I generally hate it when people resort to this analogy but it does fit here: you could say exactly the same about Adolf Hitler.
Best Monarch of France?
- Thread starter Mental_Wizard
- Start date
I generally hate it when people resort to this analogy but it does fit here: you could say exactly the same about Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was an outstanding bastard, who was far worse a man than those who fought against him (even Stalin), while kings and emperors who waged the Napoleonic Wars usually belonged to varying shades of grey.
I never said this. It is actually fairly normal that people stand up for their countries. It is actually a thing a noble human being always does.
Stalin was just as bad.Even worst arguably because he did what Hitler did to his own people.Meanwhile,a lot of the countries Hitler fought,like Britain,France,Belgium,the Netherlands and the USA all owned colonial empires.France and Belgium in particular were notorious for their exploitation colonies.
This makes the presumption that 1799 France was a stable, secure country facing no threats. In fact the peace of Campo Formio had collapsed and France was mostly losing the war when Bonaparte returned and completely reversed the situation. The country could have met disaster otherwise. He also managed to reconcile much of the Catholic population to the regime, for the first time, by reaching the Concordat of 1801.
I don't necessarily think he was France's best monarch ever (I chose Philippe Auguste) but think a lot of the arguments against him are unfair.
I'm not even going to get involved in the discussion about whether Napoleon was good or not (rather I'm taking notes from this discussion for my TL found in my signature below 
)
I personally like Charles V "The Wise" the most. Maybe not the absolute best leader, given the circumstances he was in, he was a pretty good ruler, exactly what France needed at that moment. Able to recover from the loss in the Edwardian War, in his Caroline War he took everything Edward III and then some. He practically had won the 100 years war if it weren't for his son, brothers, nephew, and grandson all basically scheming together to plot the demise of France (that's what it feels sometimes, a perfect torrent of chaos and destruction of France)
)I personally like Charles V "The Wise" the most. Maybe not the absolute best leader, given the circumstances he was in, he was a pretty good ruler, exactly what France needed at that moment. Able to recover from the loss in the Edwardian War, in his Caroline War he took everything Edward III and then some. He practically had won the 100 years war if it weren't for his son, brothers, nephew, and grandson all basically scheming together to plot the demise of France (that's what it feels sometimes, a perfect torrent of chaos and destruction of France)
The mess with Spain was mainly linked to the fact the Spanish weren't seen as reliable allies. To be fair, Napoleon had a point there because the Spanish leadership at the time was pretty bad: neither Charles IV, Ferdinand VII or Godoy were bright bulbs. The idea was thus to make Spain into a more reliable ally by replacing the Bourbons with someone Napoleon could trust, in this case his elder brother Joseph. This turned out to be a bad move because the Spanish liked the French even less than their Kings and because Joseph, while not completely devoid of qualities, was ultimately unfit for the task Napoleon gave him (a recurring trouble with Napoelon's siblings).
In regards to the Batavian Republic being turned into the Kingdom of Hollande... It's a bit of a complicated mess that involves a puppet Dutch government that was being way too autonomous in the eyes of Napoleon, banking interests as well as political difficulties in the region as far as I know. Napoleon's solution was simply to scrap the Republic (who already had suffered a few internal coups by the way) and turn into a Kingdom of Hollande he gave to his brother Louis, whom he cherished dearly because he had raised him. Louis wasn't that bad at his job but he too became a bit too autonomous and he was also pretty ineffective at enforcing the continental blockade. The British landing at Walcheren in 1809 is ultimately what doomed the Kingdom of Hollande because Napoleon became then convinced Louis wasn't up to the task he had given him. The decision to annex the Netherlands that followed was eventually because Napoleon felt this was the only way he could control the region.
The Spanish decision turned out to be a grave mistake and what Napoleon did with the Netherlands is criticizeable, no one denies that... But considering the policies Napoleon was following, they make perfect sense and are coherent with the man's vision. Plus, these countries weren't that badly administrated and saw reforms that had an impact on their history later on.
