Whatever your biased point of view may be, France DID abolish slavery 39 years before Britain. This had for immediate result that French slave owners in Guadeloupe or Martinique welcomed British troops, so they could keep their juicy business under their occupation. Napoleon was not a suporter of slavery (he was nourrished with enlightment ideals), his decision to reintroduce slavery was purely pragmatical : it meant to preserve the support of the French Caribbean elite.
This video is so rubbish! It doesn't say anything about the Napoleonic wars except the very minimal at a British biased view. It doesn't mention anything about the French victories, which there were more of than defeats and it also makes It out the British won the wars! Napoleon was exiled not because of the peninsula war but because the combined forces of Russia, Prussia and Austria reached Paris. It also doesn't mention France won the wars of the 1st,2nd,3rd,4th and 5th wars of coalition.
I like how you explain in details British victories (of course not a single word about the British defeats in the french revolutionnary wars, the Walcheren campaign, the british defeats in the peninsula before 1812...)
"The British and prussians (who arrived late in the battle) fought him at waterllo and won, under the command of The Duke opf Wellington and Marshal Blusher. Holland and other allies thought as well as Britain's bitches"
118.000 Allied (only 20% of British) vs 72.000 French.
And for your information, when you say "Prussians arrived late in the battle", that's totally wrong. The Prussians didn't come at the end BUT the end (and the battle's issue) came because of the Prussian intervention.
@gasdfw5 yes twice. Sorry wasnt sure which comment you were replying too. He also demanded the Austrians to surrender in Italy before he could take Vienna another two times.
um yes he did. coordinating with the french armies on the rhine and in switzerland, (after he had conquered north italy and venice) napoleon came within SEVENTY MILES of vienna, the austrian capital. of course the austrians immediately sued for peace and the Treaty of Campo Formio was signed in 1797.
@Jiri333 Hence the word "deep". Deep into Austria. Learn to read nd, next time you leave a response, make sure you can write english in a correct and proper manner.
@nooo8oooo Ah alright then. Also the reason for that was The French Revolution destroyed any trace of religion in French Society (the period known as De-Christianization). The reason for doing that was so no Frenchman would have any higher loyalty than to the Republic (Dictatorship)
@CarlBewley There was no nation called Italy back then. Italy back then was a bunch of smaller nations :P. One was the papal states, which wsa directly controlled by Rome and was often referred to as Rome. You're welcome
@nooo8oooo - Unified in 1861 yes, but Rome wasn't a country or a Kingdom or even the central Itlaian state (except maybe on a religious level as Papal state but its power was waining in 19th Century ), The Itlaian kingdoms of Naples and Sardinia had a more active part in the Napoleonic wars.
You're right though, so my bad for inital comment . . :)
@PhilipineMan. France declared War on Austria in 1792. Prussia and over powers joined on Austria's side. After the peace of ameines, whoever declared war was ilrelevent, because both Britiain and Napoleonic France had violated the peace treaty. That peace was never goig to last and both sides knew it.
Even if we went to war with them, even if they all declared war on us, we would not have to take possession of them or make them puppets. Did the U.S. do that to Britain, Germany, Italy, or Russia? We rewrote Japan's constitution because they attacked us, but we didn't make the land American territory. Napoleon had to directly control every country he could because he was a power hungry egomaniac. There's no viable excuse.
lol, US spent its entire history to place puppet states in every country they could (the entire South America, half of Africa, 1/3 of Asia) and they took many lands as war trophies (Indian territories, Hawaii, Philipines...). I suppose it was because Americans were "power hungry egomaniacs" ?
The fact is that Napoléon never annexed most of its conquest. France never started from Lisboa to Moscow. He modernized some states (abolition of serfdom, abolition of inquisition...) he created countries (Germany/Italy/Poland) or replaced degenerated dynasties and imposed peace to other States. Austria and Prussia never were took over or controled by him or by a French.
He abolished serfdom, inquisition, torture, discrimination against women and jews, he imposed the Civil Code which makes everyone legally equal, he rewarded people on their abilities (and not on birth) and he never started a war.
It surely doesn't make him a Saint but it makes him much more great than the Kaiser of Austria, the Tzar of Russia or the King of Britain...
@MaxRWF Funny how Napoleon strangely forgot to include rights for black people, though. Hmmm. He kept slavery when the 'King of Britain' and his government abolished it.
