"Napoleon the Jacobin?" Topic

Flecktarn

What, your friend gets bitten by a Wombat and you laughed? With friends like that, eh?

Hot air balloons? Really? If it is windy it could takes days to complete the duel. How about submarines?

Chouan

Wellington changes his surname to better himself and that is fine, according to you.

Napoleon changes his name to better himself but that isn't acceptable to you?

That sounds like the reasoning of a full blown hypocrite, but perhaps not unexpected.

You did not say anything about the Royals surame being completely changed? How come? By what surname would you call them?

Waterloo film – good portrayal of Napoleon losing I'd say. :)

Anyway, we seem to be all happy with Whitby – I'd suggest a meet, couple of pints overlooking the harbour, lunch at the pie shop, more pints, fish & chip dinner, more pints, a race up the steps to the abbey, a roll down the steps, half hour to recover, then more pints.

Chaoun – I know the one, the pie shop is just round the corner from it, towards the car park. Good fish shop & cafe that, never had a bad one in it. Opposite, almost, the toy shop that sells paints & flock etc.

The last time that I was in Whitby was for the 1997 Centenary Dracula Festival; I have no memory whatever of either pie shops or chip shops, which I blame entirely on the actions of the various assorted musicians that I was there with:(.

Like Arthur Brown, for example? A son of Whitby.

Him indeed! A charming man who seems to have magical powers with regard to the fairer sex:). He is also a master of wind-up phone calls:).

"Wellington changes his surname to better himself and that is fine, according to you."

No, Wellington's family changed it's name, not the Peer himself. However, that he was created Duke of Wellington by his grateful King makes THAT name change acceptable to me.

"Napoleon changes his name to better himself but that isn't acceptable to you?"

He can call himself what he likes; I prefer to use his actual family name. That he decided to call himself Napoleon, and crown himself Emperor is irrelevant.
I shan't reply to your intemperate comments.

"You did not say anything about the Royals surame being completely changed? How come? By what surname would you call them?"

Anything they want. George V thought his family name might be Guelf, but wasn't sure. Saxe Coburg Gotha wasn't the family name, it was the German state that they came from.

Gazzola

Further to what Chouan says, I do not think one can say it was the 'surname' of the Royals that 'completely changed', as the idea of the Royals having a surname only came into being in 1917 – before that it was the name of the 'House' to which they belonged.

This makes interesting reading if you want to learn more:

link

A much under-rated musician. I saw him in the early 70's with his then band "Kingdom Come", whom I thought brilliant, yet he never seemed to attract the recognition or commercial success that his talent deserved.

BullDog69

Yes, they changed their name solely to Windsor from Saxe Coburg Gotha because they did not want to appear German. Yes, you usually only refer to them as king, Queen, Prince etc.

But the point was that Chouan thinks it okay for them and the Duke of Wellington's surname to bechanged, but Napoleon had no right to drop a few letters, to look less Italian. The point is that Chouan is coming over as a biased hypocrite.

Peeler

Think of Waterloo and you think of Napoleon – then you think of the side players, who, without him and the continued interest in him, would have been long forgotten people. Such is life, eh?

Gazzola

I don't think Chouan ever said that Napoleon had 'no right' to change his name – only that one can reasonably refer to him by any of the various names he used throughout his career without anyone needing to get their knickers in a twist.

Chouan

You are so funny.

We can all see what IS acceptable to you and what isn't. Your own posts expose you as being nothing more than a biased hyopcrite and your posts will always be seen as such.

"Yes, they changed their name solely to Windsor from Saxe Coburg Gotha because they did not want to appear German. Yes, you usually only refer to them as king, Queen, Prince etc."

They had no family name, as was pointed out to you. When the idea of a family name was mooted, George V chose Windsor. As a young man his name wasn't George Saxe Coburg Gotha; in the Navy he was referred to as Midshipman, then Lieutenant Wales

The repeated name calling I will note, but otherwise ignore.

Chouan,

Arthur is indeed a great talent; it is a pity that his career never reached the heights that it should have, but such is the fate of so many musicians:(.

