Napoleonic Hungary

[Mikestone8]

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.

How so? The Code Civile (his only lasting Achievement) was an ok law code but was it that big a deal except to lawyers?

However the difference between Jesus and Napoleon is limitlessly wide because Jesus did not want to become like Napoleon did.

Surely the understatement of the century.

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.

What makes you think so? Sure, the kings of Europe would all have been Napoleon's relatives, but that's no guarantee of anything. After all, Wilhelm II and George V were first cousins, but that didn't stop WW1.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

he was the very thing Jesus was not.

Hm I agree that Jesus said some intelligent things, but in how far is Jesus the measure of all things?

Which includes mass lust (sex)

This is something good, even if he should tried relations with his own sex.

gluttony

I'm quite gluttonous too - so what? Also, I don't think that Napoleon really ate so much. He was quite thin for most of his life.

"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.

Totalitarian - really? He just supervised the clergy a lot, because it was by then still a major source of power. The control of the clergy through the Organic Articles was a LAW agreed upon by the French parliament. If Napoleon was interested by the actions of the Archbishop of Aix (appointed and paid by the French government), he did so completly legally. Furthermore: May I remind you that Napoleon practized religious equality (tolerance is too weak), while Catholics were still LEGALLY discriminated against in Great Britain.

Totalitarian regimes include a mass of other things, like constant propaganda, youth organization, total control of the citizens' life... Napoleon did nothing of this.

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.

But nobody of us claimed that Napoleon was more influencial than Jesus! Believe me, I think that Jesus was one of the most important persons of history, just because of the religion he founded. On the other side, Jesus would not be so influential without persons like Saint Peter, Constantine I or Theodosius I spreading his teachings...

 

[Sicarius Sanguinius]

How so? The Code Civile (his only lasting Achievement) was an ok law code but was it that big a deal except to lawyers?

Talking about what really happened regarding Napoleon, he did have a lot of luck. You cannot quantify luck and it does not exist, only chance in my opinion. The chance that Genoa sold Corsica to France through debt is chance, the French revolution occurring is chance, Napoleon being stationed at Toulon is chance. (There are more incidents of this occurring) It required him to be in the perfect place for the circumstances to occur for what we now know as history is chance and that ends when he is able to direct his own destiny, as he is able to weld it through influence and power. His extraordinary talent (he had an IQ of 130) got him very far up until that point and it would go onto serve him very well as we have seen.

In conclusion, to this, this is what makes him so important, in that against all odds of impossibility in what we now know in his achievements he actually did it and that is why I love him so much.

I don’t agree with you that the Napoleonic code is his only lasting achievement. I believe that the impossibility of what he did paints a picture of a man who was invincible in the eyes of most men. Especially the French and to this very day they still love him, no wonder they elected Napoleon III.

Napoleon literally shaped Europe in its current political boundary, it has not changed much since then apart from central Europe. His defeat set the state of the Congress of Vienna, which lead to the Brother’s war. More importantly he is prominently seen and considered to be a founding father of Germany indirectly through nationalism, liberal views and cutting down the 300 German states pre 1792 to 50 post 1815.

Did you that the battle of Battle of Austerlitz is studied in West Point to this very day.

Surely the understatement of the century.

Jesus has had an effect on humanity more than anyone because of what he symbolises, his actions and words. There is only one human that I know who certainly in some form or another in line with him and that is Muhammed Ali.

What makes you think so? Sure, the kings of Europe would all have been Napoleon's relatives, but that's no guarantee of anything. After all, Wilhelm II and George V were first cousins, but that didn't stop WW1.

Tackling your question directly:

It is shown in History from Napoleon's and from WWI point of view that placing relatives on thrones is very ineffective as you said. As a grand goal his aim should have been to annex all of Spain and Portugal into his Empire after the Peninsular war, while Peninsular should have come under a military administration head who answered to him personally. I think he should not have created the kingdom of Westphalia or at least not put Jérôme-Napoléon Bonaparte on it's throne and the same goes for Louis II Bonaparte with Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. The kingdom of Naples should have become part of the Kingdom of Italy. As for Eugène Rose de Beauharnais I have heard bad comments about military skills in the Russian invasion of 1812, I don't know about his administrative skills as Viceroy of Italy. Still Eugène Rose de Beauharnais was Napoleon's half son which still classed him as a relative. One point I am unsure about is the kingdom of Holland and its annexation because of Louis I Bonaparte, I am in an anxious unease to say "yea annex it". I am even more unsure about the Grand duke of Tuscany and Elisa Bonaparte, with that again I have an anxious unease to say that it should be administratively run through departments.

Tackling the wider issue:

Most people think that had he won on the terms he wanted to, his empire would have collapsed because no one had the genius weight of him to hold up the empire. I admit that it is a possibility the Germans could cut them down, however the longer his achievements last the more influence he will have after he has died. For a start the idea for the “European union” will have come much sooner, the idea was composed in the 1950s-60s, had he won at the very earliest the idea will have popped up around 1850 and by 1900 who knows where we would be. This is only if his “achievement” can get to those years and even if it does not his “achievement” in itself is going to send shockwaves.

