Napoleon-Why the hate?

[Pachac]

I personally find it amazing that people can glorify a man that destroyed the economies of Europe by tying them to his system, triggered a series of devastating wars that wracked the European continent for no apparent reason(considering Napoleon never had any real goals), thought it was a-ok to be above diplomacy and established a French military aristocracy. He was manipulative, betrayed and treated the Poles like garbage, and was generally an asshole. The only reason I consider him good is because he's the sole area where people try to Wank the French instead of screw them, for once.

 

[Elfwine]

Name a specific war. You cannot generically name any war that involved French expansion under Napoleon. Name a war where France under Napoleon actively invaded another country because Napoleon had the dream of being Emperor of Europe, that is not the Peninsular War or the Russian Campaign.

In his own words:"My power depends on my glory and my glories on the victories I have won. My power will fail if I do not feed it on new glories and new victories. Conquest has made me what I am and only conquest can enable me to hold my position." - quoted from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, source M. Glover's The Napoleonic Wars: An Illustrated History 1792-1815.

So should I start at the beginning or pick at random?

Congrats, you are rapidly losing my respect when I used to have a lot for you. You did not answer my question. And the answer is no, I would not be happy if you suddenly answered me with a straight answer. I wouldn't have even have cared if you chose Robespierre's hell as soon as I posed the question. In fact I may have respected you a bit more than I did at the time, even if I would have thought you were completely insane. No I'm not deliberately eliminating other options, there were never any other options in the first place. I asked you, very specifically, which would you rather live in.

I really don't care for your respect all that much if you're going to deliberately pose a question after you know I reject both oppositions and insist that I pick between two options I oppose for no apparent purpose.

So yes, you are deliberating eliminating other options in order to get a pointless question answered.

 

[scholar]

I personally find it amazing that people can glorify a man that destroyed the economies of Europe by tying them to his system, triggered a series of devastating wars that wracked the European continent for no apparent reason(considering Napoleon never had any real goals), though it was a-ok to be above diplomacy and established a French military aristocracy. He was manipulative, betrayed and treated the Poles like garbage, and was generally an asshole.

What wars did Napoleon trigger, specifically? Napoleon actually tried to broker peace with the British and all the other powers. The British would first violate that peace and then declare war against Napoleon. They would actively encourage the other great powers to attack Napoleon while launching massive propaganda campaigns defining him as a dangerous short man with designs on the entire world.

Third Coalition: Britain declared war on France, Austria and Russia joined in after Britain encouraged them to do so and Napoleon declared himself King of his Italian possessions.

Fourth Coalition: Prussia started the coalition after fearing the rise of France power after France beat Austria (which had declared war on France).

Fifth Coalition: Austria believing they could defeat Napoleon attacks Napoleon while he is preoccupied with Spain. France crushes them.

Sixth Coalition: Sweden violated the continental system, Napoleon took Swedish Pommerania but the two immediately signed a peace. Sweden, however, wanted Norway. They then sought allies with Britain and France and started the sixth coalition, Prussia and Austria, both French allies at this point, turned against him in order to restore their power after losing in their aggressive wars against Napoleon. With all of Europe against him Napoleon was finally defeated.

Seventh Coalition: After becoming a hero to the people of Elba, he returned to France. The french people automatically supported him. The bourbons fled and all the powers of Europe declared war on France because they feared him being put back in power.

 

[scholar]

So should I start at the beginning or pick at random?

Whichever you prefer.

 

[Elfwine]

Whichever you prefer.

The Third Coalition was certainly not a war of self-defense. The First (and Second) being vs. the Republic, so I'm not counting it.

Who is invading whose country?

I'm not saying Austria and Russia and Britain were innocent victims of an evil man, but they were threatened by Napoleon more than France was threatened by them (until it became a matter of their safety depending on bringing him down).

There's no reason why Russia (not so much Prussia and Austria, but neither of those have any interest in British power either) would have sided with Britain if it was a matter of British aggression - that would be like Austria siding with Turkey against Spain.

 

[Pachac]

Since you already are having an argument with Elfwine regarding whether or not the wars of Napoleon were caused by him, I'd like you to address my other points.

 

[scholar]

I really don't care for your respect all that much if you're going to deliberately pose a question after you know I reject both oppositions and insist that I pick between two options I oppose for no apparent purpose.

No apparent reason? Its intrinsically tied into the debate! I mean, seriously. You were opposed to Napoleon for what he replaced, the reign of terror. I asked this:

I'm asking you to choose between murder in the street, terrorism, justice of the mob, suppression of free thought, outright murder of any political opponents of 'democracy' or stability, freedom of expression, justice of the law, and the security of your basic livelihood.

Which is actually a true or false question:

True or False? Elfwine would rather live in France during Reign of Terror as a civilian rather than live in France during the Napoleonic Era as a civilian.

