"Who were the good guys?" Topic

The Germans called it "The War of Liberation". Forcing ideas and utilizing the resources of your land and people as a vassel state to spread these "ideas"? Are ideas like liberty and freedom trump the extermination of an indiginous people like the US in its expansion of its "Manifest Destiny"? Is "National Socialism" just a "bad idea" and therefore the idea rather than the actual practice bad?

"Czar Alexander I was connected with patricide, yet no one seems to make a deal about it here and nothing about the Russian aggression against Sweden and annexation of parts of Finland."

As a Finn I'd like to raise my voice against that sneakily executed aggression. That is, it was started without any declaration of war as Russians seem want to (compare to, say, Winter War).

Then again, Alexander WAS pressurized into attacking by Napoleon.

And to be frank, if Russians hadn't taken over Finland I do doubt that we'd ever received independence from Swedes and we had just remained obscure and non-developed backwater of the remnants of Swedish Empire used mainly for buffer zone towards east as well as foolhardy manpower for military. In light of this, I think that the miracle of Winter War most certainly wouldn't have happened and Finland would've been annexed to Soviet Union and I'd currently be typing in Russian…

Granted, Western powers would've more likely interviened to defend Swedish ore. But before that would've happened Finland would most definately have been overrun and I do doubt that enough military power could've/would've been transferred to Sweden to make the Soviets budge from Finland.

I agree with Lonkka.

The question of Swedish/Finnish/Russian relations is not best summarized as "Russians were the bad guys".

Here is a short summary of the status of Finland in the reign of Aleksandr I -
link

Frayer

Reading the comments about the height of Napoleon – I thought I'd check into the height of the Duke of Wellington. A cursory Google search gave me an answer of 6.2 feet – hmmm, satisfactorily tall I thought – but delving a little deeper, I came across the following, printed in 1900 in the New York Times [taken from the London Express – which might explain the jingoism]:

"Harking further back in the history of our land we cannot forget, though it is a fact not so well known, that the finest soldier this country, and probably any other, has ever seen, the Duke of Wellington – the Great Duke – was a man whose height, considered by ordinary measurement, was almost insignificant. Arthur, Duke of Wellington, was a man who, as far as tallness went, would never have been noticed in any everyday assembly. And had be been this noticed if is certain that one regarding him would have set him down as of little account viewed from the point of view of what a soldier should be. But the "mind's the standard of the man," and his small stature did not interfere with the wonderful military qualities of the victor of Waterloo."

The article then continues to denote the height of Napoleon as "…5 feet 5 inches or so."

I also believe, the other great British Napoleonic hero, Admiral Lord Nelson was, either equal in height, or a few inches shorter, than Napoleon.

I would go for the French as their uniforms were prettier…..but I'm British so we were the good guys!!

hussarbob1746.webs.com

Fred Cartwright "It [the French Empire] was no more a meritocracy than anywhere else. After all A Wellesley Esq rose from obscurity to a Dukedom and eventually prime minister."

Wellesley was wealthy gentry. Bernadotte's highest ambition was to be the village baker.

"Some of them were pretty poor."

Who? Massena? Davout? Ney? Poniatowski? Berthier? Soult? Lannes?

Now, admittedly, I have mentioned some of the better ones, but even the worst had been good briagde and divisional commanders, and how can you find out if a man will be a good army commander until you promote him to the job? Much better than the English system of promoting men who bought their commissions and were "capital fellows."

The only real example of nepotism is Bernadotte, and he rose to be King of Sweden and arguably the man who brought down his old boss (by the way, Artie certainly can't claim that title ).

Something playing into the perceptions that Napoleon was short (besides his always being flanked by giants in tall bearskin hats) was that he had a proportionally larger head and proportionally shorter legs to his torso. He looked better on horseback than on foot.

Wellesley was wealthy gentry. Bernadotte's highest ambition was to be the village baker.

Wealth doesn't equal influence. And had been pointed out Napoleon was gentry too.

Who? Massena? Davout? Ney? Poniatowski? Berthier? Soult? Lannes?

How about Marmont? Joseph? Jerome?

The only real example of nepotism is Bernadotte, and he rose to be King of Sweden and arguably the man who brought down his old boss (by the way, Artie certainly can't claim that title ).

So Joseph and Jerome don't count?! How odd! Neither could be said to have attained their ranks on merit as they were both useless. Even Napoleon had a good moan at Jerome at his poor showing against the Austrians in 1809!

The height of Napoleon as 5'2" is due to an error caused by the fact that late 18th/early 19th century countries had measurements of the same name but that were actually different lengths- If a man boasted he could walk 8 leagues in a day, you should check which county he is from.

Also the French Revolutionaries were responsible for a number of evils- the Terror, giving the inspiration for Les Mis and driving on the wrong side of the road being the cheif ones.

In an attempt to end this thread I'm going to Godwin it.

