"Was there a "good guy" in the Napoleonic Wars?" Topic

David Digger

Interesting view – Wellington, Nelson and Blucher being so called good guys?

But by suggesting Napoleon was a bad guy then the various allied leaders were also bad guys – Francis, Alexander etc. They all led or sent men to their deaths.

But Wellington, Nelson and Blucher are doing what the 'bad' guys tell them to do, which makes them guilty by association. So they are, if we are to accept the silly notion of good and bad buys, also bad guys.

Good and bad depends on which side you are on or favour, as with all periods and wars. To think otherwise is just ignoring reality and utter bias.

le Grande Quartre general

Good post, although I imagine a 'good cause' will depend on if you are fighting for or against the cause. One man's cause is another man's rebellion etc.

As for ending of hostilities – no way. Had Napoleon not returned the Allies may have well gone to war with each other, and threats were made. Plus, later on, we get events like the Franco-Prussian War and then The Crimean War – Britain, Turkey and France against Russia – so no real end to wars at all, just different allies.

It stopped the cycle of costly large scale pan-European wars that had been getting on since the 16th century. Though there were still plenty of more localised wars after Vienna, it helped clear the slate for a while and

Although one could say it merely postponed it long enough to create a really explosive situation by 1914.

Patrick R,

I'm 68 and I live in Baltimore MD. In the Auditorium of my High School (it used to be all male) on one side of the stage was a list of the WWI dead 25 and the other the WWII dead 76. And the US got off relatively light.

The older I get the more I understand The Congress of Vienna was a convocation of knaves and pretenders which laid the foundation to the disaster of the 20th Century. By suppressing the liberty of the peoples of Europe the 20th Century exploded into the deaths of hundreds of millions, rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.

History is a continuum, not self contained as those who think Napoleon was the cause of all the misery of the era. In hindsight, Napoleon's success could not have brought any greater a calamity than that of the Allies. Indeed, it well could have spared Europe and the US, not of war, there will always be war, but of the slaughter of the 20th Century wars.

Bob Coggins

By suppressing the liberty of the peoples of Europe the 20th Century exploded into the deaths of hundreds of millions, rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.

I would not blame Napoleon, but the French Revolution put the cause of democracy in the United Kingdom back 50 years and in other parts of Europe by up to 200 years.

Patrick

Yes, quite a lot of 'localised' wars after Napoleon's defeat, as can be seen by the list linked.

link

But perhaps they were all preparation for the following 'world' conflicts. And those conflicts did not stop any further wars happening.

138SquadronRAF

I don't think you can blame Napoleon or the Revolution for that. That fault lies in how the various leaders and rulers reacted to the French Revolution in their own countries.

Gazzola,

Absolutely, with apologies to Mel Brooks they were protecting their phony-baloney prerogatives.

Bob Coggins

The good guys were the poor peasants and townsmen, tradesmen and shopkeepers who tried to keep their lives going with armies tramping over their farms and fields, rampaging through their shops, looting their posessions, ripping open their featherbeds, the accumulation of generations and turning them out to starve. The bad guys are the people smashing what few paltry posessions they had, hanging them over camp fires to find out where their Gold was hidden, and laughing and insulting them in the bargain. They tried to hang on to their sons and prevent them from being dragged off to the armies to have their lives snuffed out, their limbs shot away, their bodies racked and destroyed by starvation, illness, and abuse, and hid they their daughters and wives to prevent them from being raped and killed by soliders coming to liberate them and give them "their rights" and fight for "La Gloire!" And the real heroes, the heroes of the heroes are the women who tried to hold their families togther, tried to save the children, starved for them, picked grains of wheat out of the dung that horses of the "Friends of the People" left behind, and even sold their bodies for food for them and their husbands.

None of these people asked to be "liberated" all of them just wanted to live their lives in peace, love their families, play with their children, watch their daughters and sons marry and be happy. They didn't care about Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or the Rights of Man or the Divine Right of Kings, or any of that rubbish. They wanted bread and peace and to live their little lives with a little happiness in a world of egocentric, megalomaniacal inhumane monsters who required an income of 10,000 lives a month.

Spot-on, Otto.

Here's just one example of the sort of letters I find, whenever I do research on the lives and memories of people from this time. This one's from a widowed mother in Pomerania, writing to her son who was somewhere in the remnants of the Prussian army, to tell him that the French had arrived in their little town.

"Don't worry; I hid your little sisters," she writes.

The Bόrgermeister ran around collecting money and valuables from everybody, in the hope that the bribe would be big enough to get the French dragoons to leave them alone and go molest and plunder somewhere else. This time it worked. The Colonel collected his bribe and the regiment moved on.

