Why didn't Napoleon further break up the Habsburg realm when he had the chance (at Presburg, say) and create an independent Hungary like he did with Poland? It would weaken Austria considerably, create what would presumably be a more reliable ally than Francis II, and maybe even be a happy home for some stupid relative. So why didn't Napoleon push for something like this, and what would happen if he had?
Napoleonic Hungary
- Thread starter Tsargrad_or_Bust
- Start date
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Napoleon tried it, but the Hungarians declined his offer. Quote from Jean Tulard's "Dictionnaire Napoléon":
Alex Richards
Donor
Napoleon's suggestion was the Prince Esterhazy, but that family had a long tradition of loyalty to the Habsburgs/HRE so he declined.
Could be interesting especially if done together with the establishment of a Polish Kingdom. In this way you would have two loyal medium powers as buffers against Russia and checks to Austrian and Prussian resurgence
I see however a problem with the Hungarian magnates as the French would likely want to abolish serfdom and any land reform would drastically reduce their power, while possibly giving ideas to the various Slovaks, Romanian, Croats, Serbs etc who would live in this Napoleonic Hungary.
I see however a problem with the Hungarian magnates as the French would likely want to abolish serfdom and any land reform would drastically reduce their power, while possibly giving ideas to the various Slovaks, Romanian, Croats, Serbs etc who would live in this Napoleonic Hungary.
Deleted member 92195
Napoleon would have wanted that, for what he thought Europe should look like and this relates to that maybe not him but his sons would have thought up something along the lines of the "European union". As for the Hungarian magnates he would have just posted some soldiers there to keep the peace.
Maybe he becomes a patron of Slavic independence and gives the czechs and South Slavs their own kingdoms.
Deleted member 92195
I could see both of these things happening. The problem by that point is that something was wrong with Napoleon in metaphoric way and the only way I can describe it is that he was not thinking straight at all. I think that is what happens when power and greatness get to you. He could have had the whole of Europe, America and India, which is what he wanted but his mistakes look so pathetic in retrospect to his success you think "Really!!!". Even though in the end he was a bad person, there is not denying that, he could have permanently changed Europe for the better. In my mind he would have been the person to fight "The War to end all wars".
I have actually just bought a book on how the Emperor self-destructed.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
I strongly disagree with you. The kings of Europe were the bad persons oppressing their countries, not Napoleon.
Yes, it seems like he was far better on military strategy than on diplomatic strategy. I agree with the others here that he was no worse than the other kings and royals. They cared very little about the lives of ordinary people. Maybe the most positive legacy after Napoleon was legal changes with modernization of the administration and so on. But like others both before and after him he was to hungry for power for his own good. If France had stopped earlier, the French borders would perhaps still had followed the Rhein.
Well, he had to be the bad guy to protect and entrench the ideals of the revolution (though I agree, he went too far). When the Bourbons came back, France was never the same again.
Even if he stopped earlier, the question is, will his enemies stop, too? Well, Britain might not.
We have to remember that majority of the wars fought by Napoleon wasn't started by him.
Last edited:
Though it probably would have set a dangerous precent for all conquered lands at that point, especially if you consider how he contually tried to validate the existence of the Imperial State to the French peasants while at the same time gassing up the glory of the french revolution against monarchy and aristocracy and such
Deleted member 92195
Just to restate again..... LOL.
I agree with you that other states were just as bad or worse but even though Napoleon was a man which brought a breath of fresh air to humanity, he was the very thing Jesus was not. Which includes mass lust (sex), gluttony, greed, wrath and pride, I don't know if he was envious of anything significant but I he certainly was not slothful and even though most people were like this back then he could have set his legacy far far higher than it is today.
This quote below shows a perfect example of what he should not have become and the sad chance he wasted on the only human history example to change the world and fast forward the world far ahead of it's time.
"Let me know why the Archbishop of Aix has ordered a Novena because of the the illness of Queen Louisa, and why the clergy ask the people's prayers' for any person, without leave from the government." - Totalitarian dictator.
Just so that you know I believe him to be, and he probably is considering the past in the time he lived, the effect he has had on humanity since that time and what he or his successors may achieved afterwards in his vision of the world to be, make his actual achievements and failures gigantically important in world history and it's direction, which will last from about years 2500 to 3000. Therefore for me he comes the second best human to live on earth to Jesus. However the difference between Jesus and Napoleon is limitlessly wide because Jesus did not want to become like Napoleon did.
When you realistically think of his achievements had he won, it makes me shiver looking at what happened since then and what is happening now in the world.
Last edited by a moderator: