Help support TMP


"English 'Gentlemen'?" Topic


158 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board



6,736 hits since 17 Nov 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

Brechtel19817 Nov 2017 9:01 a.m. PST

This was referenced on another Napoleonic site. It is quite interesting…

link

Murvihill17 Nov 2017 9:18 a.m. PST

They were lenient on Napoleon the first time they beat him, and he repaid them by disrupting Europe again. He needed to be treated more harshly the second time. The alternative would have been to return him to France like all the other POW's.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 9:54 a.m. PST

No deal anyone ever offered or gave was good enough for His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, but I think he was right to prefer surrender to the British to being given to the French royalists--or the Prussians.

And what else was there? Murvihill's right: they'd already tried giving him a miniature kingdom. How many lives had that piece of leniency cost? An English estate, perhaps? Just how long would he have stayed?

He lived the rest of his life in comfort--luxury in some respects--and complete freedom except for leaving St Helena. That's a better deal than he ever gave anyone who gave him trouble.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 10:03 a.m. PST

"On the field of battle his hat is worth fifty thousand men; but he is not a gentleman."

Brechtel19817 Nov 2017 10:25 a.m. PST

The Bourbons broke the Treaty of Fontainebleu in that they refused to pay Napoleon his pension, which was stipulated in the treaty.

Without the pension, he could not pay his Guard and they would have to leave. The allies were also talking about moving him from Elba to a more remote location. That doesn't seem 'lenient' to me.

And what 'deals' did Napoleon give 'anyone who gave him trouble'? Are you referring to the other crowned heads of Europe who continued to wage war against France in 1805, 1806, 1807, and 1809? Seems to me the Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns and Romanoffs retained their thrones.

And St Helena was not a comfort nor a luxury, nor was dying of stomach cancer.

And the allies refused to allow Napoleon's son to be with him. I cannot think of a more cruel 'punishment.'

And then what the Prussians did to Saxony and its king, the Pope to the papal states, the Russians to the Poles, etc., was not in the best interest of any of those peoples.

138SquadronRAF Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 10:49 a.m. PST

Compared to Ney he got off rather lightly old boy.

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 11:43 a.m. PST

He got off very lightly compared to the last one who decided to take over the world and lost.

Le Breton17 Nov 2017 1:14 p.m. PST

Compared to the last prior monarch of France he got off rather lightly.

McKinstry Fezian17 Nov 2017 1:22 p.m. PST

So he got how many people killed over a pension and relocation dispute?

Brechtel19817 Nov 2017 2:38 p.m. PST

He got off very lightly compared to the last one who decided to take over the world and lost.

When did Napoleon 'decide' to take over the world?

Personal logo Artilleryman Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 3:01 p.m. PST

About 1798.

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 3:02 p.m. PST

If he'd succeeded in Russia he'd have carried on, it's what people who are winning do, they only stop when they lose.

huevans01117 Nov 2017 3:16 p.m. PST

Wasn't he thinking of knocking the Hohenzollerns off the throne of Prussia and locking them up like he locked up the King of Spain?

He never conquered Russia and therefore, Alex was pretty safe. And the Empereur wanted to ally with Austria and so Francis was a convenient save – for the time being.

Of course, given how badly Joseph screwed up Spain, he probably couldn't be trusted with Austria. Maybe Murat? Or Jerome?

Brechtel19817 Nov 2017 3:21 p.m. PST

About 1798.

Evidence/Sources?

Brechtel19817 Nov 2017 3:23 p.m. PST

Napoleon badly defeated the Russians in 1805 and 1807. Austria was defeated in 1797, 1800, 1805, and 1809.

The monarchs were not displaced after those defeats.

Napoleon did consider getting rid of Frederick William because of his aggression against France in 1806. If he had, he probably would have replaced him with one of the princes from the Confederation of the Rhine.

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 3:48 p.m. PST

"This little corner of Europe is too small…We must go to the East.All the great men of the world have there acquired their celebrity."
"The fate of the East is in the fort of Acre…Then I will overthrow the Turkish empire and found a great new empire in the east which will preserve my place in posterity…"
"Acre once taken,I would have reached Constantinople and the Indies.I would have changed the face of the world"
Not evidence, I found it within 5 minutes of googling. But I'd say it's a good idea of his character, someone who wants to rule the world.