Yes, the French have their responsabilities in all the mess that became the Revolutionnary and Napoleonic Wars. But you can't completely blame everything on them: very few in Europe's governments were actually favorable to the new ideas propagated by the Revolution, never really trusted the French government and also wanted to crush the power of France. And since you mentionned the rules of war, let me remind you that a good deal of the war declaration were made by the Allies, not Napoleon: from this point of view, the Allies were the aggressor and Napoleon the defender.
The same way, it's a bit too easy to blame everything on Napoleon. He isn't completely devoid of responsability as he did make a number of questionnable decisions but I don't think it's fair to say that he alone should be blames for the Napoleonic Wars. He inherited a difficult mess left by the French Revolution and had to face mostly hostile European courts among which the Brits were the first and most deadly opponents. The only way he had to stabilise the situation at the time was the military option, not only because that's how he ensured his dominance but because his ennemies looked for every opportunities to strike at him.
Since when is winning the only thing that matters to be considered a great ruler? Charles XII of Sweden is often regarded as one of the greatest King Sweden had, and yet the final conflict he was involved in saw his defeat and death in battle which led to a succession crisis. Charles XII's greatness ultimately comes from his abilities as a man as well as the reforms he accomplished during his reign.
The logic with saying that Napoleon is the greatest rulers of France is that while he eventually lost in the end, his abilities and actions as a ruler outweigh that final result. And there is a point in arguing that since, as has been repeatidly pointed out, he left a legacy that still endures politically: there a huge number of laws and institutions he created that are still used by modern-day France.
I could reverse that argument by saying that anyone who defends the wonderfulness of the Great Napoleon is necessarilly an Apologist that thus can't be trusted... Which is as ridiculous as what you just said.
Napoleon wasn't perfect: even among his strongest admirers, people admit he had his failings. Hell, that's actually part of the Legend surrounding him too. But you can't just base your judgement of the man solely on his failings: you have to consider his whole legacy behind. And that is a legacy that involves not only military glory but a good number of legal reforms and actions that have had an influence on France and its history in the years that followed. One must also not forget the qualities of the man as he was very talented: not perfect (again, he had failings) but still talented. You can't just focus on the Blackest part of the legend and ignore the Golden part.
The people here who are arguing that Napoleon was the greates rulers of France do this because in their eyes they think he did more good than bad and ultimately was the most effective French ruler. This can be discussed yes but that's the point of a discussion whose title is "Who was the Greatest Ruler of France?": each and every people defending their candidates will cite arguments in his defense and refute the opinion of those who disagree.
You just pressed my Berserk button with this...
1) It's a fucking Gowdin Point. This discussion really didn't need to bring Hitler or the Nazis...
2) It's an anachronistic comparison that is out of place. Napoleon and Hitler lived a century apart from each other in very different contexts...
3) It's been made too often because people are very quick to draw comparisons without thinking...
4) It's just blatantly inaccurate and wrong.
The only similarity between Hitler and Napoleon is that they basically came to dominate Europe for short years and did so by military force... And their defeat somehow involved them invading Russia and being defeated partially because of the Winter. I'm probably oversimplifying a little here but that's basically that. The comparison stops there afterwards.
If you remove that, the two men still end up as different as Day and Night.
Napoleon helped emancipate and intergate the French jews. Hitler tried to destroy what he called "the Jewish race".
The Napoleonic Wars are mostly more a continuation of the Wars that came before and can't be solely blamed on Napoleon's actions. Hitler, though his origins can be explained by the Treaty of Versailles, is the direct cause of World War II.
Napoleon was basically an Enlightened Despot: his rule wasn't necessarilly democratic but he still admitted opposition (unless it violated the law) and his actions were generally aimed at settling Revolutionnary Ideals in the minds of the people he ruled over. Hitler was a Totalitarian Dictator that didn't tolerate any opposition and indoctrinatd people into adopting his racist conceptions and idelogy.
