# What do you think of Napoleon Bonaparte?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2006)

I'm not just talking about military matters. How Napoleon shaped history in many differant ways. Even Archaeology. 


Far Out Question: Would he have liked Aviation Warfare in his tactics, or not? 

He was only a 100 years too early to be able to witness what airplanes could acomplish in battle.


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2006)

If it wasnt for Napolean's preoccupation with Europe, then the US wouldnt have gotten the Louisiana Purchase.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2006)

And then we wouldn't have been able to claim it from the British in 1812.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

Bonaparte was a short bas*tard with severe penis envy and a bad terminal case of gonnorea...


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2006)

He was a short-Coriscan, who led the Frogs to many a great victory. Just about the only note-worthy victories they've ever had. Still couldn't beat the Royal Navy though.


----------



## Smokey (May 10, 2006)

Apparently he brought rights to those who had few or no rights before Napolean beat their rulers

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

'Even though the Napoleonic Code was not the first, it was the most influential one.'

In mathematics Napoleon is traditionally given credit for discovering and proving Napoleon's theorem, although there is no specific evidence that he did so. The theorem states that if equilateral triangles are constructed on the sides of any triangle (all outward or all inward), the centres of those equilateral triangles themselves form an equilateral triangle. There has been discussion about the significance of the theorem.

Misconceptions about Napoleon's height

Contrary to popular belief (perpetuated by the above-mentioned caricatures), Napoleon was not especially short. After his death in 1821, the French emperor's height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches in French feet. This corresponds to 5 feet 6.5 inches in Imperial (British) feet, or 1.686 metres, making him slightly taller than an average Frenchman of the 19th century [7]. The metric system was introduced during his lifetime, so it was natural that he would be measured in feet and inches for much of his life. A French inch was 2.71 centimetres [8], an Imperial inch is 2.54 centimetres. In addition to this miscalculation, his nickname le petit caporal adds to the confusion, as non-francophones mistakenly take petit literally as meaning "small"; in fact, it is an affectionate term reflecting on his camaraderie with ordinary soldiers. He also surrounded himself with soldiers, his elite guard, who were always six feet tall or even taller.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 11, 2006)

I guess his stocky build makes him look shorter.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 22, 2006)

Napoleon is credited with introducing the concept of the modern professional conscript army to Europe, he was the guy that replaced Corps as the largest military unit, over Division, he was the first to integrate artillery into batteries. Not only that he completely restructuctered the strategies used, Sieges became infrequent to the point of near-irrelevance, a new emphasis towards the destruction, not just outmaneuvering, of enemy armies emerged, and invasions of enemy territory occurred over broader fronts, thus introducing a new era of strategic opportunities that made wars costlier and, just as importantly, more decisive.


----------



## Delusional (May 23, 2006)

Napoleon should be given some credit for the length and death toll of the American Civil War. Almost every general involved studied and used his tactics. His very effective tactics.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2006)

Delusional said:


> Napoleon should be given some credit for the length and death toll of the American Civil War. Almost every general involved studied and used his tactics. His very effective tactics.



It was the biggest mistake they made. Napoleon didn't believe in the use of firepower by his infantry and they paid for it big time against the British reliance on the infantry firepower and thats with us the Brown Bess Musket.

With the far more effective weapons used in the ACW it was pure suicide. Maybe if the American Generals had studied the tactics used by Wellington they would have suffered fewer casualties and achieved a lot more.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Napoleon is credited with introducing the concept of the modern professional conscript army to Europe, he was the guy that replaced Corps as the largest military unit, over Division, he was the first to integrate artillery into batteries. Not only that he completely restructuctered the strategies used, Sieges became infrequent to the point of near-irrelevance, a new emphasis towards the destruction, not just outmaneuvering, of enemy armies emerged, and invasions of enemy territory occurred over broader fronts, thus introducing a new era of strategic opportunities that made wars costlier and, just as importantly, more decisive.



Napoleon wasn't the first to integrate his guns into batteries but he was the first to form what was called the Grande Battery designed to destroy anything that deployed in front of it. The down side was that it made it inflexable as once deployed it was almost impossible to move it. If you could avoid going in front then you were a lot safer.
Small but true fact of the Napoleonic Wars. In almost every major battle, the side with the most artillery pieces, Lost.


