Que de verbillage en rosbif au sujet de l'Empereur!
Je ne m'abaisserai même pas à leur répondre si j'étais vous. Ces gens sont abreuvés de fausses informations sur le sujet depuis 200 ans. Et ils croient encore dur comme fer qu'ils ont eu une quelconque valeur durant la période, autre que financière... comme disait J. Murat, les anglais sont des peigne-culs.
@Strateg68 "slip away" ? .... he had an own autonomous state in Elba with his most loyal followers the Old Guard, as the isles army. He was governor and not held hostage anywhere. There was no need to slip away. He just took 2 ships and sailed back from exile. You probably misjudge his pretty great autonomy in that period. The only thing that stopped him doing earlier, was that the French king would have immidiatly send an army to intercept. Well he did, but it was not his army anymore then :-)
napoleon may have seemed evil to his enemies but when you consider that the prince consort (george IV i believe) spent 4 years worth of taxes on wine whilst many people were starving in the north, and compare that to napoleon who only ate after all his men and horses ate. i think i would have fought for old boneparte aswell
@TheWailingdeath Guess who did more to help the poor? "Never did a man ever dispose of so much wealth and keep less of it for himself". (André Maurois, "Napoléon", quoting Napoleon III in "Idées Napoléoniennes")
@TheWailingdeath George the IV of the Britain if that is who you are referring to is not worth comparing to Napoleon. Seeing as he did not govern Britain in that period but the Lord of Liverpool and the rest of the Government like George Canning. George IV was technically a public figure.
2 They will be all provided for and raised at our expense; the boys, in our imperial palace at Rambouillet, and the girls in our imperial palace at Saint-Germain. The boys will be found employment and the girls married by us.
3. Independently of their baptismal names and surnames, they will have the right to add that of Napoleon. Our great judge, minister of Justice will accomplish all the formalities entailed concerning this by the Civil Code
4. Our grand marshal of the palace and our intendant-general of the Crown are charged with the execution of the present decree, which will be added to the Order of the Day of the army, and inserted in the Bulletin of Laws.
no, napoleon was a self serving bastard in the same ilk as hilter, he ruined the french revolution for his own ambition. I only wish the prussians had captured him after waterloo. blucher would have shot him, strung him up, and dragged his fat little body through berlin
@dmax631, Napoleon retained many of the ideas of the French Revolution through Code Napoleon. He was ambitious, but everything he did was for France's glory. It's what he always said. He gave France a mighty empire, the people were happy with their new freedom, and the army was widely feared and renown in Europe. Even though he failed in the end, his legacy was legendary. Many Civil Codes around the world were heavily based on the Napoleonic Code.
@expertstrategy everything napoleon did was for the glory of napoleon. He didnt influence Great Britain at all apart from them utterly crushing him at Waterloo when the french army outnumbered the allies.
It was largely due to him that English is now the worlds language when he got defeated so I guess thats the only good thing he ever achived.
@zenoist2 "It was largely due to him that English is now the worlds language when he got defeated so I guess thats the only good thing he ever achived."
wow, you really need to learn more. Napoleon abolished feudalism and serfdom permanently in Europe. Many civil codes of countries all over the world were based upon the Code Napoleon, except Britain.
It was because of American globilization that made English the international language.
@expertstrategy I already know about napoleon thank you. he was a selfish dictator who thought nothing of millions of people kiiled to serve his own ambition.
His pathetic attempt in 1812 to conquer Russia should have sent warning signs but the man was a dickhead
@zenoist2, Napoleon only invaded Russia because Czar Alexander I was secretly trading with the British, and that was against the terms of the Treaty of Tilsit. It wasn't out of the lust for fresh conquest, it was motivated by political reasons.
It could be argued that Britain was responsible for Europe's demise, since they paid off one Coalition after another to fight France, trading gold for the blood of hundreds of thousands of men.
napoleon was a dick. he lost at waterloo the first time he ever faced wellington which exactly showed the world his true worth. he treated people like shit and was a dictator.
@zenoist2, Waterloo doesn't discount 20 years of military glory. You can brag about Waterloo all you want since you are so obsessed with it, and ignore the Prussian role, and the fact that the British only made up 18% of the Allied army, but you can't change the fact that Napoleon was a better commander, and even Wellington acknowledges it.
It's true that he was a dictator, and at times he can be a dick, but so what?
@NapoleonCalland, He did assume the powers of a dictator, but he's one of the few dictators I greatly respect because he wasn't anything like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. I only call him a dictator because he had absolute power in France. He can be quite harsh with his enemies at certain times. Napoleon forced Prussia to pay a huge war indemnity and stripped it of territory which he used to resurrect the Polish nation. That's what I mean by saying that he can be a dick at times.
@expertstrategy He didn't have the powers of a dictator or absolute power - cf Vincent Cronin's "Napoleon", HarperCollins, 1994, Ch11 p177 and Ch 12 p192-193 - and the indemnity he forced Prussia to pay was reasonable from a state that had caused another war in Europe. As for using the part of Poland in Prussian hands to recreate Poland as a state, that's not "being a dick", on the contrary it was a debt paid to his Polish allies and has never been forgotten by the Polish people.
@NapoleonCalland, yes, but in Spain, he attempted to replace the Spanish Bourbons and install his brother, Joseph, as the new king of Spain, because he doesn't like useless allies, but this action initiated a deadly war in the Iberian peninsula which the French would never recover from.
@expertstrategy He replaced the Bourbons with Joseph because on entering Berlin in 1806 he found a letter from the Spanish PM, Godoy, showing that they'd sided with the Prussians! If he hadn't won at Jena, the Spanish would have attacked France from behind!
@dmax631 Whereas if the Emperor had captured Blucher he would have had his wounds treated and had him retired with a pension. But of course your friend Hitler (not Hilter) was more merciful to his enemies. Like expert strategy said, N. maintained what was best in the French Revolution and put an end to the bloodshed by reconciling people in the name of the common good. That's why people followed him, you could disagree with him and still wake up in your bed the following day. Or be promoted.
@dmax631 Blucher had a psychotic hatred of N, but it wasn't new. Blucher was retired from active service twice, once for annoying Frederick the Great, once for annoying N, who'd asked for Blucher to be presented to him in 1806 because he wanted to meet B, who'd impressed him by holding a position on the Baltic, only surrendering when he ran out of ammo. N could have had most of his enemies murdered or executed. The fact is he didn't, just as he pardoned most of them when possible. Unlike them
Napoleon didn't have any Allies? Who were the Spanish fighting for at Trafalgar? The Polish Legions? The Etrurians? Bavaria? Who were the Brits fighting at Copenhagen? Don't forget Italy and Holland.
And don't forget that Napoleon (like Hitler and the Kaiser) also tried to mobilize Islam behind him.
@2210ethan Hitler had competent allies, all of napoleon's allies were incompetent because they got beaten by the french so what makes anyone think they can beat the british
Your that balding fat midget who led us all into defeat.
Our country was invaded and you abdicated.
To be fair Napoleon had annoyed so many people by this time with his arrogance and high handed ways towards conquered princes, kings ,countries etc practically all of Europe was aginst him.
Prussia was treated particularly badly. a fact the french continually paid for at waterloo 1815, in 1870, 1914 and in 1940.
"To be fair Napoleon had annoyed so many people by this time with his arrogance and high handed ways towards conquered princes, kings ,countries etc practically all of Europe was aginst him."
How do you think the Austrians, Russians, and Prussians felt for the British. The British were more than content to allow others to fight in their place. They trade gold for the blood of thousands of men. Napoleon once remarked that a single British diplomat was worth 2 million Russians.
To defeat Germany there has to be a Germany, the 30 years war was actually a german civil/religious war of some sort, there was no real war between France and Germany before 1870 and that 1914-war ended in a standstill that American, not French, forces probably would have broken, if the people of Germany hadn't revoltet before. The treaty of Versailles ignored that and build the foundation for the events that started 20 years later, which ended in defeat for both countries.
@zenoist2, even Blucher was annoyed by Wellington, because he wanted to name the battle after La Belle Alliance, but Arthur prefered to name it after Waterloo because that is where he fought, this arrogantly ignored the Prussian role in the battle.
Napoleon was 5'6, taller than the average European.
@zenoist2 "Hitler studied Napoleon and he didnt learn either."
no
he got the EXACTLY SAME DESTINY than Napoleon ! He became even more powerful, and Europe didn't defeat him without the powerful Americans, Napoleon was defeated by Europe
he was a criminal to me but you are wrong, he took lessons and won ! from homeless to master of the europe its not bad... so thanks Napoleon for showing the way
what man on this earth prefer to have a long boring life instead of a short intense life ?
Napoleon never even set foot in Haiti, and he only sent an expeditionary force in order to restore that colony to French rule, not massacre the people. He had no intention to re-establish slavery in St. Dominique and said that the colonies of Guadelope and St.Dominique are to remain free of slavery. Just read "Napoleon on Napoleon: an autobiography of the emperor" it will tell you right there.
The atrocities that occured were really carried out by Leclerc and Rochambeau who were monsters.
@Eddieposted, "saying that both were temperamentally unable to give up the tiniest scrap of conquered land and calllously wasted the lives of many men trying to defend everything."
That is where you are wrong. When Napoleon came to France in 1815 and retook the throne, he said he would renounce the borders of 1792 that Revolutionary France conquered and instead rule the 1789 origional borders.
He knew that his army is only meant to defend France and not extend her borders.
@expertstrategy Eddipost just isn't worth responding to. The plain fact is Churchill admired Napoleon - and that wasn't the only instance where he said so. Comparing similarity of military circumstances is one thing, the nature of the two men and their regimes is something totally different. I don't care that people wish to believe otherwise to accommodate their insecure worldviews. Either that or they're just ignorant. Perhaps both. Want proof? Just wait for his reply.....
