their parents abhor.









Marcus Aurelius.

Come again?



What ruler did not back then? Except Napoléon did not start the wars he fought. So how ever much we may enjoy hating him for winning so many of them, he is not the blame for the bloodshed.


Following that technicality Hitler did not start wars either. Since France and England declared war on Germany...Also since the German minority was being actively oppressed in Poland (Danzig question, riots of Eastern Silesia, etc..) he had a flimsy causus belli to liberate (a bit strong to say liberate in this case to use perhaps, but close enough) his own countrymen, that is often now overlooked. But a large part of the quick Polish loss in the war was that in the Western areas of Poland roughly 1/3rd of the population was German, in many regions they lived in purely german enclaves, which led to German militias forming and attacking Polish supply trains from behind.


I would say as far as a "conquerer" goes, Napoléon was fairly kind to any people he subjugated. However, if we turn back the clock to before Napoléon ruled France, when he was but a general, we see some nasty spots on his reputation concerning Italy, particularly with plundering, and with his very harsh reaction to Pavia during an uprising. Since the Italian campaign, I know of no instance in which Napoléon repeated these measures, though his general, Murat, came close in Spain.

Napoleon was certainly no Genghis Khan. However he fails when compared to men such as Frederick the Great.



Naturally. I am simply comparing the two on how they treated their subjects. Though Bismarck was rude to his people, he was successful in his national endeavors, which Napoléon was not; this is one reason people will cherish Bismarck as a ruler more

Bismarck had no subjects. He was a minor noble, he was a statesman who led affairs in the name of house Hohenzollern who ruled Prussia.



Napoléon studied an awful lot of Machiavelli....

Smart man.


He was a great admirer of Frederick's, and Von Clausewitz used him as a source for his book.

Most would be admirers of Frederick. At least those without a personal agenda.


Yes. But though it may not be out of Napoléon's character, it seems strange that he would ship French judges out to maintain German provinces.


There were French judges shipped to the annexed parts of Germany, as there were French everything shipped off to there. As there was an active policy of trying to Franconize everything per se.

However mostly, the upper class, who would be the lawyers and judges could speak French. Most of the lower and middle class could not. This led to the fact that a court proceeding held in French as was mandated by law, could lead to issues if the defendant could not afford a lawyer who spoke French and if he himself could not speak French.



During Napoléon's time, French was a much more widespread language. It was also the only language Frederick I would allow Frederick II (the Great) to learn besides German. Of course, many Germans probably ceased speaking French when they grew irritated with hearing it from the mouth of an occupying army,

Difference. Nobles learned it since France was a major power and political force. Most farmmen or town workers who were born and died probably not 15 miles apart of those two events at most probably couldn't care less about French.






The Prussians were decisive in defeating Napoléon. I would say that next to Russia (due to the incredible blow it dealt Napoléon in 1812), Prussia did the most to topple Napoléon's empire. How they did it is of no consequence; one does not allow the idea of "fairness" to take precedence over the destiny of one's nation.

I agree. Russia definitely caused the most damage to Napoleon.

The main reason Napoléon was so successful against them before is because Prussia still used tactics from the time of Frederick the Great, which was later to change.


Agreed.






Russia had become less tolerant since the reign of Peter the Great, and Prussia may have lost some of its tolerance since the time of Frederick the Great and the earlier Thirty Years War.

If so there is no mention of it. So I'll simply assume the status remained the same.

The Continental System would enrich France in theory.
No, it wouldn't. Embargoes against countries with a far greater capacity for production than yourself are always going to fail and lead to your own downfall.
I was merely rebuffing the statement that the French government was out for itself with blockade
Actually, the French government was very much out for itself with the blockade, seeing as it wanted to fill the gap left by British industry, and taxed non-French goods in its own economic area in an effort to improve its own standing, which just led to even more money being made by British and Neutral smugglers, especially when the French government tried to charge for the privilege.
by saying that Britain was out for itself with the wars too
Yep.
but the blockade cost fewer lives.
The blockade caused almost every French conflict after the Berlin Decree.
As for "lesser", I meant as far as army, territory and general political influence goes. I have no doubt that Britain had a navy far superior to Napoléon's.
When you can't reach your overseas territories, and cannot actually grab any new land with your army, and have the world's premier economic force as an enemy, then all of those things come to nothing.
Is installing yourself as head of the government, writing a new code of laws, crowning yourself emperor, than setting-up alliance with Russia, Prussia and Austria considered "practice"?
Seeing as almost all of those things fell through, looks like he did a bit of a piss poor job regarding politics to me.