----------



## Delusional (May 23, 2006)

Yep, that's why I gave him credit for the bad things, hehe.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 1, 2006)

Napoleon sure blew Waterloo.


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2006)

and a hatred evolved that Germany seeked revenge in both World Wars against France because or the rampage of the French soldiers during the occupation until the re-conquest of the German territories in 1813. Interesting how ill feelings can be felt for so long


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 6, 2006)

Yeah......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2006)

Hitler should have learned from Napolean what happens when you invade Russia.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2006)

Erich said:


> and a hatred evolved that Germany seeked revenge in both World Wars against France because or the rampage of the French soldiers during the occupation until the re-conquest of the German territories in 1813. Interesting how ill feelings can be felt for so long



I used to deal with German clients. One Rudica when drunk would always say.
'David, I don't understand the British. We have fought two wars, horrible wars in one century, but you British, you dislike the French, they were on your side'.

Proves your point really.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 7, 2006)

As told above, Napolean was an amazing man. He belongs in the top levels of historical military geniuses. And that is not even talking about law, medicine, tin cans, etc. Reading about his victories is an impessive experience. Just don't go into Russia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2006)

Lesson that should have been heard by others throughout history.


----------



## Hartman (Jun 11, 2006)

Glider said:


> I used to deal with German clients. One Rudica when drunk would always say.
> 'David, I don't understand the British. We have fought two wars, horrible wars in one century, but you British, you dislike the French, they were on your side'.
> 
> Proves your point really.




And why is that long felt hatred so hard to understand. The South in the US got their tail beat by the North during this country's Civil War. The South is still pissed about losing and still hates the North. Just like the Irish and Scots still hate the English! Catchin' on now? England sent it's white trash to Botany Bay in the then "New World". Those prisoners became what are now Australians. They still hate the Poms to this day. Your'e right mate, hatred goes on for a LONG time. Generations worth!


----------



## Hartman (Jun 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hitler should have learned from Napolean what happens when you invade Russia.




That's right. Invade them early, before winter.


----------



## Hartman (Jun 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hitler should have learned from Napolean what happens when you invade Russia.




Germany should have learned another leson too. Never let an Austrian rule Germany!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 11, 2006)

Germany did invade Russia before winter. They invaded in June, which is summer.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2006)

Hartman said:


> And why is that long felt hatred so hard to understand. The South in the US got their tail beat by the North during this country's Civil War. The South is still pissed about losing and still hates the North. Just like the Irish and Scots still hate the English! Catchin' on now? England sent it's white trash to Botany Bay in the then "New World". Those prisoners became what are now Australians. They still hate the Poms to this day. Your'e right mate, hatred goes on for a LONG time. Generations worth!



I must ask, why do you hate the British so much?

The Australians don't hate the British, neither do the Scots, or the vast majority of the Irish. I work with a number of Australians and Scots and my Brother lives in Eire, has married a local woman and even has dual British Irish Nationality, so I think I can say know something about it.
Rivalry certainly and there is no doubt that on the sporting field each country loves to beat the other. However this isn't hate, which is a totally different emotion.

I feel I should ask a second question, where do you get your views from?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

Good question.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 11, 2006)

Hartman said:


> And why is that long felt hatred so hard to understand. The South in the US got their tail beat by the North during this country's Civil War. The South is still pissed about losing and still hates the North.



As a rednecked Southern farmboy with ties back to Confederate soldiers, I don't think the 'South' hates the North. When I was a kid, 50 years ago, there were still animosities about the Civil War, along with economic backwardness. However, since that time, passage of time and affluence has changed the attitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

I have to agree davparlr. Everytime I have been to the United States and the times that I have lived in the United States was in the South. My sister still lives in the South and I dont see much of that hatred either.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2006)

Bullsh*t fellas.... 

Im a Damn Yankee down in Southern Mississippi, and I stick out like a sore thumb, and the rednecks make sure I know just how much the North sucks, every single day.... Anything that they can find to make fun of, they do, and never miss a beat....

