Why do peple compare Napoleon to Hitler?

[storealex]

You have to judge people acording to the moral values present at their time. Julius Ceasar was a war criminal by our standards, but in his time he was simply Roman. In a time when everyone engaged in slavery, it dosn't makes sense to regard someone guilty of doing this, as more evil than anyone else.

As to the Austrian Habsburgs, they never engaged in colonialism because they had their hands full with their own imperalistic agenda in the Balkans and elsewhere in Europe, as well as the ever present threat of the Turks. Later in the 19th century, they didn't have much capability. And let's not forget that it was the Hapsburgs who ruled Spain, when it was one of the most imperalistic nations in the world.
And even if the Habsburgs were somehow innocent little angels in this sense (Which they were certainly not) it dosn't really make any argument against my point; that slavery, colonialism and imperalism was the standard of the day.

 

[Lord Baal]

Civ Fanatics Forum doesn't care about black people.

But seriously, why is it that we're debating the ethics of Napoleon Bonaparte and nobody has talked about Napoleon re-instating slavery in Haiti and then committing genocidal acts in order to preserve French presence in the New World?

LightSpectra = Kanye West.

I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I haven't said anything about Haiti for the simple reason that I know jack-squat about events there. I'm aware of the fact that Robespierre was the only major Revolutionary who actually considered blacks the equals of whites and that the Haitian Revolution succeeded on Napoleon's watch. That's it.

 

[LiquidCommander]

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.

I'm not repeating what I had already said: acknowledging Napoleon's imperious, too often abrasive behavior. And I also recgonize that "evidence" will never be 100% factual, especially when it comes to history two hundred years ago. So while I might spew about how great Napoleon was and give all this proof, it will never be 100% factually correct because the farther back in time you go, the harder it is to pinpoint who did what or said what.

On the other hand, however, when you spew about how much of a thug Napoleon was, it works the same way.

So you have a positive view of him as part of a rebellion against mainstream views?

No, as part of a way to look at the other side of the coin. If I did it only to rebel I would have only read books from Napoleon's admirers, and shunned any sources from his detractors, which I haven't.

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.

If I don't approached things with an open mind, I would, as I said above, only get books from authors that are known to have more positive views on Napoleon than negative. The Revolutoinary and Napoleonic Eras were very agitated periods, and so I try to get as many sources as I can from every end of the spectrum. Just because I'm an admirer of Napoleon doesn't mean I'll view every bias against him as lies.

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.

Policies which were based off of security and defending France, not to fund an aggressive war machine. Does that mean I agree with the forced conscription and imperious orders he often gave to the heads of the client states? No. But it was necassary.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more obviously "colonial" policy in European history.

Except for British, Austrian, Prussian, and Russian imperialism.

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.

I meant that how could Napoleon giving civil liberties to Jews make the taxation system any more efficient than he already made it?

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.

Please, elucidate. I was explaining how Napoleon did not need Jews to have an efficient tax system.

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.

And I gave a proven example of how the British pulled excuses out of their behind to start a new war of aggression: interfering in Switzerland, protesting the French annexation of Piedmont, among other things.

When Britain does it it's an excuse, but when France does it it's justified.

Does what, exactly? Napoleon did not breach any part of the Treaty of Amiens. Britain whined about French actions in Piedmont and Switzerland, but the frontiers of Europe should have been discussed before the Treaty of Amiens, not after.

Still deny that you're a fanboy?

You know, I haven't called you names so far. Should I start now?

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.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure where you got that it was not a anti-monarchy civil unrest.

France entered Switzerland to create a satellite and to deny their enemies an ally, nothing more or less

This is a matter of perspective here. While securing Switzerland would certainly protect its weak flank, there was as much idealogical as their was practical reasons to secure Switzerland.

You mean they attempted to restore the government overthrown by French arms?

The very same, the same that was also very controversial, with support both for it and against it. The Helvetic Republic period of Switzerland is still controversial, so I'm not getting into it too much. Again, matter of perspective; some see it as a negative period because of foreign interference, others see it as the beginnings of Swiss federalism, especially Napoleon's Act of Mediation.

I bolded that section because it's hardly progressive. It's actually more repressive than Roman marriage and family law in several places.

Again, perspective. That was in the Code because since the Revolution increased the power of the State at the expense of the family, Napoleon wished to right the balance by strengthening the family, particularly its head. He also considered the family the best safeguard of the weak and underprivileged. Whether that's right or wrong is not up to me to discuss.

