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, 04:59 PM   #111

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,128
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Wait!,

The Austrians wanted Napoleon II on the throne?

I always thought that Prince Metternich lobbied in favor of the Ancien Regime restoration?
No, I dont think so. Power was held by a commission, and He was never recalled to rule as Napoleon II.

Marie Louise' father was emperor of Austria and she lived in exile in Austria with him. He was also made a duke iirc, before he died.
Mangekyou is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 21st, 2012, 05:01 PM   #112

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

Did he not rule in Italy as King.

Or was that a title lauded on him by his father and never recognized by the Italians

Also that is what i thought about the Austrians, Irishcrusader made the statement that the Austrians wanted Napoleon II on the throne and i thought "Wait, that does not sound like a component of Prince Metternich's plan lol"
Paragonrex is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 05:04 PM   #113

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,128
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Did he not rule in Italy as King.

Or was that a title lauded on him by his father and never recognized by the Italians
As the heir-apparent, "King of Rome" was a courtesy title given to him, by Napoleon, afaik.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 05:13 PM   #114

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
As the heir-apparent, "King of Rome" was a courtesy title given to him, by Napoleon, afaik.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
Paragonrex is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 05:34 PM   #115
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,599

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
I personally think it was because of the British because with almost every coalition the British were funding it and telling the powers of Europe to oppose Bonaparte. Some of his campaigns were his own intend but the majority was organized by the frightened coalition partners because they were scared that their Monarchy would fall. So when people say that Napoleon was a war hungry bandit then that is an insult on him.

But I want to hear your opinions.
Napolean's invasion of both Egypt and Russia had nothting to due with the threat of Britain, it was was his limitless lust for conquest that led them there. Nor was his coming back for the 100 days a matter of self defense either. To try and protray poor little Napolean aggressiveness as acts of self defense is likely claiming that Hittler was merely defending himself.
Bart Dale is online now  
Old November 21st, 2012, 06:37 PM   #116

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Napolean's invasion of both Egypt and Russia had nothting to due with the threat of Britain, it was was his limitless lust for conquest that led them there. Nor was his coming back for the 100 days a matter of self defense either. To try and protray poor little Napolean aggressiveness as acts of self defense is likely claiming that Hittler was merely defending himself.
Egypt was certainly Napoleon's personal quest but Russia was not. It was retaliation for their refusal to comply with the terms of Tilsit and the Continental System.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 06:48 PM   #117

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,128
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
Egypt was certainly Napoleon's personal quest but Russia was not. It was retaliation for their refusal to comply with the terms of Tilsit and the Continental System.
Yes, it was a punitive campaign, because Russia reneged on the Continental system, rather than personal quest.

Given that Europe was being counter blockaded ruthlessly by the Royal Navy and was feeling the pinch more than Britain, and given that a large proportion of the signatories, such as Denmark and Sweden were forcefully co-erced into the system, it was unrealistic for Napoleon to expect it to work, even with draconian measures, as long as the Royal Navy dominated the sea lanes.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 08:19 PM   #118
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Napolean's invasion of both Egypt and Russia had nothting to due with the threat of Britain, it was was his limitless lust for conquest that led them there. Nor was his coming back for the 100 days a matter of self defense either. To try and protray poor little Napolean aggressiveness as acts of self defense is likely claiming that Hittler was merely defending himself.
Egypt was not a Napoleonic campaign. It was organized and funded by the Directoire. He was merely the general leading the French army into Egypt.

Then Russia, well Russia was inevitable. Their are enough proves of Russian hostility towards Napoleon. The breaking of the treaty of Tilsit, the refusal of any diplomatic solutions like a marriage, massive troop deployments at the border of the Duchy of Warsaw (a vazal of France) and even real plans of an invasion of the Duchy by the Russians. So if it wasn't France in 1812, it might very well have been Russia in 1813.

It was Britain who persuaded the Russians to break with Napoleon. It was Britain who funded the coalitions against Napoleon and it was Britain who refused any negotiation with France during the period 1803-1814.

His coming back from Elba, was to save France. To save it from reactionary elements and to give it back some decency. And as you very well know, the French loved to have their Emperor back. In their eyes he, not Louis XVIII was the legitimate ruler. It was again the British who persuaded Europe to turn against this man who promised a more liberal France and no more hostilities. Just to save their monarchies.

I won't claim Napoleon was a poor helpless man who did all out of self defense, but their comes a lot more with it then just saying he was an imperialistic maniac who was responsible for all hostilities between 1799-1815.

Also their is a hugh difference then the Casus Belli's of the Third Reich and those of the First French Empire.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 08:20 PM   #119
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Yes, it was a punitive campaign, because Russia reneged on the Continental system, rather than personal quest.

Given that Europe was being counter blockaded ruthlessly by the Royal Navy and was feeling the pinch more than Britain, and given that a large proportion of the signatories, such as Denmark and Sweden were forcefully co-erced into the system, it was unrealistic for Napoleon to expect it to work, even with draconian measures, as long as the Royal Navy dominated the sea lanes.
That may be so, but Russia was obliged by treaty to stick with it. Then it should not have accepted these terms in 1807.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 08:21 PM   #120
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
I think there is a misunderstanding since using "Universal conquest" as Sylla did is wrong, we may call of "Supremacy in Europe" if you want.
Napoleon did not have in the most absolute way the means of conquering "the world":
He was a tyrant, a conqueror, an emperor, whatever each of the posters define him. but he surely didn't go for a world conquest.
You forgot liberator
jeroenrottgering 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 03:54 PM
Advice needed on English soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars MissH European History 3 January 8th, 2011 01:09 AM
Leading intellectuals/figures of the Napoleonic Wars A7X European History 4 June 25th, 2010 06:30 PM
napoleonic wars piet hein War and Military History 8 June 28th, 2008 01:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.