The Prince of Wales

[Louis VI the Fat]

Is this what they teach you in the finest schools in France?

Before we decided we'd had enough of them, we went through a bunch of dukes, kings and emperors. Three fine Charleses come to mind: Charlemagne, Charles the Bold and Charles V.

Does the permissive Dutch 'education' system not even teach its pupils the difference between duke/king/emperor of the Netherlands, and duke/king/emperor ruling over a territory part of which would later become the Netherlands?

If Charlemagne or Charles V were king of the Netherlands, then Sharp-Clawed-Eagle-Who-Hunts-Puny-Raccoons III was president of the United Sates. And August the first president of Italy.

They were not monarchs of the Netherlands because there was no Netherlands. Only a collection of lowland German and French provinces. The Netherlands came about when the États généraux of several lowland provinces assumed sovereignity themselves. The birth of republicanism in, and the birth of the country of, the Netherlands, is a single event.

As with so many of what today are thought of as ancient, timeless monarchies, the Dutch monarchy only came about in the nineteenth century. Monarchy is an alien institution to the Netherlands. Bold Republicanism is what made the Netherlands the envy of Europe. What left Europe speechless, breathless, awestruck.

In a previous thread, I accused the Dutch of lacking a sense of history. Well here you have it. How a country that was once the proudest and mightiest Republic in Europe can let itself be turned into a petty Legoland monarchy, and take pride in that too, is beyond me.

Napoleon's brother Louis turned out to be an excellent choice, by the way. His smart and humane rule

Throughout Western Europe Napoleon installed enlightened, liberal governments. This is the beauty of it all. Despite Napoleon's ultimate military defeat, he had made the Revolution succeed in Europe. Peoples everywhere had had a taste of liberty and of modern governance, instead of old regime tyranny and particularism.

Enlightened legal systems, neutral bureaucracies, national harmonization and standardization - these were installed by Napoleon. And they were not fully removed after the restauration because of their clear effeciency and widespread popularity.
However, they are at odds with absolutism. They are the very foundation of the liberal democratic state. The Restauration failed to comprehend this. Liberty in the hearts of the people, and rationality in the body of the state, this is the Revolution's legacy.

This left the area that had been under Napoléon's control with only two options after the Restauration: go liberal after all, or learn how to use this modern state apparatus for totalitarian means and fight democracy. Ancient regimes themselves had been rendered impossible in any long run.

This is why I'd have followed Napoléon to the ends of the earth. Who cares about dying in the Russian winter when the seeds that have been sown will survive for a spring of democracy? For that I'd have followed him, and for his sheer testicular fortitude. There is only so much glory a man can be impervious to.



The two replies show the ambiguity one feels about Napoléon. To preserve the republics, he destroyed them. By destroying liberty, he enabled it.