Napoleon: Son of the French Revolution?

Wastedgrunt36 said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't resist conquest, I'm saying they should never have declared war to begin with.

Click to expand...

Absolute self-contradiction again.

There's no way you may pretend to ignore or deny the bare facts; Monsieur Buonaparte systematically achieved an utterly aggressive expansionist and interventionist policy over each and any of his neighbors (eventually the whole Europe) even at the periods of formal "peace"; he was virtually always the aggressor.

Wastedgrunt36 said:

I made that post before I went off to school, and I was paranoid that I would get suspended or a warning or something for saying your post was propaganda. I couldn't change it as I didn't have time. Sorry.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that. Thanks.

sylla1 said:

"Insult" or not, the comparison is perfectly valid.

BTW, we agree; it would have been absolute totalitarian peace if just all those petty pesky European nations wouldn't have been resisting conquest ... from either Monsieur Buonaparte or Herr Hitler.

Click to expand...

I once had made the mistake to get involved to a discussion with a guy that slowly revealed his agenda by stating that "Hitler was trying to unite Europe". He added the typical cliche "despite some mistakes hi did". More often I meet people that believe that Stalin had "no other choice than to sign Riberdoff-Molotov treaty" or that "he was defending his regime by systematically exterminating any dissidence".

It is, indeed, more common to speak with people that share the same "sympathy" for Bonaparte; even more often when it comes for Alexander of ancient Macedonia. The only difference in such discussions is that obviously those who support Hitler or Stalin have an agenda while those who support Bonaparte or Alexander make the same mistake without intentionally promoting any totalitarian and perpetually expansionist regime. Perhaps the traditional History, focusing exclusively in military and diplomatic history, has influenced as in a way that we forget easily that behind the so-called "glory" of conquest of both Bonaparte and Alexander there is an expansionist war. It is not an exceptional reaction the inspiration that Goya had when he painted the Tres de Mayo; and there is a similar painting for Hitler, the Guernica. While Guernica is a reference to almost all historians, Tres de Mayo's memory is fading, despite the exact equivalence. Perhaps the distance that separates us from both Bonaparte and Alexander make us forget exactly those two caracteristics: totalitarianism and perpetual conquest. When it comes to Bonaparte, we should add the lack of faith to his oaths to the Republic.

Just for the legitimate comparison between Bonaparte and Hitler, allow me to add a copy of those two paintings. It is (perhaps not) a coincidence that both paintings were created by two great Spanish painters against the brutality of Bonaparte and of Hitler:

Yorgos said:

The only difference in such discussions is that obviously those who support Hitler or Stalin have an agenda while those who support Bonaparte or Alexander make the same mistake without intentionally promoting any totalitarian and perpetually expansionist regime.

Click to expand...

I would appreciate if you do not call my personal view "mistake",my friend.Don't fall to sylla's level,and call anything that doesn't agree with your view "mistakes","fallacies","delusions","denial" etc.
Alcibiades

Alcibiades said:

I would appreciate if you do not call my personal view "mistake",my friend.Don't fall to sylla's level,and call anything that doesn't agree with your view "mistakes","fallacies","delusions","denial" etc.
Alcibiades

Click to expand...

Please be aware that your list is heterogeneous, my friend; "fallacies" in particular are logical mistakes, entirely unrelated with any personal taste and often utterly misunderstood by all kind of people here.

I would appreciate if you may "fall" to Sylla1's level; any fallacy rightly (and even wrongly) pointed out will inevitably result in a better logical performance.
Thanks in advance .

Back to the OP, your question was ...

sylla1 said:

Please be aware that your list is heterogeneous, my friend; "fallacies" in particular are logical mistakes, entirely unrelated with any personal taste and often utterly misunderstood by all kind of people here.

I would appreciate if you may "fall" to Sylla1's level; any fallacy rightly (and even wrongly) pointed out will inevitably result in a better logical performance.
Thanks in advance .

Back to the OP, your question was ...

Click to expand...

I belive I wasn't adressing you,so no,I don't have a question.Thanks for asking,though.
Alcibiades

Alcibiades said:

I belive I wasn't adressing you,so no,I don't have a question.Thanks for asking,though.
Alcibiades

Click to expand...