However, I have a higher IQ than 2 rednecks combined, so in a verbal challenge, they usually stand there with their mouths open sputtering....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

Yeah but I dont think there this is real hatred that he describes. There is rivalry and yeah each region has its pride in is area, especially in the south. It is the same over here in Germany. The people from Bavaria think they are better than those of Baden Wurttenberg (which I disagree being that I am a Schwab) but there is no real hatred. As for the south and the north they all see each other as Americans and there is not a "real hatred" for one another.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2006)

Do you think we will ever get a reply?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 12, 2006)

Well, they got Bill Clinton in. Thats something for them.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 8, 2006)

Just watched "Waterloo" about a week ago.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 9, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Bullsh*t fellas....
> 
> Im a Damn Yankee down in Southern Mississippi, and I stick out like a sore thumb, and the rednecks make sure I know just how much the North sucks, every single day.... Anything that they can find to make fun of, they do, and never miss a beat....
> 
> However, I have a higher IQ than 2 rednecks combined, so in a verbal challenge, they usually stand there with their mouths open sputtering....



From your attitude, I suspect you are probably part of the problem. No wonder they don't like Northerners. 



Hartman said:


> And why is that long felt hatred so hard to understand. The South in the US got their tail beat by the North during this country's Civil War. The South is still pissed about losing and still hates the North.



The lingering anger the Southerners had toward the North was not so much because of losing the war (other than Sherman march across the South) as it was the rape of the land and people by various factions after the war. Also, the South got its tail beaten by the North just as Finland got its tail beaten by the Soviet Union. As I said before, the South is too busy making money to hold any animosity.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Just watched "Waterloo" about a week ago.



What the ABBA video?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 9, 2006)

Nope, this one.


----------



## NapoleonGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

First, Napoleon by his day's standards was not short. This myth persists because of British propaganda and lack of understanding with the French measurement system. Napoleon was 5'2 by French Napoleonic standards which translated into roughly 5'6 in modern standards. At the time, 5'6 was roughly average height. 



Hartman said:


> That's right. Invade them early, before winter.



Winter during the 1812 campaign playing as large a role as Tolstoy or even Chandler would make it seem is a mistake. The Russians prepared for the campaign beautifully and understood what type of planning was needed. Napoleon misjudged the Russians. He could have won the campaign had Russia not prepared the way they did, winter or not.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 29, 2014)

Bonaparte was an amoral waster of human life that brought unecessary war and death in Europe to an epic scale. Apart from that he was quite bright. He should have listened to his father and joined the Royal Navy like George Washington wanted to.

Curious that he, like Hitler, was a foreign ruler of sorts. His father was an activist against French rule.

Hartmann's comments actually reminded me that the Germans have been Britain's traditional allies; except for the first half of the 20th century. I salute the Kings German Legion. Britain's most able ally in the Napoleonic War.

The hatred (apart from hatred generally) that I have trouble understanding is an American hatred of the French. I can't begin to count the repeated snide 'surrender monkey' type jokes that appear when French military matters arise on the net (French rifle for sale, hardly used, ha ha etc). You don't get them from the British nor Germans. In fact it is often the British or Germans who come in to defend the French.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 29, 2014)

lesofprimus said:


> Bonaparte was a short bas*tard with severe penis envy and a bad terminal case of gonnorea...



He was probably about average height for people of the era(the figure I've seen was that he was 5 ft 6in tall); that he was peculiarly short seems to be the result of a) people assuming French units of measure (the French equivalent of feet and inches) were the same as the British ones and b) propaganda. Similarly, at least one biographer of Nelson claimed he was under 5 ft tall; he wasn't. He, too, was probably of about average height for the time.

He did, however, seem to have suffered, possibly significantly, from not being considered truly "French" by his classmates. 

One of his brothers moved to the US, probably to keep the reconstituted French monarchy from killing him.

One thing that Napoleon (and the Revolution) did was to make the French military much more of a meritocracy. In the _ancien régime_, one had to have at least four generations of ancestry to be an officer (this was one of the meanings of "bearing arms" extant at the time: the right to serve one's country as an officer). Similar rules were in effect in most of the countries of Europe (Britain was a notable exception: noble birth was not a requirement for an officer's commission).


----------



## parsifal (Mar 30, 2014)

Napoleon was a military genius, with few equals in history. But he also managed to make a lot of enemies. His biggest mistake was to doubloe cross the Russians.

He never really understood naval warfare very well, which led to a kind of stalemate for a number of years with the british. And so long as the British retained control of the oceans, and with it, trade into and out of Europe, they held the whip hand over him. British strategy was the same as it has been for at least 400 years.....back the second most powerful continental power to maintain as much balance as possible.

