Was Napoleon really so bad?

[SEVERUSMAX]

He was one of the most farsighted and enlightened rulers in the history of Europe, after all. No matter how many men died in his wars, one could argue that they died for the eradication of an Old Order that deserved to die.

And a Napoleonic victory would have resulted in the annexation of much of the Rhineland into the French Empire, dividing Germany between France, Austria, and Prussia. Little danger of a Hitler or WW2 there. Or a WW1, for that matter.

A united Europe would have happened sooner, with a dynamic, benevolent autocrat at the helm. Given how little much of Europe prizes political freedom and representative government (witness the unaccountable nature of the Eurocracy in Brussels) and the degree to which they rely on the state for their welfare, a benevolent master would seem perfect for the bulk of continental Europeans. It's a splendid Old World solution for the Old World. Constitutional liberty seems to be more of an Anglo-American thing. Europeans still think like serfs, looking to a new overlord (the state) for their protection.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Mind you, I still in theory prefer the ideals of constitutional, representative liberty. But in reality, I have to be a realist and, if needs must, a cynic about Europe's ability to truly maintain a republican government.

Maybe Europe needs a spell under a dictator to prepare for liberal democracy.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

...

Maybe Europe needs a spell under a dictator to prepare for liberal democracy.

It's had one. He was called Adolf Hitler. A lot of people including US troops died to get rid of him.

Our varieties of democracy may vary across Europe but we have as many freedoms as people in the US have and in some cases more freedom.

We are free to get our illnesses and accidents treated at a cost we can afford.

We do have limitations on gun-carrying and a jail population much smaller in proportion to our population.

We do have Coca-Cola and McDonald's and WalMart under a different name.

Jeanne

 

[rgraham666]

The only person Thomas Jefferson ever hated was Napoleon Bonaparte.

You might want to peruse this web page..

Napoleon was the first iteration of 'The Great Hero'. The man on horseback who comes to rescue the people. From themselves.

These 'Great Heroes' culminated with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. They've been a source of nearly unending misery.

Why, Sev, do you you think such a thing is a good idea?

 

[colddiesel]

The main reason Napoleon is idolised is because he was French. France and the French long to be thought of as a great power and a great culture but their psyche is scarred by 200 years of history particularly 200 years of defeat. When Napoleon eventually came up against well generalled and disciplined troops at Leipzig 1813 and Waterloo 1815 he was beaten. What followed? 40 years of peace, a messy war in the Crimea then the devastation of defeat and occupation by Prussia in 1870. In 1914 the Germans ran over them again and the French had to be rescued by the British and Americans. The same again in 1940, rapid capitulation to the Germans then rescue by the British and Americans

And don't the French hate the Anglo Americans for those humiliating rescues. Worse to follow, Vietnam threw them out in 1954 and the Algerians by 1962. 'La Gloire' - there was none.

The French wont tell you but 95 % of the wartime resistance was the French Communist Party the rest collaberated and sent their jewish citizens to be gassed. On the Normandy Beaches in 1944 The Poles and Norwegians separately outnumbered the so called 'Free French'. Paris was freed by the Americans but De Gaulle re-enacted it five days later for the history books!

Every Frenchman knows in his heart that his country has been found wanting in every major dispute for the last 200 years. Even today they, with the Italians are the appeasers of Europe. Watch them kiss Putins ass over the next few months; they will. They talk big and do nothing.

Napoleon was their last winner that's the only reason why the French revere him . He was a murderous thug.

 

[rgraham666]

Colddiesel? That is one of the most well written examples of prejudice I've ever read. Nicely done.

Since WWII the U.S. hasn't done much better on the war front. It's lost or at best achieved a stalemate on pretty much every occasion. I don't regard Panama Grenada as victories, unless you want to regard beating a baby with a baseball bat as fighting.

And there were French, Polish and Norwegian landing on D-Day? First I've heard about it. I'd like some cites please.

And Napoleon marched all over Europe for twenty years with badly disciplined, poorly lead troops? Once again I'd like some cites.

The French fought the Germans for four years in WWI and took horrendous casualties. The British didn't rescue the French. As part of the Éntente Cordial they fought along side their allies. The Germans would have lost eventually. They just didn't have the logistics and resources to maintain the war forever. The Americans merely speeded up that loss.

