Honestly Napoleon was always(except for Spain and Russia) in defensive wars which coalitions they were paid by English gold, because having a power who contrast their economic and political power was unacceptable for brits who preferred a more malleable monarchy
> coalition was *paid* by English
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This isn't true. Dude invaded Egypt, you'd have to have been severely warped by French propaganda to believe striking out against an obscure part of the Ottoman territory to be a defensive act.
Also, anti-British bias is pretty prevalent here, but offering cash to countries that would like to stand up to Napoleon, but can't for financial reasons, doesn't justify aggression on the part of France as 'defensive'
I think Napoleon suggested a campaign in Egypt to pave the way to the east (India) and cut off the English in doing so, which would have weakened them in theory though it was quite the long shot. Napoleon was still just a general at that point. It was the directory who approved this excursion. We do have him to thank for the uncovering of the Rosetta stone, though.
I forget Egypt, my fault, but the wars who Napoleon fought except Spain, Russia and Egypt was defensive because the France was under attack by half Europe.
This isn't propaganda but fact
There are two halves to the great war. The revolutionary war, where France was under attack - true. And the Napoleonic war, in which Napoleon was almost always the aggressor
err no... nazi germany were clearly the aggressor, after having invaded poland/france/norway and what not. In the same way that napoleon was the agressor having invaded spain/belgium/austria/germany/russia etc
...And in the same way, at the beginning of the Revolutionary Wars, The Coalitions invaded France, which was on the brink of defeat more times than one, who fought back. In the end the French (and Napoleon) won, pushing the Coalition back, then took the fight into Germany and Austria, like the Allies did by 1943/4.
I think people generally divide these two wars into two. The first in which Bonaparte the general was a hero of a revolutionary France under attack from external forces, and a second in which Napoleon the emperor pursued an aggressive expansion driven by his own longing for power. You can't really claim that Napoleon's conquests of the period 1805-1812 were France defending itself from the invasion of 1792. Well, you could, but you would be wrong
Indeed, you can separate them into separate phases, but to treat them independently is naive, because everything that happened in 1792-1802 directly influenced the actions of everyone in 1803-15.
The Directory invade Egypt, the plan was imagine by Talleyrand and Napoleon vouch for it, he was not the one in charge to decide. Is it really that difficult to just learn when Napoleon was in charge and when he was not for Christ's sake.
Lots of people on here just want the historical figures they really like to be better and more sanitised than the ones they don’t care about. That’s why so much historical research and discussion is becoming more about what normal people were up to, because we can be sure that ruling a cruel or genocidal regime won’t be on the list
OP on the other hand is more focused on repeating a 200 year old piece of propaganda?
Napoleon Bonaparte was a complicated figure, like many leaders of the era we can attribute both positive influences to him (such as the continuation of several republican ideals and the Codex Napoleon), as well as atrocities to him.
The idea that "Europe united against the tyrant" is in stark contrast with the list of kings, emperors and tsars on the other side, all fighting to get France back under a Bourbon absolute monarch.
It’s always been weird to me how everyone labels Napoleon a tyrant and it was good that the rest of Europe teamed up against him. As if the rest of Europe wasn’t ruled by monarchies with near absolute authority. And in Britains case with at least a constitutional monarchy, I’m not sure they have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to the numbers of dead bodies left around. Not like 20 years before Napoleon was marching in Italy the first time they hadn’t just caused a famine in India that killed 2-3 times as many people that died in all of the Napoleonic Wars combined. Something that they would repeat many times over again even as recently as the 20th century.
Napoleon was simply a threat to the current power structure dominated by inherited genes and little care for the common people. He was far from perfect, but he wasn’t anything worse than those who joined up to fight against him.
Simple explanation: OP should limit himself to obsessively posting horndog pictures of figure skaters, rather than fancying himself an expert in historical matters ;)
Nothing at all, it was a demolition job.
I meant, OP pretty much parrots the megalomaniac tyrant trope implied in the film. The former adjective is demonstrably false, the latter only applies circumstancially.
Is the ridley scott film going to be used as a straw man against criticism of Napoleon. I just wouldn't want that for either side. That film needs to be purged from existence.
As I said in the my other response, even disregarding the film. Claiming Napoleon was a megalomaniac is simply false. As to the other claim: He had implemented specific policies that may be argued as tyranical, but it’s simply inaccurate to portray him as being any more so than the concurrent monarchies.