Napoleon had his limits. he didnt understand technology all that well. On hearing of the british experiements with steam driven ships (Robert Fulton), he reportedly said "What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense." 

In the end, Napoleons inability to achieve total victory and lasting settlement was his undoing. His political savvy was pretty good, as he consistently played on the fears and aspirations of the common man over the established monarchies that were ranged against him. this is probably why the british, with their westminster style contitutional monarchy did the best out of all the european nations that fought him.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 30, 2014)

Although his Continental System was a disastrous failure, by 1811, Napoleon was undoubtedly the dominant force in Europe. But though it looked strong, his Empire was becoming increasingly riddled with weaknesses. French dominance inspired local nationalism in Germany and Spain, and Napoleon's more established enemies bided their time. In Russia, Alexander I had soured on Napoleon since Napoleon had insulted the czar by recreating Poland and calling it The Grand Duchy of Warsaw. Furthermore, the exiled Prussian Baron Stein was now in Alexander's court, whispering against Napoleon in Alexander's ear. The czar needed little encouragement to turn on his former ally.

The Russian handling of Napoleon's onslaught was very skillful. In a major confrontation, Napoleon most likely would have won. Instead of fighting, the Russian's scorched-earth policy, in which they retreated and burned all the farms and other resources left behind, seriously hurt Napoleon's army. The Grand Army was so large that Napoleon did not supply it with supply-trains; instead, it generally fed and maintained itself by taking what it needed from the land it occupied. The scorched-earth policy left the Grand Army little to feed itself. Starving and cold, the Grand Army marched deeper and deeper into Russia, walking into ruin.

Interestingly, at the same time France was fighting with Russia, Britain became embroiled in war with the US. With the Continental System and British blockade competing to shut down trade in enemy countries, the United States found itself unable to trade with either France or Britain. Napoleon lifted the ban on US shipping, in exchange for a promise not to trade with Britain. Britain retaliated against the US in the War of 1812. The war ended in a standoff, effectively establishing the United States' sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere, as eventually articulated in the 1823 Monroe doctrine. Yet though the war certainly sapped British strength, it did not have nearly the staggering affect on the British that the Russian campaign took on the French. In fact, it is perhaps because of the events in Europe that the British did not fully commit themselves to war against the US, and the US was able to achieve the result it did.

After Napoleon met with defeat at Leipzig, the victorious powers began to fight amongst themselves over what to do with France. Alexander I wanted to put his own puppet king on the throne and the British wanted a Bourbon back on the throne. In November of 1813, Metternich announced the "Frankfurt Proposals", proposing that Napoleon should continue to rule a weakened France (Metternich knew Napoleon would be indebted to Austria for this). Napoleon rejected the offer. Britain, frightened of such a possibility, immediately dispatched Viscount Castlereagh to the continent to negotiate for England, and to advocate putting a Bourbon on the French throne. Metternich and Castlereagh immediately teamed up, secretly agreeing to prevent Russia from becoming to strong. The four powers signed the Treaty of Chaumont, promising to remain as allies for 20 years to stop France if it ever became too powerful.

The Treaty of Paris, which restored France to its 1792 borders, was surprisingly mild. Instead of destroying France, the great powers of Europe wanted a stable, normal France that could help preserve the delicate balance of power that European peace depended on. In terms of land power, the Treaty was a great success, establishing such a balance that no war broke out in Europe for a 55 years. Even so, with its dominance of the seas, a growing industrial economy, and a vibrant colonial network, Britain emerged from the Treaty first among equals.


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 8, 2017)

Removed by yours truly. It seems the passage flew like a lead balloon. Let's leave it and I would appreciate if the quote of the said ill conceive post are from the board. Thanks. No more "comedy" from Sir P.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2017)

Sir Percy Ware-Armitage said:


> The French exhibit irritating verbal and non-verbal (the famous French pout concluded with an onomatopic "boff" then back to the pout) propensities which one seldom encounters elsewhere in Europe. If another observer includes their attitudinal cultural supremacism (from the intellectual _grenouilles _class who believe their _patrie _is the Greece of our epoch),very few would find most _grenouilles _likeable.
> 
> Cherio!
> 
> Sir P.


