"Napoleon in a diplomatic sense" Topic
290 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Action Log
10 Nov 2013 3:37 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Napolean in a diplomatic sense" to "Napoleon in a diplomatic sense"
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pliable Libyan | 10 Nov 2013 1:42 p.m. PST |
Did Napoleon embrace diplomacy in it's embrionic stages, or would this assertion suggest a biased romanticism for the period? |
Pliable Libyan | 10 Nov 2013 2:30 p.m. PST |
I just noticed my spelling error in the thread title; apologies – too much gin and wine
.. |
deadhead | 10 Nov 2013 4:04 p.m. PST |
Gin and wine combined? That is rough. OK, a very dry Martini Cocktail, maybe. OK, so what was the spelling mistake? Was it the "embrionic", or was it "it's". Both are wrong and it takes an Irishman to write the Queen's English
Fascinated by your nom de plume
.trying to work out what is a Pliable Libyan and how would one tell? |
Pliable Libyan | 10 Nov 2013 4:46 p.m. PST |
Be sure to follow the latest series of 'Boardwalk Empire' and all shall become clear. Pliability is offered up as a suggested trait which both Libyans and Jews would be wise to adopt in order to ensure the survival of both races (circa 1925). I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll be intrigued by the unexpected context within which the term 'Libyan' is applied
. |
Flecktarn | 11 Nov 2013 3:32 a.m. PST |
Pliable Libyan, I am not sure that Napoleon ever really embraced diplomacy in any generally accepted way, apart from trying to gain very short term balances of power to keep his enemies from combining against him, a policy which eventually failed. Successful examples of this would be the attempt made to keep Austria neutral in 1807 and then to use Russia to distract the Austrians in 1809, although this latter was not a total success as the Russians made their real intentions apparent to the Austrians. Diplomacy was also far from being embryonic at this time and was a well considered part of a nation's strategies. Jurgen |
TelesticWarrior | 12 Nov 2013 5:00 a.m. PST |
I agree that diplomacy was not at all an embryonic discipline in Napoleon's time, it was already very well developed. Talleyrand was Napoleon's greatest diplomat, a fascinating and duplicitous character if ever there was one. The fact that Napoleon did not have him shot for his treachery (along with Fouche and Bernadotte) always stands as evidence against the view that Napoleon was a brutal despot. Pliable Libyan, if you research the fascinating career of Talleyrand, I think you will gain some interesting insight into the pro's and con's of Napoleonic diplomacy. Put simply (perhaps too simply), Napoleon favoured a strong alliance with Russia and instigated the Confederation of the Rhine as a bulwark against Prussia and Austria. Talleyrand favoured a strong alliance with Austria instead. |
Chouan | 12 Nov 2013 8:23 a.m. PST |
"Talleyrand was Napoleon's greatest diplomat, a fascinating and duplicitous character if ever there was one. The fact that Napoleon did not have him shot for his treachery (along with Fouche and Bernadotte) always stands as evidence against the view that Napoleon was a brutal despot." Except that with Fouche as Buonaparte's chief of intelligence and chief of secret police, Fouche was able to work closely with Talleyrand, with whom he shared a personal antipathy for each other, but an alliance based on political expediency and survival. Were they traitors? Buonaparte saw them as treasonous, but was he powerful enough to shoot his chief diplomat and his chief of police? As a major mafioisi, effectively, by keeping them alive, and keeping them close, he at least knew what they were up to. If he'd had either of them shot they'd have been replaced with somebody equally clever and slippery, who wouldn't have been as well known to Buonaparte, who could, potentially, have been more of a problem. |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 8:36 a.m. PST |
Chouan, are you calling Napoleon a "major mafioisi"? And if so, is it by way of a compliment on his own personal diplomatic skills when dealing with others, which one assumes he must have had in abundance. |
OSchmidt | 12 Nov 2013 8:43 a.m. PST |
Napoleon loved diplomacy the way a glutton loves his lunch. Let's consider the record. It is important to remember that Diplomacy also is based on the ability to avoid war and live on amicable relations with your neighbors. Acting like an intermittently rabid dog won't do this. So let's check the record. We can only really talk about The diplomatic with Napoleon when he was chief of State, which he became in 1799. He was still at war then and would be till 1801 with the Peace of Amiens. That lasted (barely) into 1803 when Britian again declared war. because of Napoleons annexation of Piedmont and reconstituting the Swiss Confedeeracy. So that's two years of peace (really only one and bit more, but Nappo needs a handicap in this. So the Franco British War stumbled on till 1805 and for every year after that until the joyous day in 1815 when he was packed off to St. Helena, ao that makes it two years out of 16. Not a good run. Diplomacy was already well established and in its maturity when Napoleon came down the chute. The Napoleonic idea of diplomacy is pretty much that practiced by fourth rate players of the game of Diplomacy which is "I'll give you Siberia if you attack it and take it, and you betray Russia, and I'll betray Germany then you betray Italy, and I'll betray France, and then Britain will betray you and I'll betray Britain, then I'll betray you, and if I can I'll betray myself too! Saying that Napoleon "embraced" diplomacy is like saying a rapist "cuddles " his victim. |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 8:49 a.m. PST |
