@Imperious:
They both were despots who usurped power by various means and were involved in many wars in the name of their own causes. In both men Europe considered them tyrants and tried to rid them both.
Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.
At the end of the day both Hitler and Napoleon went up against the juggernauts of their era’s and lost. History is written by the victors and considering both Napoleon and Hitler were ultimately unsuccessful in their plans for conquest they will forever be grouped together with those who almost had it all but not quite.
How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?
How differently again would we view Hitler if they had of won the Battle of Britain and Operation Barbarossa had been successful, anything about all the things the Nazi’s did would of been airbrushed away and the pages of history would read very differently, the Nazi’s would write how much they helped the conquered people and how they liberated them from corrupt governments and oppression.
What i’ve learnt over the past few years of reading a lot about history is the truth is largely irrelevant, we dont know the truth of what came before us only what people brand as the truth. So even first hand information has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Even in relatively modern history we gloss over the crimes of the allies regardless of how necessary or un-necessary they actually were. We forget about the firebombing of Japanses cities than killed several times more people than both atomic bombs put together, the bombing of Dresden that was only done for the sake of nothing but revenge. Those can both be constrewed as both necessary or un-necessary in hindsight but those on the front lines didnt have luxury of knowing how their actions would turn out. But the fact that we gloss over them in history classes is a travesty, people need to know the cost in both victory and defeat and that while war is ultimately necessary their is always a high price to be paid whether its the lives of the brave men and women who fight the wars or the souls of those very same soldiers.
I leave you with a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.”
Things not yet mentioned:
They both killed and executed resistors.
They both stole works of art; Napolean had those Etruscan statues from Florence and Goering did his bit for Hitler.
and Goering did his bit for Hitler.
You mean Goering did his bit for Goering. :-D
One of the…… well I guess you could say good things, caused by Napoleons wars was the destruction of the inquisition in Spain and other Catholic countries. The weaking of papal influnce did more for Europe and future develpoment of European society then anything else.
Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.
Are you kidding me? If Napoleon didn’t get the love of the people he conqured why is he still admired by many Italians, Poles, Germans? The Polish especially, as Napoleon liberated them from the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian junkers.
His might have fell but the Empire still survives in codes of law and national identity. I don’t need to repeat how widespread the Napoleonic Code is. His military tactics are studied around the world over. I wouldn’t say he failed spectacularly.
How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?
A better question would be to ask, how differently would we view Napoleon if the British and their warmongering European allies didn’t constantly force him to wage defensive wars?
Napoleon proved more a benign dictator like Ceasar, **merely interesed in fame and glory in conqueirng others. ** Where are Napoleon’s chopping blocks? Where are Napoleon’s camps? Where are Napoleon’s thoughts and actions on government? Dictator, yes. Fascist, no.
facepalm
Is that what you call it? That’s all he went for, huh? Just power and glory and fame, nothing else? Sigh…
@Raunchy:
Things not yet mentioned:
They both killed and executed resistors.
They both stole works of art; Napolean had those Etruscan statues from Florence and Goering did his bit for Hitler.
Except Napoleon was perfectly entitled to execute the Duke of Enghien, who was forming a insurrection against France to overthrow the Republic and re-install the monarchy.
And again, Napoleon “stole” works of art on explicit orders from his government when he was still General Bonaparte; and even while he did he made sure to minimize it to just what was requested. He despised looting and prevented every sign of it.
@Imperious:
They both were despots who usurped power by various means and were involved in many wars in the name of their own causes. In both men Europe considered them tyrants and tried to rid them both.
Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe. When he was crowned Emperor it was by approval of the people and the Senate, not by divine right (which is why he had it to where he crowned himself, with the Pope presiding, so it did not seem like he was being crowned by divine right).
@UN:
Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.
Are you kidding me? If Napoleon didn’t get the love of the people he conqured why is he still admired by many Italians, Poles, Germans? The Polish especially, as Napoleon liberated them from the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian junkers.
His might have fell but the Empire still survives in codes of law and national identity. I don’t need to repeat how widespread the Napoleonic Code is. His military tactics are studied around the world over. I wouldn’t say he failed spectacularly.
How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?
A better question would be to ask, how differently would we view Napoleon if the British and their warmongering European allies didn’t constantly force him to wage defensive wars?
