"Why NOT Waterloo?" Topic

Russia had finally acquiesced to Fouches plan to move Bonaparte to St Helena. Nap had little choice but to roll the dice…

This is a new one on me, where is this one from?

Regards

It is a bit asked too much from the Allies to leave Boney on its own in France, they waged war against him for 15 years and they just didn't want to risk another 15 ones.
With his invasion of Spain and then Russia 1812 – and the refusual of generous peace offers in early 1813 – there was no way to make peace with him

von Winterfeldt

The situation in 1815 was completely different. Napoleon did not have the massive armies or the allies to even contemplate doing it again. Perhaps they were more afraid that some of the allies might actually side with him again, should he show any signs of empire building. Just a thought.

This whole discussion puts me in mind of:

link

Whirlwind

Thank you for your apology. Perhaps you do not realise your are putting people down when you do it and perhaps be more careful with your posts, as I shall be with mine.

But I do think you have a problem accepting that someone will disagree with you and interpret history and events differently.

The only thing I'm uspet about is that I allowed myself to reciprocate your insults with mine rather than rising above them.

As much as I welcome debating with people with different viewpoints, I won't accept people suggesting my views are based on hero-worship or lack of reading.

Anyway, time to move concerning this topic I think, which has well deviated away from the original topic. No hard feelings I hope, well, none from me anyway, and I look forward to debating with you on another topic.

BullDog69

Moving on from this topic I'm afraid. Well run its course. However, I like TelesticWarrior's post to your reply.

Buty I will leave you with two questions – has war ever been declared on one man before? Such an odd thing to do, don't you think?

On what basis did Napoleon have a perfect right to return to France? The only way that he could do so was by breaching the Treaty of Fontainebleau. As he did that, it was hardly surprising that the rest of Europe regarded him as untrustworthy and a threat.

1815 Guy- got a good laugh from your 'customary' sign-off!

I think war has never been declared on precisely just one man, even in Napoleon's case, of course. One man and his followers, certainly. As best I can remember, several times during the Roman Empire, right on up to, well, Hitler, in principle, I suppose-though in his case they did actually call him Germany, to be literal.

John the OFM- Thanks for the laughs! Where can I get some of that delicous bait? It seems to work really well for selectivly trapping intellect while sparing intellectual generosity.
At least your prey is able to release themselves from the trap eventually. I somehow suspect that congratulations are in order for clever pre-meditation!

Saddam Hussein?

What a ridiculous hate fest.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit

Hate? Who hates who? I certainly don't hate anyone and I don't think anyone hates me? We disagree with each other, perhaps a bit too passionately at times – but what's wrong with that – certainly no hate going around as far as I'm concerned.

Colinjallen

We've moved on, man – do keep up!

@trotskylives
Thanks for the link! Very funny

Nothing wrong with gaming the Waterloo Campaign. I am a big Wellington fan and a bit of Anglophile, so I'm with John on this one. But right now we are in the middle of Borodino started last Saturday, plan to finish this Saturday. But come 2015 its the "Hundred Days!" Ligny, Quatra Bras and Waterloo.

Gazzola

I'm sorry that you did not answer my questions, as I am genuinely interested in your response.

Whatever the morals of it, I think that it would have been outrageously risky of the Allies to have sat back and allowed Napoleon to return to power, given what had happened over the previous 15 years. You mention that the Allies were motivated by fear – which is exactly right: they feared – quite understandably – that he would cause more trouble.

I know it's not exactly the same but if, for example, Hitler had been captured alive in 1945, then escaped from a Russian gulag in 1946 and returned – to great acclaim – to seize power in Germany, and have the German army flock to his banner, would any one have thought: 'oh well, let's give him a second chance'?
I seriously doubt it.

I'm sorry that you did not answer my questions

He's still in chokey, so will probably answer once he gets out…

Hopefully a reformed character, resolved to make amends and be a good citizen…

Me – I've gone back to my old haunts and fallen into bad company again….

Very impressed with solway arts VBCW flags, from what I have seen on the web they look superb, however I am not a fan of cotton finish on the flags, frayed edges and weave showing through etc. Does anybody know if they can be printed as decals/ transfers similar to other manufacturers or other sources?

Many thanks in advance

Hang on, where did that post above come from. I wrote something completely different to that……

Have I entered the Twiglet Zone?

The Allies had to 'declare war' on Nap 'personally' as King Louis and the official govt of France was at peace with the Allies and sending troops to arrest ole Boney….