OSchmidt, I was thinking more about his own personal diplomacy with those who he had to deal with throughout his career. His powers must have been considerable. Then there is the "magnetism" that I have read of, which of course stood him apart from lesser mortals and was one of those attributes that led to him being one of the greatest military commanders in history. |
OSchmidt | 12 Nov 2013 9:34 a.m. PST |
Dear Colonel ToffeeApple OK, I can see that as interpersonal relationships and his powers in this area necessarily must have been extraordinary. I will grant you that. But you have to admit that was not really what Pliable Libyan was talking about at the start of this post. My post was written simultaneous with yours and I did not see your post, and that was NOT what I was responding to. |
Mac1638 | 12 Nov 2013 9:40 a.m. PST |
"A sh in silk stockings" Napoleon opinion of Talleyrand |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 9:43 a.m. PST |
OSchmidt, I think our posts did cross, but I think: "Saying that Napoleon "embraced" diplomacy is like saying a rapist "cuddles " his victim." Displays a certain amount of intemperance in relation to what must have been a much more complex set of variables applicable to diplomacy in early 19th century Europe. I suppose of course that Napoleon was, first and foremost a military commander and this would have affected his approach. |
OSchmidt | 12 Nov 2013 11:34 a.m. PST |
Dear Colonel Toffee Apple Intemperance-- yes. I thought I would have already established that. I don't like Napoleon at all and one must evaluate the whole individual, not just his military genius. As I have quoted what was said about Napoleon, he was a man who required 10,000 lives a month. At NO time did Napoleon attempt to work out what France really needed, which was peace and quiet after the revolution, and this would have required him working some sort of modus vivendi with his neighbors. I do not believe and see absolutely No evidence that he ever had this as his goal or that it ever occurred to him, and that all his peaceful words and attempts were merely to buy time to prepare for the next attack. I do not believe Napoleon had any other side to him than egotism, war, and destruction. As for "a much more complex set of variables applicable to diplomacy in early 19th Century Europe" all of these existed and Napoleon was either completely ignorant or more likely completely contemptuous of them. To Napoleon there was only one human being in the world. Napoleon, all the rest were talking sheep and he was a great lover of lamb. |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 11:50 a.m. PST |
OSchmidt, I think liking the man is an irrelevance and any attempt at an accurate evaluation of him as a whole individual difficult, even if attempted by some historian who is much more learned than myself and in a work of some scope. My admiration for his military genius probably stems from my primary focus being Napoleonic wargaming in miniature. I do think your assessment of his skills in the field of diplomacy are possibly over simplified and clouded my your overall view and thus not necessarily impartial to the extent that might best relate to Pliable Libyan's original post. I must say that I have no particular expertise as regards the machinations of Napoleon with respect to the complex diplomatic variables at existed that the start of 19th century Europe but I am sure he gave it some thought. |
TelesticWarrior | 12 Nov 2013 1:22 p.m. PST |
My dear Colonel, I would take Otto with a large pinch of salt if I were you, as he is one of the irrational rabid boney-bashers that I was talking about on the the other thread. Completely unable to come to a balanced position when it comes to the Napoleonic period. That lasted (barely) into 1803 when Britian again declared war. because of Napoleons annexation of Piedmont and reconstituting the Swiss Confedeeracy. What a joke. Strange to think that the propaganda of the time can still have such a strong effect even today. A more balanced reading of the period shows that the war party in Britain were hell-bent on tearing up the peace of Amiens, whereas Napoleon went as far as he could to make concessions, short of acting like a craven coward to British war-mongerers. The blatant facts are that Napoleon had evacuated Taranto by the end of 1802, as required by the Treaty of Amiens, whereas the British were still occupying Malta and Alexandria, in blatant defiance of the treaty. The blind anglocentric dupes need to get the above paragraph into their heads, and