Napoleon did a few questionnable actions (including a few atrocious ones) but he has actually shown regret on some of his decisions in his Memoirs: see how he called the reinstitution of slavery his greatest mistake for example. Hitler committed a genocide and he never showed any regret about that... nor for all the other atrocities he committed and allowed.
I could go on and on but I simply don't have time for this... I'll just end up paraphrasing someone who said that nothing could be more degrading for Napoleon to be compared to Hitler while the latter couldn't be more flattered by the same comparison.
Philip the Fair is generally considered the Third Great King of pre-HYW Medieval France. He actually accomplished a number of reforms that were benefical for Royal power and contributing into making France the first power in Europe at the time. In that, he was basically a continuator of what Philip II and Saint Louis had done.
The destruction of the Templar order isn't much of an accomplishment though: it was done mainly for monetary reasons and the order was actually pretty weak by the time Philip IV undertook the task of destroying it. There are also a few other things that can be said regarding Philip the Fair that properly undermine his reputation a bit: his inability to solve the crisis in Flanders, his explusion of the jews and ultimately the succession mess that followed his death and led to the Hundred Years War (though that one is arguably not his fault).
@Yorel I agree with all your points except for Spain which was Napoleon's political, strategic and moral major and unforgivable.
Spain was an ally of France, a reluctant one but nonetheless an ally.
Treacherously overthrowing the spanish Bourbons literally destroyed napoleonic France's trustability and turned it into the rogue State of Europe. It was napoleonic France's first act of agression.
Spain was an ally of France, a reluctant one but nonetheless an ally.
Treacherously overthrowing the spanish Bourbons literally destroyed napoleonic France's trustability and turned it into the rogue State of Europe. It was napoleonic France's first act of agression.
Nevermind the point of how his own brother was apparently not puppety enough, so he really honestly had to annex the Netherlands, couldn't do without.
The Kingdom of Holland had been a smart move - it smashed the mess that was the Batavian Republic and created a stable government that was liked by the locals and could be trusted to be an ally. Destroying it was a lousy move that allowed the Oranjes to cast themselves again in the role of liberator of the Netherlands.
The Kingdom of Holland had been a smart move - it smashed the mess that was the Batavian Republic and created a stable government that was liked by the locals and could be trusted to be an ally. Destroying it was a lousy move that allowed the Oranjes to cast themselves again in the role of liberator of the Netherlands.
longsword14
Banned
Pretty much this. Napoleon's political failings were the most serious, which later made his military options much harder and in the long term untenable.
Godoy was a useful tool that allowed Napoleon great power over the Spanish, but it did not amount to anything good over a long term, nor should this have been unexpected. In 1806 before the twin hammer blows of Jena-Auerstadt many expected the French to lose to the Prussians; the Spanish intended to cause trouble from the behind if serious reverses happened in Germany (in hindsight this was hilarious, for no army could have crossed the Pyrenees into France ).
The Spanish themselves were not ever truly on good terms with France post the Revolution, but they did not have any better options either (the British had led to the ruin of their colonial dealings etc). napoleon should have maintained his hand as it was. After all, the threat of the French falling on them was far better for Napoleon than having to act on this threat.
His inability to understand the necessity of incomplete victories against a multitude of enemies made the other side coalesce into a block.
I realize I forgot one word so, although you understood what I meant, I correct this omission. I refered to "Spain which was Napoleon's political, strategic and moral major and unforgivable FAULT."
Now, I would not go as far as saying that Napoleon was unable to understand the necessity of incomplete victories against a multitude of enemies. He granted very favourable terms to Russia in 1807, too favourable terms in fact since it encouraged Russia to prepare and start a new conflict as soon as possible.
Napoleon's problem is that he had one irreconcilable enemy that was Britain and that he could not decisively defeat because of the Royal Navy's massive and uncatchable superiority.
Britain could not be decisively defeated but it could however not win the war. Britain needed a massive coalition to win the war against imperial France and France could opt but for an indirect strategy to fight Britain, which drove him to clash with other continental powers.
And in fact, Napoleon's domination on continental Europe would have continued if he had not ruined it by wrecking himself his russian campaign.
