Napoleon

 Bookmark it as you wish, that wouldn't make me less right.   And I have no real face, I'm multi faceted, a fool at time . The book in question is "La grande armee du siecle", and thoroughly talk about military organisation from revolutionary wars to waterloo.

For those who criticise Bonaparte based on "his" wars - take a look at who started them. The United Kingdom financed most of the Coalitions against France. The United Kingdom supported nations like Austria and Prussia in their attempts to restore feudal oppression to France against the will of the French people.

During the ten years from 1789 to 1799 the regime France was frequently changed - at times multiple regimes changes occurred within a period of a single month. Most of these regime changes occurred when mobs stormed the legislative chambers of the republic and the like. This stopped abruptly when Napoleon got into power. There can be two explanations for this: that the people approved of Napoleon's rule, or that Napoleon was a sufficiently brutal and oppressive autocrat to render the people incapable of rebelling.

So which is the case? The prior. If Napoleon was a brutal autocrat, then the significant drop in the number of executions (to a figure considerably lower than the state of Texas today) is somewhat odd. If Napoleon was such an autocratic and brutal tyrant, then why is the law of so many nations built upon that which was instituted by Napoleon himself? And why were so few executed under his regime? Most of those who were executed were common criminals, and those that were political were often only executed after having been not only not executed for past offences, but also having been released entirely. These people, ungrateful for the leniency displayed, returned to again attempt to commit acts of treason. If anything Napoleon was too lenient.

Of course you might point to these few treaonous attempts to overthrow Napoleon as signs he was unpopular. But most of these acts were carried out by Chouans (royalist rebels, financed by Britain, most of whom only wanted the monarchy restored so they could once more have their precious feudal titles) or Jacobin fanatics who would have a return to the days of the Terror when all political dissenters were beheaded. So these people were lunatic extremists on the fringes of French society, the people by and large supported their first consul and emperor.

Was Napoleon a dictator? Without a doubt. But his manner of rule can best be ascribed with the name "benevolent authoritarianism" similar to Lee Kuan Yew's rule in Singapore. Compared to the brutal "democratic" anarchy that preceded him and the oppressive feudal rule before that, Napoleon was brilliant for France and her satellites.

Napoleon's contributions to state education, infrastructure, science, culture and a host of other fields also greatly enhanced France and Europe. Napoleon was, if anything, a greater statesman than he was a general, not withstanding his phenomenal military achievements that put him close to the greatest commander of men the world has ever witnessed. Whether he was the greatest is another matter.

Napoleon had some faults, but these were almost necessary for his success. Without his enormous, and at times ever so slightly ruthless, ambition he never could have attained anything like the successes he did gain. My only major qualm with him is that he didn't do more to get the Continental powers on side for a war against Britain. Had he utilised Talleyrand's skills better he may have got Russia and Austria on side and the combined French, Spanish, Dutch and Russian navies (possibly also the Danish) would have overpowered the British and allowed that warmongering nation to be destroyed. Permanently.

Even where he was the aggressor he did so out of necessity, indeed I'll say he did everything out of necessity (hence his quote, "Cruelty can only be justified by necessity." Presumably war classifies as "cruelty". In Iberia he had no option, but war in order to continue his economic battle with Britain, which was essential in defeating the cause of most of Europe's woes. And if you want to criticise him for starting wars for economic reasons then you must also critiicise Britain which went to war with the US for the exact same reasons Napoleon went to war with Spain - to defeat its major enemy by enforcing trade restrictions.

Such is the tale of the argument against Napoleon - almost all the criticisms that are levelled against him could be levelled against Britain, but to a much greater extent.

As for Russia, Napoleon's invasion was pre-emptive. It is a well-known fact that Tsar Alexander was mobilising several hundred thousand men on the Russo-Polish frontier. Was Napoleon simply to wait for his enemies to strike and gain the advantage of moving first, as he had done in all previous cases? No. He had to strike first and punish Russia for its treachery and for being Britain's whore.

Napoleon, despite a few faults, was the incarnation of Plato's "philosopher-king", an enlightened and benevolent dictator who worked for the betterment of his people, his nation and the greater European community. He always said he was working towards a united European state. Britain knew that its hegemony would be at an end with Europe united and stopped squabbling. Thus it couldn't allow this. Thus it paid for European men to shed blood in defence of Britain's merchants.