also try to understand that neither Peidmont or Switzerland were part of the treaty, and anyway in both cases these States welcomed French involvement. Napoleon had asked the exiled King of Piedmont Charles Emanuel to return to the throne, but Charles refused, so Napoleon annexed piedmont, a move that was welcomed by the Republican party of that State. Switzerland was not annexed but a new constitution was set up on French lines, again a move that was (possibly) welcomed by the majority of Swiss. Amiens had nothing to do with this and Switzerland was within the French (not British) sphere of influence, but the British were ed off because they were in league with the reactionary and aristocratic factions, and wanted to set up their own puppets. Britain had just incorporated Ireland into the United Kingdom (1801), which was not at all welcomed by the majority of Irish people. If we use the same logic as Otto and Co we must therefore declare that France would have been justified in declaring war on Britain over Ireland, if we accept the stupid argument that Switzerland and Piedmont were good enough cause for Britain to declare war on France. The truth is the British establishment were very keen to go to war and were looking for excuses (even weak ones like the Piedmontese situation), as the believed they could win in the long run because they controlled the seas and they could afford to keep paying European Nations to attack France. That is why they never evacuated Malta, because they wanted to defy the treated and escalate the situation into a declaration of War. Napoleon made the concession that the British could keep Malta as long as he could re-take Taranto, but the British tossed that out the window too. So the likes of Otto need to be taken to task when they casually throw it out there as if fact that Napoleon was the primary cause of decades of war. It is an infantile belief that isn't supported by good logic. BTW Frank McLynn writes a good chapter on this in his biography and brilliantly describes the events that I just outlined with his usual incisive logic and balanced reason. And he is no Napoleon fan either. |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 1:51 p.m. PST |
My dear TelesticWarrior, I was taking it with a pinch of salt. I would like OSchmidt's opinion on whether he agrees that liking the man should be an irrelevance, and if he thinks his own dislike clouds his perspective. And I would also like to ascertain why Chouan referred to Napoleon as a "major mafioisi" purely to establish if this is his scholarly opinion. Thank you for sharing your views. |
Chouan | 12 Nov 2013 2:17 p.m. PST |
"Major mafiosi" is indeed a scholarly opinion. Indeed, a bloke I spoke to on the street in Cambridge just the other day agreed with me; mind you he couldn't offer me any references to prove it. I stopped him near the Round Church and said "Buonaparte was a mafiosi, wasn't he?" the bloke said "Yes of course" then walked quickly away. Point proven, I think. Buonaparte's behaviour was almost exactly that of a big mafiosi, a real Capo, only on an international stage, using his family members as provincial satraps, as it were, yet giving them no real autonomy or power, but purely as tools of his will, as a mafiosi would. OSchmidt, despite your being an "irrational boney-basher", and don't you just love the maturity with which the arguments following were introduced, I thought your "Diplomacy" analogy was a good one. The reason why the french people were so happy to accept the Bourbons, and accepted them right up to 1830, was because the Bourbons could provide France with what the French people needed, and which Buonaparte was unable to provide, which was peace. |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 2:42 p.m. PST |
Chouan, speaking personally I would regard referring to Napoleon as a "Major mafiosi" to be more inflammatory than scholarly as an analogy, and I can see why the bloke walked quickly away, probably out of slight embarrassment. I also think one should guard against selectivity when it comes to the maturity with which points are made. OSchmidt, observed: "Saying that Napoleon "embraced" diplomacy is like saying a rapist "cuddles " his victim", yet seems to draw no reproach from you (or is this the analogy that you thought was good). So I can't really follow the logic of why you questioned the maturity of TelesticWarrior's points. As ever I am always interested in establishing your scholarly opinion lest the issue of you having a bias against Napoleon raises it's head, something you have given considered views on in the past. |
Pliable Libyan | 12 Nov 2013 3:03 p.m. PST |
I perhaps should've opted for 'omerta' whilst initially pondering this
. |
Flecktarn | 12 Nov 2013 3:39 p.m. PST |