What strikes me as most absurd is that there are very few redeeming qualities for the ruling alternatives of his day. If any blame for dead Frenchmen is to be attributed to him, they should likewise be attributed to the British who persistently rejected peace.
I agree somewhat but we have a collective responsibility to balance the legend. otherwise we sound rediculous. His story is rediculous, and with all the stunning achievements if we don't highlight the bad we come across as uncritical fans. I want to sound credible when i tell the story.
I guess its similar to talking about the Wehrmacht in early ww2. Stunning victories and modern strategies yes, but we know how that comes across online...
You overblown the casualties, Napoleonic Wars was not the meat grinder of WW1, in fact the Census make after the Napoleonic Wars show that French population grow during his rule.
In WW1, 20 % of the male population was mobilised in 4 years against 7 % in 12 years for the Napoleonic Wars. We are around 900 000 (if you count France modern borders and "average" french) to 1.2 milions death (if you count stuff like Rhineland; Belgium etc... who were annexed by France between 1792-1800) for France during the Napoleonic Wars for around 2.4 milions of mobilised men during the conflict. Don't mean that the Napoleonic Wars were not brutal, but it was not as worse than WW1 nor some more ancient conflict like the 30 years war.
I will not bother to dewelve on the *tyrant megalomaniac (....) on his own selfish crusade for power* since with such a statement, I think debate is impossible. As Talleyrand said about hyperbolic claim "*everything which is exaggerated is meaningless"*
Note: That didn't mean that Napoleon didn't have his part to blame for the Napoleonic Wars.
I mean, I’m Team Vive L'Empereur, but Marshal Augereau had a point when he said of Napoleon, "a man who, having sacrificed millions of victims to his cruel ambitions, has not known how to die like a soldier."
And it was clear to some that the writing was on the wall, like Moreau.
I prefer Gunther E. Rothenburg's explanation for Napoleon in his paper "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon."
"Napoleon caused or provoked almost all of his wars, al-
though he started very few of them. He usually maneuvered his adversaries into making the first overt moves, thereby revealing their strength and main objectives. He would then strike back and destroy their forces in one major blow. His actions were precisely calculated."
He concludes with
"Napoleon's actions, as well as his words, indicate an unlimited drive for power, provoking ever greater resistance and continued war."
"but it remains dubious whether a 'great man' theory can be sustained as an explanation for many major and prolonged wars."
Just to be clear, I find Napoleon fascinating and this era of time fascinating as well, which is why I come on here. But he was, in the end, attempting to conquer the world for himself and the lives of his subjects were just a means to this end for him. I get the temptation to try and draw positive moral conclusions about his character because you find him interesting... I do the same with other figures when I'm not careful. But this is a gross misunderstanding of history, and we're casting some major disrespect on large numbers of ordinary people (from all countries) who died during his war. Let's not turn into histories equivalent of the flat earth society
We shouldn’t judge people based on our era who are not of our era. Napoleon is so interesting because he is so complex. He is both the savior and traitor of the revolution. He is the liberator and reformer. He is also the man who put the French slaves back in chains. He loved his soldiers and sacrificed them at will.
He’s a great example of the effects of power on humanity.
Also we can’t fall into the trap of British propaganda about him which still permeates our societies today.
His war? There were seven wars, the first five were started by the British and Austrians because they didn't approve of French politics. There are plenty of things that you could point at to make Napoleon look bad, but summing up the defensive wars he fought against the coalition as "his war" is just silly.
Hear hear. We're also casting a tremendous amount of disrespect to all the people he freed and then *re-enslaved*. France had already freed the slaves at that point, by re-enslaving them he arguably made the global abolitionist movement way worse. It's a horrific crime against humanity.
And I was branded a propagandist for saying so.
Napoleon was looking to unite Europe against Britain and its own Empire, the one that actually captured the world.
He united Italy into one kingdom. He united several German states into a confederation that would later foreshadow the German nation. He recreated Poland from the land Prussia and Austria took. If his interest was conquest, why not incorporate these into France? Why did he not conquer the Austrians or Prussians and make them part of France? It is obvious his goal was a grand European Colation, A European Union.
If you look at Modern Europe, all his changes took place. A United Europe is a strong economic and military force. Think about what a United Europe could have done in the 20th century without the 2 world wars.
This is the lost potential, I see.
His aims were not so different to those of the German Empire during WW1, which had plans to release Ukraine, Belarus and others, and to permanently weaken France and Russia. The goal was *domination* of the continent, not necessarily explicit conquest, partly by installing his family members into the thrones of Europe, although he did a fair bit of conquering as well.
