Napoleon, was he that great? [Archive]

View Full Version : Napoleon, was he that great?

Incongruous

11-14-2007, 13:35

Rodion Romanovich

11-14-2007, 13:48

I'm also no expert, but I must say that I've been searching hard to find anything brilliant enough to compensate his many and huge mistakes.

Incongruous

11-14-2007, 13:52

Austerlitz was a very great feat of arms and silenced an Empire for Years.
However it could not counterwigh I think his greatest mistakes in the proclomation of 1808 in Prussia.

Geoffrey S

11-14-2007, 15:39

Defining Napoleon by his wartime miltary feats, which should also not be underestimated, is hardly the way to judge the man, the same way as it'd be inappropriate to do so with Churchill or Stalin. What he did was create a modern state from near anarchy, setting the basis in laws and borders throughout western Europe which has been built upon since.

Fragony

11-14-2007, 17:21

Question should be was he the greatest. The man was a genius.

KARTLOS

11-14-2007, 18:18

after costing ewurope thusands of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

Spino

11-14-2007, 18:19

Rather than read Robert Harvey, a relatively new author to the crowded Napoleonic scene who may be looking to make a name for himself by resorting to the usual Bonaparte bashing you might want to read a few books by David Chandler, an historian who is widely considered to be one of the few experts on Napoleon.

I have to agree with the 'Napoleon was a nigh genius/genius' crowd. When Napoleon was on top of his game he was almost untouchable.

The problem with saying that some of Napoleon's ablest Marshals were on par with their emperor is that some of them they truly were, at least in some aspects, on par with Napoleon. Once the reforms of the Revolution took place the French army became a meritocratic machine that produced the best officers and non-commissioned officers of that era. "A (marshal's) baton in every backpack" was a popular term in the French army of that period. Desaix was considered a true peer and rival of Napoloen and might have gone on to become Consul had he not been killed at the battle of Marengo. Davout, although he hailed not from poor or bourgeois beginnings but from 'landless' nobility, is considered by most military historians to be Napoleon's best Marshal and possessed a knack for martial, administrative and intelligence gathering matters that rivaled Napoleon's. Suchet and Lannes were also extremely capable and effective Marshals whose talents and skills were quite numerous

Looking purely at Napoleon's military endeavors keep in mind it took the combined efforts of the major powers of Europe to bring the man down... and this was accomplished in no small part thanks to Napoleon's mammoth ego that ultimately superseded his genius and lay the groundwork for the disasters that led to his eventual downfall.

Rodion Romanovich

11-14-2007, 18:26

Question should be was he the greatest. The man was a genius.
Normally, a genius has associated with him a number of great achievements. Newton making his models of physics and progress within the field of calculus, and Leonardo da Vinci essentially invented everything that was invented in the coming 300 years after his death. Aristotle wrote down the rules of logic, and Sun Tzu summarized the most important knowledge about warfare. But - what great feat did Napoleon do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_023.jpg
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/art/napoleon_retreat_moscow.jpg
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Howard-Johnson/Napoleon-at-Waterloo-Print-C12180863.jpeg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bonaparte_in_the_18_brumaire.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ingres,_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial_throne.jpg

Fragony

11-14-2007, 18:33

after costing ewurope thusands of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

Well he conquered europe, must be my more primal instics but I say that is quite an achievement. Read a diary of a french soldier (god was it terrible) how the people and soldiers in particular reacted to him, he was a force of nature that is rare. Besides his legendary military expertise he was also an icon, and what have we seen since him?

Damn you Spino you stole my point ~;)

Peasant Phill

11-14-2007, 19:00

I'm not particulary familiar with Napoleons' military skill, so I won't comment on that. I am however familiar with Napoleons' administrative achievements and I don't think that there are many that can rival with him on that aspect.

Some simple examples:

French and Belgian law (and probably others) is firmly based on that wich Napoleon introduced.

Napoleon suggested to his brother (who ruled Holland in his name) to use coins of the same size, worth and similar design as the ones in use in France to stimulate the trade between both countries. Can anybody say euro almost 2 centuries before its time?

Vladimir

11-14-2007, 20:17

Isn't he also responsible for imposing the metric system on Europe? We need a little kick in the pants to get that going.

rotorgun

11-14-2007, 20:27

While I shall not attempt to describe his considerable moral record, which was abysmal I daresay, I think that he was something of a genius. He had a great command of detail, much in the same way that Hitler did as well by the way, and he seemed to have an intuitive grasp of where to hit his enemies. He was also noted to be a brilliant Artillerist, for which he gained noteriety early on. I think that like all "great men"-his errors were monumental as were his triumphs. "Why he strides the narrow world like a collossus, and we mortal men must move about his legs to find for us dishonorable gaves"-Julius Ceasar-Shakespear

here is an interesting link deserving of a good read:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_genius.html

I think of a line from the film Waterloo, in which the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer) comments after being surprised at how quickly Napoleon (Rod Steiger) moved on him at Charleroi. Looking down at a map of the campaign area he says "My God, but how he does war honor!"

Rodion Romanovich

11-14-2007, 20:36

Isn't he also responsible for imposing the metric system on Europe? We need a little kick in the pants to get that going.
No the metric system was introduced (and the old system became illegal) before Napoleon came to power. It was done by the legal revolutionary government which Napoleon overthrew by coup d'etat. Napoleon in fact relegalized use of the old system, but with slight adjustments. You have to thank the French revolution for the metric system, not Napoleon.

Geoffrey S

11-14-2007, 21:15

I think a key issue is that people focus on how much he lost; more important in my opinion is that he had actually managed to gain that much in the first place. The fact that he was surrounded by so many able men comparable in military skill to himself I'd say is more positive than some make out: clearly he was doing something right if he was keeping them going in the same direction, keeping them loyal, and using them effectively. That must have required qite some respect and skill.

But - what great feat did Napoleon do?
He remade Europe into what we see today, for a start.

Rodion Romanovich

11-14-2007, 21:30

I think a key issue is that people focus on how much he lost; more important in my opinion is that he had actually managed to gain that much in the first place.

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law, and chances of achievments and self-fulfillment in life not depending on how rich your parents were.

The fact that he was surrounded by so many able men comparable in military skill to himself I'd say is more positive than some make out: clearly he was doing something right if he was keeping them going in the same direction, keeping them loyal, and using them effectively. That must have required qite some respect and skill.

It wasn't respect and skill, but scare tactics and propaganda. Propagandaic indoctrination at school age and at special military training camps. Telling them they were fighting for the revolution, when they were only fighting to satisfy Nappy's hunger for land and thirst for blood.

Being able to command people to do what you want isn't really that hard if you have come to a position of power. Look at such a total failure as George W Bush - almost the entire US Army does exactly what he wants because they are given no other choice.

He remade Europe into what we see today, for a start.
Hitler and Stalin also "made Europe into what we see today". Such a statement is not necessarily positive. All credit Napoleon fans give Napoleon really belongs to the Revolution and the people's fight for freedom and justice. Napoleon did not want to fight for these things, he wanted to fight. And to fight, he pretended he fought for these things and abused the trust of the masses while he was still too weak to be deposed of, and once he had deployed all the tools of a dictator to be able to terrorize and murder any dissenters, he went even more mad and backstabbed and invaded his allies in Spain and invaded Russia. And when in Spain the people revolted because they didn't like being raped and murdered at the whims of some alcoholized mob of French soldiers, he executed masses of civilians, using methods of occupation which clearly inspired Adolf Hitler during his occupation of France and other countries during ww2. Napoleon also inspired Hitler with his use of propaganda, his use of secret police and control over the population, and with his references back to ancient and Medieval times.

KrooK

11-14-2007, 21:45

He was great.
People who criticise him tell that he could do things better that he did. But they forget that he was the one who "did" not "could do". He was his great marshals but wasn't it show of his greatness - he could have found brilliant generals and let them develop their skills.
His victories were magnificent too. Truth is that Napoleon never lost big battle when terms were equal. When he was loosing opponents usually had big advantage (like Lipsk or Waterloo).
All in all he was great IMO.

AntiochusIII

11-14-2007, 21:57

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law.He harmed it in France; he brought it to Europe.

You seem to ignore the fact that Bonaparte's rise was set in the backdrop of constant warfare between Revolutionary France and just about everybody else. In that respect, Napoleon's military genius was one of the pillars which held the remnants of the Revolution together for as long as it did. The Old Powers were thirsty for blood and France's struggle was one of total victory or total defeat.

Being able to command people to do what you want isn't really that hard if you have come to a position of power. Look at such a total failure as George W Bush - almost the entire US Army does exactly what he wants because they are given no other choice.There's an immense gap between a President of a modern superpower and a Consul/Emperor of a 1800's European country. Bush sits in the White House with professional generals fighting the actual war while Napoleon marches with his army from one end of Europe to another.

Even then GWB's ineptness as commander-in-chief shows through.

Besides, what chance do you think that a US general can pull off a successful coup d'etat? Just about as close to zero as it gets. Bonaparte himself was a general who pulled off a successful coup d'etat. In that sense he was merely the first among equals. Equals don't tend to follow each other long...but the marshals of the First Empire did.

Geoffrey S

11-14-2007, 22:11

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law, and chances of achievments and self-fulfillment in life not depending on how rich your parents were.
His country was already in shambles after this great revolution had utterly failed to achieve equality and justice to all, descinding into a bloody anarchy. Considering the backdrop I find his achievements all the more remarkable. And as AntiochusIII very rightly points out, he did bring such values to the rest of Europe, particularly in the Low Countries and the German states.

It wasn't respect and skill, but scare tactics and propaganda. Propagandaic indoctrination at school age and at special military training camps. Telling them they were fighting for the revolution, when they were only fighting to satisfy Nappy's hunger for land and thirst for blood.
And isn't that skill in its own fashion? No-one had done so quite that effectively before.

Hitler and Stalin also "made Europe into what we see today". Such a statement is not necessarily positive. All credit Napoleon fans give Napoleon really belongs to the Revolution and the people's fight for freedom and justice. Napoleon did not want to fight for these things, he wanted to fight. And to fight, he pretended he fought for these things and abused the trust of the masses while he was still too weak to be deposed of, and once he had deployed all the tools of a dictator to be able to terrorize and murder any dissenters, he went even more mad and backstabbed and invaded his allies in Spain and invaded Russia. And when in Spain the people revolted because they didn't like being raped and murdered at the whims of some alcoholized mob of French soldiers, he executed masses of civilians, using methods of occupation which clearly inspired Adolf Hitler during his occupation of France and other countries during ww2. Napoleon also inspired Hitler with his use of propaganda, his use of secret police and control over the population, and with his references back to ancient and Medieval times.
That's pretty angry. Napoleon changed the face of Europe; in my opinion, that is 'great', since the term does not imply a moral judgement to me, else how can anyone who ordered the deaths of thousands be considered 'great'?

CountArach

11-14-2007, 22:21

When you say Great, are we talking the whole, or militarily? I will make a larger post based on your answer to this.

Julian the apostate

11-14-2007, 22:46

I suppose that would also depend on whether you qualify it as him simply or him and his staff. Waterloo proved that Napoleons ability was severely limited without his chief of staff Berthier. Thus it seems like even from a military perspective everything depends on the men under you. Generals are great and all but a general with a bad chief of staff or worse bad NCOs is crippled.

From a political economic standpoint Napoleon was of course a general and of course thought that military power would translate to Frances domination of europe and that the other powers would stop sending armies

Lord Winter

11-15-2007, 01:37

I think its kind of ironic that most of the people arguing against Napolean adorn Alexander. Remember Alexander had his India to compare with (not quite a russia since he was only turned back), but certainly a failure. I think its remarkable that he not only overcame alot of land but did it against competent powers, instead of Alexander's degrading Persian Empire. Having a few mistakes or a short lived empire dosn't make you terriable, it just dosn't make you invincable. Which is not the same of not being great.

Incongruous

11-15-2007, 10:44

InsaneApache

11-15-2007, 11:17

Not a great fan of Boneys personally. I remember the Wellington quote "They're coming at us in the same old style. Well, then we shall meet them in the same old style."

OTOH he did something remarkable in my book. He dismantled the Inquisition and took their records back to France (albeit a lot were lost along the way), freed the Jews from the ghettos and removed the compulsion for them to wear distinctive cone shaped hats. Rather a different take on him being an 18th century Hitler IMO.

Pannonian

11-15-2007, 12:28

InsaneApache

11-15-2007, 12:56

Did those hats have "D" written on them? :laugh4:

Go stand in the corner. :whip:

Rodion Romanovich

11-15-2007, 13:40

OTOH he did something remarkable in my book. He dismantled the Inquisition and took their records back to France (albeit a lot were lost along the way),

Napoleon's reign of terror, rape and murder in Spain only saw the formal abolishment of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was de facto abolished more than 15 years earlier.

freed the Jews from the ghettos and removed the compulsion for them to wear distinctive cone shaped hats. Rather a different take on him being an 18th century Hitler IMO.
Hitler was considered a liberator in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland for driving out the Soviet oppressors. That didn't prevent him from being a massmurderer against Jews. Napoleon, being helpful to Jews, didn't prevent him from being a massmurderer against others. You can't say massmurder to one people is ok because the massmurderer did some good things to some other people.

Rodion Romanovich

11-15-2007, 14:01

Ok, before his bloody coup Napoleone was at best just another runner many other men were far more admired by the army and people, Nappy was lucky to gain the cooperation with Talleyrand and Fuche men who kept his non-stop wars going. These three men allowed each other to gain power. He was the leader of a nation so millitary victory itself is only one facet. In politics and diplomacy he was an idiot and nothing more, his supposed great remaking of Frances political system was a complete sham, a puupet show to give his brutal autocracy some vestige of legitimacy.
I see in Harvey perhaps a man looking for reputation but also one who has seriuosly questioned the Napoleonic myth. Again this is me. Im only 18 and have only read really big books since 13.:book:
I agree completely

I think its kind of ironic that most of the people arguing against Napolean adorn Alexander. Remember Alexander had his India to compare with (not quite a russia since he was only turned back), but certainly a failure. I think its remarkable that he not only overcame alot of land but did it against competent powers, instead of Alexander's degrading Persian Empire. Having a few mistakes or a short lived empire dosn't make you terriable, it just dosn't make you invincable. Which is not the same of not being great.
Napoleon made far more disastrous mistakes than he did brilliant things, that's the problem. His arrogance and overestimating of his abilities, and hunger for power, for example. He should have realized in the first place that he wasn't suited to being anything else than artillery commander or communication link between his more able marshals (which is the role he held during the early victories). When he started to take more initiative in the field by commanding his marshals instead of being the one who communicated between them (and stopped listening to their advice), and didn't realize he had nothing to do on the throne of a country, he and France started losing massively. I don't think Alexander deserves much more credit than Napoleon, since he like Napoleon had his uber-high quality army given to him when he came to power. It isn't known much about how despotic Alexander was as a leader, but I guess we wouldn't admire him as much if we had known more about his personality. About Napoleon we do know what he did, as we do with Hitler.