Colonel, I think that one can question the maturity of the points of anyone who uses phrases such as: "he is one of the irrational rabid boney-bashers" "blind anglocentric dupes" "It is an infantile belief" Such comments would seem either to be designed to inflame people or to be the writings of someone with their own bias and an inability to communicate in a decent, sensible manner. As for OSchmidt's comment that "Saying that Napoleon "embraced" diplomacy is like saying a rapist "cuddles " his victim.", I tend to think that the analogy is somewhat inapt as "diplomacy" does not really correspond to a "victim". However, it is a nice phrase and I think we all understood what he meant. Napoleon did not "do" diplomacy except at the end of a gun barrel; Talleyrand, on the other hand, was a true diplomat. Describing Napoleon as a Mafiosi seems like a pretty reasonable description of his way of operating. Turning to the very interesting discussion about the Treaty of Amiens, I noted the following discrepancy in TelesticWarriors's account when referring to Piedmont and Switzerland: The statement "in both cases these States welcomed French involvement", is followed by: "a move that was welcomed by the Republican party of that State" and "a move that was (possibly) welcomed by the majority of Swiss." The second and third quotes do not support the contention that "these States welcomed French involvement"; perhaps TelesticWarrior's objectivity and accuracy should be questioned. However, where I agree with TelesticWarrior is that Britain should bear the major responsibility for the collapse of the Treaty of Amiens, although Bonaparte's actions, particularly with regard to his breaches of the Treaty of Luneville and his continued expansionism, gave them every opportunity and were hardly the work of a skilled diplomatic player who genuinely desired peace, as also were his repeated threats regarding Egypt in the first two months of 1803. Jurgen |
The Traveling Turk | 12 Nov 2013 3:39 p.m. PST |
"As ever I am always interested in establishing your scholarly opinion lest the issue of you having a bias against Napoleon raises it's head" Must one "defend" a bias against all military dictators? Or just Napoleon? I'm genuinely curious. If I had a bias against Idi Amin, or the Shah or Iran, or Manuel Noriega
would that require some sort of special defense? Or would it just be acceptable to have a bias against military dictators? It has always struck me as self-evidently obvious that 21st century people, raised in an environment of liberal democracy and with a respect for the institutions of law and human rights, would – or frankly should – recoil from any ruler who seizes power in a military coup, enforces censorship with extra-legal executions, shuts down commerce, and gets hundreds of thousands of people killed. -
But back to the OP. The diplomatic organs of Napoleonic France were quite similar to those of other states at the time. Ambassadors with fixed portfolios, resident consuls, and foreign ministries were institutions that were about two generations old by the time Napoleon took power in France. |
Pliable Libyan | 12 Nov 2013 4:11 p.m. PST |
Continuing in the mafiosi vein, if Don Bonaparte was around today, in control of a criminal empire, TMP would be just the place in which to seek out his consigliere
|
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 4:19 p.m. PST |
Flecktarn and The Traveling Turk thanks for the input but my specific points to Chouan were directed to him and I am sure he will respond when he is next here. Flecktarn I'm not here to defend TelesticWarrior or the maturity of his posts, nor have I done so, once again I am sure he will be along again soon to do it himself. The Traveling Turk, if I was wargaming something to do with Idi Amin's regime I don't think I would get bogged down in the social and political realities of life in Uganda. As a 21st century person as it were, am I meant to consider the social and political make up of things as regards Alexander, Caesar or Genghis Khan, when I line up my lead? I think that I have already pointed out my lack of expertise as regards the diplomacy of the period, but there is no harm in repeating it. |
Flecktarn | 12 Nov 2013 4:23 p.m. PST |
Pliable Libyan, If Don Buonaparte was around today, I doubt if TMP would be his recruiting ground of choice:(. Given that the Corsican Mafia is very tightly knit and that few if any of us are Corsicans, I do not think that he would be very interested in any of us. Jurgen |
Flecktarn | 12 Nov 2013 4:27 p.m. PST |
Colonel, You seem to only see bias in one direction, hence my comments to you regarding TelesticWarrior's comments and your response to Chouan's comments about them. Jurgen |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 4:27 p.m. PST |
"I wonder about you sometimes Henry, you may fold under questioning" As usual warning bad language: YouTube link |
ColonelToffeeApple | 12 Nov 2013 4:31 p.m. PST |
Flecktarn I didn't ask Chuoan about bias it was about maturity. |
Flecktarn | 12 Nov 2013 4:46 p.m. PST |
Colonel, I know that you did not; however, it seems strange to me that you only ever challenge the bias of those who are not fans of Napoleon. Jurgen |
Bandit | 12 Nov 2013 6:42 p.m. PST |
Flecktarn, Describing Napoleon as a Mafiosi seems like a pretty reasonable description of his way of operating. It also seems a pretty reasonable way to describe the diplomacy of all states, England, the US, Russia, whomever you choose to name really. At which end I'd ask