Le Breton17 Nov 2017 4:13 p.m. PST

"Napoleon badly defeated the Russians in 1805 and 1807"
"The monarchs were not displaced after those defeats."

Napoléon defeted rather small (compared to the total of Russia's military) expeditionary forces operating outside of Russian territory in 1805 and 1807.
Why would that effect the Russian monarch?

Russia did not fight "one campaign" wars – but held conflicts open for years. Often battles were lost, but the Russians would just come back with another army, the next year or the next decade.

Examples :

Polsih War 1733-1738
Polish War 1768-1772
Polish War 1792-1794
Polish War 1830-1831

Turkish War 1735-1739
Turkish War 1768-1774
Turkish War 1787-1792
Turkish War 1806-1812
Turkish War 1828-1829

Swedish War 1788-1790
Swedish War 1808-1809

Persian War 1798-1799
Persian War 1804-1813
Perisan War 1826-1828

French War 1799-1801
French War 1803-1807
French War 1812-1814 (and 1815)

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 4:23 p.m. PST

Like many things during the Napoleonic Wars/Regency, there were a number of sea-changes in society, but the English gentleman had a long history and was the entry point for the middle class into the upper class…one of the draws to becoming an 'Officer and gentleman'.Our notions of a 'gentleman' are colored by two centuries of subsequent history and evolution of the 'gentleman.'

It does explain the rather confused dealings with Napoleon and whether he deserved to be treated as a 'gentleman.' I've taken the liberty of added portions of a study on the Regency gentleman.

The History of the Gentleman

When the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England in 1066, William the Conqueror installed a new hierarchy of titles for the ruling class. These men and their families owned the majority of all available land across England. Those who lived on those lands were ‘subjects' of the ruling class and of the King.

At the same time, the Age of Chivalry was dawning. At its heart was a set of ethical behaviors and heroic ideals expected specifically of the warriors, the knights of Feudal Europe—which included the majority of the nobility. Our notions of ‘fair play', gracious behaviors, being polite and thoughtful of others less fortunate all were encapsulated in the ideals of Chivalry.

A ‘gentleman' originally meant someone at the lowest rung of The upper class, below a squire. The Squire was the knight's apprentice. The Gentleman was the ‘squire in waiting', an officer among a knight's soldier servants. They shared the same expectations of chivalric behavior as any knight. Heredity still held sway…unless they won glory for the king and as a reward, a hereditary title and land.

By the Regency period, Squire was still an honor that could be conferred by the Crown and the title was included with certain offices such as Justice of the Peace. A squire was often the principle landowner in a district.

The rank of gentleman became a distinct title with the statute of Additions in 1413 and remained so into the Regency. This title was given to a man of high rank or birth, with wealth and inherited land, though there were exceptions. At the time, it was an inherited title as well as conferred and 'assumed' by the acquisition of property. A gentleman had his wealth from the land, not 'Trade' or actual work.

In the beginning, chivalric behavior was simply something expected of anyone holding the rank of gentleman or above to the highest ranks of nobility, as most were also 'knighted' as well as titled. William Harrison writing in the late 1500s, noted, "Gentlemen be those whom their race and blood, [birth and family] or at the least their virtues, [accomplishments/achieving glory] do make noble and known."

Even this early, a growing middle class sought entry into the upper classes with their new wealth, not surprisingly, at this lowest rung of nobility. In 1614, John Selden, author of Titles of Honor voiced a growing concern with ‘created' gentlemen:

"…that no Charter can make a Gentleman, which is cited as out of the mouth of some great Princes that have said it." He adds that "they without question understood Gentleman for Generosus in the ancient sense, or as if it came from Genii/is in that sense, as Gentilis denotes one of a noble Family, or indeed for a Gentleman by birth." For "no creation could make a man of another blood more than he is."

The feudal creation of chivalric knighthood, of sensitive, ‘genteel' behavior on the part of warriors grew to be seen as evidence of ‘good breeding',[As in family lineage] a visible distinction setting the upper classes apart from the lower classes.

