What Are Your Thoughts on Napoleon Bonaparte?

[bz249]

The French, Dutch and Spanish navies combined proved incapable of defeating the British and the latter could therefore pick off colonies at will. Prussia had no significant navy to add to this equation. Without naval superiority Napoleons only hope of defeating the British was the Continental System and he had no soft power methods available to get half of Europe to play along.

Napolean had bigger troubles than the Britons. The combined armies of Prussia, Austria and Russia are superior to the French army. To his luck the three land based majors were unable to coordinate their efforts till 1813 therefore they could defeat them in details, but at an ever increasing cost.

France needs either Austria or Prussia as an ally.

 

[Geriander]

Napolean had bigger troubles than the Britons. The combined armies of Prussia, Austria and Russia are superior to the French army. To his luck the three land based majors were unable to coordinate their efforts till 1813 therefore they could defeat them in details, but at an ever increasing cost.

France needs either Austria or Prussia as an ally.

Well in effect he had both Prussia and Austria as allies before invading Russia. Playing defense from 1811 onwards may have worked.

 

[Drakken]

Well in effect he had both Prussia and Austria as allies before invading Russia. Playing defense from 1811 onwards may have worked.

You forget that the United Kingdom had the financial means fund other powers to "rebel" against Napoleon, that humiliated Austria and Prussia were both merely waiting for the occasion to strike back, that the situation in Spain and Portugal was a real quagmire and the ruling class around Tsar Alexander was notoriously anti-French.

The last thing Napoleon wanted was sitting on defence and wait that Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England present a united, coordinated front again like around Austerlitz, while some of his best troops were stuck in Iberia. Each week that Russia refused to join the Continental System was a week that made Napoleon look weaker, even to his own financial backers.

 

[Geriander]

You forget that the United Kingdom had the financial means fund other powers to "rebel" against Napoleon, that humiliated Austria and Prussia were both merely waiting for the occasion to strike back, that the situation in Spain and Portugal was a real quagmire and the ruling class around Tsar Alexander was notoriously anti-French.

The last thing Napoleon wanted was sitting on defence and wait that Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England present a united, coordinated front again like around Austerlitz, while some of his best troops were stuck in Iberia. Each week that Russia refused to join the Continental System was a week that made Napoleon look weaker, even to his own financial backers.

This raises the question of how many more coalitions the UK was willing or able to sponsor and if Napoleon, without the losses suffered in Russia, could have crushed them all.

 

[Adamgerd]

How did he exactly spread progress? He turned France back into a Monarchy. Put his relatives on the thrones of the puppet Kingdoms he made. In the end everywhere he did conquer was a Monarchy after his defeat, hell the Bourbons even returned to power in France. His regime was more despotic than his greatest enemy, Great Britain.

He was a brilliant tactician that no one really knew how counter his new form of war for a few years. He also understood far better than most countries the importance of moral.

The only lasting change he made was mass conscription.

And turning France back into a monarchy was bad because...? The French Revolution killed more people in 3 years than the French monarchy before

 

[newtlord]

And turning France back into a monarchy was bad because...? The French Revolution killed more people in 3 years than the French monarchy before

I'd need a pretty reliable source before I was willing to believe that. Apart from anything else, the Monarchy had had over a millennium to rack up a body count, and had not spent that time being overly merciful to heretics, rebellious nobles, uncooperative peasants, anyone who got in its way, anyone who looked at it with insufficient respect, anyone who looked at a priest with insufficient respect, or anyone with an appearance that might be mistaken for the aforementioned. There was certainly a period of violence at the climax of the revolution, and it would be specious to pretend that the revolution was carried out with the minimum of necessary bloodshed, but it would be equally specious to pretend that there was not considerable reason for the anger that burst forth in such dramatic form.

 

[BBBD316]

Well I am not sure how much you can change events once the emperor is crowned. Portugal needed to stop trading with Britain, however Spain was already looking to get out of the French alliance.

If you can't keep Spain loyal what chance of keeping Prussia and Austria onside?

Hence he started putting family on thrones.

 

[krieger11b]

I'd need a pretty reliable source before I was willing to believe that. Apart from anything else, the Monarchy had had over a millennium to rack up a body count, and had not spent that time being overly merciful to heretics, rebellious nobles, uncooperative peasants, anyone who got in its way, anyone who looked at it with insufficient respect, anyone who looked at a priest with insufficient respect, or anyone with an appearance that might be mistaken for the aforementioned. There was certainly a period of violence at the climax of the revolution, and it would be specious to pretend that the revolution was carried out with the minimum of necessary bloodshed, but it would be equally specious to pretend that there was not considerable reason for the anger that burst forth in such dramatic form.

A great example was after the capture of King John II and his enormous ransom laid by the English there was a small uprising in Northern France due to the taxation to pay for the ransom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie which was brutally suppressed, typical for the time and typical reaction by France and England too.

