again, what millions?

Temujin:

Bonaparte was not responsible for genocide or death camps, or mass starvation as a weapon (like in U.S.S.R. in 1930s), but the turmoil of war from 1792 to 1815 was the result of The Revolution that Bonaparte personified after about 1796.  Due to strong resistance, The Revolution could only be spread by force, other than in the Netherlands and the Rhineland.

Possibly 2,000,000 Frenchmen were lost in these wars, and who knows how many Russians, Austrians, Prussians and other Germans, not to mention Spanish, Italians and English.  Many perished, and Bonaparte was the most prominent leader of this time period.  Much responsibility rests with him and his policies, but the long term results of The French Revolution were of course very positive. 

those numbers are not casualties numbers but soldiers that either deserted or were not serviceable for combat due to illness etc, only a comparatively small number actually died in combat. if France had losses of 1Million men that means the whole army was eradicated completely, so i wonder who ever fought at Waterlo. and why blame napoleon for the losses, do you blame rainfall on butterflies?

The wars of the French Revolution lasted, with few interruptions, from Valmy in 1792 to waterloo in 1815.  Due to the nature of Bonaparte's strategic method, that is the DESTRUCTION of the opposing army on the field, battles were enormously destructive of manpower.

Armies on campaign were still subject to loss from exposure, disease, and desertion.  The Grande Armee that invaded Russia in 1812 consisted of about 600,000 soldiers including Bavarian and Austrian auxilliaries allied (temporarily) with France.  Probably 500,000 of these died during the campaign.  On the field at Borodino, 60,000 Russians were killed.  The Bavarian Corps of 25/26,000 lost 80% of their men.  As Russia fought a "scorched earth" campaign, many civilians were left destitute and without shelter in the Russian winter.  No one knows how many of them perished.

Who was the responsible party?...the Russians did not invade themselves.

As the social changes in France matured, each year saw the conscription of sizeable numbers of soldiers (citizens at first/cannon fodder later) and as many as 100-200,000 were conscripted each year.  Of course some professionals became veterans who served for many years, but the wastage was great in Spain and in Russia.  As far as the biggest battles at Austerlitz (1805), Jena (1806), Friedland (1807), Aspern-Esslingen (1809), Wagram (1809), Borodino (1812), Leipzig (1813) and Waterloo (1815), there were routinely 35-50,000 killed on each side!  The armies were larger and were used more aggressively by France, and the other powers imitated them.  There were something like 100 battles total not counting all other casualties that would have resulted in deaths.  For the unfortunate soldier, it does not matter how he dies, he is still dead.

Obviously, in most cases, the majority of soldiers in the field and on campaign generally survived...the Russian campaign was a disastrous exception.  Whoever motivated this must bear the responsibility.  Bonaparte was a great general, a good administrator, a pretty good diplomat, and probably the greatest "man of action" ever, but a lot of people paid for that with their lives.

Vlad:

I don't know what books you have available, but there are some pretty good ones about Napoleon and about his campaigns, and about the French army that fought them.  I'll get together some titles and post them here.  Give me about a day or so.

Mike

read my post above!

Temujin:

Have you read anything, or did Allah give you this wisdom? 

Vlad:

See if you can find the following at the library:

David Chandler.  "The Campaigns of Napoleon"  (Wars and operations) 

Robert Elting.      "Swords Around a Throne"  (about the French army)

R. Elting & V. Esposito  "Atlas and History of the Napoleonic Wars" compiled for the U.S. Military Academy Dept. of Military Art & Engineering.  A very good source with all the maps and detailed descriptions and analysis of the campaigns and major battles.

Have fun! 

Temujin:

Are you Arab (Moslem/Christian), Mongol or Scandinavian?  Give us a clue?  !!!!!

Temujin:

NO, no importance

There is a not unreasonable case to be made that the "French Revolution" lasted some 80 years - from the outbreak in 1789 to the establishment of the Third Republic, which then lasted some 70 years - almost as long as the preceding period of turbulence.