Sorry; I thought I saw my name ; you were probably talking about this other Sylla ...

sylla1 said:

Sorry; I thought I saw my name ; you were probably talking about this other Sylla ...

Click to expand...

Maybe.You will never know.
Alcibiades

Alcibiades said:

Maybe.You will never know.
Alcibiades

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant, as I couldn't care less; the main point is that you know.

Enough of poor ol' yours truly; after all, we don't want to derail this thread.
Please PM me any other comment potentially related to my methodology.
Thanks in advance.

sylla1 said:

Absolute self-contradiction again.

There's no way you may pretend to ignore or deny the bare facts; Monsieur Buonaparte systematically achieved an utterly aggressive expansionist and interventionist policy over each and any of his neighbors (eventually the whole Europe) even at the periods of formal "peace"; he was virtually always the aggressor.

Click to expand...

So your definition of an imperialistic aggressor is someone who defeats his enemy! All of his neighbors except Spain banded together to defeat France simply because it was too strong. The conflict was between Britian and France, both trying to gain power, and somehow the rest of Europe takes offense. What France is doing in Belgium or Switzerland shouldn't matter to them. How can taking the fight to Vienna, and then making sure they never fight again(harsh subsidies, army reductions) be seen as an unjustified war. People do it all the time with not even half the criticism. How many people call the war in Afghanistan "imperialistic". Not many...

Yorgos said:

I once had made the mistake to get involved to a discussion with a guy that slowly revealed his agenda by stating that "Hitler was trying to unite Europe". He added the typical cliche "despite some mistakes hi did". More often I meet people that believe that Stalin had "no other choice than to sign Riberdoff-Molotov treaty" or that "he was defending his regime by systematically exterminating any dissidence".

It is, indeed, more common to speak with people that share the same "sympathy" for Bonaparte; even more often when it comes for Alexander of ancient Macedonia. The only difference in such discussions is that obviously those who support Hitler or Stalin have an agenda while those who support Bonaparte or Alexander make the same mistake without intentionally promoting any totalitarian and perpetually expansionist regime. Perhaps the traditional History, focusing exclusively in military and diplomatic history, has influenced as in a way that we forget easily that behind the so-called "glory" of conquest of both Bonaparte and Alexander there is an expansionist war. It is not an exceptional reaction the inspiration that Goya had when he painted the Tres de Mayo; and there is a similar painting for Hitler, the Guernica. While Guernica is a reference to almost all historians, Tres de Mayo's memory is fading, despite the exact equivalence. Perhaps the distance that separates us from both Bonaparte and Alexander make us forget exactly those two caracteristics: totalitarianism and perpetual conquest. When it comes to Bonaparte, we should add the lack of faith to his oaths to the Republic.

Just for the legitimate comparison between Bonaparte and Hitler, allow me to add a copy of those two paintings. It is (perhaps not) a coincidence that both paintings were created by two great Spanish painters against the brutality of Bonaparte and of Hitler:

Click to expand...

The reason why no one gives Bonaparte the same amount of criticism as Hitler is because Napoleon was operating in a time period where imperialism was the norm. I've mentioned this numerous times. The different powers of Europe where also trying to satisfy their long term political goals.

http://www.historum.com/european-history/21894-napoleon-megalomaniac-noble-defender-his-nation.html

Read some of Bismarck's posts, the man can say what I want to much better and in more detail. Ignore the stupid title.

Wastedgrunt36 said:

So your definition of an imperialistic aggressor is someone who defeats his enemy! All of his neighbors except Spain banded together to defeat France simply because it was too strong. The conflict was between Britian and France, both trying to gain power, and somehow the rest of Europe takes offense. What France is doing in Belgium or Switzerland shouldn't matter to them. How can taking the fight to Vienna, and then making sure they never fight again(harsh subsidies, army reductions) be seen as an unjustified war. People do it all the time with not even half the criticism. How many people call the war in Afghanistan "imperialistic". Not many...



