"Why NOT Waterloo?" Topic

Gustav,

I cannot accept that each and every kingdom would have gone to the massive expense and hassle of mobilisation in 1815 just because they were snobs. That was in effect TW's main contention and that is just too simplistic in my view.

If someone is making this point, which you disagree with, I know not who. It was not TelesticWarrior's main point and it remains not his point. I do not mean to speak out of turn defending someone else's position and actions but it requires a very narrow reading and ignoring of many of his statements to come to this singular conclusion.

Myself and TelesticWarrior have put forward *very broad* thoughts under the heading of "not part of the club" and have on several occasions specifically cited that the implications are broad and the causes are in no way singularly defined as Napoleon's bloodline.

But once again for clarity:

"Not part of the club" = threat to the status quo

The status quo involves numerous things given in no particular order:

• methods of diplomacy
• royal rights of birth
• absolute monarchy vs other forms of government within the bounds of the Continental Europe
• balance of power within Continent Europe
• social, economic, military & political systems that feature advancement through performance vs social rank
• motivations of the populous
• treaties, alliances, other general political concerns involving other nations

Cheers,

The Bandit

At times There is a very nasty anti-Russian streak on this site. 3-4 different Russian posters bullied off and away. I've never read one of them being anything but genuine, polite and helpful presenting oft neglected Russian sources and evidence.

Just a quick one from me about chasing off Russians on this forum – I certainly hope that is not the case and, though it should hardly need to be said, I'd like to agree with Edwulf – the more input we have from all nationalities and points of view the better and richer we all are on the forum!

The Russian Army in the Napoleonic wars is a subject of endless fascination for me, perhaps because I see my table top persona as a dogged defender with a prediliction for massed artillery! Anyhow I hope I speak for all when I say how prized the input from Seroga and others is!

Similarly, there is a chap who posts on the Modern and Cold War threads who served in the Cold War Soviet Army – how lucky are we to have folk like these active on the forums!

Spasiba!

Sparker

I don't think Seroga has left, has he? I certainly hope not. He seemed a pretty strong character to me with strong views, so I doubt he would be put off by someone disagreeing with his views. Unless, of course, he is not used to people disagreeing with him or interpreting sources and material differently.

And yes, it is really great to see people sharing their knowledge, even though some of the debates sometimes get a bit heated and personal. But it is a discussion forum, and that's surely what you'd expect and no one has to join in and can leave the debates whenever they want.

Still can't understand why your stifle count is so high? Ban the stifle I say!

Yes.

It's always surprising how some people get stifled.
Some people must really really really not like it when they get disagreed with.

Silly that.

because of who he was (or what he wasn't more like).

My main contention is that they despised Napoleon before 1800 because he was 'low-born'

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.

DO NOT EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE EVENTS OF THE PERIOD 1800-1815 UNLESS YOU USE THIS CONCEPT AS YOUR START POINT.

Bandit, Well I may be a bit dim but that seemed to me TW's main premise. which TW, if the wars are because of his low birth that does indeed make it war over snobbishness. Given that he was from in effect minor regional aristocracy this is possibly even less likely.

Being a member of the club and playing by the rules are two wholly different things. My contention is that it was the rule changing that was the real nub of the problem and not his birth. That includes winning too frequently as well I guess :)

On reflection we have been discussing minor shades of interpretation, in reality we are all far closer to agreement than not.

On a different note what has occurred to me is that an awful number of Europeans, Germans, Austrians, Russians etc were very willing to fight Napoleon's France, (especially from 1813 onwards) and not accept his "enlightened" regime. Not merely through the outpourings of love for their respective hereditary rulers I would imagine. So why ?

Patrick O'Briens Stephen Maturin character is an educated and liberal enlightened man of his times yet his espousal of the philosophy that monarchy is the natural & right method of governance rings true. Is this a possibility ?

Gustav, I agree we are discussing minor shades and hopefully far closer to agreement than not.

That being said I think you have been a little naughty with your selection of my quotes in your last post (especially the second one, which you have started and ended quite conveniently to make your point).
I hope a balanced reading of the entirety of my posts in this thread will show a broader appreciation of what is meant by being 'not part of the club'.

I liked Bandit's summary above and I think it is worth repeating it again for emphasis;

Myself and TelesticWarrior have put forward *very broad* thoughts under the heading of "not part of the club" and have on several occasions specifically cited that the implications are broad and the causes are in no way singularly defined as Napoleon's bloodline.

But once again for clarity:

"Not part of the club" = threat to the status quo

The status quo involves numerous things given in no particular order:

• methods of diplomacy
• royal rights of birth
• absolute monarchy vs other forms of government within the bounds of the Continental Europe
• balance of power within Continent Europe
• social, economic, military & political systems that feature advancement through performance vs social rank
• motivations of the populous
• treaties, alliances, other general political concerns involving other nations

I agree with you that I have focused mostly on the second issue in that list, but that does not mean I think it was the only driving force at this time. It was very, however, a very important driving force and I still hold to my original assertion that "No understanding of the entire period can be achieved without comprehending this very basic premise".