"I always hate to compare Napoleon with Hitler, as it seems an insult to the great Emperor and warrior to connect him in any way with a squalid caucus boss and butcher."- Winston Churchill (Commons, 28 Sep. 1944)
Did it happen exactly like the scene? A line of soldiers pointed their rifles at him? What if one of the soldiers, because he's so nervous, accidentally shot and killed him?
Rod Steiger is a superb actor in capturing Napoloen's extraordinay charisma. He carries the movie. As for me, if I had seen him, I would have followed his colours.
Yea because 100,000 dead is comparable to 6 million. But 300,000 dead Kenyans and those that died in concentration camps during the Boer war...yea let's just forget about that..LOL.
Thanks I am enjoying my sharing of information of British murder, torture and other horrific acts.
Britain is directly responsible for the murder, torture and slavery of thousands, quite possibly millions of people. And you may talk about Napoleons genocide all you want, I acknowledge that, but I will talk about this all I want and you will deal with it.
Oh here come the insults. Clown huh? Please further display your lack of education.
"we could post numerous similar claims about the maltreatment"
Maltreatment - LOL. Now that's hilarious. An atrocity is an atrocity, be it genocide, torture or what have you. You are trying to ignore historical facts commited by your country as I see. Accusing others of having rose colored glasses when you wear them yourself.
Has nothing to do with hate. These are historically documented facts. Is that really the only way you can respond? It's intellectualy dishonest and pathetic that you would cry "hate" just because I pointed out some history. I'm sorry you don't like it but it has nothing to do with a "hatefest". Typical pathetic Brit with rose colored glasses on.
Slander everyone else but you all shit flowers and rainbows...hilarious stuff. And you aren't even educated.
The horrible conditions in British camps during the Boer war, where thousands of women and children died of disease and malnutrition, are well known. Who now remembers the Indian work camps, where British officials conducted experiments to determine how few calories an Indian coolie could be fed and still perform hard labour? yea..I don't think I need to go on.
British aerial bombing and gassing of villages in Sudan, Iraq and Palestine in the 1920 and 1930s, yep Britain.
Massacre by the Scots Guard in Malaya? Yep, Britain. Brutal suppression of the Mau Mau? Yep, Britain. Aden killings in 1960?
How about the thousands of Africans, Indians and Malays - men, women and children - who were either killed or maimed constructing Britains imperial railways? Ahh yes...so innocent.
What about British genocide against the Mi'kmaq? Or how about the Kenyans? Where they were detained without trial up to 320,000 people in punishment camps, where the official policy was systematic brutality, using sexual violence and humiliation. Guards were indoctrinated into a fascist mentality, describing and treating Africans as animals.
That's all good and well, just wanted to point out Britain isn't innocent of atrocities. Which I assure you a fair share have been commited. If you can dish it you can take it as well.
Glad the UK is doing well. I'm no blind patriotic, I think you get the wrong idea. I wish a better future for everyone.
And I'm not bitter at all, just discussing facts. And I'm glad the UK is doing well, they are an important part of the global community which relies on each other for a strong economy.
Oh and I do wish the US would cut military spending and close some military bases, but can I do I'm just one person :).
Sure...and the British killed thousands, possibly millions in work camps from Africa to India. Reports of torture, poor conditions and more. Ohh I can find quite some horrible tales of British kings, dukes and more. Your extension of imperialism and greed costed many lives, not something you brits like to hear either.
And all for what? Pretty much nothing now. Just you and your tiny little island in the ocean.
@Eddieposted, Napoleon was quite different to Hitler, and if you read or studied a little deeper about the Napoleonic Wars, then you would know that Napoleon was usually fighting because war was forced upon him. Even the invasion of Russia was justified when Alexander I dishonored the agreements he made with Napoleon.
Napoleon doesn't kill civilians, only soldiers. Hitler does both.
Napoleon never ordered a mass execution of people.
Exactly- Napoleon put his brothers on foreign thrones like a dictator- Napoleon seized power like a dictator in 1799 and never let it go. He occupied foreign lands and forced conscription on them. He caused a big decrease in the French male population with his warmongering. His so called defence of France only happened from 1813 because up until then there was no foreign invasion of France. All the Coalitions were after Napoleon - not France. Napoleon-apologists can't admit it.
@Eddieposted, another reason why Britain was at war with France, was because the power Napoleon represented threatened British imperial hegemony in Europe. If Napoleon was a Megalomaniac, then his ambitions would be the same as British ambitions, perhaps you can come up with an excuse to explain an empire that covered 1/4 of the globe. Wasn't this an example of the megalomaniac of the British?
@Eddieposted, even Napoleon's empire was built because of these ceaseless attacks from the rest of Europe. Even his invasion of Russia was justified because the Tzar Alexander, dishonored the agreements he made with Napoleon to cease trade with Britain and to give him support whenever Napoleon calls.
Even if Napoelon wanted to conquer Europe and succeded, then what is the British Empire, an empire that 'peacefully' colonized 1/4 of the world with the conquered people's consent? B.S
@Eddieposted, let me clear something up with you. Napoleon and Hitler's goals were totally different.
Napoleon was not the one who declared war in the first place, it was also the other imperial powers, especially Britain.
Those millions of deaths of the Napoleonic Wars was by the reactionary policies of those countries that were against the ideals of the French Revolution and Napoleon. So it is unfair to blame the casualties of that conflict on Napoleon, since he was not the begetter of war.
@Eddieposted, Napoleon was nothing like HItler, plus there were no gas chambers back then, that is just complete propaganda, Claude Ribbe is just an idiot who is trying to make up history, just like Alan Schom.
The Dutch hated Napoleon after he put his brother on their throne in the act of a dictator. They despised him even more after he forced Dutch conscipts into his army that invaded Russia. What kind of 'freedom' is that BS- occupying foreign nations and forcing their men to fight in wars of a dictator.
Napoleon was a egotistical chess player who used people as dispensable playing pieces.
@whittakertyler55 Both of you comments are spot on! Long LIve The Emperor! Long LIVE THE EMPIRE! LONG LIVE NAPOLEON! If only the US had a leader like him now!
Napoleon was 100% in the right to do what he did the French Monarchy sucked, the Republic(before he took power) was just as bad. He changed the world, it didn't matter if your father was a baker you could still do great things. You morons who question Napoleon should think about it. Europe wouldn't have changed he showed everyone that you can do anything you set your mind to, anybody.
You should read about the Imperial Guard's reaction when they found out Napoleon the Megalomaniac deserted his army yet again when things went bad - after he surrendered to the British for his final one way trip in 1815.....
His desertions added up-> Egypt, Russia, Waterloo......
@michaellee123123: Well, first take a good and long look on The Disasters of War by the Spanish Painter Goya and then talk to Spaniards about the French occupation, they usually compare Napoleon with Hitler; and after seeing the pictures of Goya who can deny them? Besides Hitler may have different and more evil goals but both represent the type of the European Caesar as Caesarism is approaching in the Faustian world; look at the first emperor of China: They are birds of the selfsame feather. ...
@michaellee123123: Besides I have only spoken my mind and I do not care if someone is convinced of anything by my comments and it is not my fault if people do read them and posts replies!
"Besides I have only spoken my mind and I do not care if someone is convinced of anything by my comments and it is not my fault if people do read them and posts replies!"
Read "I have spoken my mind and my opinion is the only one that counts" GGd doesn't mind talking to the wall, as long as it doesn't mind not talking back !
As for The Disasters of War, Goya portrayed the atrocities committed by both sides, including young French soldiers and camp followers crucified or mutilated by guerrillas. Hitler had nothing Caesarist about him apart from borrowing emblems that Germany adopted long before he was born.
@NapoleonCalland: Hitler had all what you need to be Caesarean: High popularity value, absolute power and the wish to conquer an empire; or what is your definition of it? And no again: The symbols of Hitler were not traditionally German: Before him no one ever used the swastika for example and he was inspired by Mussolini (his idol for life) with his uniforms and standards; and it maybe true that the Spaniards may not have been nice to the occupation forces but this was the fault of Napoleon...
@NapoleonCalland: He did invade the country without any hostile act, in fact he was even in alliance with Spain; his troops looted and misused the Spanish population with beastly shameless outrages as may not be without much shame retold or spoken of; he antagonized the powerful church, showed great arrogance towards the Spaniards and when he installed his brother as king the Spaniard when berserk: Operated without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct.
Joseph Bonaparte was a mindless killer who tried to destroy the kingdom of Spain; installed by his brother Napoleon; a man twisted by unbridled ambition; a man haunted by insatiable greed; the most evil man in the world.
I am sorry but that is factually false. Napoleon invaded Portugal through Spain, which was allowed by King Charles of Spain in which they assisted. The second time occured because the Spanish royal family was having a disoute and wanted Napoleon to mediate. He like most modern day historian, felt that both Charles and Ferdinand were unfit for the King's Crown and he gave it to Joseph. He was a good administrator everywhere except on the battlefield.
Ney etait un bon meneur d' homme , mais un mauvais organisateur , le plus grand désastre fut Ney a Waterloo , trop impetueux et tete brulée , dommage que Berthier soit mort et que Murat n' est pas été préféré .
an impressive stream of ... "legitimist" codswallop.
Napoleon seized power from a corrupt and anti-democratic government and ruled with the active (and undocile) help of the Council of State, the Tribunate (until 1807), the Legislative Body and the Senate. All major constitutional changes were presented to plebiscites, and approved by the vast majority of Frenchmen. Tyrant my foot ! Ferdinand was a tyrant, and an incompetent one at that !
He was a uniquely good leader, but he becaame a bit obsessed with being emperor. He was also unfaithful to his first wife. Plus, Beethoven tore up the music sheet he had written for him (napoleon) because he saw him as a liberator over kings, when he pratically became king himself.
Beethoven was afraid that his hero would become a tyrant. But Beethoven became an admirer again after reading about the Emperor's fortitude at St Helena
Shame that good old Napoleon could not content himself to rule France like Pericles ruled Athens, as a citizen of the republic, not by extraordinary office but by natural leadership: "Whenever he saw them unseasonably and insolently elated, he would with a word reduce them to alarm; on the other hand, if they fell victims to a panic, he could at once restore them to confidence. In short, what was nominally a democracy became in his hands government by the first citizen." But so he was a tyrant.