Not surprising, this set of behaviors had to be clearly defined. Henry Peacham's 1634 treatise The Compete English Gentleman: The Truth in Our Times, was an example of an author delineating these differences to the upper class by one of their own.

The Successful Noble, the Successful Gentleman.

What constituted success and status for men of the European aristocracy from 1600 to 1800 was exemplified by the most successful noble in the middle of that period, Louis XIV, The Sun King. The goal of that French monarch was identical for every aristocrat: Glory. Or as the German princes called it ‘Ruhm.' This was gained fame, admiration and social distinction. "Honor" was existing Glory, and the responsibility of the honorable to defend it. These outward signs of glory and honor were attained by successful wars and battlefield heroics, gaining new territories and personal notoriety among a noble's peers, usually by a conspicuous demonstration of wealth, with clothing, court and social activities, impressive buildings and possessions.

Louis VIX was the model. It didn't matter how small or poor the European principality or duchy, a smaller version of the Versailles palace had to be built, wars fought and personal grandeur bought. The most expensive possessions and extravagant spending remained de rigor, driving many nobles—and their states—into poverty.
This desire for glory on the part of the British upper classes continued into the 19th Century.

In 1812, Colonel George Napier, an officer and a gentleman, speaking of why he went to war wrote, "I should hate to fight out of personal malice or revenge, but have no objection to fighting for fun and glory."
Glory and attendant honor was open to any gentleman in uniform.

Social Challenges to the Upper Classes

The foundational challenge was the ‘Enlightenment.' Newton and Halley were discovering the laws of the universe. Philosophers such as Voltaire and Hume were challenging the intellectual tyranny of established religions. Rational thought and Man's ability to understand the world viewed the arbitrary laws and traditions such as hereditary power and ‘Divine Right of Kings' as hindrances to human progress in all areas of life.

In 1700, Louis XIV had said, "I am the State". Fifty years later, a rational ‘Philosopher King', Frederick the Great, as absolute a ruler as Louis, viewed himself as "The First Servant of the State." Government has moved from the individual to an entity made up of every subject including the king: the state. Chivalry, which had been seen as pertaining to warrior knights grew to be a ‘rational' expectation of any intelligent and educated person in the ruling classes.

The political challenges went deeper. A contemporary of Frederick's, Jean Jacque Rosseau, signed his letters and essays ‘A Citizen.' He was not the subject of a king. He insisted on a different relationship with ‘the state.' All men were equal as members of the ‘social contract.' Those radical views of government and Man's relationship to it led to both the American and French Revolutions. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 is based on this idea. This view saw representative government as the rational model, an idea encouraged in England by a history of civil wars, progressively limiting the power of the monarchy. However, the British upper classes found themselves caught between the power gained through a weakened monarchy and the ideas of representative government, especially the madness of the French Revolution and Napoleon, threatening their hereditary powers.

The Gentleman Redefined

Ancient traditions of what constituted the gentry were challenged in the 18th Century by the Enlightenment ideas. In turn, the Enlightenment ideals were challenged in the late 1700s by Romanticism. Where the Enlightenment held up the intellect, classical thought and reason as the salvation of man, Romanticism challenged that view, turning to the emotions, the individual and the senses as more essential to life. During the Regency period, these two views marched side-by-side, when not mixing in complicated ways. The growth of the wealthy middle class and the reading public spread these views. For instance, British poets at the beginning of the 19th century seemed to exemplify this Enlightenment-Romanticism dichotomy. Coleridge, Wordsworth and Keats spoke to the intellectual approach to beauty, while Blake, Shelly and Byron were the sensual romantics, the arbitrators of ‘the New Man.' This is a basic conflict in Austen's book Sense and Sensibility: Elinor Dashwood holds on to propriety, sensible behavior in spite of her emotions whereas her sister Marianne values the purity of emotions honestly expressed above the artificial strictures of etiquette.'

Even politics were affected: the Tories held to traditional, rational beliefs, the Whigs, the liberal views of representative government, equality and romanticism.

The expectations of gentlemanly behavior also became more democratic under these pressures, however at odds with upper class definitions.