It is hard sometimes with our modern minds to fully appreciate the 'mindset' of people in the Napoleonic period. It is so easy to under-estimate just how important social status was to all classes of people at the time, especially the elite. I think in their case it went far beyond snobbery in the sense of how we might think of it today. The sense of superiority was totally ingrained in them. To them even the "minor regional aristocracy" were a world away.
200-ish years later it is also difficult for us to comprehend just how much of a shock the French Revolution would have come to these same 'elites'. Of course the American Revolution had already occurred but this was quite different in form and far away from European shores. The French Revoltion would have felt so utterly different and frightening to the establised order. Napoleon himself would have felt so utterly different and frightening to them too. This strong under-current was always present during the Napoleonic period, up to and including the Waterloo affair. We have to factor this in to all the political decisions made during the era. I don't see this factor featuring in many of the posts in this forum coming from the Napoleon bashers. History can indeed be subtle and nuanced, and sometimes very difficult to grasp. That is why Gazzola and myself have become frustrated at times during this, now very long, thread.

P.S I am not suggesting you are a Napoleon basher or that you can't grasp the history subtleties of the period. I think you understand the period very well.

Edwulf

Easier to stifle and ignore and prevent one from questioning one own's beliefs! I have ignored some posts and I did not need to stifle them.

As for Sparker's stifle count, those who have stifled him could just have quite easily ignored his posts or any other post for that matter. No one is forced to read or reply to them, so it makes you wonder just what makes people stifle? Some sort of weird power kick perhaps, a sort of ha ha, look what I've done?

Le général de l'état-major de Napoléon qui écrit à Davout le 20 juin 1815 affirme :

Le pillage est devenue d'un usage que le soldat le regarde comme un de ses droits; officier ni généraux ne sont en état de l'empêcher qunad même ils en auraient envie. C'est la ce qui a prduit cette habitude de débandade des laquelle l'armée francause et toujours est qui nous rend avec raison l'object des méprises et le la haine de toute l'Europe.

Bernard Coppens : Waterloo les mensonges, page 51

Why should Napoleon be trageted already in 1800 by whole Europe as he became later for sure due to his brutal expansion politics?

In 1800 – for example there was peace with Prussia.

Bernadotte was low born as well, he became King of Sweden, was he despised? No he wasn't.

In my view it is a very very very very very weak argument to construct that due to being low born whole Europe united against the ogre, which he proved to be.

It were his deeds and not his low birth which brought Europe against him, and Britain as well.

His regime was not enlightened at all and the Royal Regime, the returning Bourbons established in France was more liberal than in the Empire.

TelesticWarrior

There is a very interesting book Rites of Peace by Adam Zamoyski, a study on the Congress of Vienna, which seems to sum up what we both have been trying to say -

'The reason it nearly came to war several times during the Congress of Vienna was not that Prussia was being gratuitously aggressive, Russia perverse, or Austria devious, but that each was in dread of being outmanoeuvred by the others' (page XV, Introduction)

Another interesting line concerning Napoleon – 'His only reason for making war on Russia in 1812 had been to oblige Tsar Alexander to enforce a blockade that he believed would bring Britain to the negotiating table. (page 11)

The book also seems to suggest that Napoleon desired peace.

But again, people will interpret events and what is said or written in different ways.

With that said, I'm off to research an 1812 action and sort out a wargame. Other commitments also means I won't be posting as much now, and possibly not for a while, which should please some people. But I will pop in now and again.

Happy wargaming to you.

I agree with von Winterfedt.

It seems perverse to see the Napoleonic Empire as primarily a social threat, when it was clearly an existential military and political threat. This is shown easily enough by the contrast in the amount of effort that the Allies put in to defeating the Napoleonic Empire with that they devoted to fighting the Jacobin Republic.

Regards

Yes and in 1792 the Prussians feared much more the Austrians, than the French, now in 1807 – that was a different thing.
Only the brutal annexions of Napoleon united such diverse states as Austria, Russia, Prussia and Britain – not his low noble birth status.

Von Winterfeldt (and Whirlwind),
Sorry I do not read French so I cannot understand the Davout quote.

I have already answered the Bernadotte thing, not sure I need to do it again. Earlier I wrote;

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….

I can expand on the Bernadotte comparison if you think it is necessary. By bringing up Murat I meant to draw attention to the fate of another outsider and 'non-elite' who was elevated to King. And look what happened to him; shot in the face by firing squad if memory serves me correctly. Would that have happened to one of the established Monarchs? No, didn't think so. Would one of the established Monarchs have been exiled to Elba? No, didn't think so either.

In my view it is a very very very very very weak argument to construct that due to being low born whole Europe united against the ogre, which he proved to be.