What a hellish time it must have been for most average people, to live in Europe.

One more example of what "liberation" meant for average people in those days.

After Napoleon defeated Prussia in 1806, he continued his normal practice of confiscating people's farms and land and giving them as rewards to French officers, civil officials, and Bonaparte family members. About a third of all the rural farms and land in what became Westphalia were taken in this way. Their previous owners, of course, were dispossessed and became homeless. The new French owners rarely even saw their new properties. (Pauline Bonaparte, for instance, owned more than a quarter million acres of Germany that she never visited.)

Just one example: Marmont did well in that round of confiscations. He received 77 separate properties as diverse as orchards, a mine, a mill, forests, various fields and farms. I've gone over the deeds and the legal files. It lists all the names of the dispossessed, many quite small, very few of them aristocrats.

Seventy families made homeless, for one absentee landlord. And he was just one of 1,100 beneficiaries.

"Nice Guys finish last." Leo Durocher US Baseball Manager.

I did it all for the Lukhum,

If Prussian hadn't declared war on France Napoleon wouldn't have had to pay for a war which he did so by confiscating Prussian farms. Losers pay. It was the peasants' rulers' fault they lost their property, Napoleon only took what he won.

Which brings me to this. Save 1812 the Allies made a habit of declaring war on France. 1805, 1806, 1809, 1813, what's a boy Emperor to do?

Bob Coggins

I'll say the Duke of Brunswick was a good guy, he had his title and lands stolen and fought to get them back.
And the march to the sea is a great campaign.

"the Duke of Brunswick was a good guy"

His dad was definitely a good guy. Karl William Ferdinand was genuinely loved. Kurt von Raumer called him, "the most beloved prince in Germany." During his long reign he balanced the budget and then paid off Braunschweig's debts. That enabled him to slowly reduce taxes, until by 1792 his people were paying roughly half of what they'd paid in 1770. Nonetheless he found money for two universities, and plenty of scholarships for boys from poor rural towns. He also practiced religious tolerance, promoted several Jews to prominent positions, and abolished the discriminatory taxes on Jews in 1805.

He was honest and straightforward, and his lifestyle was appropriately dignified, but not lavish. He had a powerful little army, but kept it outside the city limits most of the time, and thus out of the civilians' faces. This goes a long way to explain the goodwill for his family in general, that was transferred to his son.

Brunswick had a bicameral legislature, which had the power to approve or reject tax laws, and which was allowed to call itself into session (it didn't have to wait for the Duke to do so.) In 1788, for instance, they convened to oppose his appointment of an education minister whom they disliked. He wisely negotiated and compromised with them, and smoothed the ruffled feathers.

<<During his long reign he balanced the budget and then paid off Braunschweig's debts. That enabled him to slowly reduce taxes, until by 1792 his people were paying roughly half of what they'd paid in 1770.>>

Principally via the British subsidies for hiring his troops out to George III for the AWI. This money was still providing tax subsidies to the Brunswick people in 1914, I have read.

Which brings me to this. Save 1812 the Allies made a habit of declaring war on France. 1805, 1806, 1809, 1813, what's a boy Emperor to do?

Exactly, well said, although you should add 1815 to your list (and add the Spanish invasion to Napoleons naughty column).
I simply cannot agree with the large number of TMPers over the years who have tried to pin everything on Napoleon as some sort of aggressive warlord responsible for most of the problems in Europe during this period. The other European monarchs, paid for by British money, were the clear aggressors in 1800, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, 1813, 1815…. They usually declared War on France and lost badly. Attack a cornered bear and your'e going to get shredded. Are we then to blame Napoleon for defeating his enemies and making the defeated pay for their losses?
Obviously Napoleon was no good guy either. If you think so, remember what he did in egypt & Spain & elsewhere.

BTW great post Otto.

Gentlemen

We all know that it is the leaders and politicans of ALL the various nations then and now, not just one, that started the wars and caused all the death and suffering. It is the civilians who suffered and the obedient footslogger who did the politicans and leaders dirty work and risked their lives doing it, as they do now. But for many soldiers in the past it offered a better lifestyle, often with financial (loot) rewards if they survived. And that went for ALL nations as can be seen in the histories and memoirs, not just the French as some sad and biased souls like to make out.

But we are wargamers and we send our armies into battle without any blood being shed or anyone starving or losing their homes or possessions, apart from those foolish wargamers who ignore the bills and spend too much on their miniatures. We are not responsible for what happened in the past and I doubt we can prevent them happening in the future. For a start, how many soldiers then or now question their orders?