 

[Mikestone8]

I don’t agree with you that the Napoleonic code is his only lasting achievement. I believe that the impossibility of what he did paints a picture of a man who was invincible in the eyes of most men. Especially the French and to this very day they still love him, no wonder they elected Napoleon III.

Electing Napoleon III only shows how stupid people can be. The first thing that bastard did was overthrow the Republic by a military coup, dooming France to dictatorship for another twenty years, then getting into a whole series of wars, until he finally did it once too often, and gave the French what their folly so richly deserved - a size 24, steel-toed (Prussian) boot right in the crotch. Better by far if Orsini's bomb had killed him.

Getting back to the uncle, though, I agree I boobed in saying that the Code was his only achievement. I overlooked his even greater one - the Second British Empire. He squandered the resources of Britain's main imperial rival in endless continental campaigns which couldn't hurt Britain much even when he won, while simultaneously ruining our lesser rivals, Holland and Spain. Meanwhile, the RN was free to wander the world unopposed, blithely picking up any colony that struck its fancy, until in 1814 we actually gave back many because we had quite literally more than we knew what to do with. It makes me chuckle that the French romanticise him so much, when in fact he did far more for Britain than for France. If we Brits had any gratitude he'd be on a plinth in Trafalgar Square.

Napoleon literally shaped Europe in its current political boundary, it has not changed much since then apart from central Europe. His defeat set the state of the Congress of Vienna, which lead to the Brother’s war. More importantly he is prominently seen and considered to be a founding father of Germany indirectly through nationalism, liberal views and cutting down the 300 German states pre 1792 to 50 post 1815.

What boundaries have you in mind? Those of France, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Holland differ only trivially from what they were in Louis XV's day. In Scandinavia the main changes are the emergence of Norway and Finland as separate countries, but Napoleon wasn't responsible for either of those. Nor did any of the far greater changes further east have much to do with him.

Regarding Germany, however many states there were, Austria and Prussia were already head and shoulders above the rest long before Napoleon arrived on the scene, and would no doubt eventually fight it out for control of Germany in any event. Obviously the greater number of states means that the administrative details would be different, but that's about all.

It is shown in History from Napoleon's and from WWI point of view that placing relatives on thrones is very ineffective as you said. As a grand goal his aim should have been to annex all of Spain and Portugal into his Empire after the Peninsular war

Surely far better to just never start the Peninsular War at all. Putting Spain under French occupation cleared the way for its empire to dissolve and be absorbed economically into the British sphere of influence even if we didn't bother to annex it. And why exactly should annexing Spain make the slightest difference to the course of the war?

Most people think that had he won on the terms he wanted to, his empire would have collapsed because no one had the genius weight of him to hold up the empire. I admit that it is a possibility the Germans could cut them down, however the longer his achievements last the more influence he will have after he has died. For a start the idea for the “European union” will have come much sooner, the idea was composed in the 1950s-60s, had he won at the very earliest the idea will have popped up around 1850 and by 1900 who knows where we would be. This is only if his “achievement” can get to those years and even if it does not his “achievement” in itself is going to send shockwaves.

How would the shockwaves do anything to prevent war?

Incidentally he did create a "European Union" of sorts. Following his defeat, four decades would elapse before any of the Great Powers would fight another - and even that one (the Crimean War) might well not have happened had there not been another wretched Bonaparte ruling France. Is there the slightest reason to suppose that his victory would have produced a longer-lasting peace than that?

It's a bit like the old joke about a united Ireland - that the only way it could ever happen is under British rule, since that would unite them all agin the British government. Napoleon similarly did quite a good job of uniting Europe - against himself.

 

[Tibi088]

Theree are 2 big problems you forget:

1. Nationalism was a newborn at the Napoleonic era. It was dominant in France and just started to appear in Germany. In Hungary and middle Europe you need a few decades for it to spread. This means you cant build a state on it.

2. Confiscating the land of the magnates rings good but there are a lot of problems. Who will administer the country? It was done mostly by austrian burocrats and poor hungarian nobility. You will loose the support of both in a scenario like this. In Hungary the middle class was very slim and weak - you cant build on it. The peasant uneducated. Like it or not you either bring in a lot of burocrats of your own or you work with what you have and thats the hungarian nobility.

 

[Eivind]

Theree are 2 big problems you forget:

1. Nationalism was a newborn at the Napoleonic era. It was dominant in France and just started to appear in Germany. In Hungary and middle Europe you need a few decades for it to spread. This means you cant build a state on it.

2. Confiscating the land of the magnates rings good but there are a lot of problems. Who will administer the country? It was done mostly by austrian burocrats and poor hungarian nobility. You will loose the support of both in a scenario like this. In Hungary the middle class was very slim and weak - you cant build on it. The peasant uneducated. Like it or not you either bring in a lot of burocrats of your own or you work with what you have and thats the hungarian nobility.

Maybe French bureaucrats? Nationalism would not be absolutely necessary to split up the Habsburg Empire, although it would be helpful. If you manage to ally with community leaders, like for instance local priests you might perhaps speed up the growth of nationalism. A new king or president, whatever his original nationality, would serve as head of state.