"Why We’d Be Better Off if Napoleon Never Lost at Waterloo" Topic

"…If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.

Napoleon deserved to lose Waterloo, and Wellington to win it, but the essential point in this bicentenary year is that the epic battle did not need to be fought—and the world would have been better off if it hadn't been."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Given the fact that he was murdered by arsenic poisoning, who knows how long he might have lived if he had remained in France?

pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown

OOOPSY. Forgetting that Napoleon reinstituted slavery in France are we, Prof. Roberts?

Robert Burke

Given the fact that he was murdered by arsenic poisoning, who knows how long he might have lived if he had remained in France?

Care to share the scoop?

Paul :)

Hmm. So having His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I on the throne of France, complete with informants, censors, secret police and his own private prison at Vincennes, is going to keep the reactionaries at bay? I'd say that's setting the bar for "reactionary" fairly high.
And of course it will be a time of peace, because His Majesty once went a year and a half without a war. (Not that any of the draftees were released, you understand: about your only hope of getting out of the French Army alive was to lose a limb.)
It gets tiresome. There were half a dozen ways General or First Consul Bonaparte might have promoted peace, democracy and the rights of man. None ever seem to have occurred to him.

Napoleon wasn't murdered. He died of stomach cancer like his father. I believe one of his sister's died of the same thing.

Napoleon did not reinstitute slavery in France. He did have it reinstituted in Haiti, a move he later much regretted.

Interestingly, though they outlawed the slave trade in 1807-1808, the British did not abolish slavery in their colonies in the Caribbean until 1834.

And of course it will be a time of peace, because His Majesty once went a year and a half without a war. (Not that any of the draftees were released, you understand: about your only hope of getting out of the French Army alive was to lose a limb.) It gets tiresome. There were half a dozen ways General or First Consul Bonaparte might have promoted peace, democracy and the rights of man.

Great Britain broke the Peace of Amiens, and the aggressors in 1805 and 1809 were the Austrians. The Prussians were the aggressors in 1806. The Russians threw in with both of them and even after Tilsit in the summer of 1807, Alexander proved to be a poor ally and began planning for war against France as early as 1810.

Among other advantages, Napoleon guaranteed basic civil rights to his citizens.

Could you please name one democratic government in Europe during the period? Britain certainly wasn't, and in point of fact neither was the young United States.

The United States was not a democratic government in the early 1800s? If that's not revisionist history, I don't know what is.

The United States was (and still is) a constitutional republic.

Senators were not elected in the early 1800s and the president was elected by the electoral college.

And not everyone, including not all males, were enfranchised to vote.

That's not a democracy.

Franklin himself stated after the Constitution was passed that the US was a republic-nothing about a democracy.

You might want to find a copy of the US Constitution as written and passed in 1787-1789. It has been changed somewhat from the original. That's why there are 27 amendments.

And that's not 'revisionism' but historic fact.

You might want to check the population of his personal prison about those guaranteed rights--Tousant L'overture, the Pope, the entire family of the Spanish Bourbons, and anyone else he found troublesome.

And if being a bad ally justifies invasion, we'd never get anything else done. Not to mention the invasions of Spain and Portugal which somehow got left off the list--and Haiti, though again Haiti was a convenient burial plot for anyone opposed to the First Consul's rule. No one had a "right" of any sort in France--or anywhere else within reach of his troops and police--if it stood in the way of his will.And you can blame the wars on someone else--but notice how fast the body count drops once His Majesty is removed from the scene?

I will concede the absence of a European democracy by today's standards--well, anywhere in 1800, though the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as some parts of Switzerland would have been considered such at the time. (Remember the British calling Washington a "harbor of Yankee Democracy" before burning it? No one would accuse it of that today.) But was France nearer or further from self-government when Napoleon was done silencing the opposition and re-instituting hereditary monarchy?

I would suggest that if you want to know what Europe would have looked like had Napoleon I remained master of France, take a good average of what it looked like for the fifteen years he was. Don't compare a real Europe with a fantasy Napoleon, but with the real thing--the man who needed an income of ten or fifteen thousand men a month.

.

I wasn't aware that the enfranchisement of every single human being in your country and the direct elections of senators and president are qualifications for a "democracy." By that standard, the greeks did not have democracy. In fact, by those standards, no such government has ever existed.

If you are going to split hairs over the definition of democracy, then I will split hairs by pointing out that you never said DIRECT democracy. Besides, the point was that in the early 1800s, the US was fair closer to a free, self-governed democracy than was France.

It's good to see some of the Other Side of the usual anti-Bonapartist anglophone argument.