 

[Sumeragi]

I think the core reason would be that he "squandered" his successes.

 

[Elfwine]

No apparent reason? Its intrinsically tied into the debate!

I mean, seriously. You were opposed to Napoleon for what he replaced, the reign of terror

Actually, my opposition to Napoleon is for what he gave the rest of Europe.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5298250&postcount=22

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5298467&postcount=25

. I asked this:

I'm asking you to choose between murder in the street, terrorism, justice of the mob, suppression of free thought, outright murder of any political opponents of 'democracy' or stability, freedom of expression, justice of the law, and the security of your basic livelihood.

Which is actually a true or false question:

True or False? Elfwine would rather live in France during Reign of Terror as a civilian rather than live in France during the Napoleonic Era as a civilian.

Fine. False. Elfwine would rather live in France under Louis XVII.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5300646&postcount=60

At no point have I said anything about regarding the reign of terror as preferable, I simply stand as someone who regards the French Revolution as a disaster.

 

[scholar]

The Third Coalition was certainly not a war of self-defense. The First (and Second) being vs. the Republic, so I'm not counting it.

The war of the Third coalition was started when France under Napoleon signed a Peace with Great Britain. Great Britain violated the treaty that they signed and was outraged at France for taking actions that were not part of the treaty, such as laying the foundation for Switzerland. Great Britain declared war. Great Britain formed the Third Coalition, a Coalition who's aim was war against France to destroy or contain Napoleon. Russia joined, as did Austria.

Explain to me how Napoleon declared war on these states? Its rather clear: Great Britain declared war on France, violating a peace treaty they just signed. Russia then joined in with an alliance, and then Austria followed suit.

 

[Henriksson]

I guess pretty soon Hitler will be seen as just a man with greasy hair, a funny moustache and an inability to stop his arm from sticking up in the air.

Hitler? That guy in the parody videos?

 

[Elfwine]

The war of the Third coalition was started when France under Napoleon signed a Peace with Great Britain. Great Britain violated the treaty that they signed and was outraged at France for taking actions that were not part of the treaty, such as laying the foundation for Switzerland. Great Britain declared war. Great Britain formed the Third Coalition, a Coalition who's aim was war against France to destroy or contain Napoleon. Sweden joined, as did Russia, and Austria.

Explain to me how Napoleon declared war on these states? Its rather clear: Great Britain declared war on France, violating a peace treaty they just signed. Russia then joined in with an alliance, and then Austria followed suit.

"....it was observed that Frnace was continuing the struggle by other means. British trade was denied entry into much of Europe. London was firmly told to keep out of Dutch, Swiss, and Italian matters. And French intrigues and aggressions were reported from Muscat to the West Indies and from Turkey to Piedmont."

And this before Addington refusing to hand back Malta. (The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

The Third Coalition only existed because Napoleon being contained or destroyed was something that multiple powers, with no interest in Britain's power growing, found necessary for their own welfare.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Okay, I have to ask -- what is all this love for the Napoleonic Code? AIUI, Napoleon's chief changes were rolling back progressive changes in the law from the Revolution, particularly by returning women to the status perpetual minors. What am I missing?

 

[Elfwine]

Okay, I have to ask -- what is all this love for the Napoleonic Code? AIUI, Napoleon's chief changes were rolling back progressive changes in the law from the Revolution, particularly by returning women to the status perpetual minors. What am I missing?

I swear you posted this before. Am I seeing things?

 

[scholar]

Actually, my opposition to Napoleon is for what he gave the rest of Europe.

The rise and rule of Napoleon is what replaced the Reign of Terror with. Do you deny this?

Fine. False. Elfwine would rather live in France under Louis XVII.

Thank you for stating you would rather live under Napoleonic France than Robespierre hell. (I would have said the same if you had said false instead of truth, because this actually answers my question.)

At no point have I said anything about regarding the reign of terror as preferable, I simply stand as someone who regards the French Revolution as a disaster.

No, you didn't. You did say 'Can't I just be opponent's of both?' You can be, but one was definitively better than the other. France under Napoleon was better than France under Robespierre.

 

[Elfwine]

The rise and rule of Napoleon is what replaced the Reign of Terror with. Do you deny this?

And of course, the only choice was an autocrat who wanted conquest for his personal glory and power. And people want a worse Francescrew than OTL (referring to post-Napoleonic France)? Isn't having a guy responsible for tens of thousands of deaths followed by a guy responsible for two decades of war and 1.5 million dead Frenchmen in the beginning of the 19th century screwed up enough, French-haters?

Thank you for stating you would rather live under Napoleonic France than Robespierre hell. (I would have said the same if you had said false instead of truth, because this actually answers my question.)

No, you didn't. You did say 'Can't I just be opponent's of both?' You can be, but one was definitively better than the other. France under Napoleon was better than France under Robespierre.

