Myths of History

[yevkassem72]

Note: I initially posted this on the GB, but they lacked the maturity to take it seriously. I am hoping for a more intelligent discourse here.


Myth 1: Napoleon was a tyrant. WRONG! He was an enlightened despot, no worse than Frederick the Great, and probably better than both Frederick and Catherine the Great combined. He promoted reforms that neither of them would have contemplated. And he toppled more tyrannical old, corrupt despotisms than any other man in Europe's history. In my view, he was the greatest Frenchman in history, with the possible exceptions of Lafayette and de Gaulle. It is too bad that his megalomania got the better of him toward the end, but I still think that a chastened Napoleon if victorious at Waterloo would have been a real force for the Enlightenment and a constant threat to the Old Order. Which is why the corrupt minions of the Old Order determined to destroy him. He was no Hitler. He was a real soldier and military genius. The only monarch as enlightened in his lifetime as Napoleon was Joseph II of Austria.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Good points. He had the misfortune to be defeated by the Brits, and since we are all English speakers, guess whose histories we read. I imagine he comes off better in the French ones.

All that said, he did get a lot a Frenchmen killed in far off places for not much better reason than his own vanity. I'm thinking Egypt and Russia, fer instance. I suppose there are two sides to the story even there, but tell that to the widows and orphans . . .

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Good points. He had the misfortune to be defeated by the Brits, and since we are all English speakers, guess whose histories we read. I imagine he comes off better in the French ones.

All that said, he did get a lot a Frenchmen killed in far off places for not much better reason than his own vanity. I'm thinking Egypt and Russia, fer instance. I suppose there are two sides to the story even there, but tell that to the widows and orphans . . .

Yes, but how much of that was purely vanity. One could make a case that he was fighting hostile regimes determined to restore the Bourbons to power. That they would never rest until they had been broken or had succeeded (which they did in the end). Some of his worst mistakes were perhaps committed with France in mind. Yes, he was egotistical, but one would have to be to rise to power in a society that frowned on those of lower classes. One needed some pride and vanity to not be impressed with the aristocracy and such. Napoleon was the right man at the right moment to shake up the feudal order and make it so that nothing could completely return to the status quo ante. Sure, he lost, but Europe was irrevocably changed by his rule.

 

[R. Richard]

Napolean was a military genius, able to comprehnd the power of the artillery that was just coming into regular use in military battles. He did make socio/economic changes that were very benficial and he is rightly lauded for such achievements. However, Napolean was a political opportunist and that plus his own megalomania led to such stupidies as the Russian campaign. When he should have been consolidating his power and building a strong France, he was attempting to conquer the world.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Napolean was a military genius, able to comprehnd the power of the artillery that was just coming into regular use in military battles. He did make socio/economic changes that were very benficial and he is rightly lauded for such achievements. However, Napolean was a political opportunist and that plus his own megalomania led to such stupidies as the Russian campaign. When he should have been consolidating his power and building a strong France, he was attempting to conquer the world.

I can see where that might be true to an extent, but he was also paranoid about foreign powers trying to dethrone him, and even though he probably never heard the expression "the best defense is a good offense", he clearly believed that idea. He was always at war because people were constantly scheming to restore the House of Bourbon to the throne. Not most Frenchmen. Just his neighbors.

As to his politics, he evidently felt it necessary to preserve the meritocracy, even at the expense of political liberty. That is a flawed attitude, I agree. He was a dictator, indeed. However, he did nothing that Lincoln didn't do in terms of repression (well, except for making himself Emperor) during the Civil War. Lincoln was wrong to repress dissent, and so was Napoleon. But they both justified it in terms of war and defense against traitors within.

 

[3113]

I still think that a chastened Napoleon if victorious at Waterloo would have been a real force for the Enlightenment and a constant threat to the Old Order.

We will agree that (1) Napoleon sought some very enlightened reforms that were a stark contrast to the old order, (2) That he was no worse a despot than many others and certainly not a Hitler, (3) That he probably would have been no worse a ruler than others if he'd remained in power and (4) Certainly folk who favored Aristocracies, etc. didn't like Napoleon.

What I disagree with is that he would have been a "real force for Enlightenment." He certainly was a force for enlightenment at the start of his reign, but later on we see problems. He falls into the same old rut that other despots fall into--giving power and countries to members of his family, rather than to those who *DESERVE* and are better capable of ruling such places, as would be the enlightened thing to do.