The reason why no one gives Bonaparte the same amount of criticism as Hitler is because Napoleon was operating in a time period where imperialism was the norm. I've mentioned this numerous times. The different powers of Europe where also trying to satisfy their long term political goals.

http://www.historum.com/european-history/21894-napoleon-megalomaniac-noble-defender-his-nation.html

Read some of Bismarck's posts, the man can say what I want to much better and in more detail. Ignore the stupid title.

Click to expand...

The absurd paranoid-like idea of the whole evil Europe attacking the poor benevolent Monsieur Buonaparte for no reason is just hilarious to the Nth degree .

Again, Buonaparte systematically carried from the very beginning an utterly expansionist and interventionist policy over all his neighbors (eventually all Europe and beyond), even at the periods of formal "peace"; what Buonaparte was "doing in Belgium and Switzerland" (your own words) he was doing everywhere else too.

Amazing as it may sound for you, it would have been nothing short of idiotic from the victims of Buonaparte to ignore the dire fate of each other (as some of them actually did for a time; just look to the wonderful Napoleonic reward for the loyal Buonapartist Spain ).

Hint: that tautology was of course the (SIC) "somehow the rest of Europe takes offense" that for any reason seems to be so obscure for you .

The powerful autocratic bully and gangster Buonaparte was never the "victim" of uncalled aggression; that's simply preposterous ...
... and of course, bare denial, even ad nauseam, is not going to change the facts a bit.

And of course Monsieur Buonaparte has been widely criticized as the megalomaniac world conqueror wannabe that he was.
And of course the invasion of Afghanistan was imperialistic; you can look for the latter term in any dictionary.

Wastedgrunt36 said:

...
Read some of Bismarck's posts, the man can say what I want to much better and in more detail. Ignore the stupid title.

Click to expand...

That is very kind of you to say so - its almost enough to make me want to contribute more...but no. I have tried to knock the conceit and pompousness out of the local Nappy-hater, but all I get for that service is villification - usually from people who should know better. Besides, it is clear that Sylla will never be persuaded by reasoned arguments. He simply cant imagine a world in which he could be wrong (and I'll admit I have trouble sometimes too imagining a world where I could be wrong, but at least I know those worlds do actually exist!) In fact, one is tempted to describe Sylla's whole Nappy-hating argument as tautolgical (most overused word ever), since he is basically saying the same things he's been saying for two years. (and now let us await the hair-splitting dictionary definition to be offered as some kind of reposte. Yawn)

Bismarck said:

That is very kind of you to say so - its almost enough to make me want to contribute more...but no. I have tried to knock the conceit and pompousness out of the local Nappy-hater, but all I get for that service is villification - usually from people who should know better. Besides, it is clear that Sylla will never be persuaded by reasoned arguments. He simply cant imagine a world in which he could be wrong (and I'll admit I have trouble sometimes too imagining a world where I could be wrong, but at least I know those worlds do actually exist!) In fact, one is tempted to describe Sylla's whole Nappy-hating argument as tautolgical (most overused word ever), since he is basically saying the same things he's been saying for two years. (and now let us await the hair-splitting dictionary definition to be offered as some kind of reposte. Yawn)

Click to expand...

As you like; are you familiar with the concept of an ad hominem fallacy Fallacy: Ad Hominem ?

Hint: It's deliberate use in any answer within any forum is a definitive evidence of deep ignorance (i.e. obviously because no valid argumentation can be used).

Besides, I understand it tend to be forbidden within this forum.

Now; which was your question and / or comment on the OP?
I may have missed it ...

Yorgos said:

Sylla, excellent analysis.

Bonaparte followed a path that would mathematically lead France to the Ancien Regime and himself to St Helena. While his own final destiny was more than fair -in fact it was more than indulgent, the destiny of the Ist French Republic was tragic: instead of its foreign enemies, it was one of its Generals that had the lunacy to usurp power and to demolish the first Republic in the whole modern world.

Bonaparte was nothing more than a Traitor. Traitor in the sense that he demolished the Republic he was supposed to serve. Traitor in the sense that he was the greatest disappointment for all people outside France who had in vain believed that his army would spread republican principles to the rest of Europe. Instead, Bonaparte spread the real terror wherever he went. He was the real terror. A militarist who deserved his inevitable Waterloo. An usurper of power. France's most villain person, worse than the Burbons.

