Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the arguments I've seen waged in favor of Naps is that he didn't start those wars(Napoleonic) and he counter attacked after being attacked by his neighbours.
That's a good argument in the early days, certainly in the French Revolutionary war period as the monarchies invaded france. As the wars continued this became less and less of a valid argument. He just liked war, that was his nature. In 1813 Napoleon was given a chance to end hostilities with his natural borders intact, he refused.
That's a good argument in the early days, certainly in the French Revolutionary war period as the monarchies invaded france. As the wars continued this became less and less of a valid argument. He just liked war, that was his nature. In 1813 Napoleon was given a chance to end hostilities with his natural borders intact, he refused.
Post-Austerlitz Napoleon was in a good position and could have easily gained a long peace with European powers (less UK). However, his policies like the Continental System, the occupation of Italy and Spain, were the major cause for the future wars. We often see the more progressive sides of his rule, but for the Spanish and Italians the French were robbers, looters, rapists and ruthless oppressors.
Would you say Europe as a whole would have benefited or no?
Well, "benefit" is a loaded word. Things would certainly be different.
The biggest influence Napoleon has today is the Napoleonic Code which has influenced the civil legal code of virtually every Continental European nation with the exception of Scandanavia and Russia. It also forms the basis of most civil legal code in the Middle East as well. In the US, the civil laws of Louisiana are based on the code and rather different from other states.
Napoleon probably did more for the idea of national unity than anyone else. The unification of Germany and Italy can be seen as nearly a direct result of the Napoleonic Wars. The course of Germany was especially changed as the power of Austria was virtually destroyed and replaced by the emergence of Prussia which came to dominate the German states.
So, I wouldn't say we necessarily "benefitted" from Napoelon or that the world would have "beneffited" not having him, but it would certainly be a different place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133
Why Napoleon sell Lousiana Territory to Jefferson? At least he could have kept the southern half for France. Also didn't he try to invade Mexico?
The majority of the Louisiana Territory had been fought over between Spain and France. Spain finally ceded its rights to France. Napoleon negotiated the sale because holding onto the territory made little sense after losing Haiti and he frankly needed money. Napoleon was preparing to invade England and used the money from the sale to help finance the expedition though it never took place. In irony of ironies, British banks acting as US agents, helped handle the transaction and move the payments to Napoleon even though Britain and France were at war.
Napoleon III invaded Mexico in 1861 to establish a government that would be friendly to European interests.
Quote:
And was Napoleon considered the best general of that style and period of warfare. The early firearms era basically, where there is no armor, everyone lines up and loads their muskets and then fire at each other without cover on an open field? Also is that type of fighting commonly called Napoleonic style, thus he having given his name to it?
"Best general" is hard to quantify since Napoleon himself viewed others as being superior to himself. Included among those men were Frederick the Great and Prince Eugene of Savoy who commanded armies not that dissimilar from what Napoleon did in terms of weapons and tactics. Two men who were in the immediate preceding era were Turenne and Gustavus Adolphus who were the masters of what was known as "pike and shot" warfare that pretty much went away in 1700.
What marked a real change in the armies of Napoleons era versus early armies was the size. The French Republic had an army of 1.1 million. The army of the Ancien Regime (the largest in the world) had only numbered 150,000. What we see in Napoleons time was the scale of battles increase and the movement of the army into more independent operational structures like divisions and corps. The brought a new scope to the size of battles and maneuver. Napoleon was a master of this. However, if one was to stand in the middle of Waterloo or the middle of Denain a hundred years earlier, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
If Napoleon never came to power, the resoration of the monarchy and peace
with England and the other continental nobilities would have happened sooner, somewhere
around the turn of the century. Everyone was so sick of the excesses of the revolution.
I say monarchy over republic, but as with any speculation like this, nobody can be absolutely sure.
If Napoleon never came to power, the resoration of the monarchy and peace
with England and the other continental nobilities would have happened sooner, somewhere
around the turn of the century. Everyone was so sick of the excesses of the revolution.
I say monarchy over republic, but as with any speculation like this, nobody can be absolutely sure.