His country was already in shambles after this great revolution had utterly failed to achieve equality and justice to all, descinding into a bloody anarchy. Considering the backdrop I find his achievements all the more remarkable.

The country was tired of the internal problems, and wanted any leader who would promise to end it. This could be done in two ways: establishment of law and order through police and methodical work by the revolutionary government as was being done, or through a military leader turning the country into a military dictatorship by claiming power and murdering or repressing the opinions of all dissenters. Note that Napoleon's coup d'etat happened at a time when the French republic was comparatively calm inside. The only threat against the Republic at that time was that its military had been weakened by Napoleon's defeat in Egypt.

And as AntiochusIII very rightly points out, he did bring such values to the rest of Europe, particularly in the Low Countries and the German states.

This is wishful pro-Napoleonic thinking. The Chmielnicki Uprising, 1648-1654 in Poland, and the Time of Troubles in Russia, 1598-1613, are two examples of very successful uprisings against nobility that happened in East Europe almost 100 years before. By 1800, the Englightenment ideas had eliminated most religious fundamentalism and authority over most of Europe anyway. The Spanish inquisition for example, was already gone in everything but name. The revolutionary ideas were spreading all over Europe without the help of Napoleon. In fact, it's more probable that Napoleon's imperialism was what above all prevented other countries, for example England, from having any revolution at the time, because it was easy for the authorities to argue that one shouldn't copy the behavior of a massmurdering maniac like Napoleon. The revolutionary ideas were certainly not helped to spread over Europe by the unprovoked backstabbing murder and raping expedition into Spain. Napoleon's actions in fact delayed revolutionary ideas from gaining influence in the rest of Europe, making it take until 1848 until anything noteworthy happened again, because who could talk in favor of the Revolutionary ideas when talking positively of these ideas was, by propaganda from the nobility and the likes, the same as talking positive of the massmurderer Napoleon?

And isn't that skill in its own fashion? No-one had done so quite that effectively before.

Propaganda is as old as civilization itself. It has been used since the time of medicine men and shamans in the earliest nature religions. It doesn't require skills, since the human brain by default trusts rather than critically evaluates, as has been shown by various experiments and scientific publications.

That's pretty angry. Napoleon changed the face of Europe; in my opinion, that is 'great', since the term does not imply a moral judgement to me, else how can anyone who ordered the deaths of thousands be considered 'great'?
I define greatness as something you should try to immitate. Napoleon is not somone I wish anyone would immitate.

econ21

11-15-2007, 16:46

I don't think Alexander deserves much more credit than Napoleon, since he like Napoleon had his uber-high quality army given to him when he came to power.

Alexander inherited a high quality army, that is true. Napoleon - I am not so sure. I think one of the things that makes him considered a great general is that he often took demoralised armies (as in his early Italian campaigns) or weakened scratch armies (as in 1813-14) to achieve striking victories. Indeed, if there is an idea that the French Napoleonic army was "uber-high quality", then Napoleon probably deserves a lot of credit for that achievement.

However, one under-emphasised aspect about the French Napoleonic military was it quantity rather than quality. Drawing upon the spirit of the revolution, inspired by Napoleon's militaristic goals and benefiting from demographics which gave France a relatively large population at the time, Napoleon started levying large quantities of men into the army. So when he achieved some of his great victories - e.g. at Ulm - he was doing so with great material superiority. His enemies gradually caught up with him - raising larger and larger armies - until you end up with some battles so large they cannot be decided in a day (Wagram, Moskowa, Leipzig). I guess Napoleon can take some of the "credit" for such mass mobilisations, but they do mean that some of his victories were less attributable to his own genius or the high quality of his troops than is commonly thought.

In many ways, the Napoleonic wars are a very suitable subject for a Total War game, as he seems to embody that philosophy - as increasingly did his opponents.

Rodion Romanovich

11-15-2007, 19:51

I was mainly thinking of the powerful artillery France had at the time:

"The Napoleonic artillery was a product of the change in French military theory that followed humiliations of the Seven Years War. Especially painful was the defeat at Rossbach where 42.000 French and their Allies were trashed by 21,000 Prussians under Fredrick the Great. The French artillery in that time was according to the "system" of de Vallerie. The cannons were strongly built, very powerful, but very ornate and far too heavy to handle in the field.

The old system was gradually replaced by so-called Gribeauval System. The new guns were designed for more rapid movements, on and off the roads. Gribeauval stressed mobility, hitting power and accuracy. His important innovation was the elevating screw used to adjust the range of the cannon by raising or lowering its breech. Another innovation was the prolong. It was a heavy rope 30 feet long and used to connect the gun and its limber when it was necessary to fire while retiring or to unlimber the gun while crossing some difficult obstacle."
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_Napoleon.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Vaquette_de_Gribeauval
Perhaps Gribeauval was to Napoleon what Philip II was to Alexander?

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that Napoleon was a total failure, or calling him less capable than the average general of the era - just questioning why he is called a genius. So, I'm asking: can you provide enough examples of clever actions to outweight the failures? I do recognize the examples of credit, but disagree that they outweigh the failures.

Peasant Phill

11-16-2007, 10:39

Napoleon's actions in fact delayed revolutionary ideas from gaining influence in the rest of Europe, making it take until 1848 until anything noteworthy happened again, because who could talk in favor of the Revolutionary ideas when talking positively of these ideas was, by propaganda from the nobility and the likes, the same as talking positive of the massmurderer Napoleon?

I can't say I agree with you there. After Waterloo the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed as a dam against the revolutionary ideas still very much alive in France. It seems that heads of state of England, Prussia, ... still felt threathened by those revolutionary ideas.

And it didn't take until 1848 until anything noteworthy happened. The southern part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands revolted in 1830 and founded Belgium in 1831 with the most liberal constitution since then. A constitution which is still in use to this day I might add.

Kralizec

11-16-2007, 12:10

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that Napoleon was a total failure, or calling him less capable than the average general of the era - just questioning why he is called a genius. So, I'm asking: can you provide enough examples of clever actions to outweight the failures? I do recognize the examples of credit, but disagree that they outweigh the failures.

It always seemed to me that Napoleon was capable of brilliant victories and collosal blunders alike. He was good, but at times sloppy or stubborn. Since the French levy system could replace losses that would have crippled Prussia or any other kingdom, he could suffer an occasional setback, the rest of his battles would make up for it.

The impact of the Code Napoleon (later, Code Civil) can hardly be overstated, but there had been other monarchs who tried to pull of such a codification of similar proportions but failed due to their weaker position. It was the high level of centralization that had occurred that enabled it, and that was only in part Napoleon's doing. It's interesting to note, that after Napoleon had been exiled permanently he remarked that the Code was his greatest lasting contribution.

Louis VI the Fat

11-16-2007, 14:09

Robert Harvey certainly does not seem to think so, whether through his own opinion or through the evidence he gives.
In The War Of Wars Harvey really does give Boney's reputation and Myth a good thrashing, showing him to be considered by his more able Marshals as nothing but an equal, a partner in the splitting of Europes spoils. A maniac autocrat of the first order (he is most damning of his supression of the constitution by force) who were it not for the Scheming Talleyrand and Fuche would be lost on International and even national polotics. Was averse to any kind of peace as his power rested upon a wartime army and national cohesion.
Indeed in some of his private letters and accounts of his meetings with those with whom he was displeased. he comes across as childlike and politically inept.

I am no expert and I doubt any of us are but I still would ask for you're interpretation of Nappy.Where to begin. Or where to end. You can fill a decently sized library with published opinions about Napoleon.

Was Napoleon that great? In my opinion, he was a great general, a great unifier. A giant of law. And a great hammer of progress, the man who put a bajonet in the hands of the enlightenment.
He was also a general who gambled and lost it all, a dictator, a divisive figure, the adventurer who lost Europe to the Restauration, the man who betrayed the Revolution.

I think general opinion varies along the above lines too. Overall, he still arouses the same sentiments today as he did when he was alive: Napoleon chastises France, bleeds her dry, betrays her, but his errors and crimes are forgotten in the drunk wallowing in the glory, the achievements, the grandeur.

I haven't read Robert Harvey's work. I googled for some reviews about his book. Few were very much in praise of it, his ‘The War Of Wars’. Below is what I think is actually a good summation of many reviews, not a proper review but an Amazon comment. I'll quote it, if only because the writer is named Louis:

14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Readable but awful history, 29 Aug 2007
By Louis Davout (London, England) - See all my reviews

Robert Harvey writes well enough, as a former journalist should, but, on the basis of this book anyway, he is not much of a historian. Not only is the book littered with factual errors - incorrect dates, wrongly rendered names, false 'facts', etc. - but his interpretations and arguments leave a lot to be desired also. His treatment of Napoleon is a case in point. Harvey basically presents us with a rehash of the old black legend, belittling Napoleon's achievements wherever possible (no matter how implausibly) and besmirching his character at every turn. Napoleon was not without serious flaws, of course, but to present him as a grotesque caricature is poor history and does nothing to develop our understanding of him or the period he dominated. One presumes Harvey's loathing for Bonaparte comes in part from his equally evident 'little England' view of history, which is another major weakness of this book. The wars which raged from 1792 to 1815 were far more than just a struggle between Britain and France, yet the impression given by this book is that other states played bit parts at best. While occasionally critical of Britain and British figures, Harvey's patriotism (or should that be jingoism?) nevertheless shines through clearly and one gets the sense that he genuinely believes that Britain was almost solely responsible for 'saving' Europe from the 'nightmare' of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. As someone who has read a lot about the era covered by this book, I would warn fellow fans of the period to steer clear, as they will find little new or interesting in it. Even less would I recommend it to readers new to the subject. Instead, I would advise anyone looking for a single volume covering similar ground to consider David Chandler's authoritative 'The Campaigns of Napoleon' which is unsurpassed in its military detail, David Gates's shorter but still excellent 'The Napoleonic Wars' or Michael Adams's 'Napoleon and Russia', which, despite the title, effectively covers the whole of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and, by putting the relationship between France and Russia (instead of France and Britain) at the heart of the story, provides a host of interesting new insights.

As for Napoleon = Hitler. There are some remarkable parallels. But not that many. History does not repeat itself.
As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?

Vladimir

11-16-2007, 15:08

As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?

Wasn't the metric system myth dispelled on page 1?

econ21

11-16-2007, 16:12

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that Napoleon was a total failure, or calling him less capable than the average general of the era - just questioning why he is called a genius. So, I'm asking: can you provide enough examples of clever actions to outweight the failures? I do recognize the examples of credit, but disagree that they outweigh the failures.

I think that's the wrong standard to assess genius. Weighing up successes against failures measures achievements, not genius. Ultimately, Napoleon failed - he ended up in exile, having left hundreds of thousands of men dead in war.

But genius means exceptional talent in at least one field. That may or may not be demonstrated in ultimate success. Genius does not necessarily imply consistency and may lead to hubris or other failings, which Napoleon's errors only too clearly demonstrate.

I think Kralizec has it right - that Napoleon was capable of both astonishing successes and colossal blunders. He is commonly considered a military genius because of the operational flair demonstrated in many of his campaigns - the early Italian campaigns, Austerlitz and the 1814 campaign. He also was strikingly successful in creating a war machine of a size and quality that made France pre-eminent in Europe for a decade. Personally, I don't rate him as a genius in battlefield command - as a probably biased Brit, I would favour Wellington over him. However, as a commander in chief and as a war leader he stands out as among the most talented in recorded history.

Rodion Romanovich

11-16-2007, 20:10

As for Napoleon = Hitler. There are some remarkable parallels. But not that many. History does not repeat itself.
As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?
That is quite some hyperbole! First of all, was it liberty to reward Spain, a good ally, with backstabbing, invasion, rape and massmurder? If Napoleon could do that to Spain, what would a victorious Napoleon not have done to the rest of Europe? To claim you're fighting for freedom when you're just massmurdering is not just massmurder but also hypocrisy. Let me examine each of your claims:
- "Napoleon defeated would have made Hitler victorious": most likely, nationalism and a state called Germany wouldn't even have arisen in the first place if Napoleon I and III hadn't launched their unprovoked attacks - and subsequent atrocies in the form of rape, murder and pillaging on the small, independent German duchies. These duchies had no involvement whatsoever with the countries that attacked the revolutionary France. They were conquered just because it was convenient to link up the conquered territories, much like Judaea was conquered without casus belli by the romans. I would actually have preferred living in a Europe where nazism had never arisen, over a Europe where first Napoleon massmurders and rapes over Europe, then Hitler and Stalin come too and repeat the job. Napoleonic imperialism and Hitler's nazism were not opposites in a zero sum game, they were the exact same type of things: horrible things.
- "standardised laws wouldn't have existed without Napoleon": there were laws everywhere in Europe before Napoleon, standardized for each region. The differences in law between different areas was due to less centralization and more local freedom, autonomity and democracy. Different parts of the country have different laws that are optimal. Equalizing everything and removing local freedom is only useful for facilitating despotism and centralization. Also worth mentioning is that Napoleon, like all other rulers famous for summarizing laws, failed to realize the madness of having more laws than any living human being can learn in a lifetime, and associated with breaking any of them, a severe punishment. Just putting all existing laws into a single book and removing local freedom isn't much of an achievement IMO. But summarizing, removing duplicates, finding common factors to drastically reduce the law, would have been an act not of genius, but of very basic, sound reasoning when it comes to organizational matters.
- "the metric system": I already showed on page 1 that this is wrong
- "emancipation of Jews": I take it you mean "increased respect and tolerance for" (excuse me for my poor English, it's not entirely clear to me what value the word emancipation has). Wiki says the following, and I think it summarizes the issue well (that whatever good effects may have come from Napoleon's behavior, it was not a goal of his, but merely a side-effect of his other goals - namely hunger for power):

Napoleon's personal attitude towards the Jews is not always clear, as he made a number of statements both in support and opposition to the Jewish people at various times. Historian Rabbi Berel Wein in Triumph of Survival states that Napoleon was primarily interested in seeing the Jews assimilate, rather than prosper as a separate community: "Napoleon's outward tolerance and fairness toward Jews was actually based upon his grand plan to have them disappear entirely by means of total assimilation, intermarriage, and conversion." This ambivalence can be found in some of his first definitively recorded utterances on this subject in connection with the question of the treatment of the Alsace Jews and their debtors raised in the Imperial Council on April 30, 1806.