Gazzola, you amusing little bundle of bellybutton fluff,

You really do make me chuckle; I return from a rather dull meeting to find that you have posted further gems of humour. Your ability to see in others all of your own faults is really quite startling, especially as you fail to see them in yourself.

I think that it would help you to make your case if you stopped insulting the people who disagree with you; it is not a good trait.

Flechtarn

Firstly, it is not my fault, honest, that you had a dull meeting. Perhaps you should try making them more fun? Or not turn up. Play a wargame instead? See how helpful I am.

And 'someone' posted that insulting people, dead or alive, was a bit of fun – remember? So chill out silly. No one, as far as I know, really hates anyone posting here. I know I don't.

By the way, I have apologised in another thread to Chouan. Do try to keep up, there's good boy.

Chouan

Making excuses for The Duke of Wellington's family and the Royal family for changing their surnames but not accepting it for Napoleon, who only dropped a few letters, does, I'm sorry to say, make you appear biased and a hypocrite. I'm not saying that you are – but that's how it looks. My opinion, of course , so feel free to disagree.

Gazzola, you wonderful package of birdsong on a bright morning,

I have come to the conclusion that you do not actually exist, but are a product of our imaginations, placed here by us to provide humour and enjoyment in an otherwise sombre and serious forum. If we stop believing in you, you will vanish and all memory of you will disappear with you.

Flecktarn

Sadly, I was wrong to apologise to Chouan because I was right about him in the first place. Hope that doesn't confuse you even more.

But I suggest you try to take it easy, relax – have a cup of tea. I will try not to post to you again – not just because you seem to get confused too easily but also because too much space and time has already been wasted.

"
Making excuses for The Duke of Wellington's family and the Royal family for changing their surnames but not accepting it for Napoleon, who only dropped a few letters, does, I'm sorry to say, make you appear biased and a hypocrite. I'm not saying that you are – but that's how it looks. My opinion, of course , so feel free to disagree."

Very hypocritical.
Like. Getting upset by some people insulting "Napoleonic Dead" but being non plussed by others insulting other Napoleonic dead. Even just singling out Napoleonic dead as being immune to criticism is a little hypocritical.
Or saying rabidly anti Napoleon historians are bad, but rabidly pro ones are good/balanced.
Or surpressing any negitivity about Napoleon as "Boney Bashing" but saying nothing in the face of Anglophobia, Napoleon Fan Boydom, Bernadotte bashing ect ect.

Lots of that going around.

So far I cannot see even anyone insulting Napoléon – instead writing the truth, this seemingly is offending some people here.

It is sufficient not to be a fellower of Napoléon to be eligible for insults – like Bernadotte, Moreau, Marmont, or being a scapegoat for the master mistakes of N – like Dupont or Grouchy and even Ney.

"Making excuses for The Duke of Wellington's family and the Royal family for changing their surnames but not accepting it for Napoleon, who only dropped a few letters, does, I'm sorry to say, make you appear biased and a hypocrite. I'm not saying that you are – but that's how it looks. My opinion, of course , so feel free to disagree."

Thank you, I do indeed disagree, and I thought that I'd made my reasons clear, obviously not. Wellington's parents changed their name, whether I agree or not is irrelevant as I don't refer to him as either Wesley or Wellesley, but as Wellington, as he was awarded that title by his King, the legitimate monarch; whose legitimacy is key.
Buonaparte changed his name and style himself, calling himself Napoleon, and assuming illegitimately the style of Emperor, thus re-establishing the (a) monarchy in doing so. It was not a legitimate act, but was a self-created act, therefore Britain at the time, and I now, refer to him as Buonaparte.
It was no more a legitimate act than any other dictator changing their style from Prime Minister to Duce, or Commander in Chief to Caudillo, or President of the Central African Republic (Jean Bokassa) to Emperor. Just because one has the military might to impose that style upon one's people doesn't mean that it is a legitimate act.

