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 22nd, 2012, 05:07 AM   #131
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Good to see Buonaparte's Fan Gang back again.

Given that the argumentation is already well known, a really good question here would be what exactly any of us would like to take from Le Petit Caporal of blood & flesh (as opposed to fairy tales)

Maybe his absolute lack of care for the life any other human?

After all, annihilating thousands for even the pettiest caprice seems indeed like an additional bonus for any universal conqueror wannabe scenario; a tempting delusion indeed.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:17 AM   #132
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Good to see Buonaparte's Fan Gang back again.

Given that the argumentation is already well known, a really good question here would be what exactly any of us would like to take from Le Petit Caporal of blood & flesh (as opposed to fairy tales)

Maybe his absolute lack of care for the life any other human?

After all, annihilating thousands for even the pettiest caprice seems indeed like an additional bonus for any universal conqueror wannabe scenario; a tempting delusion indeed.
Can't you think of anything new sylla, instead of saying the same all the time?
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 07:38 AM   #133
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
Can't you think of anything new sylla, instead of saying the same all the time?
Do you mean like distorting the facts? Fairy tales?

Thanks but no thanks.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 07:45 AM   #134

irishcrusader95's Avatar
None shall pass!
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Ireland
Posts: 6,631
Blog Entries: 4

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
very well said. relations between the coalition powers had always been a bit uneasy as they all had their own interests as seen in their almost brake after the battle of Bautzen and almost war braking out during the congress of Vienna over conflicting interests as they fought over the spoils.

thanks as well for that extract i read the whole thing, its very fair in how it prevents things in the diplomatic messages. i don't think any of the nations wanted to see Napoleon still in control of france, perhaps only Austria was ok with it as it balanced against the new power of the other nations. the fact that they did not allow Napoleon a ceasefire as he had after Bautzen shows their determination to carry on the war. had a peace agreement been agreed i can well predict a similar situation to when Hanibile took over Carthage after the second Punic war and through his management was able to bring its prosperity up very fast which greatly unsettled Rome leading to the third Punic war. same thing is likely to have happened with france had Napoleon remained in power.

its interesting enough to see how, as said in the extract, that most french people still seemed to support Napoleon regardless of all the warfare and now imminent invasion. some members of the coalition i know were uneasy about an invasion as it had not been done since the the war of the spanish succession which wasn't an experience to give them much hope.

if you haven't already read it i would greatly recommend Adam Zamoyski book Rites of Peace which offers an excellent look at the diplomatic messages that were being passed through the 1813 campaign and cover the peace proposals very well along with an excellent account of the congress of Vienna which shows just how much each one of the coalitions powers mistrusted one another.

Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna: Amazon.co.uk: Adam Zamoyski: Books
Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna: Amazon.co.uk: Adam Zamoyski: Books

irishcrusader95 is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 07:58 AM   #135

irishcrusader95's Avatar
None shall pass!
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Ireland
Posts: 6,631
Blog Entries: 4

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

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"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
As the heir-apparent, "King of Rome" was a courtesy title given to him, by Napoleon, afaik.
yes the title "king of Rome" was a title that the hairs to the holy roman empire had been allowed to hold, with its dissolution the right of the title passed to france in agreement with austria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Napoleon's invasion of both Egypt and Russia had nothing 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 portray poor little Napoleon aggressiveness as acts of self defense is likely claiming that Hitler was merely defending himself.
his invasion of egypt was largely his venture and glory was his main ambition as known by a few quotes by him. yet it was not an exceptional case as imperialism was being unashamedly practised by all major powers. actually as well his coming back for the 100 days was in a way self defence. he had good reason to fear assassination or being transferred to a new location such as St. Helena. he was also not receiving the pension payments he was supposed to be getting from the king of france who not paid a penny of it. Napoleon felt he was being squashed in and would soon have to send home those loyal men who had gone with him into exile as he couldn't afford to keep them.
irishcrusader95 is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 03:30 PM   #136

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 5,801
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
Thank you, it's good to be back.
No problem mate. We may not see eye to eye on things, but you always debate respectfully, and I appreciate that.




Quote:
Well what about a peaceful approach towards France instead of keeping a hostile view towards France. France didn't want to break in 1803, that was Britain. And Napoleon did do attempts to sue for peace again (especially extraordinary because he wasn't losing).
That would not be as easy you may think, given the personal stances between the major powers involved.

When the revolution started, there was an attempted sweeping motion across the globe, in order to pique the support of republican sympathizers especially in Britain. Napoleon championed this ideal, and epitomised the stubborness of it, after he declared himself emperor, and desired hegenomy on the continent.

