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

Supercilius Maximus,

You are correct but Jefferson and Madison weren't so bad and after Adams came Jackson and the democracy of the common man, including Lincoln and Grant. During those 70 years or so the US became a great Nation and a great Power. Indeed during those years no nation showed such growth.

I agree, Britain didn't have secret police. Rather it had professional terrorists such as the Black and Tans and Concentration Camps.

So, to return to the question, whose the good guy? For me anyone who would logically give me an opportunity to rise to the top. My question is if I start at the bottom of the heap in which European country would I have the greatest opportunity to rise to the top. Why France, dictator and all.

On the other hand, as I understand it, Britain still has a permanent underclass.

Bob Coggins

Apart from the anachronism inherent in your argument, your examples are questionable at best.
The concentration camp example has been discussed exhaustively in this forum, I would suggest that you read those before you reintroduce the concentration camp argument.
The Tans were emphatically not "professional terrorists". Unless, of course, you have some other definition for what a professional terrorist is? I'm not suggesting that the Tans didn't do some dreadful things whilst countering IRA terrorism, but they were uniformed policemen, employed as policemen, to strengthen the RIC. That some of these ex-soldiers turned out to be little more than uniformed thugs isn't in question. On the other hand, that for a couple of years Britain used force in a very unpleasant anti-terrorist campaign, very unpleasant on both sides, doesn't actually say very much about Britain.
A final point, what kind of person would you describe as being at the bottom of the heap in late 18th early 19th century France? How many of those rose to the top? Landless day labourers in rural France and unskilled manual labourers in an urban setting, I would suggest. I can't think of a single example of a person from either category rising to anything in France during the period under discussion.

Bob,

<<Indeed during those years no nation showed such growth.>>

Except the UK, of course.

Pretty much every nation has a permanent underclass of some sort. In one developed country I can think of, they live in Third World poverty in many cases.

I notice that, to find an example, you had to stray outside the 1819-1919 period I set down as a marker of British performace vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

There's a couple of very good threads on the Boer War in the 20th Century discussion forum on here which outline the facts about the camps in S Africa (including the fact that they were copied from – inter alia – those used by the meritocratic US of A in the Phillipines and at home, as well as the Spanish authorities on Cuba from whom the name was taken). It's also interesting that this is the only subject on earth where liberals are happy to take the uncorroborated word of white Afrikaaners. Many of the dead were killed by a measles epidemic that had been rife in S Africa for a couple of years (pre-war), and many were pro-British and had entered voluntarily because their homes had been burned down by mercenaries – often waearing British uniforms – fighting for the Boers who had refused to obey their former employer's order to surrender.

In a previous post, you refer to the removal of the old ruling houses in the bloodletting of WW1. The most senior British Army officer in that conflict, William Robertson who rose to be Chief of the Imperial General Staff, was a former domestic servant who joined the Army as a private and was sponsored through Sandhurst by the officers of his regiment. An exception? Sure. But it happened.

[ps: Don't get me wrong, I like America and its people; the above is not intended to "bash" a country I enjoy visiting and reading about.]

"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.

"Um, that is the exact analogy I was using.

Maximus, to cut a long story short I think all of your arguments amount to the same thing. National interests are paramount and you must try do do whatever you can to protect yourself, diplomacy first but if that fails you have to take decisive action. Nice guys finish last in war. That is fine, I get that, but you are missing the bigger point & not looking at root causes.