I'm not going to argue that Napoleon was a saint or a modern liberal democrat, but really, compare him to his contemporaries, and judge him in context -- he was not an ogre and those who were irrevocably opposed to him were also neither saints nor enlightened progressives. They were defenders of a corrupt status quo who resented the Corsican upstart and everything the French Revolution stood for in their eyes.

These debates go on and on here; they can be educational, but they are never going to settle anything. TMP is a very small minnow in a sea of academia that holds a monopoly on historical analysis.

We'll never know, but there is just a possibility that a Napoleon left in peace in 1815 might have conceded the point to the hostile powers aligned against France and ruled in peace according to the restrictions he then faced with his emboldened internal adversaries, spending his remaining years in domestic political squabbles and ceasing to disturb the general peace of Europe. We do know what the legacy of the Bourbon restoration was. Continued upheaval and the resumption of (less able) despotism by 1848. So what was gained at Waterloo, after all?

Interestingly, though they outlawed the slave trade in 1807-1808, the British did not abolish slavery in their colonies in the Caribbean until 1834.

Probably because they realised that there was no point in abolishing slavery if slave owners could still buy slaves via other routes. Hence they spent the intervening 25 years negotiating treaties with every other maritime power in Europe (including some who were allies of Napoleon at the time) to ensure that they also agreed to abolish the shipping of slaves. Slavery was a practice utilised by virtually every culture – certainly every successful one – on every continent throughout human history. It was a way of life and a mindset. Nobody was going to end it by simply clicking their fingers.

Also worth remembering that a total abolition would have required considerable military force to back it up. And we were already fighting a global war.

Napoleon "left in peace" after 1810? But in 1810? But in 1810, he has no desire for peace. He's still slaughtering Spaniards (and Portuguese) right and left to make his brother King of Spain. He's drafting Germans to do it, too, and he's about to depose his brother the King of Holland for the hideous crime of taking Dutch interests seriously. And he's about to start planning the invasion of Russia because the Tsar is acting in the best interests of Russia. Everything had to be run to Napoleon's satisfaction, and no one could do this but Napoleon himself.

If Napoleon had wanted peace in 1810, he could have called his troops back to the "natural frontiers" and been at peace. The English were only a problem when Napoleon provided them with continental allies. So his Majesty is busy annexing Saragossa and Hamburg to France.

You want to tell me he was no worse morally than the other heretitaries? Maybe? That he was a (somewhat) more enlightened despot than his contemporaries? Arguable. But it's his great military talents coupled with an absolute inability to quit while he's ahead which keeps Europe at war. People keep telling me he would have been different in 1815 and later, but for this we have only the word of Napoleon I.

And the man lied like a bulletin.

Indeed. He was a man of his time, also a opportunist parvenu who was a Jacobin radical revolutionary in his youth, but who re-instituted an hereditary monarchy when it suited him, along with creating new monarchies and new monarchs when and where it suited him. Apart from any other faults, is there anything quite as hypocritical as professing radical republican views and then making ones self an hereditary monarch? Who established a universal legal code to whom everybody but him was subject, along with the other ills of absolutist totalitarian rule that have been mentioned above, along with the reintroduction of slavery, the creation of an hereditary peerage.

(inner voice saying) "Just walk away Michael, just walk away…

That's the beauty of counterfactual history: you can write whatever you wish that nobody will ever be able to prove that you are wrong in your assumptions.

But … those who did not comply with the terms of the peace of 1810 were the English … by refusing to return the Malta Island…

It has sense what you said Antonio…

Amicalement
Armand

Lots of blame to cast all around! But the victors get to have the last word.

Actually the Maltese people hated Napoleon and asked for British help to liberate the island.

Sounds familiar….

What??… but… if the Island was ocupy by British Troops… how and why the Maltese asked them for help … for what?…

This is coming a little silly.

Amicalement
Armand

I think he is alluding to when Malta was occupied during General Bounaparte's sojourn to North Africa in May 1789.

Indeed, the Maltese were not at all happy with the French occupation.

Malta became a British protectorate.

link

Paul :)

When Bonaparte invaded England he took Malta and occupied it, he left a garrison – which seemingly was no popular with the Maltese.
The British threw the French out and stayed, seemingly not so unpopular.
Napoleon was reactionary, a man who executed publishers – advised tortue and other suppressive methods to rule, I don't see him better than any other regime at that time, and when he was finished, at least there was peace, which wasn't possible with him. He had his chance – at Erfurt – but then again – he liked to wage war too much.

Napoleon's expedition went to Egypt in 1798, not 1789, and Napoleon didn't invade England…

"went to" ? I believe the word that you were looking for would be invaded.

Given my pro-Haitian feelings, I am not a huge fan of Napoleon. What his soldiers did in Haiti was truly terrible, almost as bad as German war crimes in Europe 140 years later.
I am of the opinion Waterloo was as beneficial to Europe as D-Day.

As long as you admit that some of the Haitians themselves were also guilty of horrendous acts Dessalines massacre of the French Civilians, etc..

Brechtel198

If VW believes and states that Napoleon invaded England, he must have! LOL

The first paragraph and eighth paragraph from this article make for some very interesting, revealing and eye opening reading concerning slavery and Toussaint-eg-paragraph 8 'Toussaint even supported the reintroduction of the slave trade' Not quite the 'angel' everyone tries to make him out to be. LOL

link

And talking of Britain and slavery, this is well worth a read and also quite an eye opener for those making claims when Britain ended slavery.

link

To General Soult, commanding the Camp of St. Omer
13th February 1804
(This letter was published in the Correspondence No. 7541. The lines there described as illegible run as follows.)
(…) Make the skipper speak, and I even give you the authority to promise him his pardon if he gives information, and if he should seem to hesitate, you can go so far as to follow the custom as to men suspected of being spies, and squeeze his thumbs in the hammer of a musket.
p.22
New Letters of Napoleon – Omitted from the Edition Published under the Auspices of Napoleon III.
Translated by Lady Mary Loyd, New York 1897

"And talking of Britain and slavery, this is well worth a read and also quite an eye opener for those making claims when Britain ended slavery."

In what way is it an eye opener? What does the article say that is new?

"The first paragraph and eighth paragraph from this article make for some very interesting, revealing and eye opening reading concerning slavery and Toussaint-eg-paragraph 8 'Toussaint even supported the reintroduction of the slave trade'"

How is this relevant? Does it somehow mean that Buonaparte didn't reintroduce slavery? The schoolboy "but he did it too" defence again!

"Not quite the 'angel' everyone tries to make him out to be."

Straw man. Who, and where, has tried to make him out to be an angel?

"As long as you admit that some of the Haitians themselves were also guilty of horrendous acts Dessalines massacre of the French Civilians, etc.."

Do the actions of the Haitians somehow make Buonaparte's massacres in Saint Domingue, as well as his reintroduction of slavery, somehow acceptable?

Not at all . But if you condemn one side condemn the other for their atrocities .

But why, if the thread is about Buonaparte? What relevance does it have if the Haitians committed atrocities to whether Buonaparte was a worthy leader? If atrocities and massacres were committed under Buonaparte's orders it reflects directly on Buonaparte. What Dessalines did subsequently is entirely irrelevant.

Brechtel

On my part the '1789' was a typo' and well you know it! What's your excuse for the thousands of inaccuracies that you post?

Paul :)

yes – it ws very obviously a typo of dibble – who usually submits high quality responses and very helpfull information – I am marvelling still at his information about British uniforms and the numerous officers portraits

True , This is about Napoleon . I will withdraw my question as it is not relevant to what is being discussed

I am aware of the massacres of French civilians by Dessalines in 1804. While I think it was wrong, it was not entirely unprovoked, and with the war so recently ended he naturally did not trust them to be loyal to Haiti after siding with the French. I laud the country he created almost to a fault. While the revolution was violent, I honestly believe no country before or since was founded on principles more just and noble. America took 90 years to abolish slavery, while Haiti fought to end it at the beginning of the century.
The Haitian Revolution is such a fascinating story, I have read more than a dozen books on it.

Thanks for that Von'.

I do try to bring creditable, pictorial and first hand accounts to my posts. It isn't so I can Point score, It's all about helping people who have not got the information. When I was young, I was constantly frustrated not having the information in front of me. One thing I try to do is not have others with the same interest and probably young, going through the same frustrations. The Younger generation are the ones who will keep this hobby and interest in general, alive. If they become frustrated they may well turn away from the period for an easier life of WWII. I intend in my very small way, to help all I can by posting what I have. I don't spend hours and hours downloading – editing posts and illustrations for any other reason than to inform and please.

If only one person shows his gratitude for the information that I post, then it's worth much more and well worth the effort.

Be aware that If I have to, I will defend my side of the line in the sand if need be, as many of you on this site and another know only too well.

My apologies for going off topic.