Given Britains previous stance on such endeavours, and given that the revolution threatened the very fabric of the world social order, then Britain's stance was only logical.





Quote:
Sweden was not formally defeated by Napoleon. Also it may have been the only way out, but I hope you agree with me that they shouldn't be to shocked when France made a hostile move towards them. Those were not the days of turning the other cheek after all.
No, but Sweden was defeated by Russia in the Finnish war of 1808, which was part of the agreement made at the congress of Erfurt, in forcing Sweden into the continental system, and as a consequence, they had no option but to concede, because Russia was Napoleon's ally at the time, and aggressively enforcing the system.

Ok, lets briefly review Alexander. He was an ambitious man, and considered himself a rival of Napoleon, considering the Russia power in Central Europe, and may have even been slightly jealous of Napoleon's achievements. However, he was forwar thinking in the manner that one of his policies was "collective security" for Europe, whereby they would try and keep it so one power did not get on top, at the time it was France.

After Alexander was defeated at Friedland, he took it upon himself to take part in the treaty of Tilsit, because he did not want to risk a rebellion braking out in Russia because of the fighting on home territory (whether this is true or not is up in the air, but it makes sense when everything is examined).

Napoleon appealed to Alexander's huge ego (a bit like Marlborough did to Charles XII) and made Alexander believe he could achieve greatness and that Britain was the "enemy", and also to help Russia pursue her interest in the Ottomon territories.

Napoleon did not of course help in this endeavour, and likewise, Alexander did not completely uphold the stoppage on British merchants. they disliked each other, and Alexander did not want an alliance with Napoleon. War was inevitable with this continental system.





Quote:
Again their were other solutions then sticking with their stubborn view towards France. They could have got an other motto then 'not willing to rest until the Bourbons are restored to the throne'. They could have just lived side by side with France, not having to declare war. The only reason why Napoleon planned an invasion of Britain was because the broke the treaty of Amiens in 1803. But he never had a real attention before or afterwards to occupy Britain.
These types of agreement are never as black and white as they seem.

Yes, Britain was first to break the treaty, but you have to ask yourself, why?

Britain wanted peace, the taxes were at an all time high, raised by Pitt, and people were tired of the fighting. Cornwallis was sent to make the negotiations, but Joseph Bonaparte was constantly hifting the ground of the agreement, and Cornwallis, pressed for time, and not wanting a continuation of the war, signed the treaty, even though alot of the items on the propoal were not beneficial to Britain, such as returning Malta to France.

Also, I think its imprtant to look at Napoleons movements during the traty. He sent soldiers to occupy and fight in the Helvetian republic, which violated the Luneville pact, and he was aggressively telling Britain to not intefere in the continent, and expel anti French people from Britain, despite also sending expeditions against Haiti, and other islands that basically challenged Britains global position from their perspective.

Also, he publshed a report by this man: Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which told of the French possible easy efforts to retake Egypt. This alarmed all of Europe, and although it was in protest to Britain not evacuating Malta, this is also down to Napoleons tactless movements.

So policies are never easy to judge. They are complex processes.



Quote:
From a British point of view perhaps. The French were thinking different about that.
He had popular support at first, when he arrived in Paris, but this fizzled out due to unpopularity with some of his policies.



Quote:
Or you could say, France was already at the center of attention. Napoleon build upon the foundations of the revolution.
Indeed. But Napoleon was the representation of France, and his own ego helped make this a realism.



Quote:
Then we should at least make right the misconception that Napoleon was soly responsible for hostilies in Russia. Alexander has at least half the blame for the outbreak of the war.
Indeed, they both were. But read my previous post above about Russia and France





Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
Good to have you back Jeroen



Again we return to the Continental System. Napoleon's biggest mistake. The whole system was flawed for two reasons 1.) It hurt the Continent more than Britain, and Britain knew it, and 2.) Not all parties involved willingly agreed to it, and any agreement entered into under coercion is unreliable.

The Russian economy, which was already unstable was literally on the verge of total collapse under the Continental System. Did Napoleon really expect the Russians to allow their country to starve and their riches to vanish in front of their faces forever?

What were the Russians supposed to do? Through the British they saw a way out and they took it. That was Napoleon's mistake, making the British more valuable to the Russians than the French. Under these conditions it was only a matter of time before the Russians turned on him, and with good reason.