I always refer to him as Napoleon out of force of habit, but am interested if those who get so agitated about anyone not addressing him in the most 'correct' and 'deferential' (self-appointed) fashion possible also extend this bizarre obsequiousness to Idi Amin, demanding that everyone must only ever refer to him by his similarly self-appointed title: 'His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular'?

And if not, why not?

Incidentally, in Amin's fantasy world, his self-awarded VC was actually a 'Victorious Cross' and his CBE was awarded (by himself) as 'Conqueror of the British Empire'. Entertaining and amusing for sure, but any worse than declaring yourself Emperor?

Imagine that – some chap making himself royalty & awarding himself his own decorations & titles & so on. How ridiculous eh!!

I like the "Dada" bit though. :)

Incidentally, in Amin's fantasy world, his self-awarded VC was actually a 'Victorious Cross' and his CBE was awarded (by himself) as 'Conqueror of the British Empire'. Entertaining and amusing for sure, but any worse than declaring yourself Emperor?

I don't know about 'worse', but very different from Bonaparte. Napoleon was 'given' the title, granted through a huge French plebacide, which is very different.

Certainly, the title of Emperor was his idea, but then when wasn't it an idea originated by someone wanting the title in every case? That was the origin of the other two Emperors, Holy Roman, ne Austrian Emperor, and the Tsar. Self-granted titles. The original Emperor and Tsar simply assumed those titles, with all the proper and expected pomp, justifications and circumstance. They'd just passed the title down to more offspring etc. than Napoleon. Unlike Amin, Napoleon ruled lands equal in strength to the Austrian and Russian Emperors at the time. Different kind of 'declaration'…

McLaddie

Yes – fair point on the way that the passage of time somehow 'legitimises' a title and I think that's where the difference / scepticism comes in.

I'm not sure how many generations it would have taken to legitimise the Amin family title, though…

"Imagine that – some chap making himself royalty & awarding himself his own decorations & titles & so on. How ridiculous eh!!"

It's a really interesting aspect of Napoleon's career that doesn't get a lot of historical scholarship: why "Emperor" ? How did he arrive at that decision, and why did he think it was a good idea?

Up to that point he'd been using republican symbology, in keeping with the Revolution's embrace of ancient Roman motifs. But he was clearly angling toward something more aristocratic. He became a "Consul," after all, not a Tribune.

The way Octavian did it, was to keep all the Republican titles and institutions in place, and just layer-over them with his new effective role as "Princeps." And that eventually evolved, effectively, into a position of "emperor." But Napoleon chose faster, a more radical solution, writing a new constitution, creating a new structure, titles, and hierarchy. Was he just impatient? Or did his highly-organized mind not have much faith in gradual, evolutionary solutions that weren't part of a plan or under his control?

Over the past 15 years or so, as I've been researching the impact of the Empire in the satellite states, I've increasingly had the feeling that Napoleon is a sort of Frankenstein, losing control of his monster. The imperial system starts to devour itself as early as 1807. If I'm not mistaken, 1806 is the last balanced budget. From 1807 on, he's dependent upon plunder and confiscation, which creates an unsustainable vicious circle: the ever-increasing military requires more money, which can only be obtained by conquering new lands and extracting wealth from them in "contributions," which then must be garrisoned to maintain France's ability to do those extractions, which requires an ever-larger military….

Through it all, I can't detect any genuine ideology on Napoleon's part, other than staying in power.

Emulation of Charlemagne, with the implication of a unified Europe? link

Regards

You think he was really thinking of conquering / unifying all Europe as early as 1804? I have my doubts about that. I think that concept came later, after the military victories required a sort of moral / historical justification and context to maintain the French presence from Spain to Poland.

I don't think it is an accident in timing. in 1804 the Holy Roman Empire was dismantled by Napoleon. In May of that year Napoleon put out the idea of becoming Emperor of the French. Then Francis, having lost his Holy Roman Emperor title, made himself the Emperor of the Austrians.

Becoming Emperor made him equal to the Austrian and Russian monarchs, while avoiding the title 'king' which still had a negative resonance with the French…

It also increased his powers which were at least theoretically curtailed by the station of "Consul."

