"Governing by the Rule of Law" Topic

"Seems to me if there is an emergency situation, emergency measures are called for, such as some of Lincoln's actions during the American Civil War, such as the threatened reprisal shootings of Confederate prisoners and the suspension of habeas corpus…"

So Lincoln acting tyrannically is the defense of Napoleon not being a tyrant?

EDIT: Too provocative on my part. Pardon.

I still see Napoleon has seized power without legal right. Is that true or false?

'So Lincoln acting tyrannically is the defense of Napoleon not being a tyrant?'

I suggest that you're missing the point. It has already been shown, accepted or not, that Napoleon governed by the rule of law and was therefore not a tyrant by definition.

And what does 'legal right' mean in the context of 1799? France was a mess and the government falling apart. The real question is, what should have been done? Bring back the Bourbons with all their baggage?

The Directors themselves were acting illegally, and to Sieyes mind something had to be done to 'save the Republic.' The absence of law and order in France was critical, perhaps epidemic, and the threat to the nation was great.

My question to you is, what was to be done?

B

I don't really care what was to be done. I am simply pointing out that Napoleon was by definition a tyrant.

You have not disproved that by saying "what else should he have done".

'I don't really care what was to be done. I am simply pointing out that Napoleon was by definition a tyrant.
You have not disproved that by saying "what else should he have done".'

You cannot, either historically or logically, look at a situation without considering what was going on around the event or incident, which is what you're doing.

The coup was not Napoleon's idea and he didn't take over until after it was accomplished. And the situation in France has to be considered.

And you have not proven that Napoleon was a tyrant, and by the manner in which he ruled, as a civilian head of state governing by the rule of law, he was not by definition a tyrant.

You're making assumptions based on today, not 1799, from situations that were not as they were 200 years ago. The US had its governmental crisis early, and it was solved by a violent revolution then completely remaking the government. That is much closer to what Napoleon and his colleagues faced in 1799.

Keep it in context and without 20/20 hindsight.

B

B

I am making presumptions based upon the accepted definition of tyrant in the English language. Citing two well known dictionaries of the same to support my argument.

You have not argued against that black and white fact only offered shades of grey and saying the rules did not apply to Napoleon.

Are you saying the dictionaries are wrong?

Tyrant is perhaps a label to hang around a character before attacking or denegrating him or her.

One question. Was the rule of the American Colonies by George III by law ? or was he a tyrant? Discuss.

"Rule of law" means exactly what it says: the law is supreme. The ruler is not above the law.

That does not generally apply to dictators or absolute monarchs. For example, during the years 1804-14:

* Can anybody give an example of Napoleon wanting to do something, but being prevented from doing so, by some law?

* Can anybody give an example of Napoleon's Senate saying "No" to some law that he submitted for their review and vote?

* Can anbody give an example of Napoleon issuing a decree or an order and being informed that he could not do such-and-such, because it was not legal?

Those questions have been asked ad nauseam, and remain unanswered. The other questions earlier on this thread, also stand unanswered. For example:

* if the Constitution includes a pledge by the monarch to respect the political liberties of the citizens, but then the monarch arrests or kills citizens for criticizing his politics… then is he governing according to the rule of law?

* regarding the Palm case, which Kevin brought up: what pre-existing French law in 1806 made legal the arrest and/or execution of non-citizens outside France, for the crime of criticizing the emperor?

The OP has never been inclined to address, nor even acknowledge, questions whose answers are unflattering to Napoleon, so I do not expect any answers this time around, either. But to all reasonable observers, the answers are very obvious.

Judge Nap: "I am the Law"? Coming to a theatre near you this Fall.

Seems that way from this thread.

Is this the same as other rulers of his epoch? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Was he more even handed than others of his epoch? Perhaps, perhaps not.

That is where the grey areas lay.

hmmm, lets compare and contrast.

1) Evil Tyrannical British Monarch – Prince Regent/George IV
vs
2) That Paragon of the Rule of Law, Emperor by Consent, Genius etc etc. Napoleon.

1) Who was ridiculed the most ?
Based on my limited knowledge of the British press at the time I would say likely 50/50 on that one.

2) Who ordered any detractors shot or detained ?
umm so that Paragon of the Rule of Law certainly did, not aware that Prinny did. Would be interested if there was a case.

Rest my case mlud.