AJP Taylor made an important point in How Wars Begin when he said that Napoleon didn't start any of the wars attributed to him. What upset his enemies was that he "unsportingly" knocked their armies out as soon as they started moving, before they could gang up on him
@NapoleonCalland: Well, this is of course wrong or do you serious claim that usurping tyrant did not started the war with Spain in 1808 by occupying the country and placing his kindred on the throne, which did cause an immediate uprising of the Spanish people or his invasion of Egypt and his war against the Turks? While it is of course true that his first wars were not his fault but much of his later were; especially his peevish attempt to build a French hegemony over Europe and Germany...
@NapoleonCalland: ...all in all he was a spoilt child of Fortune, much like Alexander the Great or Hannibal, who could never cope with defeat and was never able to recover from a defeat, like Julius Caesar did several times: In Russia most of his army was lost because of his inability to cope with supplies and climate and most of all to organize a retreat; some happened after Leipzig and then he even lost France, leaving her helpless at the mercy of the other great powers...
@NapoleonCalland: ...a thing never happened in the history of France [save the defeat of 1940]; France has as much cause to worship Napoleon as Germany has to worship Hitler, Italy Mussolini, Russia Stalin or China Mao. Not to mention his audacious attempt to use the might of France to place his incapable kindred on European thrones or his habit of creating minions, the military nobles, who betrayed him in 1814 and caused his downfall, together with the downfall of France.
France has been invaded on many occasions before and after him, not least during the 100 Years War, the reign of Henry VIII of England and in 1870, 1914 - 1918 and 1940.
France has every cause to "worship" him for the institutions, social progress, laws and ideals of the Revolution that he cemented into the mass of granite foundations he laid for our country. The only lasting legacy of the dictators you quoted is genocide, the station at Venice, mass deportations and famine.
@NapoleonCalland: This is not a question of being invaded but of being utterly defeated and this happened to France only three times in 1814, 1815 and 1940 and for to such defeats Napoleon is responsible and he did travesty the ideals of the revolution by deposing the legally elected government and making himself tyrant of France; and in case of Mao you might be wrong: He did reanimate China as a great power and laid the foundation of the Chinese comeback: Many may soon curse him for this.
He placed members of his family on thrones around Europe to provide France with allies governed according to the ideals that post-revolutionary France represented and to ensure lasting peace in Europe by linking the reigining families through his own blood. Audacious, but more justified than the absurd "legitimist" pretensions of princes whose ideals were the perpetuation of feudalism, prejudice and the Inquisition!
And naturally as you said, his downfall was the downfall of France!
@NapoleonCalland: What was quite a foolish idea as his kindred was altogether very incapable: The only able person was Eugène de Beauharnais, who he placed as a viceroy in Italy; the rest was a mere disaster: From Holland to Spain; and no proud nation like the Spanish or German would suffer a foreign conquest and foreign kings and while the Spaniards make their immediate small war, the prototype for the irregular war, the Germans waited until Napoleon made a mistake...
@NapoleonCalland: ...and he was well repaid at Leipzig, Waterloo and Paris for his presumption as Prussia did rise like a phoenix to be his Nemesis and hurled him into destruction, else England and Russia might have vainly struggled against him and France; and while his Spanish folly was without serious consequences his German one was not: It set German nationalism as much against France as the Hundred Years War set the English and French one against each other...
@NapoleonCalland: ...this brought the two sister nations (remember the Franks and the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties) to mutual self-destruction in the two world wars, which form somewhat the Peloponnesian War of Europe, as after them Europe has become the vassal, toy and slave of outside powers like the Russians and the Americans (and with the Chinese worse is to come). This is far from forming a lasting peace; and it was folly: Napoleon was not likely to beget an able successor...
@NapoleonCalland: ...and as the hegemony of France did not result from the natural strength of France (you can see that at the fact how little king Louis XIV archived against all Europe in a likewise constellation, even with his shameful league with the common enemy of Europe: The Turks) but of his mastermind, with his death his work would have collapsed and he would have been remembered as being the useful idiot of the Russians, lest he would have broken Russia before his demise...
@NapoleonCalland: This peace strategy is of course nonsense: None of the old royal families of Europe considered him as an equal monarch but as an arriviste and as long he held power this was irrelevant but as soon as he was weak they turned against him; while France was lucky: Talleyrand was able minimise her defeat by the help of Metternich and Castlereagh, who wanted to preserve France as a counterbalance to Russia; and luckily nobody was that mad for peace back then as in the 20th century!
(...) Talleyrand was supposed to obtain Turkish support for it.
As for recovering from a defeat, no other commander in History ever snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with more class, not least after the Second Polish War in 1812.
During the 1813 campaign most German states either turned against him or were over-run by the Coalition. Which didn't stop him repeatedly hammering their forces to the extent that they eventually decided to attack his Marshals and avoid fighting him in person!
@NapoleonCalland: As far as it is written in the history books the strategy of the Sixth Coalition was to form three armies and to attack the detachments of his army and as soon as he would have approached with the main French force to retreat until the other two armies would reach the battlefield to confront Napoleon with superior forces and it worked at Leipzig and only after this battle his vassal states like Bavaria deserted him not before, save the Saxons, who left him at Leipzig.
Which proves my point, they weren't able to defeat him on equal terms or with only slightly larger forces. He was more betrayed than defeated... one reason why the Prussians sent the much abused Saxon army home in 1815 to avoid them switching to fight for Napoleon.
Firstly he wasn't a usurper (or are you seriously claiming that the Bourbons had any right to rule France against the will of the people?), nor a tyrant. Secondly a tyrant wouldn't have pardoned traitors like Talleyrand and Fouché, he'd have shot them.
Thirdly the war with Spain was orchestrated by the Catholic Church against the Emperor who liberated Protestants and Jews and abolished feudalism and the Inquisition.
Egypt was a campaign directed against the British conquest of India and (...)
@NapoleonCalland: That Napoleon was a usurper is clear: He did depose the lawful government of France by a military coup and then made himself gradually tyrant of France; and a tyrant is not defined by savage and gruel actions but by the fact that his rule is based on force and not consent and free will of the ruled people; as for the deposed Bourbon dynasty: It depends if one does believe in the grace of god or the will of the people as foundation of a government.
@NapoleonCalland: And it is quite absurd to justify the invasion of Turkish Egypt with the declaration of wanting to attack the English in India, is it not? And the Catholic Church was of course a pillar of Spanish national resistance against the invading tyrant and his local minions but you can be assured that there were no Jews or Protestants in Spain at that time: As Isabella I of Castile ordered their expulsion in 1492 and nobody did expect the Spanish Inquisition, in fact those who do...
Firstly he wasn't a usurper (or are you seriously claiming that the Bourbons had any right to rule France against the will of the people?), nor a tyrant. Secondly a tyrant wouldn't have pardoned traitors like Talleyrand and Fouché, he'd have shot them.
Egypt was a campaign directed against the British conquest of India and was not directed against the Turks who'd been ousted by the Mamelucks.
As for the Inquisition, it was restored in Spain in 1813.
@NapoleonCalland: And it was high time to restore it! As those damned liberals did not expect the Spanish Inquisition! And as I said: The question of who is to rule France depends on the point of view: If one does side with people like Rousseau or Kant, who declare that the sovereignty always belongs to the people (though political voluntarism does not work as the state is a natural building, according to Aristotle); if one takes the side of the monarchy then House Bourbon is entitled to rule...
@NapoleonCalland: And you can turn and twist it as you like: Napoleon was an usurper as he had neither any right to the French throne by divine right or dynastic legitimacy nor had he been given power by the French people in a free election or vote; but he did use military force to depose the lawful government and style himself as a tyrant; and that is the character of tyranny: Ruling by force to your own good, while a king does rule by consent for the common good, according to Aristotle....
The Bourbons were not the lawful French government, they were imposed by force. How can you in turn fault Napoleon for taking power without firing a shot when the people wanted him and did not want the Bourbons? As for who ruined France, that was the Coalition that waged war for 20 years and refused to make peace. Who attacked France in 1805? The Coalition. It took almost 2 more years of fighting to convince Russia to sue for peace. In nearly every case, Napoleon responded, did not initiate war.
@IuniusPalladius: They were until 1789/93 when they were deposed by the French National Assembly (a metamorphosis of the States-General) and here is the dispute: Who is the sovereign in France: The French people or the French kings; and Napoleon did not depose House Bourbon but the republican Directory, which was elected by the French people, what Napoleon never was; and Napoleon had his chances to conclude peace if he had been moderate: Amiens and Basel for example but he was too greedy...
One should divide the Napoleonic Wars into several chapters: First the Wars against the French revolution, roughly from 1793-1795 (treaty of Basel with Prussia); second the War between France and other European powers, between 1795-1805/6 (Austerlitz and Jena, plus the Russian defeats in Eastern Prussia, ending in the treaty of Tilsit) and then the wars against Napoleon as European hegemonic ruler, from 1807-1813/14 (marked by the battle of Leipzig and the capture of Paris by the VI Coalition)
Waterloo and the VII Coalition were a mere aftermath: France was defeated, war weary and without allies, while all opposing states would, in fresh remembrance throw all their might into battle, vowing to raise a coalition army of 700,000 soldiers. Napoleon was defeated at Leipzig and failed to turn the tide of the war in France a year later; the fuss the English make about Waterloo is therefore ridiculous; besides Waterloo was much more a Prussian victory than an English one.
It's hard to say what would have happened if Napoleon knocked England and Prussia out of the war at Waterloo. While there was much bluster from the other allies about continuing their war against France they were tired also. It is as likely they would have had no stomach for any more.