Eh?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 8, 2017)

Rather harsh methinks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2017)

Mr Bonaparte was not French he was Corsican, in the time of Napoleon only about 10% of the population spoke what we would now recognise as French. Like many dictators he was ruthless with grand visions, much of what we think of as French today is a product of his era. He played a big part in making France one of Europe's great states and also changed all of European politics. For that he is a great historical figure but to me he was too much of a tyrant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 8, 2017)

Crimea_River said:


> Rather harsh methinks.



Indeed, I concede my words were quite harsh. Pity! However, my _grenouilles _encounters confirmed the stated remarks.

Cherio!

Sir P.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2017)

Sir Percy Ware-Armitage said:


> Indeed, I concede my words were quite harsh. Pity! However, my _grenouilles _encounters confirmed the stated remarks.
> 
> Cherio!
> 
> Sir P.


"Grenouilles" was an insult in Robespierres French court, aimed at people whose behaviour resembled grenoilles de marais. I am sure you impressed them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 8, 2017)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I'm not just talking about military matters. How Napoleon shaped history in many differant ways. Even Archaeology.




Far Out Question: Would he have liked Aviation Warfare in his tactics, or not? 



Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> He was only a 100 years too early to be able to witness what airplanes could acomplish in battle.



Napoleon's major, lasting, and largely positive contributions were the spread of the metric system and of the Civil Code, which is still the basis for the legal system of many of the countries of the European mainland. I think he also, as a side effect, promoted the idea of officer promotion by merit, vs birth: France and many of the Continental countries forbade officers' commissions except to members of the nobility (that is, the arms bearing class); Britain had no such restrictions.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 8, 2017)

lesofprimus said:


> Bonaparte was a short bas*tard with severe penis envy and a bad terminal case of gonnorea...



Napoleon was of average height for the time and place (French poids were larger than English feet). Interestingly, Napoleon was a French subject before the Revolution (ancien regime France did not have citizens; it had subjects), as he was born in Corsica. Like many of the subjects of the French kings, French was not his first language; that was Corsican: he spoke French with an accent his entire life. 

Positives? Spread of the Civil Code and the metric system. Many of the countries he invaded returned to the idea of meritocracy and the ideal of the rule of law applying to everyone, instead of local nobles doing whatever the hell they wanted to to their tenants. These ideals, which were not consistently followed by Napoleon, who may not have even believed in them, fueled most pro-democracy movements in Europe for a century. 

Negatives? He killed a lot of people, many of them French, and brought forth the repressive Holy Alliance which would, quite cheerfully, have invaded and dismembered the USA and did destroy the nations of Poland, Venice, and the independence of every republic in Italy.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Apr 8, 2017)

...not short for a man of his day, great dancer and a hell of a card player!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 9, 2017)

pbehn said:


> "Grenouilles" was an insult in Robespierres French court, aimed at people whose behaviour resembled grenoilles de marais. I am sure you impressed them.




It was mostly tongue in cheek 


Sir P.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2017)

Sir Percy Ware-Armitage said:


> It was mostly tongue in cheek
> 
> 
> Sir P.


Maybe, it just comes across as unpleasant and ill informed. I have no idea if your prejudice is against French people or French speakers, I speak French and lived in France for a long time.


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 9, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Maybe, it just comes across as unpleasant and ill informed. I have no idea if your prejudice is against French people or French speakers, I speak French and lived in France for a long time.




I know and I understand very well your point of view. In fact, the post in question is truly the words of Sir Percy Ware-Average (is picture adorns my posts), who, as a character is very much a man of his time (please refer to "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" which is one of my favorite comedies). BTW, I'm a Francophone from Canada and my wife is British. We both appreciate such blackguards and toffs like Sir Percy with their class prejudices (especially back then) and all the baggage that goes with it. Sorry for all the possible misunderstandings.

Cheers!

Denis


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2017)

Sir Percy Ware-Armitage said:


> I know and I understand very well your point of view. In fact, the post in question is truly the words of Sir Percy Ware-Average (is picture adorns my posts), who, as a character is very much a man of his time (please refer to "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" which is one of my favorite comedies). BTW, I'm a Francophone from Canada and my wife is British. We both appreciate such blackguards and toffs like Sir Percy with their class prejudices (especially back then) and all the baggage that goes with it. Sorry for all the possible misunderstandings.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Denis


Are you posting as yourself or some character in a movie?