He also starts to remove internal enemies and those who oppose him, or can't give him exactly what he wants. Even his wife Josephine because she can't supply him with an heir. And what is THAT all about? How enlightened is it to plan to pass on his empire to his son...rather than let the people elect a new ruler once he's gone?

In short (no pun intended) he shows all the signs of insecurity displayed by a man who saw himself dismissed by aristocrats for his low birth. He gleefully tears them down and rejoices in reforms...then acts like them once he has their power. Almost as if to say, "If you won't let me in your clubhouse, I'll start my own! See! I'm king of my own clubhouse!"

Napoleon started off by, as he himself said, rewarding "merit regardless of birth or wealth" and abolishing "feudalism" and restoring "equality to all regardless of religion and before the law." But once he had some serious power for a serious amount of time...he started thinking in some very old terms that had nothing to do with "equality" to all. At least not in the upper eschelons. And I doubt he would have had an ephiphany and learned his lesson after Waterloo. He might have given up sending troops to conquer Russia, but I seriously doubt he'd have given up his dreams of a dynasty.

Now my question to you: Why is such historical specualtion such a serious matter to you. What are you to Napoleon or Napoleon to you?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

We will agree that (1) Napoleon sought some very enlightened reforms that were a stark contrast to the old order, (2) That he was no worse a despot than many others and certainly not a Hitler, (3) That he probably would have been no worse a ruler than others if he'd remained in power and (4) Certainly folk who favored Aristocracies, etc. didn't like Napoleon.

What I disagree with is that he would have been a "real force for Enlightenment." He certainly was a force for enlightenment at the start of his reign, but later on we see problems. He falls into the same old rut that other despots fall into--giving power and countries to members of his family, rather than to those who *DESERVE* and are better capable of ruling such places, as would be the enlightened thing to do.

He also starts to remove internal enemies and those who oppose him, or can't give him exactly what he wants. Even his wife Josephine because she can't supply him with an heir. And what is THAT all about? How enlightened is it to plan to pass on his empire to his son...rather than let the people elect a new ruler once he's gone?

In short (no pun intended) he shows all the signs of insecurity displayed by a man who saw himself dismissed by aristocrats for his low birth. He gleefully tears them down and rejoices in reforms...then acts like them once he has their power. Almost as if to say, "If you won't let me in your clubhouse, I'll start my own! See! I'm king of my own clubhouse!"

Napoleon started off by, as he himself said, rewarding "merit regardless of birth or wealth" and abolishing "feudalism" and restoring "equality to all regardless of religion and before the law." But once he had some serious power for a serious amount of time...he started thinking in some very old terms that had nothing to do with "equality" to all. At least not in the upper eschelons. And I doubt he would have had an ephiphany and learned his lesson after Waterloo. He might have given up sending troops to conquer Russia, but I seriously doubt he'd have given up his dreams of a dynasty.

Now my question to you: Why is such historical specualtion such a serious matter to you. What are you to Napoleon or Napoleon to you?

Interesting points. I read yev's other thread on the GB, so I know his explanations for the Josephine thing and his dynastic concerns. But I will leave that to him to explain. I am not sure if he isn't perhaps clutching at straws a bit, but he is evidently an apologist for Napoleon, perhaps admiring his virtues so much that he is blind to his vices. Or too quick to dismiss them as "Royalist propaganda", I notice.

The way that he cozied up to the Pope is one of my main objections to him myself. He was too eager to make allies at times, perhaps understandable in light of the array of enemies. But he should have known that the Vatican at the time was too wedded to the Old Order to ever truly accept him. A better ally to seek out would have been the Ottoman Empire, I think. A constant Turkish threat would have presented the Holy See with some real worries. And the Porte was so isolated for much of its history that it would have jumped at the chance for an ally, I think.

 

[rgraham666]

Napoleon was the only person Thomas Jefferson hated.

That says everything for me.

 

[3113]

Napoleon was the only person Thomas Jefferson hated.

That says everything for me.

I dunno. I don't think he much liked Alexander Hamilton either. But then, few people did. Alex liked to show everyone how smart he was, and since he was smart, people didn't much like him

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Napoleon was the only person Thomas Jefferson hated.

That says everything for me.

That kind of puzzles me. Yes, he did some bad things, but Jefferson being a man of the Enlightenment and both being very hostile to the previous system, you wouldn't think that they would hate each other. But, then, Jefferson was a purist (well, except for things like slavery and the Louisiana Purchase). So perhaps it is not too puzzling. To him, Napoleon might well have been the French Hamilton, the man who hijacked the French Revolution and took it for his own personal joyride (yes, I know, not words that Jefferson would have used, but you get the point). Still, Napoleon viewed himself as the embodiment of the Revolution and implemented much of it....with the notable exception of full political liberty.

