"Who were the traitors in 1815?" Topic

arthur,I would agree but I believe that our transatlantic cousins see it slightly differently:).

My perspective on Marmont vs Ney is this:
Marmont knew who was going to win the war, the only question was when and where. He hastened the inevitable end and reduced the bloodshed (for whatever reason).
Ney didn't know how Napoleon's march would end up. In fact, his own actions would determine Napoleon's success or failure. One shot from his pistol and the 1815 campaign would have ended with one death, Napoleon's. If he had snatched a musket from one of his men and shot at Napoleon's troops he would have started a civil war that could have gone 50/50 for the royalists. Instead he joined Napoleon (for whatever reason) and made life miserable for everyone in Europe until Napoleon was put down again.

The comparison between Marmont and Ney really doesn't ring true to me.

Murvihill

Ney obeyed his orders and marched his men to confront Napoleon. But, as you say, for whatever reason, perhaps a soldier's sense of honour, old friend's sake, dislike of the royalist rulers or whatever, once faced with Napoleon, he went over to his side. In doing so he saved further bloodshed and loss of French lives.

Marmont, on the other hand, made a secret agreement with the enemy to march his men to them and surrender them up. He disobeyed his orders right from the start.

A bit of a difference, don't you think, one planning to surrender, change sides and doing the dirty on the very men he was leading, while the other could obviously see that his men would prefer Napoleon to a king and royalists who preferred to let others do their dirty work?

And Ney did not make life miserable for everyone in Euorope, the Allies did that by being too frightened to risk letting Napoleon remain as the Emperor of France. THEY declared war on Napoleon, remember, not the other way around, so it is pretty foolish to lay the blame on further bloodshed on the Emperor or Ney.

Allies did that by being too frightened to risk letting Napoleon remain as the Emperor of France. THEY declared war on Napoleon, remember, not the other way around, so it is pretty foolish to lay the blame on further bloodshed on the Emperor or Ney.

Sigh. Can anyone in their right mind think that Napoleon thought for a second he would be acceptable to the other countries of Europe after the events of the previous decade? Whatever one thinks of the beginnings of the Napoleonic Wars, the blame for pretty much every drop of blood from 1812 onwards lies on him.

Go on. Use your empathy. Imagine what Napoleon's return looked like to the other countries of Europe.

In 1815, imho no doubt that Fouche and Talleyrand were the great traitors (and then, mostly of the Napoleon Era too).
If Ney was considered a traitor, why not Soult?
He also was with the King and turn his side.
They are the only two Marshals that can be accused of treason in 1815.

Amicalement
Armand

The argument that the Allies should have allowed Napoleon to remain as ruler of France in 1815 is nonsensical. Napoleon had shown himself over the previous 10 years to be untrustworthy, aggressive, and a "disturber of the peace". In 1813 and 1814 he spurned attempts to make peace, always preferring to gamble on an increasingly unlikely decisive victory. By returning, Napoleon made further bloodshed inevitable.

To argue further that the Allies were responsible for the bloodshed of 1815 as they were the ones who declared war is akin to declaring that Britain and France were responsible for the majority of the bloodshed in Western Europe in WW2 as they declared war on Germany; as far as I am aware that particular argument is only used by Nazi apologists.

It also does not matter in the slightest what Ney's men wanted; Ney had sworn an oath to his King, an oath from which he had not been released. It is a commander's job to lead his men, not follow them. To join Napoleon was a breach of that oath and made him a traitor to his King.

"Ney was not the Prince of Moscow, he was the the Prince de la Moskowa, this being the French name for the battle that we now call Borodino with the name coming from the river."

Thanks Colin. I had always thought it was ironic that the Prince of Moscow should achieve his greatest glory in the Retreat from Moscow but I guess I had his title wrong all along. Still, I would be interested to know whether Alexander could bring himself to use this title.

SJ,

I believe that he did: I will check the reference later.

