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 20th, 2012, 04:54 PM   #81

xander.XVII's Avatar
Alalai!
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Outer world
Posts: 2,506

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.
xander.XVII is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:20 PM   #82
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

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 can't be serious.

By the early 19th century the conquest of all Europe (hardly just "supremacy") was equivalent and virtually synonymous with universal conquest.

Not to mention that Monsieur Buonaparte had already performed several significant imperialist operations and projects well beyond the limits of Europe, in spite of the obvious limitation from the British control of the seas.

Let just say Egypt, Syria, Persia, India, Louisiana ,Haiti, the Caribbean, the Spanish colonies and the islands of the Indian Ocean just to begin with...

Last edited by sylla1; November 20th, 2012 at 05:29 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:36 PM   #83

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,000

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Monsieur Buonaparte actually betrayed and destroyed the French Revolution.

What could have been any less "revolutionary" than returning to an old-fashioned absolutist monarchy?
He presided over the introduction of the Code Civil aka the Napoleonic Code. In addition he also commissioned other legal codes that would also enact new standards for Commercial and Criminal law, which would include the conecpt of Due Process...

"My true glory is not to have won 40 battles...Waterloo will erase the memory of so many victories. ... But...what will live forever, is my Civil Code." - Napoleon.

And in this Napoleon was dead on. The Napoleonic Code is still the basis for French Law today, and it is used in many countries around the world. Including the US (the State of Louisiana, other US States are based off of English Common Law).

The concept of Nationalism/Patriotism, born in Europe in the French Revolution continued under Napoleon and would be carried wherever his armies marched. In addition, his actions to streamline the Holy Roman Empire from a collection 1,000 different principalities for trade purposes would ultimately set Germany on the eventual path to Unification in 1871. Nationalist asperations would also serve to help inspire the Unification of Italy in the 19th Century as well.

He made peace with the Catholic Church, which had been rejected by Robspierre (a move which wasn't entirely popular with the French People). But, while Napoleon restored France's connection to the Church, the balence remained in his favor, and Napoelon also favored religious emmancipation. Jews throughout Europe, Protestants in Catholic countries, and Catholics in Protestant countries all faced either persecution or exclusion. Napoleon's policies generally reversed that and he tried to carry it out where he went...

None of the Nations of Europe supported this (and he recieved some anti-semitic protests from within France as well), but I would think that by emmancipating the Jews and giving them equal rights with other French citizens is incredibly revolutionary given that their status in the rest of Europe was not equal to their Christian neighbors.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:42 PM   #84
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
He presided over the introduction of the Code Civil aka the Napoleonic Code. In addition he also commissioned other legal codes that would also enact new standards for Commercial and Criminal law, which would include the conecpt of Due Process...

"My true glory is not to have won 40 battles...Waterloo will erase the memory of so many victories. ... But...what will live forever, is my Civil Code." - Napoleon.

And in this Napoleon was dead on. The Napoleonic Code is still the basis for French Law today, and it is used in many countries around the world. Including the US (the State of Louisiana, other US States are based off of English Common Law).

The concept of Nationalism/Patriotism, born in Europe in the French Revolution continued under Napoleon and would be carried wherever his armies marched. In addition, his actions to streamline the Holy Roman Empire from a collection 1,000 different principalities for trade purposes would ultimately set Germany on the eventual path to Unification in 1871. Nationalist asperations would also serve to help inspire the Unification of Italy in the 19th Century as well.

He made peace with the Catholic Church, which had been rejected by Robspierre (a move which wasn't entirely popular with the French People). But, while Napoleon restored France's connection to the Church, the balence remained in his favor, and Napoelon also favored religious emmancipation. Jews throughout Europe, Protestants in Catholic countries, and Catholics in Protestant countries all faced either persecution or exclusion. Napoleon's policies generally reversed that and he tried to carry it out where he went...