From 1810 to 1812, Austria's political goal had become to be Napoleon's main ally in Europe and Austria would have stuck to the french alliance if the russian expedition of 1812 had not turned into a disaster. I think Napoleon is too much chracterized by the final results of his actions. There is no systematic link between his personnality's flaws and his final failure.
I think that Napoleon's problem was that he was too successful fighting defensive wars. His successes mostly were counter-offensive successes. But his successes gave France such an excess of power that the other european powers could but want even more to weaken France than they wanted during the previous conflict.
And from Napoleon's point of view, the fact that he granted what he considered moderate terms at the end of the previous conflict but that these other european powers however reopened hostilities as soon as possible drove him to the dead-end conclusion that these other powers were not trustable partners and that he needed to take more guarantees in order to be sure that they would keep their word.
Now, I would not go as far as saying that Napoleon was unable to understand the necessity of incomplete victories against a multitude of enemies. He granted very favourable terms to Russia in 1807, too favourable terms in fact since it encouraged Russia to prepare and start a new conflict as soon as possible.
Napoleon's problem is that he had one irreconcilable enemy that was Britain and that he could not decisively defeat because of the Royal Navy's massive and uncatchable superiority.
Britain could not be decisively defeated but it could however not win the war. Britain needed a massive coalition to win the war against imperial France and France could opt but for an indirect strategy to fight Britain, which drove him to clash with other continental powers.
And in fact, Napoleon's domination on continental Europe would have continued if he had not ruined it by wrecking himself his russian campaign.
From 1810 to 1812, Austria's political goal had become to be Napoleon's main ally in Europe and Austria would have stuck to the french alliance if the russian expedition of 1812 had not turned into a disaster. I think Napoleon is too much chracterized by the final results of his actions. There is no systematic link between his personnality's flaws and his final failure.
I think that Napoleon's problem was that he was too successful fighting defensive wars. His successes mostly were counter-offensive successes. But his successes gave France such an excess of power that the other european powers could but want even more to weaken France than they wanted during the previous conflict.
And from Napoleon's point of view, the fact that he granted what he considered moderate terms at the end of the previous conflict but that these other european powers however reopened hostilities as soon as possible drove him to the dead-end conclusion that these other powers were not trustable partners and that he needed to take more guarantees in order to be sure that they would keep their word.
Last edited:
I do not object at all to people defending their view that Napoleon was the finest thing since slice bread. I was specifically referring to the comment when a pro-Napoleon poster claimed this board only disagreed because they were Anglophile.
Faeelin
Banned
To be fair, if you did have a general who fought to make his nation free, and then retire to his estates, he would be one of the greatest men of the world, not just his country.
I wasn't really saying that this was a smart move. Just that it made sense from Napoleon's POV.
The Spanish weren't exactly a reliable ally: they basically were allied to France because they had no means to oppose it. And as I repeatidly mentionned, there is also the case of the leadership at the time being pretty bad: Charles IV, his son Ferdinand VII and their minister Godoy are generally acknowledged to have been some of the worst leaders in Spanish history. Add in the fact that they were tensions between Charles IV and Ferdinand VII that could have led to a civil war (Ferdinand did attempt a failed coup at one point after all) and you can see all the troubles with the situation. Napoleon needed a reliable ally to enforce his continental system and he thought he wouldn't have one with the current leadership, so he thought the best way to do that was basically to replace the Spanish Royal Family by a new one.
In retrsopect, Joseph doesn't seem to be that bad a choice when you consider this. Aside from the fact he was family and loyal to his brother, Joseph was also pretty intelligent and he had done a decent job when he was King of Naples. He was probably far more competent than Charles IV or Ferdinand VII, and thus could guarantee a stable and reliable government in Spain, which would make the country a more reliable ally. So on paper, it was a good idea. However, a good idea on paper isn't guaranteed to work in real life. And in this case, the idea turned out to be a bad move that completely backfired.
