Napoleon-Why the hate?

[scholar]

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 what being within someone's sphere of influence means. A puppet state's interests are controlled by the ruling power. France was the ruling power, they had the right to control any interests in such a region. British competition is not wanted within a region where France's mercantile base now has a monopoly. Its not as if France was alone in such actions, Great Britain has numerous instances of their doing the exact same things to other powers in areas which they perceive to be in their sphere of influence.

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.

Actually, it does a great deal. French Sailors and Merchants have been killing British Sailors and Merchants and vice a versa for centuries by this point do to the fact that the two nations absolutely hated each other and this hatred was deeply embedded within the very persona of the people living in those nations. If Britain is going to make the argument that Napoleon is a bloodthirsty tyrant that is a threat to the world, they need to have evidence that Napoleon is actively trying to be an aggressive blood thirsty tyrant. Something that people 'just did' at the time as evidence for this is frankly unjustifiable. You might as well declare President Nixon a hippy and a peace lover under the same logic.

Further, such a statement assumes that France was alone in such actions. That is simply untrue.

 

[scholar]

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?

France didn't have a single code of laws before the Napoleonic Code, most of the laws often contradicted each other.

What do you mean about returning women to the status of perpetual minors?

 

[Elfwine]

That's what being within someone's sphere of influence means. A puppet state's interests are controlled by the ruling power. France was the ruling power, they had the right to control any interests in such a region. British competition is not wanted within a region where France's mercantile base now has a monopoly. Its not as if France was alone in such actions, Great Britain has numerous instances of their doing the exact same things to other powers in areas which they perceive to be in their sphere of influence.

And this (not being alone) makes it acceptable? If you're looking at this from the perspective of a third party, both are condemnation worthy. If you're looking at this from the interests hurt by France...its hard not to say what's good for France isn't good for you.

And of course, defining an area as your sphere of influence regardless of what other powers think...as stated, rarely goes over well.

Russia's reaction to Britain's idea of who had the right to dominate Central Asia comes to mind (or vice-versa).

Actually, it does a great deal. French Sailors and Merchants have been killing British Sailors and Merchants and vice a versa for centuries by this point do to the fact that the two nations absolutely hated each other and this hatred was deeply embedded within the very persona of the people living in those nations. If Britain is going to make the argument that Napoleon is a bloodthirsty tyrant that is a threat to the world, they need to have evidence that Napoleon is actively trying to be an aggressive blood thirsty tyrant. Something that people 'just did' at the time as evidence for this is frankly unjustifiable. You might as well declare President Nixon a hippy and a peace lover under the same logic.

Further, such a statement assumes that France was alone in such actions. That is simply untrue.

Napoleon invading other countries, toppling rulers, and generally expanding France at the expense of other powers is a pretty solid argument that Napoleon is a threat to the world. That it was typical for rulers to try to do that - say, Frederick II (yes, that Frederick) - does not make it less threatening or less deserving of hostility.

And again: France is a threat on a much larger scale than Prussia, picked for Frederick claiming Silesia on grounds Napoleon would have used, so its certainly grounds for finding him more dangerous and more worrisome than Der Alte Fritz - who was not exactly seen as a friend of peace and a good neighbor.

 

[scholar]

Being too busy discussing things with Elfwine I either never read your post or tuned it out until Elfwine mentioned it. My apologis.

I personally find it amazing that people can glorify a man that destroyed the economies of Europe by tying them to his system

It was an unintentional move. Napoleon in fact tried to strengthen Europe and harm Great Britain with this move. He actually thought that through the continental system he could achieve lasting peace with Britain as their economy could not afford a war where the European markets were blocked from them. It was a failure for a few reasons, the first was that not everyone in Europe agreed with the continental system, this is actually what caused both the Peninsular wars and the Russian campaign, both of which were unavoidable from the perspective of a commitment to such a policy. Another reason was that Europe would in turn, especially France, be blockaded from markets outside of Europe which caused a lot of problems for France and her client states. There was no intent on destroying the European economies.

triggered a series of devastating wars that wracked the European continent for no apparent reason(considering Napoleon never had any real goals)

Napoleon may have been the trigger for the wars, but it would be the never ending mechanization of Great Britain that actually caused all those coalitions. The only reason why the conflicts wrecked the European continent was because Napoleon was damned hard to beat. If Great Britain never declared war on Napoleon and actively conspired against him it is entirely possible that peace would have reigned in Europe until Napoleon's death. It may be unlikely, but it is certainly possible.

thought it was a-ok to be above diplomacy

He was diplomatically inept.

established a French military aristocracy.

It was far better than what it replaced. A broken and largely seditious nobility.

He was manipulative

No man that has ever rose to power could have been anything but.

, betrayed and treated the Poles like garbage

This is news to me. I can't find any mention of this.

, and was generally an asshole.

I disagree. Occasionally? Yes, the same with most rulers. Generally? no.

 

[scholar]

And this (not being alone) makes it acceptable?

Yes, if it wasn't then all of the nations of Europe would have been justified in declaring war on each other for them being flagrantly and overtly aggressive towards one anothers business interests.

Napoleon invading other countries, toppling rulers, and generally expanding France at the expense of other powers is a pretty solid argument that Napoleon is a threat to the world.

...what? Are we still on the topic of the third coalition or have you shifted gears? If you are talking about the replacement of many of the french puppet states, his changes were not aggressive to European powers. They would actually have been widely acceptable if not for the fact that few of the old monarchs returned to resume their positions. Other than that? Certainly not. And certainly not anything that would appear outwardly aggressive towards independent Europe.

 

[Hapsburg]

It was far better than what it replaced. A broken and largely seditious nobility.

Well, whippy-goddamn-doo. It's still a military aristocracy, which is a bad thing to have. And it came to dominate French politics up through DeGaulle's era.
I can't believe it, but I'm taking Elfwine's line here. Neither Royalist nor Revolutionary nor Napoleonic France were places I'd support. At all.

No man that has ever rose to power could have been anything but.

Yes, the same with most rulers.

I still can't believe people use this as an excuse for awful people to have done awful shit. It doesn't matter if it was considered okay by society of his era. Being an asshole because everyone else around you are also assholes isn't right. It is not, and never will be, acceptable to be a manipulative bastard and screw over--and kill--millions of people.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes, if it wasn't then all of the nations of Europe would have been justified in declaring war on each other for them being flagrantly and overtly aggressive towards one anothers business interests.

All the nations of Europe did find the actions of powers threatening their interests to be grounds for war in this period, thus the opposition to the Hapsburgs in their day for instance.

The nations of Europe in general didn't attempt the kind of wars of conquest that would see this: http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1800/index.html

and then this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_French_Empire_%281804-1815%29.png

except for those who were attempting hegemony.

...what? Are we still on the topic of the third coalition or have you shifted gears? If you are talking about the replacement of many of the french puppet states, his changes were not aggressive to European powers. They would actually have been widely acceptable if not for the fact that few of the old monarchs returned to resume their positions. Other than that? Certainly not. And certainly not anything that would appear outwardly aggressive towards independent Europe.

You mentioned Britain portraying Napoleon a bloody tyrant, so I'm commenting that he damn well acted like one.

Making so many French puppet states and trampling on the interests and borders of so many other countries was most definitely outwardly aggressive - in fact, not merely appearance - towards independent Europe.

I mean, why do you think Austria had a problem with Napoleon? A desire to see the continent dominated by Britain?

Well, whippy-goddamn-doo. It's still a military aristocracy, which is a bad thing to have. And it came to dominate French politics up through DeGaulle's era.
I can't believe it, but I'm taking Elfwine's line here. Neither Royalist nor Revolutionary nor Napoleonic France were places I'd support. At all.

Out of curiosity, what's surprising about taking my line, o fellow monarchist (if a monarchist in a far different way than this demi-absolutist monarchist)?

I still can't believe people use this as an excuse for awful people to have done awful shit. It doesn't matter if it was considered okay by society of his era. Being an asshole because everyone else around you are also assholes isn't right. It is not, and never will be, acceptable to be a manipulative bastard and screw over--and kill--millions of people.

And judging by the repeated coalitions - which could not have formed unless the members shared at least some level of hostility to what he was doing, hypocritical or selfish maybe but definitely there - it wasn't considered okay.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

France didn't have a single code of laws before the Napoleonic Code, most of the laws often contradicted each other.

OK, fair point; certainly that, in itself, is an achievement of note.

What do you mean about returning women to the status of perpetual minors?

I thought the Code's regression on Women's rights was fairly well known...