Finally, some quotes:

"Such work as mine is not done twice in a century. I saved the Revolution as it lay dying, I have cleansed it of its crimes and have held it up to the people shining with fame. I inspired France and Europe with new ideas which will never be forgotten.� - Napoleon Bonaparte

"I have loved nothing more than Napoleon. The greatest man of the century, formidable, amiable captain, endearing, magnanimous. He is persuasive because he is sincere." - Alexander I, before his horrid sister, the Grand Duchess Catherine, along with her nationalist faction turned him against Napoleon

Some things seem to be getting confused here.

Certainly Britain and the continental allies went to war against France in 1793 in defence of the monarchical principle. But that has nothing to do with Napoleon, although it went on past his seizure of power in 1799. That war ended with the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.

'Napoleon's war' starts with the breaking of that treaty in 1803, when I believe the formal redeclaration was by Britain on the grounds that the French had failed to withdraw from some Dutch possessions in the west Indies (though Britain had also failed to withdraw from some territories like Malta).

While it is easy to see the continuing Anglo-French wars as simply further episodes in the fight between the two for global supremacy that had been going on across the world for most of the 18th century, I don't see how anyone can see the wars in continental Europe - post 1803 and indeed post Napoleon's coronation as Emperor in 1804 - as anything but aggressive on the French side.

It was Napoleon's family and friends that were placed on thrones in the conquered territories: by now there was no pretence of spreading revolution - this is simple imperial aggrandisement.

To claim that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was pre-emptive in that Russia was amassing troops for an invasion of Poland and therefore justified seems to be the heigh of doublespeak. Why should Napoleon and France have any more right to occupy Poland than Russia?

I would agree that many of Napoleon's achievements were beneficial and long-lasting (I've alread said as much in this thread). But to think of him as more sinned against than sinning is stretching things overmuch.

The Napoleonic Empire had nothing to do with the French Revolution, except that the revolution gave Napoleon the opportunity to seize it.

very well written

personally hower, I don't have such a negative view on Napoleons habit on installing a family member on foreign thrones. if you look at the coutnries in question, he basically had no other choices. in Germany the grand duchy of Berg and the Kingdom of Westphalia were newly created realms created from teritories formelry in posession of Prussia, England or related to any of those (Brunswick and Hessen-Kassel). here a Monarch was simply lacking and he installed one of his relatives because a) to give mroe weight to his own newly created dynasty and b) to have more tight control over them. In case of the other kingdoms (Spain and Naples), this ahd to do with politcs, maybe we can even speak of ideology. the ruling families of those two kingdoms were sub-branches of the French Bourbons and it was almost obligatory to get rid of them too in the name of revolution (even though unlike the French Bourbons they were not killed).

as for Napoleon makign himself emperor. if you look at it, there really was no need to do so, for Napoleon himself nothing changed much, he did not increase in power nor did he had any otherimmediate advantages from it. the reason for doing so can probably seen best in the change of foreign policy. in the early 19th century (and even up to the early 20th century) a royal marriage between two major powers could be seen as a major diplomatic move towards peace or even an alliance. most only new the marriage with the austrian princess but that was just the tip of the iceberg, Jerome was married to a princess from W�rttemberg and Eugene was married to a Bavarian princess, i think a Saxon princess was also married to another relative, thus strengthening the alliances with his minor German allies. furthermore i think Napoleon really wanted to disguise his dictatorial rule over a republic as a pseudo-monarchy because i think the idea that a mighty republic with such extreme revolutionary tednencies would be too alien for the old established conservative monarchies and he simply wanted to create a compromise between the old Monarchy and the Revolution but never being as extreme as any of them. last but not least, the new pseudo-monarchy would have ultimately also a significant result for France herself, namely the continuation of the Napoleonic legacy when his son would take up his hat after his death thus securing the achievements and continuing the work of Napoleon.

I wonder how you distinguish between a 'pseudo-monarchy' and a 'monarchy'. As far as I can see Napoleon just wanted to establish himself as a kind of successor to the Holy Roman Emperor, and placed and married off his family in order to further that aim.

That he saw himself as another Augustus is I think evident from the David paintings.

That doesn't make him any worse than anyone else who tried to establish a new monarchical dynasty, and in fact in many ways, yes, he was better than most. And he was obviously also immensely talented (and its just as well he never found an admiral to match his generals).