He was also elected. He didn't become President by launching a military coup against his superiors.

Yet they both lived in different time periods and political balance. Eisenhower's government was stable, not at war with most of the civilized world, and not teetering on the edge of civil war. The Directory was much different. Government was virtually non-existent, inflation was rampant, unemployment was big, roads were unsafe, Brittany and Vendee were again up in arms.

It wasn't as though he simply marched into Paris and overthrew the government. His first idea was to be elected as a Director, but was rejected, since the Constitution disallowed anyone under forty (Napoleon was 30 at that time).

Next he met Joseph Sieyes, who was the author of What is the Third Estate? It was then that he got involved in a conspiracy to force the current government to resign and create a new Constitution.

He could always have stepped down.

There was not a lot of people around that was able to work like Napoleon did. If one were to look at the amount of effort he put every day into rebuilding France, well, I doubt few would be up to the task.

Failing that, he could have chosen his successor without need of returning to an hereditary monarchy

This I do agree with. When he was named First Consul for life, that was essentially Emperor. Establishing a imperial dynasty might have seemed right, and I can certainly see why he did it (not out of personal glory or to "raise himself higher and higher), but it alienated much of monarchical Europe.

A new nobility based on military officers and the Bonaparte family isn't oligarchical?

How does Bonaparte's families ruling over certain parts of Europe a bad thing? Foreign leaders were commonplace at that time. Britain was ruled by a German, and Sweden was eventually to be ruled by a ex-Napoleonic marshal.

Focusing on Naples first, ruled by Joseph: until 1806 Naples was ruled by a incompetent Ferdinand I, ruling for over fifty years, making the inhabitants of Naples among the most poorest and worst treated in Europe. 31,000 nobles and 82,000 clergy possessed 2/3 of the land.

Napoleon sent Joseph to Naples with orders to abolish feudalism, introduce the rights of man and protect his coast against the British navy. On August 2, 1806 he abolished all baronial jurisdiction, all rights up to personal services, and all water rights. A month later he divided up all feudal estates among the small farmers who worked them. Each province had a Council as the first step to parliamentary government, which was favored by liberal Neapolitans. The national debt of 130 million ducats was huge; to wipe it out, he sold off 213 monastic estates, and pensioned the monks with between 265 and 530 francs yearly. The new tax system favored the poor.

Next on Spain: Joseph did all the right things when he (reluctantly) was sent there by Napoleon. He gave Spain its first constitution, with a two-chamber legislature comprising a senate of 24 nominated by Joseph and a chamber of 162 deputies representing the three estates. So basically, the same formula as Naples; the only difference is that it failed.

Holland became ruled by Louis Bonaparte, and he eventually became popular with the Dutch: introducing a more humane criminal code, organizing an annual exhibition to encourage Dutch industry, persuading Napoleon to withdraw French troops and to dispense the Dutch from conscription, all made him popular with the Dutch people. Eventually he got on bad terms with his brother, becoming more acquiescent to Dutch demands: when they wanted a nobility, Louis created one; Napoleon had to step in and make him cancel it. Louis was too conscientious to compromise, and a worsening military situation made it clear Napoleon couldn't compromise either, so in 1810 he annexed Holland to France.

I'd say, for the most part (with the exception of Jerome), Napoleon's brothers ruled well. I wouldn't call it an "oligarchy", either. Even though they ruled countries allied to France or were client states, they were still, governmental wise, separate from the constitutional monarchy of the French Empire.

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!

Yes, let's disregard the fact that Napoleon was economically intelligent, he just decided to cripple the entire Continent merely to make it dependent on him.

I heartily disagree with this, but it is, as has been said in this thread, an alternate interpretation. If that's really how you perceive it to be, so be it.

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.

But in 1808 Finland was not part of Russia, and Napoleon did not actually order or pressure Alexander to take Finland, only encouraging him to do so. Plus, ask any Romanav and they will tell you Finland was always a dream province of theirs.

Except that it didn't. Much like the truce in the Peloponnessian War, both sides were breaking the treaty from the start.

Except that it did. I have yet to hear how, exactly, Napoleon violated Amiens.

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.

It was still an attack on a neutral country that Napoleon had no interests in until after 1807, the few days after it was attacked. Similar to how Napoleon violated the neutrality of Baden by capturing the Duke of Enghien, except he didn't blast a capital city to bits.