I'm not so sure. The French monarchy was quite a bit more autocratic than the English one, and the stupidity of Bourbons who "never learned and never forgot" made the Restoration ugly, which is why Napoleon was met with such a tremendous welcome after he escaped from Elba. Without Napoleon, in a country faced with ugly Jacobites and equally ugly Bourbons, one of the possible outcomes is perhaps a less "Napoleonic" dictatorship paving way for constitutional monarchy or conservative republic ? Say one or a few of the less narcissistic generals take over and calm things down without trying to attack every country on the map.
I'm not so sure. The French monarchy was quite a bit more autocratic than the English one, and the stupidity of Bourbons who "never learned and never forgot" made the Restoration ugly, which is why Napoleon was met with such a tremendous welcome after he escaped from Elba. Without Napoleon, in a country faced with ugly Jacobites and equally ugly Bourbons, one of the possible outcomes is perhaps a less "Napoleonic" dictatorship paving way for constitutional monarchy or conservative republic ? Say one or a few of the less narcissistic generals take over and calm things down without trying to attack every country on the map.
Agreed. The people were tired of both the revolutionaries and the monarchy. Napoleon offered another choice which is why he was so popular. Napoleon certainly had his chances to make peace. Had he done so and moved France towards constitutional monarchy, he may have been considered not only a great general, but one of the greatest national leaders as well. History may have been very different with a strong and united France not depleted by the endless wars and succession of weak rulers.
I'm not so sure. The French monarchy was quite a bit more autocratic than the English one, and the stupidity of Bourbons who "never learned and never forgot" made the Restoration ugly, which is why Napoleon was met with such a tremendous welcome after he escaped from Elba. Without Napoleon, in a country faced with ugly Jacobites and equally ugly Bourbons, one of the possible outcomes is perhaps a less "Napoleonic" dictatorship paving way for constitutional monarchy or conservative republic ? Say one or a few of the less narcissistic generals take over and calm things down without trying to attack every country on the map.
I think you're underestimating the popular opinion against the revolution which
was prevalent among the peasantry, church, and nobility within France and
the anti-revolutionary influences from without, including exiled French lords,
churchmen, and some of the bourgeoisie which did not participate in the excesses
of violence and suppression. The French Revolution was not widely supported. It
was a coup. I'm sticking with my original post that the monarchy would have
came back to power sooner. The personality, power and respect Napoleon
commanded are not part of proposition of the thread.
Why Napoleon sell Lousiana Territory to Jefferson? At least he could have kept the southern half for France. Also didn't he try to invade Mexico?
And was Napoleon considered the best general of that style and period of warfare. The early firearms era basically, where there is no armor, everyone lines up and loads their muskets and then fire at each other without cover on an open field? Also is that type of fighting commonly called Napoleonic style, thus he having given his name to it?
Louisiana was lost to France after they lost a war with Britain when the British took their North American holdings in 1760 Britain kept Canada, Quebec, Arcadia and French claims from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi . West of the Mississippi Britain gave the Louisiana Territory to Spain as a reward for being an ally and in exchange for Spain accepting the 37th Parallel as the Northern limit to Spanish claims in he West from the Continental Divide to the Pacific. A strait line that defines the northern borders of California, Nevada and Utah.
In 1801 Napoleon deposed the Bourbon King of Spain and put his cousin on the Spanish and Portuguese thrones. Technically Napoleon now had control (not) of the Spanish Empire in the Americas and Philippines. He transferred Louisiana back to France but soon became convinced Britain would occupy New Orleans and West Florida plus he had a slave revolt in Haiti to deal with so he
decided to get something for New Orleans and Louisiana and sold it to the Americans who were only wanting just the port of New Orleans not wanting to see Britain having this vital port for the Americans up stream. When Napoleon offered all of Louisiana not just new Orleans the Americans took the opportunity to basically double the size of the USA.
With out Napoleon we wouldn't have Napoleon Brandy or the Grande Ecoles (Polytechnics ) who trained generations of French scientists, engineers, doctors and administrators-bureaucrats. Napoleon also broke the power of the Habsburgs, ending the Holy Roman Empire a relic that went back to Charlemagne and laid the ground work for the unification of Germany once Austrian power was ended (1870) and Italy (1866). Another European state that owes its existence to Napoleon in a roundabout way is Belgium formed out of the Spanish Netherlands as a buffer to protect the low countries from France.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