I notice also that your didn't mention that the British got rolled over just as quickly as the French during Fall Gelb.

Seriously dude, if you're going to rant, have some facts on your side.

 

[oggbashan]

Allies landing on D-Day: Scroll down through FAQs to see:

Which Allied nations took part in the fighting?

The majority of troops who landed on the D-Day beaches were from Great Britain, Canada and the US. However, troops from many other countries participated in D-Day and the Battle of Normandy, in all the different armed services: Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.



Og

 

[rgraham666]

From my favorite book, The Doubter's Companion.

HEROES An illusion of leadership.

The modern hero is the descendant of Napoleon Bonaparte. With the development of communications technology it has become possible to sell Heroic attitudes as being more important than actual heroism.

The Hero is the rational substitute for democratic leadership. To bypass the genuine complexities of the public place, technocratic expertise has been allied with the distracting excitement of leadership on horseback. By the late twentieth century this Napoleonic image had been refined to such attitudes as film-inspired Reaganite war stories, talking tough, selling the leader's "character" via the mechanism of public relations and confusing the idea of the Hero with that of the celebrity.

Given that one of the roles of the Hero and the False Hero is to distract the citizenry from their role, appearances are of primary importance. From 1800 to 1945 these false populists dressed up in military uniforms, even though few of them were soldiers. After Hitler and Mussolini, the uniform was no longer possible.

A period of confusion followed as a new model was sought. It began to emerge through a blending of the B-movie actor with the entrepreneur. The need was for a one-tone character. The tough, decisive general was thus transmogrified into the tough, decisive businessman. The military uniform into the heavy, expensive, dark, double breasted suit.

Reagan and Mulroney were early attempts at this image. It was perfected in Italy by the new prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, former nightclub singer, wearer of five-centimeter heels, owner of a hair transplant, who advanced in public behind permanent make-up, even when he was greeting starving children from Rwanda. He was, of course, an entrepreneurial Hero and wore the appropriate suit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

COLD DIESEL

Very true!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The only person Thomas Jefferson ever hated was Napoleon Bonaparte.

You might want to peruse this web page..

Napoleon was the first iteration of 'The Great Hero'. The man on horseback who comes to rescue the people. From themselves.

These 'Great Heroes' culminated with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. They've been a source of nearly unending misery.

Why, Sev, do you you think such a thing is a good idea?

Dead on, Rob. However, I think your rebuttal of Colddiesel is overstated. Yes, there were Poles and Norwegians at Normandy. I just got back from three days there and the record is quite clear.

On the subject of gratitude, though, our tour group included one Normandy veteran. Repeatedly, the French came up to him and personally thanked him for what he and his comrades did that day, even to bringing their children and grandchildren to shake his hand so that in time they could tell their children in turn that one day they had met a genuine hero. This ol' vet had a hard time maintaining his composure.

Most wars are lost by the side that commits the most errors, not won by the side that is truly superior.

 

[rgraham666]

In the case of Fall Gelb, I'm of the opinion that the Allies were clearly overmatched. Thanks to Guderian's creation of the Panzerkorps and von Manstein's brilliant operational plan making use of them, the French and British stood about as much chance as a fifth of whiskey at an Irish wake.

I didn't know that there were Poles, Norwegians and French actually landing on the beach on June 6th. I know there were Polish and Norwegian ships serving in the fleet though. I'm pretty sure there were French ships as well.

Still, colddiesel's post was rank prejudice. Something I had to challenge.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROB cant be more wrong.

The world loves two things: Winners, and losers worthy of your steel. A real winner wants a loser who makes them wish they hadnt quarreled in the first place.

 

[3113]

The only person Thomas Jefferson ever hated was Napoleon Bonaparte.

I dunno if that's precisely true. He certainly hated Aaron Burr enough to join up with the other person he despised, Alexander Hamilton, to make sure the Burr didn't win the election against him.

His great hatred was toward kings and monarchs, most especially England and the English. Which is why he fully approved of the reign of terror in France, even when it got to be a massacre, and those who had helped America (like LaFeyette) ended up being murdered or imprisoned. Even when Napoleon was in charge, Jefferson favored the French over the English and argued against an American Navy that might engage those French (who were attacking U.S. merchant ships and torturing the captains of those ships as English spies!), for fear the the French might take such militaristic posturing the wrong way.