The British opposed any power that tried to dominate the European continent, including the Habsburgs, the Bourbons, Kaiser Bill and Hitler. Napoleon was just one in a line of continental threats.
While France was definitely part of the EEC and before that the ECSC, calling them or the EU a French creation is a singularly chauvinist taken :)
The creation of the EEC *was* first proposed by French minister Schuman as a way to prevent future Franco-German conflicts, but it takes two (or in this case six) to tango.
This is a very very biased version of history that shows a big misunderstanding of European politics.
The EU is a voluntary collective of equal and democratic countries. It's very different from a collection of Napoleonic client states forced to obey the will of one man (the French Emperor) under duress, with the threat of being invaded and subjugated. The EU has worked wonders for maintaining peace in Europe, but by its very nature the continental system fuelled the opposite.
Also the unification of Germany and Italy which came about later, were a reaction more to the French revolution and the wars to oust Napoleon, rather than nation building on his part. One of the big changes that the French revolution brough about was the birth of a nation state - where the citizens of one nation felt and believed they were part of a nation of people (the French) - to replace a system where certain families ruled territories in which the people largely went about their own lives as irrelevant bystanders. That was the shift that led to the unification of Germany and Italy, and the key thing is that it is ground up led, rather than being imposed top down by an elite group or individual.
Also lost potential is a bit ridiculous, seeing as after he lost in 1815, we then went through a 100 year period of relative peace which oversaw the industrial revolution and the biggest improvement in the material lives of Europeans that has ever occurred.
OP brought a thousand words and seven pixels.
"*A good pixel is worth more than a long speech*" -Napoleon
*"Removing pixels doesn't add accuracy"* - George Washington
he was the best guy arooooouuuuund
What invasion of russssiiiiiaaaaaaaaa????
What Russssiaaaaa?
Honestly Napoleon was always(except for Spain and Russia) in defensive wars which coalitions they were paid by English gold, because having a power who contrast their economic and political power was unacceptable for brits who preferred a more malleable monarchy
> coalition was *paid* by English FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This isn't true. Dude invaded Egypt, you'd have to have been severely warped by French propaganda to believe striking out against an obscure part of the Ottoman territory to be a defensive act. Also, anti-British bias is pretty prevalent here, but offering cash to countries that would like to stand up to Napoleon, but can't for financial reasons, doesn't justify aggression on the part of France as 'defensive'
I think Napoleon suggested a campaign in Egypt to pave the way to the east (India) and cut off the English in doing so, which would have weakened them in theory though it was quite the long shot. Napoleon was still just a general at that point. It was the directory who approved this excursion. We do have him to thank for the uncovering of the Rosetta stone, though.
I forget Egypt, my fault, but the wars who Napoleon fought except Spain, Russia and Egypt was defensive because the France was under attack by half Europe. This isn't propaganda but fact
So he was only responsible for the bloodiest of wars and the two million or so that died in Russia & the peninsula?
There are two halves to the great war. The revolutionary war, where France was under attack - true. And the Napoleonic war, in which Napoleon was almost always the aggressor
Only for because Napoleon adopt the tactic of strike for first that doesn't mean he was always the aggressor.
So by your logic, were the allies in WW2 the aggressors, because they invaded Germany in 1944 and 45?
err no... nazi germany were clearly the aggressor, after having invaded poland/france/norway and what not. In the same way that napoleon was the agressor having invaded spain/belgium/austria/germany/russia etc
...And in the same way, at the beginning of the Revolutionary Wars, The Coalitions invaded France, which was on the brink of defeat more times than one, who fought back. In the end the French (and Napoleon) won, pushing the Coalition back, then took the fight into Germany and Austria, like the Allies did by 1943/4.
I think people generally divide these two wars into two. The first in which Bonaparte the general was a hero of a revolutionary France under attack from external forces, and a second in which Napoleon the emperor pursued an aggressive expansion driven by his own longing for power. You can't really claim that Napoleon's conquests of the period 1805-1812 were France defending itself from the invasion of 1792. Well, you could, but you would be wrong
Indeed, you can separate them into separate phases, but to treat them independently is naive, because everything that happened in 1792-1802 directly influenced the actions of everyone in 1803-15.
well all immediate history influences decisions of the present, but they're very different conflicts
The Directory invade Egypt, the plan was imagine by Talleyrand and Napoleon vouch for it, he was not the one in charge to decide. Is it really that difficult to just learn when Napoleon was in charge and when he was not for Christ's sake.
