It's a long-running joke.
So having a positive view of Napoleon means I'm a "fanboy"?
When that positivity ignores contrary evidence that paints your hero in an unflattering light, yes, yes it does. My brother-in-law is a huge fan of Charles De Gaulle, something with far fewer negative traits than Napoleon, yet he recognises far more problems with Charlie than you do with Nappy.
No, the reason why I have blatantly positive bias of the guy is because there's far more widespread blatant negative bias against him.
So you have a positive view of him as part of a rebellion against mainstream views?
I've read books written by his detractors as well. Actually, I go by the philosophy of always looking at the other side of the coin, which is why I turned out to be a admirer of him in the first place: Initially, as I studied the period, I read sources that assumed that he suffered from the same megalomania as the likes of Stalin and Hitler, but I also wanted to see what other people like Vincent Cronin and Ben Weider thought, both known admirers of Napoleon. But I still read excellent books written by people who could also be considered detractors (David G. Chandler in his excellent book The Campaigns of Napoleon and Charles Esdaile's Napoleon's Wars: An International History).
It's not the amount you read, or even wat you read that is the problem; it's reading things when you've already decided what you want to get out of them. I've read mein Kampf, but that doesn't make me a neo-Nazi. But if I read it already possessing the views of a neo-Nazi I'd find 'evidence' supporting my views, whereas if I read the Torah I'd see it as full of lies. Approach things with an open mind, not a closed one.
Plus, I don't think I've ever seen an objective (or more specifically, neutral) opinion of such a dominating personality like Napoleon. He's regarded as either a visionary or a tyrant.
He was probably a bit of both. It's impossible to find truly objective views of
anything; but that doesn't mean you can't form your subjective view as objectively as possible.
I actually have a large knowledge of World War II, although it's specialized in the Resistance across Europe, and the history of France during that time. But I still have much more education and knowledge on it than merely a high school education.
You're not showing it.
This was indeed an error on my part, but that doesn't mean you can claim that I don't know a whole lot about WWII. Perhaps I should have noted that it could be debated that Napoleon was justified in taking control of France, while there isn't a whole lot of agreement that Hitler did.
There are actually plenty of people, myself included, who will tell you that the Weimar Republic needed replacing with strong leadership. It's just too bad that that leadership was Hitler. You'll also find plenty of people who think that France had better options than Napoleon at the time; a return to monarchy, a real democracy, or a less belligerent dictator. I've heard Talleyrand mentioned as a possibility for the latter, though I don't see him as leadership material myself. Not dynamic enough.
This point is completely irrelevant, especially considering he ended up coming back to Britain several years later. Just because Hitler decided not to attack Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Austria, and France all simultaneously doesn't mean he didn't have a penchant for World (or at least European) domination. Moreover, Hitler puppeted nations as well, just look at Vichy France.
Especially considering that the attack on Egypt
was an attack on Britain; it was an attempt to target the British economy, which Nappy rightly recognised as the source of its strength. It must also be stated, for my own amusement, that Nazi Germany also targeted Egypt to cut the British off from India.
Because he was trying to cow Russia until he could deal with his other enemies. Divide and conquer is a popular maxim, and one which Hitler utilized as well.
And one which the British eventually used to defeat Napoleon
and Hitler.
He wanted to hold onto Louisiana, he had plans for rebuilding the French empire in America as well. However, this quickly fell apart when he realized the British were being more stubborn than he had anticipated. It was, once again, a pragmatic play. If he had succeeded in Europe, who knows whether or not he would have returned to the Americas. Just because he was shrewd, does not discount the fact that Napoleon was neurotic, and a nutcase, and had a penchant for world domination.
Especially considering the fact that on his deathbed he stated that his greatest regret was
not creating a French Empire in the New World. Something his nephew attempted to correct.
Objectivity and neutrality in history are overrated. Different perspectives highlight things that might not be noticed any other way.
Not to mention impossible.
My take on Napoleon: no, he was not Hitler. But he was more similar to Hitler than any other European ruler before or since. Another comparison that might work is with Alexander the Great, another conqueror who recognized no limitations on his power and who has been romanticized by later historians (see: Tarn...****ing Tarn). It is true that he instituted some reforms in parts of Europe. But I think that the "good" of these reforms as opposed to the "bad" has been overstated. The Napoleonic system in Europe ended up having a "good" legacy chiefly because the bad stuff didn't survive for long. His protectionist schemes, his colonial redirections of cash and raw materials to the French war machine, his wars that killed over a million European men - these all ended in 1814-1815. The Vienna powers had the foresight to keep what worked and abolish what didn't. Over time, those states have been transformed into "reactionaries" - as though nobody can tell the difference between Troppau and Vienna - who instituted a period of "repression" throughout Europe. The roll-back of French colonialism in Europe has been treated as an attack on liberty, equality, and fraternity. Sigh.