I'm not disagreeing about Napoleon. But I think I think it's a sticky thing to use Jefferson as an "appeal to authority" argument. I don't know that his judgement was trustworthy.

Oh, and I'm also amazed at ColdDiesel's bigotry of the French. He is aware that the U.S. would not have existed without the French? I mean really, the British would have won, hands down, if not for French loans, French troops and French ships helping the U.S. to become a country. Period. End it. The French tilted the balance. Especially as they were the first and ONLY country to recognize the U.S. when it first named itself an independent nation. No other country at the time would accept U.S. diplomats, loan it money, or trade with it.

And while we're at it, let's thank Napoleon for selling us that Louisiana Purchase and saving us from getting into a war with Spain over that important parcel of land (Jefferson didn't hate Napoleon enough, it seemed, to refuse that deal), and splitting the British forces there in 1812, else we might have lost that battle as well.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I dunno if that's precisely true. He certainly hated Aaron Burr enough to join up with the other person he despised, Alexander Hamilton, to make sure the Burr didn't win the election against him.

His great hatred was toward kings and monarchs, most especially England and the English. Which is why he fully approved of the reign of terror in France, even when it got to be a massacre, and those who had helped America (like LaFeyette) ended up being murdered or imprisoned. Even when Napoleon was in charge, Jefferson favored the French over the English and argued against an American Navy that might engage those French (who were attacking U.S. merchant ships and torturing the captains of those ships as English spies!), for fear the the French might take such militaristic posturing the wrong way.

I'm not disagreeing about Napoleon. But I think I think it's a sticky thing to use Jefferson as an "appeal to authority" argument. I don't know that his judgement was trustworthy.

Oh, and I'm also amazed at ColdDiesel's bigotry of the French. He is aware that the U.S. would not have existed without the French? I mean really, the British would have won, hands down, if not for French loans, French troops and French ships helping the U.S. to become a country. Period. End it. The French tilted the balance. Especially as they were the first and ONLY country to recognize the U.S. when it first named itself an independent nation. No other country at the time would accept U.S. diplomats, loan it money, or trade with it.

And while we're at it, let's thank Napoleon for selling us that Louisiana Purchase and saving us from getting into a war with Spain over that important parcel of land (Jefferson didn't hate Napoleon enough, it seemed, to refuse that deal), and splitting the British forces there in 1812, else we might have lost that battle as well.

We had a lovely trip in France.

 

[colddiesel]

Without Prejudice

Colddiesel? That is one of the most well written examples of prejudice I've ever read. Nicely done.

Since WWII the U.S. hasn't done much better on the war front. It's lost or at best achieved a stalemate on pretty much every occasion. I don't regard Panama Grenada as victories, unless you want to regard beating a baby with a baseball bat as fighting.

And there were French, Polish and Norwegian landing on D-Day? First I've heard about it. I'd like some cites please.

And Napoleon marched all over Europe for twenty years with badly disciplined, poorly lead troops? Once again I'd like some cites.

The French fought the Germans for four years in WWI and took horrendous casualties. The British didn't rescue the French. As part of the Éntente Cordial they fought along side their allies. The Germans would have lost eventually. They just didn't have the logistics and resources to maintain the war forever. The Americans merely speeded up that loss.

I notice also that your didn't mention that the British got rolled over just as quickly as the French during Fall Gelb.

Seriously dude, if you're going to rant, have some facts on your side.

Your first point is your subjective uninformed opinion . You are entitled to it.

Second point about the USA , irrelavent to the point at issue.

Third point confirmed by VM at any memorial museum in Normandy. My source too and I was surprised at the numbers.

French soldiers before and diring the Napoleonic wars adopted the tactic of massed infantry charges, this worked well in his early campaigns in Egypt and Austria where the defensive troops broke and ran. However at Jena in 1809 The Prussians put up a more disciplined defence with disciplined musket fire but still lost mainly because of weak generalship. Wellingtons troops in 1815 were particularly well trained at forming lines and squares of defensive troops which maintained steady successions of firing against charging troops .This devastated the early French attacks at Waterloo.

I said French troops were poorly disciplined not poorly led. Napoleons genius was at moving his troops very fast before a battle to obtain a good position and in his use of artillery. Once in battle his use of infantry in particular was consistently wasteful. Remember that at Waterloo 'the Old Guard' ran away'

Your point about French casualties in WWI is correct and I'm happy to believe you if you want that no-one rescued the French, but am more prepared to believe that without the Americans and British it would have been 1870 again.