The Elites have their own interests that rarely, if ever, correspond to the interests of ordinary people. They may brain-wash the people into thinking that they have a common enemy, but that is largely rhetoric.
Great leaders are ones that would take action right at the start to prevent the kind of terrorist or military actions that we are talking about here. This week terrorism hit the streets of London, with an horrific murder of a British soldier outside of an army barracks. Last month there were attacks in the U.S. The root cause of these atrocities is the invasion and occupation of Middle-Eastern Muslim countries by Western powers. The Elites (politicians) tell us it is for the spread of democracy & humanitarian reasons. Everyone who is not suffering from group-think knows that this is pure propoganda. Stop Western aggression in the middle-east and you stop the potential for radicalisation of terrorists & the escalation of atrocities by both sides. We should never have gone into these Countries. A sane person halts the potential for trouble at the root level. You don't need to invade Denmark to seize the hypothetical WMD's if you have created, through your earlier peaceful actions, a world where Terrorism is not an issue.
Likewise with the Napoleonic Wars. We can justify perfidious acts such as Copenhagen as the neccesities of War, but that is a very slippery slope. Far better to avoid War in the first place. There was peace after Amiens. The Elites had an opportunity to continue a lasting peace but they messed it up. The British establishment have to shoulder much of the blame for that. Lasting peace with France would not have suited the aims of the Elite families, who wanted continued domination of global trade. Now, we can kid ourselves that the best interests of the Nation and its people is the same thing as the best interests of the ruling Elite, but I cannot accept that for a second.

Basically, I think we both come from two entirely different and irreconcilable world-views. You are asking me to choose between two different versions of the predator mind. I won't play that dualistic game. I'll choose a third way, my own. Maybe we should agree to disagree?

It is interesting how some people view history and historical characters,

For example, the killing of prisoners is often thrown at Napoleon to try and prove he was a bad guy. Yet other historical characters did the same -

link

Some people even accuse him of destroying the French Revolution, but there are other, more fair minded views -

link

These are just two short quick pieces I came across and sadly, I do not have the time to do some heavy research into the claims made against Napoleon. But it seems some people only look for the bad and don't go into the reasoning behind events and if they know, fail to mention it, perhaps sometimes deliberately.

People have been studying Napoleon and the Napoleonic period for a long time, spending years and years reading and researching – basically spending a large part of their life doing so. They may not have written books or dissertations but many have a vast knowledge of the period. And, of course, many have written books and dissertations.

In short, we all have our views and we must all learn to accept this and agree to disagree. But one thing is certain, people will keep on talking about Napoleon and the Napoleonic period and long may we do so.

Good Guy: Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg!
Frederick William, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

My British Friends,

So much to say so little time. To make it clear I have no sympathy with the Communist based new NRA. That said the Auxies wouldn't have been necessary had Britain not been in southern Ireland.

Britain did what it thought was necessary to win the Boer War including interning hundreds of thousand of blacks in 64 camps even though they were never a threat.

In 1850 the population of the US was 23 million. In 1900 it was 76 million. In the UK 27 million and 41 million.

The disaster of the 20th Century could not have been imagined when the smart boys met at Vienna. The crime was they created a Europe to benefit their self interests to the exclusion of others.

Whether or not someone is a good guy depends on who writes the history.

Bob Coggins

The National Rifle Association have become Communists? Charlton Heston must be spinning in his grave.

"So much to say so little time. To make it clear I have no sympathy with the Communist based new NRA. That said the Auxies wouldn't have been necessary had Britain not been in southern Ireland.

Britain did what it thought was necessary to win the Boer War including interning hundreds of thousand of blacks in 64 camps even though they were never a threat.

In 1850 the population of the US was 23 million. In 1900 it was 76 million. In the UK 27 million and 41 million."

Would you mind explaining what any of this has to do with who was the good, or bad, guy in the Napoleonic Wars?

Chouan,

You're right, nothing. These were responses to Supercilius Maximus' statements.

SJDonovan,

Whoops! IRA.

Bob Coggins

I don't know if it is only me, but these kind of questions (who was evil/good, bla, bla, bla) strike me as childish; something that a kid in need of reassurance would ask, not a grown up.

basileus66

Quite right, nothing is as clear cut in any period of history. And blaming one person for everything and considering one historical character as THE bad guy is simple and biased thinking and suggests poor research.

However, at the same time, it is interesting to see the various and conflicting views of the so called good and bad guys, even on a wargaming website. Human nature perhaps?

"So much to say so little time. To make it clear I have no sympathy with the Communist based new NRA. That said the Auxies wouldn't have been necessary had Britain not been in southern Ireland.

Chouan, I suspect that Coggins, mistyped, it should be IRA not NRA.

Mind you I don't see Coggins coming out here condemning Sinn Fien/IRA – people who came close to murdering me as I went to work for fraks sake!