Whirlwind

It is no use coming up with such feeble excuses, and I do mean feeble – the fact is and you know it, the Allies declared war on Napoleon, not the other way around. They started the blood letting again.

It shows that the Allies did not care one hoot about more blood being split, otherwise they would have given it a go. And they could have quite easily ganged up together again if they felt threatened, that is, if they didn't end up fighting each other.

But I suppose, for some, it is much safer and easier to blame Napoleon for everything. That way the Allies can still be seen as the good guys.

Gazzola,

As Whirlwind said, how could anyone in their right mind believe what you have just posted?

colinjallen

I'll dismniss your WW2 and Nazi jibe as pure rubbish. And no matter what feeble excuses you come up with, the Allies declared War on Napoleon. Sorry, but you can't change that fact. They started the bloodletting again.

'increasingly unlikely victory' perhaps you should read up on what Wellington thought about Napoleon's 1814 campaign. I think you (and others) will be rather surprised.

Gazzola,

There was no "jibe", merely a direct comparison. Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939; does that make them responsible for the bloodletting in Western Europe in 1940 and 1944-45? That is the logical outcome of your argument about the allies declaring war on Napoleon in 1815.

You do seem to have completely lost contact with reality now.

Anyone is their right mind? I agree with Gazzola. I am in my right mind.

Those who start wars are generally the ones disturbing the peace, not the other way around.

colinjallen

Who are you trying to fool? You know that Britain and France declared war AFTER Germany invaded Poland! So you know where you can stick that stupid part of your argument.

The Allies declared war on Napoleon because he became the Emperor of France again, without any bloodshed or invading -get it now?

Sigh. Can anyone in their right mind think that Napoleon thought for a second he would be acceptable to the other countries of Europe after the events of the previous decade?

Well, actually I do think there was a chance.
Does this mean I don't have a 'right mind' as well as being 'Logic Challenged' (tip'o'the hat in XV Brigada's direction)
;o)
The fact does remain that the Allies declared war on Napoleon.
I think it's safe to say that there was a slim chance that the Allies would have a bust up, and that could have resulted in the remaining 'Anti-Napoleon' allies eventually coming to terms with the French holding onto Napoleon as their Emperor.
Napoleon was a gambler, and I think he saw that he had a chance at regaining his Crown AND achieving peace, (for how long though???).
The Bourbons did shaft Napoleon.
Talk about a bunch of idiots! It's always a good idea to tease a lion with a stick.
Ney did commit treason IMHO, but you need to look at WHY he did what he did. And like I've said,..
history is a great judge and it's been kinder to Ney's character than it has to Marmont's.
Furthermore, Ney's defection was probably spontaneous.
Marmon't was premeditated.

I suspect Ney would argue, "I betrayed a unjust and unpopular fat king,… But not France or her Army"
To this day I think most people, (and certainly those that matter the most, namely the French) see him as 'The Brave' and a soldier of honour and integrity.
Marmont on the other hand was self serving. For sure he tried to justify is actions, but I think ultimately he has been seen for what he was. His name is associated with the likes of Quisling, and Arnold; a traitor.

the Allies declared War on Napoleon. Sorry, but you can't change that fact. They started the bloodletting again.

Those who start wars are generally the ones disturbing the peace, not the other way around.

What! Since you are referring to the declaration of war against Napoleon, as opposed to France, I must assume you are referring to 1815…

So, just to be clear, are you saying that in 1815, if Napoleon had NOT landed at Frejus with an armed body of men, and marched on Paris, the Allies would still have gone to war with, with…what: Elba? And on what pretext – Napoleons was observed walking on cracks in the pavement? Napoleon's apologists really would have been able to make him out to be the great Pacifist then!

I think its fairly clear to all rational observers who 'disturbed the peace' in 1815 – the 'Grand Disturber'!

But I suppose, for some, it is much safer and easier to blame Napoleon for everything. That way the Allies can still be seen as the good guys.