@TheLiberalKnight The British oligarchy didn't abolish slavery until 1833, in 1808 it barely forbid the slave trade. The same oligarchy which forbade British commoners to vote until 1919 ! But thankfully, French revolutionary ideals prevailed everywhere and good ole' England is now also a democracy.
- When less than 1% of the population has the right to vote, this is not democracy, it's called an oligarchy or a plutocracy...
-The first country in the world to abolish slavery wasn't Britain, it was Achemenid Persia in 550 BC. Even France abolished slavery in 1794, before Britain (although it was reinstated by a subsequent government).
@MaxRWF OK, so the Roman Republic was not a democracy either then, where probably 0.1% of the population could vote.
You are a fact twister. France did NOT abolish slavery in 1794. You still took huge incomes from the slave colonies in the carribean. That was nothing but revolutionary rhetoric. As for Persia, it was easy for them to abolish it when so little of their national income depended on it.
@MaxRWF He didn't creat Germany as a country. He created the Confederation ofthe Rhine, which was a bunch of german states that were former members of the Holy Roman Empire. And Austria and Prussia never were "taken over" by him, but Spain was. He got his brother to act as king of Spain so he could control the Spanish goverment. the whole country pretty much uprose after his army's abuse mind you.
All of South America, half of Africa, and 1/3 of Asia? Say what???????? To the extent that's true, it was mostly because schmucks in the government were power hungry egomaniacs. I have understanding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if their governments are still answering to us decades from now, I am going to call foul.
@MaxRWF They also suck atwaging war on their own. Find me a war that the Americans won decisivly ON THEIR OWN, besides the American Civil War. Don't bother with the Revolution, they would never have beaten the British without the French's help
Alright, Napoleon DID "declare War" in a sense, several times, not all of them, but many of hem, and the fact that he raised a army to invade England during peace was a violation of treaty's. And he also had the same things happon to him, lets try not to have a bias veiw on history here
No, Napoléon never declared a single war. The planned invasion of England in 1804 happend after the Brits had broke the "peace of Amiens" in 1803 under Pitt's Gouvernement. Treaty of Amiens that the Brits had, anyways, never applied nor had even the intention to apply.
Napoléon is not the monster portrayed by British propaganda. In fact, the bad guys here are certainly the old monarchies Coalition : they intervened into French national affairs and systematically betrayed their promised peace to put the Old Régime system back.
What was Napoleon's vision of ruling a European empire, why did he overthrow the king of Spain, and why did he seriously consider claiming territory in the Middle East?
Napoléon didn't want a European Empire, it's the other way around : he started the Germany/Italian/Polish national unification that will lead to the modern nations wich we know.
Carlos IV didn't want to get the spanish thrown back and asked Napoléon to find a successor in the Bayonne Meeting(1808), the son of Carlos, Fernidand, had resign too.
Napoléon wasn't the ruler of France during the campaign of Egypt, he was send there by the French republic(directory).
Napoleon did seek a single European government. Google "Napoleon one government Europe", and you can see lots of credible pages that talk about it. I wasn't asking about Egypt. I was asking about Napleon's major consideration of gaining French territory in the Middle East. Charles IV did not ask for a replacement. Ferdinand did. Naploleon still had no business making Spain his own. He could have eased his paranoia through ways other than taking over countries.
I googled what you wrote. It gave no serious results. Of course, Napoléon never wanted to put supranational institutions. The only thing Napoléon wanted to impose were the Civil Code (wich makes everybody equal legally), the same system of measures (metre, kilogramme) and a european economy lightly harmonized. There was a coup in Spain by the king's son, Napoléon had to choose between a stupid king who didn't want to stay king and a renegade coward.
The standard definition. Napoleon wanted to do more than conquer Egypt for strategic purposes against the British. He wanted to set up his own territories in other parts so he could have a stratetic presence near the Russian border.
No serious results? What do you mean? There is a long list of credible sites with the info. Napoleon sought a united Europe under one government, a European Empire.
Like I said, Napoleon had no business making Spain his own even if he did need to meddle in the royal trouble, which he didn't.
If sites like Lucid Cafe and Wikipedia are worthless to you, here's an even better search-- "napoleon united liberal government". You will find plenty of credible pages with that set of terms.
Napoleon did take control of Spain. He appointed his brother king and made Spain part of his empire.
Of course Lucid Café and Wikipedia are shite : anybody can write wathever he wants without sources. You'll never find an original Napoléon's quote or a sourced affirmation telling that Napoléon wanted to rule the continent under a single governement. These extrapolations are pure bullshit.