@IuniusPalladius: Nope; as there were only an English and a Prussian Army dispatched to Belgium, not even the bulk of their forces (Prussia had 250,000 men at least under arms, while Marshall Bluecher had roughly 80,000 soldiers ready); and it is unlikely that Napoleon could destroy the two armies completely; and the Russian and Austrian armies were on the march with greater strength; Napoleon had more troops in 1814 and opposed much less foes and still lost Paris and his lordship.
It's speculation of course but it's hard to say what impact knocking the English and Prussians out would have had on the morale of the royal families. Russian armies would have had to cross Prussian territory and might not have received permission and Francis would likely have been hesitant to go to war against his son-in-law again.
@IuniusPalladius: You should read some history books! A little victory broke the morale of royal families? This would be as likely as the success of the Ardennes offensive in 1944 would gain Hitler a peace treaty with the Western Allies! England has continued to wage war against Napoleon, even after he made a friendship treaty with Russia! And Prussia was his very Nemesis: After his victory in 1806/7 he tried to destroy the country and menaced to depose House Brandenburg.
It's hard to say what would have happened but it is likely they would have backed off. We'll never know for certain but there was little appetite for war anywhere in Europe. Fighting Napoleon again would have meant refighting the ideals of the Revolution, something they didn't want to do again. Yes, England was France's nemesis but was not a land based power and knocking its main field army out of the war would have kept it off the continent. Read some history books!
@IuniusPalladius: Little appetite for war in Europe? Who told you such fairy tales? The German Wars of Liberation were highly popular and to say that Bluecher was unwilling to wage war in general and in particular against Napoleon is saying a hungry lion is reluctant to go hunting! Besides Napoleon was formally outlawed by the Congress of Vienna and some of his supporters like Ney or Murat executed later; and the ideals of the revolution crushed together with France a year before already.
@IuniusPalladius: And to claim that the European powers were not ready to combat the French revolution and its ideals, wherever they are to be found, is ridiculous beyond imagination! The Holy Alliance (the league of throne and altar) was founded by Russia expressly to combat the revolution! Not 7 years after the final defeat of Napoleon France did crush on its bidding the liberal revolution in Spain, restoring absolute monarchy; and this programme remained valid until 1848!
@IuniusPalladius: Besides the strength of England consisted in her fleets blocking the seas, her money and diplomacy buildings ever new alliances against France and occasional incursions of her troops, which did France so much trouble in Spain, as they backed the relentless irregular war of the Spaniards against the occupation forces; and to conclude: Napoleon could not be saved in 1815 by ten battles like Austerlitz. And even at Ligny he lost 10,000 men, so France lacked the means for him...
And bankrupted the "war effort" by causing a stock exchange crash... this was how Rothschild became a millionaire - by encouraging people to sell their shares by convincing them Napoleon had won !
@NapoleonCalland: If you are now start harping on the Jews had betrayed Napoleon you will be sentenced to play Christ in various passion plays in the upcoming Easter season! And to believe that no one got rich here in France trough the wars would be ridiculous as this phenomenon is found in all wars at all times.
"If you are now start harping on the Jews had betrayed Napoleon" ... is English your fourth language or are you getting carried away ?
I never said the Jews betrayed him... quite the reverse in fact. Most Jews still remember him with thanks and praise, as a second Cyrus for his liberating them from oppression.
@NapoleonCalland: [Nope, English should be my second native tongue by blood but obviously it is not] I cry you mercy then, because I have been told so by many foreign (non-French) votaries of Napoleon and on the contrary too: Many people believe that both the French revolutions and Napoleon were created by the Jews, for some evil purpose; so I thought it was better to ask, because I am too much annoyed with all those Jewish conspiracies going on the net.
@NapoleonCalland: Spare me the big words, that fact remains that both tyrants scarified their people for their personal vanities and doomed them to be under foreign influence; though France was much happier as the prime goal of major coalition powers was to restore the European power equilibrium and so Metternich tried even to negotiate with Napoleon, right before Leipzig but save the entertainment of seeing Napoleon making a fool of himself it was in vain; while the Allies were peace-mongers...
Utterly false once again, the Allies were the declaritory party in all of the wars. Napoleon never declared war against anyone. That he was better at war than they were, is not his fault, but rather a God given talent that was provided to be used as a weapon for positive progressive change, unlike the allies who were extremely conservative.
@Napoleon5005: Well, in the case of Spain (1808) and Russia (1812) Napoleon was the party responsible for the outbreak of hostilities, but this is a mere formal question; besides England was a liberal power and both Prussia and Austria were much influenced by the Enlightenment; so only Russia was conservative. Via his follies Napoleon did nearly accomplish what Hitler had done half 100 years later: Russian hegemony over Europe by the destruction of all other great powers...
There is the difference between the two men. Napoleon wanted the French people to prosper and fought the wars that are unjustly named after him in order to defend him self and not expand France past its geographic borders as did the United States(whooo!) in the Mexican-American War. Hitler wanted to oppress and subjugate all of Europe. Very big differences
@Napoleon5005: You may believe this follies, but for the Europeans of his age Napoleon was about building a French hegemony over Europe and worse: Placing his kindred on European thrones and the so-called expansion to the geographic borders proved very perilous for France as it sparked German nationalism and the three of the four great wars France had after him were due to this against Germany; and the USA may soon make similar experiences with Mexico as well (but in different forms)...
@IuniusPalladius: So Prussia would never stop until she had hurled Napoleon into destruction; while Russia was ruled by a fanatic Christian Tsar, who did believe that the revolution and Napoleon were the Antichrist and would never stopped without being forced to; and for Austria: As Napoleon did refuse the negotiation proposal of Metternich at Dresden (right before the decisive battle of Leipzig) House Habsburg did forsake him and rejected his claim to lordship in France.
And Napoleon was elected, something the Bourbons never were. His rule as consul for life and later as emperor was ratified by an overwhelming vote of the people. IN that sense he had more legitimacy than the Bourbons ever did, either before or after the Revolution.
@IuniusPalladius: The French monarchy was founded by king Clovis in the late 5th century, so claming that a usurper and a tyrant had more legitimacy than the lawful kings of France is quite ridiculous! And read about the 18th of Brumaire and the coup of state; as Napoleon was never ever elected in a free election and his plebiscite are a mockery, though his rule was very popular as long as he was fortunate; but no Jeanne did rise for him as she did for the righteous kings, in his unhappiness...
This has been flagged as spam show
Napoleon once said, Give me a handful of Turks, and I will conquer the world
68mkby 2 days ago
Que de verbillage en rosbif au sujet de l'Empereur!
Je ne m'abaisserai même pas à leur répondre si j'étais vous. Ces gens sont abreuvés de fausses informations sur le sujet depuis 200 ans. Et ils croient encore dur comme fer qu'ils ont eu une quelconque valeur durant la période, autre que financière... comme disait J. Murat, les anglais sont des peigne-culs.
Draksen 5 days ago
cool he spoke English.
GoodyearBandit 3 weeks ago
How do you "slip away" with 600 men?
Strateg68 2 months ago
@Strateg68 Napoleon and his troops were trained in the Ninja-skills.
Koranenmerg 1 month ago
@Strateg68 "slip away" ? .... he had an own autonomous state in Elba with his most loyal followers the Old Guard, as the isles army. He was governor and not held hostage anywhere. There was no need to slip away. He just took 2 ships and sailed back from exile. You probably misjudge his pretty great autonomy in that period. The only thing that stopped him doing earlier, was that the French king would have immidiatly send an army to intercept. Well he did, but it was not his army anymore then :-)
SharpenedScalpel 1 week ago
What song is this
biirraann 4 months ago
VIVA LA NAPOLEON BONAPARTE!!!!!!
POTCMarc101 6 months ago
napoleon may have seemed evil to his enemies but when you consider that the prince consort (george IV i believe) spent 4 years worth of taxes on wine whilst many people were starving in the north, and compare that to napoleon who only ate after all his men and horses ate. i think i would have fought for old boneparte aswell
TheWailingdeath 6 months ago 21
@TheWailingdeath Guess who did more to help the poor? "Never did a man ever dispose of so much wealth and keep less of it for himself". (André Maurois, "Napoléon", quoting Napoleon III in "Idées Napoléoniennes")
NapoleonCalland 2 months ago
@TheWailingdeath George the IV of the Britain if that is who you are referring to is not worth comparing to Napoleon. Seeing as he did not govern Britain in that period but the Lord of Liverpool and the rest of the Government like George Canning. George IV was technically a public figure.
randomusernamemygod 1 month ago
N°1163 IMPERIAL DECREE concerning the Adoption of the Children of generals, officers and soldiers killed at the battle of Austerlitz.
At our imperial camp at Austerlitz, 16th of Frimaire [Year XIV of the Republic]
NAPOLEON, EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH, KING OF ITALY,
We HAVE DECREED and DECREE as follows:
Art. I We adopt all the children of generals, officers and soldiers killed at the battle of Austerlitz.
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
2 They will be all provided for and raised at our expense; the boys, in our imperial palace at Rambouillet, and the girls in our imperial palace at Saint-Germain. The boys will be found employment and the girls married by us.
3. Independently of their baptismal names and surnames, they will have the right to add that of Napoleon. Our great judge, minister of Justice will accomplish all the formalities entailed concerning this by the Civil Code
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
4. Our grand marshal of the palace and our intendant-general of the Crown are charged with the execution of the present decree, which will be added to the Order of the Day of the army, and inserted in the Bulletin of Laws.
signed NAPOLEON.
By the Emperor -
The secretary of State, signed HUGUES B. MARET.
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
Who was that general at 5:24 ??