Well, yes, it would be a very weak argument to construct, if that was my argument, but careful reading of my posts should show that it is not my argument. Myself, and Bandit also, have repeatedly stressed that the issue of birth was important but not the only issue by any means. I am focusing on this because nobody else seems to want to acknowledge something which should be quite obvious. Instead, however, the Napoleon bashers would just like to think of him as the great Ogre and Europe united against him because he was some kind of monster. I would like to suggest that they united against him because he was, in no particular order,
1) one of the greatest Commanders of all time and the only way to beat him was safety in numbers. He also had an incredible military machine at his disposal.
2) They wanted to maintain the status quo, the 'Old World Older' if you want to think of it like that.
3) He was not 'of the blood'
4) He had the Duc d'Enghien (Someone 'of the blood') murdered, something they could never really forgive and must have proved to them that while Napoleon could wear a crown he would never be 'Kingly'.
5) There are other important factors but this post is already getting long and Bandit has covered them very well already.

P.S. I dont think the words 'Bourbons' and 'liberal' should ever be put in a sentence together! The Napoleonic Empire was somewhere I certainly would NOT liked to live in either.

Whirlwind (and Von Winterfeldt),

Obviously the Napoleonic Empire was a great military and political threat, no-one is suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting is that it is equally 'perverse' not to factor in the social angle which was ever present as a kind of foundation for all the events that occurred from 1800 onwards. The 'Elitism' factor, the social angle, the incredible fear the establishment must have had of a Revolution which could elevate someone like Bonaparte, is not being taken into consideration at all by some of you. It is so easy to think of Napoleon has being this Ogre figure plotting world domination without considering how many times he was attacked by European armies and backed into a corner. Why did they keep attacking him and France?

The established Monarchs could lose a dozen times and keep their position. Napoleon always knew that if he ever lost once it would be all over for him. This is indeed what transpired.
This debate was all about the Waterloo campaign at first, and lots of TMP'ers are saying that the Allies had to unite and attack Napoleon in 1815 because of his track record. Ok, I understand that, but this fails to explain why he was consistently attacked by the Allies at the start of his career.

This is shown easily enough by the contrast in the amount of effort that the Allies put in to defeating the Napoleonic Empire with that they devoted to fighting the Jacobin Republic.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The European Nations put incredible effort into fighting the Revolution, especially Britain and Austria, also Russia and Prussia too. There was two large coalitions against France encompassing 8 years and hundreds of thousands of troops. But Revolutionary France proved to be a tougher nut to crack than they first thought and the military effort against it dwindled. I agree with you that the final effort against the French Empire was on another scale again, but remember that Napoleon was very weak after the Russian disaster, and the Allies smelt blood….

Gazzola,

The Zamoyski book sounds interesting, thanks, I'll look it up.

Take it easy and happy wargaming to you too.

Telestic

The established Monarchs could lose a dozen times and keep their position. Napoleon always knew that if he ever lost once it would be all over for him. This is indeed what transpired

Not really. The war aims of the various Allies upto 1812 in no way included the removal of Napoleon from his throne, but were limited to reversing previous French gains. I'm not sure that as a matter of fact Napoleon ever thought so either, but regardless, at no stage did he ever propose a peace which would have involved him surrendering control over territory simply to establish peace with the other powerful European countries.

Regards

…I agree with you that the final effort against the French Empire was on another scale again, but remember that Napoleon was very weak after the Russian disaster, and the Allies smelt blood….

I think that we actually agree here. My point was not that the Allies did not devote serious resources to defeating Revolutionary France – they clearly did – but that those resources were of a factor less magnitude deployed than at the end (from both sides, France was still very strong); for getting rid of Napoleon, was, in fact, the cause to which the Allies were (even?) more devoted to than getting rid of Jacobinism.

By bringing up Murat I meant to draw attention to the fate of another outsider and 'non-elite' who was elevated to King. And look what happened to him; shot in the face by firing squad if memory serves me correctly. Would that have happened to one of the established Monarchs? No, didn't think so. Would one of the established Monarchs have been exiled to Elba? No, didn't think so either.

If another monarch had acted as Murat or Napoleon did, they might well have been. No 'established monarch' would have fought on and on against the odds as Napoleon did, they woud have come to an arrangement in 1812 or eary 1813. Bad things could and did happen to monarchs who pushed their luck too far.

Regards

2) They wanted to maintain the status quo, the 'Old World Older' if you want to think of it like that.
3) He was not 'of the blood'
4) He had the Duc d'Enghien (Someone 'of the blood') murdered, something they could never really forgive and must have proved to them that while Napoleon could wear a crown he would never be 'Kingly'.

Is there actual sourced stuff for this, or is this an opinion? Because I haven't actually read anything from the time giving any indication of this status quo and of the blood sentiments to which you refer as motivations for any particular policies on the part of any Allied governments against Napoleon.

Regards

And Napoleon was not a Freemason.

He could not be trusted by the movers and shakers of 1815 – all of whom were.

It is so easy to think of Napoleon has being this Ogre figure plotting world domination without considering how many times he was attacked by European armies and backed into a corner. Why did they keep attacking him and France?

No. It is only the people who assume that Napoleon could do no wrong that assume the rest of us think Napoleon was an ogre.

