@Imperious:
Because the civilized world hated both of these fellows. All of Europe in fact declared war on “napoleon” before the 100 days campaign.
They both tried to make a continental europe and replace the plutocratic clique with a new order dominated by their own country.
And most of the same nations were involved. Historians also point out this connection and some make the claim that all the wars from 1798-1945 are really one larger war with periods of rest ( actually a new build up) in-between.
Well there were name changes and political issues.
Prussia became Germany
Russia became the Soviet Union
Denmark-Norway split up
Austria became Austria Hungary, then Serbia pushed in and became Yugoslavia, and Austria and Hungary were two smaller countries
Italy expanded and got rid of countries like the Naples
There might be a few more.
I read something from phrophet Nostradamus, that there should be 3 anti-Christ’s coming to earth.
Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin all have one thing common, they were all born in another country.
Napoleon was born in Corsica, south of France.
Hitler was born in Austria, south of Germany.
Stalin was born in Georgia, south of Russia.
All of them survived plenty of battles and assasination-attempts, and died in mysterious ways, propably by poison.
They were not humans.
They have nothing in common other than they were both stupid to attack Russia
Hitler probably enjoyed being compared to Napoleon….no reason to hold that against Napoleon…
Both men were short, both men conquered Europe, both men engaged in prolonged war with United Kingdom, and for both men, their greatest error was trying to conquer Russia.
I read something from phrophet Nostradamus, that there should be 3 anti-Christ’s coming to earth.
Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin all have one thing common, they were all born in another country.
Napoleon was born in Corsica, south of France.
Hitler was born in Austria, south of Germany.
Stalin was born in Georgia, south of Russia.
All of them survived plenty of battles and assasination-attempts, and died in mysterious ways, propably by poison.
They were not humans.
Wasn’t Georgia part of the Soviet Union?
Yes, Georgia was part of Sovjet Union, like Corsica was part of the Franch empire and Austria was part of Greater Germany’s the Third Reich.
Also Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin was basically atheists, but created their own religions in order to gain better control of their populations.
All three was great conquerers, and also great architects, and they
Hitler probably enjoyed being compared to Napoleon….no reason to hold that against Napoleon…
Both men were short, both men conquered Europe, both men engaged in prolonged war with United Kingdom, and for both men, their greatest error was trying to conquer Russia.
Hitler was 5’9. Napoleon was 5’6. =|
Also, it is very hard to provide any evidence that Hitler was not responsible for WWII, but it can be debated that Napoleon never started any war, even the invasion of Russia. I could debate it here, but that’s not the point; the point is people can argue that Britain started the Napoleonic Wars just as easily as saying Napoleon did (and, to be honest, the evidence is against Britain).
To those who might want to see the other side of the coin of Napoleon, instead of being spoonfed that he “loved war” and was a bloodthirsty tyrant, I invite you to read several books, both by a man named Ben Weider who was legendary in his knowledge of Napoleon. He was also one of the strong advocates that Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning (which is true).
-Napoleon: the Man Who Shaped Europe
-Wars Against Napoleon: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars
And also this: CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON
All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.
@UN:
Hitler probably enjoyed being compared to Napoleon….no reason to hold that against Napoleon…
Both men were short, both men conquered Europe, both men engaged in prolonged war with United Kingdom, and for both men, their greatest error was trying to conquer Russia.
Hitler was 5’9. Napoleon was 5’6. =|
Also, it is very hard to provide any evidence that Hitler was not responsible for WWII, but it can be debated that Napoleon never started any war, even the invasion of Russia. I could debate it here, but that’s not the point; the point is people can argue that Britain started the Napoleonic Wars just as easily as saying Napoleon did (and, to be honest, the evidence is against Britain).
Well, I guess you can argue that Russia started that war since they pulled out from the continental system.
And you can argue that Hitler wasn’t responsible for WW2: someone on here said that Hitler only invaded Poland; the Brits and French made it a world war by declaring war
@UN:
All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.
i dont think biased info+biased info = actual info.
Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.
I mean I think we can leave it at: 1.Napoleon didnt murder millions of people 2. Napoleon’s ideals were at the very least no more absurd than those of his enemies.
Otherwise, like Julius Ceaser and many more before them they were both great conquerors though their ambition and confidence got the better of them.
@UN:
All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.
i dont think biased info+biased info = actual info.
Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.
I mean I think we can leave it at: 1.Napoleon didnt murder millions of people 2. Napoleon’s ideals were at the very least no more absurd than those of his enemies.
Otherwise, like Julius Ceaser and many more before them they were both great conquerors though their ambition and confidence got the better of them.
How is the Napoleonic Code (which had equality of all in the eyes of the law, no recognition of privileges of birth [i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors], freedom of religion, separation of the church and the state, the freedom to work in an occupation of one’s choice, and other basic legal rights) as absurd as the traditionalist, absolute monarchy ideals that most of Europe still went by at that time?
Well, I guess you can argue that Russia started that war since they pulled out from the continental system.