The net effect of his policies, however, significantly changed the position of the Jews in Europe
When someone achieves good things by having bad intents, I'm not sure how they should be judged. At the very least, had he been alive now and striving for power over Europe, I would clearly have fought against him since his intent was most likely to eventually do a bad thing if he had succeeded in his (very unrealistic) military expansion goals. Perhaps lucky that he happened to die before he managed to do that? About the judgement over him as a dead man I'm as I said not sure. How should you judge someone whose actions happened to have good consequences, when his intentions, had he lived longer, would most likely have been very bad? :shrug:
- "abolition of the feudal system": I can't see where on earth you got this claim from. The feudal system was mostly abolished during the late Medieval period, and the remnants of it was weakened most by the 17th century developments with increasing importance of trade, and increasing numbers and influence of the borgeioise (sp?), and general increase in industrialization and production. This is what allowed the French Revolution to take place, and also what enabled most other countries of the 19th century to revolt against aristocracy. Since almost everyone benefitted from overthrowing the aristocracy and the proletariat could do it because of these economical developments, I doubt any form of "spreading of the idea" (which could maybe, and only maybe, be credited to Napoleon's war campaigns of rape and murder) would have an impact even comparable to the impact of these basic society structure and economical changes which made revolts more likely to succeed.
- "a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen": which do you refer to?

Living at the end of the Enlightenment, Napoleon also became notorious for his effort to suppress the slave revolt in Haiti and his 1801 decision to re-establish slavery in France after it was banned following the revolution.
[...]
Napoleon is sometimes alleged to have been in many ways the direct inspiration for later autocrats: he never flinched when facing the prospect of war and death for thousands, friend or foe, and turned his search of undisputed rule into a continuous cycle of conflict throughout Europe, ignoring treaties and conventions alike. Even if other European powers continually offered Napoleon terms that would have restored France's borders to situations only dreamt by the Bourbon kings, he always refused compromise, and only accepted surrender.

Rodion Romanovich

11-16-2007, 20:21

I think that's the wrong standard to assess genius. Weighing up successes against failures measures achievements, not genius.

I also weigh each success and failure by the available resources and the difficulty of achieving the achievement from the particular position the person was in just before his choice of action. I should have been more clear about that!

I think Loius has it right - that Napoleon was capable of both astonishing successes and colossal blunders. He is commonly considered a military genius because of the operational flair demonstrated in many of his campaigns - the early Italian campaigns, Austerlitz and the 1814 campaign. He also was strikingly successful in creating a war machine of a size and quality that made France pre-eminent in Europe for a decade. Personally, I don't rate him as a genius in battlefield command - as a probably biased Brit, I would favour Wellington over him. However, as a commander in chief and as a war leader he stands out as among the most talented in recorded history.
Don't you mean Kralizec? Anyway, yes, I agree with Kralizec. I think that any armchair general should study Napoleon's victories because there's some interesting tactics to learn from them, but I'm not sure I would recommend the type of warfare used by Napoleon as the main strategy to use by an army. Wellington and his likes use a strategy more of the "best worst case response and cover all cases" type of strategy, Napoleon uses a strategy based on being able to predict the behavior of the opponent. It can be devastatingly effective if you're good at psychology of your opponent, but in the long run, when your luck changes or your enemy learns of how the strategy works, it tends to be extremely ineffective and dangerous - and can very suddenly give an unexpected crushing defeat. Napoleon showed genius in his capabilities of psychology early on, but his attempt at transferring to the best-response type of warfare later on, when that was clearly more useful, became a big failure IMO - he couldn't handle that type of warfare very well compared to his opponents, who were IMO more skilled at that form.

econ21

11-16-2007, 20:26

Don't you mean Kralizec?

Sorry - you are right, my bad. Editing previous post.

Justiciar

11-16-2007, 21:27

It seems that heads of state of England, Prussia, ... still felt threathened by those revolutionary ideas.
You're telling me. What was it Arthur Wellesley said after the Peterloo business? Something in the vain of "It appears clear to me now that we must use those same tactics against our own people that we did against the French"? :dizzy2:

Peasant Phill

11-17-2007, 10:45

Rodion, I understand some might for the most part only see the good things someone did, while others mostly see the attrocities. And as one of the few (the only one?) here that has a negative overall view of Napoleon, language and views tends to radicalise a bit. But try to be a bit objective.

...
- "Napoleon defeated would have made Hitler victorious": most likely, nationalism and a state called Germany wouldn't even have arisen in the first place if Napoleon I and III hadn't launched their unprovoked attacks - and subsequent atrocies in the form of rape, murder and pillaging on the small, independent German duchies
...

Where do you get this quote? I haven't read it in other posts.
You actually claim that Hitlers attrocities are Napoleons fault? Is Charlemagne also to blame? think about it.

- "standardised laws wouldn't have existed without Napoleon": there were laws everywhere in Europe before Napoleon, standardized for each region. The differences in law between different areas was due to less centralization and more local freedom, autonomity and democracy. Different parts of the country have different laws that are optimal. Equalizing everything and removing local freedom is only useful for facilitating despotism and centralization. Also worth mentioning is that Napoleon, like all other rulers famous for summarizing laws, failed to realize the madness of having more laws than any living human being can learn in a lifetime, and associated with breaking any of them, a severe punishment. Just putting all existing laws into a single book and removing local freedom isn't much of an achievement IMO. But summarizing, removing duplicates, finding common factors to drastically reduce the law, would have been an act not of genius, but of very basic, sound reasoning when it comes to organizational matters.

Again, no one claimed that there wouldn't have been standardised law. What was claimed is that he formed one that was an example/benchmark for future law codes. If you study constitutions all over Europe, you'll find a lot of similarities all tracable back to the code Napoleon.

I'm also quite amused when you use the word democracy for that day and age. I believe the credo was "everything for the people, nothing by the people" for most (if not all) European countries. There already was little freedom, why do you think the situation was so tense at the time?

I didn't comment on the rest as I'm not knowledgeable enough in those areas to reply.

Rodion, your opinion is aprreciated: not much of a debate if everybody agrees. But do try to be objective. I find it hard to take you seriously when you write rape and massmurder every other line.

Kralizec

11-17-2007, 12:05

and subsequent atrocies in the form of rape, murder and pillaging on the small, independent German duchies. These duchies had no involvement whatsoever with the countries that attacked the revolutionary France. They were conquered just because it was convenient to link up the conquered territories, much like Judaea was conquered without casus belli by the romans.

These poor little German realms you mentioned were at this point all still part of the Holy Roman Empire. And it went different than the way you are suggesting it went.

Napoleon craved stepping in the footsteps of Charlemagne and styled himself Empereur in 1804. The HRE at that time still claimed to be the legitimate successors of the western Roman empire.
It's pretty clear that eventually, Napoleon would never have accepted coexistence with another Imperial pretendent. However the same went for Franz II, who joined with the Third Coalition and marched against Napoleon the next year.

After the Battle of the Three Emperors, the peace terms foresaw in the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund). The members of it recalled their representatives from the German Reichstag and only days later Franz II announced the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, and he continued only as Emperor of Austria (a title he had given himself 2 years before that, just after Napoleon gave himself his)

Napoleon only annexed those HRE territories on the western bank of the Rhine. The rest went to the Rheinbund, wich was a sattelite state whose obligations to France were pretty much only to step out of the HRE and deliver troops for the French war effort. I'm not aware of what atrocities occurred in the annexed territories, presumably they weren't bad enough to earn specific mention (unlike say, Spain)

Conradus

11-17-2007, 12:21

if Napoleon III hadn't launched their unprovoked attacks...

If you're referring to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, this is hardly a fair statement. Both Napoleon III and Bismarck were searching for a conflict. Napoleon to re-establish France as the leading continental power, and Bismarck to unite al German nations under Wilhelm. Following Bismarck's Elms Dispatch, you can hardly say that the war was unprovoked. And the superiority of Prussia on the strategic branch, as well as better artillery and numerical superiority made victory almost definite before the war started.

Rodion Romanovich

11-17-2007, 13:31

Where do you get this quote? I haven't read it in other posts.

It's not a quote, it's a summary of his claim, which was:

in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity?

...which more or less said if Napoleon had lost earlier Hitler would have managed to do more damage, or could be interpreted that way. I wished to argue that such an interpretation is very nationalistic - and incorrect. And that even if that would be Napoleon's battle cry (which it wasn't btw, afaik), he didn't live up to this alleged battlecry.

You actually claim that Hitlers attrocities are Napoleons fault? Is Charlemagne also to blame? think about it.

No, I'm not claiming that Hitler's atrocities are Napoleon's fault. I'm arguing why it would be ridiculous to claim that success for Napoleon's would stand against success for Hitler. I however think that part of stirring up the troubles in Germany was Napoleon's fault. Just as the actions of Charles V - HRE and Spain, during the previous period, had no little part in causing French Imperialism, and so on. Almost all previous atrocities come back as part of the cause of each new atrocity one way or another. That is why I'm against all atrocities. If I'm among the minority whose life got better because of the action of one particular massmurderer, then I certainly won't support him because the next massmurderer, who hurt some grouping I belong to, is partially caused by the previous one. I will not concern myself with pointless moral judgements such as "how many percent of the guilt for atrocity x lies on person y", but merely notice that the "percentage", if any such measure could at all be invented or at all considered sensible, is larger than zero for most previous atrocities that happen geographically close enough, and that is enough to hate them - even those that by chance happen to be to your own benefit. Violence causes violence, so before you celebrate the violence of someone who drew violence over your enemies but that were neutral to him (thus no justification), remember that he also had part in creating the next such man, who instead happened to draw violence over your friends.

Rodion, your opinion is aprreciated: not much of a debate if everybody agrees. But do try to be objective. I find it hard to take you seriously when you write rape and massmurder every other line.
I find it hard to take someone seriously who supports a war without any positive result whatsoever. For a war to be positive and worth supporting, it has to have an end result that is greater than what's needed to compensate what the war itself is, namely - rape and murder. Often, people forget that the end result of the war must outweigh the rape and murder by far to be worth celebrating. Often, people just judge the outcome, and forget that what positive came out of the war, was far less valuable than avoiding the rape and murder would have been. This is why I often replace "offensive, unprovoked war" with "rape and murder". When we say "the end justifies the means", we must remember that the means are part of the end result: if you kill 1 million people to avoid having 2 million people dead, your end is not "avoid the death of 2 million people", but it is "murder 1 million people and save 2 million other people, and giving a bad name to morality and the concept of saving people's lives".

Rodion Romanovich

11-17-2007, 13:39

These poor little German realms you mentioned were at this point all still part of the Holy Roman Empire. And it went different than the way you are suggesting it went.

Note that my comment was in response to the possible interpretation of the claim above, that success of Napoleon stood against success of Hitler. I claim the opposite: Napoleon's atrocities didn't decrease Hitler's actions, but probably had part in causing German nationalism/imperialism. See my post above, where I in fairness also point out that the actions of Charles V - HRE and Spain - in the period before - probably caused the French nationalism, and that you can show for almost all atrocities that part of the cause for it was a previous atrocity. Violence causes violence, and supporting a massmurderer who killed your enemies and helped your friends, is irrational since his actions are part in creating the next massmurderer that kills your friends and helps your enemies.

Napoleon craved stepping in the footsteps of Charlemagne and styled himself Empereur in 1804. The HRE at that time still claimed to be the legitimate successors of the western Roman empire.
It's pretty clear that eventually, Napoleon would never have accepted coexistence with another Imperial pretendent. However the same went for Franz II, who joined with the Third Coalition and marched against Napoleon the next year.

The old aspiration to recreate Rome, that has caused so much trouble and death in our continent... *sigh*

I'm not aware of what atrocities occurred in the annexed territories, presumably they weren't bad enough to earn specific mention (unlike say, Spain)
The HRE was a very loose confederation - almost a collection of independent states - at the time. The annexed territories mostly went from almost autonomous, to annexation. Napoleon had no quarrel with the almost independent territories - his quarrel was with Austria.

And look at Spain. "Those poor little" Spanish? Are the actions in Spain, as carried out by Napoleon, good examples of how you would like leaders to behave? And bear in mind that the actions in Spain - the ruthless unprovoked backstabbing caused by nothing else than hunger for power, and caused the death and rape of huge numbers of Spanish civilians - is often claimed to have had a great part in causing the economical decline and subsequent instability in Spain that caused the Spanish civil war and the rice of the fascist Franco. Not to mention the other - very important - psychological effect it had to the rest of Europe: how could anyone in Europe be safe as long as France was strong, if what France did when she was strong was to do things such as the actions in Spain - unleashing rape and murder only to satisfy a pointless hunger for power? This was not an entirely fair picture of course, since the war in Spain was most likely NOT supported by most French citizens (but some Napoleon apologetics here seem to think it was...), but considering how many cheered on Napoleon and called him so great even then, that conclusion was quite easy to make, even if incorrect. So no wonder then that the independent states in the Italian peninsula and former HRE didn't resist much against the often brutal and violent uniting carried out by Garibaldi and Bismarck. The massmurderer and nationalist Napoleon saw them as untermenschen since they weren't French - but at least the massmurderers who now united them promised they were to be considered to have the same status as their conqueror - a preferable (if still horrible) alternative. Again, I will refrain from trying to say Napoleon caused x percent of this or that, but merely point out that his actions were part of the cause of many later atrocities, and pointing out how fragile diplomacy really is, and how even small atrocities (the annexation of part of the HRE), could be that little thing that ruins everything - and how a huge atrocity - such as the one in Spain - spreads general fear even to others than its immediate victims. In short - that when seeing an atrocity with seemingly positive end results, one should remember all the little effects it also has, that together can cause massive problems later, and as I pointed out - that every war, no matter how good its intention - in the end is just rape and murder. It's not often that the end result of unprovoked war or conquest becomes good enough that it can even come close to outweighing all these little dangerous effects, that always come from unprovoked war or abuse of strength.

Let me finally point out that my style of debating is not to state my opinion, but to give the arguments that together with the posts before approximately even out to the opinion I hold. My opinion in this case lies somewhere in between, but since there are so many posts above Napoleon's "greatness" I have pointed out all arguments for the other extreme view as I felt the picture given without them was incorrect and unbalanced. This seems to have resulted in many misunderstandings above as to what opinion I had (and probably in other debates as well :shrug: ).

Peasant Phill

11-17-2007, 13:58

Let's just say Napoleon can be admired as a statesman while his other roles and character be a lot less desirable.

Rodion Romanovich

11-17-2007, 14:22

Well, I can agree that many of his isolated actions are worth studying and learning from. Of the larger compositions of his actions, only the "Code Napoleon", and his earliest campaigns mainly against Austria (because there he had a casus belli), are things that I would spontanously consider good. I suppose our opinions lie quite close then, in the end? :balloon:

Mount Suribachi

11-17-2007, 18:26

after costing europe MILLIONS of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

Fixed.