Those 80 years included three monarchic periods (a brief attempt at constitutional monarchy under Louis XVI, a return to the Bourbons under Louis XVIII, and another fling with constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe), a short-lived republic under Robespierre and co., a dictatorship under Napoleon, two Napoleonic empires (Napoleons I and II), with a short-lived Second Republic after 1848, with each stage lasting an average of ten years. A long-lasting bounce from one revolution to another.

And that doesn't include the Paris Commune.

There were 5,000 roughly killed at Trafalgar, probably a little under 2,000 (but 5,000 has been estimated) at the Nile. And there were of course far fewer men involved in the great sea battles than the land ones).

As for voting in the poll - none of the above has to be it. Napoleon was a brilliant general, a considerable politician and an autocrat. I fail to see how he can be said to have spread the ideals of the French Revolution in Europe, since he suppressed them at home.

But his longest-lasting legacy must surely be the codification of laws and legal principles embodied in the 'Code Napoleon'. I doubt that any single individual since Justinian has had such a permanent impact on European legal systems (and, for that matter, in Louisiana )

The most dangerous moment comes with victory.
                                                                         —Napoleon Bonaparte

All Europe against him  but he like a rock

Russia the graveyard of all greatest

Russian have the power of motherland

Bonaparte didn't invented any new strategy, he only inherited the system of the revolution It is true he improved the system, made it more efficient. But the revolution in strategy was due to the french revolution, with the metric systems and setting of new standard. The tactics of Napoleon weren't developed or even pioneered by the Emperor by the revolutionary army. What napoleon did was repeating the Battle of tourcoing over and over, those tactics were develop by Moreau. It was moreau in exile who told the allies not to confront Napoleon but exhaust him. Basically Moreau was a superior strategist to Napoleon, it was the allies who weren't able to find out Napoleon was using the same strategy over and over at different positions on different terrains. Overhall Napoleon was very innovative he was just capable of exploiting a system that was already there.

 During the 100 days, Napoleon made a terrible mess, he couldn't chose the right person for the right job. This can only show the men can create but used what was created. For me the greatest was Moreau. France would have been the ultimate victor without Napoleon.

now finally back up your dull argument and give us details on your weird theory so we can attack this stupid argument or rest your case once and for all, I'm sick of reading that sh*t over and over again!

it was simply a fashion.

Napoleon was a bit of a megalomaniac in that he was enchanted with his own glory.  This is a guy who hired the artist David to paint his portrait standing over references to men like Caesar and Charlemagne.  However, in other ways he was a man of the people, or at least of the infantry, which explains in part why his soldiers fought so hard for him (also because the seeds of 19th century nationalism were sprouting).  Yes, he brought certain facets of the revolution and the enlightenment to Europe, but he also ruled with an iron fist, crowned himself emperor, and ranks among the best (or worst) of history's conquerors.  A bloodthirsty dictator?  No.  A legendary emperor? No.  A short guy with something to prove? Perhaps.  An enigma? Definitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Misconceptions_About_Napoleon.27s_Height - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Misconceptions_About_N apoleon.27s_Height

Yea he took out corrupt catholic priests that hundreds of  woman and children killed for being accused of being "witches". his views on those rediculous BARBARIC acts by the catholic church were brilliant! They deserved to be killed!

 What about you open a history book perhaps it would help you. If you can't find anything to attack then you certainly know jacksh!t about the Napoleonic era and the formation he used was already developed. If you can't understand then their nothing you can understand.

LOL

Sorry just a question , what were the innovations of Napelon (or revolution generals) In tactic and strategy that distinguished them from 18th centuty style of war and their commanders like Ferderick?

Hushyar:

In the Revolutionary Wars, the nature of the army changed....theorists like Jomini called for the "levee en masse" as the basis of the manpower of the army, and the military logic of overwhelming force could be implemented.  There was almost no technological change, and weapons and tactics were not much different than in 1750.  Strategy was different.

The much larger armies fielded by France were motivated by a revolutionary zeal (sound familiar?).  This helped generals to attempt to destroy the enemy's ability to continue the fight by overwhelming them in a decisive battle that would truly end a campaign or a war, and not let the decision go undecided.  At least this is what they tried.

