Napoleon thread...

[jeroenrottgering]

Originally Posted by sylla1

You are using just bare denial in your previous post. For example, the Napoleonic conquests couldn't have been any more systematic, as anyone could easily verify; bare denial is not helping any discussion either. It's just an act of faith.

It's an act of giving facts. And you still haven't given me two or three examples of Napoleon's so called bullying behaviour.

His territorial gains were never systematic, but at least until 1808 always as a response on what chess piece the British/Austrians/Russians/Prussians would place first.

[jeroenrottgering]

Originally Posted by sylla1

You are using just fallacious bare denial in your previous post.

For example, the Napoleonic conquests couldn't have been any more systematic (i.e. non-random; just check out any dictionary), as anyone could easily objectively verify in any map of the period:



There's simply nothing "random" above.

Bare denial is certainly not helping any discussion here.
It's just an act of faith.

So just because the map looks like that it is because it was caused by a systematic conquest of Napoleon? So Sardinia, Portugal and Sycily were systematic conquest of George III? Come on Sylla don't be ridiculous. I can tell you how he gained every piece of land on the map on by one and by this once and for all rule out that their was any sort of system in the whole process, but even you know that's needless work.

Take Belgium and the Netherlands for example. These territories were already before Napoleon's rise to power under control of the French. Most of the dependent states in Germany were aquired after Napoleon defeated the Austrians in the Austerlitz campaign after they had decided to join the coalition in 1804. Exactly the same counts for Italy and Croatio. The only reall example of this so called systematic conquest was Spain.

[sylla1]

Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering

It's an act of giving facts. And you still haven't given me two or three examples of Napoleon's so called bullying behaviour.

His territorial gains were never systematic, but at least until 1808 always as a response on what chess piece the British/Austrians/Russians/Prussians would place first.

See?

You are still blindly pretending that such unashamed expansionism was just the response from a timely series ofg unjustified attacks in any border, just poor Monsieur Buonaparte against all the envious Europe.

Amazingly enough, exactly what was said about Herr Hitler on this expansionism:


Please tell me you are truly unable to find any analogy...

Of course it was systematic; each and nay single neighbor of Buonaparte; not a single attested exception.

What an incredbly random coincidence, huh?
But well, with a little true faith, anything is believable.

Which was the expression? Oh yes; ridiculous to the Nth degree.

[Rongo]

Originally Posted by sylla1

See?

You are still blindly pretending that such unashamed expansionism was just the response from a timely series ofg unjustified attacks in any border, just poor Monsieur Buonaparte against all the envious Europe.

Amazingly enough, exactly what was said about Herr Hitler on this expansionism:


Please tell me you are truly unable to find any analogy...

Of course it was systematic; each and nay single neighbor of Buonaparte; not a single attested exception.

What an incredbly random coincidence, huh?
But well, with a little true faith, anything is believable.

Which was the expression? Oh yes; ridiculous to the Nth degree.

Sigh. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yet again.

[sylla1]

Originally Posted by Rongo

Sigh. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yet again.

Wrong; it's a reductio ad Buonapartium of Herr Hitler, perfectly valid and non-fallacious in the present context.

Not that your enlightenly critical "sigh" may be particularly compelling of anything here either, you know.

[jeroenrottgering]

Originally Posted by sylla1

See?

You are still blindly pretending that such unashamed expansionism was just the response from a timely series ofg unjustified attacks in any border, just poor Monsieur Buonaparte against all the envious Europe.

Amazingly enough, exactly what was said about Herr Hitler on this expansionism:


Please tell me you are truly unable to find any analogy...

Of course it was systematic; each and nay single neighbor of Buonaparte; not a single attested exception.

What an incredbly random coincidence, huh?
But well, with a little true faith, anything is believable.

Which was the expression? Oh yes; ridiculous to the Nth degree.

First of all I never heard anyone say that about Hitler. But many do about Napoleon, isn't that odd? Well I must be some stupid blind radical fan I guess.

You still haven't given me any prove that Napoleon's conquest was systematic and was all planed by Napoleon instead that it were responses on actions of the coalition. And you still haven't given me prove of that constant bullying.

Giving me maps will not help your case.

[jeroenrottgering]

Originally Posted by Rongo

Sigh. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yet again.

I know it makes my tired to, to constantly fight the Hitler comparisons, but someone has to do it .

[sylla1]

Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering

First of all I never heard anyone say that about Hitler. But many do about Napoleon, isn't that odd? Well I must be some stupid blind radical fan I guess.

You still haven't given me any prove that Napoleon's conquest was systematic and was all planed by Napoleon instead that it were responses on actions of the coalition. And you still haven't given me prove of that constant bullying.

Giving me maps will not help your case.

You know, this may be news for you, but the appeal to popularity is one of the cheapest fallacies (just follow the linik); not particularly useful for any serious discussion either.

A nice tautology: that map alone couldn't be any harder evoidence of the systematic nature of the Napoleonic conquest.
Again, fallacious bare denial, even ad nauseam, is not goin to help your case; just some blind faith could do that.

[jeroenrottgering]

Originally Posted by sylla1

You know, this may be news for you, but the appeal to popularity is one of the cheapest fallacies (just follow the linik); not particularly useful for any serious discussion either.

A nice tautology: that map alone couldn't be any harder evoidence of the systematic nature of the Napoleonic conquest.
Again, fallacious bare denial, even ad nauseam, is not goin to help your case; just some blind faith could do that.

I do not appeal to popularity, but historical prove. Why is that historians for example never really agree if Napoleon was just an tyrant who loved conquest or an enlightened ruler who brought the ideals of the revolution to Europe and all historians about Hitler agree he was an evil dictator.

So just because William III of Orange ruled England after 1689 it means he aquired England as a result of systematic conquest? Don't be absurd. Just because a map is drawn in that way gives no reason to believe it was aquired by systematic conquest.

Keep speaking Latin and popular lines isn't going to help your case as well.

[Rongo]

Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering

I know it makes my tired to, to constantly fight the Hitler comparisons, but someone has to do it .

To be honest, I can't even read them anymore. But you rock, Jeroen!