Paul :)

And talking of Britain and slavery, this is well worth a read and also quite an eye opener for those making claims when Britain ended slavery.

link

Oh dear – The Guardian? Really? And as many of the comments BTL make clear, the idea of this past being "hidden" is nonsense – there have been literally thousands of books and articles written about it in my lifetime.

so this thread is about if it had been better if Napoleon would have won Belle Alliance, now we end up in discussing Britain – the usual tactic to deviate from a topic when one is running out of arguments.
After finally a ruthless despot, reactionary and warmonger was overcome – Europe had peace for a while. His empire was surpessing all freedom much more than that of the former Louis Capet XVI.

You just have to laugh at the Nap haters. Same old, same old.

And the silly, immature and obviously biased passion to criticise Napoleon for something that others also did, is just further proof that it does not matter to them unless it is Napoleon. It is a bit like criticising one country for selling weapons to terrorists while other countries or even their own country did the same.

And dibble is right when he says we should all try to offer information and sources on matters, along with different viewpoints. But those that just criticise one historical character for something done by others, just shows how biased and blinkered some people really are and I imagine puts people off the Napoleonic period, which is a real shame. Plus, people who mention the Napoleon Fan Club should really offer the address. LOL

You just have to laugh at the Nap lovers. Same old, same old.

And the silly, immature and obviously biased passion to praise Napoleon for something that others also did, is just further proof that it does not matter to them unless it is Napoleon. It is a bit like criticising one country for selling weapons to terrorists while other countries or even their own country did the same.

And dibble is right when he says we should all try to offer information and sources on matters, along with different viewpoints. But those that just praise one historical character for something done by others, just shows how biased and blinkered some people really are and I imagine puts people off the Napoleonic period, which is a real shame.

Chouan

As they, 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'

And here's me expecting a detailed argument against what I have written. LOL

What have you written that is an argument?

What his soldiers did in Haiti was truly terrible, almost as bad as German war crimes in Europe 140 years later.

Could you be more specific?

The Germans murdered 11 million people in death and concentration camps, and performed hideous medical experiments in the camps on the prisoners. Poland lost twenty percent of her population to the Germans. The French were never guilty of that.

Too much latent credit, I believe, is given to Toussaint in Haiti. He was for Toussaint and wanted to be ruler of Haiti. He didn't actually abolish slavery, but merely changed the name. The Haitians were no better off (they still aren't).

Forgetting that Napoleon reinstituted slavery in France are we, Prof. Roberts?

When did Napoleon reinstitute slavery in France?

Too much latent credit, I believe, is given to Toussaint in Haiti. He was for Toussaint and wanted to be ruler of Haiti. He didn't actually abolish slavery, but merely changed the name. The Haitians were no better off (they still aren't).

Unfortunately, in the modern world, anyone who opposed the European powers – and especially anyone non-white/non-European – is a "hero" regardless of their previous, contemporary, or subsequent behaviour, and irrespective of whether or not they improved life for anyone but themselves. Arguably, the French brought a more progressive/less corrupt form of government to Spain, but the Spanish wanted to stay firmly rooted in the Renaissance era.

When did Napoleon reinstitute slavery in France?

I don't know enough about the French political system of this era to say for sure whether he re-introduced slavery to metropolitan France, or if – rather like England – there was no slavery as such within France's European borders. but here is what actually happened:

In 1802 Napoleon passed the "Law of 20 May 1802" which revoked the "Law of 16 Pluviôse" (1794) that had ended slavery in all French held territory. It wasn't too hard for him to revoke the abolition law, as a number of French slave owning colonies had completely ignored it anyway. As I understand it, the 1802 law only impacted, in practice, on colonies that had not followed through with the abolition law – ie places such as Guyanne, which had effectively ended slavery, did not suddenly re-enslave people.

After Napoleon was defeated and sent into exile, the British attempted to craft a peace treaty with France, as they had with other European nations, to end participation in the physical trafficking of slaves from Africa (which Britain had ended in 1807). The closest they came to a resolution was a proposal accepted by Talleyrand that France would accept a five year window during which it would wind down its involvement, thus giving the treasury some time to make money before that revenue stream ended.

However, when Napoleon returned from exile in 1815 (possibly in a bid to appease Great Britain and remove it from the Umpteenth Coalition), he passed the Imperial Decree of March 29, 1815 which abolished the French slave trade. Much like the British 1807 law, the Decree did not free slaves, or end slavery, but instead ended the transportation of new slaves. This decree was recognized by the monarchy post-Waterloo – but only because the British insisted it be in the peace treaty.

I believe that the text of the 1815 decree and info on the subsequent negotiations can be found in an article by Martha Putney, "The Slave Trade in French Diplomacy from 1814 to 1815," The Journal of Negro History (1975) 60:3 pp 411-427.