Romanticism took the ideals of Chivalry and their attendant ethical behaviors and made them the ennobling aspect: Behavior defined the gentleman. Books and magazines concerning etiquette appeared detailing the proper behavior of gentlemen. Before the end of the 18th century, The Gentleman's Magazine appeared. One of the first published to both ‘educate and inform' the upper class gentleman—and the ambitious middle class of professionals and businessmen. Popular novels also detailed these expectations in an effort to ‘educate.'

The idea of ‘ennobling' genteel behavior took hold in various ways. A story told at the end of the 18th century, which is probably not true, but indicative of this idea involved King James II. The monarch was petitioned by a lady asking him to make her son a gentleman. He supposedly replied, "I could make him a nobleman, but God Almighty could not make him a gentleman." The ideal of gentlemanly behavior was being separated from any upper class distinction or rank. That is a basic conflict in Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice.

In 1811, four men walk into a ballroom. One is a titled noble, one is a local squire, third is a wealthy and landed businessman and the fourth, a lawyer.

The host walks up to them and says, "Gentlemen, welcome to our ball." Which men is he speaking to? By the Regency, a man could be called a ‘gentleman' for variety of reasons:

•A recognized rank in law and society as a land-owning member of the upper class.
•Any person of the upper class, noble or gentry, the recipient of heredity and tradition.
•A wealthy person of the upper class without land but with family among the gentry or nobility.
•A broad social class that included those who owned land (the country or landed gentry) as well as specific professions who did not (barristers, physicians, military officers and the clergy).
•A hereditary consequence of ‘good breeding.'
•Anyone adhering to a set of social and ethical principles, proper behavior and etiquette. This quality could possibly have any man being referred to as ‘a gentleman.'
•An address applied as a sign of respect to any man.

Any and all of the above might apply or not to the four men mentioned above. If that sounds confusing and rather contradictory, it was.

"You misled me by the term gentleman," observes one character in Austin's Persuasion, "I thought you were speaking of some man of property." This confusion becomes a serious social conundrum for gentlemen of the Regency.

The Regency Upper Class: The realm of the Gentleman

By 1800, The British nobility or peerage included about 300 families of royal parentage as well as non-royal Dukes, Marquis, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons.
The Gentry were ranked lower, being all those who were not nobility, but still considered part of the upper class. This included all the offspring of a titled father except the first born son. However, the gentry also encompassed non-hereditary titles including 540 baronets, 350 knights, 6,000 landed squires and about 20,000 gentlemen.

The families of these nobles and gentry, the Beau Monde, totaled perhaps 1.5% of the British population in 1800 and about 20% of the national income. However, the nobility and gentry combined owned more than 70% of the land across the British Isles. Thus, in 1801, the gentleman was a member of an elite group numbering no more than 100,000 individuals in a nation of 8 million in England and Wales, nearly 16 million counting Scotland and Ireland.

Though industrialization and urbanization had begun to take hold at the end of the eighteenth century, the most influential sector of society during the Regency was the landed gentry through sheer numbers, and not the titled nobility. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this relatively small group retained their hold over the land through a system that encouraged the consolidation and extension of estates by enforcing strict inheritance laws.

Entails of the kind referred to in Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility were established during this period in order to concentrate wealth and enlarge estates by funneling property to male children or male relatives rather than breaking it up and distributing it amongst family members, male and female. The continental kingdoms such as France did not do this, which resulted in the nobility multiplying in number while diluting noble estates, later generations becoming impoverished princes and dukes with ever smaller holdings.

Thus, Mr. Bennett's land is left not to his daughters but to a male member of his extended family, Mr. Collins, ensuring that the property stays in the family line, while disinheriting Elizabeth and her sisters. Large country estates of the kind Mr. Darcy owned and Mr. Bingley desires to purchase, served as a symbol of the wealth and power of the landed gentry. The Gentry was a uniquely British stratum of upper class society not found in continental Europe. Many of the Gentry were far wealthier than dukes and princes on the continent, or even in Britain.

Officially, in order to be a member of the gentry, a man had to own a country house and estate lands which would be rented by tenant farmers or workers. A gentleman did not work his lands or *gasp* do manual labor like a small land owner, the yeoman farmer. His income came from the tenants. All financial ties to business and ‘trade' had to be severed to gain and retain gentry status.