Hitler coming back in 1946? He was just misunderstood, of course. All he ever wanted was to just get back into the womb via his mother's bottom, and his coprophilia with Geli was just a natural expression of that. Well everyone has to have a hobby, don't they? His mass murdering was just another expression of his oedipal insecurity….. so give the poor old perv a break….. of course he'd be welcomed back by all in 1946.

(exits stage right whistling "Colonel Bogey" )

Wow….just wow :/

BullDog96

Sorry I could not reply to your earlier post but you probably know the reason why by now.

I don't really want to continue the thread since it has, in my opinion, run its course but I felt obliged to respond to your post, since I was unable to do so at the time.

Firstly, I don't think it is was a fear of what Napoleon might do, that is, might defeat the allies again. I think it was more of a fear that other nations might side with him. After all, the allies were not acting like buddies at the Congress of Vienna, were they? Russia expected to take over Poland and Alexander expected to be made king of Saxony. But Prussia wanted Saxony and asked Britain to support their claim and I think Austria was also siding with Britain and Prussia. In other words, they were quite happily carving up other nations for their own benefit, and who knows what that might have led to had Napoleon waited a little longer?

Napoleon had requested peace and agreed to France withdrawing to her borders of 1792, something the Allies offered in 1814, but even after Naopoleon agreed, changed their minds and continued the war. The same in 1815. Doesn't sound like the allies really wanted peace, more a piece of this land and a piece of that land, which they were getting. But of course, a returned Napoleon might upset the greedy applecart.

Some people suggested that Napoleon was only supported by the Army, yet at Grenoble on his bloodless return, when the military refused to open the gates of the city, it was the Grenoble citizens, the people, who tore down the gates and carried Napoleon to a hotel. So, considering he was able to march to Paris without any resistance, that suggests he was wanted by most of the people. Obviously not all.

The allies only declared war on Napoleon not on France because they had made a treaty with France earlier and were at peace with the country – so, to declare war on France would mean the allies had to break the treaty, which basically they did, but they didn't want to be shown as breaking the peace treaty, so they covered it up by saying they were only at war with Napoleon. In other words, the allies broke the peace treaty and started the final war – not Napoleon.

All blame goes to them – to keep saying what they did was okay because they 'feared' what might happen, based on wars they took part in and sometimes started – is just not acceptable. That opens the door for any nation, then and now, to invade another country and start a war, because of what might happen, not what did happen. Fear only creates further fear!

Of course, that is my opinion, based on how I have interpreted events. Others will disagree. I can accept that and hopefully people will accept my point of view. If they can't, then that's their problem

I think anyone trying to bring Hitler into the debate is clutching at straws, since what he did and his aims had absolutely nothing to do with Napoleon, apart from his failed attempt to outdo Napoleon in Russia.

Anyway, those are my views. People will agree or disgree with them, as I agree or disagree with their viewpoints. But, as I've already mentioned, I'm in 1812 mode at the moment and only want to read and discuss matters relating to the two 1812 campaigns (Russia and Canada).

Happy wargaming to you and sorry I could not reply earlier.

I agree with you on that but I think we always forget much of Napoleon's decision was based on who could I trust to be on their own. Davout could be counted on in Paris. Even though Ney is one of my favorite Marshalls, I don't think I would have trusted his abilities or loyalty on his own.

'Uncle' Archie Becke, plays this counter-factual game in "Napoleon & Waterloo" pages 34-47.

Gazzola

Many thanks for the reply and good to have you back. I don't think I was 'clutching at straws' at all, however – merely trying to explain my take on the mindset of the period. (which is obviously at odds with yours, which is fair enough, of course).
My view is that, rightly or wrongly and whether this was unfair or not to a modern view, Napoleon popping back up – after years of warfare and hundreds of thousands of deaths – was simply never going to be tolerated. I don't see that the leaders of any nation of the time would have been sensible to give him a second chance. I know I wouldn't have.
Whether Napoleon enjoyed popular support or not is irrelevant – if his neighbours considered him a threat, they were (IMO) perfectly right to get rid of him. As I said, if Hitler had escaped from a gulag and returned to power in 1946, but said he wanted peace and was happy with the pre-1936 borders of Germany etc, I doubt anyone would have seriously considered giving him a second chance.
This was the only way I compared Napoleon to Hitler (who also enjoyed massive popular support), though I think it would be fair to say that both had demonstrated a desire to dominate Europe.

Ok so you think Napoleon didn't deserve a second chance, that's fair enough.

But why do Tsar Alexander or Kaiser William or Emperor Ferdinand automatically get as many 'goes at it' just because they were off the royal bloodlines? It was obviously a case of one rule for Bonaparte and another rule for all the others.