"Why did they keep attacking him and France?" –

Because he had attacked them and took their territory away, or had simply used their territory as a pork-barrel for family and friends or had tried to bully them into joining another one of his wars?

Whirlwind,

You provide some good and interesting counter-arguments to my contentions. Here are some counters to your counters…

Firstly, you wrote "The war aims of the various Allies up to 1812 in no way included the removal of Napoleon from his throne, but were limited to reversing previous French gains".
Do we really know this? I mean, if Napoleon's army had been destroyed at, say, Austerlitz, what would the Austrians and Russians then decided to do? Limited military objectives would have quickly become more expansive in my opinion. The Prussians would have also joined in, as they historically did in 1806 anyway. I think the Allies would have put the Bourbons back on the French throne in a heartbeat if they only could.

Whirlwind you wrote "It is only the people who assume that Napoleon could do no wrong that assume the rest of us think Napoleon was an ogre."
Immediately afterwards you wrote "…Because he had attacked them and took their territory away, or had simply used their territory as a pork-barrel for family and friends or had tried to bully them into joining another one of his wars?".
Isn't that a textbook definition of an Ogre?!?!
Listen, it's ok to say Napoleon was an Ogre if you think he was, I wont hold that against you. I also think Napoleon became a 'Great, bad man' to quote one old-school historian. I will never try to defend a tyrant beyond what is reasonable to do so.
Where I think we differ is that I believe the European Monarchs were also despiccable. How far did they go in creating the Ogre, due to their aggressive actions and elitist conservatism? Did they fight Napoleon because they were enlightened people struggling against a tyrannical brute? No, they were scrambling to protect the Old order of things.
Yes, this is my 'opinion', based on years of researching the reality of power politics, both ancient and modern. Elites generally try to maintain the status-quo or improve on it, and if possible improve the control-system over their own subjects. Choose any correspondence between any established rulers, then or now, and if you read between the lines these features will be implicit, even if they don't need to state it directly.
Like Gazzola said to you, people will interpret sources in different ways depending on their world-view. That world view will not always conform to your own but you should understand that your own view is based on concepts and opinons too, some of which will seem to have a strong foundation but will actually crack and then change with time.

One more point if I may, which is massively important in this context but hasnt even been mentioned yet (Although Bandit brought it up earlier);
PEACE NEGOTIATIONS – The monarchs did not recognise Napoleons legitimacy until they had to.
Emperor Francis never met Napoleon until after Austerlitz 1805, he was forced to do so by circumstance not choice.
Tzar Alexander did not meet Napoleon until Tilsit, he was forced to do so following his defeat at Friedland 1807.
I think The King of Prussia also refused to entertain Napoleon until late on (Most of my books are in storage so I can't check this).
The British Monarchy never met Napoleon as an equal.
How could there ever be peace if Europe did not want to recognize the French Emperor? This was not Napoleon's fault.
Why did they refuse to meet Napoleon until they had to? Because he wasn't 'part of the club'.
This is the kind of thing I mean when I said "No understanding of the entire period can be made without using this concept as your starting point".
All the events of 1800 to 1815, not to mention the Revolutionary period, are coloured by this fascinating social background of old family backgrounds and established European powers.

The European Monarchs must shoulder some of the blame for creating the Monster. They backed him into a corner and he acted like a cornered beast. After the 'glory years' of 1805-1807 Napoleon probably came to think of himself as invincible. It was then that he rapidly went down the slippery slope towards tyrannny and carried out horrible acts of aggression against Spain, Russia and others. Even then he would claim he was being backed into a corner by the British.

Whirlwind you wrote "It is only the people who assume that Napoleon could do no wrong that assume the rest of us think Napoleon was an ogre."
Immediately afterwards you wrote "…Because he had attacked them and took their territory away, or had simply used their territory as a pork-barrel for family and friends or had tried to bully them into joining another one of his wars?".
Isn't that a textbook definition of an Ogre?!?!

What I wrote was a parody of "Why did they keep attacking him and France?" It is no more true to say one than the other. The precise causation of each separate campaign within the war was obviously different in each case. But attempts to whitewash Napoleon and absolve him of any responsibility do not attempt to deal with the facts.

Regards

TelesticWarrior

Just popped in and can see you have made some very good posts. However, take it from me, you are wasting your time. If you disagree with certain people and admire Napoleon in any way, you obviously must worship him as a God. And if you interpret history, events and treaties etc differently to how some people view them, then you obviously do not read history or understand it. And suggesting that the Allies were untrustworthy and equally greedy for power and empire building is definitely a no-no.

The problem is that you are asking people to question their own beliefs and viewpoints and on this site, that usually leads to ganging up, attempts to divert the debate and attempts to get you holding discussions on more than one topic at the same time. And if that fails to provoke you there is usually a wave of personal insults or your own posts are suddenly considered as insults. It happens all the time.