Why don't you read a good book about Napoléon and not that British propaganda crap ?
Spain never was annexed to the French Empire.
I've already answered about the egyptian campaign.
You didn't try the other set of search words? I told you Napoleon's Middle East aspirations went beyond the Egyptian campaign, which he led. Spain was part of the French Empire and ruled by Napoleon's brother. Even if it only had "dependent state" status, Napoleon had a firm grip on Spain. Napoleon went beyond what was necessary. That is my point on all of this. Napoelon went beyond what was necessary. He took control of a ridiculous amount of territory because he was power hungry.
He was not power hungry. He wanted peace and order. But european peace and order were systematically threatened by ultra-catholic Spaniards or by old decrepit monarchies like Uk or Prussia who never hesitated to betray and give a stab in the back. They are directly responsible for the twenty years of war, *NOT* Napoléon.
Thank God, he exported the French Revolution's ideals very well. Today the reactionary and perfidious monarchies of the Old Régime is no more, even in UK.
Not Napoléon. He never declared a single war and never broke a single peace treaty unlike the Coalition which broke everyone of them.
The worst warmongers were the Brits, even in peacetime their governement and press were organising anti-french propaganda. While in France, there was popular events everytime a peace was signed.
What grade are you in? He was not being attacked every time he invaded and/or took control. His one government ideation proves that he was about taking over countries even when they were not attacking or even making threats.
He invaded countries that had declared war against France. Found me an original Napoléon's quote about the "european governement"... Good luck to find one...
They were not all in a state of declared war at the time of invasion. I directed you to plenty of good sources on the one government. If they lack quotes, that does not prove the sources wrong.
Whatever your biased point of view may be, France DID abolish slavery 39 years before Britain. This had for immediate result that French slave owners in Guadeloupe or Martinique welcomed British troops, so they could keep their juicy business under their occupation. Napoleon was not a suporter of slavery (he was nourrished with enlightment ideals), his decision to reintroduce slavery was purely pragmatical : it meant to preserve the support of the French Caribbean elite.
MaxRWF 2 weeks ago
Also it omits the fact that Napoleon's armies marched through the streets of Vienna, Berlin and Moscow the three of the other four major powers!
TMDF100 3 weeks ago
This video is so rubbish! It doesn't say anything about the Napoleonic wars except the very minimal at a British biased view. It doesn't mention anything about the French victories, which there were more of than defeats and it also makes It out the British won the wars! Napoleon was exiled not because of the peninsula war but because the combined forces of Russia, Prussia and Austria reached Paris. It also doesn't mention France won the wars of the 1st,2nd,3rd,4th and 5th wars of coalition.
TMDF100 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So many mistakes and stupidities, i am speechless.
To many things to say, so i'll say nothing. But please, pleeease, just read a history book once in a while.
xenotypos 4 months ago
Comment removed
xenotypos 4 months ago
oh man omitting the incursion to russia is a pity
Polovene 5 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL
Stupid video made by a English Canadian which are like all the world know a English balls licker .
jeffkodiac 7 months ago
dammit napoleon don't invade russia and make yourself a dang "kay-sa-dilla"
downfallzawesome 7 months ago
for a video for idiots theres alot of frequent wikipedia members here lol
sneakyooo7 8 months ago
A little biased your video...
I like how you explain in details British victories (of course not a single word about the British defeats in the french revolutionnary wars, the Walcheren campaign, the british defeats in the peninsula before 1812...)
Freez57fr 1 year ago
"The British and prussians (who arrived late in the battle) fought him at waterllo and won, under the command of The Duke opf Wellington and Marshal Blusher. Holland and other allies thought as well as Britain's bitches"
118.000 Allied (only 20% of British) vs 72.000 French.
And for your information, when you say "Prussians arrived late in the battle", that's totally wrong. The Prussians didn't come at the end BUT the end (and the battle's issue) came because of the Prussian intervention.
Freez57fr 1 year ago
very informative, but riddled with spelling errors.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
hmm, I have just noticed, that you SLIPPED a small PART. WAR with RUSSIA....
susigalvokpats 1 year ago
Finland wasnt a country back then.