I believe Napoleon was targeted and despised from day one because he was not 'of the blood'. No understanding of the entire period can be achieved without comprehending this very basic premise.

TelesticWarrior

So for you it all comes down to a 'Class War' thing?

An alternative view would be that anyone trying to dominate Europe would be got rid of so some sort of equilibrium was retained. Maybe Tzar Alexander, Kaiser 'William' (sic) and Emperor Ferdinand didn't cause quite enough trouble to upset the established order of things?

That's the whole point of kings right?
You don't just "get a shot" at it. Your born to it or marry into it. Or in more civilised countries invited to be it if found worthy.
After all they were all quite happy to allow Bernadotte on the Swedish throne and he wasn't "of the blood" so if it was simply a matter of "your not posh enough Boney" it would have also applied to him. I'm fairly sure his habit of invading states, placing his brothers on other countries thrones ect ect is the real and only reason he wasn't given a third chance.

I'm just saying that as soon as Bonaparte elevated himself to Emperor he became the deadly enemy of all the powerful bloodlines of Europe. A class thing yes, but also a kind of mafiosi sort of thing. The history of the next 10 years is all about the established elite trying to destroy Bonaparte because of who he was (or what he wasn't more like). DO NOT EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE EVENTS OF THE PERIOD 1800-1815 UNLESS YOU USE THIS CONCEPT AS YOUR START POINT.

Napoleon was a massive threat to these bloodlines. We should also bear in mind the huge blow to the ego's of these people when they saw a low-born person consistently chewing up their armies and making a mockery of 'the divine power of kings'.

They tried to take Boney out in 1805 and in a series of coalitions thereafter. They allowed him to marry Marie-Louise out of necessity, not because they wanted to (we can imagine Emperor Francis' revulsion at giving one of daughters away to the Corsican upstart). They had to wait until the 1813-14 period before they could defeat Napoleon. Before and after Waterloo they tried to destroy the man in way they would never have treated one of their own.

Bernadotte is relevant but not that relevant; Sweden was not a power like France and he did everything he could to stay on the right side of the european powers. Even then he lived constantly in fear of being 'removed' because he was not one of them. And then there's Murat….

TelesticWarrior,

I do agree with your general premise.

The other nations fought the French to maintain various status quo interests:

• maintaining their little club of monarchs
• continued resistance to the notion of popular revolution
• general balance of military and economic power on spheres of influence.

Lastly, there is a real need within any given government to maintain their current course and work within the premise of past policies (the US & Cuba are a good example but every country has many). Prussia, Germany as a whole, Austria – all had popular forces saying "France is bad" and by that they meant "Nappy is bad". If the Serfs were allowed to you know, do anything, they likely would have expressed something similar. Having an enemy is good for keeping the people's attention somewhere and keeping the current government stable (see the US post 9/11, many Middle Eastern states blaming the West for decades, everyone does it – not that it is good).

Cheers,

The Bandit

Johns memory must be slipping.
Nappy did not fight at Waterloo ergo it was not his to win or lose.

'tis quite simple
Wellington & the Anglos won Waterloo.
The Allies won Mont St Jean
The Prussians won Placenoit.
Nappy lost La Belle Alliance.
Grouchy drew Wavre.

That's history – what it means in wargaming terms is anyone's guess unlikely to find a rule that covers this properly even with 2 D20.

Bulldog69

Glad you accept my point of view as I accept yours. A shame others seem unable to do the same.

I don't think it is the years of war and numbers of deaths that really made the allies turn against Napoleon – more like it was a matter of trade and losing money. And if Russia had not broken her agreement not to trade with Britain, Napoleon may not have felt obliged to invade Russia. But Russia was losing money – which tends to rule most of life and wars, then and now.

As I mentioned, the so called peace loving allies had signed a peace treaty with France, so basically, no matter who was ruling at the time – they broke the treaty and started the war, which, of course led to all the deaths. But as for popular support, if the people of the land wanted him as their leader, they had a right to have him as their leader – the allies did not have the right to dictate who they did or did not want to rule France or any other nation.

And we have to remember that it was nations against nations, and nations often changing sides and fighting those they supported on other occassions, it wasn't just Napoleon against everyone else for all those years. And all nations were empire building, not just Napoleon, which is why Poland and Saxony were carved up and taken over by the 'peace loving' allies, before, during and after the various Napoleonic campaigns.