Oh well. I suppose I knew what you'd say really. One of a few posters here who wriggle around looking for any excuse, however implausible, to pretend that Napoleon was always the wronged one in every circumstance. No point discussing it with you, you have nothing to say.

I am going to agree to disagree. It is obvious that none of us, including me, are going to change their minds in the issue. Therefore, this is not a discussion but a series of lectures.

That is not bad, by both sides presenting their views things become clearer for observers.

Gentlemen, I would appreciate it if we realized that none of us will change our minds, but still asked questions to each other. In this way of discussion, we can eventually find the truth of the situation. This is not a debate. This is a discussion on a discussion forum.

Going back on topic.

Sparker, I believe that Napoleon was going back to save France from a despotic ruler. After relieving the King, he made no acts of aggression. In my eyes, he was wrongly accused. Not only that but the allies declared war on a single individual, not a nation. Therefore they were calling for an assassination.

That said, Napoleon did have a bad track record. Looking from the Allies point of view, it may have been wise to set up a preliminary government to test the waters.

Still, the Allies chose to attack a single man, not a country. There was desire and potential for peace that was not used.

Not only that but the allies declared war on a single individual, not a nation.

Correct, and this was purely a political decission.
The Allies knew the French would fight, but didn't want to appear to be the 'aggressors'.

Gentlemen, I would appreciate it if we realized that none of us will change our minds, but still asked questions to each other. In this way of discussion, we can eventually find the truth of the situation. This is not a debate. This is a discussion on a discussion forum.

Well said.

The declaration of war against Napoleon was only a farse.
Even when he resigned his command and tittle, the Allied (Blücher specially) continue atacking Paris and the french Army/population.
He has rejected (or at lest never attended) all the Comisions the Senate send to him to stop the fighting.
Not mention many french fortresses that even declare their loyalty to the Bourbon King showing his flag.
The Allied only accepted from them a inconditional surrender.
Those who refused and ask for their King finished under atack.

Amicalement
Armand

Gazzola,

I note that you quite simply will do anything to defend Napoleon's reputation and move on, full of pity for you.

Some people here would make excellent lawyers. They do not let the truth enter into the defense of his defendant!

Napoleon, like it or not, was seen as the embodiment of Revolution and war of conquest in most parts of Europe. When he ousted the Bourbons in 1815, it was just inconsequential that he didn't declare war. Everyone knew that it would have been a matter of time before he would have tried to recover the former status of France as hegemonic country in Europe, by the use of force. War was matter of time, and Napoleon tried to prepare for it.

The enthusiasm in France was not as common and extended as Napoleon's apologists wants to us to believe. He had the support of those who depended on his goodwill to thrive inside the military, particularly in middle ranks (lieutenants to colonels).

Rank and file were less than enthusiastic, or at least that's what suggest the high ratios of would be recruits that fled their homes, to avoid the gendarmerie that tried to enforce recruiting. According Alan Forrest in his seminal work on the desertion in the French armies during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, just in Southern France at least 20,000 men took to the woods to flight from the recruiting parties.

Naturally, Napoleon didn't want to go to war in 1815. He was intelligent enough to realize how thin was his support in France; that it wasn't as universal as his propaganda tried to make believe. He didn't left Davout in Paris, one of his most trusted subordinates, by a whim of his will, but because he wasn't too sure that once he left the capital the Bourbons, or other party, would find a way to dethrone him again. Also he knew than France was exhausted and that neither promises of glory or victory would suffice again for too long. The patience of the French was wearing less than thin. They wanted peace. Finally, he knew that he had not a backup army; that he hadn't the reserves of manpower that had sustained the war in 1813-1814.