Because of the many changes created by twenty years of war and the attendant economic problems, becoming a gentleman actually grew easier, though buying an estate remained an expensive legal transaction. However, achieving the elevated position of gentleman, whether by wealth or accord, did not necessarily guarantee acceptance by the ranks of the upper class. There was a bottom tier where one was barely acknowledged regardless of wealth and land.

This inner-gentry ranking wasn't enforced by law, per se, but rather by active social strictures. The Beau Monde policed its own. One had to be ‘allowed in' socially, which was difficult without significant support. Jane Austen portrayed this social ‘gate' repeatedly in her novels.

This kind of censor could come from any quarter, but it always sounded the same. For example, Reverend William Holland, the vicar for the parish of Overstowey in Somerset, wrote in his diary in 1799 about a local man, Andrew Guy, "Alias squire Guy, a rich old widower…the son of a grazier [raised cattle] lifted up to the rank of gentleman, but ignorant and illiterate." They would never be fully accepted, and the best hope was for their children to marry ‘above their station', something that also could carry a stigma.

A newly minted gentleman, someone like a wealthy merchant or even successful naval officers such as Admiral Croft and Captain Wentworth in Persuasion, did not have the prestige attached to ‘old families' who inherited landed estates over several generations. The resistance to the ‘new gentry' is portrayed in Austen's novel many times. For example, Anne Elliott's family in the same novel is forced to rent their estate to the far wealthier Admiral Croft, but they still see him as an inferior interloper.

In Pride & Prejudice, Sir William Lucas is a knighted gentleman, but still deferential to the untitled Darcy because his family, far wealthier, comes from a long line of Darcy's whereas Lucas has no inherited land or title. In Emma, the Vicar Philip Elton considers himself a gentleman and therefore capable of marrying Emma, while she, because of her sense of class distinctions, never imagines he would or could seriously consider courting her. It is no accident that Jane Austin gave Darcy [D'Arcy] and Lady de Bourgh ancient family names harking back to the French Normans.

Money and broadening definitions made this access to the upper class possible, but it also threatened the established class system. Weakening boundaries around the gentry saw family history and any such distinctions as evermore critical, defending the class boundaries and a gentleman's rank as an issue of survival, particularly when facing the dictums of the French Revolution. The Tories recognized this danger. Edmund Burke, is seen as the father of modern conservativism.
In his 1791 "Reflections on the Revolution in France", he wrote in detail about the need to uphold tradition, believing a nation's wealth and stability resided in land ownership, the established hierocracy, not business and the fickle marketplace where land is sold and bought like cattle. It is no accident that some of his ideas are today championed by a group called "Chivalry Now."

link

Edwulf17 Nov 2017 5:41 p.m. PST

Should have shot him in 1815.

The British were too gentlemanly at times. Swap Ney for Napoleon is what we should have done.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2017 9:17 p.m. PST

What exactly did Napoleon do to "deserve" a deal?
Besides usurping power and waging war on just about every state he could get his hands on. Good thing Japan and China were so far away.

His "reign" as emperor did not last long enough to legitimize him. His heir never reigned.
Using England as an example, Henry IV spent his reign dealing with "issues" concerning his legitimacy. His son Henry V seemed to have few such problems.

If you are going to usurp power, stick around long enough to make it legit.

Marc at work18 Nov 2017 1:24 a.m. PST

That's the secret. If he'd won we would regard him and his family like every other monarch – lots of whom went to war. But he lost so he is an evil despot.

Sigh…

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP18 Nov 2017 2:11 a.m. PST

We regard him as an evil despot because he was our country's enemy, win or lose we'd still think of him like that. Other countries opinions of him are totally different of course.

plutarch 6418 Nov 2017 5:07 a.m. PST

I wonder what the Duc d'Enghien would have made of Napoleon's treatment, given their respective and ultimate fates.

While I can admire much of the latter's achievements, I can also see that he was a man who allowed his ambition to overtake him, to the point where he became what he had striven so long to replace.

Marc at work18 Nov 2017 7:33 a.m. PST

It we don't tend to get as heated about other "despots" – enemies or not. The 30YW, the 7YW, ACW etc. Lots of leaders etc, but none seem to get the TMP blood boiling in the same way.

