France, My country,My Fatherland

[michaelmaltby]

"... The french have a long and proud history that deservedly commands respect. Some things they have done courageously and effectively. Perhaps we should concentrate on their accomplishments and sacrifices rather than dwell on the nations failures...."

Let's review, shall we. Before the 'Revolution' or 'after'. Or both?

Let the greatness flow, parsifal.

"... early debacles that befell france are blamed on the British."

No. Never.

MM

 

[parsifal]

Regarding the 'greatness" in no particular order, I would say their stands at bir hacheim and later at Cassino are worthy of mention

 

[tomo pauk]

What's wrong with French revolution?

 

[michaelmaltby]

"..... What's wrong with French revolution?"

Tomo, I never suggested there was anything "wrong" with it . It's history. Fact. Wrong doesn't enter the equation.

The question is rather: "Was it effective"?


MM

 

[tomo pauk]

Glad you know facts.

As for effectiveness, it was vastly more effective than doing nothing. Think of Austria, Spain, G. Britain, Russia, minor powers. Doing nothing to rectify the FACT that 4 out of 5 people between Atlantic And Ural were poor and/or hungry, illiterate, plus likely to die before turning 45 in 18th century.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Austria, Spain, G. Britain, Russia, minor powers. Doing nothing to rectify the FACT that 4 out of 5 people between Atlantic And Ural were poor and/or hungry, illiterate, plus likely to die before turning 45 in 18th century."

Did the French Revolution change that .... in your view, Tomo? I'm not sure " Austria, Spain, G. Britain, Russia" are all in the same league.

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

French revolution showed that present kind of government (relying on a small, but rich group of people, while majority is poor) can be replaced. With most of European governments against it, it's miracle it survived that enough.

As for major powers I've listed, it's true that majority of people were living poorly, while minority was rich powerful.

 

[imalko]

French revolution fallowed by the conquests of Napoleon started irreversible process which ended feudalism in Europe by the mid 19th century. It only lasted so long because, as pointed out, all major European powers were against it.
Also, you may think what you want about Napoleon, but his legacy - Code the Civil, Metric system, etc. - shaped the Europe we know today.

 

[tomo pauk]

Short French rule in better part of today's Croatia initiated many roads hospitals to be constructed, land reform, 1st newspaper at Croatian language, while reducing the power of Catholic Church. Compared with 300-400 years of indifference, repression aggression experienced from Austrian, Venetian Ottoman sides.
No wonder a street in Split, town I was born, was named after Napoleon's marshal Marmont, once a governor of that part of my country.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... French revolution followed by the conquests of Napoleon started irreversible process which ended feudalism in Europe by the mid 19th century..."

No doubt about that .... no doubt. But Napoleon's Empire was an empire - and the next time Europe saw anything like it (his Continental Plan) - it was under the Nazis.

I have no doubts about Napoleon being perceived as a "liberator" to peoples in many European countries - that's why the 1848 revolutions occurred - long after Napoleon's death. People were NOT going to move backwards.

Not to be too cute - but if you lived in a country that had already absorbed many revolutions - the British Isles - and already thrown off the Church (in Rome) and the feudal rule of Aristocracy - then you didn't need liberation - a Napoleon Emperor - you just needed gold and a solid General (Wellington) to defeat the him.

Napoleon converted chaos (the Revolution) to disciplined order. Stalin did that too.

MM

 

[tomo pauk]

Comparing napoleon with Stalin and Nazis IS French bashing. Pure simple.

And for needing British general to defeat Napoleon, that was done after the later defeated many, many more armies, only to suffer a defeat by Russian winter Russian general. By time of Waterloo, Napoleon his army were just a pale shade of the army that marched on Russia short time before.

 

[The Basket]

Yeah i would say there has been anti french sentiment on this forum. Its even happening now.

Not exactly pro French but not anti myself. If one wants some French military history then look at Verdun.

 

[parsifal]

Even though long dead, that statement concerning the dfeat of Napoleon is just plain disrespectful of the soliders that fought in the campaign.