No, Napoleon didn't want war in 1815. That's not the same than saying that he had no guilt in the war that ended his prominence in European affairs. When disembarked in Frejus he knew that his new bid for power would led to violence, no matter what. He took that decision knowingly. Contrary to his cheerleaders Napoleon never deceived himself about the nature of power; about what means to exercise power. We can tear apart our clothes saying that the Allies declared war to Napoleon, but Napoleon himself wasn't either surprised or scandalized. He knew what his coup would mean for France and the French: war.

Napoleon was a ruthless political operator and a gambler. He bet that the Allies were divided enough to be unable to make a concerted effort for too long to defeat him -by his spies in Vienna, he was lead to believe that Austrians, Prussians and Russians were in the brink of war because of the hegemony in Central Europe. Maybe he was right. Perhaps if he would have defeated Wellington and Blucher in Belgium, the alliance would have fell apart. Who knows? Bottom line is that Napoleon knew that war was coming and tried to benefit from it. His disregard for human life matched that of the other crowned heads in Europe at the time.

Napoleon wasn't a saint. He wasn't a pacifist either.

basileus66

Good post but we can never say for sure that Napoleon did or did not want peace. Most anti-Nappers are basing him wanting war because it suits their negative viewpoint on the great man and the fact that there were wars before 1815, even though he did not start all of them.

I'm not making any apologies for him but stating a fact, he became Emperor again without a shot being fired. The Allies declared war on him, so made the first move. Depite the past, in which the Allies at times started the wars against Napoleon, he cannot be blamed for starting the bloodletting in 1815. That is down to the Allies' fear and some people on this thread are basically being apologists for them.

But history is history and all out squabbling and differring viewpoints won't change what happened, no matter how some people keep trying.

colinjallen

I will defend Napoleon's reputation if I feel people are wrongly accusing him and blaming everything on him, which is pathetic. The Allies declared war on Napoleon in 1815, not the other war around. That's a fact not a myth. The bloodletting that followed is due to their fear. I think all ant-Nappers should live with it and stop blaming Napoleon. And no one can say what might or might not have happened, had the Allies had the courage to let him rule.

After relieving the King, he made no acts of aggression.

That would be apart from sealing the frontiers and turning France into an armed camp with mass mobilisation, would it?

The Allies declared war on him, so made the first move.

So returning to a peaceful France with an armed contingent and marching on Paris doesn't consistitute a 'move'?

Just exactly when do you want to start the clock ticking for Napoleon to be the completely innocent party?

Once he had occupied the throne again? After he called for mobilisation? Should the Allies have waited until he was halfway down the high road to Brussels before declaring War and scratching together some sort of defence? Or should they have waited until he had reestablished himself at the high tide of Empire? Or perhaps when he recrossed the Dneiper? Would that have cast them in a better light?

If you are seriously suggesting that he was mobilising for completely defensive reasons, and would have stuck to the borders of 1792, whilst paying his large army of veterans to practice their parade drill, I think you are advocating the most naive change in habit for a totalitarian Dictator in modern times. He couldn't do it in 1804 or 1811, and as soon as he percieved that the balance had swung in his favour the Grande Armee would have been marching again…

For the allied Sovereigns to accept him as de facto head of state of a heavily armed France, and demobilise their troops, would have been an act of folly, not courage.

Whirlwind

I think you just can't cope with the fact that the Allies were to blame for some of the bloodletting that occured during the Napoleonic period?

The Austrians invaded Bavaria in 1809 and started that war?

The Allies declared war on Napoleon in 1815 and started that war.

These are facts not myths.

And just to prove I am not always defending Napoleon and making excuses – here's one for you – Napoleon invaded Russia and started that war.

Perhaps you just can't accept the fact that the Allies caused some of the bloodletting, and perhaps you prefer to believe that those informing you of that fact, are always defending Napoleon and saying he was always in the right all the time.

Those who admire Napoleon, like those who admire any historical figure, accept the reality, warts and all, not just the myth making for and against such incredible characters.

Do

Sparker

How can Napoleon returning be considered as disturbing the peace?