In any case, it is interesting that Jefferson made a deal like the Louisiana Purchase with a man whom he so despised. But I can see how a purist like Jefferson would object to Napoleon becoming Emperor and setting up his own aristocracy.

 

[rgraham666]

Here's a few things I found by Googling.

Jefferson on Napoleon

More of Jefferson on Napoleon

Napoleon was the model of the modern dictator from Stalin to Hitler. He was the man who showed the weaknesses of The Enlightenment. Napoleon showed that Reason alone couldn't constrain people from doing great harm. Indeed they could turn Reason to the most wicked of goals.

 

[3113]

In any case, it is interesting that Jefferson made a deal like the Louisiana Purchase with a man whom he so despised. But I can see how a purist like Jefferson would object to Napoleon becoming Emperor and setting up his own aristocracy.

That would certainly be a bee in Jefferson's bonnet. The one thing he always fretted over was that Congress was giving the U.S. President too much power and that said president might use that power to crown himself King.

And there's Napoleon doing just that.

But then we have to remember that America got treated much nicer by, ironically enough, the French under Louis XVI--they loved Americans and loaned the U.S. tons of money that the U.S. never paid back (one more reason for France going bankrupt and having a revolution).

The Revolutionaries and Napoleon after them saw no reason to treat Americans with any respect and didn't, dissing their ambassadors and jerking them around. In fact, that was one of Jefferson's biggest problems: " In the course of the Napoleonic Wars Britain and France repeatedly violated American sovereignty in incidents such as the Chesapeake affair (1807)."

Remember, to Europe, America at that time was a backwater, a rough, barbaric and fairly distant country with no political clout at all. France and England were running the world and controlling the seas. Jefferson wanted them to respect his country, they didn't, and so it's not surprising if he didn't much like either one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Here's a few things I found by Googling.

Jefferson on Napoleon

More of Jefferson on Napoleon

Napoleon was the model of the modern dictator from Stalin to Hitler. He was the man who showed the weaknesses of The Enlightenment. Napoleon showed that Reason alone couldn't constrain people from doing great harm. Indeed they could turn Reason to the most wicked of goals.

I'll concede that the man was a dictator. But he didn't commit nearly the atrocities of the Marxist and Fascist set. But I can see how his seizure of power might have been followed as an example by 20th Century tyrants: particularly his repression of dissent and his detente with the Church.

 

[rgraham666]

I'll concede that the man was a dictator. But he didn't commit nearly the atrocities of the Marxist and Fascist set. But I can see how his seizure of power might have been followed as an example by 20th Century tyrants: particularly his repression of dissent and his detente with the Church.

No, he didn't set up concentrations camps or gulags. That was a British creation. Ask Vana about them. I'm pretty sure you'll get an earful.

But not as bad as the Fascists or Communists? I disagree whole heartedly. More people died in the Napoleonic Wars than in WWI. Most of Europe was laid waste. And above all Napoleon and the reaction to him by the victors slowed the spread of democracy by nearly a century.

I loathe the man. His bloody inferiority complex has left scars that still exist today.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That would certainly be a bee in Jefferson's bonnet. The one thing he always fretted over was that Congress was giving the U.S. President too much power and that said president might use that power to crown himself King.

And there's Napoleon doing just that.

But then we have to remember that America got treated much nicer by, ironically enough, the French under Louis XVI--they loved Americans and loaned the U.S. tons of money that the U.S. never paid back (one more reason for France going bankrupt and having a revolution).

The Revolutionaries and Napoleon after them saw no reason to treat Americans with any respect and didn't, dissing their ambassadors and jerking them around. In fact, that was one of Jefferson's biggest problems: " In the course of the Napoleonic Wars Britain and France repeatedly violated American sovereignty in incidents such as the Chesapeake affair (1807)."

Remember, to Europe, America at that time was a backwater, a rough, barbaric and fairly distant country with no political clout at all. France and England were running the world and controlling the seas. Jefferson wanted them to respect his country, they didn't, and so it's not surprising if he didn't much like either one.

Good points there.

In principle, to me Napoleon is a paradox. A dictator who spoke of Enlightenment, liberty, and merit. And many of his princes were men of merit. Others were just cronies and relatives of himself and Josephine.

He was constantly beset by enemies, which to some extent explains his wars, but the Continental System was no small part of it, too. The war with Russia would have been avoided had the System not been in place. Probably war with Sweden, too. In his zeal to crush Britain, he made his worst blunders. But, then, Britain was a constant menace to him, a country that he saw as a relentless enemy.