Women Lose Rights Under Napoleon’s Code

While all men were created equal under Napoleon’s new laws, women were most assuredly not. During the Directory women had experienced much more liberation than ever before. The were invited to take petitions and have their voice heard, even if they were not given the right to vote, yet. Under the Napoleonic Code, women were now nothing more than chattel to their fathers or husband. Thy were no longer allowed to testify in a courtroom or sell property without a husbands approval.

Children were also overlooked in the Napoleonic Code. Fathers could co-sign their sons to jail for however long the father cared to pay food and lodging.

The Napoleonic Code was not a positive change for women. Even what small philosophical strides might have been made during the Revolution, such as consideration of declaring spousal abuse a crime, were lost. While Napoleon declared his desire to integrate the past and the future of law, the only real feminist idea that survived the death of Olympe de Gouges and her sisters was their idea that marriage should be a social contract between a man and a woman, rather than a direct transfer of ownership from father to husband. The Code declared that women were still subject to the control of their father or husband, and they were not allowed to engage in any exchange of "immovable" property without the particular man's consent. Even if her husband was in jail, a Frenchwoman was required to wait until his release to gain permission to engage in commerce.

 

[Pachac]

Napoleon's treatment of the Grand Ducky was fairly evident by the fact that he was fairly enthusiastic about giving Alexander it in exchange for peace, and was delighted by the prospect due to the fact it would make the Prussians more dependent on his assistance. As for the Continental system's failure, I don't see how its intent really negated the fact that it was a means to an end for French dominance and that it's failure did in fact screw over Europe, a negated point. I'm arguing against his glorification and regardless of his intent the failure of the Continental system was one example.

 

[scholar]

Well, whippy-goddamn-doo. It's still a military aristocracy, which is a bad thing to have. And it came to dominate French politics up through DeGaulle's era.

It may have been, but it was a far better option than the nobility it replaced at the time.

I still can't believe people use this as an excuse for awful people to have done awful shit. It doesn't matter if it was considered okay by society of his era. Being an asshole because everyone else around you are also assholes isn't right. It is not, and never will be, acceptable to be a manipulative bastard and screw over--and kill--millions of people.

Napoleon wasn't an awful person and he didn't do awful things. At least nothing that I would condemn him for as a general nor as an autocrat. You need a frame of mind inside the period. If you don't have that then you aren't judging him for what he was, but coloring him through the lens of modern eyes.

 

[brokenman]

Napoleon's treatment of the Grand Ducky was fairly evident by the fact that he was fairly enthusiastic about giving Alexander it in exchange for peace, and was delighted by the prospect due to the fact it would make the Prussians more dependent on his assistance..

It was indeed, our great rubber foe who has defeated Napoleon.

Seriously, IMHO Napoleon is a dick. Even if he was the defender, he does not let any of the wars against him unanswered. Every time he wins, he gobbles up land, sets up rulers, which in turn, aggravated his infamy, makes France the most hated nation in Europe.

However, aside from that, he's okay.

 

[Pachac]

The Rubber Ducky of Europe shall rise again!

 

[Elfwine]

Apparently, some other Bonaparte was responsible for this: http://hiddenabacus.com/2011/10/photo-a-whiff-of-grapeshot-eglise-saint-roch-rue-saint-honore/

Even if not his words, his actions involved grapeshot on civilians. Rioting civilians, but still civilians. What a humane, kindly man.

 

[scholar]

I thought the Code's regression on Women's rights was fairly well known...

My mind is still on Olympe de Gouges, which makes me skeptical that rights progressed for women at a time when women were regularly executed for challenging their place as second class citizens, which makes me even more skeptical that Napoleon regressed it.

Given the contradictory nature of the law at the time, it is possible that some regional laws had allowed women a great deal of freedom and when the Code was made those regional laws were removed. However upon reviewing one of your articles there was no regression. Women's rights may have become popular with Olympe, but nothing was formally passed. If the rights never became law, they were never taken away. And remember, at this time women were generally treated poorly almost everywhere. It is a sad and sobering fact about the era.

 

[scholar]

Napoleon's treatment of the Grand Ducky was fairly evident by the fact that he was fairly enthusiastic about giving Alexander it in exchange for peace, and was delighted by the prospect due to the fact it would make the Prussians more dependent on his assistance. As for the Continental system's failure, I don't see how its intent really negated the fact that it was a means to an end for French dominance and that it's failure did in fact screw over Europe, a negated point. I'm arguing against his glorification and regardless of his intent the failure of the Continental system was one example.

What?

