Much more punitive Vienna

I imagine that you could justify recreating a large and independent Lorraine, but since the ruling family ended up merged with the Habsburgs this is going to be looked at as enlarging Habsburg domains AGAIN and unreasonably so, unless there is some give somewhere else

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Because it is totally wrong. And Napoléon never intended to exterminate millions of people.


IF: i never said that Napoleon intended to exterminate million people, i said his wars caused the death of millions of people, cause he didn´t care about them



Maybe because most of the war weren't started by Napoléon ? Britain declared war in 1803. Austria declared war in 1805, 1809 and 1812. Russia declared war in 1805 and 1812. Prussia declared war in 1806 and 1812. Ok he invaded without real reasons spain and portugal, but that's it. Most of the wars were started by Napoléon's ennemies. So all your argumentation is just wrong.


IF: Napoleon didn´t start most of the wars?
You are kidding, aren´t you?`Look at Napoleon wars (i will do also at home tonight)... in 1812 russia declared war? well yes, if 600.000 men mass at your border you can do the obvious thing, right? but why had naopoleon mass 600.000 men at the border of russia?
prussia in 1806? well - that is true, but again - would you disagree that napoleon attacked in 1805 and russia (fine - they "declared" war against napoleon who attacked the austrians) just made again the obvious thing?
Prussia in 1812... lol, you mean 1813... cause they - forced to attack russia switched side...


And concerning the fact that France started a lot of war between 1618-1639, no less : 30 years war started because of dispute inside the HRE, Louis XIV Started the war of Devolution and the war of the Grand Alliance (but the Grand Alliance seeked the war, it was even the goal of the alliance), war of Spanish succession started when Austria invaded Milan, Spain started the war of the Quadruple alliance by attacking Austria, the war of Polish succession was basically started by russia, the war of Austrian Succession was started by Prussia, the seven year's war was started by Prussia. So yeah France was responsible for all the wars, even those where France was not here.

IF: so, you decide.. if the "others" "seek" war, the french just defend themself, but if russia do it in 1812 it is war of agression...?

about the wars you named... i never said that others did not start wars, also

but france started a lot wars - more as others, you want to bet, also they are involved freely in a lot more. That is the time from 1618-1789 (just think about the american independce war... they "helped" the americans... with war)

from 1789-1815 france caused the wars. i will make a list for you



Bismarck and the Prussian king also started two wars, and provoked another. In the same period. And it was Austria who declared war in 1859, against Piemont, and France helped them.

IF: sure... it is like Hitler hadn´t start the war with france and uk, cause they declared war against him... france wanted to create a puppet in northern italy and war was the consequence.
in 1866 france wanted to join the war, but it was over BEFORE they could act
in 1870 france provoked prussia - this is also true (you can see both sides wanted the war - for you france is the poor boy? :rolleyes:


So you advocate that Prussia under Frederick II should have been dismantled ?

prussia loosing the war will be punished hard! it had luck that it could arrange a exhausting peace... otherwise it would loose a lot parts...

i see this war also critcal - it was unnecessary and the profit never justify the losses...
but i also say that if prussia do not attack it will be attacked, by france, austria and russia.
so one could say, prussia strikes first. But also one has to know that prussia started two wars (siding with france... yes, the little peacefull france, allways involved in wars) so prussia WAS the agressor... and a lot people have a bad opinion about prussia... me too... the 18th century prussia isn´t a peaceful nation.

So, what was the purpose of your question?
 
I imagine that you could justify recreating a large and independent Lorraine, but since the ruling family ended up merged with the Habsburgs this is going to be looked at as enlarging Habsburg domains AGAIN and unreasonably so, unless there is some give somewhere else

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The house of Lorraine ended up with the house of Habsburg for same reasons the house of Valois-Burgundy did, conflicts with their large and potentially dangerous neighbor France (there were periods that France even occupied Lorraine). Recreating Lorraine for the house of Habsburg-Lorraine, would probably only be considered as a possibility, if they for some reason would lose their Italian holdings. In which case it would be a compensation for the Tuscan branch, so it wouldn't be held by the main imperial Austrian branch. However I agree, that it wouldn't be the most likely outcome.
 