None of the Nations of Europe supported this (and he recieved some anti-semitic protests from within France as well), but I would think that by emmancipating the Jews and giving them equal rights with other French citizens is incredibly revolutionary given that their status in the rest of Europe was not equal to their Christian neighbors.
Again, you must be kidding; maybe you should switch fairy tales for some minimally critical History books on this issue.

Monsieiur Buonaparte actually exiled the Pope Pious VII and imprisoned several Cardinals; period.

Amazing as it may sound, the brilliant Monsieur Buonapate was well aware that friends and enemies alike were avid for his quotations; in spite of a problematic beginning, he became a gifted rhetorician, saying systematically what he desired the other to hear.

Even if we exclude his myriad spurious attributed quotations(ostensibly the vast majority) even the well attested ones like that on the Civil Code were hardly ever representative of his tortuous psyche; this one in particular couldn't be on any more opposition with his behavior in real life, where he systematically ignmored the rights of anyone where and whenever he pleased.

Last edited by sylla1; November 20th, 2012 at 05:47 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:54 PM   #85

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,000

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Again, you must be kidding; maybe you should switch fairy tales for some minimally critical History books on this issue.

Monsieiur Buonaparte actually exiled the Pope Pious VII and imprisoned several Cardinals; period.
1) I am referring to Concordat of 1801.

2) Pius was ultimately released by Napoleon following the Concordat of Fontainebleau.

3) You need to stop saying that Napoleon was all bad and did nothing good. It's old, it's uninformed, and its a lousy way of making a point. Next, I suppose you'll tell us that "Monsieiur "Buonaparte" was a short man who ravenously ate naughty children.

You want to be critical of Napoleon. That is perfectly fine. But you need to stop only admitting facts that are critical of Napoleon to be true. It ignores the good and positive things that came out of his reign.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 06:15 PM   #86
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Let me point out that in spite of contrary innuendo, yours truly ostensibly shows much more respect for Monsieur Buonaparte than the vast majority of his self-proclaimed radical fans here & elsewhere.

Plenty of fans ostensibly seriously believe the bizarre idea that Buonaparte may have been some kind of nerd X-man renouncing to all the pleasures of this life and altruistically fighting against all the evil of this world just for the pleasure of being useful and in spite of the cruel misunderstanding of the masses of this world.

When what is objectively truly impressive from Monsieur Buonaparte was his absolute lack of mercy, any scruples and plainly any respect for any life in the prosecution of his absolutely personal goals (which couldn't have been any more crystal clear) with the arrogance of his own personal understandable conviction that absolutely no one would have been ever able to stop him.

If I may have any even remote problem with his career, it would be just the petty detail that he almost carelessly caused the death of literally hundreds of thousands and the misery of millions just for even the pettiest of his caprices.

Would any other ruler of the time have done the same had he been in Buonaparte's shoes?
Maybe; who knows? Why not?
But that is just free speculation, alternative history of the cheapest kind.
In real life, who provoked the death and misery of all that people was not any other ruler.
People must be held responsible for what they have done, not for what they could possibly potentially maybe perhaps have been able to do.

Monsieur Buonaparte was gifted with some unique abilities among millions other humans.
And his deliberately chosen personal way of profiting from them was just a gratuitously ravaged world.
Yup, just exclusively for his own never-ending hunger for power.
The relevant hard evidence simply couldn't have been any more overwhelming.



Period.

Last edited by sylla1; November 20th, 2012 at 06:26 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 06:22 PM   #87
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
1) I am referring to Concordat of 1801.

2) Pius was ultimately released by Napoleon following the Concordat of Fontainebleau.

3) You need to stop saying that Napoleon was all bad and did nothing good. It's old, it's uninformed, and its a lousy way of making a point. Next, I suppose you'll tell us that "Monsieiur "Buonaparte" was a short man who ravenously ate naughty children.

You want to be critical of Napoleon. That is perfectly fine. But you need to stop only admitting facts that are critical of Napoleon to be true. It ignores the good and positive things that came out of his reign.
Nope,, #2 is wrong; please do your homework in real History books.
Quote:
The Pope remained in confinement for over six years, and did not return to Rome until May 24, 1814, when Allied forces freed the Pope during a pursuit of Napoleonic forces.
In other words, just until Buonaparte was at the brink of total collapse, and not able to keep him in prison any more.

Source: Napoleon and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And even if your point would have been exact, it would have been still totally incompatible with the rosy picture depicted by your previous post.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:16 PM   #88

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,883

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Let me point out that in spite of contrary innuendo, yours truly ostensibly shows much more respect for Monsieur Buonaparte than the vast majority of his self-proclaimed radical fans here & elsewhere.

Plenty of fans ostensibly seriously believe the bizarre idea that Buonaparte may have been some kind of nerd X-man renouncing to all the pleasures of this life and altruistically fighting against all the evil of this world just for the pleasure of being useful and in spite of the cruel misunderstanding of the masses of this world.

When what is objectively truly impressive from Monsieur Buonaparte was his absolute lack of mercy, any scruples and plainly any respect for any life in the prosecution of his absolutely personal goals (which couldn't have been any more crystal clear) with the arrogance of his own personal understandable conviction that absolutely no one would have been ever able to stop him.

If I may have any even remote problem with his career, it would be just the petty detail that he almost carelessly caused the death of literally hundreds of thousands and the misery of millions just for even the pettiest of his caprices.

Would any other ruler of the time have done the same had he been in Buonaparte's shoes?
Maybe; who knows? Why not?
But that is just free speculation, alternative history of the cheapest kind.
In real life, who provoked the death and misery of all that people was not any other ruler.
People must be held responsible for what they have done, not for what they could possibly potentially maybe perhaps have been able to do.

Monsieur Buonaparte was gifted with some unique abilities among millions other humans.
And his deliberately chosen personal way of profiting from them was just a gratuitously ravaged world.
Yup, just exclusively for his own never-ending hunger for power.
The relevant hard evidence simply couldn't have been any more overwhelming.



Period.
To say that Napoleon's policies were strictly for the betterment of mankind and not for his own personal glory would be false. HOWEVER, his policies in large part WERE beneficial to those he conquered. His brand of absolutism was much more enlightened than those of his peers.

From Enlightened Absolutism (1760-1790): 'Enlightened Absolutism' denotes the combination of such policies as administrative centralization, religious toleration and the subordination of church to state, the encouragement of modern techniques in agriculture and industry and official patronage of the arts.

By this definition, Napoleon was even more "enlightened" than the primary characters of that work (Frederick II, Catherine II, and Joseph II and to a certain degree Gustav III of Sweden).
So yes, he was certainly a conqueror, but to be conquered by Napoleonic France did not necessarily mean that the quality of life for the average man would decrease. In fact it would very likely increase, especially if one happened to be a Jew or other minority, religious or otherwise.

Source (among others):

Napoleon in Egypt: Paul Strathern: 9780553385243: Amazon.com: Books
Napoleon in Egypt: Paul Strathern: 9780553385243: Amazon.com: Books


Napoleon wanted more than anything to be remembered as one of "the greats" of history, and he knew that his best chance at being remembered fondly would be not to kill or torture those he conquered, but rather to install among them some revolutionary and beneficial new forms of government, law and social justice. So in the long run, whether he did it for the benefit of his own legacy, for his own glory, or for the benefit of mankind the outcome remained the same. His motivation for implementing his policies is not so important that we should ignore their outcomes.

Source (among others):

Napoleon: A Political Life: Steven Englund: 9780674018037: Amazon.com: Books
Napoleon: A Political Life: Steven Englund: 9780674018037: Amazon.com: Books


Last edited by Pacific_Victory; November 20th, 2012 at 08:33 PM.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:21 PM   #89

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,000

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
To say that Napoleon's policies were strictly for the betterment of mankind and not for his own personal glory would be false. HOWEVER, his policies in large part WERE beneficial to those he conquered. His brand of absolutism was much more enlightened than those of his peers.