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 9, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Are you posting as yourself or some character in a movie?



In the previous case, it was Sir Percy who blasted the French. When I post seriously it's always me however, I use his name. Indeed, he's a character in the movie. The film is very amusing like a Clouseau/Pink Panther comedy. You should see how the Italians and the Germans are caricatured. Insane! Plus the old planes are wonderful.
_

youtube those magnificent men in their flying machines germans - Bing video_


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2017)

Grow up


You are like a stream of bats piss.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2017)

Play nice everyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Play nice everyone.


I merely meant that he shines out like a shaft of shimmering golden light when all around is darkness.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXW6tfl2Y0_





The idea that you can insult people and excuse it by saying it is a quote is ffffing ridiculous.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The idea that you can insult people and excuse it by saying it is a quote is ffffing ridiculous.



I do not disagree with you. Nor will it be tolerated.

Two wrongs however do not make a right...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2017)

On the one hand, Napoleon's policies created the foundation for much of France's legal and social system today. For instance, the Code Napoleon is the French civil code. It forbids privileges based on birth and allows freedom of religion among other things. The metric system was also promoted and spread by Napoleon. Napoleon's efforts to emancipate the Jews of France and allow them to leave the ghettos to which they were previously constrained also represents an important advance. Politically, those who view Napoleon in a favorable light would argue that he put an end to a period of lawlessness and chaos in France.

Critics of Napoleon insist that his ultimate legacy was bankruptcy and territorial losses for France. France's colonial losses during the period of Napoleon's rule are viewed to have weakened it significantly vis-a-vis England. Napoleon also restored slavery in France's overseas colonies. Finally, his wars are estimated to have caused millions of military and civilian deaths in France and Europe.

A counter-argument would be that Napoleon was not responsible for the wars in which he fought -- after the French Revolution, the monarchies of Europe were bent on restoring the Bourbons to the French throne and formed coalition after coalition against France to achieve this goal. Britain’s position was slightly different and I will post a review I found that I think deals with the anglo french relationship further on.

How is Napoleon is remembered in France today? Many argue that Napoleon is generally viewed in a favorable light, if only because so many monuments and landmarks in France still bear his mark, they were not torn down after his era passed. To give a few examples, the boulevards surrounding Paris are named after Napoleon's marshals, the Arc de Triomphe is a tribute to his victories and the Place de la Concorde a tribute to his conquest of Egypt. He is buried in the Invalides, one of the most recognizable and opulent buildings in Paris. Many prominent streets are named after his military victories (Rivoli, Castiglione, Iena bridge, Austerlitz, Friedland, Wagram...). If he were considered a "neurotic dictator," this would surely not be the case. There is no Gazala or Kharkov street in Germany for example. Sometimes it is the way you embark on your military achievement, and for whom, that makes the difference between a "good" and 'bad" conflict. 

That said, there is some ambiguity with regard to commemorating Napoleon. The 200th anniversary of the great victory of Austerlitz was not officially celebrated in 2005 (the Brits, however, certainly celebrated the anniversary of Trafalgar a year before that). Napoleon certainly does not have the same iconic status as Charles de Gaulle in political circles. Some of his more controversial decisions may be the reason for this (his reinstatement of slavery makes him rather unpopular in France's overseas territories...). He does however have prominent admirers, such as de Villepin (former prime minister) and Valery Giscard d'Estaing (former president), both of whom have written books on him.

Ultimately, though he is not celebrated as a national hero, I would argue that Napoleon is remembered in a fairly positive light in the minds of the French people, and that his imprint on modern France is unavoidable.

Napoleon – the impact on Anglo French perceptions

Anglo-French rivalry was, of course, a long-standing feature of European diplomatic and commercial relations during the eighteenth century, to the point where some historians refer to the Napoleonic Wars as the last phase of the ‘Second Hundred Years’ War’ that only finally, and decisively, came to an end at the battle of Waterloo.