What he should have done was earned Russian patronage and loyalty, not tried to force it. In fact, it is my personal belief that Napoleon knew this as evidenced by his earlier marriage proposals. When these were refused, he grew frustrated and thought the Russians were simply stubborn and unreasonable. But the Russians didn't care about marriages, the two most important things to them were the Duchy of Warsaw and the Ottoman Empire. As harsh as it sounds, it would have been in Napoleon's interest to give up the Duchy to the Russians thereby betraying his loyal Polish allies. As long as the buffer state created by a free and hostile Poland existed on the border, the Russians were too uncomfortable to make a lasting agreement with France. Once this was done, Napoleon could have embarked on a joint campaign with Alexander against the Ottomans who were at this point a rotted shell of their former selves and thereby secured Russian loyalty.

Instead, Napoleon coerced the Russians into an agreement they didn't want or believe in, in order to ineffectively attempt to starve the British (which did nothing to help Russia) while simultaneously destroying the Russian economy and erasing any chance of Russian loyalty.
Nice reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishcrusader95 View Post
very well said. relations between the coalition powers had always been a bit uneasy as they all had their own interests as seen in their almost brake after the battle of Bautzen and almost war braking out during the congress of Vienna over conflicting interests as they fought over the spoils.

thanks as well for that extract i read the whole thing, its very fair in how it prevents things in the diplomatic messages. i don't think any of the nations wanted to see Napoleon still in control of france, perhaps only Austria was ok with it as it balanced against the new power of the other nations. the fact that they did not allow Napoleon a ceasefire as he had after Bautzen shows their determination to carry on the war. had a peace agreement been agreed i can well predict a similar situation to when Hanibile took over Carthage after the second Punic war and through his management was able to bring its prosperity up very fast which greatly unsettled Rome leading to the third Punic war. same thing is likely to have happened with france had Napoleon remained in power.

its interesting enough to see how, as said in the extract, that most french people still seemed to support Napoleon regardless of all the warfare and now imminent invasion. some members of the coalition i know were uneasy about an invasion as it had not been done since the the war of the spanish succession which wasn't an experience to give them much hope.

if you haven't already read it i would greatly recommend Adam Zamoyski book Rites of Peace which offers an excellent look at the diplomatic messages that were being passed through the 1813 campaign and cover the peace proposals very well along with an excellent account of the congress of Vienna which shows just how much each one of the coalitions powers mistrusted one another.
Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna: Amazon.co.uk: Adam Zamoyski: Books

Agreed mate.

I want to get this book actually. Now you put it back into the limelight, I must purchase it. Thanks!
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:21 PM   #137
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Fairy tales aside, of course Monsieur Buonaparte was entrely responsible alone for attacking Russia in 1812.

Nobody forced him.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 06:10 PM   #138

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,682

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
Ones again, I appreciate that .
The Napleonic Wars discussions always seem to taper off when you are gone, and they are one of my favorite subjects.


Quote:
OF course, but as I said before, Britain could have spared Europe this continental system, because be honost what else could Napoleon have done? A peaceful settlement was out of the question since Britain was not willing to negotiate, an invasion was also out of the question since the French Navy had been partly destroyed at Trafalger and led them be would risk an undamaged Britain that could possible invade on every side of the Empire. Furthermore I read sources that the British people had indeed many problems with the continental system.
Why did he need to worry about the British? There was never a serious chance of a British invasion of the continent before the Russian campaign. Even the British troops deployed to the Spanish Ulcer were a tiny contingent that could only operate effectively because of the Spanish partisans. What Napoleon needed to fear from the British was funding. They could and did fund his enemies and urge them into attacking and betraying him. In the case of Russia, he could have combated this by offering them a better deal than the Brits were. What could the British offer the Russians? A bit of money and trade opportunities which only came on the condition that the Russians fight Napoleon, the greatest commander in all of Europe.
Meanwhile, Napoleon could have offered them much more. The land they wanted in Eastern Europe as well as his vast armies and genius to assist against the Ottomans. These were the things they really wanted and Napoleon could have delivered them.
But Napoleon never took the Russians seriously enough because of how easily he had defeated their armies in the past. He thought of them the same way he thought of the Prussians or Austrians. I don't think he realized how vastly important they were.
Think of a Napoleonic Empire in a strong alliance with Russia. Even if every other nation in Europe attacked at once they would not have been able to defeat a true joint Franco-Russian army. The manpower of Russia combined with the training of the French army combined with the genius of Napoleon at its head would have created a truly breathtaking force.