I'm sure that ego had nothing to do with his decision.

The Holy Roman Empire became defunct in 1806, not 1804. It was a direct result of Austerlitz and the defeat of the Austrians and Russians and the organization of the Confederation of the Rhine, not Napoleon becoming Emperor.

B

Why Emperor? Perhaps the following might help:

From Cronin's biography:

‘The plots to kill Napoleon raised a fundamental problem…Napoleon had claimed to embody the French revolution, and there was much truth in that claim. In 1802, on the initiative of Cambacered and as a sign of gratitude for giving France peace and the Concordat, the assemblies had declared Napoleon Consul for life…Napoleon then had been designated the Republic's chief magistrate for the rest of his life. He embodied in a unique way not only the Revolution but the Republic which had been hammered out of the Revolution. Suppose, however, asked Frenchmen, that Napoleon's coachman had not been tipsy or Moreau had agreed to work with Cadoudal? Suppose Napoleon were to fall in battle or fall to another assassin's dagger? The Republic would then collapse: it would be either the Bourbons, a military dictatorship, or the Jacobins with their guillotine…The problem, then, was how to make the Republic more secure, and in particular, should the thin thread of a man's life be cut, how to achieve continuity.'-244-245.

‘They want to kill Bonaparte; we must defend him and make him immortal.'-Councillor Regnault.-245.

‘He [Napoleon] has only his sword, and it is a scepter that one hands on.'-a Royalist agent.-245

‘Early in 1802 a colonel named Bonneville Ayral published a pamphlet entitled ‘My Opinion on the Reward due Bonaparte.' In it he urged the French people to proclaim Napoleon Bonaparte first emperor of the Gauls, and settle the hereditary power in his family. Newspaper articles, speeches and letters to the Government began to express a similar view. The wish to make Napoleon emperor originated in the French people's desire to acclaim the man they considered a hero, to raise him higher and higher. The feeling increased with each plot discovered…'-245.

‘After the Cadoudal plot Napoleon began to take seriously the demands that he should enshringe his magistrature in an awe-inspiring title that could be handed on through his family. He looked at the matter from the point of view of a convinced Republican. The word ‘empire' was already in use to designate all French conquests outside France, and it did not conflict with the notion of ‘republic': indeed, the famous song, ‘Let us guard the welfare of the empire,' had been chanted by Republicans in the early years of the Revolution…Napoleon, then, saw nothing objectionable to republican feeling in the word ‘emperor.' It was merely a change of title which would establish in the eyes of the world the legality and continuity of the Republic.'-245.

B

'Buonaparte changed his name and style himself, calling himself Napoleon, and assuming illegitimately the style of Emperor, thus re-establishing the (a) monarchy in doing so. It was not a legitimate act, but was a self-created act, therefore Britain at the time, and I now, refer to him as Buonaparte. It was no more a legitimate act than any other dictator changing their style from Prime Minister to Duce, or Commander in Chief to Caudillo, or President of the Central African Republic (Jean Bokassa) to Emperor. Just because one has the military might to impose that style upon one's people doesn't mean that it is a legitimate act.'

The legitimacy came from the French people, which was in accordance with the ideas of the time, the Age of Reason.

For the retention of the spelling of Bonaparte with a 'u', perhaps the following will be of use:

From The First Napoleon by John C. Ropes, Appendix IX, Lecture VII, On Dr. Edward A Freeman's Continuing to Use the Name ‘Buonaparte' in his Histories.