what's your point? If Don Buonaparte was around today, I doubt if TMP would be his recruiting ground of choice:(. Given that the Corsican Mafia is very tightly knit and that few if any of us are Corsicans, I do not think that he would be very interested in any of us. So weird, Napoleon didn't exactly fill his command ranks with Corsicans
Cheers, The Bandit |
ratisbon | 12 Nov 2013 8:37 p.m. PST |
Otto, Do your posts mean you don't care for Napoleon? Ah, the British, its always the British. They made several attempts to assassinate him and when that didn't work they conspired to form coalitions against him. It was the British that dictated the diplomatic tune in Europe. British Gold, European Blood. Napoleon's mistake was, after defeating them, he treated the monarchies of Europe too well, but a social climber would. After-all, he wanted nothing more than to be one of the King guys but those snobs wouldn't have it. He should have executed one or two of them (cynically as enemies of the Revolution) for the encouragement of the others. Bob Coggins |
Widowson | 12 Nov 2013 10:53 p.m. PST |
It's just my opinion, but I think there were forces in play that only a few posters have regarded, and only partially. Plainly, if France ever lost a "Napoleonic" war, to the point where Paris was taken, the result would have been the restoration of the Bourbons and the erasure of the French Revolution. Napoleon would have been exiled or executed. That's not a level playing field of diplomacy. In the old days of 17th and 18th Century warfare, countries which won wars would gain some territory, but still respect the legitimate authority of the rulers of the defeated country. No king ever lost his crown or head over any war in the previous era. The reason that Napoleon's enemies could not be satisfied with the old "gentleman's rules" was because the French Revolution was a threat to them all. If the French Bourbons could fall and be executed by the common man, then any royal house in Europe could suffer the same, and the French Revolutionaries WERE dedicated to "exporting" their Revolution. That's why I agree with Bob Coggins in this respect: If Napoleon had disolved the Austro-Hungarian Empire after Austerlitz, and exiled it's rulers, war with France would be seen as having the SAME dire consequences that the French had faced. That would have made any European Monarch VERY hesitant to go to war with France, British gold or no British gold. For the sake of argument, let's say Prussia and its queen had gone to war with Napoleon in 1806 anyway, with the same Russian support. And let's say the result was the same – Jena/Auerstadt, and then Eylau/Friedland. And let's say that Napoleon, victorious as he was, stripped Prussian of Silesia and other territories, reducing Prussia to a minor state in Central Europe, exiling it's rulers as they would have done to him. And let's go further to say that, as a penalty for Russian involvement, part of that settlement was the restoration of Poland, taking land from Austria, Prussia and Russia – the very countries who carved Poland up and out of existance. Then, in 1807, there would have been no market for British war gold. There would have been no NEED for the Continental System and it's strangulation of Europe's economy. But by then Napoleon saw himself as a possible equal among the royal houses – a DELUSION. They would never accept him, because accepting him would be accepting the results of the Revolution, the rejection of the divine right of kings in Europe, and an eternal threat to all the royal houses. Make sense? |
TelesticWarrior | 13 Nov 2013 3:48 a.m. PST |
The reason why the french people were so happy to accept the Bourbons, and accepted them right up to 1830, was because the Bourbons could provide France with what the French people needed The French people were "happy" to have the Bourbons back? Really Chouan? You don't think they were incredibly unpopular and rather forced on the French people by the European monarchs who had hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers on French soil? Really? That is a mature view? Really? Why do you think "support" for the Bourbons literally collapsed within days after Napoleons return from Elba?
Turning to the very interesting discussion about the Treaty of Amiens, I noted the following discrepancy in TelesticWarriors's account when referring to Piedmont and Switzerland: The statement "in both cases these States welcomed French involvement", is followed by: "a move that was welcomed by the Republican party of that State" and "a move that was (possibly) welcomed by the majority of Swiss." Flecktarn, I was deliberately guarded in my comments because I did not live in Piedmont or Switzerland in the years around 1800 and I did not have the opportunity to go door-to-door with a questionnaire asking the people exactly how they felt. But my READING has led to me believe that the majority of Swiss (possibly) welcomed the moves, and the majority of the Piedmontese Republicans (possibly) welcomed them too. It doesn't do to make definitive sweeping statements, hence the deliberate disparity in my last post. My reading also allows me to question the kind of sweeping generalizations about happy Frenchmen and Bourbon popularity made by Chouan in his post.