One of the more interesting aspects of this rivalry is that, according to Semmel, Napoleon’s France provided Britain with a yardstick by which it could measure its own national character. Napoleon, argues Semmel, ‘unsettled Britons’ certitudes about their enemy and themselves’. Indeed, Napoleon’s own character and ethnic identity were so open to interpretation that he is said to have inaugurated a ‘new, more equivocal phase in British thinking about France’in the process. Napoleon has tended to be used as a kind of mirror. Depending on who was looking into it, the image was seen as either a positive or a negative reflection of the British political system. Put another way, Napoleon was such an ambiguous character that political commentators in Britain, depending on whether they were radicals or loyalists, could see in him either tyrant or liberal, either legitimate or illegitimate ruler, either sans-culotte or destroyer of the Revolution. In fact, the British found many different ways of interpreting Napoleon, but for now, we should just bring out some of the more important ideas contained in Semmel’s work.

First, Napoleon complicated British thinking about its own national identity. In the opening chapter of the book, the reader gets a detailed analysis of the types of epithets that were used to describe Napoleon. ‘Corsican usurper’ was one of the more common. This questioned Napoleon’s legitimacy not only because of his ethnic origins – he was born outside of France – but also the means by which he had attained power. That much is pretty straightforward. Semmel takes this a little further, however, by arguing that as a consequence, Napoleon ‘unsettled relations’, and complicated the ‘traditional dichotomies drawn between Britain and France’, and in so doing, blurred British conceptions of national identity. If we accept Semmel’s argument, reasonable enough in itself, we are left wondering what implications this has for the development of British national identity.

If Napoleon threw Britons’ perceptions of themselves into doubt, if Napoleon raised questions about Britain’s own destiny, then this is important, according to Semmel, because it was at the origins of a debate about political legitimacy and constitutional reform in Britain.

Questions over Napoleon’s legitimacy – largely arising out of the manner in which he came to power, that is, through a coup, and what the British referred to as the transformation of a republic into a military dictatorship – led radicals and reformers to question George III’s right to rule, but it also led to questions about the English Revolution of 1688, as well as the Hanoverian succession. The British, after all, went through their own crisis of legitimacy, in part brought about by George III’s mental illness, when a regency was established in 1811.

British radicals used Napoleon ‘as a cudgel’ with which they rebuked their own rulers. They continued to question their own rulers even after it was evident that Napoleon was defeated. One of the last chapters in the book, covering the period between Napoleon’s first abdication (1814) and his death while in exile on St Helena (1821), roughly coincides with a period of radicalism and protest against state corruption in Britain.

Loyalists (as opposed to radicals), on the other hand, were often able to use Napoleon to defend the British monarchy, but even they seem to have been permeated by self-doubt and anxiety. Loyalist pamphlets during the invasion scare of 1803, for example, often questioned the nature of the English character (the subject of much of chapter 2) to the point where Semmel concludes that the British self-portrait was ‘ambivalent, problematic, and troubled’. In this part of his study, Semmel uses contemporary English broadsides and caricatures (most of them anti-Napoleonic) as a window not only onto popular English conceptions of Napoleon, but also onto the ‘deep unease of the loyalist mind’. As the author is all too aware, however, these broadsides (many examples of which are given) were not of the people, but rather addressed to them. It is difficult, therefore, to get a sense of what people thought of either the broadsides or Napoleon, although the broadsides seem to express an underlying fear that Britain had somehow reached its peak and was now in decline. The conclusion drawn by Semmel is that a ‘deep, seemingly inescapable anxiety over the state of the British nation ran rampant’ in the early years of Napoleon’s reign.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 10, 2017)

...Although the Treaty of Paris did place reparations on France relatively larger than those placed on Germany by Versailles. France paid.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 10, 2017)

Napoleon's wife was from one of the [habit landing] slave owning, landed families of Martinique. Return of slavery was much more important than who ruled in Paris.


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 10, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Play nice everyone.




Removed by yours truly. It seems the passage flew like a lead balloon. Let's leave it and I would appreciate if the quote of the said ill conceive post are from the board. Thanks. No more "comedy" from Sir P.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 10, 2017)

Napoleon is still thought of as one of the best, if not the best, military tacticians of all time (not just his era). Up there with Alexander, Julius Caesar and Gen. Patton. His writings are still taught at War College along with Clausewitz and others.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> Napoleon is still thought of as one of the best, if not the best, military tacticians of all time (not just his era). Up there with Alexander, Julius Caesar and Gen. Patton. His writings are still taught at War College along with Clausewitz and others.


