What do you think of Napoleon Bonaparte?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
Hartman said:
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?
Good question.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Hartman said:
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.
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
Brigadier General
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....
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....
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
Captain
Do you think we will ever get a reply?
- Thread starter
- #31
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Well, they got Bill Clinton in. Thats something for them.
- Thread starter
- #32
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Just watched "Waterloo" about a week ago.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
From your attitude, I suspect you are probably part of the problem. No wonder they don't like Northerners.
Hartman said:
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.
Soundbreaker Welch? said:
What the ABBA video?
- Thread starter
- #35
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Nope, this one.
NapoleonGuy
Recruit
- 2
- 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.
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.
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
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).
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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.
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
Colonel
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.
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.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