But to paint him as a kind of apostle of democracy is stretching things too far.

sure, the Imperial idea and how he copied the HRE and Rome in general is striking, obviously he indeed had ambitions to conquer the world as will be seen in the quotes below. but about the difference between monarchy and pseudo-monarchy. first, many claim that napoleon re-establsihed the Monarchy, but this isn't true in many ways. first, royalists were napoleons worst inner enemies, even more so than the extreme revolutionaries, to claim Napoleon re-established the monarchy is ridiculous, restoration of monarchy would have meant the return of Bourbons to the throne and the undoing of revolutionary reforms, which all did not happen. the major difference however between a real monarchy and napoleons monarchy in fact is the aristocracy actually, Napleon created a new nobility based on merit rather than birth, evident by many of his marechals, especially Murat who ended up as king of naples, being born the son of a fishermen IIRC.

well, i heard Napleon said the truce of Poschwitz was his worst mistake, giving his enemies time to rebuild their shaken army and inviting Austria to the anti-napoleon alliance, thus giving all initiative out of his hands and gaining nothing. in regards of Spain i think you cannot really call Spain an ally, i think the alliance was just a trick to easily overcome Spain and eventually takign power, installign a family member and bringign all the advantages of the revolution to Spain, he did ot expect Spain to resist to this, something that did not happen in Germany and Italy were his puppet states and the reforms that came with them were more welcome. in the end however i think the Guerillia movement alone could have been easily overcome eventually if the british had not aided the Spanish cause.

I recently foudn two supposed quotes by Napoleon about the invasion in Russia which are quite revealign in regards of his intentions and how he did view himself:

in the first quote, the minster of police Fouche commented: "Sire, I think it's not recommendable to fight beyond the Pyrenees and beyond the Njemen at the same time." to which Napoleon responed:
"Spain will fall as soon a I've destroyed the English influence in St. Petersburg! I need 800.000 men and I have them; I will drag all of Europe behind me! You said yourself for a genious nothing is impossible; be without worry and regard this war against Russia as reasonable. What can I do when a great power (England?) forces me to the dictatorship of the world?
Those who critizise me today want to make me a benelovent and lenient prince? you feel responisble for our situation? I have not yet fullfilled my destiny. It must be finished what has been started."

another time he commented towards the Count Narbonne:
"With my army I will cross the Steppe into East-India. I will win a new throne (Russia) and turn onto Britains back, it would be the greatest undertaking in mankind yet possible! France would finally gain the independence of the Occident and domination at sea."
Narbonne just showed him an unbelieving face. Napoleon continued:
"don't be afraid, I'm a Roman emperor, belonging to the finest stock of Caesares, who creates and founds"

How is all that different from what William the Conqueror did in England? Replacing one monarch with another is not getting rid of monarchy, even if at the same time you replace one aristocracy with another.

The Norman aristocracy installed in England by William was also based on merit ('merit' of course meaning usefulness to William, just as it later meant usefulness to Napoleon).

And 're-establishing the monarchy' does not mean the same as 're-establishing the dynasty'.

Napoleon's regime may have been a monarchy (and I stand by my criticisms of Napoleon's move to accept the imperial throne), but it was not a monarchy in the mould of that which existed previously in France. It was far more liberal, progressive and less absolutist (not to mention secular - Napoleon was a great proponent of freedom of religion and separation of church and state).

And I never said Napoleon was a democratic saint. Far from it. He was an ambitious yet benevolent dictator. As benevolent as he was, however, nothing changes the fact he was a dictator. Nevertheless his people loved him and he probably would have won democratic elections if they had been held. However in the study of logic one of the fallacies that exists is ad populum, which is essentially the fallacy of arguing because something is popular it is necessarily correct. Democracy relies on this fallacy as its central pillar. As such democracy is fallacious. Thus, even had Napoleon not had the support of his people, if he was improving their lives (whether they recognised it or not) he was a good leader. That Napoleon was popular is simply an added bonus.

Napoleon was not perfect, no man is, but I believe he is one of the finest men to come out of Europe - along with Plato and the many, many great artists and composers such Mozart, Beethoven and many others.

as for the elective monarchies, the kings were elected from aristocrats by aristocrats, common people absolutely had no impact on that, as opposed to parliamentary Monarchies like Napoleonic France. a parliament does represent all classes of society. in case of the hereditary principle there was little difference to other monarchies. however the Napoleonic France one became an aristocrat when he was a high ranking military while in Bourbon France one became a high ranking military simply by beign an aristocrat (and only by birth). this was also a problem in Imperial Germany were all top ranking positions in the army were automatically reserved for the Prussian aristocracy, so every member of the Bourgeoisie who wanted to make career in the military went to the navy.

I meant liberal in the true meanign of the word.