From Enlightened Absolutism (1760-1790): 'Enlightened Absolutism' denotes the combination of such policies as administrative centralization, religious toleration and the subordination of church to state, the encouragement of modern techniques in agriculture and industry and official patronage of the arts.

By this definition, Napoleon was even more "enlightened" than the primary characters of that work (Frederick II, Catherine II, and Joseph II and to a certain degree Gustav III of Sweden).
So yes, he was certainly a conqueror, but to be conquered by Napoleonic France did not necessarily mean that the quality of life for the average man would decrease. In fact it would very likely increase, especially if one happened to be a Jew or other minority, religious or otherwise.

Source (among others): Napoleon in Egypt: Paul Strathern: 9780553385243: Amazon.com: Books

Napoleon wanted more than anything to be remembered as one of "the greats" of history, and he knew that his best chance at being remembered fondly would be not to kill or torture those he conquered, but rather to install among them some revolutionary and beneficial new forms of government, law and social justice. So in the long run, whether he did it for the benefit of his own legacy, for his own glory, or for the benefit of mankind the outcome remained the same. His motivation for implementing his policies are not so important that we should ignore their outcomes.

Source (among others): Napoleon: A Political Life: Steven Englund: 9780674018037: Amazon.com: Books
Don't bother arguing. He's already decided Napoleon was the 19th Century version of Hitler and won't accept any argument that would argue against his viewpoint in terms of either intent or results.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:39 PM   #90
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
To say that Napoleon's policies were strictly for the betterment of mankind and not for his own personal glory would be false. HOWEVER, his policies in large part WERE beneficial to those he conquered. His brand of absolutism was much more enlightened than those of his peers.

From Enlightened Absolutism (1760-1790): 'Enlightened Absolutism' denotes the combination of such policies as administrative centralization, religious toleration and the subordination of church to state, the encouragement of modern techniques in agriculture and industry and official patronage of the arts.

By this definition, Napoleon was even more "enlightened" than the primary characters of that work (Frederick II, Catherine II, and Joseph II and to a certain degree Gustav III of Sweden).
So yes, he was certainly a conqueror, but to be conquered by Napoleonic France did not necessarily mean that the quality of life for the average man would decrease. In fact it would very likely increase, especially if one happened to be a Jew or other minority, religious or otherwise.

Source (among others): Napoleon in Egypt: Paul Strathern: 9780553385243: Amazon.com: Books

Napoleon wanted more than anything to be remembered as one of "the greats" of history, and he knew that his best chance at being remembered fondly would be not to kill or torture those he conquered, but rather to install among them some revolutionary and beneficial new forms of government, law and social justice. So in the long run, whether he did it for the benefit of his own legacy, for his own glory, or for the benefit of mankind the outcome remained the same. His motivation for implementing his policies are not so important that we should ignore their outcomes.

Source (among others): Napoleon: A Political Life: Steven Englund: 9780674018037: Amazon.com: Books
Nobody said that no politic from Buonaparte may have been benefitial; au contraire.

(But of course the quality of life of the average man did most objectively deteriorate under his rule, not only in the subjugated Europe but even in France itself.)

The point is still that the core of absolutely all his politics was always compulsory never-ending conquest:
including absolutely all his neighbors...
and the neighbors of his neighbors...
and the neighbors of the neighbors of his neighbors.

Pretending (as some posters here) that such incredibly systematic pattern could have been either mere coincidence, perpetual self-defense or even the "fault of the British" couldn't be any more naive to the Nth degree.

No personal "enlightened" quality, no real or potential benefit from his policies could have even remotely compensated for the colossal cost in life & pain of his entirely personal obsessive universal conquest adventure.

Last edited by sylla1; November 20th, 2012 at 08:45 PM.
sylla1 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.