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.

Define "region". If you mean the Antilles then you are correct. But Napoleon still possessed other ports, namely New Orleans. However this is, again, another matter of perspective: one can argue that because of the cutting of sugar revenue from Haiti, Napoleon considered the Louisiana Territory useless and thus sold it off.

You are hopelessly biased, completely non-objective and, unless you recognise this and correct it soon, entirely unworthy of our time and argumentative abilities.

And I say the exact same thing for your Anglo-Saxon dominated views. If I'm so unworthy of your time, then simply stop replying.

So you textually fellate him because others don't?

...Wow. You know, I really thought you wouldn't sink so low in gross terminology. I really thought I could have a debate with someone whose interpretation and perspective is different without them resorting to vulgar language. Bravo.

Might as well simply admit that this is nothing but a pitiful attempt at being edgy and nonconformative.

Whatever floats your moral boat.

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.

Didn't work because of monarchical hostility, not Napoleon.

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.

Alternate interpretation: it was a move to install a puppet government in France and to take advantage of its weakness, just like the monarchical powers did in the last years of the 18th century.

So Britain is only the bad guy when they don't support your view?

I didn't imply that; I was giving an example as to how much opposition there was to this seventh anti-French crusade.

You are not in the least bit reliable in an argument about Napoleon, as you are proving over and over again in this thread.

And you haven't shown that you can respect other people's opinions and interpretations. Name-calling, use of vulgar language and generally seeming to attempt to deface opinions that don't agree with you. If I'm not reliable, then stop wasting your time here.

As I said, I don't deny that Napoleon was perfect. He was just as flawed as a human being should, and made catastrophic mistakes, the Peninsular War coming to mind there. With such a colossus of a historical figure there very well should be both admiration and controversy surrounding him, and some of the things he did I frown upon (becoming emperor, executing the Duke of Enghien, the Continental System), but I for the most part view him as a positive force in history, despite his faults. I refer again to this: http://www.napoleon-series.org/faq/c_leader.html

 

[ParkCungHee]

It means that I am a British, and the British like to take the mick

I just thought you liked to take the Mick's country.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why bother discussing the morality of anybody at all if the most extreme evils can be disregarded off-hand?

Nevertheless, you're quite wrong. The Habsburgs never engaged in colonialism beyond a city district in China that was given following the Boxer Rebellion, and a few trading posts established during the mid-18th century.

And Bosnia, Serbia, Poland, Italy...

 

[LightSpectra]

You have to judge people acording to the moral values present at their time. Julius Ceasar was a war criminal by our standards, but in his time he was simply Roman. In a time when everyone engaged in slavery, it dosn't makes sense to regard someone guilty of doing this, as more evil than anyone else.

Roman slavery was nothing like the chattel slavery that we associate with the antebellum American South. But that's an entirely different story.

As to the Austrian Habsburgs, they never engaged in colonialism because they had their hands full with their own imperalistic agenda in the Balkans and elsewhere in Europe, as well as the ever present threat of the Turks. Later in the 19th century, they didn't have much capability.

Imperialism is not colonialism, and "they would've been guilty if they had the opportunity" is not an indictment.

And let's not forget that it was the Hapsburgs who ruled Spain, when it was one of the most imperalistic nations in the world.

I'll give you that I was being unclear when I was referring to the Habsburg Monarchy as opposed to every throne ever occupied by a Habsburg.

And even if the Habsburgs were somehow innocent little angels in this sense (Which they were certainly not) it dosn't really make any argument against my point; that slavery, colonialism and imperalism was the standard of the day.

Okay. By what moral standards are we going to judge Bonaparte's actions if we've already accepted that slavery, murder and genocide were acceptable behaviors by the standards of the time?

Furthermore, the reason why the slavery matter is an issue is because Napoleon re-instated it in the New World; it had previously been abolished during the French Revolution. So the "he was a good monarch by the standards of his time" line is bunk. And even if that weren't the case, I heavily dispute that common behavior is an excuse by any means. There were plenty of people such as William Wilberforce, Benjamin Rush and John Quincy Adams that were contemporary or predated Napoleon that had no interest in such evils. If they were well aware of the matter, then there's no reason to think Bonaparte was not.

And Bosnia, Serbia, Poland, Italy...