Napoleon was a Nazi, and anyone who plays the French is a Nazi, as is anyone who actually knows the correct use of a bricole

Fred Cartwright "Wealth doesn't equal influence."

Uh, dude, yes it does.

"And had been pointed out Napoleon was gentry too."

Sigh. We're talking about the Empire. You can hardly blame the man who created it for being gentry. But you fail to mention Bernadotte. How many tattoo-bearing baker's apprentices became generals in the British army, precisely? Shouldn't be too hard to count.

"How about Marmont? Joseph? Jerome?"

What was wrong with Marmont? He was an excellent commander, if not quite up to Wellington's level.

Now, did Napoleon promote his relatives over their heads? Sure. But this took place in Britain more by an order of magnitude than in France. In any case, Jerome was at least brave. As to Joseph, not much good can be said.

However, if you'll read the OP again, you'll see that I do not claim France was perfect, only the best of a bad lot.

Last Hussar "Napoleon was a Nazi, and anyone who plays the French is a Nazi, as is anyone who actually knows the correct use of a bricole"

Well, that goes without saying.

Lets see, since my ancestors were Dutch settlers in New York who really hated the British. Since the US was fighting the British in the War of 1812 and the French were tying down lots of Brits and their mercenaries in Spain. I have to go with the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the French were the good guys.

Uh, dude, yes it does.

Uh dude, not in 18/19th century britain it didn't. Breeding mattered, having wealth as well helped. You could be the wealthiest merchant and still not count for much.

How many tattoo-bearing baker's apprentices became generals in the British army, precisely

I'll get back to you on that! Nelson was the 6th child of a Norfolk Parson. Not exactly born with a silver spoon in hs mouth!

Now, did Napoleon promote his relatives over their heads? Sure. But this took place in Britain more by an order of magnitude than in France.

Such as? Name names!The top British commanders all semm pretty good, Moore, Wellington etc. Even Beresford was ok and his training of the Portugese was a major factor in the British success. And of course a lot of talent went into the navy conspicuously more than the went into the French navy!

However, if you'll read the OP again, you'll see that I do not claim France was perfect, only the best of a bad lot.

So as long as you come from humble beginnings then it is ok to be a tyrant is it? Come off it replacing one set of lords and masters with another set made very little difference to the average French peasant except they were more likely to get their sons killed! The fact that Napoleons cronies adapted so well to the retun of the Bourbons really proves – plus ca change, plus ca meme chose! Reminds me of the end of Animal Farm!

Yes, he was of average height. exactly like he was of average morals!

More popcorn please, My wheelybin full of it just emptied!

"exactly like he was of average morals!"

Napoleon's height is something you can argue about, there are evidence and standards, morals do not admit this sort of comparison.

My own view is he was morally no different than most people. Where he was set apart was ambition, ability, opportunity and good fortune. I find the people who are forgiving of Napoleon take the view most of us would have behaved similarly confronted with the situations as they arose. Those who decry him think with great power should also come great responsibility to be good, like the spider-man comic.

A pox on both houses – no-one were the good guys, from the nepotism of the emperor to the anti-democratic forces of the allies.

"IIRC the Royal Navy was a meritocracy in comparison with the army, though one needed connections for the higher ranks."
The Navy was absolutely a meritocracy. If you look at the Captain's list of those at Trafalgar you'll see that promotion to the highest ranks was nearly as easy for the humblest born, given merit and good fortune.
TMP link

Lt General Harry Smith, was the son of a surgeon and was a poor Lt during the napoleonic wars.

Sir Thomas Wilson, was the grandson of a wool merchant and the son of a portait painter.

major General Bunbury was the son of a cartoonist.

major General Griffiths was the son of a reverend

General Edward Kerrison was the son of a man from "inferior origins"

General Otway was the son of a Militia captain

Black Jack Slade was the son of a victualling commisioner

Edwulf

Well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Your knowledge of the period may be superior to mine, however, what I say about France still stands, and it is the received wisdom. Are you claiming that England was more of a meritocracy than France? Seems pretty weird if that's true. The last time I checked, France had gotten rid of its hereditary peerage.

Which is why Bonaparte invented a new hereditary peerage.

Bonaparte had many opportunities to settle Europe's conflicts, by limiting his own aggression. He could have kept the Peace of Amiens. He could have had peace after 1807, after Tilsit, but chose to try to take over Spain. He could have had peace in 1812, but chose to try and dominate Russia even further. There was even a chance of peace in 1813, but he rejected the Allies' overtures because he was deluding himself and was beleiving his own propaganda. Finally, there could have been peace in 1815, but he chose to try again to be Emperor.

Not only were the French the Good guys in the Napoleonic era, but they won every war they were ever in! Anyone who says different is a bunch of Anglo, Germano, Russo, Austro, Vietnameseophile lying liers!