More ignorance, the British haven't been in the South of Ireland since the early 1920's. We are in the North because a majority of the population want to stay British….

Chouan,

The following excerpts from two different referneces might be of assistance in assessing Napoleon, his Empire, and the wars in which he was engaged.

By your username it is very telling of your personal biases of the period in question. However, again you have not substantiated your points and opinions, and the following may be enlightening for you, especially as a history teacher, from which occupation I have recently retired.

And, yes, I would highly recommend that you buy Cronin's work on Napoleon for nothing more than seeing the rreferences that he used in writing the book, and apparently with which you are unfamiliar.

However, the most valuable part of Cronin's work is the detailed analysis of some of the period's memoirs, and who wrote them and why, and with a judgment as to their overall balue and reliability. I have found that appendix more than helpful since I received the book as a gift in 1973, shortly after it was published.

Finally, your 'pronouncement' of Napoleon being 'the' bad guy of the period is not only nonsense, but you haven't supported it one iota. What you seem to fail to realize is that all of the major powers were expanding empires during the period, and all of them either wanted more territory and/or tried to get it, including Great Britain. Napoleon was just more efficient in accomplishing what he wanted.

And, as a footnote, there were no democracies in Europe, but there were republics formed as a result of the French Revolution-and republic and democracy are not synonymous terms. Even the young United States was not a democracy-it was a republic.

B
From Napoleon by Alan Forrest, 196-197:

‘Though Napoleon's Empire was the product of war, and the Emperor himself was often absent on campaign, spending months at a time on horseback, his vision of Empire remained stubbornly that of a civil society. He did not appoint army officers to ministries of state, though some, Duroc and Sebastiani among them, were entrusted with diplomatic missions; and it was observed, not always approvingly, that Napoleon appointed several of his generals to embassies around Europe (Brune to Constantinople, Lannes to Lisbon, Andreossy to London). But there the army's political influence stopped; officers were not given political control, and the army as an institution was kept firmly answerable to the civil authorities. Despite its overarching military ambitions, therefore, it is misleading to indict Napoleon's regime for militarism, since the army was never allowed to exercise power autonomously. Indeed, it is more accurate to see the
Empire as an exercise in state-building, in institutional reform and modernization-a process that would leave behind monuments to administrative efficiency which many in the nineteenth century would seek to emulate. Napoleon saw himself as a modernizer, and his impatience with old structures and privileges-shown most notably, perhaps, in his willingness to challenge the Papacy and tear down what remained of the Holy Roman Empire-is a symptom of his modernizing zeal. Like many of his ideas, it had its roots in the revolutionary period, when first the Jacobins then the Directory had pursued a policy of conquest, imposing administrative and judicial reforms on the countries they invaded, and recreating them as new departments of France or sister republics allied to Paris. The French, they preached, brought liberty-new freedoms-to the peoples of Europe.'

From The Superstrategists by John Elting, 144-145:

‘Napoleon had reigned as a true emperor, lawgiver, and builder. His Code Napoleon, which modernized and systemized French law in clear language, is still the basis of French law and has had world-wide influence. He built no new palaces but left a mighty heritage of harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps, and canals. He planted trees along his roads; set up a government office to protect France's forests, lakes, and rivers; gave Paris better water and sewer systems, its first public fire department, an improved opera, and the modern system of street numbers. Wherever his rule ran, there was freedom of religion, basic human rights, better hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation…He encouraged vast improvements in French agriculture and built up an enlarged system of public and private education. Just as important was his emphasis on competence and honesty in his officials. All careers were open to men of talent who would serve loyally, regardless of family background or political orientation. Also, he balanced his budgets; even in 1814 France had practically no national debt. And he ruled as a civilian head of state, never as a military dictator.'