I imagine that you could justify recreating a large and independent Lorraine, but since the ruling family ended up merged with the Habsburgs this is going to be looked at as enlarging Habsburg domains AGAIN and unreasonably so, unless there is some give somewhere else

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Guys

In one TL I was playing around with, where Napoleon's overthrow was somewhat different and harsher terms were applied a kingdom of Alsace-Lorriane, attached to the German Confederation was given to the Saxon dynasty as their country was totally annexed. Think something like that might be practical but that's about as far as you could go.

Steve
 
I don't want to be warped in the moral struggle of "who was worse".
But one fact, reading books after 1812 is quite clear: a lot of people in the allied camp viewed Napoleon (or at least wrote of him) in terms that shockingly similar to the one used to describe germany in WW1/2.
The war was "a war to save humanity", the enemy was "a monstrous tyrant aiming to subjugate the whole world" (or Europe, which amounted to pretty much the same thing for most of them), the struggle was represented as a cataclismatic struggle between good and evil, an Armageddon.
Those innocent naives gentlemen of beginning 1800 had clearly no clue of the horrors of the future, but the point is: in their view they were stuggling with the ultimate evil.
Please do not bring Metternich as a counter-example, so that I will not have to name Alexander (and remember that Tilsit was before 1812).
Which brings us back to the first problem.
20 years of war had been endured, and it was a totally new war, different (and much harsher) from the pre-napoleonic ones, a war of masses where "citizen" and "soldier" had meant the same thing, a war where being old enough to be conscripted meant to be conscripted.
A war where cavalry charges and bayonet assaults had displaced the manouvering of a century before, where the gunpowder clouds made the day night, where the surgeons discovered that the best way to preserve stumps was to wrap them into the patient's skin.
A war conducted "to the end", no more exchanging a province here and there, which toppled dinasties (although sometimes not for long) and radically changed states.
It was something that Europe had never experienced before.
This alone would justify a parallel with 1919, or 1945.
The question is not how come the outcome in 1815 was so different, but what the consequences if it had been more similar
 
But one fact, reading books after 1812 is quite clear:

Now there's an interesting date. It includes all the frank propaganda produced by the Allied powers, both during the war to gather support (including the exploits of people like Herr Stein, whose programme the Allied leaderships had no interest in fulfilling) and afterwards to justify themselves and build new identities. (The contrast between Wellington, the first British Gentleman and Napoleon, Nefarious (but worthy) Nemesis was largely put together in Britain after the war for political reasons, for instance, with the Germans and the Russians tactfully edited out.) It doesn't include the height of Napoleon's power when most of Europe's people and governments were at least resigned to his necessity and determined to make the best of his regime.

So yes, clearly we are discussing accurate accounts of what occupied the minds of statesmen throughout the wars. :rolleyes:

a lot of people in the allied camp viewed Napoleon (or at least wrote of him) in terms that shockingly similar to the one used to describe germany in WW1/2.

So they viewed him as The Enemy? That's a universal type: The Enemy would always eat his mum for tea if he was allowed to. I could just as well name the Russians, who in the Crimean War were portrayed by the British press as monstrous, villainous, and bent on world domination (check the Punch cartoons). And was the gutting of Russia the plan of our leaders? Of course not, Palmerston's odd musings notwithstanding.

The war was "a war to save humanity", the enemy was "a monstrous tyrant aiming to subjugate the whole world" (or Europe, which amounted to pretty much the same thing for most of them), the struggle was represented as a cataclismatic struggle between good and evil, an Armageddon.