Just a detail for the traitor he was for people outside France:
When he demolished the Serenissima Republica, all Venise possessions went to France, including the Ionian islands, part of Venise since 1204. People in Corfu were hoping he would bring republican administration to their island. They even celebrated the burning of the libro d'oro in front of the governor's siege in Corfu. But soon they realized that the French administration was way worse than the Venetian nobles. With Waterloo they got rid of the Dictator. They became a dependency of the British crown, which was much better than Bonaparte's short rule.

Click to expand...

By the time Napoleon appeared on the horizon, the Revolution had betrealed itself several times over - only one of the betrayals, the hunting down of the Girondists was enough to call it a failed experiment in social improvement. Napoleon merely took an advantage of the people who begged for some stability and order. This is just very human. The leftist revolutions seem always to follow the same sequence - revolution, political purge, then more purge, then poverty, and in the end someone gets more power that the supposed tyrant against whom the revolution was made to start with. The American Revolution didn't follow this course because it was rightist one, IMHO.

I wouldn't say that Napoleon was worse than the Bourbons, he had quite a few achievements aside of his military career - the Napoleonic Cod of law that is still the base of the law in Europe, adoption of the metric system, and the emancipation of the European Jewry, introducing divorce. Sure, he wanted glory, and power - many people do, this alone is not enough to judge anyone as an absolute negative figure.

PeterG said:

Hi
During my research, I came across the following points which I am having a bit of difficulty interpreting:
1. "Napoleon created a kind of aristocracy"
Would these be the people awarded titles of the Legion of Honor?
2. "Certainly the ideals of the Revolution allowed him to reach the rank of First Consul very quickly"

Click to expand...

1. Well, I'm not any authority on the subject, but I can share some ideas and opinions. Napoleon made all bunch of his relatives into royalties, appointing them as kings, queens and vicerois. He definitely didn't shy from aristocracy - and his decision to dump Josephine and marry a nubile princess form a royal family was in this vein. He was in habit or rewarding service with titles, but those weren't inheritable - so, anyone could achieve them; this was more of a meritocracy that an aristocracy.

2. For a obscure Corsican boy to get where he got it would be impossible in the aristocratic French society before the Revolution. Napoleon was quite isolated due to his personal history during his years in the military academy in Brienne-le-Chateau. After the Revolution broke he went to Corsica, and got into politics on the side of the Jacobins - the winning side. Now, getting into a personal browl with Pasquale Paoli, who later decided to break with the French gave him a chance to exploit this as a political tool. He drew the attention for the brother of Robespierre, and throw Saliceti got sent in Toulon /someone said here that the French Army was seriously understaffed because of the self-exiles/purges after the Revolution. Then he got out of favor, and was even kicked out from the lists of the generals. Then met Josephine, who was quite well connected woman with history, a lover to some big dogs, including Vicomte du Barras; who nominated Napoleon as Commander of the Army of Italy.

None of this would happen if not for the Revolution - because Josephine's first husband, Vicomte de Beauharrnais, was gillotined as a "aristocratic suspect", leaving Josephine alone with 2 kids to take care of /her family was in Martinique, so she was really alone in Paris/, so she didn't have any other sources to survive but herself. Anyway, Napoleon used Josephine's connections /btw, he was quite superstitious, and in some way believed that Josephine brought his luck; so, when he divorced her, and the things went south he was heard saying that with her he lost his luck/. Anyway, the "Josephine connection" may have been only a gossip, or not, but it wouldn't make any difference if he didn't handle the royalist rebellion in Tuileries Palace well and stood out. Then came the Italian campaign, /his answer to the War of the Second Coalition/ during which he won not only military glory, but political influence /after all he negotiated the Peace of Leoben and the Treaty of Campo Formio/ - and he became by this time quite adept in political matters, and founded 2 newspapers. I suppose he well realized by this time to power of information and maybe propaganda /they are connected to some point, no?/.

Anyway, when in Egypt we learned about the mess in France, who was attacked by the Second Coalition, in a breach of the Campo Folio treaty; btw the Directory wanted him back in France to deal with the situation, but he didn't get it on time. Then Abbe Siyes, one of the chief theorists of the Revolution became quite disillusioned of how the things were going, so he was looking f ways to stabilize the whole mess, steering it back to monarchy; he already got a tight group working on a coup, and drew Napoleon in. The Abbe was thinking that he would be the power behind napoleon, but it didn't work because Napoleon had other plans.