He may have done some fine pieces of generalship earlier in his career, but apart from that he was a bloodthirsty meglomaniac who in the end got most of his soldiers killed.

I'll leave the last word to Dostoevsky

"Napoleon can storm Toulon, stage a massacre in Paris, forget about an army in Egypt, throw away half a million men in the Moscow expidition and then get away with a witty phrase in Vilna"

Lord Winter

11-17-2007, 18:39

Rodion watch judging historical figures by todays morals, Nepolean wasn't that different from many other rulers of the time if given a chance. They all wanted to expand their empire, not fight for freedom,

Brenus

11-18-2007, 11:31

Kralizec

11-18-2007, 11:41

It can be devastatingly effective if you're good at psychology of your opponent, but in the long run, when your luck changes or your enemy learns of how the strategy works, it tends to be extremely ineffective and dangerous

You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your tricks of war

Brenus

11-18-2007, 17:37

“Nappy was lucky to gain the cooperation with Talleyrand and Fuche men who kept his non-stop wars going. These three men allowed each other to gain power. He was the leader of a nation so military victory itself is only one facet. In politics and diplomacy he was an idiot and nothing more, his supposed great remaking of Frances political system was a complete sham, a puppet show to give his brutal autocracy some vestige of legitimacy”
“I agree completely”

Where did you read this kind of things? :inquisitive:
Napoleon was a friend of Robespierre brother. He took power in planning carefully. He became friend with Barras, member of the Directoire. He mopped a Royalist insurrection then got the command of the Army of Italy… Realising in Egypt he had to come back to France if he wanted to count in the political game, he abandoned his troops to Gal Kleber and return to Paris. Then, he, Abbe Sieyes and Roger Ducos seized power in the Coup de Brumaire which saw them share power as equal consuls. Within months Bonaparte was First Consul and had eased his "equals" into early retirement.
He became Consul for life, then Emperor.
So, where do you see here a political and diplomatically idiot? France was at peace with all the major powers in Europe, and even with the Pope.
By the way, most of administrative reforms from Napoleon (himself being the heir of the Revolution) are still working.:yes:

“His country was already in shambles after this great revolution had utterly failed to achieve equality and justice to all, descending into a bloody anarchy”. Er, that was finished when Napoleon took power.

“His arrogance and overestimating of his abilities, and hunger for power, for example. He should have realized in the first place that he wasn't suited to being anything else than artillery commander or communication link between his more able marshals (which is the role he held during the early victories). When he started to take more initiative in the field by commanding his marshals instead of being the one who communicated between them (and stopped listening to their advice), and didn't realize he had nothing to do on the throne of a country, he and France started losing mass”
Did you really read about Napoleon or you just write what are your feelings? Arrogance and anger for power, probably, but for the rest: It took only 6 coalitions to defeat him:
The 2nd Coalition (1798-1801): Russia, Britain, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Naples, Vatican.
The 3rd Coalition (1805): Austria, Great Britain, Russia, Sweden.
The 4th Coalition (1806-1807): Prussia, Saxony, Russia.
The 5th Coalition (1809): Great Britain and Austria.
The 6th Coalition (1812-1814): Great Britain and Russia, joined by Prussia, Sweden, Austria, German States.
The 7th Coalition (1815): Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, German States.

The battle of Austerlitz is still one of the greatest battle plan ever which can compared with Hannibal battle of Cannea. So much for your amazing comment “artillery commander or communication link between his more able marshals”.
In Ulm, without even a real battle, he put Austria out of the war…
Clausewitz wrote his books on commenting Napoleon battles and campaign. Not the one from Kutusov, not from Wellington, no, from the defeated general…

Then, even defeated, he will write his own legend: « Au commencement était le Rêve, père et fils du Verbe. A la fin était l'Histoire. Voilà Napoléon. » “At the beginning was the Dream, father and Son of the Verb. And the End was History. Here is Napoleon.” From Max Gallo who wrote one of the biography of Napoleon.

“Napoleon's defeat in Egypt”: That is pushing a little bit: What Defeat?

“massmurderer Napoleon”: Can you give fact instead to use a process seen in the Moscow’s trails and Berlin Express Justice during Stalin and Hitler. I know that repeating things made them real (kind of surrealist concept) but I wanted some facts where Napoleon did organised mass killing of civilians populations, organised systematic rapes and deportations… And don’t go with the slaughters of 3.000 Turkish prisoners… I want mass murder.

“By 1800, the Enlightenment ideas had eliminated most religious fundamentalism and authority over most of Europe anyway.” And it is probably for this reason than all Europe joined against the French Revolution…
See the Perterloo Massacre in England, 6 of August 1819, for the winning Enlightenment...

“just questioning why he is called a genius” He invented a system which is still in use nowadays: The Army Corps, le Corps d’Armée, the "Code Napoleon" and spred (if not invented, but same thing can be said about the Code Napoleon, and your denial doesn't change the fact) the metric system which link all dimensions.

“I do recognize the examples of credit, but disagree that they outweigh the failures.” :laugh4: :laugh4: Did you real read what you wrote?

Rodion Romanovich

11-18-2007, 19:00

“Napoleon's outward tolerance and fairness toward Jews was actually based upon his grand plan to have them disappear entirely by means of total assimilation, intermarriage, and conversion” Do you have any documents for these assertions? The first Jewish Noble is one from the Empire (Noblesse d’Empire)…

Judging by the fact that I wrote "quote by wikipedia" above, it may be the case that it came from wikipedia... If you have any objections to the quote, you should discuss it with those who wrote it at wikipedia.

“This is what allowed the French Revolution”; The Feudal system in France was badly damaged by Louis XIV (remembering the “Fronde”, the revolt of the Height Nobility against Mazarin during his childhood in order to restore feudalism, or more precisely, to implement it more strongly) who impose the absolute Monarchy and centralism in France (even if local Parliaments were still working).
After the American Adventure and the fact it cost a lot to France for no gains (due to the fact that the new country did negotiate separately –against agreement- with the English), Louis the XVI was obliged by a Reactionary Nobility to gather the Etats Generaux where they hope to blackmail the King for their support against the Tiers-Etat in exchange of the reestablishment of their Feudal Rights…
So to date the end of feudalism at the end of the Middle-Ages is a little bit adventurous…

“Living at the end of the Enlightenment, Napoleon also became notorious for his effort to suppress the slave revolt in Haiti and his 1801 decision to re-establish slavery in France after it was banned following the revolution.”
Yes, and that is why I am not a Napoleon great admirer: However can you tell me when Serfdom was abolished in Russia? Yes, indeed…
I do think he betrayed the Revolution principles but I do recognised it was not always his responsibility…

No need for me to comment on this since this is just a longer version of exactly what I said above...

”Napoleon is sometimes alleged to have been in many ways the direct inspiration for later autocrats: he never flinched when facing the prospect of war and death for thousands, friend or foe, and turned his search of undisputed rule into a continuous cycle of conflict throughout Europe, ignoring treaties and conventions alike. Even if other European powers continually offered Napoleon terms that would have restored France's borders to situations only dreamt by the Bourbon kings, he always refused compromise, and only accepted surrender.”
Right, and the others monarchs did… the Tsar, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, the English Prime Minister?
According the Amiens Treaty, the English should have given back Gibraltar to Spain: They still there…
After the Russian retreat, “seeing the French almost on their knees the revenge-seeking Prussians broke their alliance with Paris”

I didn't say all others were perfect. It's my opinion that Napoleon was one of the worst, however. Both in the type of treaties he broke, how he broke them, and how he got the people to cheer at him when each time he did it. I also don't think it's fair to compare those coalition forces who broke the treaty with Napoleon after his defeat in Russia with the treaty-breaking Napoleon did - of course all who weren't insane would break this alliance that they were forced into by threats. Nodody wants to remain allied to someone who rewards good allies with backstabbing, invasion and one of the most ruthless occupations in history (Spain). Napoleon's treaty-breaking was a matter of a choice between what seems like an obvious way of increasing the likelihood of success for himself, vs plenty of dead both for France and all others, and he deliberately chose the latter. So many times, when he had the option to do great things, he notoriously chose the alternative which led to most bloodshed.

“he couldn't handle that type of warfare very well compared to his opponents”: Yeah, right:
[...]
Lutzen, Bautzen and Dresden

First of all, what he failed at was strategy (which is far more important than tactics), but since you take battles as example, let's look at some of them too:

Lutzen and Bautzen (figures from wiki):
- Lutzen: 120,000 French defeat 73,000 opponents, equal casualties (10k) on both sides despite massive French superiority in numbers
- Bautzen: 115,000 French defeat 96,000 opponents, equal casualties (10k) on both sides despite massive French superiority in numbers
...not to mention that apart from the inferior numbers, the allies had the disadvantage of the command difficulties that coalition armies always have, and that they had much lower troop quality.

Dresden was the only victory of Lutzen, Bautzen and Dresden that wasn't Pyrrhic.

Brienne, La Rothiere, Champaubert, Montmiral, Chateau Thierry, Vauchamps, Monterreau and Craonne had the Allies reeling.

Let's look at a few of these too:
- Brienne - France 30,000 men defeat 25,000 forces from Prussia and Russia with communication penalty. Casualties about equal despite French advantage in almost all aspects. Napoleon failed to prevent a withdrawal of Blucher
- La Rothiere - Blücher won this battle. Napoleon managed to withdraw in order since the engagement begun near nightfall and could only go on for a short moment
- Champaubert - 30,000 French with 120 guns vs 5,000 Russians

It should also be mentioned that his opponent - Blücher - was not among the better generals of the time, compared with for example Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly, and Wellington.

“Napoleon's war campaigns of rape and murder”: No problem and how the English did rescue the Spanish populations is a model of good behaviour…
You blame Napoleon only for what all armies at the time did

You're making a strawman fallacy. My statement was that war = rape and murder, thus causing more wars is worse than causing fewer wars, even if both are as ruthless by the time they go to war, not that any others were less ruthless as soon as it came to war. Napoleon notoriously chose war over diplomacy many times when it was far from necessary and certainly not beneficial. Imperial Britain was, along with Imperial France, one of the worst at this time of history, so it's a bit odd that you take Britain as an example of how all others did. Napoleon was also notorious for pillaging locally much more heavily than any other commander. Wellington, in the peninsular war, said something along the lines that he was "surprised that Napoleon could feed 3 times as many men off the same amount of land". The coalition armies, when liberating France in 1816, also took comparatively great care (for being the 19th century) in harming the local population as little as possible and set a good example.

AggonyDuck

11-18-2007, 19:29

Please do explain how you can find the French army of 1813 to have better troop quality than the allied armies? From what I've read most of Napoleon's army in 1813 was green and severely deficient in cavalry.

Brenus

11-18-2007, 20:29

Double posting sorry

Brenus

11-18-2007, 20:43

[QUOTE=Brenus]“If you have any objections to the quote, you should discuss it with those who wrote it at wikipedia.” Well, I think you should. YOU choose this reference…

I do understand now: You give your opinion whish you are entitled to do for course. These opinions are honourable as such.
However it is not History.
So, yes Napoleon was a tyrant, power sick and arrogant. But, not really different from the others, I am to say.

Brienne - France 30,000 men defeat 25,000 forces from Prussia and Russia with communication penalty. Casualties about equal despite French advantage in almost all aspects. Napoleon failed to prevent a withdrawal of Blucher
- La Rothiere - Blücher won this battle. Napoleon managed to withdraw in order since the engagement begun near nightfall and could only go on for a short moment
- Champaubert - 30,000 French with 120 guns vs 5,000 Russians
- Lutzen: 120,000 French defeat 73,000 opponents, equal casualties (10k) on both sides despite massive French superiority in numbers
- Bautzen: 115,000 French defeat 96,000 opponents, equal casualties (10k) on both sides despite massive French superiority in numbers

“...not to mention the penalty caused on the allied side by the fact that it had the command difficulties that coalition armies always have, and that they had lower troops quality.”: “French conscripts” & “ most of these were just out of the recruiting camps and had no wartime experience”.
Who had the battle Veterans?

Let’s examine how you work:

Lutzen: With a Prusso-Russian army of some 100,000 men moving on a small French force at Leipzig, Napoleon decided to intercept the enemy.
At the head of 120,000 men, the French emperor detached Ney's III Corps at Lutzen to use part of it as bait to attract the attention of the enemy commanders Wittgenstein and Blucher.
The plan worked and the Allies launched an immediate attack that ran into stiff resistance from two divisions in strong defensive positions in villages to the south of Lutzen.
As the battle raged hotter Ney fed reinforcements in to help his defenders, while Bonaparte was sending reserve troops in to the marshal's aid.
By the time Bonaparte arrived on the field the French were more than 110,000 strong and pressuring the Allies from the flanks.
In the early evening, the emperor ordered his Guard forward and, together with flank assaults, drove the Russians and Prussians into retreat.
French casualties were up to 20,000 while the Prusso-Russian losses of up to 20,000 would have been considerably worse if the depleted French army had not been hamstrung by a shortage of cavalry.

So 110.000 French defeated a 100.000 Allies Army.

Bautzen: Continuing their retreat from the mauling at Lutzen, the Prusso-Russian army of generals Wittgenstein and Blucher was finally ordered to halt at Bautzen by Tsar Alexender and King William Federick II.
The Allied army was almost 100,000 men strong but was being followed by 115,000 under Napoleon, who had 85,000 more men under Nay within marching distance.
Wittgenstein drew his men up in two strong defensive lines along a 10-kilometre front, with strong points in villages and along ridges. By the 19th, Bonaparte had set up his plan to pin the enemy to their lines and then bottle them up with Ney's men but, concerned that the Prusso-Russians had more men on the field than they actually had, the emperor would not spring his trap until they had been softened up.
The next day the attack began around midday. Hours of heavy fighting saw the French overpowering the first defensive lines and seizing the town of Bautzen itself.
By nightfall, the French were ready to cut the defenders off from their line of retreat but Ney became confused and his faulty positioning left the door open for the Allies to escape. Fighting on the 21st was hard and after several hours the initial success of the renewed French attacks began to lose impetus.
Again Ney became distracted by tactical matters - the seizing of the village of Preititz - and lost sight of the strategic importance of his sealing the Allies in.
By 4pm, however, the Prusso-Russians were being pushed back and when the Imperial Guard was sent in they began an all-out retreat.
While Bautzen was a success for Bonaparte it was not a decisive result. Both armies lost some 20,000 men but Ney's failure to cut the line of retreat robbed the French of complete victory.
Still don’t see this battle as Napoleon defeat, but what it is a flaw from Ney, confusion, flaw he will repeat in Waterloo

Brienne: “Casualties about equal despite French advantage in almost all aspects”.:inquisitive:
“Napoleon “first target was the spread-out force of some 25,000 Prussians under Field Marshal Blucher. To battle his old adversary, Bonaparte had 30,000 troops, but most of these were just out of the recruiting camps and had no wartime experience.
The French emperor began the clash by pinning the enemy down while he organised a flanking attack. Marshal Grouchy’s cavalry and horse artillery kept the Prussians occupied as marshals Ney and Victor secured both the town of Brienne and its chateau. Withdrawing to reorganise, Blucher left behind some 4000 casualties to France's 3000.”