‘It is curious and not a little amusing to see the persistency with which some English writers of today retain the petty prejudices of a former time. Dr Edward A Freeman, to whose historical researches in many fields the world is much indebted, evidently enjoys speaking of Napoleon by his family surname. In fact, he will not even allow his victim to decide for himself how that name ought to be spelled. In the ‘General Sketch of European History' (London: Macmillan & Co., 1874, pp.329 et seq.), Buonaparte (sic) is spoken of as ‘calling himself' Consul, Emperor of the French, and King of Italy. Whether he ever was the First Consul of France; whether it is or is not to speak of himself as Emperor of the French and King of Italy, are questions which do seem in the least to trouble Dr Freeman. To him, an Englishman, this objectionable foreigner, having started in life as a private citizen possessing the family name of Buonaparte, Buonaparte he shall remain, as Dr Freeman wills, no matter what may have been the world's recognition of the titles he assumed, or the posts he filled. I had at one time thought that this extraordinary refusal to give to the ruler of France the rank which was accorded to him by all the states of Continental Europe might be accounted for by the fact that the English government never recognized Napoleon the First as Emperor of the French. But this theory I find untenable; for when Dr Freeman comes to speak of the Third Napoleon, whose title was not only recognized by England as by the other powers, but who was the ally of England in the Crimean War, was received at Windsor Castle and received the Queen at the Tuileries, he gives him no more decent treatment than he gave to his uncle. It is Buonaparte (sic) who becomes a prisoner at Sedan (p. 351). I recall nothing quite so good as this, except the conduct of the jacobins in calling Louis XVI and Marie Antionette Citoyen and Citoyenne Capet.' 338-339.

B

Again, thank you for finding and quoting from writers with whom you are in agreement. Unfortunately, that you can find secondary sources that you agree with doesn't advance your argument, or strengthen your case.
Just to clarify, "The legitimacy came from the French people", by whoever the author is, is merely the author's opinion. Buonaparte held power by military force, having seized power in a coup, backed by the army. If you think that is legitimacy you have a strange idea of what legitimacy means.

Perhaps you can define the term and idea of 'legitimacy' in your context?

All I have seen from you is opinion, backed by few or no source material. So your point is moot.

Napoleon was not the originator of the coup of 1799. He was recruited, and the choices were a bit grim-either conduct a coup in an attempt to improve the government, let it be given back to the Bourbons which was what Barras wanted to do (and he attempted to recruit Napoleon for that exercise and Napoleon refused), or let the Jacobins, the radicals, back into power and have a replay of the Terror.

And everyone understood that the army had to be involved to some extent as it was one of the only stable organizations in the country.

This time the coup worked and it was to France's benefit because of the reforms instituted that not only solidified the social gains of the Revolution but it gave France a stable government, economy, currency, a new, better education system and the Church was brought back in. The French people agreed with these changes and so accepted the coup and legitimized it.

The previous governments had broken the social contract which the conspirators understood. The Americans had done the same thing in 1775-1783, though the procedures were somewhat different. The principles, however, were not. All had read Montisquieu, Locke, and Rousseau and understood what was behind the revolutions concerned.

As for the sources I have offered, if you don't agree then offer some of your own. I do, however, understand how busy you are and I wouldn't want to disturb your lunch.

B

Perhaps you can define the term and idea of 'legitimacy' in your context?

All I have seen from you is opinion, backed by few or no source material. So your point is moot.

Napoleon was not the originator of the coup of 1799. He was recruited by one of the Directors, and the choices were a bit grim-either conduct a coup in an attempt to improve the government, let it be given back to the Bourbons which was what Barras wanted to do (and he attempted to recruit Napoleon for that exercise and Napoleon refused), or let the Jacobins, the radicals, back into power and have a replay of the Terror.

And everyone understood that the army had to be involved to some extent as it was one of the only stable organizations in the country.

This time the coup worked and it was to France's benefit because of the reforms instituted that not only solidified the social gains of the Revolution but it gave France a stable government, economy, currency, a new, better education system and the Church was brought back in. The French people agreed with these changes and so accepted the coup and legitimized it.

The previous governments had broken the social contract which the conspirators understood. The Americans had done the same thing in 1775-1783, though the procedures were somewhat different. The principles, however, were not. All had read Montisquieu, Locke, and Rousseau and understood what was behind the revolutions concerned.

As for the sources I have offered, if you don't agree then offer some of your own. I do, however, understand how busy you are and I wouldn't want to disturb your lunch.

B