Now, I can see why the Brits hated him. It is the traditional animosity between England and France, plain and simple, but carried out with a new pretext. He didn't seem to grasp that and know how to avoid creating new enemies. Trying to knock Britain out of the war was a futile hope. She is an island and not in any real danger of invasion, which was the only way to really force her to make terms. Being fond of the Brits in general, however, doesn't blind me to the naked bigotry against the Revolution prevalent in England at the time. It was mostly a hatred for France mixed with a hatred for too much reform and peril to the "social order". Napoleon represented a new world-view, which they hated. It was too radical for them.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, he didn't set up concentrations camps or gulags. That was a British creation. Ask Vana about them. I'm pretty sure you'll get an earful.

But not as bad as the Fascists or Communists? I disagree whole heartedly. More people died in the Napoleonic Wars than in WWI. Most of Europe was laid waste. And above all Napoleon and the reaction to him by the victors slowed the spread of democracy by nearly a century.

I loathe the man. His bloody inferiority complex has left scars that still exist today.

Interesting point about the casualties and the inferiority complex. Both true. And the overreaction by the Old Order.

Yev seems to be the apologist for Napoleon here, so I am waiting to see his response. He seems to take the tack from what I see that Napoleon just had a lot of enemies through no fault of his own and that they were always scheming to bring him down. That is oversimplifying, if you ask me, though there is no question that the Old Order wanted to restore the old monarchy at any price.

On the other end, neither Hitler nor Stalin pushed for improvements in the general lot of the common people, as did Napoleon. Neither of them sought to improve the criminal code, for instance. Or end discrimination against bastards.

As to concentration camps....well, that is really the legacy of Spain from the Cuban Revolution of the 1890s and of Great Britain from the Boer War (no doubt what you are referring to with your mention of Vana giving us an earful). The Boer War was one of the most heinous examples of aggression by an imperial power against another sovereign nation in history. Not that the Transvaal or Orange Free State didn't oppress black Africans. But so did the British Empire at the time. Just ask the Zulus.

 

[3113]

Napoleon was the model of the modern dictator from Stalin to Hitler.

While I'll agree with a lot of what Jefferson says about Napoleon, I don't think his words alone should serve as evidence that Napoleon was the same as Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot. Just killing people in a war is not enough to turn a person into a Hiter or Stalin. Did Napoleon send off vast numbers of his own people to concentration camps? Did he slaughter vast numbers of his own people in order to take their land or because of paranoia?

What I see Jefferson is deploring--and rightfully so--is any leader waging a war in order to conquor countries not at war with him. And yes, that's nasty and bloody and a lot of innocents die--we know this first hand. BUT it's just not the same as a Hitler or Stalin. To be that, you really have to slaughter innocents wholesale, not just make war on other countries with casualty figures relating to this war and only to this war.

So...where are the facts and evidence that Napoleon did this? I'm not an apologist for him, and I'm certainly not putting an halo on him, but fair is fair. If we're going to lump him in with other such dictators, we shouldn't just take Jefferson's opinion as evidence. We should have real facts and casualty numbers, atrocities to back up the comparison.

 

[cumallday]

It's good to see someone able to make the difference between tyrant and enlightened despot. But you're wrong on one point - Napoleon was not the greatest Frenchman in history. That title belongs to Francois-Marie Arouet or possibly Zinedine Zidane.

Alons-y, les mecs. Alons-y. Voulez vous du fromage avec vos cuisses de grenouille?

 

[N0madS0uL]

Napoleon was not the greatest Frenchman in history. That title belongs to Francois-Marie Arouet or possibly Zinedine Zidane.

I'll vote for Zidane.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

While I'll agree with a lot of what Jefferson says about Napoleon, I don't think his words alone should serve as evidence that Napoleon was the same as Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot. Just killing people in a war is not enough to turn a person into a Hiter or Stalin. Did Napoleon send off vast numbers of his own people to concentration camps? Did he slaughter vast numbers of his own people in order to take their land or because of paranoia?

What I see Jefferson is deploring--and rightfully so--is any leader waging a war in order to conquor countries not at war with him. And yes, that's nasty and bloody and a lot of innocents die--we know this first hand. BUT it's just not the same as a Hitler or Stalin. To be that, you really have to slaughter innocents wholesale, not just make war on other countries with casualty figures relating to this war and only to this war.