He never gave the Grand Duchy to Alexander in exchange for peace as far as I'm aware of. The duchy was taken, by force, with Napoleon retreating deep within Europe. There was actually a great deal of talk about Napoleon bringing Poland to the rank of a Kingdom and reuniting it with Lithuania.

Prussia, Austria, and Russia all invaded and tore apart Poland for their own wants and gains, by recreating the state it would weaken those three states. Motivations for the creation of the kingdom actually drifted more towards Napoleon wanting to create a constitutional monarchy and restoring Poland to the world.

No one is glorifying him for the continental system, at least not here.

 

[scholar]

Seriously, IMHO Napoleon is a dick. Even if he was the defender, he does not let any of the wars against him unanswered. Every time he wins, he gobbles up land, sets up rulers, which in turn, aggravated his infamy, makes France the most hated nation in Europe.

He only did this to countries that wanted to do the same to him. All of the powers in the coalition had declarations that basically read "Napoleon, we are here to depose you, retake our land, steal your puppets only to reorganize them to be our puppets, and restore the Bourbons and the nobility we like."

 

[Pachac]

SNIP

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. He was thinking of doing it and took interest into the idea.

 

[scholar]

All the nations of Europe did find the actions of powers threatening their interests to be grounds for war in this period, thus the opposition to the Hapsburgs in their day for instance.

The nations of Europe in general didn't attempt the kind of wars of conquest that would see this: http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1800/index.html

and then this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_French_Empire_(1804-1815).png

If you actually pay attention to what is actually annexed into France and compare it you will find a rather small difference. Not to mention that all of those territorial acquisitions and puppet states were founded when France emerged victorious against those powers in defensive wars.

And no, they didn't. At least not in a way that was endemic to Napoleon. All of those puppet states and all of those actions were continuations over from the old republic.

You mentioned Britain portraying Napoleon a bloody tyrant, so I'm commenting that he damn well acted like one.

You can comment that he did, but he most certainly didn't. Not initially.

Making so many French puppet states and trampling on the interests and borders of so many other countries was most definitely outwardly aggressive - in fact, not merely appearance - towards independent Europe.

He didn't make so many French puppets Elfwine, he changed their governments. The puppets were already France's as left overs from the old republic.

I mean, why do you think Austria had a problem with Napoleon? A desire to see the continent dominated by Britain?

Austria was humiliated by France twice and were eager for payback. Napoleon was the architect for their defeat, therein lies the problem.

 

[scholar]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. He was thinking of doing it and took interest into the idea.

Source?

Just because he was thinking of doing it wouldn't mean that he would do it. There are a lot of erroneous thoughts that pop into the heads of leaders at war that are often dismissed when the time comes to implement them even if they really liked the idea.

 

[Elfwine]

If you actually pay attention to what is actually annexed into France and compare it you will find a rather small difference. Not to mention that all of those territorial acquisitions and puppet states were founded when France emerged victorious against those powers in defensive wars.

Small by what standards? And 'defensive wars"? Yeah, we went over how the coalitions formed because people felt Napoleon was a threat and wanted to bring down someone who was a threat.

And no, they didn't. At least not in a way that was endemic to Napoleon. All of those puppet states and all of those actions were continuations over from the old republic.

And continuing what the republic did doesn't mean what he did in say, 1805, was a-okay.

You can comment that he did, but he most certainly didn't. Not initially.

"In effect, the Napoleonic system in Europe rested on a contradiction. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Revolution within France itself, a nation proclaiming liberty, fraternity, and equality, was now - at the direction of its emperor - conquering non-French populations, stationing armies upon them, sequestering their goods, distorting their trade, raising enormous indemnities and taxes, and conscripting their youth."

Napoleon demanded these things from his foes after every conquest.

He didn't make so many French puppets Elfwine, he changed their governments. The puppets were already France's as left overs from the old republic.

Austria was humiliated by France twice and were eager for payback. Napoleon was the architect for their defeat, therein lies the problem.

Not all of the puppets - France and territory under French control for all intents and purposes expanded as a result of his actions. Was it just him and not the revolution at all? No. But no one has said that the revolution was peaceful and Napoleon wasn't, just that Napoleon wasn't. The Confederation of the Rhine may have existed to some extent before Napoleon, but its formation in full is certainly post-Republic.

As for being eager for payback: Gee, maybe that has to do with Napoleon seizing territory and otherwise expanding at Austria's expense.