Some people just can't take it, which of course, is why they often stifle. Concerning those who stifle, I suppose it is a case of what they can't see won't hurt them or make them question anything. But there are some good members here who like sharing and can accept different points of view. Personally, I am going to try to stick to wargaming and battle topics. Saves upsetting people and saying I prefer a certain scale has not yet resulted in any personal attacks.

Keep up the good work and happy wargaming.

One more point if I may, which is massively important in this context but hasnt even been mentioned yet (Although Bandit brought it up earlier);
PEACE NEGOTIATIONS – The monarchs did not recognise Napoleons legitimacy until they had to.
Emperor Francis never met Napoleon until after Austerlitz 1805, he was forced to do so by circumstance not choice.
Tzar Alexander did not meet Napoleon until Tilsit, he was forced to do so following his defeat at Friedland 1807.
I think The King of Prussia also refused to entertain Napoleon until late on (Most of my books are in storage so I can't check this).
The British Monarchy never met Napoleon as an equal.
How could there ever be peace if Europe did not want to recognize the French Emperor? This was not Napoleon's fault.
Why did they refuse to meet Napoleon until they had to? Because he wasn't 'part of the club'.
This is the kind of thing I mean when I said "No understanding of the entire period can be made without using this concept as your starting point".
All the events of 1800 to 1815, not to mention the Revolutionary period, are coloured by this fascinating social background of old family backgrounds and established European powers.

Well, meeting is not the same as recognizing his authority and meetings between monarchs could be quite rare. However, there was no particuar reason to recognize him as Emperor – if that is what you are getting at? Why would they? Sam's point from previously is relevant here – the diplomacy conducted by Napoleon at his high point was not such as anyone would recognize his settlements except under the duress of defeat. Which is why Britain never did and why no nation saw these as binding.

Regards

Listen, it's ok to say Napoleon was an Ogre if you think he was, I wont hold that against you. I also think Napoleon became a 'Great, bad man' to quote one old-school historian. I will never try to defend a tyrant beyond what is reasonable to do so.

I don't think he was. I think he was a great general, a talented administrator and a very poor statesman.

Where I think we differ is that I believe the European Monarchs were also despicable. How far did they go in creating the Ogre, due to their aggressive actions and elitist conservatism? Did they fight Napoleon because they were enlightened people struggling against a tyrannical brute? No, they were scrambling to protect the Old order of things.

I don't think the other European monarchs were particulary despicable. But their morality or otherwise has never been a single part of my argument. They were struggling to protect their own lands or 'the status quo', against Napoleon, who was exceptionally aggressive and acquisitive.

Yes, this is my 'opinion', based on years of researching the reality of power politics, both ancient and modern. Elites generally try to maintain the status-quo or improve on it, and if possible improve the control-system over their own subjects. Choose any correspondence between any established rulers, then or now, and if you read between the lines these features will be implicit, even if they don't need to state it directly.
Like Gazzola said to you, people will interpret sources in different ways depending on their world-view. That world view will not always conform to your own but you should understand that your own view is based on concepts and opinons too, some of which will seem to have a strong foundation but will actually crack and then change with time.

Fine. But apply this to Napoleon and yourself, as even-handedy as you apply it to the Allied monarchs and others.

Regards

Napoléon war more than once invited to the party, generous peace offerings in 1813, which he refused, his glory was more important than sacrifizing another 500 000 French soldiers than to make peace.

Even in 1815, when he, according to himself was a pain man with no ambitions he utters such pharses that in case he had 30 000 round shot at the eve of the battle at Leipzig he still would be the master of the world.

Just popped in and can see you have made some very good posts. However, take it from me, you are wasting your time.

Gazzola, yes I am starting to see that now!
I know from experience that human beings like to erect barriers and walls around their minds, for what seems like protection (but doing so is ultimately counter-productive and un-helpful). That being said I will hang around for a little bit longer until nothing more can be achieved.

Whirlwind,

Fine. But apply this to Napoleon and yourself, as even-handedy as you apply it to the Allied monarchs and others.

I do try. Rigorous questioning of our own belief systems is the only way we truly grow. Of course, we can never really know for sure if we are 100% successful, and it is an on-going struggle (but a rewarding one).

What I was trying to get at before is that the European elite did not recognise Napoleon as being one of them, either as First Consul or as Emperor. They did not meet with him or negotiate with him or even recognize his legitimacy. This is what I mean when I say he was 'not part of the club'. Surely you can see that this might have had an important effect on the big European events that followed? I don't understand why you are being so stubborn on this issue. Don't you think that this might have had a tinsy winsy teenie weenie effect on European tensions? To insult an entire nation of French people and their commanders, don't you think that might have strained things and been at least a bit responsible for the conflict that followed? When we factor in the huge amount of money the British were prepared to give the other Monarch's to wage war on France (something else you haven't considered yet), plus immense social pressures carried over from the Revolution, then is it really a surprise that Europe was so volatile in this period? To pile blame on Napoleon in this situation seems very one dimensional.
Between 1805-07 Napoleon was attacked by a series of powerful armies. He routed them each in turn. He probably thought he was invincible after that. He then carried out some unforgivable acts of aggression on other Nations (I understand that, I really do). But can you understand the role the other European powers may have had in creating the Monster? Can you understand that France and Napoleon were treated very differently by the other Monarch's, not just in 1813-15, but FROM THE VERY START, and that this might be key to understanding the epic events that followed.