Envaldig 1 year ago
so really the whole war was a bit pointless
TheSzemelak 1 year ago
rofl.
i found this funny
en10 1 year ago
@gasdfw5 yes twice. Sorry wasnt sure which comment you were replying too. He also demanded the Austrians to surrender in Italy before he could take Vienna another two times.
wedge0005 1 year ago
@gasdfw5 yes but he gave it back again through sportsmanship... twice:-p
wedge0005 1 year ago
Another thing, When napoleon was an Artillery officer he never actually fought deep into Austria, although he did kick their ass in Italy.
tyrannasaurasalan 1 year ago
@tyrannasaurasalan haha, point is that he beat Austrians. :P
nooo8oooo 1 year ago
@tyrannasaurasalan
um yes he did. coordinating with the french armies on the rhine and in switzerland, (after he had conquered north italy and venice) napoleon came within SEVENTY MILES of vienna, the austrian capital. of course the austrians immediately sued for peace and the Treaty of Campo Formio was signed in 1797.
LDD86 1 year ago
@LDD86 Look for keywords before looking stupid. I'm not even going to spoon-feed them to you. Just try to find them in my previous comments.
tyrannasaurasalan 1 year ago
@tyrannasaurasalan oh he did and you really have no idea how wrong are you. His most famous victory was in Moravia, battle by Austerlitz.
Jiri333 1 year ago
@Jiri333 Hence the word "deep". Deep into Austria. Learn to read nd, next time you leave a response, make sure you can write english in a correct and proper manner.
tyrannasaurasalan 1 year ago
Uh I don't remember anything about "Rome getting pissed" (unless you mean the Pope and Church) elaborate.
tyrannasaurasalan 1 year ago
@tyrannasaurasalan thats exactly what I meant.
nooo8oooo 1 year ago
@nooo8oooo Ah alright then. Also the reason for that was The French Revolution destroyed any trace of religion in French Society (the period known as De-Christianization). The reason for doing that was so no Frenchman would have any higher loyalty than to the Republic (Dictatorship)
tyrannasaurasalan 1 year ago
@nooo8oooo - And Rome isn't a country either. It's a capital. Of Italy. You're welcome.
CarlBewley 1 year ago
@CarlBewley There was no nation called Italy back then. Italy back then was a bunch of smaller nations :P. One was the papal states, which wsa directly controlled by Rome and was often referred to as Rome. You're welcome
nooo8oooo 1 year ago 7
@nooo8oooo - Unified in 1861 yes, but Rome wasn't a country or a Kingdom or even the central Itlaian state (except maybe on a religious level as Papal state but its power was waining in 19th Century ), The Itlaian kingdoms of Naples and Sardinia had a more active part in the Napoleonic wars.
You're right though, so my bad for inital comment . . :)
CarlBewley 1 year ago
not entirely true but who cares
MINIHermanator 1 year ago
awesome vid....twas very entertaining, thanks
1o951o8 1 year ago
Everyone declared war on France not the other way around.
PhilipineMan 1 year ago
@PhilipineMan. France declared War on Austria in 1792. Prussia and over powers joined on Austria's side. After the peace of ameines, whoever declared war was ilrelevent, because both Britiain and Napoleonic France had violated the peace treaty. That peace was never goig to last and both sides knew it.
nooo8oooo 1 year ago
ajjajajajajajja xD FUNNY VIDEO
colombiano4420 1 year ago
Even if we went to war with them, even if they all declared war on us, we would not have to take possession of them or make them puppets. Did the U.S. do that to Britain, Germany, Italy, or Russia? We rewrote Japan's constitution because they attacked us, but we didn't make the land American territory. Napoleon had to directly control every country he could because he was a power hungry egomaniac. There's no viable excuse.
thimoneus 2 years ago
lol, US spent its entire history to place puppet states in every country they could (the entire South America, half of Africa, 1/3 of Asia) and they took many lands as war trophies (Indian territories, Hawaii, Philipines...). I suppose it was because Americans were "power hungry egomaniacs" ?
MaxRWF 2 years ago
The fact is that Napoléon never annexed most of its conquest. France never started from Lisboa to Moscow. He modernized some states (abolition of serfdom, abolition of inquisition...) he created countries (Germany/Italy/Poland) or replaced degenerated dynasties and imposed peace to other States. Austria and Prussia never were took over or controled by him or by a French.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Oh, he didn't call all of his land "France", and he didn't take control of Austria or Prussia? What a saint.
thimoneus 2 years ago
He abolished serfdom, inquisition, torture, discrimination against women and jews, he imposed the Civil Code which makes everyone legally equal, he rewarded people on their abilities (and not on birth) and he never started a war.