Well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Your knowledge of the period may be superior to mine, however, what I say about France still stands, and it is the received wisdom.

Just because it is the received wisdom doesn't make it right though!

Plenty of that happened during Louis XIV's wars, since the then militia was formed from conscripts, yet I don't see him reviled as much and how about his contemporary, the Swedish King Charles XII? Then there was Peter the Great and a generation later Frederick the Great's wars of aggression contributed to countless deaths. What I'm asking for is even treatment, not the kind of Saturday night hyperbole as posted in page one.

I don't have the respective butcher's bills to hand, but I'm pretty sure the Napoleonic wars would top the Seven Years war for casualties. Not that I'm a big fan of the so called Age of Reason and warfare as the sport of kings -it might have been sport if you were a king, but it was a deadly serious business for the PBI. Face it France is no better and no worse than many other European countries during the Napoleonic wars. All that liberty and fraternity sounded great, but like communism which looks good on paper, lacked so much in practice.

As the original poster commented, it is indeed a meaningless question.

Bonaparte had many opportunities to settle Europe's conflicts, by limiting his own aggression. He could have kept the Peace of Amiens.

The British were at least as guilty as the French in ending the Peace of Amiens. They blockaded France, siezed ships, supported the revolt in Haiti.

He could have had peace after 1807, after Tilsit, but chose to try to take over Spain.

The French entered Spain with an army because it was known that Britain was preparing to invade the peninsula via Portugal and the feuding Spanish monarchy was entirely unstable. If he hadn't intervened, Spain might have become ruled by Ferdinand in the pocket of the British. There would have been no need to invade Spain were he not at war with an aggressive and perfidious Britain.

He could have had peace in 1812, but chose to try and dominate Russia even further.

Again, the invasion of Russia was required because Russia was continuing to trade with and support the British. If Britain had respected the Continental System, Europe might have had peace.

There was even a chance of peace in 1813, but he rejected the Allies' overtures because he was deluding himself and was beleiving his own propaganda.

Perhaps.

Finally, there could have been peace in 1815, but he chose to try again to be Emperor.

Peace in 1815 is a bit like saying France could have had peace in 1943 if they had refused the help of the Allies and just continued under the oppressive terms of the Germans. The Bourbon regime/British puppet imposed upon France by foreign powers was intolerable and corrupt.

The Napoleonic Wars were just as much, if not more, a responsibility of Britain. They had been at war with France since the revolution, before Bonaparte ever became involved, and they sheltered the French Monarchy and anti-government forces. France could not force a peace on Britain due to the latter's economic and naval strength so as long as Britain actively prosecuted that war, France was required to continue it any way that they could.

I don't imagine that Napoleon's regime, founded on the army and victory, would have been complacently peaceful had Britain turtled and left them alone, but it is certainly not the case that Europe was only at war because of Bonaparte. Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, and Turkey were all starting wars of their own. It was the nature of European politics of the time.

Larry.

Fred Cartwright "Just because it is the received wisdom doesn't make it right though!"

Fred, the French threw out their aristocracy, and the British didn't. Or is THAT received wisdom also incorrect?

Give it up.

Fred, the French threw out their aristocracy, and the British didn't.

Not in Napoleonic times they didn't – they just replaced the old ones with new ones!

"Peace in 1815 is a bit like saying France could have had peace in 1943 if they had refused the help of the Allies and just continued under the oppressive terms of the Germans. The Bourbon regime/British puppet imposed upon France by foreign powers was intolerable and corrupt."
Actualy it was quite popular, except with Bonapartists!
They pleased most classes by bringing order and stability. They especially pleased the liberals with their pretensions towards constitutionalism, they pleased the lower orders by ending conscription, they pleased the commercial classes by restoring trade, they pleased the monarchists by restoring legitimism, they pleased republicans (most of them) by not restoring the Ancien Regime and by not changing the Revolution's land settlements, and by not indemnifying the returning emigres, and, by not punishing many, if not all of the Republicans, even regicides. The Bourbons were neither intolerable nor corrupt, even, arguably, after the accession of Charles X!
The French, although not enthusiastic about Louis XVIII, welcomed him as somebody that would, finally, bring the an end to the Imperialistic wars imposed by Bonaparte.

By the way, the Peace of Amiens was ended by Bonaparte, without warning, without British blockades.

Peace was offered by the Allies in 1813. Perhaps your explanation for Bonaparte's refusal will be more conclusive?

To paraphrase Ash in Army of Darkness : "Good…bad…i'm the one with the best army".

There are good guys?

Agreeing with Charles …

Ash said "guy with the gun" – and I believe that is as close as one will come to truth on the matter.

Cheers,

The bandit

The bad guys were the once who seized innocent sailors and make them slaves in british warships.

Conscription = bad guys?
Odd position.
So Vietnam War – US bad guys.
Napoleonic War- France must be the worst they conscripted EVERY one they could.
WW2… all bad.