I reckon a lot of leaders/wars could have bad things found about them, but Napoléon seems to be generating a whole new level of hate. Way beyond what I remember years ago

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP18 Nov 2017 7:41 a.m. PST

I don't think anyone's saying they hate him, that would just be a bit silly as it's 200 years ago. All people are saying is Napoleon was another evil dictator/despot who would like to have had a world wide empire. If you want hatred you need to look through the eyes of our countrymen during his wars.

von Winterfeldt18 Nov 2017 9:51 a.m. PST

I wonder – in case he would have been killed, how we would see Boney today, without all those lies and propaganda he constructed during his exile.

Tango0118 Nov 2017 11:35 a.m. PST

Lies and propaganda from BOTH sides…

I enjoyed the good fighting Napoleón did at Saint Helene… at the end… there he achievement to crown his legend beyond any contemporary … and we continue talking about him until our days …


Amicalement
Armand

138SquadronRAF Supporting Member of TMP18 Nov 2017 4:21 p.m. PST

Let's see San Sebastian occurred towards the end of the Second Hundred Years War. For the previous 150 years the Rules of War set down a basic standard for besieged cities. To preserve life and property the besieged commander could surrender at any point up when a practical breach had been made in the walls. The terms that the besieged received largely depended when in the process surrender occurred.

The defenders were expected to put up some resistance. After that they could surrender with honour.
Early on they were permitted to leave with full honours, including keeping flags and weapons.
Later surrender resulted in surrendering colours and then colours and arms.

Once a breach was made and the attackers had to storm the breach all the rules went away. The attacker was given a few days to vent it's anger. Didn't matter who the town belong to.

This basic principal kept sieges reasonable civilised from the end of the 30 Years War until the Napoleonic period.

What changed? The French commanders had an opportunity to surrender and they didn't do the correct thing. It's unfortunate the Spaniards suffered, but the rules were clearly understood.

Brechtel19819 Nov 2017 9:53 a.m. PST

What 'rules' permitted the terror bombing of Copenhagen in 1807 against a neutral country?

What 'rules' permitted the Royal Navy from its terror campaign in the Chesapeake in 1813-1814?

Seems to me that there is a double standard at work here.

Brechtel19819 Nov 2017 10:25 a.m. PST

The attacker was given a few days to vent it's anger.

Would you please show where Wellington and his subordinate commanders gave permission for 'a few days' for their troops to 'vent [their] anger' in Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, and San Sebastien?

The British troops went completely out of hand and even threatened British officers who attempted to 'moderate their fury.'

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP19 Nov 2017 10:31 a.m. PST

Brechtel, are you descended from Napoleon the loser by any chance? You don't seem to like the British much either.

Brechtel19819 Nov 2017 10:43 a.m. PST

Not that it's any of your business, but my ancestry is Anglo-Irish, the same as Wellington's.

And I actually like the British quite a lot and was in London this past summer-lovely place and I had the opportunity to meet with some of my British friends there.

By birth and loyalty, I'm an American.

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP19 Nov 2017 10:55 a.m. PST

Calm down, thought you might have been French. But I can see the Irish by the way you talk of "British terror bombing" and "British terror campaign"

dibble19 Nov 2017 11:11 a.m. PST

let's see! A slice of British bread with a few mould marks on the crust. The French slice of bread which is almost totally green. In other words, British wrong-doings can be counted on the fingers of ones hands….The French wrong-doings can be counted on the the fingers of ones regiment….

It's a wonder that the alleged British attempted assassination of Nappy hasn't been thrown into the ring yet!

Paul :)

Brechtel19819 Nov 2017 1:26 p.m. PST

But I can see the Irish by the way you talk of "British terror bombing" and "British terror campaign"

What else would you call them? In both cases civilians were specifically targeted.

It has nothing to do with my Irish ancestry. I have nothing in common with the population of that island.

Brechtel19819 Nov 2017 1:59 p.m. PST

It's a wonder that the alleged British attempted assassination of Nappy hasn't been thrown into the ring yet!

It isn't alleged: The British provided support, funding, and a training site for French royalists to train to overthrow Napoleon's government and to assassinate Napoleon.