According to you it is a failure for Napoleon who didn’t prevent Blucher to withdraw. Ok.:2thumbsup:

However:
La Rothiere: Following his defeat at Brienne, Prussia's Marshall Blucher quickly reorganised his reinforced troops at nearby La Rothiere and moved against the French. Napoleon had brought the number of his troops to some 40,000, but was facing not only Blucher's 53,000 men, but another 63,000 Allies within striking distance. Unwilling to risk battle at such odds, Bonaparte was looking to withdraw, however the aggressive Blucher forced him to fight.
The battle was brutal and bloody, but the French conscripts acquitted themselves well and held their ground until they were able to pull out after dark.
Both the French and Prussians suffered some 6000 casualties each.”

Here no failure from Blucher to prevent Napoleon to withdraw. And casualties were equal, in this case.:laugh4:

Champaubert: The battle of Champaubert was one of the few times in years that France was able to take to the field with a considerable numerical advantage.
Napoleon had moved against a strung-out Prussian army in the hope of whittling it down by a series of battles and on 10 February he caught General Olussiev's 5000 Russians just south of Champaubert. With a six-to-one advantage in troops, Bonaparte crushed Olussiev, who had decided to fight rather than retreat in the mistaken hope that he would get reinforcements from Blucher.
After five hours of fighting the Russians were surrounded by French cavalry and suffered 4000 killed, wounded and captured. One of the prisoners was Olussiev. The French lost about 200 men.

So, when the French are out-number it is a French defeat and honourable victory for the Allies like in Laon or Arcis sur Aube, but when reverse, that is not so great.:laugh4: :inquisitive:

I can understand that what ever reason you don’t like Napoleon character. I don’t like him much myself. However, applying double standards is not good, and it is what you are doing in Napoleon’s case. What is good for others is not for him…:smash:
And stop to follow Wikipedia…

“The coalition armies, when liberating France in 1816, also took comparatively great care (for being the 19th century) in harming the local population as little as possible and set a good example.” Knowing that the Allies LOST the last battle after Waterloo, La Souffel (Ten days after Waterloo, Rapp met the Allies near Strasbourg with fewer than 20,000 men and defeated them at La Suffel. It was France's last victory of the Napoleonic Wars).

If the French population, tired of wars (civil wars, revolution and wars from 1792 to 1815), would have been frightened, Napoleon could have decided to carry on, as Davout wanted him to do. :beam:

Rodion Romanovich

11-18-2007, 20:53

France was at peace with all the major powers in Europe, and even with the Pope.

Ehm...???? :inquisitive: Did you miss about that part from 1808 to 1816? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

“His arrogance and overestimating of his abilities, and hunger for power, for example. He should have realized in the first place that he wasn't suited to being anything else than artillery commander or communication link between his more able marshals (which is the role he held during the early victories). When he started to take more initiative in the field by commanding his marshals instead of being the one who communicated between them (and stopped listening to their advice), and didn't realize he had nothing to do on the throne of a country, he and France started losing mass”
Did you really read about Napoleon or you just write what are your feelings? Arrogance and anger for power, probably, but for the rest: It took only 6 coalitions to defeat him:
The 2nd Coalition (1798-1801): Russia, Britain, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Naples, Vatican.
The 3rd Coalition (1805): Austria, Great Britain, Russia, Sweden.
The 4th Coalition (1806-1807): Prussia, Saxony, Russia.
The 5th Coalition (1809): Great Britain and Austria.
The 6th Coalition (1812-1814): Great Britain and Russia, joined by Prussia, Sweden, Austria, German States.
The 7th Coalition (1815): Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, German States.

Let's look at the resources available to these coalitions:

THE FRENCH DEFENSIVE WAR PHASE:
At this time, the coalitions against Napoleon weren't strong, united or had the goal of complete surrender of France. These wars were of a more defensive (in terms of casus belli) character for France, but ended in France expending all its casus belli, moral high ground and making diplomatically dangerous moves that would draw in neutrals (mainly Prussia and Russia) on the side of the coalition.

Early French revolutionary wars and conflict with the 1st Coalition:
This was an unprovoked attack by mainly those Bourbon-dynasty ruled countries who opposed the revolution. They had no casus belli and they had low morale. France was victorious, of course.
- The French drove back the small Spanish expedition "Pyrenees campaign"
- The French attacked the isolated Austrian possessions in the Netherlands and successfully won a victory there. The area, along with the Rhineland, were occupied.
- The French revolutionary government in these campaigns saw the weakness and disorganization caused to their forces by the revolution and death of many nobles (previously commanders etc), but incredibly quickly responded to this by inventing the mass conscription, thus creating the basis for France's unmatched military strength in the coming decades.

1796:
In 1796 the revolutionary France went more aggressively on the offensive. Napoleon had command over the French forces in Italy, where he inflicted heavy losses on the Austrian forces thanks to the superior French artillery. However, he used careless diplomacy and the campaign was just as much an attempt to invade Italy, as an attempt to strike the enemies Naples and Austria. The successes from the previous year had now started splitting the enemies and making them accept separate peace treaties, but this invasion, which Napoleon had long advocated France should carry out, started spreading fears in Europe among both neutrals and parts of the coalition that had not yet accepted peace, that France had larger-scale imperial ambitions.

Meanwhile, the two other advances (by Jourdan and Moreau) made the mistake of striking the HRE rather than Austria. There were no negotiations or attempts at diplomatic resolution or splitting the HRE (which was only formally on Austria's side) from Austria, and the campaigns not only turned out unsuccessful, but also increased the justification for fearing that the French had imperialistic plans. Napoleon's success in the Italian campaign, while the others faced defeat, had a lot to do with the fact that the French superior mobile artillery was at its best in a terrain such as that in Italy, whereas it couldn't be used to quite the same effect in the other places. To how great extent is the striking of many neutral, uninvolved factions in this campaign Napoleon's fault? At least the invasion of Italy was supposedly to a great extent Boney's responsibility.

Next, Napoleon made the mistake of invading Egypt, which cost plenty of French troops, and even more reinforced the fear of imperialistic plans among the French. The invasion of Switzerland (not Napoleon's fault, though) again reinforced the picture, turning France's diplomatic position worse, as Russia and Prussia now begun considering joining the coalition. Why? Prussia: Because the French couldn't distinguish HRE from Austria, thus Prussia was threatened. Russia: if France had a wish to conquer the HRE step by step, then it was clear that a. they had imperialistic master plans and b. if they had plans to take the neutral HRE and Italy in the process of defeating Austria and Naples, then they would be likely to try to want to subjugate Russia as well, eventually.

2nd coalition conflict:
The coalition was still small, not coordinated, and all the participants were separated geographically.
- Spain, France and several small states (at least 350,000 troops active)
- Britain, Russia, Austria, smaller forces, all hugely separated geographically, with very loose cooperation, and most of them not really caring about much progress ashore, for example Britain (around 250,000 troops active)

The participants' lack of numbers in each campaign, and total lack of coordination, made them easy to defeat - in fact a much easier opponent than the opposition during the French revolutionary was was. Now, the conscription system, having been in action for some time, together with the massproduction of the new artillery, was also beginning to make a major difference.

Still, during this campaign, Napoleon's senseless risktaking almost made him suffer defeat around the time of the battle of Marengo.

PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AND GRADUAL SWITCHING TO OFFENSIVE WAR AND DIPLOMATIC BLUNDERS DUE TO BONEY'S VANITY PHASE:

Having been too careless in the diplomacy in the 1796, thus having drawn Russia into the war and Prussia almost into it, there were now plans for forming the very first really serious coalition with any forms of coordination of actions.

3rd coalition conflict:
The forming of this coalition wasn't completed, before Napoleon discovered their plans and struck preemptively. Moreover, Britain's role in the coalition was still not tight cooperation with the others, or with any aim of making any gains ashore. Napoleon's victory in this conflict was 100% a militarily victory, but caused no diplomatic gains, since the diplomatic position was already weakened by the previous actions. Napoleon's formation of the Confederation of the Rhine had the opposite of the intended effect - instead of separating the HRE from Austria as should have been done diplomatically before, now it was only made more provoking than the status before the war, sending a sign that France wasn't satisfied with conquering Italy and modern Belgium, but also had plans for complete dominance over the HRE eventually. Napoleon's vanity to crown himself emperor at the same time he dissolved the HRE, starting to use references to ancient Rome, and claiming the title which was usually used to refer to the empire he had no dissolved and picked a portion of, and his imposing of some control over the newly formed Rhine Confederation (making it more like a French client kingdom), completed the effect.

The military campaign had two phases, notice the French immense superiority in resources during the conflict:
- Ulm conflict: 235,000 French vs 72,000 Austrians
- Austerlitz conflict: 75,000 French vs 80,000 fatigued, demoralized Austrians - barely regrouped, and newly arrived Russians. The Russians had orders from the Tsar to attack at Austerlitz even though the terrain was worst possible for offensive, and the troops had the disadvantage of command difficulties as coalition armies always have. They had had no time for joint manouvers training at the time. The French army only had 75,000 men because Napoleon had overstretched his forces somewhat. He was lucky the Russian Tsar had ordered Kutuzov to attack in such bad terrain (with such bad mobility in the Russian artillery) when Napoleon would otherwise have had no choice but to retreat and regroup (only to be prepared to face a stronger opponent), or attack and face certain defeat.

The third coalition war was over before the neutrals - mainly Prussia, had had time to mobilize their forces to join, and Russia arrived late, as the French attack happened while the discussions were still in progress. This means the third coalition was also not to count as a "coalition against Napoleon".

THE IMPERIALISTIC, OFFENSIVE WARFARE AND A CHANCE OF GOOD PEACE THROWN AWAY BY BONEY IN FAVOR OF CHOOSING CERTAIN DEFEAT THROUGH MASSIVE BLOODSHED PHASE:

4th coalition conflict:
The 4th coalition was, again, in fact, not much of a coalition. This war started with Prussia, alone, declaring war on France. Russia could not join action until the end of the conflict, and at this time, Prussia was already defeated. Again, Napoleon had massive advantage in numbers and troop quality. The Prussian war was hopeless from the beginning, for example 90,000 French vs 38,000 Prussians at the battle of Jena. When the Russians intervened, Napoleon had slightly higher numbers than the Russians, but the Russians also had much lower troop quality. French casualties were pretty high in many of the battles, for example the Battle of Eylau (25k, Napoleon commanded, by the way). The French victory at Danzig was the only great demonstration of generalship in this campaign, but note: it wasn't commanded by Napoleon, but by Marshal Lefebvre, who won a crushing victory despite only a slight advantage in numbers. This allowed Napoleon numerical advantage 80,000 to 60,000 at the Battle of Friedland, which concluded this conflict.

Now, what did Napoleon do after this victory, when he - despite not holding the moral high ground and despite that having split up and defeated all opponents who had gone against him? Did he sigh deeply and thank God that he had gained victory despite not having morality entirely on his side, and that he now had the ability to establish a long-lasting and stable peace in Europe? That he had the chance to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty over Europe? That his previous vanity and diplomatical blunders had nearly led to his destruction before, and that he should be more careful from now on, in making diplomatic mistakes? That he now had the chance to establish the most favorable peace any commander could ever have hoped for? No! He invaded his own ally - Spain, so heavily reducing his strength everywhere that he went from being able to easily handle all his enemies, to marching towards his safe destruction. So heavily undermining all his casus belli, legitimacy and respect, that every old enough man in Europe were longing to see his destruction!

NAPOLEON'S FINAL UTTER, TOTAL DIPLOMATIC FAILURE PHASE:

So, having managed to defeat all his opponents before thanks to his superiority in troop quality and numbers, and the fact that neither of the "coalitions" so far had been coalition, but rather been several nations acting individually, he now invaded Spain.

From here we all know the rest: the fifth coalition - again a comparatively loose coalition, a pyrrhic victory for Napoleon. The invasion of Russia, late in the year, and lacking the supplies that were now tied down in Spain. Causing war with Portugal. Lines of Torres Vedras, Portugal, Spain and Britain together cooperating to liberate Spain. Total annihilation of 500,000 men in Russia. Attempt of gaining an impossible victory as the independent German states revolted. Invasion of French soil now becoming necessary to stop the endless expansion and greed for more power. And then Elba.

SUMMARY:
So can we really call anything "coalition" except the final, sixth coalition?

The battle of Austerlitz is still one of the greatest battle plan ever which can compared with Hannibal battle of Cannea.

I disagree. The key to Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz was that Kutuzov more or less at death threat from the Tsar had orders to attack despite having a slightly numerically inferior army, with communication difficulties with the demoralized Austrians he had to cooperate with to get even close to Nappy's numbers, inferior mobility for his artillery, and perfect defensive terrain for Nappy. If you are to pick an example of well fought battles in Nappy's life, I think Austerlitz is a bad choice. I would rather pick some of his battles in Italy, or his Six days campaign in 1814, for example.

“By 1800, the Enlightenment ideas had eliminated most religious fundamentalism and authority over most of Europe anyway.” And it is probably for this reason than all Europe joined against the French Revolution…
See the Perterloo Massacre in England, 6 of August 1819, for the winning Enlightenment...

Perhaps if you read my posts above you would see that I took England as an example of where the revolution failed - because of Napoleon's expansionism making it easy to propagandaize against the revolutionary ideas.

the metric system which link all dimensions.

This myth again? Didn't I already debunk this myth twice in this thread? No, Napoleon did NOT invent the metric system. In fact, he revoked the law which forbade usage of the old system. The revolutionary government and the Enlightenment scientists and philosophers gave us the metric system.

Rodion Romanovich

11-18-2007, 21:07

“If you have any objections to the quote, you should discuss it with those who wrote it at wikipedia.” Well, I think you should. YOU choose this reference…

I appreciate if you discuss with me that you actually bother reading my posts:

Let me finally point out that my style of debating is not to state my opinion, but to give the arguments that together with the posts before approximately even out to the opinion I hold. My opinion in this case lies somewhere in between, but since there are so many posts above Napoleon's "greatness" I have pointed out all arguments for the other extreme view as I felt the picture given without them was incorrect and unbalanced. This seems to have resulted in many misunderstandings above as to what opinion I had (and probably in other debates as well ).