So...where are the facts and evidence that Napoleon did this? I'm not an apologist for him, and I'm certainly not putting an halo on him, but fair is fair. If we're going to lump him in with other such dictators, we shouldn't just take Jefferson's opinion as evidence. We should have real facts and casualty numbers, atrocities to back up the comparison.

Good points as well. I understand where Rob sees his aggressive wars as atrocities. On the other hand, I don't know exactly why he waged all of his wars. How much was vanity and how much an attempt to save the Empire from destruction by its enemies? That's a question. He was no Washington. But he was no Stalin or Hitler. There is where Rob and I must respectfully (because I always respect Rob and his opinions) disagree.

 

[3113]

Good points as well. I understand where Rob sees his aggressive wars as atrocities. On the other hand, I don't know exactly why he waged all of his wars. How much was vanity and how much an attempt to save the Empire from destruction by its enemies?

Well, there is always the rub. Did President Harry Truman need to drop that Atom Bomb? Not just one, but two! Did he do it to stop the war with Japan...or to demonstrate to the world powers that the U.S. was now top dog? (Or both?).

He killed a lot of people, including women and children. Does killing people in a war make you a Stalin/Hitler? Is anyone who kills a lot of people (in war or otherwise) a Hitler/Stalin, or does the reason for doing it matter...even if the reasoning was faulty? Does it matter if the leader did it in defence or offence? Does it matter if the leader started the war or finished it? Does it matter, for that matter, if said leader was an elected offical or one who took power?

As I think we'll agree that even elected officals who aren't going to be in office much longer but who used flimsy reasons to aggressively declare war on some other country and bomb the shit out of it for their own self-agrandisement...even these can be compared to Hitler/Stalin. No?

What I'm saying is, before we start comparing Napoleon to Hitler/Stalin, we really need to decide what level of comparison we're going for, because under certain rules of such comparisons, leaders like FDR and Harry Trueman could also be accounted as Hitler/Stalins--if, for example, a body count is all it takes.

 

[rgraham666]

It isn't body count that I use to decide who's a monster, although it counts towards my final decision. It's intentions.

In all the cases I mentioned the monsters' intention was to remake the world into a shape they wanted and any tool can and should be used to attain that goal. All of them were wiling to speak endlessly of 'freedom' and 'Reason' while using those concepts to destroy them. Ultimately they believed in nothing but their own perfection.

Francois-Marie Arouet would have been horrified by Napoleon, and fought him as bitterly as he had the ancien regimé.

I just thought of another reason I detest Napoleon. Thomas Carlyle worshiped him.

 

[3113]

I just thought of another reason I detest Napoleon. Thomas Carlyle worshiped him.

Having been forced to read Carlyle myself, I can agree that this is a very strong stike against Napoleon

 

[rgraham666]

Having been forced to read Carlyle myself, I can agree that this is a very strong stike against Napoleon

That loathsome piece of submissiveness On Heroes, Hero-Worship and The Heroic in History? Gag.

I detest Ayn Rand for the same reason.

If you want to be submissive or dominat in the bedroom, playroom or dungeon, go ahead. Leave it out of the political and philosophical spheres, thank you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Now my question to you: Why is such historical specualtion such a serious matter to you. What are you to Napoleon or Napoleon to you?

The thread is titled "myths of history," but that general rubric may a ruse to cover Yev's passion for short, chubby dictators.

(Just kidding, Yev. )

It's interesting how distant Napoleon seems today. His wars did remake Europe, but the ones that really matter for our own world are WWI and WWII.

Here's not a myth of history, but a "what if": What if the Schleiffen Plan had worked as intended, and Germany had conquerred France in a few weeks in 1914? Wouldn't they have been like a car-chasing dog who "catches" one - "Mein Gott, Otto, vhat are ve to do mit zese pesky Francs?"

What's the worst that would have happened - social security imposed on an unwilling population? More importantly, what would have been the effect if European civilization hadn't poured its blood and treasure into the trenches for four years, destroying its self-confidence and sense of worth. What would have happened if the Victorian era had been able to age gracefully and pass naturally, and perhaps a more enlightened imperialism been given more time to foster the rule of law and inculcate liberal values in Africa and Asia before gracefully retiring, the way the British raj did in Injah? (Fostered and inculcated in India that is, although in the broader context of world history the finale of the raj wasn't all that bad.)

OK, that last is a mostly a pipedream, because most imperial regimes were anything but "enlightened," nor was the British class system, but when one looks at the state of Africa today, and the oceans of blood spilled in Asia and Europe during the rest of the 20th C, it's hard to imagine things turning out any worse than they did.