So, no, in terms of domestic policy, Napoleon was no Hitler. He had a police state, but he did not arbitrarily condemn millions to the gas chambers, furnaces, firing squads, and slave labor camps. True enough. But in terms of international policy, Napoleon and Hitler were birds of a feather. In terms of the way Napoleon treated Europe, they were similar, but not exactly the same. Few today will deny that Nazi Europe was a "Bad Thing". Napoleon's colonial system was somewhat more equivocal; it introduced some measures that were of benefit along with its objectively bad influences and institutions.
This, like your entire post, is an excellent summation.
There was nothing "colonial" about it. It was a policy founded on the prevention of conflicts, not in igniting them.
Do you even know what "colonial" means? He turned states into vassals, which were then forced to conform to his policies, to change their laws as he saw fit, were denied independent foreign policies and whose resources - including their populations - were redirected to France for both domestic and military consumption. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more obviously "colonial" policy in European history. It's also exactly the same policy towards foreign states as that practiced by Hitler.
How would it had benefited his war machine in any way at all? Within a year of coming to power in France Napoleon turned around the French economy in a year. When he came to power, there was exactly 167,000 francs in cash, and debts amounting to 474 million. Inflation was enormous. Civil serveants were unpaid, the army was unpaid, and starvation was at an all-time high.
How the hell could an efficient taxation system
not be to the benefit of the French war machine?
If a nation gets its primary source of income from taxation, it would make sense to have that taxation system be as efficient as possible. The Romans did the same thing when they extended citizenship across the entire Empire, rather than to the elite.
Napoleon thus raised two million francs in Genoa, three million from French bankers, and nine million from a lottery. However, that only staved off bankruptcy for his first months in office, so he got about making regular funds. One would think income tax would be enough for his needs, but the problem was the tax collectors did it as a part time job.
So he made a special body of 840 officials, eight to a department, whose sole job was the levying and collecting of tax. Of each official he demanded 5% of the expected annual revenue.
The new system worked; annually, Napoleon could now draw 660 million from income tax and public property, 185 million more than the old regime had. So, I'd say he didn't need Jews merely for efficency's sake on taxation.
Thank you for explaining both mine and Dachs' points for us. You just argued
against yourself, and I bet you don't even know it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you explain a bit more?
It's simple. Much like, you guessed it,
Hitler -
- Napoleon used times of "peace" merely as opportunities to rearm for later conflicts. Dachs gave you a proven example of this.
Ah yes, Switzerland. One of the many excuses the British forged. Well first off, I don't see anything in the Treaty pertaining to Switzerland at all. And to go into a little history of Switzerland...
When Britain does it it's an excuse, but when France does it it's justified. Still deny that you're a fanboy?
Before 1798 the 13 cantons were ruled by a rich privileged class which kept their money in British banks, but that year the Directory sent in troops to help a popular movement and to establish the Helvetic Republic.
There was no popular movement akin to the French Revolution in Switzerland. There was some civil unrest, but it was of an entirely different nature. It was anti-landlord - much like similar disturbance in rural China before WWI, in fact - rather than anti-monarchy/oligarchy. France entered Switzerland to create a satellite and to deny their enemies an ally, nothing more or less - though I'm sure
some of the Revolutionaries had ideological reasons for wanting such.
A year later, Britain, Austria and Russia sought to restore aristocratic government, Britain by sending a certain Wickham with plenty of money, and the other two countries with actual soldiers.
You mean they attempted to restore the government overthrown by French arms?
While the Napoleonic Code was not infinitely progressive, it was a huge improvement.
-Equality of all in the eyes of the law
-No recognition of privileges of birth (i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors.)
-Freedom of religion
-Separation of the church and the state
-Freedom to work in an occupation of one's choice
-Strengthening the family by:
*Placing emphasis on the husband and father as the head of the family
*Restricting grounds for divorce to three reasons: adultery, conviction of a serious crime, and grave insults, excesses or cruelty; however divorce could be granted by mutual agreement, as long as the grounds were kept private.
*Defining who could inherit the family property
I bolded that section because it's hardly progressive. It's actually more repressive than Roman marriage and family law in several places.
Why would it matter if it was run by a general? Eisenhower was a general, and he became President of the United States.
He was also elected. He didn't become President by launching a military coup against his superiors.
Normal as in, the constant threats that the First Consul faced the moment he stepped into office resulting in a hereditary title.
He could always have stepped down. Failing that, he could have chosen his successor without need of returning to an hereditary monarchy; Augustus did this, as did Genghis Khan, Trajan, and several other notable rulers throughout history. Even Franco did it in Spain last century.
Does that necessarily make it "bad" either?
False dichotomy. If something is not bad, that doesn't make it good and vice versa.
Look, I enjoy having this debate with you, but insults won't get anyone anywhere.
It's not an insult. He called your argument stupid, not you.
Since when was the legislative Council of State an oligarchy? I don't quite get what you're saying here.
A new nobility based on military officers and the Bonaparte family isn't oligarchical?
Why would it be directed at Europe? What motive would Napoleon have had towards intentionally crippling the European economy? No good reason. It was directed at the British, nothing more.
Bullplop. The Continental System was designed to cripple the European economy, making it dependent upon France. He made several statements of such. Napoleon wasn't stupid enough to think he could seriously damage the British economy through the Continental System; in fact, he turned a blind eye to under-the-table trade between Britain and the Continent wen it suited him. Even between Britain and
France!