If anyone wants to take a look at how Napoleon exercised his powers as head of state I would heartily recommend the Memoirs of Baron Fain, published in English as Napoleon: How He Did It, taking a special look at Chapter 14, The Council of State.

Fain was present as Napoleon's secretary and describes how Napoleon took on subjects of his rule, and he was not always agreed with nor did he always get his way.

That is the same procedure that was ongoing during the drafting and discussions over the Code Civile. Napoleon presided in just over half of the sessions of the drafting of the Code, and he did not always get his way, and had to concede to the majority on several important points of the law, especially with regards to the family.

If anyone is interested in how Napoleon governed and who he listened to in that process, Fain is the best starting point that I have found.

If not, that's fine. The questions posed have been answered and the conclusion to be drawn if the time and effort is taken to attempt to understand how Napoleon's government worked and how the law was improved and codified, then the conclusion is that not only was Napoleon not a tyrant, he governed by the rule of law.

B

"…then the conclusion is that not only was Napoleon not a tyrant, he governed by the rule of law."

A conclusion that is utterly contrary to the evidence; how much longer do we have to put up with this biased hagiographic nonsense from Brechtel the self-appointed expert?

Napoleon did codify and improve the law, which was a good thing; however, he then proceeded to ignore it and act outside it except where it suited his purpose, which is NOT governing by the rule of law.

I beg your pardon, but no one on this forum has ever claimed to be an expert.

That comment, which you have now made more than once, is not only inaccurate, as I have not 'self-appointed' myself anything.

Your accusation is not only insulting to the forum as a whole, it is utter nonsense and can be considered either baiting or trolling.

You really shouldn't judge others by your own low standards.

As to your ideas of governing by the rule of law regarding Napoleon, if you don't agree then post something factual that actually refutes the position I have taken and supported by evidence. If you can't or won't do that, then your postings are moot and you're not contributing anything to the discussion.

Other than that, I would suggest that you keep a civil tongue in your head and not make ad hominem statements/attacks.

B

As Nelson would say to his gunners… "Steady boys, steady".

Noted.

I found this quotation a few days ago regarding Napoleon:

'His life was the stride of a demi-god, from battle to battle, and from victory to victory.'-Goethe, 1828.

And a more pointed one by Napoleon:

'It is not sufficient that the soldier must shoot, he must shoot well.'

B

Brechtel,

There have been numerous posts in several threads pointing out how Napoleon either ignored the law or worked outside it unless it suited him. However, you seem to choose to ignore those so there is little point in posting any more. It appears that the low standards are yours, especially when it comes to objectivity.

Your posts do seem to become incredibly pompous and arrogant when you are challenged; I wonder why that is? You seem to become very upset when people point out the inaccuracies in your posts, especially when those inaccuracies are rooted in your partial view of Napoleon.

As for your suggestion on keeping a civil tongue in my head, apart from pointing out the obvious error in that, I will happily point out to you that you have also been guilty of rough play in the past. Like most bullies it seems that you can dish it out but not take it.

It is a pity that Goethe did not mention the defeats. By the way, what is such a quote supposed to prove?

"'His life was the stride of a demi-god, from battle to battle, and from victory to victory.'-Goethe, 1828."

"Interesting. Did you find this already translated or did you translate it yourself?"

— Kevin Kiley, 14 July, 7:18 AM

Flecktarn,

Thanks very much for proving my point.

Your continued posting in this manner doesn't add anything to the collective knowledge of the forum, and it seems to me it is just to provoke a fight.

I don't intend to have one with you, so you might as well move on to 'greener pastures.'

B

Brechtel,

I am not sure how your inaccuracies, which are based on a partial view of Napoleon, add anything to the collective knowledge of the forum.

You really do not like having your failings pointed out to you, do you?

Am I the only one who finds it strange that somebody would start a thread allegedly on the topic of "the rule of law," and then do everything possible to avoid discussing that topic, trying to change the subject, trying to distract from the topic with various tangents, or steadfastly refusing to answer direct questions about that topic?

If the subject really is "did Napoleon govern according to the rule of law?" then it's straightforward and can be answered by simple direct questions regarding specific laws and specific actions. Those very simple direct questions about specific laws and specific actions have been laid out at least half a dozen times, but never answered.

However, if the subject is: "how many cherry-picked bits of quotes can we assemble from people who express opinions favorable to my hero," then I don't see much point in the umpteenth re-run of that show.