A long time ago I read some books on the Napoleonic era from my local Library. The impression I was left with was this.

The Napoleonic army when advancing spread out into three fronts and lived off the land to a greater or lesser extent. This was a great military strategy but a poor political one. At a time of great poverty they made enemies of everyone they came into contact with when advancing which they paid for later in occupation or in the case of the Moscow disaster when in retreat.

Napoleons armies in Spain behaved in a similar way, they quickly gained control but their brutality against a starving population resulted in them needing 900,000 soldiers to oppose a British army of 70,000. After Wellington won in Spain and started to advance through France he bought his way to Paris. Food was bought from the local population and soldiers were hung for rape of French women. This was not on high minded moral grounds but sound military philosophy. Even a big army in Napoleons time was small compared to a nations population and they couldnt feed themselves, providing a military escort for every group of horse drawn carts which may or may not contain food or gold becomes impossible very quickly.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 11, 2017)

pbehn said:


> A long time ago I read some books on the Napoleonic era from my local Library. The impression I was left with was this.
> 
> The Napoleonic army when advancing spread out into three fronts and lived off the land to a greater or lesser extent. This was a great military strategy but a poor political one. At a time of great poverty they made enemies of everyone they came into contact with when advancing which they paid for later in occupation or in the case of the Moscow disaster when in retreat.
> 
> Napoleons armies in Spain behaved in a similar way, they quickly gained control but their brutality against a starving population resulted in them needing 900,000 soldiers to oppose a British army of 70,000. After Wellington won in Spain and started to advance through France he bought his way to Paris. Food was bought from the local population and soldiers were hung for rape of French women. This was not on high minded moral grounds but sound military philosophy. Even a big army in Napoleons time was small compared to a nations population and they couldnt feed themselves, providing a military escort for every group of horse drawn carts which may or may not contain food or gold becomes impossible very quickly.



This is quite true. However, (with no attempt here to justify the action by me), this was also the course of many armies for a millennia. Persians, Huns, Mongols, Carthaginians and etc, etc.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 22, 2017)

I long to be able to imagine what would happen had Hitler invaded France with the French Army run by someone with the skill and acumen of Napoleon. The Germans may not have been able to retreat fast enough.

Leaving that aside, Napoleon was, in his personality, probably no different from Frederick Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart, or many of the other preceding warrior heads of state: arrogant, self-serving, greedy, and brilliant at war.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 22, 2017)

I believe that Napoleon is best summed up with his own quote:_' I have an income of 100,000 soldiers a year'._

Clever but amoral.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 22, 2017)

yulzari said:


> I believe that Napoleon is best summed up with his own quote:_' I have an income of 100,000 soldiers a year'._
> 
> Clever but amoral.



Probably similar things were said, less pithily, by Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart, and others.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 25, 2017)

Certainly similar said by Edward I. (Arrows cost money, soldiers don't or words to that effect)


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 25, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I long to be able to imagine what would happen had Hitler invaded France with the French Army run by someone with the skill and acumen of Napoleon. The Germans may not have been able to retreat fast enough.



A little OT, but yes, I tend to agree. Air power aside, the weapons available (tanks, artillery and etc.) and the numbers and even can be argued the quality (French tanks at the outset were more heavily armored and up-gunned compared to the German tanks-- of which the Panzers I-III were little more than mobile machine gun carriers or mortars) of those weapons were superior. Hindsight is always in sharper focus, but I believe the French lost due to a lack of thought and initiative.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> A little OT, but yes, I tend to agree. Air power aside, the weapons available (tanks, artillery and etc.) and the numbers and even can be argued the quality (French tanks at the outset were more heavily armored and up-gunned compared to the German tanks-- of which the Panzers I-III were little more than mobile machine gun carriers or mortars) of those weapons were superior. Hindsight is always in sharper focus, but I believe the French lost due to a lack of thought and initiative.



Far off topic, to be sure, but Napoleon regularly thrashed many of his opponents. I agree with you about why France lost: the German Army was able to get and keep the French and British too confused to be effective across the entire front. Napoleon III certainly inherited little of his uncle/grandfather's military competence. (his father was Napoleon's brother, Louis, and his mother was Napoleon's step-daughter, Hortense)


----------