Which is why they fought Sweden for it in 1808. If they were truly uninterested in Finland Alexander would have ignored Napoleon and instead focused on the Danube provinces, Wallachia, etc.
Just because they weren't too interested in gaining it didn't mean they were going to give it up once they had it. It was useful, just not worth the effort of pushing for until it was literally handed to them.
I'd treat Britain as an enemy too when it blatantly violates the Treaty of Amiens first.
Except that it didn't. Much like the truce in the Peloponnessian War,
both sides were breaking the treaty from the start.
Actually, that reminds me of classic British "peace"-making---namely, bombarding the capital cities of countries that did not comply with their demands (Copenhagen in 1802 and 1807, and threatening to burn Lisbon in 1808), and spending millions to let foreign troops die for British ambition.
You're actually colaiming the raid on Copenhagen as a sign of British belligerency? Napoleon demanded use of the Danish Fleet for use against Britain mere days later; it was a pre-emptive strike, and obviously a timely one.
The loss of an island in the Antilles means the loss of the entire French colonial prescense in the Americas? I don't think so. Plus, in Napoleon supposedly selling it only for cash: I refer to what I had said above in Napoleon reviving the economy. The money from the Louisiana Purchase didn't finance him any more than the money he currently had was financing his rebuilding of France.
The loss of Haiti deprived France of its only major port facility in the region. If you don't understand the need for such a facility when embarking on a process of mass colonial expansion/ warfare, you have no business on a forum devoted to a strategic war game.
Not much different than Britain appearing friendly to its Continental thugs to pit them against Napoleonic France.
Do you not see what you are doing? When a nation is allied with France, it's an ally, but when allied with Britain it's a "thug." You are hopelessly biased, completely non-objective and, unless you recognise this and correct it soon, entirely unworthy of our time and argumentative abilities. There's no point trying to open the eyes of a blind man. Recall the famous (apocryphal) story of Galileo offering his telescope to the Inquisitors.
If Boney wasn't a warmonger then explain the hundred days.
To be fair, that was more an attempt to return to power than any actual warmongering. I suspect he'd have been as happy to be left in control of France peacefully by that point. At least until he sniffed weakness.
But the reason, again, why I focus on his positive aspects is that in popular history his negative aspects are again and again described as his dominating ones. The "Corsican ogre" appearance is produced by propaganda often based on fallacies.
So you textually fellate him because others don't? Might as well simply admit that this is nothing but a pitiful attempt at being edgy and nonconformative.
When Napoleon returned he did not immediately raise an army or march to war. In fact, he informed the Coalition that he accepted the Treaty of Paris, thereby indicating he renounced any claim to reconquer the frontiers of 1792 and instead engaged to respect those of 1789. Quite the attitude of a warmonger!
He had no choice if he wanted to be left in power. He had to at least
try to convince Europe he intended to remain peaceful. Didn't work.
The Coalition could not deny that the overwhelming majority of the French people did not want anything to do with the Bourbons any longer. They chose Napoleon and the Empire, and based on his reception when he returned this couldn't have been any more true. In a personal letter Napoleon attempted to convince the sovereigns of Europe that the Ancient Regime no longer suited the French nation:
"The Bourbons no longer wished to associate themselves with French beliefs or manners. France had to separate itself from them. Its voice called for a liberator...Enough glory has already decorated the flags of various nations. Great successes have usually been followed by great reverses. A better arena is open today to sovereigns, and I am the first to enter it."
How did the Coalition respond? By forming a Seventh Coalition in preparation for a massive, 700,000-strong invasion of France.
Considering the previous actions of France, this was entirely in self-defence. As was re-establishing the friendly Bourbon regime. Simple
realpolitik in that case.
The illegitimacy of this new war imposed on France agitated the British opposition party. Their spokesman in the Commons declared: "Bonaparte was received in France as a liberator. The Bourbons lost their throne through their own mistakes. It would be a monstrous act to make war on a nation to impose on it the government it did not want."
So Britain is only the bad guy when they don't support your view? Too bad Britain did that very thing on literally dozens of occasions in the past; including on Ireland at that very moment.
The Prussian Secretary of the Congress of Vienna openly expressed the reactionary ideology of the Coalition: "the wishes of the French people, even if they were formally expressed, would have no effect and no weight."
Because those wishes were a threat to Prussia and the rest of Europe. The nationals of a powerful empire are always in favour of its continuation; why wouldn't they be, when they're the ones who benefit? Look at how angry the Russian people are now that the USSR has collapsed. Don't use anti-colonialists in European nations as contrary examples; they seldom had any power or influence, and when they did it was usually only after their country's empires began to crumble on their own.
Despite the emperor's proclaimed desire to live in peace with its neighbors, Europe mobilized on a hateful anti-French crusade to forcefully shove a puppet government down the throats of the French, a government they detested.
Yeah, about as equally nonsensical as the claim that he started all of them.
You are not in the least bit reliable in an argument about Napoleon, as you are proving over and over again in this thread.