References have been given to you as well as general information on where to go to search for information on the general subject. Information on the Code sessions was also given to you. The subject has been both commented upon and anwered.

If you haven't the time nor inclination to look at the material given, and merely make comments in a circular argument, then attempting to have an actual discussion is ludicrous. Further, as your mind is made up without looking at the references as the subject is quite large, then there really isn't any point, now is there?

The continued comments about cherry-picking apply to yourself more than anyone else. You've given lists of quotations without any source reference and believe that to be sufficient to your point of view. It isn't, but you may think as you like.

We'll have to agree to disagree once again.

B

"'Here is an example from an "A Level" exam paper from about 5 years ago; The students had to read the sources and answer the questions.
"SOURCE 2
(From a letter of Napoleon to Marshal Berthier, 7 September 1807, about an incident in French-occupied Prussia)
You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. You will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and this requires that the two chief culprits be shot. Marshal Soult is to inform his Prussian opposite number of the base and despicable character of which I have had to complain, and of the precise terms in which I have demanded satisfaction." Rule of Law? Or Rule by Decree?'

Interesting. Did you find this already translated or did you translate it yourself?

Here is the version published by JC Herold in The Mind of Napoleon, which is somewhat different (I haven't found the original in French):

'Letter to Berthier, 1807:'

'Send a special courier to Marshal Soult to acquaint him with the event that has occurred at Konigsberg, where two actors, who appeared on the stage in the roles of French officers, have been hissed. You will inform Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the king of Prussia for this insult and that I have requested him to have the chief guilty parties shot.'

And is there a reply to this request and what was the final outcome?

B"

It was, as I indicated, taken from an A Level History examination paper. On the other hand, what difference does it make whether I translated or another? The meaning in the version in Herold (In translation) is almost identical; Buonaparte demands that the guilty parties be shot. Is that the rule of law? or the rule of main force? As has been said elsewhere, I wouldn't like to live under a regime where the head of state can order executions at will, without reference to the process of the law. Wasn't it that kind of thing that the Revolutionaries wanted to get rid of? Lettres de Cachet etc. Even if the Jacobins got a bit overenthusiastic at times they almost invariably ruled by law, not by personal annoyance. I can't remember, offhand, any example of a victim of the terror being executed simply because they'd annoyed the head of state!

"References have been given to you as well as general information on where to go to search for information on the general subject. Information on the Code sessions was also given to you. The subject has been both commented upon and anwered.

If you haven't the time nor inclination to look at the material given, and merely make comments in a circular argument, then attempting to have an actual discussion is ludicrous. Further, as your mind is made up without looking at the references as the subject is quite large, then there really isn't any point, now is there?

The continued comments about cherry-picking apply to yourself more than anyone else. You've given lists of quotations without any source reference and believe that to be sufficient to your point of view. It isn't, but you may think as you like."

Only you repeatedly ignore examples given to you, with references, here as on other threads, then present quotes from writers that you like and with whom you agree, as if they are evidence, when they aren't. You can use references to and of opinions or interpretations that support your view as support for your argument, but they aren't proof, they're just other people's opinions.

'It was, as I indicated, taken from an A Level History examination paper. On the other hand, what difference does it make whether I translated or another? The meaning in the version in Herold (In translation) is almost identical; Buonaparte demands that the guilty parties be shot. Is that the rule of law? or the rule of main force? As has been said elsewhere, I wouldn't like to live under a regime where the head of state can order executions at will, without reference to the process of the law. Wasn't it that kind of thing that the Revolutionaries wanted to get rid of? Lettres de Cachet etc. Even if the Jacobins got a bit overenthusiastic at times they almost invariably ruled by law, not by personal annoyance. I can't remember, offhand, any example of a victim of the terror being executed simply because they'd annoyed the head of state!'

A few comments…

Where you would choose to live is irrelevant and not to the point. But since you brought it up, I certainly would not choose to live in Russia, Austria, or Prussia, and of the period nations in Europe I would choose France, conscription and all; Great Britain could by as arbitrary as anywhere else and was certainly not a period democracy.

The reason I asked if the passage was a translation or just copying someone else's is because of the noted differences with the one in Herold, who to my mind is a trustworthy source.

