Napoleonic Wars: Which Side Do You Support?

?

  • Coalition

  • France and allies


Results are only viewable after voting.

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,081
#71
You're dodging the fact that stopping a foreign vessel on the high seas and boarding without permission is an act of war.
Not true. During times of war the custom was ships could well be searched and there were various rules about it. The Royal navy would not hsistate to impose it will on the seas in later wars. All teh ocnventions signed by the major powers, had various rules about blockade and stopping neutral vessels. There was no international treaty signed by Britian that made such an action an act of war. And customary pratcice it was generally allowed.
 
Feb 2019
610
Serbia
#72
ou're dodging the fact that stopping a foreign vessel on the high seas and boarding without permission is an act of war.
And France was innocent of this because?

There were terms on the blockades of neutral nations and provisions about neutral vessels at sea during the times of war. Britain violated none of them, they even ended some of these restrictions before war was even declared.

If we are going by what is the act of war, and impressment isn't one of them, we can get into the whole list of reasons for the War of 1812, I've actually wanted to open a thread on it for some time so I might as well do so now.
 
Last edited:

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,240
here
#73
I often give Napoleon quite bit of credit. He was a military genius though with a few flaws, a very talented organizer,. i just think people have over romanticized view of him in general, and often unwilling to address his flaws.

I do not subscribe to the enlightenment on horseback. They were a number of enlightened absolutists Frederick, Joseph, Alexander who were interested and tried to bring rationalized administration to their nations. Standardized legal code, equality before the law, end of noble privilege, liberal trade laws, they were popular fare for many around this time and Napoleon was far from alone in this reformist/centralist push. Able to impose and more willingly to ride roughshod he achieved more and was more through and effective to a large degree. But his rapaciousness of his financial demands, and his imperial nobility also cut heavily against his reforms.
He was military genius, you say? That's the first time I can remember you being so gracious towards him. You've referred to him in the past as being a "mixed bag," when it came to his military record. That's a far cry from calling the man a military genius. This thread alone is full of negative comments you've made about him.

Which Alexander are you calling enlightened? Alex I of Russia?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,417
#78
Fair enough, can we get back on topic of Napoelon's merit system.
Why not.

This is of course the product of people who are... favourably inclined towards the feller – lots of info though:
Napoleon & Empire - Institutions

Specifically about the nobility, since it gets trotted out as the smoking-gun-evodence of Napoleon's empire being the same as the Ancien Régime (more or less):
Nobility during the First French Empire - Napoleon & Empire
However, being part of the nobility did not lead to any special privileges. A title was not even hereditary unless it was accompanied by a majorat (occasionally granted by the Emperor himself). A majorat was a collection of movable assets and other income that could not be disinherited, producing a minimum revenue that was tied to the functions of the title that accompanied it. In this case however, the oldest son had the right to take the title that was directly inferior to that of his father: the son of a Prince became a Duke, the son of Duke became a Count, the son of a Count became a Baron. The younger children had to content themselves with the titles that came after that of their oldest brother. The only exception to the majorat rule was a knighthood: in order for it to become hereditary, a member of three successive generations had to be knighted!

In total, more than three thousand received such distinctions during the Empire, the vast majority (70%) as a result of military service. After the Restoration, the imperial titles were validated by Article 71 of the Charter.

However, from the point of view of the Emperor, this new nobility was a failure. In designing the system, he had hoped to make it a source of support for the regime. In 1812, he confided to Armand Augustin Louis de Caulaincourt that it did not live up to his expectations. Two years later, its failure was shockingly reinforced when its highest ranks instantly joined the Bourbons without a second thought for their own dynastic interests.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,081
#79
Why not.

This is of course the product of people who are... favourably inclined towards the feller – lots of info though:
Napoleon & Empire - Institutions

Specifically about the nobility, since it gets trotted out as the smoking-gun-evodence of Napoleon's empire being the same as the Ancien Régime (more or less):
Nobility during the First French Empire - Napoleon & Empire
Well the article is either has hopeless bias or slipshod. It does not mention their tax free status. no special privileges. Not paying tax is a privilege.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,081
#80
The Napoleonic imperial system certainly had a kind of jumped-up parvenue brashness about it, everything very bling, shocking amounts of ostentatious consumption by the imperially favoured. And merit largely rested with Napoleon's personal judgement. The limitations are rather obvious.
Does that not make a system of favoruitism rarther than a meirtoracy. Napoleon appionted his extneded family , his wife's family, people he went to school with, to all sorts of posts wasnot about merit. Napoloen wanted the officer class to be people of propoerty was not meirt. napoloen chasing any old regime Nobles was not about meirt, likewise Napoloen chancing pople with famous names was not about merit.

T
BUT compared to the total mess of prior hyper-corruption of the late-revolutionary phase and the Directorate, what Napoleon quite skillfully did was safeguard the aspects of the revolution that the politically dominant middle-class liked – things like rule-of-law, protection of private property (no return of privilege) – while actually sorting out the endemic corruption and culture of bribery at the top of French society.
.
Well there is a lot of black legend about the directory. But nap0loen did nothing to stop the rampart massive well known corruption around him, but senoir figures in his regime. (just getting them occasionaly to disgoirge their ill gotten gains without any punishment is not stopping corruption). The Generals and administrators were often corrupt *and massive so) The continental system was massivelky corrupt. The system permits one controlled by influence and patronage.

Which high level peopel were charged and convicted with corruption under Napoleon's regime? What evidence is there was less corruption? There is no doubt it was much more corrupt than other nations.

As for the Rule of Law, Napoleon interfered with that at will, he broke constitutions he write without blinking. He had people exiled to almost certian death without trail for a crime he knew they did not commit. his regime widely used indefinite detention without trail. Military commissions often dealt arbitrary summary justice.


T
I've said it before (to the incredulity of some) but by my count Napoleon qualifies as the first Liberal dictator (rather a long subsequent line) of the 19th c.
.
Joespeh Ii of Austira. equality before the law, religious toleration, standardized legal code, the end of torture, abolish of much of feudal dues, abolition of guilds, public hospitals , public schools a masisve program of reform, along with growing centralization and state control, he wanted a non-discriminatory tax system and to absolutely abolish serfdom but could not overcome the opposition. On the reform front he's got a lot more runs on the board than Napoleon.
 
Likes: Futurist