If you notice the posts above mine they are indeed full of unhistorical Napoleon apologetic statements. Basically giving credit for everything France did during Napoleon's time to Napoleon, and ascribing all failures of France at the time to "someone else". The truth is, the good things didn't came from a single persons. Just because you're a leader and can take the honor for every achievement of your country, it doesn't mean you deserve it.

I do understand now: You give your opinion whish you are entitled to do for course. These opinions are honourable as such.
However it is not History.

Blah blah you're no historical, I'm scientific/historical/academic/better than you/your opinion sucks... blah blah. Please play the ball not the man, and try to stick to the arguments. Unfortunately I still haven't seen that many arguments from your side. Either you repeat what I say in response to me, or at the few occasions you state the opposite of what I say, you lack both references and arguments for it.

Let’s examine how you work:

Even more personal attacks now? How about some argumentation for your claims instead of just pure nationalistic "you're wrong". I don't hold the "heroes" of my country above all criticism and ascribe all success of the country to them, and all failure of the country to the people. How about if I were to say now that everything France has done good now is due to Sarkozy or Chirac and all mistakes are the people's fault? Is that historical, fair or true? In 100 years your sons will probably sit and talk like that: "Oh, in the times of the great Chirac - he made the French football team win many Championships".

[...]

Interesting read, but unfortunately you can check on wikipedia or any other source that this isn't really how the battles are commonly described by historians.

So, when the French are out-number it is a French defeat and honourable victory for the Allies like in Laon or Arcis sur Aube, but when reverse, that is not so great.:laugh4: :inquisitive:

Hm, who was the one that provided a long list of French victories only (accidentally mixed with a few defeats but which you claimed were victories - perhaps out of ignorance?) and ignored all defeats suffered by Napoleon? Or all his Pyrrhic or indecisive battle where he ruthlessly and without understanding of the problems it caused was prepared to suffer casualties such as 25,000-30,000 in a battle for virtually no gain at all, where a strategic manouver to avoid this would have been far more valuable. See especially his period from 1808 to 1815 for plenty of examples of this.

If the French population, tired of wars (civil wars, revolution and wars from 1792 to 1815), would have been frightened, Napoleon could have decided to carry on, as Davout wanted him to do. :beam:
Yeah yeah, could [I]really have won the war, if the people hadn't been so illoyal/weak/cowardly... :rolleyes:

Now would you agree to this? (which is the opinion on Napoleon I'd like to state, in as few words as possible)
- it's not historical or realistic to ascribe every success of French arms of this era to one man, and ascribe every failure to others
- Napoleon, after the 4th coalition, had the option to settle with a stable peace, stop his expansion, and rather easily defending his position. At least 5,000,000 people less would have died, the possible linking of Spanish decline to the rise of Franco, and provoking a rise of German and Italian imperialism would perhaps have been avoided. When arriving at this point, it was obvious that the previous diplomatic manouvers had been close calls at times, so a skilled diplomat and politician would have been able to know at this time, that any further expansion - the choice Napoleon made - would lead to own destruction (after a long time of bloodshed).
- Napoleon did suffer from vanity in giving himself titles etc. His coup d'etat was illegal and unnecessary - it didn't strengthen France in any way. Also: if a revolution just overthrew absolutism, is it not to kill the revolution to reinstate the absolutism, by taking the title of emperor?
- if a man is your enemy and wants to conquer your country, it's easy for the authorities in that country to say that "opinion x that this enemy holds is bad, just look at what it has made him". Could this effect not have helped halting the spread of the revolution in Europe? Did not Tolstoy and others for example manage to demonize the revolutionary ideas in Russia so much just because of Napoleon's invasion? Didn't this help postponing the abolishment of serfdom in Russia? Or similar, in Britain?
- do you think a person threatening to conquer and annex your country, while killing many of your countrymen, or clever philosophers and scientists writing about why the ideas of freedom and equality are good, help most in making your country embrace these ideas? Do you think economical changes allowing for revolutions to take place, or the words "look, revolution is possible, if it isn't already obvious to you" do most to bringing revolution to an area? Just look at the American civil war and the French revolution. The Americans didn't invade France to make France make the revolution happen, yet the revolutionary ideas are often said to have gone from America to France. Is it a coincidence that almost only the Netherlands and Belgium (who didn't take much part in the wars of 1800 to 1816) embraced the revolutuion more than say the later Germany and Italy, along with Britain and Russia, whose only demonstration of the effects of revolution was blood?
- Austerlitz is not a good example of Napoleon's military skills. In Austerlitz, the opponents had so many justified excuses to lose. The battles of the six days campaign, and the actions in Italy, are better examples if you wish to claim Napoleon's tactics were good.
- The best way to victory is for the opponents to not fight hard, not think their fight matters much because their casus belli is nonexistent or weak, and they don't coordinate their actions well. Napoleon did have this advantage in his early wars. But this advantage was not created by Napoleon. Would Napoleon have had the ability to overwhelm Austria by a preemptive strike during the 3rd coalition war, if France's moral position and their outside rumor hadn't been comparatively good because the Bourbon dynasty countries were the ones who begun the wars of the period, by attacking France with very little casus belli? Napoleon's quick marching to Ulm wouldn't have been possible without that! Napoleon's own diplomacy didn't create such effects that went in synergy with his warfare, rather, they sabotaged it: united the enemies, strengthened their fighting spirit, strengthened their moral position and casus belli, and drew neutral powers into the conflict on the opposing side. Is it really fair to ascribe Napoleon's opportunities to use divide et impera to Napoleon, while forgetting the importance the previous diplomatic events had to allowing for them?

Brenus

11-19-2007, 00:05

“Let me finally point out that my style of debating is not to state my opinion”: That could be good if you shouldn’t have say “I disagree.” That is an opinion.

“No, Napoleon did NOT invent the metric system”: Oops, you didn’t read what I said. I said he SPREAD the metric system…

Now, more seriously
“Unfortunately I still haven't seen that many arguments from your side”: Unfortunately you have, just bad enough they are not really nor true or convincing… And you choose wisely to ignore the one presented to you…

“Either you repeat what I say in response to me, or at the few occasions you state the opposite of what I say,.” No, you said I repeat them, but de facto you never mentioned what I said: You presented Napoleon as the Ultimate Monster, and when I did point out he was far to be alone, you just said you never said that. This is, de facto, true. However, how you presented facts was intentional to create this impression.
Except of course that you stated: “abolition of the feudal system": I can't see where on earth you got this claim from. The feudal system was mostly abolished during the late medieval period, and the remnants of it was weakened most by the 17th century developments with increasing importance of trade, and increasing numbers and influence of the bourgeoisie (sp?), and general increase in industrialization and production” which I think I said was no so exact…

“you lack both references and arguments for it”: Well, not you? From wiki, but you deny all responsibilities for them.

“Even more personal attacks now?” If you means by that when you made statement and then to reply to them is a personnel attack, well, we have a problem in debating…
When for two quite identical outcomes for battle, one won by Bucher (Napoleon escape), one by Napoleon (Blucher escaped) you put the defeat each time on Napoleon (pff, he didn’t win, pff he let Blucher escaped), I think that to question the way you analyse events is THE thing to do…
When without even a thought you claim than the French have upper-hand in men and material against all logic (after Russia), you expect others NOT to question this.

“you can check on wikipedia or any other source”. Others sources, definitively… I am NOT a specialist of Napoleon Period...

“accidentally mixed with a few defeats but which you claimed were victories perhaps out of ignorance” Hum, not nice for somebody claim superior moral ground. No, rest assured that I went in a specialised site (by the way, English) for this kind of knowledge…

“the people hadn't been so illoyal/weak/cowardly...” Not what I said. For me Napoleon lost the wars after Russia and the Campaign for France. Perhaps it will surprise you, but I really don’t care too much about events from 200 years ago… Almost…

“Perhaps if you read my posts above you would see that I took England as an example of where the revolution failed - because of Napoleon's expansionism making it easy to propagandise against the revolutionary ideas.”
Yep, the European Monarchy just waited Napoleon to start the war against France. Ooops, “the principal parties of the first attempt to defeat the French revolution were Austria and Prussia, the leaders of which - Frederick William II and Leopold II - wanted to restore King Louis XVI to the throne.
The execution of Louis XVI catapulted Britain into the alliance, with Spain joining in March of 1793.
In August of 1792, an 80,000-man army entered France under the reticent Duke of Brunswick, capturing key fortresses on its march towards Paris.
Half of the force was Prussian and 30,000 were Austrian, French émigrés and minor German states made up the rest." The rest is History.

I kept the best part for the end:
Ulm conflict: 235,000 French vs 72,000 Austrians
Ulm was not really a battle, but rather a victory of manoeuvre for Napoleon.
By manoeuvring his forces around the 40,000 Austrians in the city of Ulm and cutting their supply lines he forced Mack into an untenable situation.
The Austrian general tried twice to break through the encircling French, at Haslach and Elshingen, but failed to do so.
With no Russian reinforcements nearby, Mack surrendered his 27,000 men.
A smaller force of cavalry, 13,000 men under Archduke Ferdinand had earlier split with the beseiged force but surrendered to Murat at Trochtelfingen while another 12,000 men did the same at Neustadt. Austria was effectively out of the war.

- Austerlitz conflict: 75,000 French vs 80,000 fatigued, demoralized Austrians - barely regrouped, and newly arrived Russians
So the Austrian, being in their country, were fatigued and demoralised when the French walking from the Pas de Calais (where they were waiting the fleet to go to invade England) were in great form and full of optimism…:beam:

The key to Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz was that Kutuzov more or less at death threat from the Tsar had orders to attack despite having a slightly numerically inferior army, with communication difficulties with the demoralized Austrians he had to cooperate with to get even close to Nappy's numbers, inferior mobility for his artillery, and perfect defensive terrain for Nappy. If you are to pick an example of well fought battles in Nappy's life, I think Austerlitz is a bad choice
You are right: To be on the top of the hill with your artillery, to have plain view on the enemy’s position, outnumbering him around 10.000 soldiers, in your own soil is a great disadvantage.:laugh4:

Regarded as Napoleon's greatest victory, Austerlitz was a sublime trap that destroyed the armies of his enemies Russia and Austria.
Tricking his opponents into thinking he was weaker than he actually was, and then calling in nearby reinforcements, Bonaparte initially met the combined Allied army of 85,000 men and 278 guns with just 66,000 men.
The French emperor deliberately abandoned a strong central position on the Pratzen Heights and left his right flank weak.
The Allies eagerly moved forward to occupy the heights and then weakened the centre to crush the French right.
As the bulk of Austrian and Russian troops attacked, Davout's III Corp arrived to bolster the French line.
With more and more Allied troops sucked into the attack, Bonaparte launched an assault that took back the Pratzen Heights and split the enemy.
After much hard fighting the French crushed the Allies. Thousands of fleeing troops drowned when a frozen lake split under the weight of men and guns.
French losses amounted to 8000 while the Russian and Austrian emperors, present at the battle, saw more than 27,000 men killed, wounded and captured. Bonaparte also captured 180 cannon.

“it's not historical or realistic to ascribe every success of French arms of this era to one man, and ascribe every failure to others” Agree

-“Napoleon, after the 4th coalition, had the option to settle with a stable peace”
Agree with the problem that the Pitts wouldn’t allow it…

“Napoleon did suffer from vanity in giving himself titles etc. His coup d'etat was illegal and unnecessary - it didn't strengthen France in any way. Also: if a revolution just overthrew absolutism, is it not to kill the revolution to reinstate the absolutism, by taking the title of emperor?” Agree

“if a man is your enemy and wants to conquer your country, it's easy for the authorities in that country to say that "opinion x that this enemy holds is bad, just look at what it has made him". Could this effect not have helped halting the spread of the revolution in Europe? Yes and No. I don’t think that it postponed any thing due to the nature of Napoleon enemies. They were absolute Monarchs as the proved it in re-imposing Louis XVIII on the Throne of France

”Do you think a person threatening to conquer and annex your country, while killing many of your countrymen, or clever philosophers and scientists writing about why the ideas of freedom and equality are good, help most in making your country embrace these ideas? Well, it was well summary by Robespierre saying “People don’t like armed prophets”. So I would agree.

“Austerlitz is not a good example of Napoleon's military skills. In Austerlitz, the opponents had so many justified excuses to lose” Fully disagree. Auzterlitz is the clear implementation of a concept and a plan mixed with audacity and luck.

“The best way to victory is for the opponents to not fight hard, not think their fight matters much because their casus belli is nonexistent or weak, and they don't coordinate their actions well. Napoleon did have this advantage in his early wars. But this advantage was not created by Napoleon”. Napoleon inherited of a lot of things. However, credit was given to him (the Army strength for ex, is due to Carnot). However to blame Napoleon alone for the wars is to underplay the role of the Pitts, the Austrian Empire and all others sovereigns.

Rodion Romanovich

11-19-2007, 10:54

“No, Napoleon did NOT invent the metric system”: Oops, you didn’t read what I said. I said he SPREAD the metric system…

Well how do you explain that he was the one who lifted the ban on the system that was before the revolutionary government introduced the metric system? Wouldn't those effects cancel out each other?

You presented Napoleon as the Ultimate Monster

This is pushing it quite a bit, don't you think? You're free to reread my posts.

Except of course that you stated: “abolition of the feudal system": I can't see where on earth you got this claim from. The feudal system was mostly abolished during the late medieval period, and the remnants of it was weakened most by the 17th century developments with increasing importance of trade, and increasing numbers and influence of the bourgeoisie (sp?), and general increase in industrialization and production” which I think I said was no so exact…

See the highlighting, and compare with your own text, which is indeed just an elabortation of exactly this.

“you lack both references and arguments for it”: Well, not you? From wiki, but you deny all responsibilities for them.

In one case above, I clearly stated that in response to claims bordering to "Napoleon was the Messiah who saved all Jews" that there were many who disagreed, and took an example from wiki of a rabbi who had another perspective of this issue. The opinion I stated was that indeed, the idea that Napoleon was a flawless hero who heroically saved all Jews is not realistic. I didn't claim Napoleon was an arch-enemy of Jews, I claimed that he was not a flawless hero and savior, and that's as far as the claim went. But if you keep imagining what you read in my posts, then you will keep misunderstanding.

“Even more personal attacks now?” If you means by that when you made statement and then to reply to them is a personnel attack, well, we have a problem in debating…

The use of "Let’s examine how you work" is somewhat suspicious in a post of a debater claiming to concentrate on the arguments instead of the man.

When for two quite identical outcomes for battle, one won by Bucher (Napoleon escape), one by Napoleon (Blucher escaped) you put the defeat each time on Napoleon (pff, he didn’t win, pff he let Blucher escaped), I think that to question the way you analyse events is THE thing to do…
When without even a thought you claim than the French have upper-hand in men and material against all logic (after Russia), you expect others NOT to question this.