Many of those who do not admire Napoleon in any way, often try to make out it was just Napoleon they were against – but if true, that would not explain why they insisted on leaving 150,000 allied troops in France at France's expense after he had been exiled. It would also raise the question that if the allies were just after peace and acting just on their fear of what might happen, why did they charge France an indemnity of seven hundred million francs once the so called fear had been removed? And this is from a country they had a peace treaty with, albeit they covered up the fact they broke the peace treaty.

You mention Hitler again. Well, if you look how things turned out after WW2, with Russia, an ally, becoming a major power against the west and the following Cold War and nuclear fear factor – who knows what might have happend should Hitler have returned and become the German leader again. I think the western allies may well have wanted a buffer zone between them and Russia. And I think the fear of Communism then was far more stronger than any fears they may have had about a returned Hitler.

But again, it is all what-ifs and differing points of view. You wouldn't give Napoleon a chance, I would. We all interpret history and events in our own way, which is how it should be. We should not all be sheep and should question everything, not just accept what we are told. That being said, time to move on. Nice debating with you. Looking forward to debating 1815 events in 2015.

"I'm just saying that as soon as Bonaparte elevated himself to Emperor he became the deadly enemy of all the powerful bloodlines of Europe. The history of the next 10 years is all about the established elite trying to destroy Bonaparte because of who he was (or what he wasn't more like). DO NOT EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE EVENTS OF THE PERIOD 1800-1815 UNLESS YOU USE THIS CONCEPT AS YOUR START POINT."

No, he'd been their enemy for years already. Britain didn't care a fig for Napoleon's legitimacy. Their conflict with France long predated Napoleon. And in fact, the only time Britain and France made peace in this whole period, was while Napoleon was in charge.

And the Spanish didn't care: they hated Napoleon because he invaded Spain. They'd been allied to him, prior to that.

The Austrians obviously were willing to marry their bloodlines into his, so they must have managed to swallow whatever fundamental outrage they allegedly felt about his legitimacy, or lack thereof.

That leaves the Prussians and Russians, who were both at one time or another allied to Napoleon, so clearly they didn't consider his illegitimacy to be a deal-breaker, either, if it suited their interests. The Romanovs even offered up the Tsar's sister to marry Napoleon, so they were obviously not too worried about Napoleon's bloodlines.

I can't think of a single major European power that cared about Napoleon's legitimacy enough for it to be a sole casus belli. They were at war with him for much less theoretical reasons than that.

Did you just imply that the Prussian alliance with Napoleonic France indicated that they accepted his legitimacy?

Wow is that inaccurate. The Prussian monarchy failed to exist as an international political power after 1806, they didn't want to be allied Napoleonic France… ever. It was done by force.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Have to agree. I've always seen the Prussians as being bullied into an alliance. They hated it and didn't really try to fight. They also broke it off as soon as they could.

Though the whole "he wasn't part of the club" argument just doesn't hold up. They made peace with him, they married family to him the problem was he couldn't keep his armies out of other peoples countries. Maybe if he had fought his wars to protect his borders and not take over Belgium, Holland, Spain (a constant ally of France), Portugal, Austria,Russia, Prussia and Italy. He also assembled a huge army and invasion fleet to try and threaten and intimidate Britain. He had the talent and genius to defend France against anyone. Europe would have to leave him to it eventually.
Bernadotte not part of the club. Accepted.
Murat was not accepted as he had been given the throne of Naples by Boney. He hadn't earnt it himself. Also possibly if Murat had beaten the Austrians in 1815 he might have been able to negotiate himself into keeping his throne.

I maintain my view. A man with his record, his word not good for much, repeated invasions of neighbours, one friendly state betrayed, previous escape from his island … If they had given him a third or fourth chance it would only have been a short year before he decided to invade someone… Belgium or Italy again. Then we'd all be here saying, to a man, "WTH were thinking!! " "worst decision in history" "cowards" ect ect.

Edwulf

You do not know what Napoleon would have done, had the allies given him a chance, no one does. Again, I believe it was more a fear that some nations may have sided with him and caused them problems, especially in trade and money loss.

And I think you have just proven my point about the allies. They did what was best for them and sided with or against Napoleon, when it was best for them. And when they sided with Napoleon they thought nothing of fighting against their one time allies – so much for sticking together and loyalty. And in 1815 they used Napoleon as an excuse and a feeble trick to cover up the fact that they had broken the peace treaty with France, which suggests they can't be trusted either. They went to war with a country they were at peace with, purely because they did not like the leader that country had chosen.