And France under neither would be even better.

Thus my insistence on standing as "Neither." between the two.

 

[scholar]

The Third Coalition only existed because Napoleon being contained or destroyed was something that multiple powers, with no interest in Britain's power growing, found necessary for their own welfare.

Let's take a much closer look at that statement:

London was firmly told to keep out of Dutch, Swiss, and Italian matters.

All of which was within France's sphere of influence at the time. France had the right to deny them access there by the current laws of the land at the time. Batavian Republic, Swiss Confederation, and The Republic of Italy.

French intrigues and aggressions were reported from Muscat to the West Indies and from Turkey to Piedmont.

French aggression towards the British was nothing new and was commonplace everywhere they met. This happened well before Napoleon, during Napoleon and After Napoleon. If you can provide a source that states that the French stopped such actions and only resumed those actions when Napoleon came in charge (and under his order) then this may be just cause. Even so, the exact same is true for the British, though possible to a far lesser extent.

 

[scholar]

And of course, the only choice was an autocrat who wanted conquest for his personal glory and power. And people want a worse Francescrew than OTL (referring to post-Napoleonic France)? Isn't having a guy responsible for tens of thousands of deaths followed by a guy responsible for two decades of war and 1.5 million dead Frenchmen in the beginning of the 19th century screwed up enough, French-haters?

Aren't I debating this with you at the moment.

And France under neither would be even better.

Thus my insistence on standing as "Neither." between the two.

You already said that Napoleonic France was better.

My true or false statement was: Elfwine would rather live in France during Reign of Terror as a civilian rather than live in France during the Napoleonic Era as a civilian.

When you declared it false, you said 'Elfwine would rather live in France during the Napoleonic Era as a civilian rather than live in France during the Reign of Terror as a civilian.'

 

[Elfwine]

Let's take a much closer look at that statement:

London was firmly told to keep out of Dutch, Swiss, and Italian matters.

All of which was within France's sphere of influence at the time. France had the right to deny them access there by the current laws of the land at the time. Batavian Republic, Swiss Confederation, and The Republic of Italy.

France had the right to dictate that such and such a place was its sphere of influence, but everyone else is unwanted? Since when? (I'm looking at European attitudes on anyone declaring that they have the right to settle things unilaterally here).

That's not going to go over well and be treated as a sign Napoleon is peaceful and restrained, especially when those two out of three of those areas have traditionally been areas that someone messing with gets their rivals feeling anxious.

French intrigues and aggressions were reported from Muscat to the West Indies and from Turkey to Piedmont.

French aggression towards the British was nothing new and was commonplace everywhere they met. This happened well before Napoleon, during Napoleon and After Napoleon. If you can provide a source that states that the French stopped such actions and only resumed those actions when Napoleon came in charge. The exact same is true for the British, though possible to a far lesser extent.

Whether or not it was unique to Napoleon really has less than nothing to do with whether or not it counts as "aggression" "hostility" and otherwise grounds for regarding Napoleon as threatening.

No one* liked Louis XIV either. No one really cared for the Hapsburgs in their "bid for mastery". And no one really liked Wilhelm II of Germany, maybe not even Wilhelm II.


* Yes, there are exceptions, but its a pretty equivalent situation - a slightly different set of allies and enemies, but then, Europe has also changed a good deal in that century in terms of who matters.

 

[Elfwine]

Aren't I debating this with you at the moment.

Actually, and I don't mean to be rude or unduly nitpicky, but we're not really discussing whether or not this was the best option for France in the sense of "was OTL a good scenario?" as much as the Reign of Internal Terror vs. the Reign of External Conquest.

And the Napoleonic Wars did cost France heavily - how much of this was "Napoleon" is being debated, yes, but certainly that period sucked for that, and as ruler Napoleon bears a certain responsibility for it.

You already said that Napoleonic France was better.

My true or false statement was: Elfwine would rather live in France during Reign of Terror as a civilian rather than live in France during the Napoleonic Era as a civilian.

When you declared it false, you said 'Elfwine would rather live in France during the Napoleonic Era as a civilian rather than live in France during the Reign of Terror as a civilian.'

My true or false statement is that it is true that Elfwine would rather not live under either and it is false that Elfwine would support either.

I would rather not live in France in this period at all. Taking my statements to mean anything else does nothing to indicate anything except who I'd rather strangle (Napoleon in exile is sufficient, Robespierre being burned would be poetic.) And its really tiresome for you to present things as if opposition to Napoleon as a bad thing for France (let alone Europe, which is the main reason I mind him - if he had simply ruled France, he might have been a fair ruler - or not, others know better than me) is at all at all inconsistent with opposition to Robespierre.

And not to claim the last word, even temporally, but for the sake of the discussion as a whole, but could you address ImmortalImpi's nonwar related points (and Parker's) before responding to this?

That needs some attention too.