See Napoleon's Elite by Raymond Horricks, page 207:

'…the emigres' would-be assassin Georges Cadoudal…the British-backed agent who had returned to France to organize yet another attempt on Napoleon's life…The squat, bull-necked Breton…with red hair and a scarred, broken nose, had been running the royalists' guerilla training camp at Romsey-which Pitt had agreed to finance.

Tango0119 Nov 2017 2:18 p.m. PST

This is becoming something personal … it would be better to leave it that way and move on to something else …


Amicalement
Armand

Brechtel19819 Nov 2017 2:31 p.m. PST

Sage advice, Armand. Unfortunately, when the anti-Napoleon crowd is disagreed with, they turn their postings personal as they have no discernable logical argument.

By John 5419 Nov 2017 2:52 p.m. PST

'Unfortunately, when the anti-Napoleon crowd is disagreed with, they turn their postings personal as they have no discernable logical argument.'

And you'd never do that, would you, Brech?

I was on another thread, just now, feeling a bit soiled, as I totally agreed with a posting of yours, thank you for restoring the Status Quo.

Love 'n' hugs,

John

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP20 Nov 2017 8:51 a.m. PST

So, Brechtel. How's the campaign to canonize Napoleon I coming along?
Still stuck in Committee at the Vatican due to those meddling British cardinals?

Tango0120 Nov 2017 9:32 a.m. PST

Ha-Ha-Ha…

John… you are GREAT!…


Amicalement
Armand

dibble20 Nov 2017 2:52 p.m. PST

Brechtel

It isn't alleged: The British provided support, funding, and a training site for French royalists to train to overthrow Napoleon's government and to assassinate Napoleon.

See Napoleon's Elite by Raymond Horricks, page 207:

'…the emigres' would-be assassin Georges Cadoudal…the British-backed agent who had returned to France to organize yet another attempt on Napoleon's life…The squat, bull-necked Breton…with red hair and a scarred, broken nose, had been running the royalists' guerilla training camp at Romsey-which Pitt had agreed to finance.

But where is the evidence that the British government conspired to have Napoleon assassinated? There is none. Even a shred of evidence that Pitt (An individual not the government) was complicit in the attempt.

training camps for French agent's and regiments were exactly that! If a group wanted to kill Nappy then good! He was a legitimate target to those that tried to kill him.

The bottom line is, is there any evidence that Pitt or the British Government ordered Nappy's assassination? If there is, a pointer to it would be welcomed.

Cheers!

PS. "HORRICKS, Raymond (Anthony) 1933-

PERSONAL: Born April 20, 1933, in Withington, England; son of Francis (a chemist) and May (Ingham) Horricks; married Sheila Rossini Sexton, February 14, 1956 (divorced, 1977); children: Justine Gabrielle. Ethnicity: "North-West Mercian Anglo-Saxon." Education: Attended City Literary Institute, London, England; attended Sorbonne, University of Paris, 1949-50. Politics: "Social Democrat Bonapartist." Religion: "Roman Catholic, student of Zen." Hobbies and other interests: Reading, walking, Wren architecture, travel."

So as you see, I can't take what Horricks Wrote as good sources (whatever they were/) especially as he is a self confessed Bonapartist!

PPS. If you have read the book, perhaps you can post his sources and even what he wrote too!

Paul :)

Brechtel19820 Nov 2017 5:52 p.m. PST

So as you see, I can't take what Horricks Wrote as good sources (whatever they were/) especially as he is a self confessed Bonapartist!

That being the case, then because you are virulently anti-Napoleon, we cannot take whatever you say about the French seriously?

dibble20 Nov 2017 7:01 p.m. PST

That being the case, then because you are virulently anti-Napoleon, we cannot take whatever you say about the French seriously?

And the same goes for you too I suppose!

But this isn't about the French, it's about the British (See your thread title) and unfounded allegations that the British government 'or Pitt' ordered the assassination of Napoleon. I bet that you have never read Horrick's book. In fact I bet that someone else gave you that authors book and page number. You haven't read it have you? You haven't got Horricks' sources either?

whoever gave you the Horricks 'lead' should be contacted by you so you can destroy me on this topic.