Hardly colonialism. The Habsburg Monarchy never attempted to Germanize their multi-ethnic empire.

 

[Dachs]

Not against that summation actually. But I would think it important that the reason that kind of comparison can be made like that is how the French revolution inaugurates a new kind of nationalist (and at the time liberal, though that bit certainly wouldn't apply to Hitler) politics, at the other end of which stands Hitler. After the French Revolution the old kind of dynastic politics wasn't what it was all about anymore. The liberal/nationalist side of it is that for once "the people" is suddenly a primary source of political legitimacy (which after certain permutations gets us to Hitler and the Nazi ideas about "Volk").

Quite true. You can already see this within a few years of Napoleon's defeat and exile, during the Baden-Bavaria succession crisis. Instead of a traditional European dynastic war, the Baden government just legislated the Bavarian claims out of existence by claiming all territory of the Grand Duchy of Baden to be inalienable. And since nobody cared enough about dynastic territorial claims to back the Bavarians, the whole thing died very quickly.

As for the repressive nature of (most of) the monarchies opposing Napoleon (after of course at first deciding to kill the revolution, and Napoleon never really managing to distance himself from those roots, despite strenous effort), I think the proof is not so much in what they did to Napoleonic France, but rather in how they handled the following waves of liberal, national, revolutions that started in the 1820's. And these were drawing upon the French Revolution to stage their own.

I don't think it was any particular connection to the Revolution that induced the repression of the patriotic societies and the Burschenschaften. After all, in Prussia, for instance, during the Revolution itself, you could go around wearing a cockade and reading broadsheets about the events in Paris and so forth with nary a whisper from the state. If ideological factors played a role - and I tend to think they weren't as important as British historians liked to think - I think they were less of an issue than the actual disturbances, like the assassinations. But yes; it was hardly that much better than living under Napoleon.

Because they couldn't. Balance had been restored,

What. Does. This. Mean.

Are you going to try a "balance of power" on us here? Really?

no one was top dog anymore,

Sure somebody was. The UK ruled the waves, and Russia ruled the land.

people were tired of war

More tired than they had been in 1812-15? Can you measure this, or back it up? If "the people" were so tired of war, what was the whole Wacht am Rhein crisis about? What happened in 1830, especially in Belgium? And how did the politicians of various states know this, and why did they act on it?

and even if a Monarch could have survived starting new campaigns, he wouldn't have the skills to emerge victorious.

Really? These are the same states that defeated Napoleon's armies and liberated half a continent. And yet they somehow suck too hard at war to even fight each other, or to fight smaller states?

Don't tell me England, Preussia, Austria and Russia wasn't imperalistic and aggressive. Who knows how far they would have gone, if they had the means to.

I won't tell you that at all. But they had the means to continue making war on each other. They had plenty of motive, especially being the big, nasty imperialist aggressor powers that they were. Since you appear to be a Realist, why, according to Realist diplomatic theory, were there no major European wars until after the Revolutions of 1848?

 

[storealex]

Roman slavery was nothing like the chattel slavery that we associate with the antebellum American South. But that's an entirely different story.

I said war criminal, not slave owner.

Imperialism is not colonialism and "they would've been guilty if they had the opportunity" is not an indictment.

Colonialism is just an other form of imperalism. There is no reason to believe Austria wouldn't have had colonies if they had the means. And of course you should judge people's morals on what they would do, if they could.

Okay. By what moral standards are we going to judge Bonaparte's actions if we've already accepted that slavery, murder and genocide were acceptable behaviors by the standards of the time?

We should of course judge him by the moral standards at his time.

Furthermore, the reason why the slavery matter is an issue is because Napoleon re-instated it in the New World; it had previously been abolished during the French Revolution. So the "he was a good monarch by the standards of his time" line is bunk.

It dosn't really matter that it was abolished. The revolution abolished lot's of things, and changed a whole lot of things to the near crazy. Napoleon changed several issues implemented by the revolution back to "normality". Abolishing slavery would have been regarded as rather odd, by most Europeans, including most Monarchs. In this sense, Napoleon was perfectly in line with the average man at the time, and as such cannot be regarded as evil.

And even if that weren't the case, I heavily dispute that common behavior is an excuse by any means. There were plenty of people such as William Wilberforce, Benjamin Rush and John Quincy Adams that were contemporary or predated Napoleon that had no interest in such evils. If they were well aware of the matter, then there's no reason to think Bonaparte was not.