The facts are that napoleon, like hitler, was defeated by a coalition, which just happened to be lead by the superpower of the age.....Britain. athough i am not a serious student of the napoleonic era, I believe that at the time of battle, the allied armies consisted of Dutch, pan germanic, Prussian armies, with Russian and austrian armies on the way. in the south there were british, potuguese and spanish troops heading into france.

Like WWII the Russians had played a key role in blunting the enemy war machine, as had the Royal navy's blockade tactics. So too had the Austrians played their part, basically being overrun in their resistance of aggression. The prussians had hesitated at first, but were there at the end. But whereas previous alliances against the french had been weak and rather disunited, enabling nappy to defeat his enemies in detail and individually, this alliance was led by the one country that had always resisted him, and had always been at war with him....hence the significance of a british general leading the forces against napoleon. It was probabaly one of the first examples of successful coalition warfare. that ought not be sold short in the intersts of national pride.

I dont think napoleons attitudes and performance are at all comparable to Hitlers. Whilst he was ruthless and opportunistic, and a despot, he also did some great things, like recognize polish sovereignty, overhauling the french legal system, capturing the imagination of the common people, and to a degree basing his assessment of combat performance on the basis of ability, rather than on the basis of birthright. I dont believe he was all that guilty of national pograms or genocide, though people may know otherwise. And perhaps not least, he was a military genius, compare to the other little corporal that followed him 120 years later

I

 

[michaelmaltby]

Call it 'bashing' if you like - but the comparisons are absolutely valid - scale differs but the "capabilities" for social control were less in Napoleon's time.

As for: "... And for needing British general to defeat Napoleon, that was done after the later defeated many, many more armies, only to suffer a defeat by Russian winter Russian general. By time of Waterloo, Napoleon his army were just a pale shade of the army that marched on Russia short time before."


Wellington spent years fighting Napoleon's armies in the Iberian peninsula. It was all rehearsal for his final match:* (Wikipedia)

"... The Peninsular War[3] was a war between France and the allied powers of Spain, the United Kingdom, and Portugal for control of the Iberian Peninsula during the Napoleonic Wars. The war began when French armies crossed Spain and invaded Portugal in 1807 and then in 1808 turned on its ally, Spain. The war lasted until the Sixth Coalition defeated Napoleon in 1814.
Spain's liberation struggle marked one of the first national wars[4] and the emergence of large-scale guerrillas (Guerrilha, in Portuguese), from which the English language borrowed the word.[5] The French occupation destroyed the Spanish administration, which fragmented into quarrelling provincial juntas. In 1810, a reconstituted national government fortified itself in Cádiz and proved unable to recruit, train, or equip effective armies due to being under siege. British and Portuguese forces secured Portugal, using it as a secure position from which to launch campaigns against the French army while Spanish guerrilleros bled the occupiers.[6] Combined, the regular and irregular allied forces prevented Napoleon's marshals from subduing the rebellious Spanish provinces.[7]
The many years of fighting in Spain gradually wore down Napoleon's famous French Army. While the French armies were often victorious in battle, their communications and supplies were severely tested and their units frequently cut off, harassed, or overwhelmed by partisans. The Spanish army, though beaten and driven to the peripheries, could not be stamped out and continued to hound the French relentlessly.[8]
The constant threatening presence of a British force under Arthur Wellesley, which became the most experienced and steady force in the British army, guarded Portugal and campaigned against the French in Spain alongside the reformed Portuguese army. Allied to the British, the demoralised Portuguese army underwent extensive reorganising, retraining and refitting under the command of British General William Carr Beresford,[9] appointed commander-in-chief of the Portuguese forces by the exiled Portuguese Royal family, and fought as part of a combined Anglo-Portuguese army under Wellington.
In 1812, as Napoleon embarked upon an invasion of Russia which ended in disaster, a combined allied army under Arthur Wellesley pushed into Spain and liberated Madrid. Marshal Soult led the exhausted and demoralized French forces in a fighting withdrawal across the Pyrenees and into France over the winter of 1813-14."

Please don't accuse me of "bashing". It's a misuse of the word and of historical fact. Sorry if that offends you .