As for Napoleon starting the wars and invading other countries? Really? Austria invaded Napoleon's ally-Bavaria in 1809 -what do you think he should have done, left them to it? Austria was at fault and started that war and caused the thousands of deaths due to it. Napoleon was acting as an ally should-helping them defeat the invader. Russia-well if Russia had not broken their agreement over trade with Britain, it is unlikely that Napoleon would have had to invade a country aiding their enemies. So the fault and result of the war of 1812 is down to the Russians. And I don't think Spain were that bothered about being invaded-more like they disliked Napoleon putting one of his relatives instead of a Spaniard on the throne. Had he done that, then who knows what might have happened.

It would be nice to think we've all moved forward and learned from history but people acting on the fear of what might happen, rather than what did happen, still seems to raise its ugly head. All rather sad really but perhaps somewhat predictable.

But we all have our own views and interpret history differently, which is as it should be – a world full of blinkered sheep accepting everything they are told or read, would not be very nice, would it.

Happy wargaming to you.

"Did you just imply that the Prussian alliance with Napoleonic France indicated that they accepted his legitimacy?"

No, I'm saying that one can't make the argument that rejection of N's legitimacy, based upon dynastic bloodlines, was the driving force behind all of the wars for the next decade, as Telestic said.

And Prussia wasn't bullied into an alliance with France in the years prior to 1806. They bumbled and stumbled their own way into that alliance. They were bullied after 1807, sure, but that's a different case and a different alliance.

As I wrote above: "I can't think of a single major European power that cared about Napoleon's legitimacy enough for it to be a sole casus belli. They were at war with him for much less theoretical reasons than that."

I'm not sure any one said the allies were 'peace loving', only that the balance of the blame lays with Napoloeon. And I am not sure of the relevance of the allies breaking a peace treaty with France? So what? The situation had changed and they reacted in the most logical way they could – by removing the perceived threat before he could assemble a massive army again.

It is easy to sit back 200 years later and theorise about what Napoleon may and may not have done if he had been left to his own devices in 1815: the allies did not have that luxury. Some can say they did not give poor old Napoleon a chance, but I think he was far from deserving of another one. As others have pointed out, his record was hardly a peaceful one.

As for the allies not having the right to dictate who runs a certain country – that is of course theoretically correct but ignores Real Politik: if, for example, a country elects a warmongering lunatic who openly declares he is going to invade parts of neighbouring countries or back terrorist group in them and all the rest, I would suggest his neighbours are perfectly entitled to get rid of him. Morally dubious, perhaps, but the duty to protect one's own countrymen, nation and interests cannot be ignored because of 'democratic' niceties.

I still maintsin Britain's right to tax all foreigners living abroad……

BullDog69

As you say – 'perceived threat' – not an actual threat.

Quite right, it is easy to sit back and say what should and should not have been done, 200 years later. But people do, don't they! You yourself said 'I think' he doesn't deserve a second chance. His record is the same as that of the allies – they were all empire building, causing the fighting and various campaigns, not just Napoleon. But the allies gave each other a chance, when the Russians, Prussians and Confederation of the Rhine states changed sides.

Yes, I agree with you, if a country elected a wargmongering lunatic who openly backed terrorist groups – but that has absolutely nothing to do with Napoleon becoming the leader of his country, without any blood being spilt. Unless, of course you actually believe that about Napoleon? I'm sure you don't, since that would suggest something worse than a blinkered viewpoint.

But it is clear from your posts you feel the fear factor is enough not to give Napoleon another chance – I do not. The events of 1815 and indeed, the whole of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period is far too complex for such simple reasoning and especially the feeble attempts to throw the blame solely on Napoleon.

Anyway, it has been enjoyable debating with you. I am moving on from this topic now, but we will all, no doubt return to it in 2015.

Happy wargaming.

I also find it distasteful to compare Napoleon with Hitler. I suspect Napoleon was an egosistic warmonger, but he was also capable of great things and left a lasting legacy, whereas the only legacy left by the other individual was one of horror…

There seems tobe a consensus emerging in the 'Napoleon could do no wrong, it was everyone else fault every time he declared war' camp, that the Allied nations only fought him because he was 'not of the blood'…

In that case can anyone explain the Peace of Amiens, the peace that existed in 1805, from 1807-1809, and the peace that existed from 1809-1812. I know you can't accept that on each of these occasions, apart from 1809 it was Napoleon who broke the peace, I won't bother on that score any more…

But if Napoleon's 'low' birth was the only obstacle to peace in 1815, why was it not an issue during these extended periods of peace?