Supduplemup 8 months ago
He said that he would retake France without a single shot fired...
juanitotnt1 11 months ago
no, napoleon was a self serving bastard in the same ilk as hilter, he ruined the french revolution for his own ambition. I only wish the prussians had captured him after waterloo. blucher would have shot him, strung him up, and dragged his fat little body through berlin
dmax631 11 months ago
@dmax631, Napoleon retained many of the ideas of the French Revolution through Code Napoleon. He was ambitious, but everything he did was for France's glory. It's what he always said. He gave France a mighty empire, the people were happy with their new freedom, and the army was widely feared and renown in Europe. Even though he failed in the end, his legacy was legendary. Many Civil Codes around the world were heavily based on the Napoleonic Code.
expertstrategy 10 months ago
@expertstrategy everything napoleon did was for the glory of napoleon. He didnt influence Great Britain at all apart from them utterly crushing him at Waterloo when the french army outnumbered the allies.
It was largely due to him that English is now the worlds language when he got defeated so I guess thats the only good thing he ever achived.
zenoist2 10 months ago
@zenoist2 "It was largely due to him that English is now the worlds language when he got defeated so I guess thats the only good thing he ever achived."
wow, you really need to learn more. Napoleon abolished feudalism and serfdom permanently in Europe. Many civil codes of countries all over the world were based upon the Code Napoleon, except Britain.
It was because of American globilization that made English the international language.
expertstrategy 10 months ago
@expertstrategy I already know about napoleon thank you. he was a selfish dictator who thought nothing of millions of people kiiled to serve his own ambition.
His pathetic attempt in 1812 to conquer Russia should have sent warning signs but the man was a dickhead
zenoist2 10 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon only invaded Russia because Czar Alexander I was secretly trading with the British, and that was against the terms of the Treaty of Tilsit. It wasn't out of the lust for fresh conquest, it was motivated by political reasons.
It could be argued that Britain was responsible for Europe's demise, since they paid off one Coalition after another to fight France, trading gold for the blood of hundreds of thousands of men.
expertstrategy 10 months ago
@expertstrategy cry all you want about it
napoleon was a dick. he lost at waterloo the first time he ever faced wellington which exactly showed the world his true worth. he treated people like shit and was a dictator.
Im really sorry if i dont like dicators..
zenoist2 10 months ago
@zenoist2, Waterloo doesn't discount 20 years of military glory. You can brag about Waterloo all you want since you are so obsessed with it, and ignore the Prussian role, and the fact that the British only made up 18% of the Allied army, but you can't change the fact that Napoleon was a better commander, and even Wellington acknowledges it.
It's true that he was a dictator, and at times he can be a dick, but so what?
expertstrategy 10 months ago
@expertstrategy "Dictator" is pushing it, and I'd like to know what you mean by "being a dick".
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
@NapoleonCalland, He did assume the powers of a dictator, but he's one of the few dictators I greatly respect because he wasn't anything like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. I only call him a dictator because he had absolute power in France. He can be quite harsh with his enemies at certain times. Napoleon forced Prussia to pay a huge war indemnity and stripped it of territory which he used to resurrect the Polish nation. That's what I mean by saying that he can be a dick at times.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@expertstrategy He didn't have the powers of a dictator or absolute power - cf Vincent Cronin's "Napoleon", HarperCollins, 1994, Ch11 p177 and Ch 12 p192-193 - and the indemnity he forced Prussia to pay was reasonable from a state that had caused another war in Europe. As for using the part of Poland in Prussian hands to recreate Poland as a state, that's not "being a dick", on the contrary it was a debt paid to his Polish allies and has never been forgotten by the Polish people.
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
@NapoleonCalland, yes, but in Spain, he attempted to replace the Spanish Bourbons and install his brother, Joseph, as the new king of Spain, because he doesn't like useless allies, but this action initiated a deadly war in the Iberian peninsula which the French would never recover from.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@expertstrategy He replaced the Bourbons with Joseph because on entering Berlin in 1806 he found a letter from the Spanish PM, Godoy, showing that they'd sided with the Prussians! If he hadn't won at Jena, the Spanish would have attacked France from behind!
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
@zenoist2 "everything napoleon did was for the glory of napoleon." wrong again. Almost everything he did was for the glory of France.
expertstrategy 10 months ago
@dmax631 Whereas if the Emperor had captured Blucher he would have had his wounds treated and had him retired with a pension. But of course your friend Hitler (not Hilter) was more merciful to his enemies. Like expert strategy said, N. maintained what was best in the French Revolution and put an end to the bloodshed by reconciling people in the name of the common good. That's why people followed him, you could disagree with him and still wake up in your bed the following day. Or be promoted.
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago
@NapoleonCalland well blucher had a psychotic hatred of napoleon, so that is unlikely. He said if he'd have found him, he would have shot him
dmax631 8 months ago
@dmax631 Blucher had a psychotic hatred of N, but it wasn't new. Blucher was retired from active service twice, once for annoying Frederick the Great, once for annoying N, who'd asked for Blucher to be presented to him in 1806 because he wanted to meet B, who'd impressed him by holding a position on the Baltic, only surrendering when he ran out of ammo. N could have had most of his enemies murdered or executed. The fact is he didn't, just as he pardoned most of them when possible. Unlike them
NapoleonCalland 8 months ago 4
characteristic french at 3:33
omerkhan678 11 months ago
Hitler had allies, Napoleon had none
TheX3Gamer 11 months ago
@TheX3Gamer
Napoleon didn't have any Allies? Who were the Spanish fighting for at Trafalgar? The Polish Legions? The Etrurians? Bavaria? Who were the Brits fighting at Copenhagen? Don't forget Italy and Holland.
And don't forget that Napoleon (like Hitler and the Kaiser) also tried to mobilize Islam behind him.
2210ethan 11 months ago
@2210ethan Hitler had competent allies, all of napoleon's allies were incompetent because they got beaten by the french so what makes anyone think they can beat the british
TheX3Gamer 11 months ago
@TheX3Gamer
Polish Lancers were the best cavalry of that time weren't they?
Not sure what point you're trying to make.
2210ethan 11 months ago
YES! they all cry.
Your that balding fat midget who led us all into defeat.
Our country was invaded and you abdicated.
To be fair Napoleon had annoyed so many people by this time with his arrogance and high handed ways towards conquered princes, kings ,countries etc practically all of Europe was aginst him.
Prussia was treated particularly badly. a fact the french continually paid for at waterloo 1815, in 1870, 1914 and in 1940.
zenoist2 11 months ago
@zenoist2
"To be fair Napoleon had annoyed so many people by this time with his arrogance and high handed ways towards conquered princes, kings ,countries etc practically all of Europe was aginst him."
How do you think the Austrians, Russians, and Prussians felt for the British. The British were more than content to allow others to fight in their place. They trade gold for the blood of thousands of men. Napoleon once remarked that a single British diplomat was worth 2 million Russians.
expertstrategy 11 months ago
@zenoist2, "Prussia was treated particularly badly. a fact the french continually paid for at waterloo 1815, in 1870, 1914 and in 1940."
France wasn't defeated in 1914. They defeated the Germans at the Marne twice, 1st Ypres, and Verdun.
The French defeated the Germans in 1214, 30 years War, nine years war, French Rev War. 1806, etc...
expertstrategy 11 months ago
@expertstrategy
To defeat Germany there has to be a Germany, the 30 years war was actually a german civil/religious war of some sort, there was no real war between France and Germany before 1870 and that 1914-war ended in a standstill that American, not French, forces probably would have broken, if the people of Germany hadn't revoltet before. The treaty of Versailles ignored that and build the foundation for the events that started 20 years later, which ended in defeat for both countries.
HDreamer 11 months ago
@zenoist2, even Blucher was annoyed by Wellington, because he wanted to name the battle after La Belle Alliance, but Arthur prefered to name it after Waterloo because that is where he fought, this arrogantly ignored the Prussian role in the battle.
Napoleon was 5'6, taller than the average European.
expertstrategy 11 months ago
Napoleon and Hitler both had the same bad idea about Russia.
Charles XII of sweden did it before them and came to a similiar sticky end in the winter.
Naploeon apparently swotted up on him but obviously never learnt a single thing.
Hitler studied Napoleon and he didnt learn either.
zenoist2 11 months ago
@zenoist2 "Hitler studied Napoleon and he didnt learn either."
no
he got the EXACTLY SAME DESTINY than Napoleon ! He became even more powerful, and Europe didn't defeat him without the powerful Americans, Napoleon was defeated by Europe
he was a criminal to me but you are wrong, he took lessons and won ! from homeless to master of the europe its not bad... so thanks Napoleon for showing the way
what man on this earth prefer to have a long boring life instead of a short intense life ?
lightnessss 10 months ago
Napoleon was superb military commander, Hitler was a psychic dumbass
billboardx25 1 year ago 2
Napoleon never even set foot in Haiti, and he only sent an expeditionary force in order to restore that colony to French rule, not massacre the people. He had no intention to re-establish slavery in St. Dominique and said that the colonies of Guadelope and St.Dominique are to remain free of slavery. Just read "Napoleon on Napoleon: an autobiography of the emperor" it will tell you right there.
The atrocities that occured were really carried out by Leclerc and Rochambeau who were monsters.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@Eddieposted, "saying that both were temperamentally unable to give up the tiniest scrap of conquered land and calllously wasted the lives of many men trying to defend everything."
That is where you are wrong. When Napoleon came to France in 1815 and retook the throne, he said he would renounce the borders of 1792 that Revolutionary France conquered and instead rule the 1789 origional borders.
He knew that his army is only meant to defend France and not extend her borders.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@expertstrategy Eddipost just isn't worth responding to. The plain fact is Churchill admired Napoleon - and that wasn't the only instance where he said so. Comparing similarity of military circumstances is one thing, the nature of the two men and their regimes is something totally different. I don't care that people wish to believe otherwise to accommodate their insecure worldviews. Either that or they're just ignorant. Perhaps both. Want proof? Just wait for his reply.....
yuggurtt 1 year ago
@yuggurtt, well some people need to be given a good history lesson, and i feel that it is my duty to indulge the foolish.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
"I always hate to compare Napoleon with Hitler, as it seems an insult to the great Emperor and warrior to connect him in any way with a squalid caucus boss and butcher."- Winston Churchill (Commons, 28 Sep. 1944)
yuggurtt 1 year ago 44
Did it happen exactly like the scene? A line of soldiers pointed their rifles at him? What if one of the soldiers, because he's so nervous, accidentally shot and killed him?