The quotation in Herold is a request, not a demand (as it is in your version), and if you take a look at different periods in Napoleon's correspondence, such as that with Davout regarding Hamburg in 1813, Napoleon when angry tends to overstate the case depending on the situation.

After the anger passes and he is talked to reasonably, his usual common sense comes through and he sees the situation more logically and calms down. Do you have the answer to that piece of correspondence? And it is to Berthier, not to the king of Prussia. Seems to me you're taking one quote and running with it, when the situation demands that the end product of that correspondence should be looked at along with the correspondence that accompanied it.

B

'I can't remember, offhand, any example of a victim of the terror being executed simply because they'd annoyed the head of state!'

Two examples of 'annoying the head of state' during the Terror-being a noble and being condemned as a noble; army commanders who failed. There was no rule of law then, only the rules of Robespierre.

B

'Only you repeatedly ignore examples given to you, with references, here as on other threads, then present quotes from writers that you like and with whom you agree, as if they are evidence, when they aren't. You can use references to and of opinions or interpretations that support your view as support for your argument, but they aren't proof, they're just other people's opinions.'

Isn't that what any of us are doing? Supplying other people's opinions, even from primary sources?

Your argument is hollow and illogical and says absolutely nothing except ignorance of the subject on your part.

Sincerely,
M

The problem that we are facing here is that Brechtel is selecting other Napoleonphile authors who support his hypothesis and rejecting evidence which contradicts it; he then claims that his hypothesis is proven based on this very partial approach to research.

This is typical of both the hired academic who is required to generate findings which suit his or her paymaster and the politician who produces "evidence" and "data" to pursue a course of action regardless of the validity of it.

Ultimately it is intellectually dishonest, immoral and contemptible; it is an approach that has no value or worth. One cannot respect someone who behaves in this way. Some institutions would seek to withdraw higher qualifications from those who behave in such a way.

"The problem that we are facing here is that Brechtel is selecting other Napoleonphile authors who support his hypothesis and rejecting evidence which contradicts it;"

No, the 'problem' is simply Klassic K. I've seen this show for more than a dozen years. It has a predictable script, usually in eight segments:

1) Begin with a broad-brush claim or indefensible position in order to start an argument.

2) Get challenged by direct questions about primary sources and specific events, which – if answered – would be unflattering to the original position, or contradict it entirely.

3) Attempt to distract from #2 through lots of name-dropping of irrelevant books, insults, unrelated quotes, changes of subject, insults, tangents, sanctimony about the regrettable lack of civility, insults, attempts to portray the questioners as having some sort of argument or agenda that they haven't "proven", and insults.

4) Face the repeated direct questions again from #2.

5) Vanish for a while.

6) Return and repeat #3 (sometimes in an entirely new thread)

7) Face the repeated direct questions again from #2.

8) Claim that the questions have already been answered, (without specifying where or how, exactly), project his own behavior onto the questioners (i.e., they are the ones who are cherry-picking quotes, not providing sources, or not proving something-or-other), and then claim that there's no point in continuing, since the questioners obviously are making a circular argument.

Along the way, two or three of the questioners will give up in anger or frustration, having been bullied into disappearing from TMP (or whatever other forum this is happening on) altogether. New opponents will appear to replace them, and it starts all over again. When his Stifle count exceeds @150, vanish for a little while, create a new account, and return / repeat.

Yes. Its all well and good to say that with HINDSIGHT.

there is something schoolyard about all this, isn't there? I love Napoleon versus I hate The beggar… no space for real discussion, just a kinda excuse for a banal tongue poking session. Get back to yer toys, methinks.

Would it be preferable to say it with the lesser benefit of hindsight?

'there is something schoolyard about all this, isn't there? I love Napoleon versus I hate The beggar… no space for real discussion, just a kinda excuse for a banal tongue poking session.'

Bingo-right on the money. It's easier to attack the poster than the material and no real discussion will take place (the 'Klassic K' comment is typical of the genre and says more about the poster than anything else).

It usually degenerates into a 'my dog is bigger than your dog'

And my toys are waiting on my work table…great advice on your part.

B

Personally, I am somewhat ambivalent about Napoleon; he did some good things and some bad ones and was responsible for millions of deaths and a great deal of suffering. However, he was a truly great military commander until he lost his best trained troops, began to lose his touch and his sense of reality, and his enemies learned to deal with his style of warfare.