Sparker, the Allies were often forced to make peace not because they wanted to but because they had no army left (Napoleon having decimated them) or because they had no money left (Wars and coalitions would often start up again due to funding from the British banking elite).
We can imagine the Allies accepting Napoleon's legitimacy on a temporary basis due to political necessity, whilst at the same time despising the Bonaparte clan and the ideas of the Revolution that spawned him. They were more than happy to fight the French again as long as they had the cash and the man-power.

It is ridiculous to blame Napoleon solely for the upheavals of the period, but on the other hand I don't think anyone is absolving Napoleon of all blame either. I want to like Napoleon but I can never forget all the atrocious things he did when he became Emperor(although the Hitler comparison is a bit much). In the end perhaps all we can say is that ALL governments are corrupt, and capable of carrying out vile acts of real-politik on both there own people and the people of other Nations.
My personal view on history and life in general, if anyone is interested, is that we as human beings should always be wary of ALL State power, whether it is a Monarchy, a dictator or a so called democracy. Saying one side is good and the other side is bad seems a little bit childish to me, whatever period of history we are studying.

All in all a very interesting debate gentlemen, lots of good arguments and counter-arguments. Perhaps it is time to move on before we all end up in the Dawghouse again.

Perhaps we should sign off this thread with a nice quote from one of Gazzola's posts above.

"We all interpret history and events in our own way, which is how it should be. We should not all be sheep and should question everything, not just accept what we are told. That being said, time to move on. Nice debating with you".

I am baffled that people think I compared Napoleon to Hitler – I merely stated that, just as no one would have given Hitler a second chance in 1946, I can understand that no one was keen to give Napoleon one in 1815 – I even said that I knew this was not the same situation (in case any one missed this) and I am not sure what was unreasonable or unfair about the statement.

Obviously Napoleon did not commit anything approaching the same sort of horrific crimes that Hitler's did – but they were both warmongers who proved that they wanted to dominate Europe, so not sure that either are deserving of too much of my sympathy.

Gazzola

But the difference is that I am not disagreeing with the actions taken by the leaders of the Allies at the time – so I am not claiming to know better than them, or that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, seem to claiming to have deeper knowledge than they did, that they were wrong to perceive Napoleon as a threat and to be criticising their decision 200 years later. I am sure you'll appreciate the difference?

The point I made about a warmongering lunatic gaining power (even by popular demand) was to illustrate my belief that neighbouring / threatened natons have a 'right' (or, indeed, an obligation to their people) to intervene in such cases – and I am glad you say you agree with me on that.
Whether or not Napoleon was considered such a threat is of course debatable and a matter of opinion, but it is obvious that people at the time thought he was, and I struggle to see any reason to think I know better than they did.

BullDog69

You are accepting what the Allies did. I do not. That is the differnece. It is not rocket science, is it? It is a matter of opinion/ I disagree with you, you disagree with me – end of!

However, your astonishing post (astonishing in the negative sense) suggests that you do believe that about Napoleon, based on your belief that is what people thought of him. Obviously the people of France did not think that.

My agreeing with you on the lunatic bit has nothing at all to do with Napoleon and 1815, unless you really do think that way yourself. If you do, then I do not see any further reason to continue replying to your posts, as they would obviously be incredibly biased.

Some people do prefer a simplified view of history and events and do not accept or explore the more complex reality of what happened and why. However, I am not saying that you think this way.

But I think we really should move on now. We obviously both have different points of view. Mind you, there should be some interesting debates in 2015 – that'll be fun.

TelesticWarrior

Good post, but when some people stick their teeth into something, they just don't want to let go or for some reason, can't let go! I've lost track of how many times I have suggested people try to move on.

But asking people to be open minded and suggesting that all the nations at the time were empire building and greedy for land, money and trade, will probably fall on deaf ears. Napoleon certainly wasn't a Saint, but it is really unbelievable how many people attempt to lay the blame for everything at Napoleon's feet. But I suppose it saves them thinking and questioning their own beliefs and they can just accept everything they read.

We should question everything. Anyway, enough ranting from me, I'm planning to move on and will look forward to the fun of debate over the Hundred days in 2015.

Happy wargaming to you.

Sparker

Good post. But blaming Napoleon for everything is just as bad as claiming he was always innocent. History is far more complex than simple blame laying but you would not think so going by some people's viewpoints.

For example, Russia breaking their agreement to support the trade blockade with Britain, Napoleon's enemy, didn't help and king Louis breaking the agreement to pay Napoleon and his family in 1814, ignoring the allies advice to keep paying, was also not very wise. It suggests the allies were untrustworthy.