He is admired today after the fact, at the time he was one of the most hated men in Europe, only after nationalism took hold in the late 19th and early 20th century was he viewed as more than just a tyrant. He was trying to build an empire, had he of been successful its possible he could of become either the most hated man in all of history if he was a bad leader or one of the most admired if he treated all the people under his dominion fairly.
Nationalism was a means to an end, it helped him gain allies in order to overthrow governments but in the end it back fired because if they dont want to be part of someone elses empire why would they want to be part of yours.
He may have a legacy of being a brilliant tactician, but at the end of the day like Hannibal of Carthage he was a failed tactician he won many battles but ultimately lost the war for this reason he will be forgotten long before the names and triumphs of the empires of his enemies. For this reason in a few centuries when Napoleon’s legacy has faded away people will not remember the name Napoleon but they will still know the name Caesar.
What I meant when I said he failed spectacularly was that he failed on a grand scale, it all came down to one decisive battle that could of decided the fate of the entire world and he lost.
During individual battles and even overall campaigns Napoleon was shown to be a brilliant leader and commander but he let ambition get in the way of logistics for instance a winter war against the Russians was never going to be won.
As far as the British making him fight defensive wars I dont really think that is the case, Napoleon was stirring up trouble all over Britains empire, in India, Canada and the former colony of the United States. Napoleon made the mistake of thinking he could defeat the British in a global war and win the war against the kingdoms of Europe much like Hitler he made the mistake of fighting the war on too many fronts with limited resources.
Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe.
How did that concept work out in 1815 when he took power back in france?
How bout his heirs who he planted like flowers with nothing but the same name… Napoleon… to legitimize their control of their offices?
@Imperious:
Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe.
How did that concept work out in 1815 when he took power back in france?
How bout his heirs who he planted like flowers with nothing but the same name… Napoleon… to legitimize their control of their offices?
When Napoleon came back into power in 1815, he was welcomed with open arms by both the army and populace. It was very clear that the French people perfered their Emperor over the pitiful Bourbons whom the Allies had plopped back on the throne after Napoleon’s fall in 1814. Napoleon told the other countries that he had no intentions of re-gaining territories and would agree to any proposal on borders, even to that of 1789.
How did the Coalition respond? They mobilized 800,000 men for a hate-filled anti-French crusade to remove the “outlaw” and force the French people to accept a government they clearly did not want. Even in the British government there was much resentment for how this new “Seventh Coalition” was acting against France. It was unprovoked, and Napoleon was forced to go to war for the last time.
Wait, what? Where you are getting he put his “heirs” anywhere? The only “heir” he had was Napoleon II, King of Rome, who was born in 1810, far too young to rule anything of any sort! If you mean his family members, why not? The new nobility Napoleon made was made out of a imperial nobility based on merit, not on royal birth or “divine right”. Monarchs and kings ruled because they were good at it, not because God told them to. Napoleon would not tolerate inefficiency and corruption within his nation, later Empire. Even with the Continental Blockade going on trade improved in the Continent, roads were paved, and while many resented French rule, the majority did not.
Take Joseph Bonaparte for example, who was King of Naples for a while. He introduced the Napoleonic Code (legal rights, freedom of practice of religion, etc.) improved the infrastructure, opened up schools, and was largely admired by the Napalese people. Even when Napoleon made him King of Spain he gave the country its first constitution and did the same thing he did in Naples. The problem was, the Spanish people would not accept a French ruler.
And he did not just plop them on random thrones: they were always put there at the consent of the governed peoples in question. And not all of the leaders he put were from his family.
When Napoleon came back into power in 1815, he was welcomed with open arms by both the army and populace.
Even when Napoleon made him King of Spain
Exactly. Napoleon the despot was the determining factor. The Spanish people didn’t accept a French ruler but really had little choice.
Napoleon also took advantage of The french economic position which was just as poor as it was before the revolution to take power, not unlike Hitler except Hitler was elected and appointed to his first position.
Latter he maintained his hold upon the people with military victories. That is what Hitler did. He made a few victories to keep the people thinking that war could solve the national problems and victory carried his power further.
When Napoleon lost his Grande Army his support began to falter, just as the Opposition to Hitler mounted after Stalingrad.