MM

 

[imalko]

I'm sorry, but I could never agree with your comparison of Napoleon with Hitler and/or Stalin. Though you are entitled of your opinion, this simply doesn't stand.

Wellington fought against Napoleon in person only once - at Waterloo, and this was a victory of Prussian and Dutch soldier as much as the British. However, by that time Napoleon was fighting the lost cause. He lost his finest soldiers in Russia, but his decisive defeat came at Leipzig in the "Battle of the Nations" in 1813 (largest battle fought on European soil by that time). Before that Napoleon achieved some victories in 1813 (Lützen, Bautzen, Dresden to name the few), at one point cease fire was declared and some kind of compromise peace seemed possible. However, when peace negotiations failed and three day Battle of Leipzig ended with French defeat, there was no turning back. From that point no matter what Napoleon did he could not change the final outcome.
Waterloo two years later was only sealing the deal.

 

[parsifal]

It doesnt sound right to me that the wars fought allover europe up to that time, plus the blockade by the RN were of no importance in securing allied victory, or that the differences between the final alliance, and those that came before it was also of no consequence. My opinion remains that there was a multitude of factors that contributed to nappys defeat, and that no single nation, and no single person can lay claim to being responsible for that victory, to the exclusion of all other players.

Like it or not, the various members of the coalition trusted the British the most out of all the possible leaders. With britain there would be no doubling back, no separate backdoor deals with napoleon, or at least there was a lesser likleihood of it happening. All of the major players up to that point, at some stage or other, had done just that at some point in their ddealings with napoleon. Not England. They remained at war, no matter what others did. The minors trusted that committment.

the camapign in spain ought not be discounted, and neither should the repeated british efforts in italy. These were a constant drain on the french, and a constant source of attrition. And the blockade was a serious economic penalty that constantly wore down the french

 

[michaelmaltby]

Thank you, parsifal, , you are right.

As for: ".... Wellington fought against Napoleon in person only once - at Waterloo, and this was a victory of Prussian and Dutch soldier as much as the British. "

Quel surpris, tomo. I KNEW you were pull out the old mano-a-mano chestnut about match ups between the 2 generals. . So what ... jousting is NOT the point. And yes, victory at Waterloo was that of a coalition of nations, not just one. But Britain had stuck by its mission - in Iberia and at sea - and was trusted.

I am NOT taking anything away from Napoleon as a brilliant general and organizer, I am NOT slagging the man or his skill

But the Emperor of France (and his entourage) was just a modern replacement for the Sun King, his vanity, and his cardinals and courtiers.

To this day I will never understand why Napoleon blundered into Russia - less reason to go than Hitler - less need too.

If Napoleon had consolidated what he held before invading Russia and focused on breaking Britain's tireless and effective naval blockade he would have preempted many events that followed. But he was delusional - like other 20th Century leaders who will remain nameless ......

Good thread this has turned out to be .

Chairs,

MM

 

[imalko]

Ah, so we can agree on something! Both with Persifal and you MM (By the way, my name is Igor, don't confuse me with my neighbor Tomo... )

Britain was the most consistent opponent to Napoleon - agreed.

Peninsula campaign was great drainage of strength for the French - agreed. (Remember how Austrians declared war on Napoleon in 1809 figuring he was too committed in Spain and won't be able to oppose them in force. Though he proved them wrong at Wagram.) Spain and Portugal played a role in Emperors downfall, but were not decisive factor. Napoleon's defeat was the result of collective effort of all European powers. Hell, even Bernadotte who received crown of Sweden thanks to Napoleon fought against him at Leipzig!

"I am NOT taking anything away from Napoleon as a brilliant general and organizer, I am NOT slagging the man or his skill..." - Agreed!

Twentieth century figures shall remain nameless - agreed.

Fine discussion it is - agreed.

 

[tomo pauk]

Quel surpris, tomo. I KNEW you were pull out the old mano-a-mano chestnut about match ups between the 2 generals.

Check again whom you are quoting

 

[michaelmaltby]

mea culpa, mea culpa ....

MM