He returned and became Emperor again without any fighting, so the peace was not disturbed. The only thing that was disturbed was the king who knew he had little support and did another runner.

The peace that still existed was then disturbed by the Allies who declared war on France's leader.

We can't say what might or might not have happened if Napoleon had not returned. The Allies may have ended up fighting each other or they may have lived in peace. Considering they were all equally greedy for land, wealth and power, it may well have been the former.

Anyway, we have a wonderful period of history to enjoy, no matter which side we favour. And I imagine my stifle count must be catching up with yours by now?

Sparker

I think the Allies declared war on Napoleon before he reached Paris.

Napoleon returned to France to regain the throne, which he did without bloodshed. That is not an act of war against the Allies, is it?

And I'm not trying to defend him at any costs, as some people want to believe, I'm just stating the facts.

@basileus66

Excellent posting, I agree absolutly

But history is history and all out squabbling and differring viewpoints won't change what happened, no matter how some people keep trying.

And yet none in this thread has denied that the Allies declared war on Napoleon. What is being debated is if they had substantial reasons to declare war on him.

All what we know about Napoleon, his career before 1815 and the decisions he took before that date, will incline any unbiased observer to conclude that the decision to go to war taken by Allies' sovereigns was justified.

There is also another piece of evidence that claims against the hypothesis of an unwilling Napoleon: he was who took the war outside France's frontiers. It can be argued that it was a sound military decision, and I would agree. On the other hand it reveals that for Napoleon those political niceties that we hold so dear -avoiding bloodletting, for example- were inconsequential. If blood should be spilled to attain a military -political- goal, so be it. Mind that I am not judging him. I found logical his decision making process. What I am saying is that all the throwing back and forth of present-day morality is nonsensical, as far as it goes to understand the events in 1815, or the decision making of the times.

You say that history is history. Well, then we should leave present day morals out of the equation, shouldn't we?

I think you just can't cope with the fact that the Allies were to blame for some of the bloodletting that occured during the Napoleonic period?

The Austrians invaded Bavaria in 1809 and started that war?

The Allies declared war on Napoleon in 1815 and started that war.

Well to take the second case first, no. Since we are talking about legal fictions, Napoleon by his return abrogated his own agreements in 1814, leading to the resumption of the state of affairs which existed at that time: i.e. war. This is why the Allies would never, could never, have treated with him unless he defeated the decisively on the battlefield. Napoleon's return instigated the war.

To take the first case, I (somewhat) agree – you'll notice in my post how I referred to the period after 1812. And in case you were wondering, I am in a fairly lonely minority of thinking that the Napoleonic invasion of Spain was perfectly justified – it was the manner it was done which I disagree (vehemently) with. However, I will note that the Austrians were perfectly entitled to have as many goes as they thought they could get away with from Napoleon's own point of view. Napoleon openly proclaimed his belief in "the right of conquest" – logical, as the only basis for his becoming King of Italy and the annexation of various parts of Europe to France.

The thing that really galls about Napoleon is that he never seems to have thought about an equitable shape of Europe that could be the basis for a lasting period of peace and prosperity. Given his previous annexations and invasions, the idea that he could have reached a peaceful settlement with the rest of Europe is faintly ludicrous (and exactly how events panned out).

And the thing that galls me about this board is that I, who consider myself an admirer of Napoleon the bold, imaginative general seem to be always writing negative things about him because some of the claims made for him refer to some mythical Napoleon – the one who was always in the right, leader of an invincible army superior in all respects to those it fought, whether it lost or won, who was always wise and just, always undone by incompetent but sneaky enemies, and it is just rubbish. I admire Napoleon and (generally) favour the French, but I think it is important to think about where he/they went wrong, behaved badly or unjustly and how they looked from the other side of the hill. It sometimes seems that an awful lot of energy is expended trying to excuse every error that Napoleon, his (loyal) Marshals and the French Army committed, and the books quoted in defence are those of ardent admirers of the French rather than trying to take a balanced view.

basileus66

Thank you very much for proving my point – the Allies started the war for what they feared might happen, not what did happen. Imagine if all wars were fought like that – there'd be no end. But thanks again for your supporting post, although I doubt you meant it to be that way.