But anyone studying military history will be well aware that the reasons for war are generally far more complex than simple blame laying, especially when the blame is foolishly laid at the feet of just one person.

Anyway, time to move on I think, or at least I will attempt to. But it will certainly be interesting to see the debates and arguments in 2015 over Napoleon's final campaign.

Happy wargaming to you.

@Gazzola

"The same in 1815. Doesn't sound like the allies really wanted peace, more a piece of this land and a piece of that land, which they were getting. But of course, a returned Napoleon might upset the greedy applecart."

Another opinion might be that the Allies were attempting to create a stable balance of power by changing ownership of various human and natural resources in "this land and a piece of that land" – thus enhancing deterrence – and resolving as many potential areas for dispute as possible – thus reducing the potential for disputes to become armed conflict. And indeed the "system" created in 1814/1815 did essentially work to preserve the peace among the major powers for at least 40 years (to the Crimea). Breeches of that peace during those years tended arise not from the major powers, but from those essentially un-represented in the peace process of 1814/1815 (Greek and Polish nationalists, the "revolutionaries" of 1848, and so on).

I an not surprised that they did not elect to merely invite the restored Napoléon to replace the deposed Louis in thier deliberations. In the first instance this would have granted legitamacy to the victor in a coup d'état – not a great precedent given the governments involved. It also would have broken their undertakings with the Bourbons – and hence thus would have direct effects in Italy, Spain and Sicily, and tangential effects perhaps to several smaller German speaking territories and even the Low Countries. Thirdly, it would have raised the strategic power of France, and required a re-balancing of the vaious arrangements so far effected (for example, an independent minor power in the Low Countries or the granting of large parts of northwest Germany to Prussia might be acceptable to Britain, but only if the French were not too strong). Fourth, the compositon of the French delegation to the peace process would likely change (you know, after Talleyrand is hung, for example), impairing the personal working relationships developed. Think, for a modern example, of the Camp David process, but assume prime minister Begin and his whole team get unexpectedly replaced by an Isreali election half-way through the peace process).

"That opens the door for any nation, then and now, to invade another country and start a war, because of what might happen, not what did happen."

That in your own personal opinion preventive or pre-emptive armed conflict is distasteful perhaps reflects your own highly developed personal morality. However, "then and now", nation states have never felt bound by this stricture as a matter of practcal policy. Even in thoery, even in the most recent (and one might think most "reformed") versions of international law, preventive or pre-emptive armed conflict is contenanced when the acting nation has developed a reasonabe fear of the aggression of another state.

I do not find it surprising that the Allies of 1815 are found acting as typical nation states in a practical matter. Even on a theoretical level, I think a plausible case for fear of eventual aggression on the part of Napoléon or his dynasty might be made. The lack of means to mount much aggression immmediately would have been little consolation, given the inherent capabilities of France under dynamic and efficient direction. Think of the ressurection of the French army after the Russian campaign (which i am sure the Russians of the era had noted well).

"Alexander expected to be made king of Saxony"
Could you please provide one or more contemporary sources (preferably in original language) for this assertion? I have not heard the concerns of the Russian delegation with regard to Saxony expressed thus. That they should have been concerned about the fate of Saxony is intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer. But the suggestion of this particular remedy for such concern I have never heard of before, le alone that such a suggestion somehow rose to the level of an expectation. Thanks.

"Russia-well if Russia had not broken their agreement over trade with Britain, it is unlikely that Napoleon would have had to invade a country aiding their enemies." "Russia breaking their agreement to support the trade blockade with Britain"

1. Please quote exactly from the original document(s) where "their agreement over trade with Britain" or "to support the trade blockade" is found.
2. Please quote from contemporary sources (preferably in original language) how the French came to have evidence of the Russians beaking such an agreement, assuming that it existed in the first place.
If you will fault the Russians for causing Napoléon to invade them with 600,000 men, I think it is only fair to assess (i) what exactly were the treaty obligations they bore, and (ii) on what specific evidence did the French act. If the Russians had no such obligation, or if they were so obligated but the French had no real information showing Russian government connivance in the substantial breaking of a treaty obligation, then one must look elsewhere than the actions of the Russains to explain Napoléon's invasion of their country. Thanks.

Also, I sense some dissonance between your ability to accept the concept of a massive invasion to enforce a trade treaty and your distaste for the Allies intervention in 1815. Is it really tru that you find no acceptable pretext or the Allies' pre-emption in 1815, but still consider the supposed breaking of a trade treaty sufficent cause for Napoléon's invasion of Russia in 1812?