It surely doesn't make him a Saint but it makes him much more great than the Kaiser of Austria, the Tzar of Russia or the King of Britain...
MaxRWF 2 years ago 11
@MaxRWF But Napoleon re-establish slavery!! even though the French revolutionary were abolished him!!
espoire1757 1 year ago
@MaxRWF Funny how Napoleon strangely forgot to include rights for black people, though. Hmmm. He kept slavery when the 'King of Britain' and his government abolished it.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight The British oligarchy didn't abolish slavery until 1833, in 1808 it barely forbid the slave trade. The same oligarchy which forbade British commoners to vote until 1919 ! But thankfully, French revolutionary ideals prevailed everywhere and good ole' England is now also a democracy.
MaxRWF 2 weeks ago
@MaxRWF Do you consider the Roman Republic to be a democracy? If so, Britain was a democracy for hundreds of years before France.
1833 or 1808, it doesn't matter. The fact remains, the British were the first country in the world to abolish slavery.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight Get your facts right :
- When less than 1% of the population has the right to vote, this is not democracy, it's called an oligarchy or a plutocracy...
-The first country in the world to abolish slavery wasn't Britain, it was Achemenid Persia in 550 BC. Even France abolished slavery in 1794, before Britain (although it was reinstated by a subsequent government).
MaxRWF 2 weeks ago
@MaxRWF OK, so the Roman Republic was not a democracy either then, where probably 0.1% of the population could vote.
You are a fact twister. France did NOT abolish slavery in 1794. You still took huge incomes from the slave colonies in the carribean. That was nothing but revolutionary rhetoric. As for Persia, it was easy for them to abolish it when so little of their national income depended on it.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@MaxRWF He didn't creat Germany as a country. He created the Confederation ofthe Rhine, which was a bunch of german states that were former members of the Holy Roman Empire. And Austria and Prussia never were "taken over" by him, but Spain was. He got his brother to act as king of Spain so he could control the Spanish goverment. the whole country pretty much uprose after his army's abuse mind you.
nooo8oooo 1 year ago
All of South America, half of Africa, and 1/3 of Asia? Say what???????? To the extent that's true, it was mostly because schmucks in the government were power hungry egomaniacs. I have understanding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if their governments are still answering to us decades from now, I am going to call foul.
thimoneus 2 years ago
@MaxRWF TRUE
colombiano4420 1 year ago
@MaxRWF They also suck atwaging war on their own. Find me a war that the Americans won decisivly ON THEIR OWN, besides the American Civil War. Don't bother with the Revolution, they would never have beaten the British without the French's help
nooo8oooo 1 year ago
Napoléon never declared a single war.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Hey man, its just for fun, Im aware im wrong in like 50 areas, I respect Napoleon
nooo8oooo 2 years ago
Did he ever initiate any invasions?
thimoneus 2 years ago
Comment removed
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Hey ! They shouldn't declare war to France and lose...
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Every country Napoleon took over was in a state of declared war against France at the time of invasion? Is that what you are saying?
thimoneus 2 years ago
...or were not respecting the conditions of a peace treaty they had signed. Violating an international agreement is a "casus belli".
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Alright, Napoleon DID "declare War" in a sense, several times, not all of them, but many of hem, and the fact that he raised a army to invade England during peace was a violation of treaty's. And he also had the same things happon to him, lets try not to have a bias veiw on history here
nooo8oooo 2 years ago
No, Napoléon never declared a single war. The planned invasion of England in 1804 happend after the Brits had broke the "peace of Amiens" in 1803 under Pitt's Gouvernement. Treaty of Amiens that the Brits had, anyways, never applied nor had even the intention to apply.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Napoléon is not the monster portrayed by British propaganda. In fact, the bad guys here are certainly the old monarchies Coalition : they intervened into French national affairs and systematically betrayed their promised peace to put the Old Régime system back.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
What was Napoleon's vision of ruling a European empire, why did he overthrow the king of Spain, and why did he seriously consider claiming territory in the Middle East?
thimoneus 2 years ago
Napoléon didn't want a European Empire, it's the other way around : he started the Germany/Italian/Polish national unification that will lead to the modern nations wich we know.
Carlos IV didn't want to get the spanish thrown back and asked Napoléon to find a successor in the Bayonne Meeting(1808), the son of Carlos, Fernidand, had resign too.
Napoléon wasn't the ruler of France during the campaign of Egypt, he was send there by the French republic(directory).
Any other question ?
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Napoleon did seek a single European government. Google "Napoleon one government Europe", and you can see lots of credible pages that talk about it. I wasn't asking about Egypt. I was asking about Napleon's major consideration of gaining French territory in the Middle East. Charles IV did not ask for a replacement. Ferdinand did. Naploleon still had no business making Spain his own. He could have eased his paranoia through ways other than taking over countries.
thimoneus 2 years ago
I googled what you wrote. It gave no serious results. Of course, Napoléon never wanted to put supranational institutions. The only thing Napoléon wanted to impose were the Civil Code (wich makes everybody equal legally), the same system of measures (metre, kilogramme) and a european economy lightly harmonized. There was a coup in Spain by the king's son, Napoléon had to choose between a stupid king who didn't want to stay king and a renegade coward.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean about Middle East.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
The standard definition. Napoleon wanted to do more than conquer Egypt for strategic purposes against the British. He wanted to set up his own territories in other parts so he could have a stratetic presence near the Russian border.
thimoneus 2 years ago
He had that aspiration even after he left Egypt. The only reason he did not pursue it was that he formed an alliance with Russia.
thimoneus 2 years ago
No serious results? What do you mean? There is a long list of credible sites with the info. Napoleon sought a united Europe under one government, a European Empire.
Like I said, Napoleon had no business making Spain his own even if he did need to meddle in the royal trouble, which he didn't.
thimoneus 2 years ago
Blogs are not serious sources of information. How about you read a book ?
Spain was not "his own", he replace a degenerated French dynasty (Bourbons) by a fresh French dynasty (Bonaparte).
MaxRWF 2 years ago
If sites like Lucid Cafe and Wikipedia are worthless to you, here's an even better search-- "napoleon united liberal government". You will find plenty of credible pages with that set of terms.
Napoleon did take control of Spain. He appointed his brother king and made Spain part of his empire.
thimoneus 2 years ago
Of course Lucid Café and Wikipedia are shite : anybody can write wathever he wants without sources. You'll never find an original Napoléon's quote or a sourced affirmation telling that Napoléon wanted to rule the continent under a single governement. These extrapolations are pure bullshit.
Why don't you read a good book about Napoléon and not that British propaganda crap ?
Spain never was annexed to the French Empire.
I've already answered about the egyptian campaign.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
You didn't try the other set of search words? I told you Napoleon's Middle East aspirations went beyond the Egyptian campaign, which he led. Spain was part of the French Empire and ruled by Napoleon's brother. Even if it only had "dependent state" status, Napoleon had a firm grip on Spain. Napoleon went beyond what was necessary. That is my point on all of this. Napoelon went beyond what was necessary. He took control of a ridiculous amount of territory because he was power hungry.
thimoneus 2 years ago
He was not power hungry. He wanted peace and order. But european peace and order were systematically threatened by ultra-catholic Spaniards or by old decrepit monarchies like Uk or Prussia who never hesitated to betray and give a stab in the back. They are directly responsible for the twenty years of war, *NOT* Napoléon.
Thank God, he exported the French Revolution's ideals very well. Today the reactionary and perfidious monarchies of the Old Régime is no more, even in UK.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
Every conqueror has excuses.
thimoneus 2 years ago
Every country is a conqueror (or is conquered).
But the warmongers were the Brits/Russians/Austrians/Prussians, not Napoléon.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
They were all warmongers.
thimoneus 2 years ago
Not Napoléon. He never declared a single war and never broke a single peace treaty unlike the Coalition which broke everyone of them.
The worst warmongers were the Brits, even in peacetime their governement and press were organising anti-french propaganda. While in France, there was popular events everytime a peace was signed.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what he "declared". He invaded and killed.
thimoneus 2 years ago
You're such a sissy boy...
When someone's attacking you, don't you strike back ?
MaxRWF 2 years ago
What grade are you in? He was not being attacked every time he invaded and/or took control. His one government ideation proves that he was about taking over countries even when they were not attacking or even making threats.
thimoneus 2 years ago
He invaded countries that had declared war against France. Found me an original Napoléon's quote about the "european governement"... Good luck to find one...
MaxRWF 2 years ago
They were not all in a state of declared war at the time of invasion. I directed you to plenty of good sources on the one government. If they lack quotes, that does not prove the sources wrong.
thimoneus 2 years ago
Awesome Job :D
electeon 2 years ago