No, it wouldn't. Embargoes against countries with a far greater capacity for production than yourself are always going to fail and lead to your own downfall.

It was working, albeit, less than half as effectively as Nappy wanted it to. Many British economists actually were demanding the government to make peace with Napoléon.


Actually, the French government was very much out for itself with the blockade, seeing as it wanted to fill the gap left by British industry, and taxed non-French goods in its own economic area in an effort to improve its own standing, which just led to even more money being made by British and Neutral smugglers, especially when the French government tried to charge for the privilege.

Yes.

Yep.

The blockade caused almost every French conflict after the Berlin Decree.


I think not. Britain would not be happy until Napoléon was defeated. That very persistence caused him to eventually put-up the blockade. The persistence merely continued through the years.

When you can't reach your overseas territories, and cannot actually grab any new land with your army,

Unlike Britain, France may have had better goals than grabbing land with their army.

and have the world's premier economic force as an enemy, then all of those things come to nothing.

One premier economic force versus the entire economy of Europe.

Seeing as almost all of those things fell through, looks like he did a bit of a piss poor job regarding politics to me.

"Things fell through" with Cesare Borgia too, yet he is Machiavelli's model of a perfect ruler.

Ah we can blame the british for sooooo many wars....

100 years war
Napoleonic wars
WWI
WWII

All the colonial era wars

etc..

Napoleon was no pacifist... neither were the english who stop him.

Ah we can blame the british for sooooo many wars....

100 years war
Napoleonic wars
WWI
WWII

All the colonial era wars

etc..

Napoleon was no pacifist... neither were the english who stop him. Nearly all countries have started wars, Great Britain , being the supreme world power for 100 years and a regional power since the middle ages will naturally have started more than most. We have won most of them, which is defiantly a good thing.

Nearly all countries have started wars, Great Britain , being the supreme world power for 100 years and a regional power since the middle ages will naturally have started more than most. We have won most of them, which is defiantly a good thing.

No... its a relly relly bad thing... you need to lose more often, like in iraq. srsly

No... its a relly relly bad thing... you need to lose more often, like in iraq. srsly Im guessing your not British. cos srsly if u think losin war is good thing, ur idiot.

Im guessing your not British. cos srsly if u think losin war is good thing, ur idiot.

YOU need to lose more wars.... not US. We have lost enough already.

YOU need to lose more wars.... not US. We have lost enough already. Well who are you?

Well who are you?

Im Santiago the First

I come from a country were only wars that we have ever won were civil wars.

But we have had SO many of those!!!!

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

Im Santiago the First

I come from a country were only wars that we have ever won were civil wars.

But we have had SO many of those!!!!

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5: An African country?

An African country?

Nope, latin america.

Nope, latin america. Ah right, well I don’t know much about Latin America. But the UK winning or losing wars, I suspect, has had not much of an effect on your country. France, Span or the USA however, that’s a different story.

But most of the wars we have won were to make ourselves more powerful, which I like. To stop the bad guys, like WW2. Or to defend the little guys, like Belgium. Oh and don’t forget defence, such as the Falkland wars.

It was working, albeit, less than half as effectively as Nappy wanted it to. Many British economists actually were demanding the government to make peace with Napoléon.
Many? That's what wiki would call a "bullshit phrase" or something. How many?
Yes.
And yet you claim that France's aim was not to enrich itself...
I think not. Britain would not be happy until Napoléon was defeated. That very persistence caused him to eventually put-up the blockade. The persistence merely continued through the years.
The Continental System cost Napoleon his ownership of France, and then finally cost France all it had won under him, full stop.
Unlike Britain, France may have had better goals than grabbing land with their army.
Did Britain demand a puppet regime in France after Waterloo? No.

Did France demand a puppet regime in almost every state of Europe it conquered? Yes.
One premier economic force versus the entire economy of Europe.
The entire economy of Europe... outside of Russia, Spain and Portugal, all of which were pretty important at the time.
"Things fell through" with Cesare Borgia too, yet he is Machiavelli's model of a perfect ruler.
Uhu. Machiavelli is not perfect, you know, just like Goethe and your Quebecois philosophers you seem to take as the be-all and end-all of historical research.

Aye, their books are very broad and quite interesting. But then so's Kazakhstan, and I wouldn't want it.

Ah we can blame the british for sooooo many wars....WWII
I was unaware that British tanks rolled into Poland in September 1939...