=======================================

@1815Guy

"I still maintsin Britain's right to tax all foreigners living abroad……"

Didn't the Yanks get that franchise ?
:-)

Rocket science has nothing to do with it – I am saying that I do not think I know better than the Allies did in 1815, You are saying you do. I think that is a pretty fundemental difference. You are the one who is second guessing their decision 200 years later – I'm the one saying that I have no reason, qualification or justification to do that.

I have no idea what was 'astonishingly negative' about any of my posts. Can you explain?

Maybe you have misunderstood the point I was making about the rights of nations to intervene if a threat appears in a neighbouring country. I made this in response to this statement of yours:

'But as for popular support, if the people of the land wanted him as their leader, they had a right to have him as their leader – the allies did not have the right to dictate who they did or did not want to rule France or any other nation'

The point I made – and which you agreed with – is that other countries DO have a right to intervene if a neighbouring nation suddenly finds itself under the rule of someone who threatens them – no matter how popular he is in his own country.

You repeatedly tell us that you are not going to reply to any more posts, but always do – so I see no reason to call an end to what is a very interesting debate.

Seroga

How many times do I have to state that I intend to move on from this thread? Obviously, some people just can't understand English

But basically, I think you presume far too much!

The allies doing things for everyone's else benefit – great joke! Sad if you really believe that though. Yeah, Russia's war with Sweden was for everyone's benefit, and so was carving up Poland. I bet the Poles agreed!

But enough – if you read my threads again, please note where I say 'time to move on'. I don't want to be rude, but if you can't understand that or can't 'sense' what it means, although I'm sure you can, please ask someone to explain it to you.

Happy wargaming to you.

Gazzola,

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you are trying to move on to this thread, continuing to post in it is counter productive.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Obviously, some people just can't understand English"
I thought I was making a pretty good effort with my English. How's your Russian, or French?
:-)

"The allies doing things for everyone's else benefit"
If you thought I meant this, I suppose my English is pretty poor. I think that the Allies acted for their own benefit.

"I bet the Poles agreed"
Well, no. But I think mentioned that the instances where the Congress of Vienna process failed to keep the peace, in the next 40 years, were essentially all cases where conflict arose with a non-participating party. I mentioned the Poles explicitly. In English, I think.

"time to move on"
I don't think you want to "shoot and scoot" (see, my command of idiom is awesome, no?), so how about the Russians being at fault for getting invaded? Their alleged violation of a supposed treaty having to do with trade with Britain? Где все это?

Traité de Tilsit avec la Russie (7 juillet 1807)
link

I don't see anything here about the Russians agreeing to a trade blockade, "Continental System" or any such thing. So, really, where was the ageement that the Russians allegedly broke, that somehow gave reasonable pretext to Napoléon to invade their country with 600,000 men?

There is this in the treaty, however:
"Art. 12. – LL. AA. SS. les Ducs de Saxe-Cobourg, d'Oldenburg et de Mecklenburg-Schwerin, seront remis chacun dans la pleine et paisible possession de ses États"

With regard to Saxe-Coburg, the French army remained in occupation of the place and the duc was compelled to join the Confedération du Rhin. He was further required to provide, by conscription supervised by the occupying French, a contingent of 400 men in the 3e bataillon léger du 4e régiment de la Confedération du Rhin. These were sent into Russia in the 34e division d'infanterie, where they would essentially all be lost in a war with the brother-in-law of their duke.

With regard to Oldenburg, the French occupation of the ports (contenanced by the treaty) was extended to the remainer of the duchy. a new captal was declared, away from the ducal residence, and a new administration more friendly to the French was imposed. The place was outright annexed to the French Empire in 1810, the local miltary incorporated as the 129e régiment d'infanterie de ligne of the French army. These unfortunates died in Russia serving in 10e division d'infanterie, while the duke himself found refuge wih his cousin Aleksandr and was a leading figure in organzing the Russo-German Legion.

With regard to Mecklenburg-Schwerin, here again the occupation of the French army continued, the duke being forced to join the Confedération du Rhin. the existing military of the duchy was dissolved and, augmented by French run conscription, the duchy was forced to raise an artllery battery and most of the 7e régiment de la Confedération du Rhin, which saw service against von Schill in 1809 and was destroyed in Russia with the 5e division d'infanterie, fighitng the nephew of their duke. The duke was the first German-speaking sovereign to declare his revolt from the French Empire, a step he took in 1813 before his country had been liberated, for which he was elevated to the dignity of a Grand Duke at the Congress of Vienna.

So much for "in full and peaceful possession of their States", and so much for adhering to a treaty.