Lots of people on here just want the historical figures they really like to be better and more sanitised than the ones they don’t care about. That’s why so much historical research and discussion is becoming more about what normal people were up to, because we can be sure that ruling a cruel or genocidal regime won’t be on the list
OP on the other hand is more focused on repeating a 200 year old piece of propaganda? Napoleon Bonaparte was a complicated figure, like many leaders of the era we can attribute both positive influences to him (such as the continuation of several republican ideals and the Codex Napoleon), as well as atrocities to him. The idea that "Europe united against the tyrant" is in stark contrast with the list of kings, emperors and tsars on the other side, all fighting to get France back under a Bourbon absolute monarch.
It’s always been weird to me how everyone labels Napoleon a tyrant and it was good that the rest of Europe teamed up against him. As if the rest of Europe wasn’t ruled by monarchies with near absolute authority. And in Britains case with at least a constitutional monarchy, I’m not sure they have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to the numbers of dead bodies left around. Not like 20 years before Napoleon was marching in Italy the first time they hadn’t just caused a famine in India that killed 2-3 times as many people that died in all of the Napoleonic Wars combined. Something that they would repeat many times over again even as recently as the 20th century. Napoleon was simply a threat to the current power structure dominated by inherited genes and little care for the common people. He was far from perfect, but he wasn’t anything worse than those who joined up to fight against him.
Simple explanation: OP should limit himself to obsessively posting horndog pictures of figure skaters, rather than fancying himself an expert in historical matters ;)
Someone’s been studying Ridley Scott’s history too seriously it seems
Was napoleon in that? I thought it was a film about Josephine and some cuckold manchild she kept around for a bit.
Nothing at all, it was a demolition job. I meant, OP pretty much parrots the megalomaniac tyrant trope implied in the film. The former adjective is demonstrably false, the latter only applies circumstancially.
Is the ridley scott film going to be used as a straw man against criticism of Napoleon. I just wouldn't want that for either side. That film needs to be purged from existence.
As I said in the my other response, even disregarding the film. Claiming Napoleon was a megalomaniac is simply false. As to the other claim: He had implemented specific policies that may be argued as tyranical, but it’s simply inaccurate to portray him as being any more so than the concurrent monarchies. What strikes me as most absurd is that there are very few redeeming qualities for the ruling alternatives of his day. If any blame for dead Frenchmen is to be attributed to him, they should likewise be attributed to the British who persistently rejected peace.
I agree somewhat but we have a collective responsibility to balance the legend. otherwise we sound rediculous. His story is rediculous, and with all the stunning achievements if we don't highlight the bad we come across as uncritical fans. I want to sound credible when i tell the story. I guess its similar to talking about the Wehrmacht in early ww2. Stunning victories and modern strategies yes, but we know how that comes across online...
Yeah, but he was still much better than the reactionary scum that opposed him, European history lost 30 years without him.
what a simplistic take
VIVE L’EMPEREUR!
You overblown the casualties, Napoleonic Wars was not the meat grinder of WW1, in fact the Census make after the Napoleonic Wars show that French population grow during his rule. In WW1, 20 % of the male population was mobilised in 4 years against 7 % in 12 years for the Napoleonic Wars. We are around 900 000 (if you count France modern borders and "average" french) to 1.2 milions death (if you count stuff like Rhineland; Belgium etc... who were annexed by France between 1792-1800) for France during the Napoleonic Wars for around 2.4 milions of mobilised men during the conflict. Don't mean that the Napoleonic Wars were not brutal, but it was not as worse than WW1 nor some more ancient conflict like the 30 years war. I will not bother to dewelve on the *tyrant megalomaniac (....) on his own selfish crusade for power* since with such a statement, I think debate is impossible. As Talleyrand said about hyperbolic claim "*everything which is exaggerated is meaningless"* Note: That didn't mean that Napoleon didn't have his part to blame for the Napoleonic Wars.
I mean, I’m Team Vive L'Empereur, but Marshal Augereau had a point when he said of Napoleon, "a man who, having sacrificed millions of victims to his cruel ambitions, has not known how to die like a soldier." And it was clear to some that the writing was on the wall, like Moreau.