Like I said above (which has nothing to do with Horrick really seeing you won't [can't] post his 'sources') Please post any evidence that Pitt or the British Government ordered Nappy's assassination.

Paul :)

Edwulf20 Nov 2017 8:02 p.m. PST

Why not. Anti Bonerparte does not equal anti French.

I love the French. I don't love Boney. The two are not inseparable.

But yes a proclaimed Bonerpartist's writings about him should be viewed with suspicion, not written off completely, but it should be noted he has self proclaimed "fan boy" status. Just as it would if he was a self proclaimed "hater"..

You yourself are something of Francophile / russophobe (in a purely Napoleonic context) That renders everything you say about France and Russia useless? Of course not. And that's not what Dibble was saying.

Brechtel19821 Nov 2017 2:46 a.m. PST

It's exactly what he's saying. He's virulently anti-Napoleon, to my mind beyond reason. He has proved that time and again in his postings and his 'opinions.'

Brechtel19821 Nov 2017 2:50 a.m. PST

…and unfounded allegations that the British government 'or Pitt' ordered the assassination of Napoleon. I bet that you have never read Horrick's book. In fact I bet that someone else gave you that authors book and page number. You haven't read it have you? You haven't got Horricks' sources either?

I have the book, which is why I posted the quotation. The book was recommended by a colleague, so I bought it to see for myself and have read most of it so far. So I suggest if you want to find out what the author used as source material, go and get yourself a copy. It's on Amazon. I have found the volume credible. I'm not surprised that you don't, and you haven't read it. Typical.

Please post any evidence that Pitt or the British Government ordered Nappy's assassination.

I've posted the information from this source that states that Pitt supported the training camps for royalists. Do you actually believe that Pitt did not understand what they were up to? The British and the Royalists wanted Napoleon's government overthrown and the Bourbons restored, by fair means or foul.

…whoever gave you the Horricks 'lead' should be contacted by you so you can destroy me on this topic.

I have no interest to 'destroy' anyone, and quite frankly, you're not worth the effort. It would be a waste of my time and I have other, better projects to get on with.

I bet that you have never read Horrick's book. In fact I bet that someone else gave you that authors book and page number. You haven't read it have you? You haven't got Horricks' sources either?

Don't assume that others might pursue a course of action that you might pursue yourself. In short, false accusations and misrepresentations based on false assumptions are not the way to discuss history. If you are actually interested, then get the book. You can then have it on hand to discuss. Otherwise, do what you like.

von Winterfeldt21 Nov 2017 4:28 a.m. PST

"We cannot take whatever you say about the French seriously"

Who is we – ? I wanted to be excluded in such a we.

I can take dibble seriouly – regarding context and knowledge, he isn't also in my view not at all anti – Napoleon.

It is seeminlgy very convenient to label persons anti – Napoleon in case they are not suffering from blind admiration.

dibble21 Nov 2017 4:55 a.m. PST

Well well, prevarication as usual. You have no evidence though do you? Same old Kevin.

The book was recommended to you by another person on the Napoleon Series. But it has sweet F.A amount of evidence that Pitt or the British Government ordered Nappy's assassination.

But then, you are virulently pro-Napoleon, of which the public is in no doubt.

I don't have to buy the Book to know that it contains no evidence. If it did you would have posted it

Anyway Kevin! Thanks for saying that you wouldn't destroy me or anyone else publicly but I'm sure you would go the whole nine yards to prove us wrong if you could.

Again, this isn't about Napoleon, even though he was a target of some Frenchmen, it's about the British.

Paul :)

Brechtel19821 Nov 2017 5:18 a.m. PST

I don't have to buy the Book to know that it contains no evidence. If it did you would have posted it

How would you know as you don't have the book and you haven't read it?

What 'prevarication' are you referring to? You're posting nonsense.

But it has sweet F.A amount of evidence that Pitt or the British Government ordered Nappy's assassination.

I posted the relevant passage from the book, which is supporting evidence, regarding Pitt and the Romsey training camp. If you don't agree, it is up to you to provide contrary information.

That you won't or can't is indicative of your interest or skill in historical inquiry.

Pages: 1 2 3 4