From page 146:

‘Excellently educated and self-educated, Napoleon had within himself the great captain's essential qualities of courage, decisiveness, steadfastness, and swift, lucid thought. His wars were mostly defensive. From 1800 to 1815 he was the aggressor only in his 1808 move into Spain and his 1812 invasion of Russia-and the latter was in the nature of a preemptive ‘spoiling attack' to cripple an open enemy. Yet, even when on the defensive, Napoleon usually managed to seize the initiative and hit first, surprising the enemy by the timing and direction of his offensive. He kept the greater part of his forces concentrated under his direct control. (In the terminology of the time, he ‘had only one line of operation.') He began his campaigns with an overall strategic plan that clearly defined his objective. This plan might be modified according to unforeseen circumstances-Napoleon was past master of the art of turning the unexpected accident to his own advantage-but he kept his objective always in mind. Victorious battles were only means of reaching it; battles that did not contribute to that desired end were a waste of men and time.'

‘His objective was the main body of his enemy's army. He sought to catch it at a disadvantage and destroy it. Once that was done, everything else would be easy.'

From page 147-148:

‘He could get such service out of his men because he shared (portions of the 1812 campaign excepted) his men's dangers and hardships, riding just behind his advance guard, often taking what fortune might send in the way of food and shelter-a tumble-down farm building with some straw for his bed and rain and wind for company; a few potatoes, roasted in the embers of a campfire and shared with his staff, for supper. In action, he was fearless; after a battle he was concerned for the wounded. (Quite contrary to the usual concept of Napoleon, he was careful of his soldiers' health and had a surprising commonsense knowledge on that subject.) He rewarded good service, sought to be just and patient. And he won a legendary devotion, the ‘Vive l'Empereur!' that echoes yet across the centuries.'
‘His mistakes-Spain, Russia, his Continental System-came in part from too much self-confidence, hardened by years of victories over stronger enemies, in part from his desperate need to keep the world at bay until France and his dynasty were solidly established. Also, his new system of war required subordinate commanders of unusual capacity, capable of handling independent commands. Such men are few in any generation, and only four or five of Napoleon's marshals-Massena, Davout, Soult, and Suchet, possibly Lannes-met the test. Lannes died of wounds in 1809; Massena wore out. Others of the marshals proved unfaithful in 1814, and Napoleon could never rely on his brothers.'
In the end, like Charles XII, he found his task too great. He could build a new France, achieving a shotgun wedding between the best features of the French Revolution and the older Kingdom of France, and build it so strongly that fifteen years of restored Bourbon rule after Waterloo could effect no major changes. He failed in his effort to establish his own dynasty in France, but it was one of history's great failures.'

From pages 139-140:

‘By an odd twist of fate, it is only recently [this book was written in 1985] that we have been able to actually ‘know' the living Napoleon. His personal life and character, his political aims and methods, even aspects of his military career and strategy, have been mishandled by most historians-often intentionally, frequently from the difficulty of properly evaluating the available source material, sometimes out of built-in national bias. (A few English semihistorians still insist on retelling how a squat little Corsican bounder named Bonaparte misbehaved until he finally met his overdue comeuppance at the immaculate hands of that true-blue English gentleman, the Duke of Wellington!)'

‘Even fair-minded historians found their available sources full of booby traps. While he lived, enemy propaganda presented Napoleon as a monster who relished murder, treachery, theft, incest, blasphemy, and any other possible evil. The counterblasts of his supporters sometimes went to almost equal extremes in lauding him. The most misleading truth twisting, however, came from people who had served him to their profit, but-in hopes of making an equally profitable peace with the Bourbons who supplanted him after Waterloo-turned to defaming him. Prominent among them were former close associates of Napoleon such as Louis Antoine de Bourrienne, the Duchess of Abrantes, Claire de Remusat, and Marshal Auguste Marmont. The memoirs such people write, or had ghostwritten, were accepted as indispensable reference works by too many writers, though most of them are worthless and even the better ones contain much untrustworthy material. Only during the last few decades have English-language historians really managed an accurate recreation of Napoleon as an individual human being, as well as a ruler and statesman.'