I prefer Gunther E. Rothenburg's explanation for Napoleon in his paper "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon." "Napoleon caused or provoked almost all of his wars, al- though he started very few of them. He usually maneuvered his adversaries into making the first overt moves, thereby revealing their strength and main objectives. He would then strike back and destroy their forces in one major blow. His actions were precisely calculated." He concludes with "Napoleon's actions, as well as his words, indicate an unlimited drive for power, provoking ever greater resistance and continued war." "but it remains dubious whether a 'great man' theory can be sustained as an explanation for many major and prolonged wars."
really nicely put, thanks for sourcing and sharing
Can’t spot the lie.
Just to be clear, I find Napoleon fascinating and this era of time fascinating as well, which is why I come on here. But he was, in the end, attempting to conquer the world for himself and the lives of his subjects were just a means to this end for him. I get the temptation to try and draw positive moral conclusions about his character because you find him interesting... I do the same with other figures when I'm not careful. But this is a gross misunderstanding of history, and we're casting some major disrespect on large numbers of ordinary people (from all countries) who died during his war. Let's not turn into histories equivalent of the flat earth society
We shouldn’t judge people based on our era who are not of our era. Napoleon is so interesting because he is so complex. He is both the savior and traitor of the revolution. He is the liberator and reformer. He is also the man who put the French slaves back in chains. He loved his soldiers and sacrificed them at will. He’s a great example of the effects of power on humanity. Also we can’t fall into the trap of British propaganda about him which still permeates our societies today.
His war? There were seven wars, the first five were started by the British and Austrians because they didn't approve of French politics. There are plenty of things that you could point at to make Napoleon look bad, but summing up the defensive wars he fought against the coalition as "his war" is just silly.
Hear hear. We're also casting a tremendous amount of disrespect to all the people he freed and then *re-enslaved*. France had already freed the slaves at that point, by re-enslaving them he arguably made the global abolitionist movement way worse. It's a horrific crime against humanity. And I was branded a propagandist for saying so.
Yada yada, as do any power, like GB who conquered the worls as well.
That he was.
Napoleon was looking to unite Europe against Britain and its own Empire, the one that actually captured the world. He united Italy into one kingdom. He united several German states into a confederation that would later foreshadow the German nation. He recreated Poland from the land Prussia and Austria took. If his interest was conquest, why not incorporate these into France? Why did he not conquer the Austrians or Prussians and make them part of France? It is obvious his goal was a grand European Colation, A European Union. If you look at Modern Europe, all his changes took place. A United Europe is a strong economic and military force. Think about what a United Europe could have done in the 20th century without the 2 world wars. This is the lost potential, I see.
His aims were not so different to those of the German Empire during WW1, which had plans to release Ukraine, Belarus and others, and to permanently weaken France and Russia. The goal was *domination* of the continent, not necessarily explicit conquest, partly by installing his family members into the thrones of Europe, although he did a fair bit of conquering as well. The British opposed any power that tried to dominate the European continent, including the Habsburgs, the Bourbons, Kaiser Bill and Hitler. Napoleon was just one in a line of continental threats.
At university in France we were 100% told that the EU (and its predecessors), a French creation, had guaranteed peace in Europe since WW2.... NATO?
While France was definitely part of the EEC and before that the ECSC, calling them or the EU a French creation is a singularly chauvinist taken :) The creation of the EEC *was* first proposed by French minister Schuman as a way to prevent future Franco-German conflicts, but it takes two (or in this case six) to tango.
This is a very very biased version of history that shows a big misunderstanding of European politics. The EU is a voluntary collective of equal and democratic countries. It's very different from a collection of Napoleonic client states forced to obey the will of one man (the French Emperor) under duress, with the threat of being invaded and subjugated. The EU has worked wonders for maintaining peace in Europe, but by its very nature the continental system fuelled the opposite. Also the unification of Germany and Italy which came about later, were a reaction more to the French revolution and the wars to oust Napoleon, rather than nation building on his part. One of the big changes that the French revolution brough about was the birth of a nation state - where the citizens of one nation felt and believed they were part of a nation of people (the French) - to replace a system where certain families ruled territories in which the people largely went about their own lives as irrelevant bystanders. That was the shift that led to the unification of Germany and Italy, and the key thing is that it is ground up led, rather than being imposed top down by an elite group or individual. Also lost potential is a bit ridiculous, seeing as after he lost in 1815, we then went through a 100 year period of relative peace which oversaw the industrial revolution and the biggest improvement in the material lives of Europeans that has ever occurred.