I was unaware that British tanks rolled into Poland in September 1939...
Good God!

They didn't!?

Napoleon wasn't even that good a general. Damn near the only think he made different in this respect was the idea that one ought to deploy artillery in batteries rather than as an addition to infantry battalions. Bar that, the bugger was unimaginative, although he did admittedly kick arse across Europe, primarily because he was fighting against crappy conscripts.

Yes, I am aware of that fact. Many German states fought against and were occupied by Napoléon, so when I say "Germans", I am referring to people of all of them, though especially to Prussians.

Though some were also be allied to him throughout the whole wars.
The Herzogtum Berg, a major player in Western Germany, is one example of it.

You might call it "mistreatment", but I would simply attribute the German anger to the fact that they did not like being ruled by a pudgy Italian who wore a large black hat, much less being reminded of the fact by mustache-twirling foreign soldiers carousing about their cities.

We should also not forgot that the Napoleonic armies were welcomed with open arms and welcome celebrations in some German states.

The French were far from as unpopular as Cybach claims.

Germany wanted to lose its imperialistic image after WWII, so a new theme was picked which concerned fighting imperialism.

The Black-Red-Gold colors are actually more tied to German Liberalism than to anti-Imperialism in Germany. That was the reason why it had been chosen.

During Napoléon's time, French was a much more widespread language. It was also the only language Frederick I would allow Frederick II (the Great) to learn besides German. Of course, many Germans probably ceased speaking French when they grew irritated with hearing it from the mouth of an occupying army,

Not true. French was still popular in the Western part of Germany till the Third Reich and, in contrast to English, regarded as a pivotal part of higher education.

As a side-note, the Napoleonic law, which according to Cybach had been forced down our throats was not only be regarded as a major improvement to the conditions before by the people of the time, but was also used unaltered in some German territories until 1900.
In some parts of it even longer. The last part of it had been abolished in 1979 in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
The Code Civil was considered the most advanced code of law of its time.

To Tagmatium:

Napoleon is considered one of the greatest military leaders of all-time. His tactics weren't totally foolproof but he was still a genius. He didn't just rely on his troops to win the battle, he relied on his presence to inspire them. He rarely ever committed his troops to certain death, unlike many other leaders *Cough*Zhukov*cough*.
And other European forces weren't crappy conscripts. Their armies were just smaller as Napoleon revolutionised warfare with conscription in France, so the opposite of your statement is true.


To Santiago:

Why would it make sense for Britain to lose in Iraq. So that sect violence can continue to thrive in highly populated areas and Kurds can continue to be bullied by everyone else in the Middle-East? I admit it is Britain's fault for a lot of the violence in the Middle-East, but do you not realise that by winning the war in Iraq it would end a lot of the violence?


what has the world come to?:headbang:

Napoleon wasn't even that good a general.
Aye, he was.
Damn near the only think he made different in this respect was the idea that one ought to deploy artillery in batteries rather than as an addition to infantry battalions.
This is a pretty important doctrinal change, to be quite honest.
Bar that, the bugger was unimaginative
So were us Brits, so was everybody. Only so much you can do when you only have three combat arms instead of about seven.
although he did admittedly kick arse across Europe, primarily because he was fighting against crappy conscripts.
He was largely fighting with 'crappy conscripts'. One of the only countries in Europe to have a small standing army was us. And that's because we knew we weren't going to be invaded. Everyone else used load of militiamen, with a small, mobile and professional core, because that was the most cost-effective way of protecting their landmass.

We should also not forgot that the Napoleonic armies were welcomed with open arms and welcome celebrations in some German states.

That they were and I won't refute it. But that is simply also because of the high amount of pressure from the surrounding German States. The powerhouses of Prussia, Saxony and Bavaria were also domineering in their attitudes towards the weaker surrounding states, attempting to bring them into their fold.

However in the end, quite a few of the German states that originally supported Napoleon did realize they simply traded one set of oppressors for another one.


The French were far from as unpopular as Cybach claims.

Depends on the region I suppose.



The Black-Red-Gold colors are actually more tied to German Liberalism than to anti-Imperialism in Germany. That was the reason why it had been chosen.

Actually to German Romanticism, but close enough.


Not true. French was still popular in the Western part of Germany till the Third Reich and, in contrast to English, regarded as a pivotal part of higher education.

Really? I thought they were insanely unpopular after their occupation of the Ruhr in the 1920s, enough that it cost several Frenchman living in the Ruhr their lives...