‘…Of roughly average height for the period (a little over five feet six), he was broad shouldered and deep chested, not particularly muscular but full of health and activity…When he played games he often cheated, but always paid back his winnings. Usually held under tight control, his temper could explode in annihilating storms of abuse, sometimes accompanied by a blow from the imperial hand or riding whip. His friends…would ignore these displays, knowing they would pass quickly and that his cold good sense would reassert itself. He was generous with friend and foe, humane, and always grateful for favors done him when he was young, poor, and lonely. Br contrast, he ran his imperial household on a tight budget…And, contrary to all tradition, he was a hero to his valets; his second one went willingly to St. Helena with him…His intelligence-swift, mathematically precise, analytic-was teamed with equally formidable powers of concentration and industry. He spared neither himself nor his assistants, often working into the small hours of the morning or getting up in the middle of the night to complete unfinished business…His near-total memory was a terror to the careless and the procrastinating. In sum, he was a very human person, endowed with certain extraordinary qualities that sometimes made him seem a little more than, a little different from, human.'

"Chouan,

The following excerpts from two different referneces might be of assistance in assessing Napoleon, his Empire, and the wars in which he was engaged.

By your username it is very telling of your personal biases of the period in question. However, again you have not substantiated your points and opinions, and the following may be enlightening for you, especially as a history teacher, from which occupation I have recently retired.

And, yes, I would highly recommend that you buy Cronin's work on Napoleon for nothing more than seeing the rreferences that he used in writing the book, and apparently with which you are unfamiliar.

However, the most valuable part of Cronin's work is the detailed analysis of some of the period's memoirs, and who wrote them and why, and with a judgment as to their overall balue and reliability. I have found that appendix more than helpful since I received the book as a gift in 1973, shortly after it was published.

Finally, your 'pronouncement' of Napoleon being 'the' bad guy of the period is not only nonsense, but you haven't supported it one iota. What you seem to fail to realize is that all of the major powers were expanding empires during the period, and all of them either wanted more territory and/or tried to get it, including Great Britain. Napoleon was just more efficient in accomplishing what he wanted."

I'd be interested to see what kind of teacher you were, you do still seem to have a rather didactic approach, with a most unfortunate tendency to be either patronising or critical, in a rather pompous way, which suggests that you believe that your status entitles you to critique the "student" as well as their argument. That you're retired may explain why you have the time and leisure to quote at such great length. That I'm not explains why I'm neither able, nor inclined, to do likewise. It is neither "lazy" nor "careless" research, it's just not that important for me to spend as much time on as you can.

However, the most valuable part of Cronin's work is the detailed analysis of some of the period's memoirs, and who wrote them and why, and with a judgment as to their overall balue and reliability. I have found that appendix more than helpful since I received the book as a gift in 1973, shortly after it was published.

I have read Cronin's book, but do not possess a copy. Is there a summary of this anywhere, or perhaps you could briefly mention which primary sources he trusts and which ones he doesn't. I vaguely remember thinking something at the time of reading along the lines of it seems like special pleading to disbelieve the words of those who had fallen out with him, but treat uncritically those who hadn't, like his acceptance of Louis Marchand ("servant and friend to the Empire") for example. But I freely admit I could be utterly wrong about this.

Regards

"Was there a good guy etc" ….

Yes there was, and that "good guy" was clearly Britain, helping to win the war & stop Boney from controlling Europe. Unless you think that the latter was the better option?

Peeler

So the 'good' guys are those who fund and keep paying others to go to war. Very interesting viewpoint. Unrealistic, but interesting.

Cronin trusts all sources who are pro Napoleon – and doesn't trust any which are critical of him.
Otherwise I support the view of Chouan regardind N as well as Br.

Yes Gazz, the "good guy" was Britain, taking part in the wars & enabling others to resist Napoleon as well.

Unless you think that Napoleon controlling Europe was the better option?

Peeler

Just to be clear: are you serious? Or are you just pulling Gazz's leg?

Oh, well serious :) The follow on leg pulling is an optional extra. :)

Peeler

Britain, as you put it, 'enabled' others to 'resist' Napoleon. So glad you did not disagree with Britain's darker side.

Napoleon controlling Europe – interesting thought. Who knows? Europe under control of Napoleon may well have been a better place – and perhaps more peaceful – but Britain made sure we would never find out by encourging and paying others to go to war with France.

Hmm. And I would think that the rest of Europe would be grateful for Britain's – and others – help in resisting Napoleon.

Unless, you think that Napoleon controlling Europe was the better option?