There's always an enlightened minority that is ahead of it's time. The average man in the Middleages wasn't stupid to believe that the world was flat - it was the standard of the time. The fact that a few, fringe scientists had actually figured the truth out, does not make the majority stupid.

It's so typical for people today, to judge people who lived in an entirely different time. Napoleon made thousands of decisions every year. He ruled millions of people. Of course some of his actions can be said to have been immoral today, but first of all I highly doubt it's possible to hold insane amounts of power, and only wield it for the good (Just look at USA today), secondly you simply cannot judge people by other societies standards. The average North Korean is probably communist. Is that because he is stupid, or is it because it's all he has ever known?

 

[LightSpectra]

I said war criminal, not slave owner.

I fail to see the relevance of this either way. You don't seem to be understanding the argument I'm proposing.

Colonialism is just an other form of imperalism.

No it's not. Colonialism is one thing done by some imperialists, but they are not synonymous.

There is no reason to believe Austria wouldn't have had colonies if they had the means.

They did have the means and chose not to.

And of course you should judge people's morals on what they would do, if they could.

No, you don't. You don't put somebody in prison because he would be a murderer under certain circumstances.

We should of course judge him by the moral standards at his time.

You don't seem to be getting this. If we've already accepted that genocide and chattel slavery are acceptable, what does it matter after that? Napoleon committed the pinnacles of human evil and you brush this off because other people did that too -- alright, now what? How can you possibly argue from this point that then Napoleon was better than his contemporaries? Because he murdered less Europeans? Is that really the only thing that matters?

It dosn't really matter that it was abolished. The revolution abolished lot's of things, and changed a whole lot of things to the near crazy. Napoleon changed several issues implemented by the revolution back to "normality". Abolishing slavery would have been regarded as rather odd, by most Europeans, including most Monarchs. In this sense, Napoleon was perfectly in line with the average man at the time, and as such cannot be regarded as evil.

Evil is not based on fashion. I think his contemporaries were evil too when they tolerated, prolonged or committed genocide and slavery. And I think his contemporaries were better than him when they opposed these things whilst Bonaparte was doing them.

There's always an enlightened minority that is ahead of it's time. The average man in the Middleages wasn't stupid to believe that the world was flat - it was the standard of the time. The fact that a few, fringe scientists had actually figured the truth out, does not make the majority stupid.

It was not believed in the Middle Ages that the earth was flat. This is a ridiculous metahistorical legend that needs to die in a fire.

If we're going to accept that there was an enlightened minority, how can you then say that Napoleon was better than his contemporaries? Are you at all following this?

It's so typical for people today, to judge people who lived in an entirely different time. Napoleon made thousands of decisions every year. He ruled millions of people. Of course some of his actions can be said to have been immoral today, but first of all I highly doubt it's possible to hold insane amounts of power, and only wield it for the good (Just look at USA today), secondly you simply cannot judge people by other societies standards. The average North Korean is probably communist. Is that because he is stupid, or is it because it's all he has ever known?

Neither of us are able to judge if in Bonaparte's heart, he truly thought he was doing the just and good thing when he enslaved and killed the people of Haiti. But we are able to judge his actions, and we can unequivocally say that this was wrong. And, we can also say that many of his contemporaries were aware of this, so it's not as if Bonaparte somehow lacked free will due to the culture of his times. And, we can also say that Bonaparte's enemies were not as cruel and callous as he was in this regard, so putting him on a pedestal because he "ruled millions of people" is absurd.

 

[storealex]

What. Does. This. Mean.

Are you going to try a "balance of power" on us here? Really?

It's rather obvious what I mean. Can we go back to having a real discussion now?

Sure somebody was. The UK ruled the waves, and Russia ruled the land.

Yet neither ruled Europe. And neither had the means to.

More tired than they had been in 1812-15? Can you measure this, or back it up? If "the people" were so tired of war, what was the whole Wacht am Rhein crisis about? What happened in 1830, especially in Belgium? And how did the politicians of various states know this, and why did they act on it?

You know it would take several hours of writing and many pages to answer that. Why don't you come up with some arguments instead of just asking questions?

Really? These are the same states that defeated Napoleon's armies and liberated half a continent. And yet they somehow suck too hard at war to even fight each other, or to fight smaller states?