Jeez...
Palangkaraya2008 1 year ago
Rod Steiger is a superb actor in capturing Napoloen's extraordinay charisma. He carries the movie. As for me, if I had seen him, I would have followed his colours.
deanrebel 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
Yea because 100,000 dead is comparable to 6 million. But 300,000 dead Kenyans and those that died in concentration camps during the Boer war...yea let's just forget about that..LOL.
Thanks I am enjoying my sharing of information of British murder, torture and other horrific acts.
Vive L'Empereur :)
refuckulate420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eddieposted
So go ahead and call me clown and cry hate, doesn't bother me.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
Britain is directly responsible for the murder, torture and slavery of thousands, quite possibly millions of people. And you may talk about Napoleons genocide all you want, I acknowledge that, but I will talk about this all I want and you will deal with it.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
Oh here come the insults. Clown huh? Please further display your lack of education.
"we could post numerous similar claims about the maltreatment"
Maltreatment - LOL. Now that's hilarious. An atrocity is an atrocity, be it genocide, torture or what have you. You are trying to ignore historical facts commited by your country as I see. Accusing others of having rose colored glasses when you wear them yourself.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
Has nothing to do with hate. These are historically documented facts. Is that really the only way you can respond? It's intellectualy dishonest and pathetic that you would cry "hate" just because I pointed out some history. I'm sorry you don't like it but it has nothing to do with a "hatefest". Typical pathetic Brit with rose colored glasses on.
Slander everyone else but you all shit flowers and rainbows...hilarious stuff. And you aren't even educated.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
The horrible conditions in British camps during the Boer war, where thousands of women and children died of disease and malnutrition, are well known. Who now remembers the Indian work camps, where British officials conducted experiments to determine how few calories an Indian coolie could be fed and still perform hard labour? yea..I don't think I need to go on.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
British aerial bombing and gassing of villages in Sudan, Iraq and Palestine in the 1920 and 1930s, yep Britain.
Massacre by the Scots Guard in Malaya? Yep, Britain. Brutal suppression of the Mau Mau? Yep, Britain. Aden killings in 1960?
How about the thousands of Africans, Indians and Malays - men, women and children - who were either killed or maimed constructing Britains imperial railways? Ahh yes...so innocent.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
So genocide isn't an atrocity? lol..ok.
What about British genocide against the Mi'kmaq? Or how about the Kenyans? Where they were detained without trial up to 320,000 people in punishment camps, where the official policy was systematic brutality, using sexual violence and humiliation. Guards were indoctrinated into a fascist mentality, describing and treating Africans as animals.
Yep, Britain.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
That's all good and well, just wanted to point out Britain isn't innocent of atrocities. Which I assure you a fair share have been commited. If you can dish it you can take it as well.
Glad the UK is doing well. I'm no blind patriotic, I think you get the wrong idea. I wish a better future for everyone.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
It's no claim, it's documented history.
And I'm not bitter at all, just discussing facts. And I'm glad the UK is doing well, they are an important part of the global community which relies on each other for a strong economy.
Oh and I do wish the US would cut military spending and close some military bases, but can I do I'm just one person :).
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
Sure...and the British killed thousands, possibly millions in work camps from Africa to India. Reports of torture, poor conditions and more. Ohh I can find quite some horrible tales of British kings, dukes and more. Your extension of imperialism and greed costed many lives, not something you brits like to hear either.
And all for what? Pretty much nothing now. Just you and your tiny little island in the ocean.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@Eddieposted, Napoleon was quite different to Hitler, and if you read or studied a little deeper about the Napoleonic Wars, then you would know that Napoleon was usually fighting because war was forced upon him. Even the invasion of Russia was justified when Alexander I dishonored the agreements he made with Napoleon.
Napoleon doesn't kill civilians, only soldiers. Hitler does both.
Napoleon never ordered a mass execution of people.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@Eddieposted
Exactly- Napoleon put his brothers on foreign thrones like a dictator- Napoleon seized power like a dictator in 1799 and never let it go. He occupied foreign lands and forced conscription on them. He caused a big decrease in the French male population with his warmongering. His so called defence of France only happened from 1813 because up until then there was no foreign invasion of France. All the Coalitions were after Napoleon - not France. Napoleon-apologists can't admit it.
slizzler1 1 year ago
@Eddieposted, another reason why Britain was at war with France, was because the power Napoleon represented threatened British imperial hegemony in Europe. If Napoleon was a Megalomaniac, then his ambitions would be the same as British ambitions, perhaps you can come up with an excuse to explain an empire that covered 1/4 of the globe. Wasn't this an example of the megalomaniac of the British?
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@Eddieposted, even Napoleon's empire was built because of these ceaseless attacks from the rest of Europe. Even his invasion of Russia was justified because the Tzar Alexander, dishonored the agreements he made with Napoleon to cease trade with Britain and to give him support whenever Napoleon calls.
Even if Napoelon wanted to conquer Europe and succeded, then what is the British Empire, an empire that 'peacefully' colonized 1/4 of the world with the conquered people's consent? B.S
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@Eddieposted, let me clear something up with you. Napoleon and Hitler's goals were totally different.
Napoleon was not the one who declared war in the first place, it was also the other imperial powers, especially Britain.
Those millions of deaths of the Napoleonic Wars was by the reactionary policies of those countries that were against the ideals of the French Revolution and Napoleon. So it is unfair to blame the casualties of that conflict on Napoleon, since he was not the begetter of war.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@Eddieposted, Napoleon was nothing like HItler, plus there were no gas chambers back then, that is just complete propaganda, Claude Ribbe is just an idiot who is trying to make up history, just like Alan Schom.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
I couldn't really notice a difference in Louis' men's uniforms. If anyone knows the differences please can they tell me? :)
ComedyRoundTheCorner 1 year ago
Napoleon cost the human race a million + lives. The republic could have reformed. Napoleon was a brazen oppurtunist
Thx1138d 1 year ago
Amazing how he won the hearts of his people.
His brother was king of Holland that time and did very good things for our country.
Vive Napoleon. Vive l"Empereur. !
61VC 1 year ago
@61VC
The Dutch hated Napoleon after he put his brother on their throne in the act of a dictator. They despised him even more after he forced Dutch conscipts into his army that invaded Russia. What kind of 'freedom' is that BS- occupying foreign nations and forcing their men to fight in wars of a dictator.
Napoleon was a egotistical chess player who used people as dispensable playing pieces.
slizzler1 1 year ago
@slizzler1
Thanks for your feedback. Probably my information was not correct.
I will check the history books again.
CHeers.
61VC 1 year ago
what happened with the guy that fall down on the ground at 3:24?
nmn335 1 year ago
@nmn335
fainted in sun
slizzler1 1 year ago
Vive l'Empereur! Vive l'Empire!
OBkid100 1 year ago 2
@whittakertyler55 Both of you comments are spot on! Long LIve The Emperor! Long LIVE THE EMPIRE! LONG LIVE NAPOLEON! If only the US had a leader like him now!
Napoleon5005 2 years ago 6
Napoleon was 100% in the right to do what he did the French Monarchy sucked, the Republic(before he took power) was just as bad. He changed the world, it didn't matter if your father was a baker you could still do great things. You morons who question Napoleon should think about it. Europe wouldn't have changed he showed everyone that you can do anything you set your mind to, anybody.
whittakertyler55 2 years ago 26
@whittakertyler55
Napoleon was a bandit in robes.
slizzler1 1 year ago
@whittakertyler55 Cardinal Wolsey did the same thing in the 16th century.
fattoler 1 year ago
Anyone who dares compare Napoleon Bonaparte to Adolph Hitler should be punched directly in the face.
whittakertyler55 2 years ago 57
right
DEATHinSTALINGRAD 2 years ago
@whittakertyler55 Based on what? The comparisons are very valid...
Mistermax30 1 year ago
@Mistermax30 no they arent idiot hitler commited genocide napoleon didnt
warlight2333 1 year ago
@whittakertyler55 yea lol
warlight2333 1 year ago
@whittakertyler55
You should read about the Imperial Guard's reaction when they found out Napoleon the Megalomaniac deserted his army yet again when things went bad - after he surrendered to the British for his final one way trip in 1815.....
His desertions added up-> Egypt, Russia, Waterloo......
slizzler1 1 year ago
@whittakertyler55: Hitler was a lucky evil failure, and Napoleon was a masterful victor! :D
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
Twice.
DuPuieproductions 1 year ago
@whittakertyler55 A better comparison would be Napoleon and Field Marshall Rommel.
grobo11 1 year ago
@whittakertyler55 Hitler did Idolise Napoleon though.
arsenalkid47 11 months ago
@michaellee123123: Well, first take a good and long look on The Disasters of War by the Spanish Painter Goya and then talk to Spaniards about the French occupation, they usually compare Napoleon with Hitler; and after seeing the pictures of Goya who can deny them? Besides Hitler may have different and more evil goals but both represent the type of the European Caesar as Caesarism is approaching in the Faustian world; look at the first emperor of China: They are birds of the selfsame feather. ...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@michaellee123123: Besides I have only spoken my mind and I do not care if someone is convinced of anything by my comments and it is not my fault if people do read them and posts replies!
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelle123123 :
"Besides I have only spoken my mind and I do not care if someone is convinced of anything by my comments and it is not my fault if people do read them and posts replies!"
Read "I have spoken my mind and my opinion is the only one that counts" GGd doesn't mind talking to the wall, as long as it doesn't mind not talking back !
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
As for The Disasters of War, Goya portrayed the atrocities committed by both sides, including young French soldiers and camp followers crucified or mutilated by guerrillas. Hitler had nothing Caesarist about him apart from borrowing emblems that Germany adopted long before he was born.