Pan-European hegemony under one ruler with absolute authority- yeah, that would have worked out well, no doubt.

My biggest issue with Napoleon is that I cannot picture a stable Empire after he's gone-where are the institutions that will maintain some kind of of continuity in government? Instead, I see a power vacuum, with a squabbling Marshalate vying for control over a young King of Rome in his minority.

For me the mark of -real- greatness is not just victory on the battlefield, but from a serious attempt at ensuring stability and continuity for the future. Think George Washington here.

I'm not convinced that stability was on the cards once Napoleon was gone, nor that it was adequately provided for. You need more than just a strong "father figure" to achieve long-term stability.

What was N's game plan to achieve this? A revived and powerful legislative body with real authority to make decisions? Or was it just another instance of taking the usual European route of creating a new hereditary dynasty, albeit with a strong army to support it? What chance would any kind of meritocracy have had of surviving a few decades of wealth, privilege and interest under the new regime?

It's an honest question, so don't anyone go hurling any "bias!" red herrings at me. It's not so much that I am biased, as it is that I'm just skeptical.

Just as an aside, when I first started reading about Buonaparte, in my youth, I perceived him as a heroic military figure. The more I've read, the more I see him as a totally egoistical self-aggrandising gangster. No bias, just interpretation.

I'm definitely in the "He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" camp when it comes to Napoleon.

No one has mentioned Sharpe or Hornblower yet.

No one has because they are fictional characters. I hate to rock your world but there is no Santa either.

No one has mentioned Sharpe or Hornblower yet.

No one has because they are fictional characters. I hate to rock your world but there is no Santa either.

For the record, I have brought up Sharpe, twice. Sorry I missed Horatio, but then I would have to throw in Alan Lewrie, too. He's much more fun, after all.

You guys need to lighten the up. No wonder everyone mocks the Napoleonics boards if this is the sort of thing the posters there like to do.

Is Sharpe a good guy?

He is undoubtedly heroic and brave. But he is also a brawler, he shot the Prince of Orange (his boss and employer), he shot a couple of POWS with out trial (war crime) and hacked a French engineer to death at Badajoz ( another war crime) he seduced his second wife from one of his best friends (Sweet William), he's a thief (Vittoria and his early life). He has also carelessly got about 7 teenage ensigns killed making the South Essex the single most fatal posting in the army. Even West Indies regiments have lower officer fatalities than the S.E when under Sharpe. He also abandons his daughter in Spain.

Clearly not entirely "good".

… Well yes, but does any of that make him a bad person?

Pretty bad.

Still pretty likeable though. Loveable cheeky sinner.

Stavka

Good post. Yes, who knows what might have happened once Napoleon died. If he died later than he he did in reality and his son was able to step into his shoes, perhaps things might stilled continued to work. But then again, all the various powers would be itching to get more power and wealth, if not revenge, so there would probably be more wars.

Chouan

LOL

'No bias – just interpretation' You are so funny.

That statement is a full blown biased and blinkered viewpoint.

Surely you don't expect everyone to 'interpret' and think the same way, just because you do?

"'No bias – just interpretation' You are so funny.

That statement is a full blown biased and blinkered viewpoint."

Could you justify, indeed, as you claim to be a Historian, could you explain that unsubstantiated assertion, please?

"Surely you don't expect everyone to 'interpret' and think the same way, just because you do?"

No, that appears to be your speciality. You appear to accept uncritically everything positive written about Buonaparte, and reject and condemn everything negative, whether true or not.

Chouan

Please point out where I claim I am an historian?

If you can't see what you say as biased, then that's your problem – but you are biased.

I admire Napoleon and many of the things he achieved. However, he was just a man and being a man, and like ALL men, he made many mistakes.

No, I do not accept everything positive and reject everything negative. That would be absurd. But if I disagree with someone's viewpoint, I will say so.

And I will certainly reject the views of biased, over-inflated egos and those who are foolishly convinced that because they believe something, it must be true.

I think you are biased to me as you are to Napoleon.

How about Prince Regent Joao of Portugal?