As you pointed out, as unreliable as it was, Spain still remained a French ally that had helped France on more than one occasion: the Spanish fleet had fought at Trafalgar alongside the French and Spain had allowed Napoleon's troops to pass through the country to go to Portugal. The Spanish had also not done anything to openly antagonize the French (I think Godoy made a few clumsy secret deals if I remember right) so there really wasn't any good justification at the time to overthrow the Bourbons (compared to say Naples where the royal family had opposed Napoleon more than once) and it was seen as nothing more than a treacherous take-over... Which the move kinda was if we're honest, even if it was from Napoleon's POV "These guys are doing a terrible job, I'm gonna replace them with people I trust". The coronation of Joseph only made it worse because Joseph was Napoleon's brother so it made the French takeover more blatant, not to mention Napoleon already was pretty badly seen for having given crowns to his siblings.
The other miscaculation, and arguably the biggest one, was the Spanish people themselves. They probably didn't like Charles IV or Ferdinand VII that much... But they liked the French even less. There had been tensions in the population when the French army passed through Spain to attack Portugal, so you had a pretty high anti-French sentiment already present. When Napoleon overthrew the Bourbons and replaced them by Joseph, this only put more fuel on the fire and basically saw the anti-French sentiment reach the peak needed to see the country riot and rebel. Add in the fact that Joseph, while not a complete buffoon like he's often made up, still lacked the necessary abilities and talent to deal with the situation and you had a receip for disaster... Which is what the Peninsula War turned out to be. Ultimately, after Joseph's armies were defeated and forced him to flee Madrid, Napoleon had to personnally involve himself and campaign in Spain to attempt to pacify the country. We all know what happened after: Napoleon had to constantly put armies in Spain, which strained his ressources, and the situation revealed weaknesses that his ennemies were willing to exploit.
Ultimately, the move made sense from Napoleon's POV but it wasn't the smartest thing he could have done and turned out in fact to be one of his biggest mistakes.
To be honest, Napoleon was typically referred by his ennemies as "the Ogre" and often called a Tyrant by them... So it was pretty easy for them to claim they were liberators once he was defeated. Even and especially in states that Napoleon had puppetized: I thus doubt maintaining the Kingdom of Holland would have changed much in that regard. In other words, even if Louis had kept his throne, he would still have lost it if Napoleon was still defeated and overthrown.
Also, even if Louis was liked by the locals for how he ruled and probably would have never turned aganst his brother, he still wasn't following Napoleon's directives. This actually made Napoleon suspicious of his brother's actions and abilities as he had put Louis on the throne of Holland to do things he wasn't doing: apply the Continental Blockade, create an effective and standing dutch contingent for the Grande Armée and more importantly defend the country from potential attacks. Louis failed on all three accounts on that point: he refused to do the first two because it felt it wasn't in the interest of his Kingdom (he had a point there) and his inability to prevent the British landing in Walcheren in 1809 proved he couldn't do the third. Louis himself also complexified the situation a bit by first refusing to abdicate then by fleeing to Austria after he abdicated in favor of his son.
The last thing I could mention is that I don't know exactly how the Netherlands faired once they were annexed by Napoleon. Considering that the situation there was however pretty peaceful and that you had no major uprising in the region before French armies retreated in 1813, I'm not sure they faired that badly.
That argument wasn't used in the thread as far as I've checked. At least not before you mentionned it.
Granted, I've seen it used by people in other threads discussing Napoleon and I agree it's a pretty bad argument even if British historiography tends to be a bit more negative on Napoleon but that's not really surprising given that historiography is generally a bit chauvinist and that Britain fought Napoleon.
"I'm beginning to regret my Bonapartist stance, seeing how anglophone and anti-Napoleon this board is, but a loyal man can't go back on one's words."
Louis-Philippe. He was far from flawless and perhaps a cannier or more ruthless man might have been more successful but I think he did his best with a very weak hand and he was better for France than either the Second Republic or the Second Empire.
Okay, my bad. I did a quick search and this one had indeed slipped under my nose.