Quote:
Could you give me a source this 'verge of total collapse'? Not that I don't trust your argument, I simply never heard it came to that point. Also in return of abandoning the continental system Alexander could at least in a decent way negotiate with Napoleon. But every hand reaching of Napoleon he ignored.
I've read this in multiple sources but the first one that I can think of is Moscow: 1812, Napoleon's Fatal March by Zamoyski



Quote:
The motives are very understandable and perhaps wise, but if they were good? The battle between Napoleon and the coalition was one of a new world against the old. The old won in the end, and the result was a reactionary Europe for over 30 years. No wonder the peoples of Europe revolted later in 1830 and 1848 after they had seen the liberating ideas the French brought along. Also I think a Russia at the side of France was a lot stronger then a one along the side of Britain. Napoleon spoke about a literally border between a Russian controlled Eastern EUrope and a French controlled western Europe. While Britain wanted Russia to be just one of the many power in Europe.
Perhaps, but if this is the case Napoleon did not do a good job convincing the Russians of this fact.


Quote:
That may have been a wise move, but not the right one. And of course Napoleon was just as guilty, but not the only one who was guilty. He did try as you said to negotiate with Russia even though they abandoned his continental system, without result though. Giving up the Duchy of Warsaw would have meant Prussia, Austria and Russia bordering to each other ones again and could in the future have meant a real problem. Furthermore his Polish allies delivered the biggest contingents of his Grande Armee. I think people would have thought a lot more badly about Napoleon today if he had done that. He would also have seen at that time by his other vassals as a betrayer of trust.
It would be a hard choice, but securing Russian allegiance was worth it.



Quote:
I agree with you, the continental system had failed, but I still haven't seen different solutions since Britain wasn't willing to negotiate. Perhaps should indeed not have enforced this on Russia, but after what they did in 1799, 1805-1807 he had to do something with this troublesome country in the east.
In short, leave the British alone and let them play their games on their Island. With a strong Russo-Frankish alliance Napoleon could have redone the Egyptian campaign and secured the Nile, he could have gone into Ottoman lands, and he could have put the proper amount of manpower and leadership into solving the Spanish Ulcer.

Basically, my strategy would be ABOVE ALL, SECURE RUSSIAN LOYALTY.

If done correctly I believe the Russians would have embraced it. They were desperately looking for something to be proud of after their humiliation in 1805 and 1807 and Napoleon made some concessions regarding Poland and had presented a willingness to help with the Ottomans it would have secured Russian glory and perhaps a lasting agreement would have been reached.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 11:02 PM   #139

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,682

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Fairy tales aside, of course Monsieur Buonaparte was entrely responsible alone for attacking Russia in 1812.

Nobody forced him.
He had good reasons in 1812. The problems all started before then. His big chance to secure Russian loyalty would have been by conceding more at Tilsit in 1807. Napoleon's second meeting with Alexander in 1808 was the absolute last chance. As early as 1809, evidence that the Franco-Russian alliance created at Tilsit was a total failure was becoming obvious. Simply look at the so called "assistance" Russia provided in the 1809 campaign against the Austrians (marching around aimlessly, purposefully avoiding combat with the Austrian army; the Russian Army took ONE casualty during the whole campaign and this was after promising Napoleon they would come to his assistance in such a scenario). By 1812 Alexander was just waiting for an opportunity to slide a sword into France's back.

I recommend reading some of the personal letters Alexander wrote to his sister and mother, especially the things he said about Napoleon and Alexander's plans to betray him. Quite revealing.

So yes, Napoleon was completely responsible for the attack in 1812, but by that time he had very few other options as it was common knowledge in both the French and Russian courts that war between the two Empires was inevitable. It was simply a matter of who would strike first, and how.

Last edited by Pacific_Victory; November 22nd, 2012 at 11:07 PM.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 01:51 AM   #140
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
No problem mate. We may not see eye to eye on things, but you always debate respectfully, and I appreciate that.
Well I think our views aren't that far away from eachother. At least you don't see it as black and white like some posters here. And I appreciate that enormously.

Quote:
That would not be as easy you may think, given the personal stances between the major powers involved.

When the revolution started, there was an attempted sweeping motion across the globe, in order to pique the support of republican sympathizers especially in Britain. Napoleon championed this ideal, and epitomised the stubborness of it, after he declared himself emperor, and desired hegenomy on the continent.

Given Britains previous stance on such endeavours, and given that the revolution threatened the very fabric of the world social order, then Britain's stance was only logical.
Of course the fear of Britain is 100% understandable, but look at the history. We see that the revolution had barely any effect in the regions outside France controlled Europe. Austria's monarchy was far from unstable, the same for Prussia, Russia and also the modernized British monarchy. Cause you very well know the British monarchs already did a lot of concessions by reducing their power and by that reducing the change of revolution.

And wasn't Napoleon's coronation to Emperor not meant to please the European monarchs and show Europe France was finally a stable country again with a singular leader?