And by his Heirs that continues far beyond the demise of Napoleon. Napoleon III was also a dictator who used his name to usurp power borrowed from the exploits of Napoleon I. He go the support of the people and threw out the opposition, like Hitler. He also took over Mexico. I don’t remember the Mexicans holding an election for a French ruler?
@Imperious:
Exactly. Napoleon the despot was the determining factor. The Spanish people didn’t accept a French ruler but really had little choice.
You misunderstand why the Peninsular War happened. Even that was not an aggressive move on Napoleon’s part. One has to be cautious when making simplistic judgments of saying he invaded because he wanted to close down Europe to the Continental System.
It started with an appeal for Napoleon’s arbitration by King Charles IV, a degenerate Bourbon dominated by his wife and her lover, Godoy, who was Prime Minister. There was the influence of Talleyrand, Napoleon’s ex-foreign minister, who favored the expulsion of the Bourbons from all thrones and the accession of a prince from the Bonaparte family to the Spanish throne. There was also the irritation of a sovereign (guess who, Napoleon) who was engaged in a struggle to the death for his security and who realized that there was a door on the Iberian Peninsula still open to trade with the British. The only real mistake Napoleon made was misjudging the Spanish people, so proud, so noble, so independent, prepared to make any sacrifice and to rise up as one against any foreign interference. Events moved so quickly that once hostilities had begun it was impossible to change policy.
Madrid revolted (against the government, not against the French, whom they were not yet hostile against), and the people, drunk with fury, seized Godoy, threatening to kill him. Charles IV abdicated in favor of his son, and then retracted his abdication. Napoleon then had to decide between the king and the son as they exchanged insults in front of him at Bayonne. Charles IV named Murat, one of Napoleon’s Marshals, lieutenant general of the kingdom but, learning of a new uprising in Madrid (which Murat brutally took down, a brutality that Napoleon very much disapproved of), abdicated definitely in favor of “the great Napoleon” after a nasty scene with his wife and his son, and received in exchange a civil list and residence in France. Joseph Bonaparte was named king of Spain, but receiving a throne as a promotion and occupying the throne–-when the throne was that of Spain—were two different things!
The Peninsular War was definitely Napoleon’s biggest mistake (not his invasion of Russia), but he, as always, was not the only one responsible for it. The British were responsible for trying to return to the Continent by way of Spain; the Spanish royal family were responsible for being so inefficient and for their inability to run a country properly. Napoleon was responsible for even agreeing to mediate affairs at all.
Napoleon also took advantage of The french economic position which was just as poor as it was before the revolution to take power, not unlike Hitler except Hitler was elected and appointed to his first position.
Hmmm, so now you want to talk politics at that time too eh? Very well! :-D
Two things:
1)Napoleon did not simply take advantage of the “French economic system”. He never sought to take power in France until he was involved in a conspiracy to overthrow it and he realized that France needed a strong, central leader, not a “government of lawyers” as the Directory was called. Napoleon turned the French economy around in only a year. Even in 1814, when the Coalition was on France’s doorstep, France had little debt.
2)Napoleon was also elected and appointed to his position, but unlike Hitler he did not acquire that position via blackmail, backstabbing, and assassination. When he was First Consul Napoleon was not a dictator. Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls’ approval was required to enact a law. And what a sense of human relations the First Consul showed as he participated in the meetings of the Council, asking questions and encouraging discussion! In what democracy today do we find the head of state discussing and arguing about the country’s affairs with the citizens’ elite in this way? Where do we find that in Hitler’s tyranny?
Another political necessity was the Constitution of the Year XII, which established the French Empire with Napoleon as Emperor. This was a normal development of a strong regime; as the Emperor became more sure of himself, he showed less and less tolerance towards people who “talk but do not do anything”, and indeed became increasingly authoritarian. The legislative assembly became a mere recording chamber and the Senate was filled with people devoted to the Emperor. This was a logical consequence that the Nation, by a substantial majority, gave the only man who could save it. “The Nation threw itself at my feet when I arrived in government,” Napoleon said. “I took less authority then I was asked to take.”