Nelson was not a surviror. He didn't even make it to 06.

ergo, Nelson must be one of the bad guys.

Gazzola

Nobody said anything about war gamers. The question was on good guys or bad guys in the Napoleonic Wars. NOT on good guys or bad guys among Napoleonic Gamers. From the standpoint of the question, the part of your post about gamers is irrelevant.

The first part of your post is mere sophistry.You're attempting to justify murder by its existence. You're saying that ALL governments do this and are very much alike and therefore everyone is so far in that "sin doeth pluck on sin" (Shakespeare, Richard III) That is not true. There is a difference in governments and a difference in the things they do, and with the cause and intent that they do them. Some are more reluctant to do evil than others. There are good governments and bad, good sovereigns and bad, and some must do unhappy things because they must or are forced, and some because they eagerly like to do them. Or are you saying that "Hey! There's really no difference between Nazi Garmany and the government of Holland or Sweden! Theyre all governments.

As for your suggestion, Bob Coggins that Napoleon is rendered blameless because of the Allied declarations of war, recall that the French Revolutionary government declared war on Europe and invaded them, AND as "I did it all for the Lukhum" said so believed in the pricniples of "Liberty Equality and Fraternity" that they helped themselves to whatever tickled their fancy. You are the same as Gazzola, saying that the murderer is justified in shooting the cops trying to arrest him because he's only doing what comes naturally!-- and in self defense!

Named good guys are few, but THE bad guy was clearly Buonaparte.
Betrayed the Revolution.
Betrayed the plotters of Brumaire.
Established a family run Empire, rather like a mafiosi Capo.
Suppressed the democracies that the Revolution had established in the sister Republics.
Bankrupted Europe through the Continental System and artificial French economic dominance.
Reintroduced slavery.
RElentless expansionism.
Unable to allow "independent countries" to follow their own interests.
Dishonesty.
Censorship.
Incompetence as a military commander, usually alleviated by luck or by worse incompetence on the part of his enemies.
Crimes against humanity; vide massacres of prisoners and perceived political opponents, as well looting and ribbing on a monumental scale causing famine.
Questionable artistic taste; David for god's sake!

"Buvons!
Brulons!
Foutons!
Mettons le feu a toutes maisons!
Venons a cinquante, cinq cent!
Chiens, brigands, paysans,
Ouvrez donc la porte? Panc*!"

*bang, as of a gun.

OSchmidt

You seem to be thowing everyone who does not blame Napoleon for everything into the same box. Very simple and easy to do – but very biased and unrealistic.

And I think you have considered what I wrote in completely the wrong context.

I am not saying that what various leaders did was correct and okay at all – that is an absurd thing to suggest. I am saying they were all as bad as each other. It was the way things were, they way they lived.

But some people still see the Allies as goody-goodies, as if they had no part to play in the Napoleonic wars or caused some of the campaigns.

I won't comment on your criticism concerning my mentioning wargamers, but it was relevant because we are all wargmers or perhaps you had forgotten that?

Chouan

Again, you are ignoring reality.

If Napoleon is to be considered as a bad guy for the list you created, then virtually all the leaders of all the nations will be equally guilty, which proves my point.

Or are you naively suggesting that only Napoleon and the French were involved in censorship and slavery etc.

How am I ignoring reality? Especially, how am I ignoring reality again? That rather implies that I am often ignoring reality.

Second point; there were, I'm sure, other bad guys, but I'm arguing that Buonaparte was clearly THE bad guy, and I've shown evidence to support that view. So, it doesn't prove your point at all. Where is the evidence of relentless expansionism from Spain, or the Two Sicilies, or Portugal, or Britain?

Third point; I'm suggesting that only Buonaparte was guilty of all of them. Others may have been guilty of some things, but Buonaparte was guilty of all of them. The only person I'm aware of who reintroduced slavery was William Walker in Nicaragua, beyond our period. So not naively at all, but in a reasoned mature way.

I don't disagree with you Chuoan.

Though I think expansionist fairly fits the bill of Britain. Maybe not in Europe but we certainly took the chance to take as many islands and outposts off the French and Dutch as we could. Aswell as India, Nepal and some other non European places. I think Prussia, Russia and Sweden both tried to acquire lands not theirs aswell. Though Boney was clearly the worst for invading his neighbors and replacing their rightful rulers with family members.

I don't think he was evil. Just rather egotistical (with some justifiable reason) with a large helping of ruthlessness, brutality and a cut throat sense of honour. Arguably these are the same qualities all the big leaders and rulers had, Edward I, Ceaser, Hitler, Gengis Khan, Xerxes, Alexander the Great…. And in my book, that makes him the baddy.

Maybe bad guys is too general and it implies that the other side was good. Maybe the question shouldn't be who were good guys and who were bad. But who were the nice guys (guys who took pains too care forctheir men, tried to avoid abuse of civillians, honest types) and who were the bastards (traitors, back stabbers, murderous swine, cowards, slaughterers ect)

Nice guys – Daddy Hill, Duke of York,
Bastards – Loison, Whitelocke, black Jack Slade, Cuesta,

Otto,
I think you took Gazzola's post waaaaayyyy out of context. Your first post was an extremely excellent one but in your second post I think you have jumped to conclusions that are not at all stated or implied by Gazzola. If you read anything he has said on this thread or any other he always takes pretty much the exact same position as you did in your first post (i.e. that War is always horrific and the losers are us ordinary people who don't really care for the ideologies of the Elites. Doesn't matter what Nation these Elites come from, it is the common Man that always suffers). Don't start a fight with someone who has the exact same view as you!

Chouan,
What nonsense! If you want to believe in such a one-sided 'good guys versus bad guys' version of History I suggest you go back to nursery, or maybe tune in to Fox News, where that kind of thing is accepted.

What nonsense! If you want to believe in such a one-sided 'good guys versus bad guys' version of History I suggest you go back to nursery, or maybe tune in to Fox News, where that kind of thing is accepted.

It is a pity you went for the poster rather than disputed the arguments.

Regards

Chouan

You obviously WANT to see and believe Napoleon as THE bad guy. Okay, that is your choice. It makes make history more simpler for you. No grey areas, everything is just black and white, or rather, black and white as you want to see it? Think about it.

And as for harping on about slavery, they were all doing it, so he can't be seen as being THE bad guy if he is doing, reintroducing or allowing what the others are doing, unless you agree ALL the other slave trading leaders were also THE bad guys. Your obvious bias is easily seen.

And you accuse Napoleon of betraying the revolution but most revolutions self-destruct, become corrupt or get destroyed by others. But to you, he is THE bad guy for turning a revoltuion that executed military leaders if they lost a battle into an Empire. Come on, get real.

Your other points, such as Napoleon being unable to allow independent countries to follow their own interests – er, heard of what happened to Poland by the Allies, to name but one.

Anyway, we are all allowed our own viewpoints and opinions. I disagree with you completely. And life goes on.

By the way, you do know he altered the spelling of his name to Bonaparte. Now that really made a bad guy!

TelesticWarrior

Good post and thanks for the support. But you get used to such biased views and sadly, have to accept that is the way some people are. They are generally too scared to consider that Napoleon is not to blame for everything because that will make them question their own viewpoints and opinions, which, of course, will never do. Everything to them is black and white and their heroes can never be the bad guys.

Whirlwind

TelesticWarrior went for the poster, as you put it, because he disagreed with what he said in his post, which he has the right to do. In the same way that Chouan disagrees with what I say and says so in his posts.

I already nailed this one, guys:

Richard Sharpe. It was all on TV, after all.

Oh, and that Irish fellow who helped him, I suppose.

William Erskine. A raging lunatic, liar and fool. One of the bad ones

Queen Louise of Prussia was a good guy.

"And as for harping on about slavery, they were all doing it, so he can't be seen as being THE bad guy if he is doing, reintroducing or allowing what the others are doing, unless you agree ALL the other slave trading leaders were also THE bad guys. Your obvious bias is easily seen."

I'm glad to see that you've grown up a bit and addressed my arguments, although I see that you're still using sad throw aways, like "get real". Not very persuasive though. However, as far as "harping on about slavery" is concerned, it must be a bit of a drag to have to think about such a boring issue. However, most countries were heading towards a position of abolishing slavery. Britain and the US were, certainly. However, France had already abolished it, and Buonaparte restored it. Are you really saying that that is the action of a good guy?

"And you accuse Napoleon of betraying the revolution but most revolutions self-destruct, become corrupt or get destroyed by others. But to you, he is THE bad guy for turning a revoltuion that executed military leaders if they lost a battle into an Empire. Come on, get real."

He did betray the Revolution; he changed a democratic system, though flawed, into a dictatorship. The Revolutionary Justice you decry had stopped by 1794, with Thermidor and the fall of the Committees. And where is this failing Revolution that you describe?

"Your other points, such as Napoleon being unable to allow independent countries to follow their own interests"

Let's look at some of the countries involved: Bavaria, Westfalia, Saxony, Baden, Netherlands, Naples, Italy. How many of them were allowed to follow a policy that suited their economic or political needs? By analogy you're suggesting that there was nothing wrong with the Soviet Union's control of the WArsaw Pact!

" – er, heard of what happened to Poland by the Allies, to name but one."

By the time Buonaparte had seized power Poland didn't exist, so your example is anachronistic at best. As an aside, what happened to the three divisions of Polish troops that Buonaparte inherited when he seized power? Something heroic or noble, one would imagine…..

Chouan

Your arguments are just biased against Napoleon, as they are in other threads.

You have your view, I have mine and er, your example of what happened to Poland proves my point. Thanks for the support.

I'm intrigued! Can you explain how what happened to Poland proves your point, please?

I may indeed have a negative view of General Buonaparte, the military dictator who's policies caused the deaths of, how many million? Is that bias? Or is it interpretation, a view developed through research? At least they are arguments, rather than assertions!
I note that you haven't addressed my points listed below:
Established a family run Empire, rather like a mafiosi Capo.
Suppressed the democracies that the Revolution had established in the sister Republics.
Bankrupted Europe through the Continental System and artificial French economic dominance.
RElentless expansionism.
Dishonesty.
Censorship.
Incompetence as a military commander, usually alleviated by luck or by worse incompetence on the part of his enemies.
Crimes against humanity; vide massacres of prisoners and perceived political opponents, as well looting and robbing on a monumental scale causing famine.
Questionable artistic taste; David for god's sake!

You've not presented an argument to convince me yet, I'm looking forward to it.
The only responses so far seem to have been along the lines of "they did it to", rather like a Y8 when caught misbehaving by their teacher.

Chouan,

Now you've gone and done it. Even Scharma acknowledges David as one of the great painters. Indeed Scharma maintains the Death of Marat is so beautiful it is horrible and must rank as one of the great paintings in history.

So before you dump on David you should examine the saccharine British painters of the era. And btw it's the Age of Napoleon to historians, not Bonaparte.

As an American a pox on all the European houses of the era including the British. As for nepotism, my God was there a royal house in Europe the Hanoverians didn't have their grubby hands in? During the era the Reagent was a liar and a knave and one of his brothers most likely a servant killer though how he found time from shagging them I have no idea.

Alexander increased the servitude of the serfs. If you were drafted into Alexander's service and the army did not need you, you were sent to the salt mines, a death sentence.

William tearfully promised reforms during the Befriungskrieg only to misremember his promises. In 1815, Blucher decimated the impressed Saxon Corps because they didn't want to fight Napoleon. Not very democratic that.

For political reasons the British put Charles on the Spanish throne and then when a disgusted population threw him out paid the very same French Army to return him to the throne.

As for the Hapsburgs what can one say except the world would have been better off if Napoleon had executed the bunch. They totally screwed up and suppressed Italy for 50 years. They suppressed their Balkans provinces and their intemperate reaction to the assassination of the Archduke was directly responsible for the horrors of WWI.

Compared to these criminals Napoleon was what we in the US would call a Piker.

Alas the evil men do lives after. Especially the evils of those who dared oppose Britain.

Bob Coggins

So we should value Schama's opinion of David over our own, should we?
In any case, you're using the "he did it too" defence which cuts no ice with me I'm afraid.
In any case, I'm not aware of any countries that Britain invaded in order that George III's brother could be given a kingdom, never mind the four that Buonaparte set up for his brothers and brothers in law, then there's the country he set up for his step-son, and the one for his sister.

Old Yuri Ivanovich of the Astrakhan Grenadiers was really a pretty good guy, though you didn't want to sit too close to him after peas had been served as rations.

Whirlwind,
some people are obviously content to buy into an extremely one-sided view of history. Maybe I was a bit harsh in what I wrote, but to be quite honest I don't really want to waste my much time going over each of his points in turn. On a concurrent thread Chouan is promoting the work of Corelli Barnett, which explains why he may have come to the conclusions he has. Like Gazzola said, it is much easier for some people to pretend that history is black and white with one uber bad guy causing all the trouble. That overly-simplistic approach works for Barnett, and it seems to work for Chouan too.

Chouan,
Nobody is suggesting that Napoleon was the good guy. But you need to understand that most of the other rulers were as bad or worse. Maybe in subtly different ways, but still just as bad or worse.
That's all I have to say about this right now. There is only so many times and so many threads I can repeat the same truism in different ways.

TelesticWarrior

Best ignore Chouan. He's done a dissertation so he thinks he knows everything. He's biased, that is obvious and he's not bothered that all the Allies did the same as Napoleon, and did not argue against it. He's got a bone about Napoleon, so best to let him chew on it.

Chouan

No, in school a good teacher tries to find out who did something and who started it and does not just jump onto one person, like you! Do try to get it right!

well I would take Simon Schama's opinion over that of anyone else on this thread.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Chouan- Napoleon was head and shoulders above any other "bad guy" you care to name (in terms of European rulers). As for the little rant against the Hanoverians by a previous poster, are we seriously judging all of them by the standards of George IV? The Hanoverians did a lot to reduce graft and corruption within both the military and civil services (which were pretty much all the "public sector" consisted of in those days), and Georges II and III generally ruled in what they thought were the best interests of the nation rather than for personal gain; both men (and their missing link, Frederick) were among the few prominent men of their time who remained faithful to their wives).

I can only speak of Great Britain in this period, and will leave others to present the better aspects of other nations, but whilst we did indeed have considerable social inequality by today's standards, and imperial ambitions just like everyone else, unlike almost (not quite) everyone else, we also had:-

1) what – for those times – constituted a parliamentary democracy, to which the King was answerable (when lucid), accompanied by a free press which could – and did – lampoon and question pretty much anyone it could without fear of reprisal, other than through the courts;

2) taken long strides towards the abolition of slavery, not just within our own dominions, but across three-and-a-half other continents (the half being our bit of N America);

3) evolved a legal system that recognised the liberty of the individual as being superior to the interests of the state – in direct contrast to the Roman and Napoleonic codes – and which pretty much writes the book on modern day human rights (not to mention providing the basic principles of the Dec. of Independence); and

4) begun to acquire a notion of "fair play" which, whilst we did not always apply it completely, was on occasions invoked on behalf of our enemies, as well as our friends (eg the return of the Irish rebel leader, Napper Tandy, to France after being kidnapped and taken to England by German agents; contrast also, the trial – all for the murder of civilian prisoners or public officials – of just 82 persons after the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland with the crushing of the counter-revolution in The Vendee).

And let us not forget that Napoleon chose to surrender to the British, rather than anyone else. If nothing else, he knew we wouldn't simply hang him from the nearest tree.

Were we the "Good Guys"? No, not especially.

Were we "As bad or worse"? Again no, not by any objective comparison – either of that time or our own.

Supercilius Maximus,

I agree with most of your details but not your overall outlook. It is very difficult to come to big picture 'objective' considerations about something that is so multi-layered as Napoleonic History & so subjective as 'good versus bad'. For that reason I almost didn't post to this thread. But now that I am here….
Have you considered the following;

- Napoleon was attacked by various coalitions in 1800, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, 1813-14, & 1815. This constitutes the vast majority of Napoleonic conflict. It makes no sense at all to me to apportion most of the blame on Napoleon.

- All of these coalitions were paid for by British gold. Again, it makes no sense to me to insert Napoleon as the main trouble-maker.

- Because we often fixate on the European picture at this time we sometimes forget that the British were causing lots of trouble around the world. Even in Europe they were guilty of extremely perfidious acts (earlier in the thread somebody made a very good post about the way Napoleonic Britain is viewed in Denmark).

- Rulers have unique national/historical constraints imposed on them. They may well want to act even worse towards their subjects but have certain constraints that prevent them from doing so. It is quite difficult to compare a Hapsburg with a Romanov or the rather unique historical position of Napoleon Bonaparte.

- All of the major powers had an horrendous human rights record. I wouldn't have wanted to live in (or be invaded by) Austria or Britain or France. Certainly not Russia. Maybe America? nah, not even the U.S.
My point is powerful governments are never the 'good guys'. Taken as a whole I would say history is a never-ending battle between ordinary people on one side and a never-ending stream of political/religious/financial/blood-line Elites on the other. Doesn't matter if that Elite is Napoleon or Alexander or Bush or Obama or the Vatican. Who ever is giving the orders to the fellow holding the gun to my head, its all the same to me.
I don't believe in Might equals Right and I don't believe in going for the percieved 'lesser' of two evils.

<< – Napoleon was attacked by various coalitions in 1800, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, 1813-14, & 1815. This constitutes the vast majority of Napoleonic conflict. It makes no sense at all to me to apportion most of the blame on Napoleon.>>

But surely, it depends on WHY those coalitions came about, rather than their mere existence? Let's not forget that Napoleon first represented, and then later led, a nation that had vowed to invade and conquer Great Britain (amongst others) and replace its form of government with another that was – eventually even by the Whigs – not wanted. Would you expect any government to meekly sit by and wait for that to happen?

<< – All of these coalitions were paid for by British gold. Again, it makes no sense to me to insert Napoleon as the main trouble-maker.>>

And again, it depends on WHY that happened. If a gang starts a series of home invasions in my neighbourhood, do they stop being the bad guys (and the real problem) because I can afford to arm all my neighbours in order to stop them?

<<- Because we often fixate on the European picture at this time we sometimes forget that the British were causing lots of trouble around the world.>>

Really? Where exactly? Outside of India (which was still being contested with the French and various expansionist local empires), the British Empire consisted of about half of Canada, captured from the French in 1763 – and much of that largely empty – some Caribbean islands, captured from the French, Spanish and Dutch in previous wars, and a penal colony in Australia.

<<Even in Europe they were guilty of extremely perfidious acts (earlier in the thread somebody made a very good post about the way Napoleonic Britain is viewed in Denmark).>>

In which he completely ignored the fact that several intelligence sources – including Napoleon himself, as a double-bluff – informed the British Government that the French intended to invade Denmark and seize its navy to assist an invasion of Great Britain and Ireland. The British made several attempts to deal with this by purely diplomatic means, before resorting to force (and did the same thing in WW2 to prevent the Nazis seizing the French fleet). The British weren't the ones looking to seize the Danish fleet in order to invade another country.

<< – Rulers have unique national/historical constraints imposed on them. They may well want to act even worse towards their subjects but have certain constraints that prevent them from doing so.>>

Evidence for this?

<<It is quite difficult to compare a Hapsburg with a Romanov or the rather unique historical position of Napoleon Bonaparte.>>

I'm not comparing a Habsburg or Romanov to Napoleon (in fact, I specifically said I was not), I'm comparing the constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy (by the standards of the time) of the UK to Napoleon – and instead of picking the one Hanoverian who was notoriously awful, I went for two who were extremely dutiful and selfless in their approach to their role as head of state.

<< – All of the major powers had an horrendous human rights record. I wouldn't have wanted to live in (or be invaded by) Austria or Britain or France.>>

That's because you are sub-consciously comparing life today with life as it was then. Human history is about society moving forwards – improving and evolving; we did not start with human rights and then regress. Nobody from our times would want to live in any country back then, given fewer rights, shorter life expectancies, child mortality, etc (even among the rich). The question is which of those countries you would choose to live in, rather than a comparison between then and now.

<< Taken as a whole I would say history is a never-ending battle between ordinary people on one side and a never-ending stream of political/religious/financial/blood-line Elites on the other.>>

And it will ever be thus until we find another form of government, because you are essentially critiquing human nature – power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. However, I don't think it helps that so many people view history through a "rear view mirror" that makes almost everyone in the past look evil, whereas the proper approach is to look at what went before and ask if the acts of a particular group made things better or worse than that. The Ancient Romans lived on exactly the same planet as we do – are they primitve idiots because they didn't harness the same resources and put a man on the Moon?

<< I don't believe in Might equals Right and I don't believe in going for the percieved 'lesser' of two evils.>>

Well, I'm sure we'd all agree with that given an ideal world. However, Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) wrote that such fine views can only be indulged because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.

But surely, it depends on WHY those coalitions came about, rather than their mere existence?

Yes of course. That is what we are discussing. We can put the blame entirely on Napoleon. Or we can do the sane thing and apportion a big share of the blame on the British ruling and banking Elite that coveted the wealth of the globe, and the other continental Monarchs that hated the low-born Napoleon and the Revolutionary Country from which men like him could arise.

Really? Where exactly?

War of 1812 for starters.

The British made several attempts to deal with this by purely diplomatic means, before resorting to force

Oh, that's ok then.
We could frame it this way with a modern translocation; middle-eastern terrorists are going to take over modern Copenhagen in order to use a Danish WMD against us Brits. Do we nuke Copenhagen pre-emptively to prevent this from happening? Not in my name. We try diplomacy. Again. And if that fails we try diplomacy. And if that fails we try diplomacy. And if that fails we try diplomacy…..

Evidence for this?

Um, pretty much every single bit of correspondence between elites from any period of history or from modern times.

I'm comparing the constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy (by the standards of the time) of the UK to Napoleon

Well, we are not really comparing the constitutional systems of the various Nations. This thread is about who was the good/bad GUY, not which was the good/bad political system. Like I said before, Rulers often have their hands tied by legal & constitutional constraints that are unique to a particular Nation, but that does not make the individual an inherently good person.

The question is which of those countries you would choose to live in, rather than a comparison between then and now.

That is what I was doing. If I had to choose between any Napoleonic nation I would choose to live in France (or the U.S.). At least there was some semblance of a meritocracy. I would have had no respect at all for the ancien regime systems in the rest of Europe, including Britain.

And it will ever be thus until we find another form of government, because you are essentially critiquing human nature – power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. However, I don't think it helps that so many people view history through a "rear view mirror" that makes almost everyone in the past look evil, whereas the proper approach is to look at what went before and ask if the acts of a particular group made things better or worse than that. The Ancient Romans lived on exactly the same planet as we do – are they primitve idiots because they didn't harness the same resources and put a man on the Moon?

Well said. Yes I am critiquing human nature. You are right that power corrupts. It is the job of human beings to keep a wary eye on the establishments and, if possible, keep them in check. It doesn't help to fall into a form of dualism whereby we set up one Country and their rulers as the enemy and the other side (usually ours) as the good guys. That kind of dualistic thinking is the dream of manipulative Elites all over the world.
By the way I have a cyclical view of history and I have great respect for the ancients. I don't necessarily agree with the myth of progress. But this is a complex subject and a bit off-topic.

Well, I'm sure we'd all agree with that given an ideal world. However, Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) wrote that such fine views can only be indulged because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.

Its pretty cool that you used Eric Blair's real name. Blair did say that, but he is also more famous for warning us about the huge dangers of centralized Government and the insanity of 'Group Think'. 1984 is usually taken as a warning about Fascism or Communism but I see it more as a wider warning about Totalitarianism, Synarchism, Collectivism, & Centralisation. George Orwell was a member of the Fabian society and I think he knew only too well about the dangerous undercurrents & secret societies that have a far greater effect on history than most people are willing to think about.
My point is that causes that can seem black and white are usually far from it, and we should always question the versions of history that are passed down to us. I don't buy the idea that Britain was attempting to liberate europe from the evil Napoleon, and I don't buy the idea that the French Revolution was brought into being by disgruntled peasants. But that is a story for another day!….

It was all politics, the typical thousand year struggle that all peoples and rulers indulged in. Good and bad is relative: some 'good' actors do or cause bad things and some 'bad' actors cause good things to occur. It all depends on where you sit and what you think happened.

Chouan,

I wrote even. I not a great fan of Scharma but the liberal BBC is It gave him an hour program to inform us all about David's greatness. My question is, why should your opinion on David be held in greater regard than Scharma's?

I didn't use the he did it too defense, I used the Pot calling the kettle black analogy.

How do you think these guys got their crowns, by election? Given the incompetence of the Romanov's, Hapsburgs et al it was time for new blood but we didn't get it till after the death of tens of millions in WWI.

Bob Coggins

<<War of 1812 for starters.>>

Well, despite the "stop and search" thing regarding Royal Navy deserters, I'm pretty sure the USA invaded Canada to kick off the actual shooting war on that one. Any others? I'm also not sure the US was that meritocratic, having its own ruling elites (eg the Southern "plantocracy" and similar patrician types in the North) – none of the Founding Fathers were dirt farmers. I also think it's a bit harsh lumping the British system in with the Ancien Regime; from 1819-1919, the UK was the only European state that did not see a change of government through a major armed revolt (all the more impressive since it was also the only one without an organised secret police force, by the way), so it must have been doing something right. It's not as though opponents were not organised, or didn't have assistance from other countries.

<<We could frame it this way with a modern translocation; middle-eastern terrorists are going to take over modern Copenhagen in order to use a Danish WMD against us Brits. Do we nuke Copenhagen pre-emptively to prevent this from happening? Not in my name. We try diplomacy. Again. And if that fails we try diplomacy. And if that fails we try diplomacy. And if that fails we try diplomacy…..>>

…..and keep trying diplomacy right up to the moment when the terrorists' bomb goes off. But, hey! At least we played by the rules and that's the important thing, isn't it. Sorry, but unlike your other arguments, this is a very, very weak analogy, because we were not looking at totally wiping out Denmark in the 1800s; also there isn't a global war in the normal sense going on.

A proper analogy would be us sending in special forces to hi-jack Denmark's WMD, by force if necessary, to prevent the terrorists getting hold of it. Sorry, but national survival is the primary job of any government, and wartime requires the undertaking of often unpalatable tasks. There are no prizes for coming second.

<< I don't buy the idea that Britain was attempting to liberate europe from the evil Napoleon, and I don't buy the idea that the French Revolution was brought into being by disgruntled peasants. But that is a story for another day!>>

Well, I certainly never claimed it was – nor have I ever claimed the British were uniquely "good guys" (merely not "as bad or worse" as someone else put it). It was defending its national interests from someone who wanted to invade the country and change it (and in a way that no major class of people wanted particularly). Great Britain depended on trade to survive – "nation of shopkeepers" and all that – so someone trying to destroy it commercially, was as much a threat as someone trying to destroy it militarily.