What I do object to is partiality being disguised as objectivity and staggeringly poor scholarship being represented as valid research; that is what Brechtel is guilty of.

Is that the same as lower case "hindsight"?

And Archeopteryx, I happen to know that my favorite band rulz and well, everyone else's just doesn't.

And this hasn't kept me from my toys but one does wonder at the relevance of Napoleon and the rule of law on a site dedicated to miniatures gaming…

Although I have long suspected that Messr. N. could have written the ultimate set of miniatures rules, playable, simple, and historically accurate.

Unfortunately whenever he started to lose he would first try to argue that his rules did not apply to HIM and then either cheat or claim some power play back home required his urgent attention and leave his club mates to clean up the mess.

:) touché!

"'I can't remember, offhand, any example of a victim of the terror being executed simply because they'd annoyed the head of state!'

Two examples of 'annoying the head of state' during the Terror-being a noble and being condemned as a noble; army commanders who failed. There was no rule of law then, only the rules of Robespierre."

Well Kevin, as that appears to be your name. Please give me an example of a General, any General, or any Noble, who was executed because Robespierre demanded it, and where the execution was carried out without the process of law.

Dear Kevin, you might find the examples given here of interest. They include the quote viz Konigsberg.
link

Further, Kevin, despite your requests for people to be respectful, I don't think that this is really an appropriate thing to say.
"Your argument is hollow and illogical and says absolutely nothing except ignorance of the subject on your part."
As assertions go it is weak, as an adjunct to an argument it is pitiful.

Your examples from the Napoleon Series are perhaps cherry-picked and taken out of context, as some here like to believe if they don't agree with them.

If you're really interested in the subject, then the Correspondence needs to be looked at in detail to find the outcome of the situation and what was said that prompted the comments and what happened after.

Standing alone they don't really tell us much.

B

'Please give me an example of a General, any General, or any Noble, who was executed because Robespierre demanded it, and where the execution was carried out without the process of law.'

General Jacques Moran was arrested and guillotined because he refused to drink to the health of a Jacobin leader.

General Jean Nicolas Houchard was arrested, charged with cowardice and treason and executed because he did not pursue the enemy after avictory over the Austrians and English, and lifting the siege of Dunkirk.

General Custine was arrested and guillotined for being popular with his troops. Apparently he at least had a trial.

These were all done during the Terror. Perhaps you need to take a look at Robespierre's tenure, the Representative on Mission, and the terror used against the senior leadership of the French Army during the period.

B

Using your own standards, or rather the standards that you wish to impose, do you have any references for these examples? Do you have proof that the executions were carried out without reference to a Court Martial, or a Revolutionary Tribunal? Are you sure that these were summary executions without reference to the Law?
Houchard was executed after a Court Martial for the reasons you've given. That means that it wasn't because of Robespierre's annoyance.
Custine was tried for treason, for corresponding with the Austrians, and found guilty. I don't know where you get the because he was "popular with his troops" from. In any case, he wasn't executed because he annoyed Robespierre.
James O'Moran was found guilty of treason after a trial and was executed. Again, no evidence that he dies because he's annoyed Robespierre.
You'll need to look again, I'm afraid.
As far as your closing comment, perhaps you need to look at Robespierre yourself, as you appear to have very limited knowledge of the Revolutionary period, beyond the popular view of the terror. I can, as I've offered elsewhere, recommend several books on this period that would enlighten you, or perhaps you could try to look at Aulard or the Moniteur Universelle, which some universities have copies of. I would also suggest Lucas, "The structure of the Terror: the example of Javogues and the Loire", for an understanding of the role of the Representants en Mission.

"Your examples from the Napoleon Series are perhaps cherry-picked and taken out of context, as some here like to believe if they don't agree with them.

If you're really interested in the subject, then the Correspondence needs to be looked at in detail to find the outcome of the situation and what was said that prompted the comments and what happened after.

Standing alone they don't really tell us much."

They are, of course cherry picked, but, they aren't cherry picked secondary sources, ie quotes from books that support one's view, they are cherry picked from primary sources. So, if the question is "did Buonaparte govern by rule of law?" and a series of primary sources, in this case letters, suggest that he didn't, the fact that they're cherry picked doesn't mean that they aren't valid.