But before crying dictatorship and condemning out of hand an authoritarianism that partially muzzled the democratic system of universal suffrage (which existed in no European country that that time), it’s important to go back to the role of the important Council of State, the basis of the legislative system. The council members, senior officials, and auditors made up a extraordinary body, surprising its worth and technical skill. It dealt with all bills, gave its opinions, and ruled on appeals addressed to the Emperor. Twice a week the Emperor chaired the meetings. The prescence of the man whose law ruled from the Atlantic to the plains of Poland did not inhibit those attending. On the contrary, the legislative policy of France was enacted there without the least absolutism, and in a way, it was the entire government.
Hitler only gave more and more political power to himself and to himself only. Hitler restricted basic rights and if you practiced a religion that he did not like, you were probably going to die. The Napoleonic Code encouraged the practice of religion and basic rights, which is why it’s the foundations of law for much of Western Europe.
Latter he maintained his hold upon the people with military victories. That is what Hitler did. He made a few victories to keep the people thinking that war could solve the national problems and victory carried his power further.
His position as First Consul certainly was strengthened with his reputation as a victorious general, but the stability of the government did not rest on victories alone. Otherwise, why did his government still function and why was he still popular after the first major French check at Eylau in 1807?
When Napoleon lost his Grande Army his support began to falter, just as the Opposition to Hitler mounted after Stalingrad.
This might be true. But there’s one huge difference between this. Today, Napoleon is seen as a hero and a man of the people in Western Europe. True, there might be people who also hate him for his supposed “tyranny”, but the man is as loved as he is hated. Hitler is, overwhelmingly, hated by the majority of civilization, worshiped only by fringe neo-Nazis groups. It is extremely difficult to form an objective view of Hitler: for Napoleon, as you can see above, is not.
Also, his support might have faltered, but the French people realized just how much their Emperor was a better ruler than the Bourbons who learned nothing from the Revolution.
And by his Heirs that continues far beyond the demise of Napoleon. Napoleon III was also a dictator who used his name to usurp power borrowed from the exploits of Napoleon I. He go the support of the people and threw out the opposition, like Hitler. He also took over Mexico. I don’t remember the Mexicans holding an election for a French ruler?
Napoleon III was an efficient ruler and greatly improved the prestige of France. He was not, however, like Napoleon I. He could indeed be called a dictator, unlike Napoleon I. That does not mean, however, that he was as bad as that monster Hitler.
You haven’t shown how the Brits were trying to reenter via Spain.
Also, I LOLed when you said Napoleon III increased French presitige. Franco-Prussian war anyone?
Also, I LOLed when you said Napoleon III increased French presitige. Franco-Prussian war anyone?
You seem to assume that the Franco-Prussian War happened immediately after Napoleon III took power. :roll:
You haven’t shown how the Brits were trying to reenter via Spain.
Let’s see. By 1808 Spain was on the brink of civil war, with one side (Charles IV) being nothing but a puppet for the real powers of Spain (Godoy), and with the other one who hated France, Napoleon, and the Revolution (Ferdinand). Do you really think that once Ferdinand was in power the British would not try to get Spain to join the anti-French crusade?
Let me give you an example of the British determination and will to intervene not just in Spanish affairs but in general Iberian affairs. In 1807 Napoleon was determined to close down all trade to Continental Europe from Britain. Since Portugal was still maintaining a lively trade with Britain, Napoleon quite bluntly asked them to join the Continental System or would be considered an enemy of France. Harsh, but remember his iron will to try to destroy Britain economically comes from the fact that Britain rejected multiple offers of peace and negotiation from Napoleon since 1803.
A Franco-Spanish force invaded Portugal once they refused to close down to British trade. When the French were approaching Lisbon the current Portugese regent, John VI, expressed the desire to negotiate with the French commander (Junot), and to possibly negotiate further with Napoleon on the Continental System, but the British commander of the Royal Navy, Admiral Parker, told him that if that was the case, he had orders to seize the Portugese fleet and burn and bombard Lisbon. Basically they had threatened to do the same thing to Lisbon as they did to Cophenhagen, once in 1801 and again in 1807, except on a much larger scale. Thus the Portugese fleet and treasure sailed from Lisbon under Royal Navy escort, with their destination at Brazil.