However, where I agree with TelesticWarrior is that Britain should bear the major responsibility for the collapse of the Treaty of Amiens, although Bonaparte's actions, particularly with regard to his breaches of the Treaty of Luneville and his continued expansionism, gave them every opportunity and were hardly the work of a skilled diplomatic player who genuinely desired peace, as also were his repeated threats regarding Egypt in the first two months of 1803. This I feel is a balanced post, Flecktarn. Although we do not "get on" and often argue on these threads, it is comments like this that lead me to realise that you are not a Boney-basher, but just someone who is critical of Bonaparte and all the other rulers. What you do not seem to realise is that the TMP Boney-basher group is a large one (too many to list but I can have a go if you really want me to), far larger than the group who get riled up and fight them and sometimes go too far (but with some justification in my opinion), such as myself, Gazzola & Kevin. Then you have the sensible rationalists who bring balance to the force and probably realise that you can't convince people who are so blikered. I would put the likes ColonelToffeeApple and Bandit in this third category, but there are lots of others. Truly excellent posts by Widowson and Ratisbon by the way.
|
Chouan | 13 Nov 2013 4:23 a.m. PST |
You're contradicting yourself here: You state that "In the old days of 17th and 18th Century warfare, countries which won wars would gain some territory, but still respect the legitimate authority of the rulers of the defeated country. No king ever lost his crown or head over any war in the previous era." Then you refer to the partition of Poland, "the very countries who carved Poland up and out of existance." The Polish King certainly lost his crown! Other sovereign states also disappeared, Kurland, Lorraine and Hungary for example. Also Saxony was absorbed by Prussia during the 7 Years War and only regained it's independence after the Treaty of Hubertusburg, when Frederick's Prussia was close to exhaustion. No limited wars there! Similarly, Kings did lose their lives through failures in warfare. Both Czars Peter and Paul were murdered at least partly because of their perceived military failings. It's a myth that the "Lace Wars" of the 17th and 18th centuries were fought under some kind of "gentlemen's" rules, look at Louis XIV's devastation of the Palatinate, for example. I would suggest that if Buonaparte had extinguished the Hapsburgs, the threat to the legitimate rulers would have been so severe that they would have been far more inclined to combine sooner and more effectively to rid themselves of such a dangerous threat. In any case, Buonaparte's dethroning and toppling of the Spanish Bourbons didn't lead to any kind of a raprochement with the rest of Europe. |
Chouan | 13 Nov 2013 4:26 a.m. PST |
TW, your "Britain had just incorporated Ireland into the United Kingdom (1801), which was not at all welcomed by the majority of Irish people." is a bit of a gross assertion. any evidence for this? I know that some people didn't welcome this, like Edward Fitzgerald and his party, for example, but the majority? I'm inclined to think that the vast majority of the Irish people couldn't have cared less who was in charge! |
von Winterfeldt | 13 Nov 2013 4:42 a.m. PST |
Bonaparte was a highly political general from square one in his carreer, he would do anything to climb the ladder of success, embrazing Jacobinism – when it was en vogue – fighting for Baras – and the corrupt directoire – when it suited him – issuing colours according to his own design to his Army of Italy (which he seemingly belonged) – being ready for a military coup – taking over as First Consul and so on. So he had a lot of opportunities to hone his political and diplomatic skills from the very beginning. This shows how he duped the German princes to join the confederation of the Rhine. Later – after 1808 – those skills seem to fall and end up in the only argument – if you don't follow me – you get destroyed. |
Flecktarn | 13 Nov 2013 5:06 a.m. PST |
Bandit, If you read back through the thread, you will notice that the "Mafiosi" comment was about Napoleon's way of "managing" some of those around him, rather than his diplomatic policy. Given Napoleon's lack of popularity with most of his Corsican contemporaries, it is hardly surprising that his command ranks were not filled with them. However, an examination of the roles of those Corsicans who were loyal to him, for whatever reason, indicates that they were given important roles which were, in some cases, way above their levels of competence. Of course, the main ones were family members. Jurgen |
ColonelToffeeApple | 13 Nov 2013 5:12 a.m. PST |
Chouan, I think that in the flow of the thread you missed my questions, your answers would be welcomed. Flecktarn, I don't feel like I have challenged anyone on their substantive points concerning the diplomacy of the period. I am however intrigued by the use of language at the outset and wonder if it was best suited to a rational discussion of the subject matter. TelesticWarrior often refers to "Boney-bashers", and to the impartial eye, comparing Napoleon with a rapist and an Italian crime figure as opening gambits certainly seems to lend some merit to his claims. To me it could be described as immoderate and inflammatory language and doesn't seem designed to open a debate which encompasses maturity as a key element. I don't think I am displaying any bias in adopting this position. Nor do I think that there is anything strange about it. |