Standing alone they speak volumes; they tell us a lot. If a Historian can find even a few examples from primary sources, of whatever form, of Buonaparte ignoring the law, or demanding summary or extra-judicial punishments be carried out, then the case that he didn't govern by rule of law is proven.
So, it doesn't matter if some, even most, of Buonaparte's letters, for example, don't contain evidence of extra-judicial punishments, the fact that some do, like this one:
"To Gen Lagrange, Governor of Cassel, Warsaw 13.01.07
…."The inhabitants of Hersfeld appear to be guilty. You will send a flying column of 4k men, and have the town thoroughly sacked, to punish the insult offered to the sixty men of my troops… The town of Wacht is guilty. Either it will give up the four principal authors of the revolt, or it must be burnt…..
Issue a proclamation… Indicate the men each town must give up on pain of being burnt….Visible traces must be left, to frighten the evil–intentioned in Germany. It was thus, by burning the big village of Binasco, that I kept Italy quiet, in the year IV. …""
prove that Buonaparte ruled by decree and ignored the rule of law.

Curiously enough, Kevin's (other) hero, Elting refused to use referencing to support his arguments, as some kind of anti-Historian stance, it would appear. Kevin in threads gone by defended this stance, yet his use of double standards is apparent here as well, as he appears to demand full referencing from any poster arguing against him.

His earlier comment "Isn't that what any of us are doing? Supplying other people's opinions, even from primary sources?" seems to reveal Kevin's lack of training as a Historian. A primary source isn't necessarily an opinion. A letter from Buonaparte isn't "other people's opinions", any more than a police report or a casualty return. These are records, not opinions. Of course, a letter from Buonaparte may express Buonaparte's opinion, but if Buonaparte's views are what we're after, then his opinion expressed in a letter is objective proof.

As has been said earlier about Kevin's approach, "Ultimately it is intellectually dishonest …… Some institutions would seek to withdraw higher qualifications from those who behave in such a way."
If Kevin was to write in such a way in an undergraduate essay, at York, for example, it would gain a low mark, possibly a 3rd, with comments in tutorial along the lines of "You've chosen some quotes to support your argument, what about authors who don't agree?". If it was post-graduate work it simply wouldn't be acceptable and would lead to a fail.

'Curiously enough, Kevin's (other) hero, Elting refused to use referencing to support his arguments, as some kind of anti-Historian stance, it would appear. Kevin in threads gone by defended this stance, yet his use of double standards is apparent here as well, as he appears to demand full referencing from any poster arguing against him.'

I would really like to see you support this as it is completely wrong.

As for 'heroes' neither Napoleon nor Col Elting are my personal heroes. Col Elting was a good friend for over ten years and taught me much; Napoleon I do admire as a soldier and head of state and very much admire the Grande Armee.

The continued misuse of the word 'hero' is a modern phenomena, though in this case I suspect it is only being used to degrade and condescend.

And making derogatory and demeaning remarks about a man whom was a gentleman and a scholar because you are merely attempting to get a rise out of someone else is despicable to my mind. Besides, as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

B

"And making derogatory and demeaning remarks about a man whom was a gentleman and a scholar because you are merely attempting to get a rise out of someone else is despicable to my mind. Besides, as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about."

Give me time and I'll find your comments when I remarked on Elting's lack of scholarly rigour. I'd grateful if you could point out the "derogatory and demeaning remarks" that you allege I've made. Where do get the idea from that I'm "attempting to get a rise out of someone else"? More ad hom stuff?

The logic of much of this argument escapes me.

Someone said something like: "Lincoln is like Napoleon so Napoleon is not a tyrant".

Someone else said: "So because Lincoln did XYZ then Napoleon is not a tyrant?"

This is silly. The point made here is pretty obvious. Many of the general criticisms being used in this thread for evidence for the position that Napoleon was a tyrant would also show Lincoln to be a tyrant.

Let's apply logic.

If X action equals being a tyrant and both Napoleon and Lincoln committed X action then both Napoleon and Lincoln are tyrants.

If not both Napoleon and Lincoln are tyrants then X action does not equal being a tyrant.

For that matter several other US presidents can be substituted for Lincoln in this comparison.

This is just a question of logical consistency.

Some other example actions might equal being a tyrant, but actions shared between two people who were not both tyrants are not indicative of tyranny. Thus some other criteria should be used.

To be clear, I am not taking a stance on Napoleon (or Lincoln) being a tyrant but I am criticizing the arguments being made because many are lousy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

It is very silly. That, apparently is the point of this thread. Sillyness.