Well let's put it this way: you provide a list of Napoleon's victories only - that is your intention. Unfortunately you accidentally mixed in a few defeats. Then you complain when I - from your biased selection of a list point out those that were defeats??? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

“accidentally mixed with a few defeats but which you claimed were victories perhaps out of ignorance” Hum, not nice for somebody claim superior moral ground. No, rest assured that I went in a specialised site (by the way, English) for this kind of knowledge…

And still, you accidentally got a few defeats on your list of "victories"? Perhaps your source wasn't too reliable after all.

The rest is History.

I don't see how this goes against my claim. As you can see above I clearly wrote that the British started that war.

I kept the best part for the end:
Ulm conflict: 235,000 French vs 72,000 Austrians
Ulm was not really a battle, but rather a victory of manoeuvre for Napoleon.
By manoeuvring his forces around the 40,000 Austrians in the city of Ulm and cutting their supply lines he forced Mack into an untenable situation.
The Austrian general tried twice to break through the encircling French, at Haslach and Elshingen, but failed to do so.
With no Russian reinforcements nearby, Mack surrendered his 27,000 men.
A smaller force of cavalry, 13,000 men under Archduke Ferdinand had earlier split with the beseiged force but surrendered to Murat at Trochtelfingen while another 12,000 men did the same at Neustadt. Austria was effectively out of the war.

Wow, that's quite a way of using details to try to hide the most important fact: that Napoleon had more than 3 times as many troops as the Austrian general.

- Austerlitz conflict: 75,000 French vs 80,000 fatigued, demoralized Austrians - barely regrouped, and newly arrived Russians
So the Austrian, being in their country, were fatigued and demoralised when the French walking from the Pas de Calais (where they were waiting the fleet to go to invade England) were in great form and full of optimism…:beam:

Hm, I wonder what causes more demoralization... The defeat and death of hundreds of thousands of your own troops in the previous 3months, or marching? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: If you would have to pick one side to fight on, based on morale, which side would you choose? Also perhaps you may even then consider, isn't it a bit longer march from Russia to Austria, than from Pas de Calais? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

The key to Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz was that Kutuzov more or less at death threat from the Tsar had orders to attack despite having a slightly numerically inferior army, with communication difficulties with the demoralized Austrians he had to cooperate with to get even close to Nappy's numbers, inferior mobility for his artillery, and perfect defensive terrain for Nappy. If you are to pick an example of well fought battles in Nappy's life, I think Austerlitz is a bad choice
You are right: To be on the top of the hill with your artillery, to have plain view on the enemy’s position, outnumbering him around 10.000 soldiers, in your own soil is a great disadvantage.:laugh4:

Battle map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Battle_of_Austerlitz%2C_Situation_at_1800%2C_1_December_1805.gif
Topographic map: http://pics.city-data.com/topo/tpc15508.png
Positioned in a protective position behind a river bank is not to be at disadvantageous ground. He had the choice between high ground for part of the army and relatively bad protection for the rest, or a rather solid protection everywhere from a river bank. A rather simple choice, not worth calling him a genius for that. The allies are demoralized and fatigued and have to attack over a river. The immobilility of their artillery is well illustrated by the fact they have to choose to put it on a hill: it is so immobile that it is worth more having all of it statically in a single position, than manouvering it. Despite the height, however, it has difficulty reaching the French positions because there are smaller hills and heights, and trees, and a soft river bank in front of the French, so bouncing hits can't be scored either. The French artillery is in a much better position - it can fire concentrated fire at anyone crossing any of the river fords. Note also that Kutuzov before the battle is quoted to have commented on the impossibility of winning the battle if attacking, whereas on defense he would have won. Is it a good example of a defending general's skill when the attacker before the battle says that he knows for sure he would lose if he had to attack, and attacks only because he's ordered to it by the Tsar and can't say no because the Tsar won't tolerate that?

“it's not historical or realistic to ascribe every success of French arms of this era to one man, and ascribe every failure to others” Agree

-“Napoleon, after the 4th coalition, had the option to settle with a stable peace”
Agree with the problem that the Pitts wouldn’t allow it…

“Napoleon did suffer from vanity in giving himself titles etc. His coup d'etat was illegal and unnecessary - it didn't strengthen France in any way. Also: if a revolution just overthrew absolutism, is it not to kill the revolution to reinstate the absolutism, by taking the title of emperor?” Agree

I'm glad you agree to the most important points :2thumbsup:

“if a man is your enemy and wants to conquer your country, it's easy for the authorities in that country to say that "opinion x that this enemy holds is bad, just look at what it has made him". Could this effect not have helped halting the spread of the revolution in Europe? Yes and No. I don’t think that it postponed any thing due to the nature of Napoleon enemies. They were absolute Monarchs as the proved it in re-imposing Louis XVIII on the Throne of France

Well, did you think the revolutions against the absolute monarchs in the countries outside France would come from the absolute monarchs themselves? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Of course not - it would have to come from the people. And the absolute monarchs had an excellent chance of preventing the people from rising by pointing at Napoleon and saying "look, this is what revolution gives you - instead of overthrowing the current absolutism balanced with a parliament (Britain), you would end up getting a totalitarian Emperor - the very symbol of absolutism!"

To say Napoleon's actions speeded up the spread of the ideas of the revolution, is IMO much the same as saying the terrorists of today do well in spreading their ideas in the western world by means of their terror. Do they, really? I don't think they do! Or saying Napoleon "spread ideas of liberty" when what he did was to attack many neutral countries, isn't that an as archaic view as saying the romans "spread civilization" when for example the romans conquered Gaul, Germania, Dacia, Judaea, and Mesopotamia (to take examples of some of the elast justified campaigns they carried out)? Sure enough some technology reached the provinces this way, but calling the conquest a glorious spread of enlightenment is not a very fair picture. And could very well be why all the innocents who were struck by this became very, very angry in the period following the military weakening of the empire. Being called an unwashed barbarian who should be thankful, for being attacked (and war = rape and murder), doesn't really make you very happy and peaceful, now does it? Would you like to be conquered by a force of stinking soldiers raping your women and killing many of your men, while crying they are fighting for liberty, with a lot of neutral people cheering on them and saying how heroic and great they are for conquering? I wish Voltaire was here to phrase what I just said in an even more clear way...

”Do you think a person threatening to conquer and annex your country, while killing many of your countrymen, or clever philosophers and scientists writing about why the ideas of freedom and equality are good, help most in making your country embrace these ideas? Well, it was well summary by Robespierre saying “People don’t like armed prophets”. So I would agree.

I'm glad you agree, though I fail to realize how you could in the quote before this one talk about Napoleon's heroic spreading of the revolutionary ideas.

“Austerlitz is not a good example of Napoleon's military skills. In Austerlitz, the opponents had so many justified excuses to lose” Fully disagree. Auzterlitz is the clear implementation of a concept and a plan mixed with audacity and luck.

I disagree completely. Historians have put emphasis on the campaign of Austerlitz because of it's seemingly big political impact - from Austerlitz until the invasion of Spain (3 years) Boney didn't face any notable opposition. They also put emphasis on it because of the romantic mythology surrounding it. But if you look at the actual battle it seems like kindergarten warfare in comparison to most other battles of the period. Similar to how Waterloo was won more by lack of tactics from Napoleon, than by abundance thereof from Wellington. Yet, many semi-religious Napoleon worshippers who claim Waterloo was lost because lack of Napoleon's tactics rather than Wellington's skills (thus refusing to give credit to Wellington), refuse to do the same with Napoleon at Austerlitz. Why on earth pick Austerlitz?

“The best way to victory is for the opponents to not fight hard, not think their fight matters much because their casus belli is nonexistent or weak, and they don't coordinate their actions well. Napoleon did have this advantage in his early wars. But this advantage was not created by Napoleon”. Napoleon inherited of a lot of things. However, credit was given to him (the Army strength for ex, is due to Carnot). However to blame Napoleon alone for the wars is to underplay the role of the Pitts, the Austrian Empire and all others sovereigns.
No, I'm not blaming Napoleon for "all the wars". I'm blaming him for those of the wars that he created: mainly versus the Italian factions, the HRE factions, Spain and Russia, and how aggressively he held on to these lands - how in many cases he hurt them more than for instance Austria which was his real enemy. He rewarded neutrality and alliance with worse bloodshed, than he rewarded unprovoked attacks (Austria) with. The sheer impact of this on the century after him can't be overestimated. Is it a coincidence that it was Italy, Germany, Spain and Russia that became the birth places of trouble shortly afterwards? And that all countries started mistrusting each others, fearing neutrality and allies just as much as enemies? Not a good basis for peace.

As can be seen in my summary above, France could handle the wars with Austria and other enemies very well, winning them with minimal own casualties and enormous Austrian losses in each battle. But they had extreme problems handling the wars that Napoleon through diplomatic blunders started with the neutral powers. In the summary above, counting the diplomatic failures, I see that Napoleon was responsible for 4 out of the 5 diplomatic blunders that France made in this period. If they hadn't happened, and Boney (restricted to being a military commander rather than a politician) would have kept beating the Austrians, while maintaining moral high ground by not drawing in any neutrals, and denouncing and avoiding any imperialistic ambitions, they would eventually have made the Austrians stop their repeated attacks, because then the Austrians wouldn't have kept receiving a promise of moral support - and eventually military support - from a coalition every time. With their losses mounting enough, the Austrian people and its army could very likely have revolted and the country descended into internal chaos and revolution - which would have meant a total, lasting victory for Napoleon in the continent. With such a victory it's clear that the French republic could have built up a long term plan to deal a severe blow to the British as well. Even without such a victory, and sticking only to not drawing more neutrals into the conflict, that would have been possible. The resources of revolutionary France would no doubt have allowed the rebuilding of the lost ships from the Nile and Trafalgar if this strategy had been chosen. Yet Napoleon chose the strategy that would leave all of Europe in a gigantic mess for the entire next century. Is it a coincidence that Nietzsche would next century call out "death to morality", after many had experienced the Napoleonic imperialism invading neutral and allied land and punishing it harder than he punished the land of real enemies, all under the banner of morality, freedom and liberty? If you are to be evil when you fight, at least have the decency and don't write "liberty" on your banner.

In summary, Napoleon had a choice between an incredibly great scenario, and an incredibly bad one for his entire continent - a choice that not many human beings get in their life. And without hesitation, he chose the latter (particularly in 1808, but the many small diplomatic blunders from 1796 to 1808 also had an important impact). He was so eager to chose the morally inferior alternative always, even when the same alternative also was what hurt himself most. I think that those who celebrate Napoleon as a hero should consider the fact that his impact on the neutral countries he attacked wasn't positive - it was negative, and negative in a far from negligible way.

Louis VI the Fat

11-19-2007, 22:46

It's not a quote, it's a summary of his claim, which .. more or less said if Napoleon had lost earlier Hitler would have managed to do more damage, or could be interpreted that way. That was not the intent of my statement. It was an off-hand remark about the oft-heard comparisons between Hitler and Napoleon. A comparison which, I think, somewhat fails to recognise the difference in historical contribution between Hitler Germany and Napoleonic France.

I did not imply any causal connection between the actions of Napoleon and the events in germany in 1933-1945. On the contrary, I think any assumption of a direct causality is slightly far-fetched.

What I meant was that, while it is true that both Hitler and Napoleon are megalomaniac warmongerers, the verdict on Napoleon must be less far less condemning.

Hitler's legacy is entirely negative. Napoleon's legacy is mixed. I for one would certainly prefer the (hypothetical) unified Europe under Napoleon above the one Hitler had in mind.

seireikhaan

11-20-2007, 04:35

Oh dear me. This was a rather interesting thread that very suddenly became rather venomous. Gentlemen, mayhaps we could step back a second and take a breather?

Anyhow, I shall present my opinion on the issue. First of all, we must define what is great. That will ultimately be a sticking point for nearly any argument made either for or against Napoleon. Now as for me, I look at 'great' as to what kind of impact this person made upon the world, what kind of innovations did they bring to the table, and lastly, what kind of support did this person have? The first is quite simple. Do they have a legacy? I do not view this in a moral perspective, fyi. As for the second, what kind of change did they bring about, and what sort of "ingenuity" of sorts did they show and execute. As for the last one, I think I might be aways off from some. While some may take credit away from rulers for conquests/defenses/conflicts won by their generals and staff, I consider it differently. From my perspective, the truly great surround themselves with greatness. It is shown throughout history that people tend to gravitate towards others like themselves; likewise, I believe that the great gather more great people to support them. It should be noted that my perspecitive's on 'great' merely reflect on history, and not so much on morality. I have a different 'great' that I use for ethical purposes. Similarly, if a person is strong enough in one category, they do necessarily need to be good in another category. IE-Ghandi. Didn't really surround himself with great people, but left an indelible mark on history, and brought about a unique idea of peacefull resistance, so even though he gets a 'F' in the third category, I still consider him great because he gets an A+ in the other two.

Now, as for Napoleon.

Did Napoleon leave a legacy? Certainly, he left a mammoth one. First of all, people followed his style of warfare for roughly 100 years, until advances in technology finally forced a new style. His administation has been copied by many, and not just for the name sake. He shook the political landscape of Europe, as evidenced by the sheer number of people who opposed him. As shown earlier, the second coalition against him was mind boggling to say the least. As stated earlier in the thread, the 2nd coaliton consisted of: Russia, Britain, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Naples, Vatican. I would like to point out that the concept of the Ottomans and Austrians allying against shows how much power he had wielded. After all, the Ottomans and Austrians had been arch nemesis, and the fact that the Ottomans felt compelled to join with not only Austria, but Russia as well shows the amount of respect/fear other rulers had for him. Lastly, I would venture to say this, although I have no definitive proof. I would say that Napoleon helped spring nationalism onto a large scale. For the first time, actual nations were being born, as opposed to just rulers/nobles who enfored their power through sheer military might, and instead ruled through common support by the people. And not just of the French, but of other peoples who opposed and hated him. Lastly, he helped to sever the final ties of the Holy Roman Empire, which would open the way to a unification of a German state, rather than a HRE confederacy. A

Did Napoleon bring new ideas and innovation with him? Yes. He rallied so many French men into his cause that he brought about a new age of larger armies, which was fueled in part by the rise in nationalism, which I talked about earlier. He brought about tactical innovation, both on battlefield, and on the grand campaign scale, with the way he divided his opponents at times by managing to take the middle between allies and destroying them on at a time. He brought total government reform, bringing France out of the utter chaos of the revolution. He took a riotous state and formed a nation out of it, with uniform laws and measurements. Grade: A-.