There were "decisive" battles won by the French in the Napoleonic era.... Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, Wagram.....but as all the other powers, except Britain, began to raise and learned to use larger and larger armies, the French fell victim to their own strategy.....the battle that would destroy the opponent's ability to fight further.

Leipzig (1813) and Waterloo (1815) turned the tables, but the "new" type of warfare had come to stay.  Now the entire manpower of the nation was considered as potential soldiers.   

I should also add that there WAS a tactical change in the use of massed artillery and of a very large reserve of artillery to support the other arms at any crucial pont on the battlefield.  The very large number of guns was new, but they were still the Gribeauval system guns from the 1770s/80s.

In addition, artillery was more often permanently attached to infantry formations (2 or more brigades) to create the 'division.'  Of course, Bonaparte was trained as an artilleryman.   

 Excellent reply I would say. I'll further add that the formations also became more fluid rather rigid. Prior to that soldiers were trained over and over for drills, they were mere automatons and could hardly think by themselves on a company lvl, some of them will stay under enemy artillery waiting for orders. But the revolution brought a change, they hardly have time and money to spend on training mass of soldiers, so they developed a more fluid formation and one that can adapt itself a lot battelfield scenario. Of course it took some time for the tactics to work, the rookies got scared at their baptism of fire and fled the battlefield in panic. but at Valmy, those soldiers stood their ground and the opponents were dismayed. it was all the start of a military revolution. more fluid, dynamic and adaptable formation that could  achieve localised superiority at a critical point.

 these tactics also worked fine when the soldiers became more experienced, at Tourcoing the revolutionary army were seriously outnumbered, yet they managed to outmaneuver the allies, faking attack on one flank and drawing the mass of the enemy to reinforce that particular flank. Then a more massive force will attack the coalition weaken Flank, this has some kind of domino effect, where the flank roll onto the coalition columns. The centre there was a stalemate until french forces from the flank come into action. Only the coalition flank that was previously reinforced would remain intact but they have to flee the battlefield simply because the other flank and centre have crumbled.  otherwise they would be surrounded and annilated. Basically revolutionary tactics being more fluid and dynamic could dictate the opponent behaviour also. this has been done before but never with modern equipments.

Also reduction of the number of types of artillery gun to a handful few. this facilitates logistic and manufacturing.

pikeshot1600 and Quetzalcoatl

your comments not only was informative but also excellent and professional and like a textbook.
Thanks.

yes! certainly!!!

Dolman is the elaborate overcoat of the Hussars we talk about...

as said, there was no special purpose, just a fashion.

the only reasoning you ever gave is "i like Moreau", thats the arguing of a child. you're knowledge of the period in question has already been  ridiculed elsewhere when we did talk about the 1770-80 period, want to catch a bloody nose again?  I would be surprised if you find a book from a reknown author that supports your ridiculous claim in the least.

1. Total war. forced conscription as opposed to hire mercenaries.

2. decisive battles. the use of masses of conscripts allows for a more offensive art of warfare, instead of outmarching the enemy the commanders seek for battle.

3. Tirailleurtactics. highly maneuverable operations in loose skirmishing formation are superior to locked linear tactics.

4. requisitioning. the troups live of the land instead of being supported by long supply lines.

5. promotion based on valor and performance instead of noble birthright.

that was not a fundamentaly new invention, the massive use of artillery in batteries has already been establsihed in the 7 years war, especially due to Russian pressure, Russians have a special affection with artillery going back to Peter I. at least and since Suvorov the latest, massive use of artillery was the trademark of Russian warfare.

French forces 70.000, allies 74.000 ... i can clearly see a HUUUUUUUGE numerical superiority of the allies...besides, where does Moreau come in here? it was Pichegrus army and that day Souham was in command, please enlighten us...on a second thought, don't...

 I never said I like Moreau in my post , I said Moreau was a better strategist. It is up to you to prove the contrary, I've given my reasons why already basically Tourcoing and how he advised the coalition to let Napoleon marched his troops to exhaustion by avoiding battle. And funny, you seem confuse here, you've never given me a bloody nose (perhaps only in your dream), simply it is you who are vague and vain. I've made my claim quite clearly here, I said " Napoleon didn't invent anything ground breaking militarily speaking, he simply tuned a system already  developed by the revolutionaries". It is clear enough why aren't you attacking this. You are simply confuse.