 

[Adamgerd]

I'd need a pretty reliable source before I was willing to believe that. Apart from anything else, the Monarchy had had over a millennium to rack up a body count, and had not spent that time being overly merciful to heretics, rebellious nobles, uncooperative peasants, anyone who got in its way, anyone who looked at it with insufficient respect, anyone who looked at a priest with insufficient respect, or anyone with an appearance that might be mistaken for the aforementioned. There was certainly a period of violence at the climax of the revolution, and it would be specious to pretend that the revolution was carried out with the minimum of necessary bloodshed, but it would be equally specious to pretend that there was not considerable reason for the anger that burst forth in such dramatic form.

A considerable reason? No, not really. Contrary to popular belief, not only the poor were taxed for the American revolution war, the rich were too. Most living conditions in fact deteoriated after the revolution and the revolution was extremely bloody. They killed daily. Also don't forget the monarchy had longer, so in the kill rate, the revolution beats out the monarchy massively. And uncooperative peasants and rebellious nobles should've known that maybe the King won't let them rebel. It's pretty damm obvious. Also if the democracy was so good, why did they immediately elect a monarch back in? And the French kingdom was 1. The French republics had 5 revolutions.

 

[Kgw]

Well I am not sure how much you can change events once the emperor is crowned. Portugal needed to stop trading with Britain, however Spain was already looking to get out of the French alliance.
If you can't keep Spain loyal what chance of keeping Prussia and Austria onside?

Actually, the Spanish Royal Family just wanted Nappy to clear who should rule, either the father (Carlos IV) or the son (Fernando VII). Had he said to Fernando: "You're in, your daddy is out, but you do what I say. Is that clear?". Boom, no Peninsular War.
But nooo, Napoleon wanted another kingdom for his family.

 

[Geriander]

Actually, the Spanish Royal Family just wanted Nappy to clear who should rule, either the father (Carlos IV) or the son (Fernando VII). Had he said to Fernando: "You're in, your daddy is out, but you do what I say. Is that clear?". Boom, no Peninsular War.
But nooo, Napoleon wanted another kingdom for his family.

Napoleon was planning to invade Portugal anyways and Spain had shown signs of being less than loyal during the war of the fourth coalition. Having an army in Portugal fighting an enemy reinforced by the British would become a nightmare if Spain switched sides and cut off supply lines. In hindsight toppling the Spanish monarchy was a mistake but at the time it may have seemed to be the safer option.

 

[Kgw]

You know who was behind those "signs"? Carlos IV's valido Godoy, who was booted via the "totally not staged by Fernando" Aranjuez Mutiny in March 1808. Two months before the start of the Peninsular War.

Also, War in Portugal? We got that covered. Napoleon Army wasn't needed... except if he wanted to take both Spain and Portugal, which he of course wanted.

 

[Starred109]

Well for starters, Napoleon was short.

Just joking, I think he was pretty smart for the time until he was defeated by the coalition.

 

[Gil galad]

Napoleon needed plunder to keep financing his army and he needed his army to stay in power. For France to live in peace with the other european nations under Napoleon for a considerable amount of time was impossible. It was in his nature wanting to dominate the rest of Europe and installing his family as princelings over the subject nations.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well for starters, Napoleon was short.

No he was not, he was slightly above average size.

 

[bz249]

No he was not, he was slightly above average size.

He was born in the 18th century, he was very short... just most of his contemporaries were even shorter (except his bodyguards).

 

[Culise]

He was born in the 18th century, he was very short... just most of his contemporaries were even shorter (except his bodyguards).

I personally would not think of 5'7" or 170 cm as very short, but that may just be me. After all, it's not that much shorter than my own height.

 

[Rubidium]

Why don't we ask the Haitians what they think about Napoleon and his enlightened monarchy?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

In the beginning, Napoleon was the Young Lion come to overthrow the abuses of the hereditary nobility entrenched in Europe. Beethoven wrote his 3rd 'Eroica' Symphony, to commemorate the Great Hero of the Revolution.

Upon hearing that Napoleon had, in the style of the Franks, placed an Imperial Crown upon his own head, Beethoven (famous for his anger) lost it: ""So he is no more than a common mortal! Now, too, he will tread under foot all the rights of man, indulge only his ambition; now he will think himself superior to all men, become a tyrant!"

Beethoven went to the table, seized the top of the title-page upon which Napoleon's name had been written, tore it in half and threw it on the floor.

Pretty much my view of Napoleon. In the field, he was an absolute genius who has few peers in the annals of history. On his throne, a corrupt and vain tyrant who resembles more a Mafia Chieftan than his boyhood idol, JJ Rousseau's Grand Sovereign.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

No he was not, he was slightly above average size.

Indeed. That's why he was nicknamed "Le petit corporal", or alternatively "Le petit tondu" and "Le petit general". "Petit" in French means "slightly above average".