That's not what I wrote. Starting wars in 1816 would have meant great risks and little gains in many cases. There was no real reason to undertake such endavours. Infrastructure had been destroyed, men had died, there was much to rebuilt, gains and nations to consolidate, revolutionary ideas to suppress, as well as public opinion, and opinions among intelectuals and rulers alike were against war.

 

[LightSpectra]

You know it would take several hours of writing and many pages to answer that. Why don't you come up with some arguments instead of just asking questions?

"It would take too long for me to resolve severe contradictions within my argument. Can you stop pointing them out please?"

 

[storealex]

I fail to see the relevance of this either way. You don't seem to be understanding the argument I'm proposing.

Well it was my argument that you responded to.

No it's not. Colonialism is one thing done by some imperialists, but they are not synonymous.

I said it was an other form, not the same form. Jesus...

They did have the means and chose not to.

Because of love for the blacks right? Because they had higher moral standards right? Don't make me laugh. Austria had limited means and thought them better used in Europe.

No, you don't. You don't put somebody in prison because he would be a murderer under certain circumstances.

The courts dosn't judge people on their morals at all, but on their deeds.

You don't seem to be getting this. If we've already accepted that genocide and chattel slavery are acceptable, what does it matter after that? Napoleon committed the pinnacles of human evil and you brush this off because other people did that too -- alright, now what? How can you possibly argue from this point that then Napoleon was better than his contemporaries? Because he murdered less Europeans? Is that really the only thing that matters?

Show me were I argue that Napoleon was better than his contemporaries from that point

Evil is not based on fashion. I think his contemporaries were evil too when they tolerated, prolonged or committed genocide and slavery.

Most of humanity were then evil apparently, since they held things to be acceptable which we don't.

And I think his contemporaries were better than him when they opposed these things whilst Bonaparte was doing them.

But his contemporaries didn't oppose these things! His contemporaries = Other Monarchs at his time. These was certainly also guilty of these things.

It was not believed in the Middle Ages that the earth was flat. This is a ridiculous metahistorical legend that needs to die in a fire.

Fair enough, but please respond to the meaning of my argument and not the scemantics,

If we're going to accept that there was an enlightened minority, how can you then say that Napoleon was better than his contemporaries? Are you at all following this?

Because they were a minority. They were regarded as odd by most people. And calm down dude, you seem to be getting all worked up over this.

 

[Dachs]

It's rather obvious what I mean. Can we go back to having a real discussion now?

A so-called "balance of power" does not stop wars from happening. A balance - even if there is a "balance", and nobody ever seems to be able to define what the hell a balance of power actually is - is the product of disturbed minds. It's quite odd how balances are justified; if there's peace, it must be the result of a "balance of power", and if there's no peace, it must be the result of an imbalance, never mind what the actual reasons that drove states into war or peace actually were or what their relative military, economic, prestige, or other powers might have been.

The "balance of power" does not explain anything. Do not use it.

Yet neither ruled Europe. And neither had the means to.

Actually, it's quite clear that the post-1815 settlement was based on a dual Anglo-Russian hegemony, replacing direct rule with diplomatic pressure and spheres of influence, and necessarily limited influence over the neutral center in Germany. Look at how the Greek Question was resolved, for instance.

You know it would take several hours of writing and many pages to answer that. Why don't you come up with some arguments instead of just asking questions?

They are rhetorical questions. A rhetorical question is a device intended to highlight something or other indirectly, by getting the reader to think about the answer, rather than to write it out and make it explicit. They are often employed for persuasive effect. The point I was making is that there are no answers to those questions. Why? Because the stuff you were talking about didn't happen that way.

That's not what I wrote. Starting wars in 1816 would have meant great risks and little gains in many cases. There was no real reason to undertake such endavours. Infrastructure had been destroyed, men had died, there was much to rebuilt, gains and nations to consolidate, revolutionary ideas to suppress, as well as public opinion, and opinions among intelectuals and rulers alike were against war.

And yet there were great reasons to fight wars. What about the Saxon-Polish Question? What about the Italian revolutions? What about the Belgian Question? All of them are fantastic reasons to start wars. But none of these so-called imperialist powers did use them as justification. Why?

And if this was the result of war-exhaustion - and states refusing to launch wars based on war exhaustion is a dubious reason at best, given all the states that ignore war-exhaustion in order to start fighting - why did wars still not start after Europe's population and economy had recovered to above prewar levels?