The OP was directed to definitions of tyrant that included the notion that someone who seizes power extra-legally is a tyrant and then tried to argue that this did not apply to N. and that Lincoln had done extra-legal things during his grievous tenure.

Not only is Lincoln irrelevant to this thread (although very silly indeed with his top hat and squeaky voice), nothing has been offered to show that N. was legally appointed Emperor of a Republic rather than a Tyrant.

The OP was directed to definitions of tyrant that included the notion that someone who seizes power extra-legally is a tyrant

This is a general question.

and then tried to argue that this [definition of tyrant] did not apply to N. and that Lincoln had done extra-legal things during his grievous tenure.

Not only is Lincoln irrelevant to this thread

Lincoln seems relevant to the question asked of the OP, per you he was asked to apply definitions of tyranny to Napoleon and he responded by saying that Lincoln did those same things. That is pretty clear, he rejected the premise of the question, i.e. he rejected that the given definition of tyrant was in itself enough to determine if someone was a tyrant. His mentioning of Lincoln was to provide comparison evidence of his rejection of the premise.

Refuting the premise of a question does seem perfectly relevant to the question so if the question is relevant the counter-evidence to the question would be equally relevant.

Anyways, as I said in my previous post, if the criteria used to judge one can't be equally applied to another then it is not likely valid for judging either.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Maybe Napoleon fancied himself as Julius Caesar, he certainly adapoted much of that old Empire's paraphernalia… Of course Ceasar was a tyrant and a military genius. For many posters it seem that using hindsight (upper or lower case – please delete as required) from the 21st century means accepting 'liberal-democracy' as 'the end of history' – the benchmark against which all other regimes ancient or modern should be measured. But Liberal-Democracy could only triumph because of the terrible legacy of dictatorship in the the West in the 20th Century.

For Napoleon and his peers, this was all to take place in an unimaginable technological future. Looking at the world in the 1790s, the glories of Imperial Rome or even Charlemagne might seem of equal moral value.

Napoleon was undoubtedly a tyrant, but probably not a monster when measured against the norms of his time. What he failed to understand was that the weather was changing, and the seeds of people-power sown in 1776 and 1789 would create the background music for the profound changes of the 19th century – which led to republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, constitutional monarchies and eventually (after many, many millions had died) the triumph of liberal-democracy in all of the countries who contested the Napoleonic wars, bar (arguably) Russia and Turkey.

So who cares if Napoleon was a Tyrant or not? He established a legal code but he also used what the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called 'rule by exception' (decree or emergency rule) to suspend the law when he was concerned about its outcome. His legacy is the spine of a legal code which has survived to this day – and that is an achievement. But his form of Imperial government by decree across all Europe did not survive in an era when the idea of 'power to the people' was growing, and was largely interpreted as ethno-nationalism, which led to revolutions across South America and Europe throughout the 19th Century, but also led to the terrible wars of the last century too. Interestingly the European Union is largely a response to those horrors, and has re-introduced some of the pan-Europeanism that Napoleon hankered for.

I'm a Brit and think that the political conception of the EU is probably not for us. But, like Winston Churchill, I can see its attractiveness as a mechanism to suppress dangerous ethno-nationalism in Europe. This too maybe a Napoleonic legacy?

For me the real issue is whether I should use all these extra Victrix imperial guardsmen to make the Italian guard or Oudinot's Grenadier division?

The general answer again is "sillyness".

When even the meaning of terms cannot be agreed upon, and when the description of this board is:

"Napoleonic Discussion – For discussion of anything related to Napoleonics miniature wargaming."

What else can come of this thread but cherry picked circular arguments made with HiNdSiGhT?

It would seem that a guarantee from N was no guarantee at all, however his going back on that guarantee would be ruling by law because he was the law.

In short, great mind or not he was a political opportunist of the best/worst stripe and there have been no shortage of those in past and current days .

That anyone should be so miffed by these "miniaturealy" irrelevant exercises in Sophistry as to find TMP no longer habitable is a shame and a loss to the gaming community (and I do HATE the term "gaming community".

So best to take these posts for what they are and have fun with them.

I for one would certainly NOT want to play a game with N. unless it were computer moderated and it was clear he could not change the rules as it suited him. Ultimate GM, worst nightmare as a player : )