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: Hitler had all what you need to be Caesarean: High popularity value, absolute power and the wish to conquer an empire; or what is your definition of it? And no again: The symbols of Hitler were not traditionally German: Before him no one ever used the swastika for example and he was inspired by Mussolini (his idol for life) with his uniforms and standards; and it maybe true that the Spaniards may not have been nice to the occupation forces but this was the fault of Napoleon...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: He did invade the country without any hostile act, in fact he was even in alliance with Spain; his troops looted and misused the Spanish population with beastly shameless outrages as may not be without much shame retold or spoken of; he antagonized the powerful church, showed great arrogance towards the Spaniards and when he installed his brother as king the Spaniard when berserk: Operated without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
Joseph Bonaparte was a mindless killer who tried to destroy the kingdom of Spain; installed by his brother Napoleon; a man twisted by unbridled ambition; a man haunted by insatiable greed; the most evil man in the world.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
I am sorry but that is factually false. Napoleon invaded Portugal through Spain, which was allowed by King Charles of Spain in which they assisted. The second time occured because the Spanish royal family was having a disoute and wanted Napoleon to mediate. He like most modern day historian, felt that both Charles and Ferdinand were unfit for the King's Crown and he gave it to Joseph. He was a good administrator everywhere except on the battlefield.
Napoleon5005 2 years ago
this is a beautiful moment::):):)
akzcelaL 2 years ago 4
Great to see such rationa, grown-up, discourse on YT. I love you all.
transonicbuoy1 2 years ago 3
Few leaders in the history of the world could pull off such a thing, to be praised by your troops after suffering defeat and exile.
5B0YAKASHA5 2 years ago
Ney etait un bon meneur d' homme , mais un mauvais organisateur , le plus grand désastre fut Ney a Waterloo , trop impetueux et tete brulée , dommage que Berthier soit mort et que Murat n' est pas été préféré .
Opelh 2 years ago
il a un charisme certains :)
excellent !
unjourdeplus 2 years ago
How different would history have been if just one of those men on the line fired and killed Napoleon...
Nexus974 2 years ago
I always like the character of Ney in this film.
He was a very gallant man and about the best general napoleon had.
zenoist2 2 years ago 2
boy, you just kept on going GreatGrumbledook.
magicstorm91 2 years ago
an impressive stream of ... "legitimist" codswallop.
Napoleon seized power from a corrupt and anti-democratic government and ruled with the active (and undocile) help of the Council of State, the Tribunate (until 1807), the Legislative Body and the Senate. All major constitutional changes were presented to plebiscites, and approved by the vast majority of Frenchmen. Tyrant my foot ! Ferdinand was a tyrant, and an incompetent one at that !
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago 2
He was a uniquely good leader, but he becaame a bit obsessed with being emperor. He was also unfaithful to his first wife. Plus, Beethoven tore up the music sheet he had written for him (napoleon) because he saw him as a liberator over kings, when he pratically became king himself.
whikless 2 years ago
Beethoven was afraid that his hero would become a tyrant. But Beethoven became an admirer again after reading about the Emperor's fortitude at St Helena
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
Napoleon, one of the greatest modern men to have walked the face of this earth!
Hail to the Emperor of the french!
Wotanraven 2 years ago 9
Shame that good old Napoleon could not content himself to rule France like Pericles ruled Athens, as a citizen of the republic, not by extraordinary office but by natural leadership: "Whenever he saw them unseasonably and insolently elated, he would with a word reduce them to alarm; on the other hand, if they fell victims to a panic, he could at once restore them to confidence. In short, what was nominally a democracy became in his hands government by the first citizen." But so he was a tyrant.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago 3
AJP Taylor made an important point in How Wars Begin when he said that Napoleon didn't start any of the wars attributed to him. What upset his enemies was that he "unsportingly" knocked their armies out as soon as they started moving, before they could gang up on him
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: Well, this is of course wrong or do you serious claim that usurping tyrant did not started the war with Spain in 1808 by occupying the country and placing his kindred on the throne, which did cause an immediate uprising of the Spanish people or his invasion of Egypt and his war against the Turks? While it is of course true that his first wars were not his fault but much of his later were; especially his peevish attempt to build a French hegemony over Europe and Germany...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: ...all in all he was a spoilt child of Fortune, much like Alexander the Great or Hannibal, who could never cope with defeat and was never able to recover from a defeat, like Julius Caesar did several times: In Russia most of his army was lost because of his inability to cope with supplies and climate and most of all to organize a retreat; some happened after Leipzig and then he even lost France, leaving her helpless at the mercy of the other great powers...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: ...a thing never happened in the history of France [save the defeat of 1940]; France has as much cause to worship Napoleon as Germany has to worship Hitler, Italy Mussolini, Russia Stalin or China Mao. Not to mention his audacious attempt to use the might of France to place his incapable kindred on European thrones or his habit of creating minions, the military nobles, who betrayed him in 1814 and caused his downfall, together with the downfall of France.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
France has been invaded on many occasions before and after him, not least during the 100 Years War, the reign of Henry VIII of England and in 1870, 1914 - 1918 and 1940.
France has every cause to "worship" him for the institutions, social progress, laws and ideals of the Revolution that he cemented into the mass of granite foundations he laid for our country. The only lasting legacy of the dictators you quoted is genocide, the station at Venice, mass deportations and famine.
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: This is not a question of being invaded but of being utterly defeated and this happened to France only three times in 1814, 1815 and 1940 and for to such defeats Napoleon is responsible and he did travesty the ideals of the revolution by deposing the legally elected government and making himself tyrant of France; and in case of Mao you might be wrong: He did reanimate China as a great power and laid the foundation of the Chinese comeback: Many may soon curse him for this.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
He placed members of his family on thrones around Europe to provide France with allies governed according to the ideals that post-revolutionary France represented and to ensure lasting peace in Europe by linking the reigining families through his own blood. Audacious, but more justified than the absurd "legitimist" pretensions of princes whose ideals were the perpetuation of feudalism, prejudice and the Inquisition!
And naturally as you said, his downfall was the downfall of France!
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: What was quite a foolish idea as his kindred was altogether very incapable: The only able person was Eugène de Beauharnais, who he placed as a viceroy in Italy; the rest was a mere disaster: From Holland to Spain; and no proud nation like the Spanish or German would suffer a foreign conquest and foreign kings and while the Spaniards make their immediate small war, the prototype for the irregular war, the Germans waited until Napoleon made a mistake...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: ...and he was well repaid at Leipzig, Waterloo and Paris for his presumption as Prussia did rise like a phoenix to be his Nemesis and hurled him into destruction, else England and Russia might have vainly struggled against him and France; and while his Spanish folly was without serious consequences his German one was not: It set German nationalism as much against France as the Hundred Years War set the English and French one against each other...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: ...this brought the two sister nations (remember the Franks and the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties) to mutual self-destruction in the two world wars, which form somewhat the Peloponnesian War of Europe, as after them Europe has become the vassal, toy and slave of outside powers like the Russians and the Americans (and with the Chinese worse is to come). This is far from forming a lasting peace; and it was folly: Napoleon was not likely to beget an able successor...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: ...and as the hegemony of France did not result from the natural strength of France (you can see that at the fact how little king Louis XIV archived against all Europe in a likewise constellation, even with his shameful league with the common enemy of Europe: The Turks) but of his mastermind, with his death his work would have collapsed and he would have been remembered as being the useful idiot of the Russians, lest he would have broken Russia before his demise...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: This peace strategy is of course nonsense: None of the old royal families of Europe considered him as an equal monarch but as an arriviste and as long he held power this was irrelevant but as soon as he was weak they turned against him; while France was lucky: Talleyrand was able minimise her defeat by the help of Metternich and Castlereagh, who wanted to preserve France as a counterbalance to Russia; and luckily nobody was that mad for peace back then as in the 20th century!
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
(...) Talleyrand was supposed to obtain Turkish support for it.
As for recovering from a defeat, no other commander in History ever snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with more class, not least after the Second Polish War in 1812.
During the 1813 campaign most German states either turned against him or were over-run by the Coalition. Which didn't stop him repeatedly hammering their forces to the extent that they eventually decided to attack his Marshals and avoid fighting him in person!
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: As far as it is written in the history books the strategy of the Sixth Coalition was to form three armies and to attack the detachments of his army and as soon as he would have approached with the main French force to retreat until the other two armies would reach the battlefield to confront Napoleon with superior forces and it worked at Leipzig and only after this battle his vassal states like Bavaria deserted him not before, save the Saxons, who left him at Leipzig.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
Which proves my point, they weren't able to defeat him on equal terms or with only slightly larger forces. He was more betrayed than defeated... one reason why the Prussians sent the much abused Saxon army home in 1815 to avoid them switching to fight for Napoleon.
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
Firstly he wasn't a usurper (or are you seriously claiming that the Bourbons had any right to rule France against the will of the people?), nor a tyrant. Secondly a tyrant wouldn't have pardoned traitors like Talleyrand and Fouché, he'd have shot them.
Thirdly the war with Spain was orchestrated by the Catholic Church against the Emperor who liberated Protestants and Jews and abolished feudalism and the Inquisition.
Egypt was a campaign directed against the British conquest of India and (...)
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: That Napoleon was a usurper is clear: He did depose the lawful government of France by a military coup and then made himself gradually tyrant of France; and a tyrant is not defined by savage and gruel actions but by the fact that his rule is based on force and not consent and free will of the ruled people; as for the deposed Bourbon dynasty: It depends if one does believe in the grace of god or the will of the people as foundation of a government.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: And it is quite absurd to justify the invasion of Turkish Egypt with the declaration of wanting to attack the English in India, is it not? And the Catholic Church was of course a pillar of Spanish national resistance against the invading tyrant and his local minions but you can be assured that there were no Jews or Protestants in Spain at that time: As Isabella I of Castile ordered their expulsion in 1492 and nobody did expect the Spanish Inquisition, in fact those who do...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
Firstly he wasn't a usurper (or are you seriously claiming that the Bourbons had any right to rule France against the will of the people?), nor a tyrant. Secondly a tyrant wouldn't have pardoned traitors like Talleyrand and Fouché, he'd have shot them.