LOL, have you been surfing the internet for info, didn't you. This just show how ignorant you are on the matter. The internet sources are usually of a general nature and most of the time are innaccurate and made incorrect conclusion. Most of the time sources repeat each the original mistakes which is hilarious to some degree.

French forces at the battle tourcoing was 60,000 vs 74,000 coalition forces. 10,000 french forces were sent as reinforcement but never arrived in time for battle. Similarly 20,000 coalition forces reinforcement didn't engage in battle but simple retreated with the main forces in disarray.

 So 60,000 french forces and 74,000 coalition participated in the battle.

But 70,000 french soldiers and 94,000 coalition forces were to be involved.

 Look like anglo-saxons sources, took the 10,000 reinforcement that never took part in the battle in the calculation and never took the 20,000 coalition  reinforcement in the consideration.

 Where did Moreau come into, hahahahah, that is the funniest part, Moreau was the hero of Tourcoing, he was the one that fake attack on the austrian flank thus diverting coalition forces onto that flank at the same time weakening the other flank where the main french attack would come.

 Biography of Moreau

http://jean-victor-marie-moreau.biography.ms/ - http://jean-victor-marie-moreau.biography.ms/

What Nelson introduced into naval strategy was the concept that you did not fight just to win the battle, but to go on and destroy the enemy.

Didn't Napoleon do something similar on land? I don't know enough land warfare history to argue.

you actually said both just in different posts.

rephrase, that sentence has no grammar and is not understandable

in the thread about most influental peopel you were claiming "French always were at top militaricaly in every period". that statement alone is laughable at best, i have disprooved you and made a better list which nations were on top and which not, and the French were certainly not.

no, you never backed that up, napoleon wasn't even present at this battle, and how come this battle you mention so often does resemble dozens other battles before and after Tourcoing? perhaps Moreau had a time machine and told them all  plus, you never gave ANY battle of Napoleon which did resemble Torucoing AT LEAST.

oh, you're sooo smart, you don't even know that numbers of battles are given always in FULL (ie all units strategically present) but never numbers of how many troops were actually involved...LOL, "you know nothing about the period" anyone?

now you're totally retarded, Moreau was NOT the one in charge (as opposed to napoleon) so how can napoleon somebody who wasn't even in charge? if anyting, napoleon would have copied Souham and not Moreau who did only carry out orders...or do you think Dessaix was a better commander as Napoleon just because his arrival saved Napoleon at Marengo?

oh yeah, and you have not even mentioned any book title or author that would confirm what you said...

How do you view Napoleon? He is without a doubt a giant in history. A man that changed the course of history like few before him and after. I would like to discuss many of the issues surrounding his remarkable life. Here are a couple to consider:

1. Was Napoleon the child of the revolution or did he betray it?

Napoleon did reinstate a monarchy and France, however let's not forget that he spread enlightenment ideas about liberty and equality and likely saved France from being invaded in 1795 by Austria and Prussia. If they had done so, the revolution would not have spread throughout the continent.

2. Can he be described as a benevolent dictator?

I think you could describe Napoleon as a benevolent dictator. In fact he is the only real dictator to be given this distinction. Napoleon was very popular in France because he gave the people want they asked. Domestically Napoleon was very successful.

3. Was he good for France or did he harm the country more than he contributed?

In approaching this question it is very difficult to ignore his actions militarily. But, Napoleon created an efficient bureaucracy in France and emplemented the Code Napoleon which still exists today in some forms in many places in Europe. Napoleon created the first modern state. After 1815 Wellington visited France and admitted that his enemy had been largely good for France.

4. What is his greatest battle? What was his greatest defeat?

His greatest battles were Elyau and Austerlitz. His greatest defeat was definately Waterloo. At Waterloo Napoleon was just a figment of his former self. He had gotten sick and old in exile and made mistakes that he normally would not have made. Although Wellington deserves credit for the win and so do the Prussians.

5. Can he be held in the same company as Hitler and Stalin or was he more benevolent?

Napoleon cannot be compared to Hitler or Stalin. He was ruthless but he never practiced genocide, nor was he seen as an anti-Christ by the people that lived in his period. He was however not perfect, but will more accurately be compared to Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Julius Caesar who were in their own right ruthless and cruel as well. But history does not always concentrate on that.

6. Why was he ultimately defeated?

I think Napoleon was defeated because of his over-confidance and pride which lead him to do foolish things. His first mistake was to invade Spain and then neglect it, and finally by invading Russia. He did not plan for the events that unfolded in Russia. Shakespeare, if he had lived after Napoleon would have written a play about him and not Caesar.   

7. What is his legacy in history?

 Napoleon is seen by history as a great military ruler who set out to solidify his place in history, and succeeded in the most part. Although he had his flaws, it is undeniable the benefit of his reign in France which shaped the society we live today.

8. Is he the greatest military general in history?

Napoleon was without a doubt a brilliant military leader who is owed recognition along side Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Hannibal as the greatest of all time. However he is hurt by the fact that he was eventually defeated. But no one faught as many capable armies as he did, he probably ammassed the greatest European Empire since Rome and he wasn't always privileged with the best troops.

9. What is his greatest accomplishment?

His greatest accomplishment has to be the development of the modern state in France with its efficient bureaucracy and national army. I know it is often overlooked by many people, but military success could only last so long. He said it himself: "Glory is fleeting, obscurity is forever." This has proved to be his most enduring legacy, along with the Napoleonic code.

10. Who would play him in the motion picture on his life? 

My favourite filmmaker is Stanley Kubrick, he wanted to make a film about Napoleon in the 70s but his script was deemed to expensive to be made into a film and it was never made. Although the script survives today. I would like to see Russell Crowe as Napoleon with Peter Jackson directing.

Both. He didn't only become emperor, he restored or established monarchies all over the place.

Possibly. But then all dictators are benevolent to their followers. Even Saddam.

On the whole good.  Apart from the Code Napoléon and othe constitutional arrangements, he had a beneficial influence on scientific and intellectual development. Unusual for a dictator.

Pass on one, but Waterloo must be the greatest defeat. The final one alwas is isn't it? (For Lee, was Appomatox worse than Gettysburg?)

He was nowhere near as malevolent. I don't really like the comparisons to Hannibal, Alexander or Caesar, though.  I'm stuck for a comparison really. If you added together Caesar and Augustus with a touch of Justinian you might get close.

Ultimately France wasn't strong enough.  Russia was too immense, and Britain controlled the sea and France's access to it. And someone sooner or later would have developed the tactics to defeat his columns, even if Wellington hadn't.

You left the sea out of it completely. But it was crucial, and I don't think Napoleon realised it. Napoleon's failure to invade Britain was as significant a milestone as Hitler's (or Philip's) failure to do the same thing, no matter what land victories followed later.

Very true.

France's pride?

Pass. But he must be close.

 Throw in the higher educational system as well, no?

Rod Steiger did very well in 'Waterloo'. Crowe is too handsome and macho - not Napoleonic qualities. Kevin Spacey would probably do it better, but surely there must be a Frenchman somewhere?

if only I had time for fools, I would bother reply.

Fools, I've read many books on Napoleon. He is my favourite historical figure and I'd love to have a discussion with you if you feel up to it. If not, I'll assume you don't have the knowledge.

No, not really. He tried to bring his army back to Poland. Well, I'm not surprise that this is coming from a Brit. But if you contrast Napoleon will Caesar, Alexander and Genghis Khan he was the most benevolent ruler among them If you don't believe me read Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life.

He certainly abandoned his army in Egypt after the battle of the Nile. Still ... he was still working his way up then

 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.

Obviously. That's why Napoleon's choice was only between

(a) abandoning the army

(b) staying with it and being cut off from any developments in Europe (including advancing his own political power).

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.

Simply because the French won most of the engagements of the wars, it does not mean the French were the aggressors, rather it shows that the Allies were, at least early on, incompetent.

Secondly, if you look at the majority of Polish views on the Napoleonic wars you will see a fairly pro-Napoleonic view adopted. The Poles liked Napoleon because he gave them their own state (admittedly not a restored Kingdom of Poland, but the Grand Duchy of Warsaw) and abolished the oppressive feudal institutions that the partitioning powers had placed upon the Poles in the 1790s. Napoleon had more right to Poland because firstly he didn't actually annexe it and secondly because the Poles were appreciative of Napoleon, whereas the opposite is true of Russia.

If Napoleon was at times aggressive in carrying the war to the enemy is this a crime? Take 1809, for example. Napoleonic France is attacked at its weakest moment by a nation which has attacked it multiple times in the past decade. Was napoleon supposed to hold the frontier, defeat the Austrians and tell them they were being very rude by continually invading him? Of course not. Occupying their capital and imposing further limitations on them was an entirely reasonable step, given their record. Austria's repeated opportunism and its continued acceptance of British monetary incentives to go to war made it dangerous. If anything Napoleon should have dismantled the Austrian state, given part of it to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, part to his German allies and annexed the rest of the France. He was far too lenient - like Rome in its dealings with Carthage.

As for the relation between the Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire it was quite a strong one. Both operated on the idea that a talented person could rise from the most lowly of circumstances to the height of power if they were possessed of sufficient skill. Simply look at the backgrounds of many of the Imperial Marshals. Unlike the Revolutionary Republic, however, Napoleon didn't rule by the guillotine. Unlike the Revolutionary Republic, Napoleonic France was stable and internally peaceful. Unlike the Republic, the Empire had a system of just and clearly defined laws, as opposed to the "justice" that was dealt out by political commissars under the Republic. The Revolution was corrupt, brutal and weak.

As for the fact that Napoleon put his family on the thrones of Europe... I'm not going to defend this. Napoleon should not have done this and it is a key flaw of his. Of course its probably cultural - la famiglia is very important in Corsica - but this does not excuse the Emperor's actions. Likewise, my oppinion of Napoleon would be higher than it is if he ahd remained First Consul an dnever taken on a monarchical title.

And what were Napoleon's sins? Apart from the one dealt with in the previous paragraph? He was a good strategist... is that now a sin? He stabilised France... is that also a sin? Tell me what these sins you speak of are. And don't mention the wars - I've dealt with them. THE ALLIES WERE THE AGGRESSORS. Very poor aggressors, but aggressors nonetheless. France declared war in 1792 (at which time Bonaparte was only a junior officer in the artillery), in 1797 it was Pitt who invited Tsar Paul to begin gathering a new coalition, in 1805 it was again Pitt who brought together a new coalition and thus renewed war on the continent (after Britain declared war on France on 18 May 1803, thus ending the Peace of Amiens), in 1806 it was Prussia that began the war and in 1809 it was Austria, at Britain's urging. As you can see there the Allies were the problem, not the French. Even the French declaration of war in 1792 was pre-emptive - had the French not declared war the Allies would have. I've already discussed the conditions in 1812. In 1815 it was again the Allies that started the war. As soon as Napoleon reached Paris they immediately set about trying to dismantle France.

Despite all this you still claim France was the aggressor... Yeah, and Poland was the aggressor in 1939.

History is written by the victors. I suppose Napoleon is doomed to be demonised by those who swallow every bit of British nationalist propaganda. Oh well... I've provided the truth.

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 Württemberg 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.

 From a purely military standpoint Napoleon is almost unmatched in skill and ability, I believe he hasnt been matched in the nearly 200 years since his defeat at Waterloo, I doubt even Wellington himself could have defeated Napoleon in the glory days, when the hard years of campaigning hadnt taken their toll.

 Napoleon may have been demonised at the time, but not now as far as I can see, when you look at much of what Napoleon did he was ahead of his time and had a vision many other nations would of been wise to adopt.

 I personally dont blame Britain and the allies refusing Napoleons offers for peace in 1815 regardless of how the wars began and what had happened to much blood had been spilt for this man to remain in charge of France. Atleast that must of been what the allies were thinking.

 No matter what happened Napoleon was still an outstanding general and leader to his people whom he truly loved. Which is more than I can say for most other leaders of the day.

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.

In fact Napoleon's intervention in Spain was in his own words his worst mistake: having an ally, he made an enemy. True that the Spanish monarchs weren't trustworthy but a guerrilla war was something he just couldn't afford. He would have better results training and building up his navy. In Spain he should have got Ferdinand VII poisoned when in Bayonne and kept his much more reasonable father in the throne.

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'.

Maju, I cannot agree, the Guerillia movement only suceeded in raiding supplies and disturbign communictaions at first, and later in binding large forces in towns, however I don't see how they could have managed to ridd the French off Spain, most troops that were in Spain had to check the advance and thsoe used against the Guerillias were pretty "sucessfull" at least in ravaging the villages and towns alledgedly supporting Guerillias, and some famous Guerillia leaders even were captured. furthermore the Guerillia movement was widespread but far too disorganised and few in number to be used efficiently.

you already answered yourself, one aristocracy was being replaced by another, in the case of napoleonic France, loyal aristocrats were retained but in general a new aristocracy was formed from military ranks, the Napoleonic rule was a liberal military dictatorship disguised as monarchy.

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.

What I'm asking is how do you distinguish between a military dictatorship. liberal or otherwise, and a monarchy, liberal or otherwise? It can't here be the hereditary principle because (a) the Bonapartists accepted the hereditary principle, which is how come you got Napoleon III*, and (b) lots of recognised monarchies were elective, as in Poland, or the Holy Roman Empire, or partially elective like the Anglo-Saxons.

Moreover to call Napoleon a 'liberal' is really stretching things.

* and Napoleon II for that matter.

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.

Remind you of anyone?

My point was simply that  a monarchy does not have to be hereditary. How a monarch is elected is kind of irrelevant to that point. Obviously majority current thinking is that universal suffrage is best, but where was universal suffrage ever instituted anywhere before the 20th century? (There may be an answer to that. If there is it would be interesting.)

The last bit was pretty true of Britain too, mutatis mutandis - given for instance that in Britain you would have to say 'gentry' rather than 'aristocracy'.

The rest of the paragraph however is only due to the fact that Napoleon's 'aristocracy' was a new one, whereas the Bourbon and Prussian ones were old. I have no doubt at all that had Napoleon not been defeated, 'his' aristocracy would have perpetuated itself the same way that the Bourbons and Prussian aristocracies (and just about every other privileged group in history) did.

(In fact many of the new aristocratic families kept their aristocratic trappings, though of the Napoleonic rather than the Bourbon tradition, through the 19th century.)

Pretty well all aristocracies had most of their roots in military success.

Which is?  

well, liberal as opposed to the current american meaning of the word.

Actually Napoleon retained around 200,000 troops in Germany at all times. And the Peninsula couldn't have taken up too many resources - 300,000 troops is certainly significant, but when one considers Imperial France (not including its satellite states, just France itself) never had a standing army of more than 1,100,000 compared to Revolutionary France which had a peak strength of closer to 1,500,000 it becomes apparent that the French could have more than doubled forces in Iberia - 400,000 less troops were in the Imperial armies than the earlier Republican armies of the mid-1790s. Plus since then France's frontiers had expanded - large areas in Italy, the Low Countries and Iberia were annexed directly to France rather than being brought under puppet regimes. When population growth is also factored in it would seem Imperial France would have been able to mobilise around 2,000,000 with relative ease had it wished to - it had at least 3,000,000 more citizens than the Republic ever did. And in addition there were tens of millions outside of France from whom still more could have been conscripted into Imperial armies. It is obvious that the Peninsula wasn't then a huge strain - if it was the French could have devoted far more resources than they did and still retain forces in excess of half a million on the eastern front for conflict with Russia and Austria.

*out of the topic.  You should join with my best friend! He also thinks of "L'Empereur" as being the greatest!

*completely out of the topic: "Daca ai nevoie de un numar de telefon,  da-mi un pm!"

Thank you all who read this for bearing with me!

I admire Napoleon because he wasn't only a succesful warrior he also had a admirable thinking capacity and he had big dreams on the earth unlike most of other commanders,is he succeed,no,but he tried !