Yes, who knows what might have happened once Napoleon died. If he died later than he he did in reality and his son was able to step into his shoes, perhaps things might stilled continued to work.

I doubt it. History is full of disappointments in that regard, and I'm not sure things were working all that well in the first place.

For me the sign of real weakness came when he refused the Allies offer for a peace after Leipzig. Had he done so, he would have had the time he needed to consolidate and to create some kind of lasting dynasty.

The Allies could have lived with it. Sure, they had no love for him, and reasonably so given his track record (there's no getting away from that in my opinion).

But a Napoleon staying within his own borders and some kind of balance of power in Europe would have suited most parties. Granted he was no Bourbon, but a parvenue monarch sitting on the throne of France was by far the lesser of two evils to the European powers when compared to, say, a return to 1792 and mob rule.

But again, I think the problem is that a strongman coming to power in a coup, followed by sparking off nearly two decades of constant fighting and having that power concentrated in one individual, almost guarantees difficulties of succession. That's too long a period for having to fight constant wars, with not nearly enough peace that would be required in order to establish the dynasty.

And it would be too simplistic just to blame the "bad" Allies. Any expectation of the rival European powers to just roll over and play dead in humbled awe, after having run roughshod over their interests and influence, is just naive. They had every right to look to their own interests too, and you could count on them to push back when given the chance, as they did.

I think Boney would have been more successful had he played a longer, more subtle game. But his character, as well as his need to enhance his own domestic standing, made this unlikely. He very much reaped what he had sown.

What I really can't forgive Napoleon for is coming to power in the first place.

After the Terror had subsided, I believe France was- albeit ever so imperfectly and slowly- evolving into some kind of functioning democracy. There would have been a lot of speedbumps along the way certainly, but evolution is just that, and it takes time.

But with his coup, Napoleon set this back years and instead chose to replace it with basically what came before, a pretty much absolute monarchy. And as it turned out millions died in the process not just in France but across Europe. Indeed, as others have mentioned progressives in places as far apart as the United Kingdom and Russia were to lose ground in the inevitable reaction.

I find it ironic that in turn Napoleon would end up in the same boat himself, that of wanting more time to consolidate his own regime but finding that others were no longer in the mood to grant any.

I'd the first to admit that from a wargamer's point of view I suppose the absence of Napoleon on the scene would have been a loss. And yes, he had his legacy; from Napoleon we get the law reforms and the metric system just to name a few.

Of course, La gloire always gets better press than does constitutional development, especially in a forum like this one. But who knows- on the whole I can't help but to wonder whether France may potentially have lost as much, if not more, than it may have gained through having had Napoleon on the throne.

The Directory was a crooked disaster. In 1799 it lost almost all of France's holdings in Italy, was barely holding its own on the Rhine and in Switzerland because the guys in charge were even stealing from the army. Indeed France was more a criminal enterprise than a government

The French people were angry and frustrated by the oppressive taxes the Directory imposed. Almost every mayor and town council in France was crooked. These guys, from the lowest government official to the highest were bankrupting France for their own gain.

Napoleon's Inspector General system which was decried by the allies and represented as part of Napoleon's secret police were feared and hated by the crooks whom they relentlessly rooted out. Had Napoleon not become head of state the most likely outcome would have been anarchy not democracy.

Bob Coggins

In a European context, "conservatism" has typically meant (or at least included): the support for a strong centralized government. Napoleon is in many ways the father of modern European conservatism.

But it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance for a person to believe himself to be a libertarian, or small-government conservative, and yet also admire Napoleon.

A government that took control of religion by organizing it into state-run and state-funded Consistoria, regulating everything down to the number of nuns who can live in each convent, or precisely how a rabbi must hold his Torah during a service.

A state that took control of the private media, shutting down all but a handful of publications, and replacing them with state-controlled versions so that only the state's official information is distributed, and thus anything else is illegal and will result in your arrest and possible execution.

A state that paid secret police to monitor bars and inns, and to report what people said while drinking with their buddies. (The arrest records of the police offer a profusion of, "Jean Malcorps, Barber, Age 37, Toasted the health of the Duke of So-and-So.")

And of course the Napoleonic state took "eminent domain" to a new level, confiscating the property of individuals and institutions in ways and quantities never experienced under the Old Regime.

The Old Regime had been content to let various regions do their own thing, as long as they paid taxes (or whatever idiosyncratic equivalent they'd negotiated) and didn't plot against the king. But squashing regional differences and bringing everybody into line with the central government was the sine qua non of Napoleonic administration. As you read the police and court records from this period, it is fascinating how often the gendarmes roll into town to confiscate people's guns.

Doing all this requires a huge new bureaucracy, a massively enlarged central government. It's very expensive, and thus everybody's taxes go up.

However, the obvious effectiveness of this model inspired many European regimes to copy it, in order to strengthen their own states and authority. The result was a period of repression across Europe that lasted at least until 1848, and in many places much longer.

The next time anybody feels like complaining about a big, overbearing central state that wants to raise his taxes, and regulate his property, media, weapons, local governance, or religious beliefs…. Please refer to this:

link

this all just confirms my belief that only complete nitwits ask questions about the 'greatest', 'best', 'good', 'bad' etc .

its a bit like schoolboy superhero debates – my money was always on atom ant, FWIW.

The next time anybody feels like complaining about a big, overbearing central state that wants to raise his taxes, and regulate his property, media, weapons, local governance, or religious beliefs…. Please refer to this…

I thought you were talking about the modern America and/or European Union…

European Union – shudder – Napoleon would be proud of it, eh :)

Re. Boer War concentration camps

It is hilarious enough that these are trotted out to excuse / defend / deflect attention from Kruger's invasions of Natal and the Cape Colony in 1899 – even more so when they are dredged up in an attempt to 'prove' that the British were the baddies in the Napoleonic War.

Though this has been covered a million times before, it seems the old Apartheid era propaganda still appeals to a certain section* today… so let's do a re-cap:

People were not 'interned' in the camps: other than a night time curfew, they could come and go pretty much as they wished. Many worked in neighbouring towns – indeed, the British policy that camp residents should receive preferential treatment for work caused annoyance to the loyalist locals.
Where possible, families were placed with relatives / people with spare rooms, rather than in the camps.
Many of the Boers in the camps retained their servants – perhaps the only 'internment camps' in history where people had domestic workers.
Many of the residents were employed as camp guards / police – some of these died defending their camps from Boer attack.
Many young ladies were trained as nurses in the camps – a profession virtually unheard of in the pre-war Boer republics.
All the camps had well stocked shops which did a bumper trade.
Almost twice as many children attended school in the camps than had in both pre-war Boer republics combined.
People did not starve to death in the camps: they died of measles and other diseases which were rife in Southern Africa at the time – 13,720 Imperial soldiers also died of disease during the war. Who can we blame for that?
After the measles epidemic had passed, the mortality rate in the camps was lower than in many British towns of the time.
The first time anyone wrote about finding 'ground up glass' in the food provided in the camps (as the expense of the British tax payer) was in 1930: it is quite simply a fabrication. Why would the camp authorities try to poison / harm the inmates, while at the same time paying massive salaries to attract doctors to come to South Africa to work in the camps?

The residents in the black camps were of course 'no threat' to the British – they (like tens of thousands of Afrikaners who wanted nothing to do with the on-going guerrilla war) were housed in camps to protect them from being murdered by Boer Bitter-Einders. Many arrived at British garrisons, pleading for help after Boer raiders had burned down their kraals.

But don't take my word for it: let me quote Boer General, Louis Botha, speaking near the end of the war:
"one is only too thankful nowadays to know that our wives are under English protection"

*Those who enjoy this propaganda the most are often very liberal people – their determination to come up with any stick to beat the 'wicked' British Empire with means they are happy to jump into bed with the Apartheid regime. Very bizarre.

What a cracking post, well done that man. :) And God bless the Empire.

its a bit like schoolboy superhero debates – my money was always on atom ant, FWIW.

Exactly… Although I always have been partial to Daredevil.

What side had the best looking women? They were probably the good guys.

Scandanavia.

But then they were on both sides!!
What a pickle.

Scandanavian pickle … Sounds like a wargamers snack.