Egypt was a campaign directed against the British conquest of India and was not directed against the Turks who'd been ousted by the Mamelucks.
As for the Inquisition, it was restored in Spain in 1813.
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: And it was high time to restore it! As those damned liberals did not expect the Spanish Inquisition! And as I said: The question of who is to rule France depends on the point of view: If one does side with people like Rousseau or Kant, who declare that the sovereignty always belongs to the people (though political voluntarism does not work as the state is a natural building, according to Aristotle); if one takes the side of the monarchy then House Bourbon is entitled to rule...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: And you can turn and twist it as you like: Napoleon was an usurper as he had neither any right to the French throne by divine right or dynastic legitimacy nor had he been given power by the French people in a free election or vote; but he did use military force to depose the lawful government and style himself as a tyrant; and that is the character of tyranny: Ruling by force to your own good, while a king does rule by consent for the common good, according to Aristotle....
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
The Bourbons were not the lawful French government, they were imposed by force. How can you in turn fault Napoleon for taking power without firing a shot when the people wanted him and did not want the Bourbons? As for who ruined France, that was the Coalition that waged war for 20 years and refused to make peace. Who attacked France in 1805? The Coalition. It took almost 2 more years of fighting to convince Russia to sue for peace. In nearly every case, Napoleon responded, did not initiate war.
IuniusPalladius 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: They were until 1789/93 when they were deposed by the French National Assembly (a metamorphosis of the States-General) and here is the dispute: Who is the sovereign in France: The French people or the French kings; and Napoleon did not depose House Bourbon but the republican Directory, which was elected by the French people, what Napoleon never was; and Napoleon had his chances to conclude peace if he had been moderate: Amiens and Basel for example but he was too greedy...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
One should divide the Napoleonic Wars into several chapters: First the Wars against the French revolution, roughly from 1793-1795 (treaty of Basel with Prussia); second the War between France and other European powers, between 1795-1805/6 (Austerlitz and Jena, plus the Russian defeats in Eastern Prussia, ending in the treaty of Tilsit) and then the wars against Napoleon as European hegemonic ruler, from 1807-1813/14 (marked by the battle of Leipzig and the capture of Paris by the VI Coalition)
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
Waterloo and the VII Coalition were a mere aftermath: France was defeated, war weary and without allies, while all opposing states would, in fresh remembrance throw all their might into battle, vowing to raise a coalition army of 700,000 soldiers. Napoleon was defeated at Leipzig and failed to turn the tide of the war in France a year later; the fuss the English make about Waterloo is therefore ridiculous; besides Waterloo was much more a Prussian victory than an English one.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
It's hard to say what would have happened if Napoleon knocked England and Prussia out of the war at Waterloo. While there was much bluster from the other allies about continuing their war against France they were tired also. It is as likely they would have had no stomach for any more.
IuniusPalladius 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: Nope; as there were only an English and a Prussian Army dispatched to Belgium, not even the bulk of their forces (Prussia had 250,000 men at least under arms, while Marshall Bluecher had roughly 80,000 soldiers ready); and it is unlikely that Napoleon could destroy the two armies completely; and the Russian and Austrian armies were on the march with greater strength; Napoleon had more troops in 1814 and opposed much less foes and still lost Paris and his lordship.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
It's speculation of course but it's hard to say what impact knocking the English and Prussians out would have had on the morale of the royal families. Russian armies would have had to cross Prussian territory and might not have received permission and Francis would likely have been hesitant to go to war against his son-in-law again.
IuniusPalladius 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: You should read some history books! A little victory broke the morale of royal families? This would be as likely as the success of the Ardennes offensive in 1944 would gain Hitler a peace treaty with the Western Allies! England has continued to wage war against Napoleon, even after he made a friendship treaty with Russia! And Prussia was his very Nemesis: After his victory in 1806/7 he tried to destroy the country and menaced to depose House Brandenburg.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
It's hard to say what would have happened but it is likely they would have backed off. We'll never know for certain but there was little appetite for war anywhere in Europe. Fighting Napoleon again would have meant refighting the ideals of the Revolution, something they didn't want to do again. Yes, England was France's nemesis but was not a land based power and knocking its main field army out of the war would have kept it off the continent. Read some history books!
IuniusPalladius 2 years ago 3
@IuniusPalladius: Little appetite for war in Europe? Who told you such fairy tales? The German Wars of Liberation were highly popular and to say that Bluecher was unwilling to wage war in general and in particular against Napoleon is saying a hungry lion is reluctant to go hunting! Besides Napoleon was formally outlawed by the Congress of Vienna and some of his supporters like Ney or Murat executed later; and the ideals of the revolution crushed together with France a year before already.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: And to claim that the European powers were not ready to combat the French revolution and its ideals, wherever they are to be found, is ridiculous beyond imagination! The Holy Alliance (the league of throne and altar) was founded by Russia expressly to combat the revolution! Not 7 years after the final defeat of Napoleon France did crush on its bidding the liberal revolution in Spain, restoring absolute monarchy; and this programme remained valid until 1848!
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: Besides the strength of England consisted in her fleets blocking the seas, her money and diplomacy buildings ever new alliances against France and occasional incursions of her troops, which did France so much trouble in Spain, as they backed the relentless irregular war of the Spaniards against the occupation forces; and to conclude: Napoleon could not be saved in 1815 by ten battles like Austerlitz. And even at Ligny he lost 10,000 men, so France lacked the means for him...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
And bankrupted the "war effort" by causing a stock exchange crash... this was how Rothschild became a millionaire - by encouraging people to sell their shares by convincing them Napoleon had won !
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: If you are now start harping on the Jews had betrayed Napoleon you will be sentenced to play Christ in various passion plays in the upcoming Easter season! And to believe that no one got rich here in France trough the wars would be ridiculous as this phenomenon is found in all wars at all times.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@ GGd :
"If you are now start harping on the Jews had betrayed Napoleon" ... is English your fourth language or are you getting carried away ?
I never said the Jews betrayed him... quite the reverse in fact. Most Jews still remember him with thanks and praise, as a second Cyrus for his liberating them from oppression.
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: [Nope, English should be my second native tongue by blood but obviously it is not] I cry you mercy then, because I have been told so by many foreign (non-French) votaries of Napoleon and on the contrary too: Many people believe that both the French revolutions and Napoleon were created by the Jews, for some evil purpose; so I thought it was better to ask, because I am too much annoyed with all those Jewish conspiracies going on the net.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
I WISH MY REMAINS TO REST ON THE BANKS OF THE SEINE, IN THE MIDST OF THIS FRENCH PEOPLE THAT I HAVE SO LOVED.
Napoleon's Will, 15 April 1821
"If the war is lost, it doesn't matter if the [German] people perish. Don't count on me to shed a single tear, they deserve their fate"
Hitler, April 1945.
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
@NapoleonCalland: Spare me the big words, that fact remains that both tyrants scarified their people for their personal vanities and doomed them to be under foreign influence; though France was much happier as the prime goal of major coalition powers was to restore the European power equilibrium and so Metternich tried even to negotiate with Napoleon, right before Leipzig but save the entertainment of seeing Napoleon making a fool of himself it was in vain; while the Allies were peace-mongers...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
Utterly false once again, the Allies were the declaritory party in all of the wars. Napoleon never declared war against anyone. That he was better at war than they were, is not his fault, but rather a God given talent that was provided to be used as a weapon for positive progressive change, unlike the allies who were extremely conservative.
Napoleon5005 2 years ago 4
@Napoleon5005: Well, in the case of Spain (1808) and Russia (1812) Napoleon was the party responsible for the outbreak of hostilities, but this is a mere formal question; besides England was a liberal power and both Prussia and Austria were much influenced by the Enlightenment; so only Russia was conservative. Via his follies Napoleon did nearly accomplish what Hitler had done half 100 years later: Russian hegemony over Europe by the destruction of all other great powers...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
There is the difference between the two men. Napoleon wanted the French people to prosper and fought the wars that are unjustly named after him in order to defend him self and not expand France past its geographic borders as did the United States(whooo!) in the Mexican-American War. Hitler wanted to oppress and subjugate all of Europe. Very big differences
Napoleon5005 2 years ago 3
@Napoleon5005
The germans were oppressed by the first world war, so Hitler decided to lead the country to victory.
He had good intentions before.
maplechannelz 2 years ago
@Napoleon5005: You may believe this follies, but for the Europeans of his age Napoleon was about building a French hegemony over Europe and worse: Placing his kindred on European thrones and the so-called expansion to the geographic borders proved very perilous for France as it sparked German nationalism and the three of the four great wars France had after him were due to this against Germany; and the USA may soon make similar experiences with Mexico as well (but in different forms)...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: So Prussia would never stop until she had hurled Napoleon into destruction; while Russia was ruled by a fanatic Christian Tsar, who did believe that the revolution and Napoleon were the Antichrist and would never stopped without being forced to; and for Austria: As Napoleon did refuse the negotiation proposal of Metternich at Dresden (right before the decisive battle of Leipzig) House Habsburg did forsake him and rejected his claim to lordship in France.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
And Napoleon was elected, something the Bourbons never were. His rule as consul for life and later as emperor was ratified by an overwhelming vote of the people. IN that sense he had more legitimacy than the Bourbons ever did, either before or after the Revolution.
IuniusPalladius 2 years ago
@IuniusPalladius: The French monarchy was founded by king Clovis in the late 5th century, so claming that a usurper and a tyrant had more legitimacy than the lawful kings of France is quite ridiculous! And read about the 18th of Brumaire and the coup of state; as Napoleon was never ever elected in a free election and his plebiscite are a mockery, though his rule was very popular as long as he was fortunate; but no Jeanne did rise for him as she did for the righteous kings, in his unhappiness...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago