Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:08 PM   #101
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 462

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
What was even the point of the Napoleonic wars if most countries today are republics? The French were eventually defeated but their ideas were never killed. Many of the ideas that the British and the others fought against have become the values they fight for in the 20th and 21st centuries.
I think it's interesting to look at the reaction of many German liberals to the French revolution and Napoleon.

At the beginning they welcomed the French and Napoleon for bringing the reforms they had hoped for. They preferred states dominated by France to the old order.

But a few years later the perception had changed dramatically. The conduct of Napoleon was seen as so tyranically that they just wanted him gone, even if it meant that the old order was restored.

If discussing the Napoleonic wars, the narrative often concentrates on nothing but the battles. But these wars brought terrible misery to the civilians, especially to the places where the wars were fought. At that time, life was hard even in good years. But if an army took the animals and the harvest of a farm, there was a very good chance that many people would die during the next winter.
Hans321 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:12 PM   #102

irishcrusader95's Avatar
None shall pass!
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Ireland
Posts: 6,729
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
I my dear sir must protest.

I believe a year or two ago on this very site I made a very long winded lol, speech explaining how Napoleon was in fact the root cause of both the "Great War" and the Second World War. Indeed all the world defining events between the time of the Emperor's fall to this very day are indeed etched by his hand.
he set in motion events that would lead to those wars of the 20th century yet it hardly seems fair to blame a man for stuff that happened a century latter.

its impossible speculative to say how things would have turned out had the early republic been crushed or Napoleon never rising up as these events, good and bad, shaped the course of history in europe to this day.

try to imagine for instance how history would have developed had Alexander the Great never done all he did, impossibly speculative as well as it so shaped the course of history.
irishcrusader95 is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:23 PM   #103

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Why not?
Now that the Buonaparte Fan Club is having this meeting out of the social group, it's a good chance to compare notes on what trait of him would each one of us like the most for when one grows up.

My personal choice for this month would be his absolute despise for any human life aside of his own.
Hoho! its that time of the year again

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishcrusader95 View Post
all i would say is prepare for some heavy bias, nationalism and Sylla
Why the hell not. It been a while. I look forward debating you again
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:42 PM   #104

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,254

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
I my dear sir must protest.

I believe a year or two ago on this very site I made a very long winded lol, speech explaining how Napoleon was in fact the root cause of both the "Great War" and the Second World War. Indeed all the world defining events between the time of the Emperor's fall to this very day are indeed etched by his hand.
Can you PM me or post a link to your thread or post? I am very interested in the Napoleonic wars and really want to learn more.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:55 PM   #105

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
Can you PM me or post a link to your thread or post? I am very interested in the Napoleonic wars and really want to learn more.
I will see if I can find it for you.
Paragonrex is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:58 PM   #106

irishcrusader95's Avatar
None shall pass!
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Ireland
Posts: 6,729
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Why the hell not. It been a while. I look forward debating you again
likewise my friend.

starting off i'd like to know what you think on the points i made on the peace proposals in post #73 in this thread. i started a thread on this a while back yet didn't get much replies. its mainly the Frankfort proposals i'm interested in and how they suddenly changed to terms that were unacceptable. all the coalition powers had their own aims and desires like Tsar Alexander who wanted to see Bernadotte, his personal buddy, on the throne, England wanted the Bourbons back and Austria wanted Napoleons son and Marie Louise in power. i'm skeptical that they ever expected Napoleon to agree to the terms and if he did may have just pushed them for harder terms as they by now wanted him gone. so i find the judgements of some authors like Esdaile in his book 'Napoleon's Wars' to be unfair at blaming soley Napoleon for their outcomes.
irishcrusader95 is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 03:03 PM   #107

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Curses I cannot find the diatrybe I did on Napoleon.

I may have done it on another site, like one of the Military History sites.

I can go over it here if requested, i do not want to hijack threads, but I believe I make a very persuasive argument for Napoleon's folly as I call it.

Mind you, i do admire him, for all his accomplishments but at the same time I can't but look at him with a wistful look for what his actions led to.

I think my argument will probably be anticipated by some of the more cagey members here

Since many of them are highly intelligent historians.

Once again if requested I can lay out "Napoleon's Folly".
Paragonrex is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 03:23 PM   #108

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishcrusader95 View Post

starting off i'd like to know what you think on the points i made on the peace proposals in post #73 in this thread. i started a thread on this a while back yet didn't get much replies. its mainly the Frankfort proposals i'm interested in and how they suddenly changed to terms that were unacceptable. all the coalition powers had their own aims and desires like Tsar Alexander who wanted to see Bernadotte, his personal buddy, on the throne, England wanted the Bourbons back and Austria wanted Napoleons son and Marie Louise in power. i'm skeptical that they ever expected Napoleon to agree to the terms and if he did may have just pushed them for harder terms as they by now wanted him gone. so i find the judgements of some authors like Esdaile in his book 'Napoleon's Wars' to be unfair at blaming soley Napoleon for their outcomes.
Actually, I agree with most of what you said about the Franfort Proposals. After Leipsig, the fervent interests of the nations took precedent. This was a time of expansion afterall, and that cannot be overstated.

Alexander actually wanted to march on Paris, in revenge for Napoleon's march into Moscow, but was wisely disuaded.

As for the "natural boundaries", the nations as a whole seemed to agree to them, but Frederick William and Alexander were the main veto of this, and Castlereagh was angered because a proposal was to let the French keep the Netherlands, because Antwerp was the commercial key to central Europe.

I can't say what would have happened entirely without Napoleon, but Its probable that Napoleons often conflicted desires led to a hastier "national interest", and after fighting a bitter war for 20 years, terms are not going to be easy on the loser, nor should that be expected.

The main areas the allies were fighting against, was Napoleonic hegenomy over Europe, because the balance of the continent would have tipped, but more importantly, the revolution had scared the old order. The system they knew for a long time was under threat.

If you get time, you should read this. This is more on the Frankfort treatise.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...&embedded=true
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 03:45 PM   #109

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,254

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Curses I cannot find the diatrybe I did on Napoleon.

I may have done it on another site, like one of the Military History sites.

I can go over it here if requested, i do not want to hijack threads, but I believe I make a very persuasive argument for Napoleon's folly as I call it.

Mind you, i do admire him, for all his accomplishments but at the same time I can't but look at him with a wistful look for what his actions led to.

I think my argument will probably be anticipated by some of the more cagey members here

Since many of them are highly intelligent historians.

Once again if requested I can lay out "Napoleon's Folly".
No worries
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 03:47 PM   #110

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Actually, I agree with most of what you said about the Franfort Proposals. After Leipsig, the fervent interests of the nations took precedent. This was a time of expansion afterall, and that cannot be overstated.

Alexander actually wanted to march on Paris, in revenge for Napoleon's march into Moscow, but was wisely disuaded.

As for the "natural boundaries", the nations as a whole seemed to agree to them, but Frederick William and Alexander were the main veto of this, and Castlereagh was angered because a proposal was to let the French keep the Netherlands, because Antwerp was the commercial key to central Europe.

I can't say what would have happened entirely without Napoleon, but Its probable that Napoleons often conflicted desires led to a hastier "national interest", and after fighting a bitter war for 20 years, terms are not going to be easy on the loser, nor should that be expected.

The main areas the allies were fighting against, was Napoleonic hegenomy over Europe, because the balance of the continent would have tipped, but more importantly, the revolution had scared the old order. The system they knew for a long time was under threat.

If you get time, you should read this. This is more on the Frankfort treatise.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...&embedded=true

Wait!,

The Austrians wanted Napoleon II on the throne?

I always thought that Prince Metternich lobbied in favor of the Ancien Regime restoration?
Paragonrex is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
ambition, british, fault, napoleonic, wars


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lusitania Sinking-Who's at fault? Heidi XX War and Military History 77 January 25th, 2014 02:54 PM
Advice needed on English soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars MissH European History 3 January 8th, 2011 12:09 AM
Leading intellectuals/figures of the Napoleonic Wars A7X European History 4 June 25th, 2010 05:30 PM
napoleonic wars piet hein War and Military History 8 June 28th, 2008 12:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.