As for fighting outside France – yes, brilliant! The Allies had declared war on Napoleon and were sending armies against him. His genius spotted a chance to get between two of them and beat each one in turn, which almost worked. That is the actions of a very clever commander.

Leaving present day morals out is not that easy, especially since most posts, and certainly many against Napoleon, are based on hindsight.

The fact is and you cannot deny it, is plain and simple. The Allies acted on what they thought and feared might happen, not what did happen. The fear of what might happen is not a good enough reason to go to war against the leader of a country, who regained the throne without bloodshed, which in itself, would suggest he had ample support from the French people and why the king had to do a runner.

You might agree to disgaree, I don't know and I don't really care. The thread is well off topic now, so perhaps you might want to bring it back in line?

Thank you very much for proving my point – the Allies started the war for what they feared might happen, not what did happen. Imagine if all wars were fought like that – there'd be no end. But thanks again for your supporting post, although I doubt you meant it to be that way.

They fought Napoleon because of what he had already done. He doesn't prove your point, your 'point' is that Napoleon might have proven to be a peaceful ruler. There is nothing whatsoever in his history to support this but hey, believe what makes you happy.

Whirlwind

Good post. But as I've said before I do not think Napoleon was always right or did the right thing. I see him a great man not a god and all men make mistakes.

To obtain a balanced view on this website would be nice but certainly not realistic, especially since some people blame Napoleon for everything.

I disgaree with you that the Allies had the right to declare War on Napoleon in 1815. To act on the fear of what might happen rather than what did happen is not acceptable and it is down to them, no matter what happened previously concerning Napoleon, that led to the following bloodletting.

If Napoleon had had to fight for every step of the way back to Paris, then that would be ample evidence of a lack of support and reason to suggest he should not become the Emperor again. But the lack of support was for the king and the royalists, which is why they had to do a runner.

I disagree with you that Napoleon was right to invade Spain. Spain was an ally at the time and at the very least, he should have placed a Spaniard on the throne, not one of his incompetent relatives.

The French army was not invincible and had never been so. I have never believed it was ever invincible throughout the whole Napoleonic period. But it was a very good army that won most of its battles, except those against the British. But battles and campaigns are won via a mixture of aspects, good soldiers, good commanders, good weather and often, good luck. The French had an awful lot of those aspects in their favour most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

Whirlwind

My point was that they acted on the fear of what might happen, not what Napoleon did, which was to regain the throne without bloodshed. Like it or not, Basileus66 did prove my point.

To suggest I only believe in what makes me me happy, is a little silly, don't you think?

Sadly, we will never know if Napoleon might have ruled peacefully, due to the Allies fear. But he was the Emperor of France and should have been given that chance, if not just to prevent the bloodshed that followed. They knew blood would be split but it did not stop them declaring war, did it?

He abrogated the peace he signed in 1814. It is on his hands. The fact that he was popular in some (most?) regions of France is irrelevant to the primary motivation of the Allies – to defeat the man who had invaded them on many occasions. The Allies might have lived with someone who might have wanted some equitable peace. Napoleon was demonstrably not that man.

My point was that they acted on the fear of what might happen, not what Napoleon did, which was to regain the throne without bloodshed. Like it or not, Basileus66 did prove my point.

No. They acted on what he had done in the past – 'the outlaw of Europe' IIRC. The police arrest murderers for what they have done in the past, not because they fear what he may do in the future, although it might be resonable to indeed fear the murderer may kill again. Pretty simple really.

Regards

The Treary of Fontainebleu was abrogated by Louis XVIII and his government who refused to pay Napoleon's pension, as stipulated in the treaty. Further, there was open talk of moving Napoleon to a more remote island.

Napoleon was not the aggressor in 1800, 1805, 1806, 1809, and 1815.

He was in 1808, and war in 1812 was decided upon by Alexander as early as 1810 (see Dominic Lieven's recent work). 1813 and 1814 were a continuation of the 1812 war.

The allies would not tolerate Napoleon as the French head of state because they were afraid of him. What they had done to Europe at the Congress of Vienna merely put in place new revolutionary movements. The Belgians did not want to be part of a Dutch kingdom; the Poles wanted nothing to do with the Russians; the northern Italians did not want to go back to Austria; and the Saxons, Westphalians, and Rhinelanders did not want to be part of Prussia, whom they considered foreigners.

Sincerely,
K

‘10th Marines wrote: 'the armed forces of the United States… have always been loyal' I seem to remember that RE Lee was offered a command by Lincoln, but chose to follow Virginia and fight for the Confederacy, as did some other US Army officers….'

‘Benedict Arnold was only a member of the Rebel armed forces before the USA was recognised, so IMHO he engaged in treasonable activity by fighting for the rebels against King George, but then returned to the Crown and so was never brought to trial for it.'

Regarding the officers who ‘went south' because of the beginning of the Civil War, they went with both dignity and the respect of their northern peers and comrades. No units departed and went south, and the army, as well as the navy and Marine Corps, remained loyal.

As for Arnold, the United States had been recognized by the French two years (1778) before Arnold's treason (1780). And the American flag had been saluted by both the Dutch and the French before the official recognition by the French with the Alliance. Further, the name of the new country, the United States, came into being in 1776.

Sincerely,
K

The Treary of Fontainebleu was abrogated by Louis XVIII and his government who refused to pay Napoleon's pension, as stipulated in the treaty. Further, there was open talk of moving Napoleon to a more remote island.

You are incorrect. By returning he abrogated his agreements with the Allies who were perfectly entitled to re-start the war which Napoleon's defeat in 1814 had ended.

Napoleon was not the aggressor in 1800, 1805, 1806, 1809, and 1815

You are incorrect. He was the aggressor in 1815. The campaigns of 1800, 1805 and 1809 were Austria's attempts to regain territories which the French had gained previously – Napoleon approved of 'right of conquest'.

The allies would not tolerate Napoleon as the French head of state because they were afraid of him.

You are incorrect. They would not tolerate him as a result of his previous actions. Read the posts above.

What they had done to Europe at the Congress of Vienna merely put in place new revolutionary movements. The Belgians did not want to be part of a Dutch kingdom; the Poles wanted nothing to do with the Russians; the northern Italians did not want to go back to Austria; and the Saxons, Westphalians, and Rhinelanders did not want to be part of Prussia, whom they considered foreigners.

And neither did they want to be dominated by a French Imperial government. Napoleon made Hamburg part of France for goodness sake, and crowned himself King of Italy.

You have yet again weighed the evidence carefully and come up with the surprising answer that Napoleon was innocent in every way. Amazing. Knock me down with a feather.

Imagine if all wars were fought like that – there'd be no end

I do not need imagine it. Most wars happens because of fear. What it matters is if that fear is substantiated in facts or in paranoia… a caveat that I introduced in my previous post which you have chosen to ignore, conveniently.

basileus66

Sorry, I did not realise you had supported my posts twice. Thanks for that. Much appreciated.

Whirlwind

Oh come on, get real! The police arrest murders for committing murder, if they have enough evidence to prove they HAD committed the crime, NOT because they MIGHT do.

Napoleon had not done anything against the Allies. He had regained his throne, without bloodshed. The Allies are guilty of starting the war in 1815 because of their fear of what they felt MAY happen, and not of what DID happen. Surely, even you can admit that.

We can't change history and Napoleon lost in the end, so I can't understand why some people just can't accept the facts? It is not going to change anything, is it?

So, having a load of officers leave the employ of the government in order to fight against it, counts as the armed forces always being loyal to that government; ok, if you say so but I think you need a bit of recalibration. How many Southern other ranks also joined the Confederate forces? Do they also count as being loyal to the US government despite fighting against it?

Also, if Arnold was a "traitor", how have the armed forces of the United States always been loyal? Arnold was part of those armed forces and he was definitely not loyal.

Sorry, I did not realise you had supported my posts twice. Thanks for that. Much appreciated.

Whatever

and war in 1812 was decided upon by Alexander as early as 1810 (see Dominic Lieven's recent work).

Hi Kevin,

Yes I have read Dominic's work with much pleasure, and he does make it clear that there was substantial pressure on Alexander to get out from under the Continental System. But I'm still pretty sure that the troops crossing the Niemen in the Summer of 1812 were moving from West to East!

Kind Regards,

Ralph

Whirlwind,

And the thing that galls me about this board is that I, who consider myself an admirer of Napoleon the bold, imaginative general seem to be always writing negative things about him because some of the claims made for him refer to some mythical Napoleon – the one who was always in the right, leader of an invincible army superior in all respects to those it fought, whether it lost or won, who was always wise and just, always undone by incompetent but sneaky enemies, and it is just rubbish. I admire Napoleon and (generally) favour the French, but I think it is important to think about where he/they went wrong, behaved badly or unjustly and how they looked from the other side of the hill. It sometimes seems that an awful lot of energy is expended trying to excuse every error that Napoleon, his (loyal) Marshals and the French Army committed, and the books quoted in defence are those of ardent admirers of the French rather than trying to take a balanced view.

May I just say that I could not agree more with what you have expressed so eloquently. Myself I cannot reconcile Napoleon the Military man, who evoked such devotion from such great and brave soldiers as led the Grande Armee, with Napoleon the statesman who tried to apply Corsican clan politics to the affairs of Europe.

But I do agree with your sentiment, there are too many in the Napoleon 'could do no wrong' camp, and, I might concede, some in the 'Napoleon was an ogre' camp who are blind to his achievements, not all of which were on the battlefield.

Kind Regards,

Sparker

I, too, prefer to admire Napoleon the man rather than worship Napoleon the god (or despise Bonaparte the demon).

'Also, if Arnold was a "traitor", how have the armed forces of the United States always been loyal? Arnold was part of those armed forces and he was definitely not loyal.'

Arnold was one individual in the army, not the entire organization, which remained loyal.

There is a difference, a great difference.

Sincerely,
K

Oh come on, get real! The police arrest murders for committing murder, if they have enough evidence to prove they HAD committed the crime, NOT because they MIGHT do.

Napoleon had not done anything against the Allies. He had regained his throne, without bloodshed. The Allies are guilty of starting the war in 1815 because of their fear of what they felt MAY happen, and not of what DID happen. Surely, even you can admit that.

Napoleon had already invaded (or tried to do so) all the Allied countries and had been defeated.

Napoleon had not done anything against the Allies.

Is the single most untrue statement ever written on these boards. I don't know how you can write it since you know the broad history of the previous decade.

He had regained his throne, without bloodshed. The Allies are guilty of starting the war in 1815 because of their fear of what they felt MAY happen, and not of what DID happen. Surely, even you can admit that.

No. Why can't you admit that the Allies fought the largest war in history to get rid of him in 1812-1814 which he then resumed by taking over France again? Whether his coup was (largely) bloodless is utterly irrelevant, whether the Bourbons were good or bad is irrelevant.

I have not heard one bit of reasoning as to why the Allies should have forgiven Napoleon his past. Not one. This idea that the Allies were to blame for not giving Napoleon another chance is ludicrous. He surrendered and agreed to leave France. He reneged and came back. His previous victims resumed the war. Simple.