Flecktarn | 13 Nov 2013 5:29 a.m. PST |
TelesticWarrior, Did support for the Bourbons literally collapse within days of Napoleon's return from Elba? What evidence is there for that? Support for them within the army certainly collapsed but it is hard to find any evidence that it collapsed among the general population; on the contrary, there is evidence from the uprisings against his return and even his own hesitation to reintroduce conscription, that the bulk of the population were at best ambivalent about his return. Of course, the Napoleonic "legend" tells us that his return was overwhelmingly popular but then it would, wouldn't it? What support there was for Napoleon seems to have collapsed pretty quickly after Waterloo. So, yes, I think that Chouan's view is a "mature" one; I am surprised that you needed to use the word "mature" in your condemnation of his view; yet again, it is a disparaging comment from you, which is unfortunate, as you are quite obviously an intelligent person who should not need to stoop so low. I do still worry about your obsession with "Boney-bashers"; while there are posters on here who are highly critical of Napoleon, they generally (with one or two exceptions)support their views with well argued and well researched arguments. Again, it is your use of a disparaging term for them that shows, dare I say it, a lack of maturity on your part. I notice that you do not object to the anti-British contingent on TMP, of whom Mr Coggins seems to be the ringleader, or the highly partial and selectively sourced and quoted arguments offered by the former officer of artillery. Is your bias showing? Jurgen |
ColonelToffeeApple | 13 Nov 2013 5:48 a.m. PST |
Flecktarn: "while there are posters on here who are highly critical of Napoleon, they generally (with one or two exceptions)support their views with well argued and well researched arguments." Which would lead one to suspect that the choice of language used is quite deliberate, so perhaps it is also a case of "Boney-baiting" albeit with the subtly of Talleyrand on disco roller blades. |
von Winterfeldt | 13 Nov 2013 6:18 a.m. PST |
@Flecktarn Mach dir nichts draus – aus BoneyBashing – der Ausdruck wird gewöhnlich dann gewählt, wenn den Boneygroupies – die Argumente ausgehen (die haben sie ja meistens nicht) – ist eher als ein Kompliment zu sehen. @ColonelToffeeApple I am so sorry to disappoint you again in using German (this time) |
ColonelToffeeApple | 13 Nov 2013 6:20 a.m. PST |
My dear von Winterfeldt, think nothing of it, I would expect nothing less from you. And I'm a a daeless boadie. |
OSchmidt | 13 Nov 2013 6:59 a.m. PST |
Telestic Warrior The information is taken from Wikepedia, go argue with them. |
OSchmidt | 13 Nov 2013 7:21 a.m. PST |
Dear thread. Kudos to the Travelling Turk who pointed the central problem. I quote. "Must one "defend" a bias against all military dictators? Or just Napoleon? I'm genuinely curious. If I had a bias against Idi Amin, or the Shah or Iran, or Manuel Noriega
would that require some sort of special defense? Or would it just be acceptable to have a bias against military dictators? It has always struck me as self-evidently obvious that 21st century people, raised in an environment of liberal democracy and with a respect for the institutions of law and human rights, would – or frankly should – recoil from any ruler who seizes power in a military coup, enforces censorship with extra-legal executions, shuts down commerce, and gets hundreds of thousands of people killed." Just so. Just so. Long ago apologists and defenders for the dictators wore thin for me. Hitler gave everyone jobs and rebuilt Germany, Even Mussolini was able to make the trains run on time, but these minor mitigations no longer cut it for me to excuse the monstrous crimes they committed against the innocent, the immollation and destruction they brought on their own countries and the sickening madness of their own egos. Napoleon may have been a genius as a military commander but that in so sense covers his crimes and the revulsion I have for them. What's the point of being a military genius if all you can do with it is run up casualties in senseless wars. Unlike most on this list, I note that I , in my notes made complete disclosure of my prejudices, which most others on this list have never done. If you run with the dictators you must be just like them. Me, I'll run with the Travelling Turk on this one and continue to make no excuse nor cut one bit of slack for them, and continue to point out their depraved indifference. If you really study history, I mean REALLY study it, rather than just skip anything but the battle reports and concentrate on the purple prose of dictatorial adulation, you see that as historians we are nothing but the coroners of the crimes of humanity. The doxogrophers of the demonic. Stalin was wrong. He said "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." The real truth is that the death of a million is a million tragedies, and our inability to take that in is an indictment of ourselves, not an excuse. Thank you for what you said Travelling Turk. |
Chouan | 13 Nov 2013 7:29 a.m. PST |