Anyway, I cannot possibly imagine Napoleon coming in power without the French Revolution, which:
1. Cleared some space in the Army through purges and self-exiles of bunch of military commanders, leaving space for new promotions.
2. Created wars with the European powers who were afraid of the revolutionary ideas, thereby creating commotions that needed good military commander to handle them.
3. After series of purges, not-working economic innovations, etc created much hatred against the Directory, so there was general desire for peace and stability.
4. Introduced the ideal of equality, so the provincial roots of Napoleon weren't such a sore thumb as they would have been the previous aristocratic society.

Generally I feel that not so much the ideals of the Revolution, but it's failures is what cleared the way for Napoleon to become a First Consul, he was just in the right place in the right time and used it well.
Napoleon Essay (Grade A)
This essay has some interesting ideas about the role of Napoleon in preserving some of the accomplishments of the revolution when compromising others in order to stabilize France.

sylla1 said:

As you like; are you familiar with the concept of an ad hominem fallacy Fallacy: Ad Hominem ?
...

Click to expand...

But you see, I am not trying to win an argument, or even offer an argument. I am simply describing my perception of you; right or wrong, it is not an ad hominem. It is actually an attempt to humanize an internet relationship, by displaying a modicum of understanding of the emotions that push us to post what we write.

Do you deny that your writing could be seen as conceited and pompous?

Alcibiades said:

I would appreciate if you do not call my personal view "mistake",my friend.

Click to expand...

Alcibiades, I do believe you are wrong. This is absolutely nothing personal. You are still my friend here, as Sylla is.

My agreement with Sylla and my disagreement with you makes me tell that you are wrong and he is right. And I would like to be at Sylla's level, as well as your level, you both have a deep knowledge of subjects you are talking about. You have a strong case and I share strongly Sylla's case, it happens very often. Whenever I do so about many ethnocentric points of view my fellow Greeks often express, I even got the characterization of being a traitor. But as then, as now, when it comes to characterizations, I am not used to get involved.

Wastedgrunt36 said:

The reason why no one gives Bonaparte the same amount of criticism as Hitler is because Napoleon was operating in a time period where imperialism was the norm. I've mentioned this numerous times. The different powers of Europe where also trying to satisfy their long term political goals.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But only Bonaparte did try to conquer the whole Europe. No Spanish army invaded France; nor Austrian, nor Venizian, nor Italian and so on.

Bismarck said:

Do you deny that your writing could be seen as conceited and pompous?

Click to expand...

You are not addressing to me at this post but I'd like to recall that, in post 45, you said that my supposed "propaganda" did not deserve an answer. Was that included to the definition of an internet relationship that is neither offensive nor pompous?

I'd say enough with personal sensibilities. The reason I mention your post is no other than to bring an argument to the fact that usually those sensibilities are not equally weighted. It is absolutely human not to be always appropriate but things get more complicated when there is a lack of tolerance. But even there, there is a perfect chance to put things in order: acceptance, asking for clarifications, apology, accepting apologies.

Back to the subject, I still want to express my full agreement to Sylla's analysis. As always, pertinent.

Yorgos said:

Alcibiades, I do believe you are wrong. This is absolutely nothing personal. You are still my friend here, as Sylla is.

My agreement with Sylla and my disagreement with you makes me tell that you are wrong and he is right. And I would like to be at Sylla's level, as well as your level, you both have a deep knowledge of subjects you are talking about. You have a strong case and I share strongly Sylla's case, it happens very often. Whenever I do so about many ethnocentric points of view my fellow Greeks often express, I even got the characterization of being a traitor. But as then, as now, when it comes to characterizations, I am not used to get involved.

Click to expand...

That's two different things.You are free to have your own opinion,of course,but that's not the same as calling everything else that doesn't conform to said opinion "mistakes".And that is a very grave and unfortunate penchant of sylla's that I hope you won't pick up.

It's all about the detailes(in this case,a very important detailes).
Alcibiades