"And Napoleon was not a Freemason."

Yes he was. All of the Bonaparte brothers were.

Napoleon belonged to the main Paris lodge, called "Grande Orientale," as did Joseph, Jerome, Lucien, and most of the future French marshals.

Soldats!
Cet homme qui naguères abdiqua aux yeus de toute l'Europe un pouvoir usurpé, dont il avait fait un si fatal usuage, Bonaparte est decendu sur le sol francais qu'il ne devait plus mourir.

Que veut il? la guerre civile : que cherche-t-il`des traitres …

For more read
Coppens, Bernard : Waterloo, les mensonges, for the above page 403

by the way this was an appeal published by the minister of war when Napoleon landed in France, – Soult.

I think the debate on Napoleon being a Mason is still ongoing. However, I believe some members of his family belonged to some lodges but I'm not sure there is enough evidence to say Napoleon actually was, although there has been some suggestion that his hand in the waistcoat is a sign of being a Mason.

If he was, perhaps all the allies were against him because he broke the club rules?

Are we still debating what was meant by "part of the club" after I defined it like 3 days ago?

If the only part of what I wrote that anyone is disputing or recanting the line about the royal right to rule then this is silly. Because the answer to most replies on that sub-topic that I've read on this page is simply a reference back to the other items I listed along side it.

Cheers,

The Bandit

What I was trying to get at before is that the European elite did not recognise Napoleon as being one of them, either as First Consul or as Emperor. They did not meet with him or negotiate with him or even recognize his legitimacy. This is what I mean when I say he was 'not part of the club'. Surely you can see that this might have had an important effect on the big European events that followed? I don't understand why you are being so stubborn on this issue. Don't you think that this might have had a tinsy winsy teenie weenie effect on European tensions? To insult an entire nation of French people and their commanders, don't you think that might have strained things and been at least a bit responsible for the conflict that followed? When we factor in the huge amount of money the British were prepared to give the other Monarch's to wage war on France (something else you haven't considered yet), plus immense social pressures carried over from the Revolution, then is it really a surprise that Europe was so volatile in this period? To pile blame on Napoleon in this situation seems very one dimensional.
Between 1805-07 Napoleon was attacked by a series of powerful armies. He routed them each in turn. He probably thought he was invincible after that. He then carried out some unforgivable acts of aggression on other Nations (I understand that, I really do). But can you understand the role the other European powers may have had in creating the Monster? Can you understand that France and Napoleon were treated very differently by the other Monarch's, not just in 1813-15, but FROM THE VERY START, and that this might be key to understanding the epic events that followed.

No, I follow your argument, it is perfectly clear. What I am trying (too clumsily obviously) to say is that it isn't clear that Napoleon was in fact treated differently from not being 'part of the club' of established European monarchical houses as distinct from the things he actually did. His birth, or the changes in French society, do not appear to be a major theme of the Allies in their actual operations or stated strategies.

Perhaps a thought experiment: Imagine in 1792 there is a successful counter-revolution in France and an unknown royal but of impeccable Bourbon lineage becomes king. In honour of Gazzola, let us name him Jean. Jean proceeds to carry out every act of internal and external policy that was in fact carried out by the various leaders of the Republic then Napoleon. At which point does our imagined history divert from actual history?

funnily enough all Europe united againt Louis XIV as well.

What is Ney saying about Napoleon in 1813 (and not to forget Ney was a French citizen :

Kellermann raporte que Ney, en 1813, lui disait après la bataille de Leipzig : Cet homme est une insensé. Il nous perd, il faut l'interdire.

France, being the largest country in Europe (excluding distant Russia), had been seen as the key threat to other European powers since the time of Louis XIV. Whenever France flexed its muscles, the rest of Europe tended to react in order to defend their various interests.

Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, and the reactions to them, were merely further manifestations of this phenomenon, with the former also creating outrage, disgust and fear among European monarchs and nobility due to the mass executions of the nobility and, in particular, the king and queen.

What is Ney saying about Napoleon in 1813 (and not to forget Ney was a French citizen :

Kellermann raporte que Ney, en 1813, lui disait après la bataille de Leipzig : Cet homme est une insensé. Il nous perd, il faut l'interdire.

I don't know, I don't speak French – what was Ney saying?

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Kellermann reported that Ney, in 1813, said to him after the battle of Leipzig: This man is mad, he has ruined us, he must be stopped"

Regards

Whirlwind,

1) Thank you for the translation, I was tempted to use an online translator but the result is not always… how should one say… the least bit accurate, and I didn't want to grossly misinterpret.