In 1940 the British retreated with an intact army precisely because the French got rolled up and surrendered. You also forget to mention that the French then handed over their intact navy to the Germans.

If the facts I used label me as prejudiced then I guess I'll live with it but it seems to me that it's your lack of acquantance of them which is the problem. My basic point that 200 years without 'La Gloire' has deeply infected the French psyche stands up to examination

I merely suggest that you just pause a moment next time before making an accusation of ranting or prejudice.

otherwise best wishes.

 

[3113]

I merely suggest that you just pause a moment next time before making an accusation of ranting or prejudice.

It's prejudice because you presented your facts with a value judgement. How is it a "fact" rather than a bias if you assert that all these facts are the reason why the French love Napoleon?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Napoleon was a cynical hypocrite, an imperialistic, bloody-handed dictator who exploited the rhetoric of a misguided revolution to create a new version of the corrupt aristocracy it overthrew with himself at the apex - "vive l'empereur."

That said, in shaking up the other corrupt aristocracies of Europe his bloodyhandedness had the effect of making way for new conceptions of government in which the happiness and well being of the people were seen as the object, rather than the glory of the king, the perquisites of aristocrats or the comfort of self-serving churchmen. Republican government didn't quite follow in his wake, but the way was cleared for its eventual ascension.

But none of that was his purpose, or the immediate result of the oceans of blood he spilled. Perhaps most of which was French. The French love Napoleon because they are foolish and cynical themselves.

 

[cloudy]

He is aware that the U.S. would not have existed without the French?

The U.S. already existed, just not by that name.

No one "discovered" this continent. It was already here; already populated, and evidence points to the conclusion that it was populated earlier, and heavier than Europe.

 

[WRJames]

Unlike Stalin, Hitler and Mao, Napoleon did not set up a reign of terror against his own citizens. In fact, one of his great accomplishments was to end the Terror that had corrupted the good intentions of the French Revolution.

It should be noted that Napoleon did not start the Napoleonic wars -- he just won them. The revolution in France was under attack from every other power in Europe -- and for a while, with unbelievable brilliance, Napoleon was able to crush them all.

It should be understood, though, that the total superiority of the British navy was an obstacle that Napoleon could never overcome. As one of his biographers has remarked, he was attempting to conquer the sea from the land -- in the end an impossible task.

Of course, there are some countries that should never be invaded. One is Russia. Another is Afghanistan.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

The only person Thomas Jefferson ever hated was Napoleon Bonaparte.

You might want to peruse this web page..

Napoleon was the first iteration of 'The Great Hero'. The man on horseback who comes to rescue the people. From themselves.

These 'Great Heroes' culminated with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. They've been a source of nearly unending misery.

Why, Sev, do you you think such a thing is a good idea?

Napoleon rescued the people of France from the invasions of the various kingdoms and empires of Europe. The Wars of the French revolution and The Napoleonic Wars were mostly attacke by those kings and emperors and their defeats by the French people.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Napoleon rescued the people of France from the invasions of the various kingdoms and empires of Europe. The Wars of the French revolution and The Napoleonic Wars were mostly attacke by those kings and emperors and their defeats by the French people.

Until he decided to invade Russia!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Until he decided to invade Russia!

Don't forget Egypt - that was his first big imperial adventure and disaster. I'm still pissed about the Sphinx's nose. Plus he left a lot of Frenchmen behind to die while he scampered back to France himself.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Don't forget Egypt - that was his first big imperial adventure and disaster. I'm still pissed about the Sphinx's nose.

Recent archeological finding put that story in the catagory of myth. The sphinx' nose fell off centuries ago. But your assessment is otherwise correct. The only good thing to come out of that sortie is the Rosetta Stone and the Brits ended up with that. Do you know that it's on display in the British Museum and that if you lean 'waaaaaay over and have really long arms, you can touch it?

 

[TE999]

<snip> The only good thing to come out of that sortie is the Rosetta Stone and the Brits ended up with that. Do you know that it's on display in the British Museum and that if you lean 'waaaaaay over and have really long arms, you can touch it?

Sounds like the voice of experience talking.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Moi?