And how does "opinions among intelectuals [sic] and rulers alike were against war" jive with your description of these states as imperialist, aggressive powers? Make up your damn mind!

 

[storealex]

"It would take too long for me to resolve severe contradictions within my argument. Can you stop pointing them out please?"

Oh grow up please.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well it was my argument that you responded to.

That we would consider Julius Caesar a war criminal by modern standards is irrelevant because it's not a good comparison; people don't typically attempt to justify Caesar's actions through modern morality in the manner you're attempting to justify Bonaparte.

I said it was an other form, not the same form.

Alright. Then they're not the same thing. I'm glad we've reached a conclusion on this matter.

Because of love for the blacks right? Because they had higher moral standards right? Don't make me laugh. Austria had limited means and thought them better used in Europe.

If you're going to say this, then don't immediately follow it with "The courts dosn't judge people on their morals at all, but on their deeds."

Austria did have the means to engage in colonialism, but it was not to their benefit. But the motive is irrelevant since what we're discussing here is action, not viewpoint.

Even if that were the case, you can't univocally say that the Habsburgs would be as callous as the Germans, British or French to their colonial peoples. The House of Habsburg was by far the most religious household amongst the major European dynasties (Romanov, Hanover, Hohenzollern, Bourbon) and Franz Josef I had remarked that Leopold I of Belgium was a "thoroughly bad man" for his responsibility for the atrocities in the Congo. To suggest that you know for a fact that Franz I or Leopold II would've done the same things that Bonaparte did in his shoes is false.

Show me were I argue that Napoleon was better than his contemporaries from that point

I don't know if you specifically said he was better, but you said repeatedly that he wasn't worse than his contemporaries, which is blatantly false considering the counter-examples I've provided.

Most of humanity were then evil apparently, since they held things to be acceptable which we don't.

No objection here.

But his contemporaries didn't oppose these things! His contemporaries = Other Monarchs at his time. These was certainly also guilty of these things.

He had contemporaries that were worse than him, he had contemporaries that were roughly the same as him, and he had contemporaries that were better than him. I think it's wrong to attempt to put Bonaparte on a pedestal or defend his actions given the third case. We can say Bonaparte was a bad man for his genocide against the Haitians, and we can say Franz I of Austria or Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies were not as bad (at least in this regard) for having not done the same thing.

Fair enough, but please respond to the meaning of my argument and not the scemantics,

The substance of your argument is bunk. There were people that defended such wicked things in Bonaparte's era, but they weren't such an overwhelming majority that the common man was unable to tell right from wrong -- let alone a man with such influence as Bonaparte himself.

Because they were a minority. They were regarded as odd by most people.

Define "odd." I think Robespierre was an odd man, and certainly a terrible human being overall, but I still credit him for dissolving slavery for the French in the New World.

And calm down dude, you seem to be getting all worked up over this.

When you possess an instrument that allows you to detect the emotional temperament of people over the internet, I don't know why you're wasting your time arguing about insignificant things like the historical perception of Bonaparte.

 

[Verbose]

I don't think it was any particular connection to the Revolution that induced the repression of the patriotic societies and the Burschenschaften. After all, in Prussia, for instance, during the Revolution itself, you could go around wearing a cockade and reading broadsheets about the events in Paris and so forth with nary a whisper from the state. If ideological factors played a role - and I tend to think they weren't as important as British historians liked to think - I think they were less of an issue than the actual disturbances, like the assassinations. But yes; it was hardly that much better than living under Napoleon.

Fair enough, but I was rather thinking more about the direct military activities of the Holy Alliance actually.

 

[say1988]

This thread is hilarious.

As for the OP, at a distance there are many parallels in their actions. They had different motivations and used different means but just looking at their overall actions, there were many similarities. More so than between them than with any other individual in European history.

 

[Traitorfish]

I just thought you liked to take the Mick's country.

Me have a diverse portfolio of Mick-related activity.

 

[LiquidCommander]

This thread is hilarious.

As for the OP, at a distance there are many parallels in their actions. They had different motivations and used different means but just looking at their overall actions, there were many similarities. More so than between them than with any other individual in European history.

Could you give specific examples?

 

[say1988]

Went to war with most of Europe. Subdued most of it. Could not invade Britain.Disastrous invasion of Russia. Got beaten.