Yep, pretty familiar so far. The "monstrous tyrant out of Conquer Ze Vurld" thing we had in fact been saying about the French since Louis XIV: what else was meant by 'universal monarchy'? And before that it was Spain, or Catholics generally. Before that England and Scotland's main Enemy was each-other, and before that I suppose it was the Norse.

Those innocent naives gentlemen of beginning 1800 had clearly no clue of the horrors of the future, but the point is: in their view they were stuggling with the ultimate evil.
Please do not bring Metternich as a counter-example, so that I will not have to name Alexander (and remember that Tilsit was before 1812).

The Tsar was something of a headcase, anxious to please all and save the world, and part of his high-fallutin' chivalry was a desire not to see France the nation too abused. The Paris Treaty was more his idea than that of any other Allied leader. Whereas the more practical-minded Russian political classes, embodied in the officer corps... had been for going home after 1812, so what's it to them?

Which brings us back to the first problem.
20 years of war had been endured, and it was a totally new war, different (and much harsher) from the pre-napoleonic ones, a war of masses where "citizen" and "soldier" had meant the same thing, a war where being old enough to be conscripted meant to be conscripted.

That happened between 1793 and 1796 or so, in France. After the crisis past, the French moved back to a professional army because, for one thing, people who didn't fancy a career with the armed forces and didn't feel that France was in danger just deserted. And somebody had to grow the food.

The great powers made use of drafts, militias, and reserves, but that was only an obvious manifestation of their growing state power and organisation. The actual armies remained small bodies. The Napoleonic French army wasn't even terribly French: it had large contingents from other countries, but all were knit together by an identity of loyalty and comradeship which didn't have to mean you were a Frenchman.

The idea that in Austria or Russia everybody of military age was called up is silly. The Russian army still operated on enlistments so long as to be practically for life. Same with us, although I can't remember off the top of my head wether it actually was for life any more.

A war where cavalry charges and bayonet assaults had displaced the manouvering of a century before,

This is all very dramatic but hardly accurate. Artillery was the decisive weapon, organisational tools the great innovation. Battalion-sized bayonet-fights made a good subject for painting but were rare. Most of an army's troops just shot each-other with their inaccurate muskets - the real striking weapons were cannon, and a few elite troops in whose face lower-quality stuff would much rather run than fix bayonets - and when one side charged, that meant they'd won. Cavalry charges were similarly unusual; at least, cavalry charges against infantry, which hardly ever worked. Cavalry fighting other cavalry had done it by charging ever since Gustavus Adolphus: when swords and lances are your weapons, you can't exactly just stand still. But scouting, pursuit, screening and so on were all just as important as confronting the enemy cavalry, so that no side had more than a few of the tin-cans-pennants-and-huge-great-swords cavalry regiments (usually called Cuirassiers, Chevaliers, Life Guards or something) for whom charging and shouting was the start and finish. Flexible light and medium cavalry who would only generally risk charging one-another were the rule.

where the gunpowder clouds made the day night, where the surgeons discovered that the best way to preserve stumps was to wrap them into the patient's skin.

Both these things had been true for centuries. Welcome to the past! Please do visit the gift-shop.

A war conducted "to the end", no more exchanging a province here and there, which toppled dinasties (although sometimes not for long) and radically changed states.
It was something that Europe had never experienced before.

Um? The English Civil War, which toppled a dynasty for a fair wee while, killed a tenth of English and Scots and a third of Irish or thereabouts, mostly through famine and disease (these were still the biggest killers in Napoleonic times). This was a time when Germany, Poland, and other countries were all undergoing similar disasters. Compare that to the casualties in the Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleonic warfare was new in its scale and scope, but there had been wars that long before and plenty of wars, though before the 18th century, that had been plenty more destructive. And it's not like the eighteenth century never saw house-burnings, artificial famines, ethnic cleansing, and the carving up of a state every now and again.

This alone would justify a parallel with 1919, or 1945.
The question is not how come the outcome in 1815 was so different, but what the consequences if it had been more similar

So what are you actually proposing to change?
 
Last edited:
Top