2) Considering this is Ney – I think that says it all. He also told someone he'd bring the "Orge back in a cage" if I recall. Not the most reliable of men that Ney. Impassioned though, very impassioned.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Ney – very reliable, a fighter and in contrast to Napoleon cares more for his patrie than for his own glory, there are other French officers who wished death to Napoleon whom they saw as griefbringer to their nation.
A pity that evidently so few contributors here can read French sources.
Soult said far more severe words about Napoleon as well, still he was made chef d'état-major.

Just popped in and can see you have made some very good posts. However, take it from me, you are wasting your time.

Gazzola, yes I am starting to see that now!
I know from experience that human beings like to erect barriers and walls around their minds, for what seems like protection (but doing so is ultimately counter-productive and un-helpful).

irony is not just like goldy or bronzy you know.
:)

Gustav,
what are you getting at? You should be able to see from the next paragraphs of that post that I try to apply the same rigorous standards to questioning my own belief system as I expect from others.
Do you? I noticed you haven't replied much to my previous posts. Have you moderated your viewpoint a little from before?

Von Winterfedlt,
Many of the French Marshals opinions have been translated in the great many English language books that are available. People like me can examine what the Marshals thought of the Emperor without speaking French. Just a quick note of caution on using such quotes; the various French General's and their Emperor were a rather bombastic bunch, prone to much exaggeration and the over-the-top language of war. They spoke very differently to modern people. Napoleon himself for example was obsessed with creating his own legend, and believed he was a man of destiny with his own 'star'. I've always thought of the Leipzig quote you used as being less about him wanting to be master of the world and more to do with him coming up with excuses for losing. The defeat of Leipzig had to be explained if his Legend was to remain intact. Just a thought.
At the same time we should recognise that the Marshals were quite happy to feed off Napoleon's glory during the years of victory; much easier for them to criticise him when things were not going so well. Like Bandit was saying, certain Marshals could be over passionate, and we should also take context into consideration at all times.

Whirlwind,
I like the idea of your thought experiment. I shall give it a go, although it might be difficult given all the variables involved.

The Freemasonry thing is indeed interesting. I'm not sure Napoleon was a mason myself, it may or may not be important in the end.
But seeing some of you have brought it up, I'm certainly intrigued about the various Occult undertones during the Revolution and Napoleonic period. It looks as if only the smartest and most determined of you are still posting to this thread so it might be a good time to ask…just wondered if any of you have an informed opinion on the following;

1) the use of Bee's as Napoleon's family and imperial crest. Interesting symbol to use, that. The Bee is used in the Mystery Religion as a symbol for societal cohesion and extreme heirarchical control of Man. Have you heard of any 'mainstream' explanation for Napoleons use of this symbol that makes any sense?

2) Napoleon's use of the Eagle. The Eagle, either double or single headed, was also used by Austria, Russia, Prussia, Poland and others. The eagle is one of the most important of all occult symbols, used by the Freemasons, Mystery Schools and various Illuminist groups. Why do you think all these Nations used the Eagle so prominantly?

3) The date for the onset of the French Revolution was set for 1789, many years earlier by the Bavarian Illuminati. It actually kicked off in 1789, bang on schedule. Coincidence? Some important Jacobin concepts/symbols were very obviously taken from the Illuminist religion also. For example the Festival of the Supreme diety, the Liberty Cap and perhaps the Fasces symbol (where we get the word Fascist from).

Pretty sure my Stifle count is about to go through the roof….

von Winterfeldt,

Ney – very reliable, a fighter and in contrast to Napoleon cares more for his patrie than for his own glory, there are other French officers who wished death to Napoleon whom they saw as griefbringer to their nation.
[…]
Soult said far more severe words about Napoleon as well, still he was made chef d'état-major.

I agree with some of this but not all.

First, of Ney.

Militarily reliability was not Ney's strong suit, this is clear in many examples. A fighter – definitely. Ney's reliability in his military performance can be seen in the contrast of choices he made at Jena in 1806 (terrible decision, ran into the fray with his advanced guard leaving the rest of his two divisions to march off to their appointed location and wait for… his, oh yeah he was off getting surrounded by Prussians and unable to send them more orders. That's OK, Nappy sent others to rescue him) with his performance handling a fighting retreat as an isolated corps in 1806. Very different between the two. Again in 1812 his performance running the rearguard is excellent by all accounts I have read but very mixed performance during 1813. Then in 1815, I find few are complimentary of Ney's performance during that campaign.

Politically Ney's reliability is funny. I suspect that all the marshals had poor words for Napoleon at various times and Ney himself certainly voiced some earlier than 1813. In 1807 he walked the fields of Eylau and proclaimed all the carnage was for nothing, seems an obviously commentary on his assessment of Napoleon's choice to fight that battle. Therefore, I take no great concern over criticism of Nappy by the marshals – it seems natural, everyone complains about the boss sometimes and by 1813-1814, things are going down hill, complaints should increase.

But, Ney tells the King he will bring Nappy back in a cage, sees that Nappy is gaining ground and jumps ship from the King to support the return of his Emperor… not reliable. In 1813-1814 things went down hill with Napoleon so he pushed for abdication but months later he promises the King to bag Nappy and… well my fingers were crossed so never mind.

Sorry this is a bit rambling and repetitive, by far not my best post. Suffice to say that what I mean to state is I believe that Ney was inconsistent both militarily and politically and from the perspective of those he reported to I'd think would be considered unreliable.

Cheers,

The Bandit

The "mainstream" view is that he adopted the bee as it was an ancient symbol of industry and hard work bringing forth something positive; this was meant to symbolise the nature of France under his rule.

As to the use of the eagle, in most cases this was an adoption of an ancient symbol used by the Romans, not an adoption of an occult symbol.

Turning to the prediction of the "Bavarian Illuninati", all that I can answer is "prove it". Many of the symbols of the revolution were again drawn from ancient history; the fasces were Roman, as was the Phyrgian Cap (the Liberty Cap).

Regarding the Festival of the Supreme Being, I would refer you to:

Kennedy, Emmet (1989). A Cultural History of the French Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-04426-7

There is very little, if anything, of occult significance in the French Revolution.

I am rather amsused that someone who seems to see an occult influence in so much that is easily explicable should ask for "an informed opinion" and appeal to the "smartest".

A very good friend of mine is a serious occultist; because of his interest, I have studied the occult and found it to be a fantasy.

@Bandit

I see some good points in your arguments, in 1815 Ney's military performance was in my view quite good – and he was victimized as well as Grouchy.

"The Freemasonry thing is indeed interesting. I'm not sure Napoleon was a mason myself, it may or may not be important in the end."

Napoleon was shown how Freemasonry would be helpful to his aims, and persuaded not to outlaw what was very much a secret society at the time. He was shown some of the underpinnings of The Craft at Malta, but not initiated. After that he made his brother head of Freemasonry in France.

von Winterfeldt,

Well, I think his handling of the cavalry at Waterloo was pathetic, especially since he criticized Murat for doing the same thing in a small action during the retreat in 1812 (name of which escapes me) but overall, I would agree, the failure of the campaign required a scape goat and Ney was an easy pick for all who wanted one as was Grouchy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Napoleon was shown how Freemasonry would be helpful to his aims, and persuaded not to outlaw what was very much a secret society at the time."

No, it was certainly not secret. It was widespread and widely-known. Anybody who was anybody in those days was a mason. That was one of the main ways to get entrance to the various salons and other clubs that advanced one's career. Nearly all of the prominent 18th-19th century intellectuals of the era were open about being masons: Voltaire, Goethe, Kant, Lavoisier, and many others. (Schiller was a notable exception; Goethe tried for years to get him to join.) The wealthy businessmen of the era were so open about it, that they put masonic emblems on their tombstones. You can still see them to this day in France, Germany, and elsewhere.

The prohibitions against masonry in Old Regime Europe had gradually fallen away, to the point that the limits one could still find, were usually in the smaller German and Italian states, and then typically against state employees. In Hessen-Kassel, for example, one could not be a mason, and be on the state payroll. Ditto for Württemberg. Yet in Bavaria, the highest-ranking minister in the government, Montgelas, was openly both a mason and a member of the Illuminati (despite a decree of 1786, which had supposedly banned the latter in Bavaria altogether.) Metternich was openly a mason. Many of the mayors of many major cities in those days, especially port cities, have masonic emblems on their tombstones.

I have no idea why, exactly, Napoleon joined, but it would hardly have been unusual for an ambitious young man to have done so.

"He was shown some of the underpinnings of The Craft at Malta, but not initiated. After that he made his brother head of Freemasonry in France."

No, Joseph joined first. In fact, Joseph was a grand master of the main Paris lodge of Grand-Orient. Louis Bonaparte and Joachim Murat also became grand masters. Napoleon, Lucien, and Jerome did not.

Joseph was not "head of Freemasonry in France." There was no such rank or job. He was one of several grand masters of the most influential lodge in Paris, however.

Many of the men from Grand-Orient opened chapters of the lodge elsewhere in Europe. Jerome and Siméon opened one in Westphalia in 1808, for example. Joseph tried with limited success to do so in Naples.

Bernadotte, who loved being an exception, was the rare Marshal who didn't belong to Grand-Orient. He was a member of a different lodge.

* * *

I love the names of some of the masonic lodges of those days. They rival the names of alt-college bands nowadays:

"Charles of the Crowned Column"

"Love of Arts and Resources"

"Golden Knights of Tolerance" (this one prided itself on having many Jewish members.)

TW
not much point me banging on as well as Whirlwind and VW to try and get you to see that his birth status and who he was was essentially irrelevant as opposed to his approach once in power in the way that they, others and myself have described.

For another counter argument, from my reading I understand that following his "ascension" to power, in the UK many of the British elite
a) were relieved that France was now under "control" and not run by the whim of the mob.
b) were initially his vociferous supporters (mainly those who were Whigs I grant you).
c) during the Peace of Amiens flocked to Paris to see life under the Consulate.

Not the reaction of those who found his birth and new status abhorrent and to be removed asap.