And as for the third. Did Napoleon have a strong staff? Yes, from what I've gathered. However, I'll fully admit that I'm not as scholared on this issue. I'm afraid the United States school system doesn't do justice to history in general, and I have never gotte around to some of the finer details of the 17th and 18th centuries. However, one can point out that it is impossible for Napoleon to have won all the battles in his campaigns himself. But if someone could perhaps provide me with a 'list' of sorts detailing some of his commanders? Or perhaps links or even general summation? Grade: Incomplete.

So, was Napoleon great? For me, he was at least very, very close, and that is mostly because I am currently giving him an incomplete grade for the final category. If I was to take an educated guess at the last category, I would guess at a B+, which would put Napoleon at about an A- average, very good, in my opinion.

Incongruous

12-04-2007, 04:01

It always amuses me when those whom obviously loathe Napoleone's self spun mythos write a book and are torn apart for it.
Napoleone's legal system was put in place to symply create a service of yes-men. His one outstanding large scale battle was Austerlitz, a masterpiece of planning and manouvre. Otherwise he seemed to stoop to a simple slogging match of attrition, Borodino being a good example. He was in no way a revolutionary or humanitarian or indeed a good statesman. His nation was constantly at war and eventually they had enough of him. Tyrant is perhaps a good title for him.

Has anyone ever wondered aswell why he divulged himself of the Spanish campaign? Because he knew he could not win it perhaps? It would have been his utter and complete deafeat much like Russia was but more brutal.

But he was a master planner and rouser of men, a natural leader. His defence of France and his Italian campaign were feats of awsome ability, but they are only two small campaigns. In Egypt he betrayed his men in order to save himself from defeat and make himself more powerful in France.
An man with an impressive ego indeed.

He may not even have been the greatest commander of the period, but he was the best leader maybe.

So I feel that h was in no way a man above the rest, yet his own self-imaging and history have made him so.

He was still I think a great general of the first order but no more.

Just my two.

The General

12-09-2007, 16:43

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but:

Hitler was considered a liberator in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland for driving out the Soviet oppressors.
Hitler liberated Finland from nothing or no one, and has never been considered a "liberator".

Rodion Romanovich

12-10-2007, 13:05

Hitler liberated Finland from nothing or no one, and has never been considered a "liberator".

Apparently these people from Riga in 1941 disagree: http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1941/jul41/f01jul41.htm
The Wehrmacht was indeed considered a liberator by the local population at the time of their march into the East Baltic countries. Finland allied with Germany from 1941 to 1944.

Being considered a liberator by one group doesn't prevent you from being a massmurderer towards another group, as this example illustrates.

The General

12-10-2007, 17:26

Apparently these people from Riga in 1941 disagree: http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1941/jul41/f01jul41.htm
The Wehrmacht was indeed considered a liberator by the local population at the time of their march into the East Baltic countries. Finland allied with Germany from 1941 to 1944.

Being considered a liberator by one group doesn't prevent you from being a massmurderer towards another group, as this example illustrates.
I was specifically referring to Finns, who never considered Hitler a liberator, because the Soviet Union never succesfully occupied Finland.

The "alliance" between Finland and Germany during WWII only made sense, since they both were in war against the Soviet Union (in Finland a term translated perhaps as "comrades in arms" is used, rather than "allies"), Germany being an aggressor, whereas the Soviet Union forced Finland into war by bombing Finnish cities before war was declared by either side, and considering Finns' bitterness because of the terms of peace the Soviets demanded after the Winter War, it's not very surprising that the Finns didn't want to settle the issue (had that even been possible).

And, even if having the seemingly invincible Germany alongside you in war was welcomed in Finland (being left alone for Winter War wasn't exactly anything to cheer about), Hitler wasn't very liked person exactly. When he came on the surprise visit for Mannerheim's birthday, Mannerheim was, if anything, annoyed, as he didn't like him in person.

But yes, I do get your point, but merely wished to correct the factual error.

Rodion Romanovich

12-11-2007, 21:40

Not as much a factual error, as an accidental careless phrasing with too crude generalizations. Thanks for pointing it out, I agree that your phrasing is preferable.

Paradox

12-20-2007, 13:36

The General

12-20-2007, 20:55

Napoleon started alright, but he definately declined over the years. Yelling and accusing Talleyrand, one of his best courtiers, spying and distrusting Fouche, leader of the Police department of France at the time.
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Dictators tend to be[come] quite paranoid.

A man with all the power has everything to lose.

Paradox

12-22-2007, 00:46

Even so, he should not have expressed his anger in front of the court officials, he shouted out insults and personal attacks at Talleyrand, this made Napoleon look like a fool. He can be paranoid, but Napoleon lost his self-control, this was the mistake that marked his downfall.

paul_kiss

12-22-2007, 21:59

No, I certainly don't think Napoleon has to be considered as one of the greatest (like Alexander The Great, e.g.). Just a prominent figure of the past. Besides his defeat in his Eastern campaign sets the things clear, I think.

Prussian Abroad

12-24-2007, 15:03

Alexander was born into greatness, Napoleon had to work his way through the ranks, something incredibly hard being a Corsican in Revolutionary France. His political campaigns between 1796 and 1805 were as impressive as the military campaigns in the same period. I think a lot of people here are just criticising his ego and battlefield nouse, but he was really a master of manouervres and innovation as proved in the Italian campaign, The Invasion of Russia, the founding of the laws that are still used in France today, the setting up of Corps which were to be used even in World War 2.
On the battlefield Napoleon was not the equal of a Marlborough or Frederick the Great, at least for the most part, he was in essence an artillery commander leading an army which is how the huge bloodbathes of Borodino, Eylau and Wagram came about.
If you're going to criticise Napoleon's generalship, fine, but you can't say the man wasn't great.

The General

12-27-2007, 11:21

No, I certainly don't think Napoleon has to be considered as one of the greatest (like Alexander The Great, e.g.). Just a prominent figure of the past.
A simplified view of the Europe at 1811:
https://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2590/europemapnapoleon1811bs7.png
(it's the map in Wikipedia, but I coloured Denmark, Russia, Prussia and Austria to give a better idea, imho)

Almost all of continental Europe is under Napoleon's hold (either directly, or forced into an alliance), only Spain is something of a question mark because of the mess that it is (I left it uncoloured to represent the war that was going on there). Considering the trouble it took him to achieve that, the series of campaigns and battles, I say, without a hint of fanboy-ism, Napoleon was one of the greatest military leaders/rulers, in my opinion.

Sure, he had his faults, sure, he had people helping him, but if you compare him to Alexander the Great, for example, times had changed, and one man could no longer rule vast amounts of lands, especially with the emerging nationalism. No man is without his faults, miscalculations and personality traits, but that's part of being human, and for one man, Napoleon did do a pretty good job, whether you liked him or not.

Of course, Napoleon has had his abilities exaggerated, partially due to himself, but if you look at his achievements, there's no doubt that he was one of the most prominent leaders of history.

Imho, at the very darn least.

Paradox

12-27-2007, 13:54

A lot of sources state that his many talented courtiers did most of the work. Also, he didn't know when to stop, he kept going right until his court officials betrayed and overthrew him. This is where you can compare him to Alexander, they both didn't know when to stop and consolidate their empire.

IrishArmenian

12-27-2007, 19:24

Well you can't really say he was lucky.
He had to be good at something.

Paradox

12-27-2007, 20:28

Of course, he was a good leader and, one of the major reasons why he's still considered one of the greatest generals in history, he stood out from the rest.

paul_kiss

12-31-2007, 17:16

Kraxis

01-03-2008, 06:29

If Napoleon defeated Russian Empire and made it a part of his vast French Empire, I'd consider him one of the greatest men in the history. But as we all know, he lost most of his army in the Eastern campaign...
Napoleon never intended to conquer Russia with that campaign. It was intended to crush Russia's idea of being able to withstand him and to punish her for doing 'under-the-table' trading with Britain. Napoleon expected to crush the Russian army in a few battles across the border. However he had overdone himself, and had pulled together too many troops, so the Russian generals didn't dare to meet him in battle.

They didn't pull back out of any brilliant stategic insight, but rather because of fear of annihilation. Borodino was as much a result of political pressure as it was of a will to fight on part of the generals. And remember, there was no great offensive after the complete collapse of the French army because the Russian army was in just as bad a situation. It contended itself to harrying the lines of bedraggled French troops (and camp followers).

Had Blücher been a Russian in 1812 I have a nagging feeling the entire campaign had been a few weeks old when Alexander would have come running for peace. But he didn't have the kind of aggressive and brave general he so desperately wanted...

CrazyGuy

01-15-2008, 18:33

I'm no great expert on Napoleonic times, but it does seem that Napolean was 'in the right place at the right time.'

From what I can gather, his tactics were 'form a large column that looks so intimidating that the enemy infantry would run away'. When he was fighting half-trained conscripts or people who 'had somewhere better to be' he could win. But, when he came across a competently-led army with nowhere to run to (i'm thinking the redcoats here) his columns were generally destroyed before they reached the battle line.

Remember Wellington's comment; 'they came on the same old way, and we beat them the same old way'. Not learning from your mistakes, nto really a sign of greatness.

Conradus

01-15-2008, 19:53

Euhm, Napoleon's earliest and some of his most impressive victories were when he was leading a bunch of raw, demoralized recruits against an outfitted, well-led army (his Italian campaign)

CrazyGuy

01-15-2008, 21:38

If that is true I stand corrected. What little knowledge I possess of the Napoleonic wars is of the penninsular campaign where that would be more the case. I feel that my underlying point is valid; he fought his battles one way, there seems little variation that would mark a great commander.

Conradus

01-15-2008, 22:11

And wasn't the peninsular campaign fought mainly by Napoleon's generals? It weren't pitched battles either, more a long fought guerrilla campaign.

Paradox

01-16-2008, 08:30

A guerrilla campaign with no casualties if you mean the battle where general Carl (something something) led the Austrians. Napoleon split his forces and isolated Carl north of the peninsula and cut off the Russians while, at the same time, cutting off the Austrians' retreat to the peninsula. He took about (I *think*) 60,000 prisoners in a campaign where no blood was shed.

Hence the quote: Separate and live, unite to fight

Rodion Romanovich

01-16-2008, 10:07

Paradox

01-16-2008, 12:06

There were no Russians in the peninsular war. Which campaign are you referring to?
The one where the Austrians formed an alliance with the Russians, but the Russians never really participated.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

01-21-2008, 05:26

Napoleon's columns were designed to hold young, unblooded and unskilled troops to begin with. In a column only the men on the front or on the sides can see anything. The men in the middle therefore are less likely to panic and will keep marching forcing the ones on the front to keep marching. When the column wins the men get more confident.

This is also the columns greatest weakness however. Obstacles aren't seen, ie trenches, leading to injuries. More importantly only the front two or three ranks can fire back. This is how a small professional army (ie. the British army, at the time the quickest in the world firing more than three rounds a minute regularly) could easily defeat the much larger armies of France.

That said Napoleon only faced the British personally once the rest of the time it was his marshalls (Jourdan, Soult, Massena etc.) who had to deal with this problem. Napoleon was a brilliant tactician and it is my belief that, given time and forced to fight the British, he could have done much better than any of his Marshalls managed.

rajpoot

01-21-2008, 12:42

http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/slides1/horse.jpg

Napoleon crossing the Alps. This painting of the emperor, done by David, is a unmatched beauty, however, it is what turns the man into superman, Napoleon is shown sitting on a rearing horse, his clothes and hair flying in the wind, his finger points to the sky, he himself looks as if he is reaching for the sky, standing at the edge of a cliff.........

When a layman thinks of Napoleon, this is the first image that comes to his mind, one who has read little of but his victories, and seen little but this painting, will of course think of him as a hero........now wonder his reputation is so extraordinary.....

A cunning tactitian and a great general he was, the greatest of them all of his own times, but as great as he is often portrayed today, he wasn't.

Incongruous

01-22-2008, 07:12

Napoloene 's only great shows of manouvre were really, his Italian campaign and his defence of France when he was leading small armies, Marengo was not a great or decisive victory either, the Austrians were able to remove themselves and join with the rest of their forces.

Austerlitz however was great, but that was it. Austerlitz. One Battle, at Borodino his lazy tactics summed up to nothing more than march foreward and shoot.

The Spanish ulcer was always going to be his biggest mistake, an act of idiocy rarely seen in history. It was a certain defeat front and Napoleone knew this, thus left it to his generals. It was thus due to both the viscious skirmishing with the Spaniards and through the genius of Wellesley's planning and execution of his battles.

He was also a very bad plotitician and diplomat, constantly bullying the nations of Europe, very foolish.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

01-22-2008, 07:29

The Spanish ulcer was always going to be his biggest mistake, an act of idiocy rarely seen in history. It was a certain defeat front and Napoleone knew this, thus left it to his generals. It was thus due to both the viscious skirmishing with the Spaniards and through the genius of Wellesley's planning and execution of his battles.

That could explain it!:beam: With the Spanish guerrillas, the (admittedly small) British army, and a British-trained Portugese army, all working together under a system, the Peninsular war would have been much harder to win than the war in Eastern Europe. No wonder he left it to his marshalls!

Meneldil

01-22-2008, 21:18

Napoleon crossing the Alps.

Actually, he crossed the Alps riding a pony. Not only he was a great politician and general, but also a master of propaganda, thanks to awesome artists such as David.

Paradox

01-23-2008, 16:59

Actually, he crossed the Alps riding a pony. Not only he was a great politician and general, but also a master of propaganda, thanks to awesome artists such as David.
In other words, he created compelling spectacles of himself, this is how he stands out.

Peasant Phill

01-24-2008, 10:55

This was not new. Many before and after Napoleon used a leadership cultus as a tool. This doesn't discredit him more than the fact that he used the military for his conquests.

The Wizard

01-24-2008, 13:16

In other words, he created compelling spectacles of himself, this is how he stands out.Welcome to Caesar's life. :tongue2:

Paradox

01-24-2008, 21:12

This was not new. Many before and after Napoleon used a leadership cultus as a tool. This doesn't discredit him more than the fact that he used the military for his conquests.
How does that contradict what I said?

Paradox

01-24-2008, 21:14

Welcome to Caesar's life. :tongue2:
Ahh, yeah, the picture of the guy holding a sphere and running over everyone with his horse.

Peasant Phill

01-25-2008, 09:42

How does that contradict what I said?

In other words, he created compelling spectacles of himself, this is how he stands out.

At least to me, that sentence gave the impression that Napoleon only excelled at making a personal cultus; that he's remembered only or at least mostly because of the propaganda.

I tried to point out that his use of propaganda was not unheard of before or after Napoleon. Propaganda should be seen as a tool in a leaders toolbox and using this tool masterfully should also credit the leader. We credit leaders for being able to muster a large fighting force, well propaganda is amongst others a means to this.