Quote:
No, but Sweden was defeated by Russia in the Finnish war of 1808, which was part of the agreement made at the congress of Erfurt, in forcing Sweden into the continental system, and as a consequence, they had no option but to concede, because Russia was Napoleon's ally at the time, and aggressively enforcing the system.
Yes I am aware of that, but Russia could very well have made their own demands. They were far from a puppet from France, and if they really viewed this continental system with such hostility then why did they force it upon others?

Quote:
Ok, lets briefly review Alexander. He was an ambitious man, and considered himself a rival of Napoleon, considering the Russia power in Central Europe, and may have even been slightly jealous of Napoleon's achievements. However, he was forwar thinking in the manner that one of his policies was "collective security" for Europe, whereby they would try and keep it so one power did not get on top, at the time it was France.
Well you have to be honest. What about the man himself? Didn't he share the dream of a Europe divided between France and Russia when he spoke hours with Napoleon at Tilsit?

Quote:
After Alexander was defeated at Friedland, he took it upon himself to take part in the treaty of Tilsit, because he did not want to risk a rebellion braking out in Russia because of the fighting on home territory (whether this is true or not is up in the air, but it makes sense when everything is examined).
Strange though he sued for peace in 1807, but didn't in 1812. Also the Russian population was far from educated enough to organize a full scale revolution like the one in France. Yes the battle of Friedland with 30,000-40,000 casualties on the Russian side was disastrous, but wasn't the end of the Russian army.

Quote:
Napoleon appealed to Alexander's huge ego (a bit like Marlborough did to Charles XII) and made Alexander believe he could achieve greatness and that Britain was the "enemy", and also to help Russia pursue her interest in the Ottomon territories.
To bad Alexander later became immune to this attitude.

Quote:
Napoleon did not of course help in this endeavour, and likewise, Alexander did not completely uphold the stoppage on British merchants. they disliked each other, and Alexander did not want an alliance with Napoleon. War was inevitable with this continental system.
Both Alexander and Napoleon should have changed their attitude to each other I agree. After their fight at Erfurt things were never the same again.

Quote:
These types of agreement are never as black and white as they seem.

Yes, Britain was first to break the treaty, but you have to ask yourself, why?

Britain wanted peace, the taxes were at an all time high, raised by Pitt, and people were tired of the fighting. Cornwallis was sent to make the negotiations, but Joseph Bonaparte was constantly hifting the ground of the agreement, and Cornwallis, pressed for time, and not wanting a continuation of the war, signed the treaty, even though alot of the items on the propoal were not beneficial to Britain, such as returning Malta to France.

Also, I think its imprtant to look at Napoleons movements during the traty. He sent soldiers to occupy and fight in the Helvetian republic, which violated the Luneville pact, and he was aggressively telling Britain to not intefere in the continent, and expel anti French people from Britain, despite also sending expeditions against Haiti, and other islands that basically challenged Britains global position from their perspective.

Also, he publshed a report by this man: Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which told of the French possible easy efforts to retake Egypt. This alarmed all of Europe, and although it was in protest to Britain not evacuating Malta, this is also down to Napoleons tactless movements.

So policies are never easy to judge. They are complex processes.
Then you could say Britain's declaration of war was rather hypocrite. It actually did little more then buy time for a future war. If you agree with that statement then Britain should be equally judged like Napoleon.

Didn't the French had the right on Malta in the first place? The people of Malta had hated the Knightly order of St John and welcomed the French. Britain's influence was zero and their stubborness of this island, is just as offensive as Napoleon's intervention in the Helvation Republc.

Then Haiti, Haiti was a French colony. Britain already took a lot of French territory in the America's during the French and Indian war (better known as the Seven years war). Their intervention in this island didn't differ from the intervention from the British in the Thirteen Colonies.

I agree his publishment of that book wasn't indeed the most tactical move he could make, but was certainly not a reason to go to war. And I think also Britain knew this wasn't meant serious, especially with the sharp politicians it had.

Quote:
He had popular support at first, when he arrived in Paris, but this fizzled out due to unpopularity with some of his policies.
Did you read about his return from Elba and the enthousiams of the French people. I agree in 1814 parts of the French people were tired of the wars and didn't care how peace was reached as long as it was reached. But in 1815 almost all the French people (excluding the Royalists of course) embraced Napoleon ones more with open arms.

Quote:
Indeed. But Napoleon was the representation of France, and his own ego helped make this a realism.
Agreed, but Britain had the same decease to say the least.

Quote:
Indeed, they both were. But read my previous post above about Russia and France
Well then we agree on this .
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 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.