Colonel, "Chouan, speaking personally I would regard referring to Napoleon as a "Major mafiosi" to be more inflammatory than scholarly as an analogy, and I can see why the bloke walked quickly away, probably out of slight embarrassment." Was this your question? You do seem to be taking things a trifle seriously, especially regarding the "conversation"
.. You do also seem to be very questioning of the motives and views of people who are described by some as "Boney-bashers", which isn't a very mature term, yet you seem to be relatively tolerant of those pro-Buonaparte posters. Is it that you find those pro-Buonaparte people somehow more scholarly or less biased? Or is it that your own viewpoint has an influence on how you view the posts of others? |
Flecktarn | 13 Nov 2013 7:36 a.m. PST |
von Winterfeldt, Apologies for not replying in German but, as this is an English language forum, I feel it better to write in English, even if it is more awkward for me. I agree with your sentiment but I am not sure that the term is meant in the way that it should probably, as you say, be taken;). Jurgen |
le Grande Quartier General | 13 Nov 2013 7:37 a.m. PST |
About the OP-Didn't someone we all know of say something to the effect that war is failed diplomacy taken to its conclusion? If Napoleon embraced diplomacy, it certainly didn't work for him. I suppose that would have to be the fault of all the nations involved, in varying degrees. Once it is war, there is nothing left to expect but a millon tragedies, is there? Is this not ever and always so? |
ColonelToffeeApple | 13 Nov 2013 7:47 a.m. PST |
OSchmidt, I already asked the Turk about his point on dictators. I fail to see how the political and social realities at the time of Alexander, Caesar or Genghis impact upon my thoughts when I line up my lead. Chouan, I suppose sometimes I might focus on those who have previously aired their academic qualifications for public view and then enquire if they think a comparison with an Italian crime figure is inflammatory, or one with a rapist being good, is particularly scholarly. Do you not take my point? My view on Napoleon is that he was a genius and one of the greatest military commanders in history I have made that very plain in the past. I sometimes wonder whether, at times, we are in Mrs Miggins literary salon or a forum on miniature wargaming. Flecktarn, do you take my point on "Boney baiting"? I can't tell because of the introduction of German into the thread. |
Chouan | 13 Nov 2013 7:47 a.m. PST |
Good points OSchmidt, and well put. "The French people were "happy" to have the Bourbons back? Really Chouan? You don't think they were incredibly unpopular and rather forced on the French people by the European monarchs who had hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers on French soil? Really? That is a mature view? Really? Why do you think "support" for the Bourbons literally collapsed within days after Napoleons return from Elba?" As I indicated above, what did the French people want more than anything else in 1814? Peace and order. The Bourbons were brought back in by the Allies, what would the result of opposing them be? More war and destruction, so 1 point to the Bourbons. What were the alternatives? A Regency for Buonaparte's son, with Marie-Louise as Regent, but advised by Austria? A viable option? The return of the Republic? A viable option? Louis-Philippe? A barely known Emigre related to the Bourbons, a junior branch, in fact? A viable option? Anything else? Not really, so the French people were happy to accept the return of the Bourbons; there was certainly no opposition. The only sector of society who didn't welcome the Bourbons were the Army. Then, Buonaparte, believing the reports of his supporters that the Bourbons were unpopular and that France longed for his return launched his coup. The Army, his people, went over to him en masse, the people didn't openly oppose him at first; how could they with the Army on his side, along with the returned POWs with no livlihoods? But the resistance to conscription was very marked, and there was resistance in the provinces, especially in the West and South West. One of the reasons why Buonaparte had to fight in the North was because hanging on against increasing opposition from the French people wasn't an option, his only chance was a quick decisive victory, the gambler's desperate all or nothing throw. Once he was beaten his hollow administration collapsed and the Bourbons easily resumed the government. Their only difficulty was attempting to control the "White Terror" in the South. |
Flecktarn | 13 Nov 2013 7:53 a.m. PST |
If we are diclosing prejudices, wheich seems like a good idea, I will disclose those of mine which affect my views on the historical figures that we discuss here: 1. I am prejudiced against those who go to war without having exhausted all possible alternatives; war is too awful and too offensive to basic human sensibilities to go into it lightly. 2. I am prejudiced against those who regard the lives of other human beings lightly; every life has meaning and to disregard those lives should be offensive to all humanity. 3. I am prejudiced against those who seek power for their own ends, mainly because they generally are those covered in my first two points. Obviously, I have other prejudices, but those are the ones that matter here. Jurgen |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|