That is nothing new. Same with the English in WW1. Considering the Kaiser was already pushing for peace talks in early 1915 for a diplomatic way out of the mess. Well not the Kaiser himself personally, but one of his aides on his majesties requests. Yet WW1 was proclaimed to be the fault of the German nation by clause of Versaille, despite Austria starting the war and the Serb province being the provocateur.

Sorry, we claim all credit for Winning World Wars...we might give England our leftovers or let them have some of our planes or something, lol...

When you can't reach your overseas territories, and cannot actually grab any new land with your army, and have the world's premier economic force as an enemy, then all of those things come to nothing.
You're wrong. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796798&postcount=56)

Sorry, we claim all credit for Winning World Wars...we might give England our leftovers or let them have some of our planes or something, lol... What a cock lol. But seriously, Americans seem to forget the Commonwealth lost around 1,000,000 men during WW1, and that was only 16% of total casualties. Whereas they only lost 116,000 men. All the money and equipment in the world won’t bring those men lost back.

You're wrong. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796798&postcount=56)
No, I'm not. They didn't build those ships, and their navy was fucking crap compared to ours. So we were the greater power, on account of our force projection across the world, rather than to other nations on the same continent.

Sorry, we claim all credit for Winning World Wars...
You personally didn't do shit, so you can't claim shit.

And neither can any poster on NS:G; I don't recall any WW1/WW2 vets posting here.

You personally didn't do shit, so you can't claim shit.

And neither can any poster on NS:G; I don't recall any WW1/WW2 vets posting here.

lol, you do realize that was a joke right?

And, more to the point, I meant the USofA not Me Personally, and i was just commenting on the use of the word "World War" lol...

Hell, all we did in the Napoleonic Wars(yes WWI and WWII did not encompass Napoleon, shocking i know) was buy Louisiana to fund old Bonaparte's War effort, lol...

though he was a great general one the best he did take a credit for a few battles that he totaled messed up and that where saved by somebody else i.e. Marengo which was won by Desiax not Napoleon

A thread about Napoleon? These are always interesting, although the common trend is either to belittle him or claim he was a god. One thing I noted though is the fact that some people really need to check their sources more.

For example: In regards to Napoleon as a leader people may huff and puff, it won't change the fact that France and its people rejoiced when Napoleon returned from his first exile or that any confirmed suspicions about the emperor being poisoned in his second exile would have cause another war (He was), because that's how loved Napoleon was. Regarding the attitude the Germans had towards him, like it or not some of the best troops he had in 1813~1814 were Germans. And there's plenty along these lines that can be commented upon.

On the other hand, Napoleon was only one man, he had his limitations and sometimes he wasn't as you'd expect him to be, he had a lot of skilful generals at his command, many of them obtaining victories that surpassed even Napoleons in those wars, however his skill as a general isn't to be joked about.

Frankly I don't place a lot of faith in French, British or even German authors when they talk about Napoleon, the first have a tendency to inflate a bit or catch only certain aspects (They even went as far as denying proof about Napoleon's death, that's not exactly a good recommendation for them as historians), the others have that subtle influence of the anti Napoleonic feeling to interfere with their works. Russians are surprisingly accurate, until you get to his dealings with Russia that is, but that may be because they hated everyone the same (or not) and Sweeds are interesting to read if you can get a hand on their manuscripts.

Depends on the region I suppose.

True, but your statements were far to general.



Actually to German Romanticism, but close enough.
Nope, to German Liberalism in the modern German conception.

The German polititian of this time Ludwig Bergsträsser, for example said about the choice of those colours:

"Die Tradition von Schwarz-Rot-Gold ist Einheit und Freiheit. Diese Flagge soll uns als Symbol gelten, daß die Freiheitsidee, die Idee der persönlichen Freiheit, eine der Grundlagen unseres zukünftigen Staates sein soll."

"The tradition of Black-Red-Gold is Unity and Liberty. This Flag should tell us that the idea of Liberty, the idea of individual Liberty, shall be a foundation of nation to-be.

But you are right in the notion that German Romanticism is closely tied to German Liberalism.

Really? I thought they were insanely unpopular after their occupation of the Ruhr in the 1920s, enough that it cost several Frenchman living in the Ruhr their lives...

Granted, the Ruhr-occupation gave a blow to the French popularity, but this was well after Napoleon. Napoleon himself remained quite popular around here till today.

This can not be said about Prussia.

Hell, all we did in the Napoleonic Wars was buy Louisiana to fund old Bonaparte's War effort, lol...
War of 1812 much?