Clearly the acts of a government that was fighting the “tyranny” of Napoleon and wanting to bring “peace” to Europe: burning or threatning to burn capitals of nations that either would not abide by Britain’s policy or would be willing to abide by Napoleon’s policy. Where do you see Napoleon threatening to burn entire cities? Citing Moscow is a mistake: he never sent the order to burn it, and even if he did that would be completely unlike him: why set fire to a city that could serve as winter quarters for his army?
I don’t deny that the Peninsular War is not Napoleon’s fault. It is, but only partly.
As far as the British making him fight defensive wars I dont really think that is the case, Napoleon was stirring up trouble all over Britains empire, in India, Canada and the former colony of the United States. Napoleon made the mistake of thinking he could defeat the British in a global war and win the war against the kingdoms of Europe much like Hitler he made the mistake of fighting the war on too many fronts with limited resources.
What? Napoleon never fought Britain in Canada, India, or the United States.
Well, Napoleon threatened to invade Portugal which is arguably just as bad.
@UN:
As far as the British making him fight defensive wars I dont really think that is the case, Napoleon was stirring up trouble all over Britains empire, in India, Canada and the former colony of the United States. Napoleon made the mistake of thinking he could defeat the British in a global war and win the war against the kingdoms of Europe much like Hitler he made the mistake of fighting the war on too many fronts with limited resources.
What? Napoleon never fought Britain in Canada, India, or the United States.
Not fought, stirred up trouble. Napoleon or more correctly the French gave the Americans the idea that they could invade and annex Canada hence the war of 1812, there by diverting British resources away from campaigns in continental Europe. Also during Napoleon’s rule the French tried to insight revolution in idea with very little success as most Indians realised they would be trading one foreign master for another.
So while not taking any direct military action the French and so therefore Napoleon managed to fight a not so covert war against British dominions.
Well, Napoleon threatened to invade Portugal which is arguably just as bad.
As I said, he might have expressed his intentions somewhat bluntly and tactlessly. After all he had told the Portugese diplomat:
“I will not tolerate a single English representative in Europe. If Portugal does not do as I wish, the house of Braganza will no longer reign in Europe two months hence.”
But again, calvin, this all stems from the inability of the British government to make peace or even negotiate with Napoleonic France in any way. All offers of some sort of compromise and peace offerings were all rejected by the British. Napoleon realized that if he could not exorcise the demon of war in its own cave (i.e. invading Britain), then he should strangle it economically. I’m not saying the Continental System was good. Napoleon was quite aware of its negative effects on his allies and even closed his eyes to certain discrepancies. But if I was him, I would also certainly have a much more determined will to force England to come to terms after multiple rejections of peace, wouldn’t you think?
Not fought, stirred up trouble. Napoleon or more correctly the French gave the Americans the idea that they could invade and annex Canada hence the war of 1812, there by diverting British resources away from campaigns in continental Europe. Also during Napoleon’s rule the French tried to insight revolution in idea with very little success as most Indians realised they would be trading one foreign master for another.
So while not taking any direct military action the French and so therefore Napoleon managed to fight a not so covert war against British dominions.
I’m not really sure if the War of 1812 was really caused by Napoleon directly, or even Imperial France. The forced conscription of American sailors into the Royal Navy had a much bigger part of it, as was the British sending military support to certain Native American tribes.
I’m not saying the threat is unjustified. I’m just saying that it is about as justified as the British threat to burn Lisbon.
I’m not saying the threat is unjustified. I’m just saying that it is about as justified as the British threat to burn Lisbon.
An invasion of Portugal does not mean that the French will simply pillage and plunder and burn its way through the countryside. Napoleon despised that sort of horrifying way of waging war first off, and when he occupied Portugal he did not threaten to burn a defenseless city. The British directly threatened to burn Lisbon, which is not the same as conducting an invasion. Anything can happen in an “invasion”.
Plus, as I had stated, the Royal Navy’s record wasn’t exactly clean before that, what with bombarding Copenhagen TWICE in 1801 and 1807 and seizing the Danish fleet.
Well, Napoleon threatened to invade Portugal which is arguably just as bad.
Why didn’t he?
@Dylan:
Well, Napoleon threatened to invade Portugal which is arguably just as bad.
Why didn’t he?
France and Spain did invade Portugal, but did not burn and bombard it, as the British navy had threatened to do with Lisbon.