It’s a little more complicated than Russia simply pulling from the continental system. I could PM you a little more detailed reason if you’d like.
Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.
He was a major reason why it began however. Nazi aggression into Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland might have been influenced from the harsh Treaty of Versailles, but it is not the same as Napoleon fighting a series of defensive coalitions instigated by Britain.
Umm, the Napoleonic Code didn’t have equality for women. Yes, it was better that other European countries’ though.
Yes, I’d like the PM.
So you agree that the coalitions were DEFENSIVE. What’s wrong with that? Do you prefer them to let their countries get invaded.
Umm, the Napoleonic Code didn’t have equality for women. Yes, it was better that other European countries’ though.
Unfortunately it did not. But Napoleon opened schools for education for girls, whereas in that time they’re usually homeschooled and taught by their mother.
So you agree that the coalitions were DEFENSIVE. What’s wrong with that? Do you prefer them to let their countries get invaded.
What’s wrong with it is that people assume that every war Napoleon fought was sheerly because out of a maniacal lust to conquer and plunder. Napoleon, after the Treaty of Amiens with Britain, never had any intentions of invading any more countries: he was far too pressed to rebuilding France from more than a decade of war, internal strife, and violent Revolution. The British government, unfortunately, had other plans.
Both sided violated that treaty, which led to war(sort of like the Treaty of Versailles)
Here is what wikipedia says: However, many problems persisted between the two sides, making implementation of the treaty increasingly difficult. The British government resented having to turn over all colonial conquests since 1793. Napoleon was angry that British troops had not evacuated the island of Malta. The tense situation only worsened when Napoleon sent an expeditionary force to crush the Haitian Revolution. In May 1803, Britain declared war on France.
Both sided violated that treaty, which led to war(sort of like the Treaty of Versailles)
Here is what wikipedia says: However, many problems persisted between the two sides, making implementation of the treaty increasingly difficult. The British government resented having to turn over all colonial conquests since 1793. Napoleon was angry that British troops had not evacuated the island of Malta. The tense situation only worsened when Napoleon sent an expeditionary force to crush the Haitian Revolution. In May 1803, Britain declared war on France.
Napoleon did not violate the Treaty of Amiens in any way. Him sending troops to Haiti had nothing to do with the Treaty. One of the major clauses of the treaty was for Britain to evacuate Malta, while French troops were to be evacuated from Naples, Taranto and the Roman states within three months; they left in under two. Months passed and Britain still had not evacuated Malta.
So excuse after excuse was thrown out by Britain for their justification of violating the Treaty:
-Bonaparte sending troops to Haiti (which I explained above)
-France annexing Piedmont (Piedmont was willingly annexed; Bonaparte invited its king to return to the throne but he declined; fearing a power vacumn being filled by Austria, Napoleon simply annexed it, which satisfied the Piedmontese)
-France having troops in Holland (that was under a separate treaty, the Treaty of Luneville, not Amiens; plus Napoleon had promised to evacuate but as Britain prepared for war he kept them there)
-France having troops in Switzerland (again, not part of the Treaty of Amiens: and how did French troops in Switzerland directly threaten an invasion of Britain?)
Take everything you see on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Everything I posted above is sourced from books and the online chronological table by Ben Weider.
Hmm, apparently I misunderstood the situation. Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty, for good reasons. You may argue that the harsh treaty of Versailles didn’t justify the German annexation of Czechoslovakia. I agree that Britain and France should’ve gone to war then. Just like the people of Austria wanted to become German, the people of Malta wanted to stay British.
You take Wiki with a grain of salt? Take your own book with the White Cliffs of Dover.
Hmm, apparently I misunderstood the situation. Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty, for good reasons. You may argue that the harsh treaty of Versailles didn’t justify the German annexation of Czechoslovakia. I agree that Britain and France should’ve gone to war then. Just like the people of Austria wanted to become German, the people of Malta wanted to stay British.
You take Wiki with a grain of salt? Take your own book with the White Cliffs of Dover.
I do not, because Ben Weider cannot be edited at will, nor does Vincent Cronin or R.F. Delderfield. Unlike Wikipedia their books are far more well sourced and from people that are experts in the field. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a Napoleonic expert.
Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty**, for good reasons.**
:?
UN, do you agree or disagree that:
1. He wanted to reinstate slavery in Haiti
2. He plundered conquered nations
Similarities between Hitler and Napoleon:
1. They wanted to reinstate slavery
2. They plundered conquered nations
3. They startet wars against England and Russia
4. They were atheists and anti-Christs
5. They were killed by poison, Napoleon by arsenic and Hitler by cyanid.
6. They were born in other countries than they would become rulers. Napoleon in Corsica/France, Hitler in Austria/Germany.
6. They were both evil and murdered millions.
7. They had funny hats
8. They were racists
9. They ruined the old order and shaped Europa
10. They were great architects and build lots of monuments.
11. They were both 5’something tall
12. They were born on mondays, and died on wednesdays
Hitler being an atheist is debatable. I also thought there was only one anti-christ, and that it was Obama.
