"Why was Napoleon so Successful? " Topic

At least… nobody said he was so successfull only by good luck!… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Although, above all other qualities, Napoleon valued luck!

He was a manic depressive to an extreme degree. he could do the work of a dozen men for periods of time and then went into funks when he could barely leave his tent.

@Foxweasel have you read Andrew Robert's "Napoleon: A Life"?

And trust me, you've come across as rip roaring good fun. :)

He was a manic depressive to an extreme degree. he could do the work of a dozen men for periods of time and then went into funks when he could barely leave his tent.
@Foxweasel have you read Andrew Robert's "Napoleon: A Life"?

Where did you find that Napoleon was 'a manic depressive'? I have not come across anything in all the time that I've studied Napoleon, the Grande Armee, and the period in general that stated that Napoleon 'went into funks when he could barely leave his tent. Quite the opposite in fact.

Using Corelli Barnett, Alan Schom or any of the dubious 'memoirs' (such as Bourrienne's, Madame Junot's, Madame de Stael, Talleyrand, Clare de Remusat, and Fouche) will not lead to a logical or accurate assessment of Napoleon's character, inherent talent, or any of his myriad accomplishments,military and civil, of which the latter constitute the best, and most important, of what Napoleon did.

Like Alexander, its always easier to be a great general if you inherit an army using revolutionary and succesful tactics and with xperienced men that it has already honed in many battles.

Napoleon also created the Grande Armee, built from the experience of the wars of the Revolution and trained and honed by him. And he developed the corps d'armee as well as the Cavalry Reserve, as well as developing and establishing a large army artillery reserve.

The French army was not ready to go in 1799, nor was it yet the Grande Armee. That was Napoleon's creation.

'You have to have seen the steadfastness of one of the forces trained and led by Bonaparte…seen them under fierce and unrelenting fire-to get some sense of what can be accomplished by troops steeled by long experience and danger, in whom a proud record of victories has instilled the noble principle of placing the highest demands on themselves. As an idea alone it is unbelievable.'-Clausewitz.

Good work Brechtel. I enjoyed reading you dissertation.

You couldn't be more wrong.

That's just your opinion, doesn't make you right, doesn't make you wrong.

Anything you would like to add?

No, you've just cut and pasted a rambling collection of other people's work, but you didn't disprove any of the similarities that your response was to. You can't disprove them because they're true.
You're not quite getting this, Napoleon was just as much a threat to the British people and way of life as Hitler. No one is refuting strategic brilliance or outstanding leadership, but both wanted to see an end to British sovereignty and both needed to be stopped, and were. I couldn't give a monkeys about what he did in France.

You've not supported your opinions on this subject with any evidence or supporting documentation. And your opinion has been shown to be incorrect with the supporting material that I posted.

William Pitt announced to Parliament on 31 January 1793 that England was now at war with France and that the conflict would be 'a war of extermination.'

After Napoleon became First Consul, George III wrote to William Grenville that it was 'impossible to treat with a new, impious, self-created aristocracy.' Grenville communicated with Talleyrand, because he refused to communicate with Napoleon, and demanded the restoration of the Bourbons and France to return to the frontiers of 1789.

'William Wickham wrote to Grenville in August 1800 that 'I cannot help considering the keeping France engaged in a Continental war as the only certain means of safety for us…'

Edmund Burke wrote to Grenville that 'It is not the enmity but the friendship of France that is truly terrible. Her intercourse, her example, the spread of her doctrines are the most dreadful of her arms.'

Fox believed that the British government's position on France and the First Consul 'as an unjust interference in France's home affairs.'

Interestingly, until the Peace of Amiens George III still retained the old title of 'King of France.'

The failure of Amiens was as much Britain's fault as Napoleon's, as Great Britain's insistence on different subjects were not part of the treaty in the first place, and stubbornly 'showed no sign of fulfilling the [treaty's] terms.'

And the emigres and royalists from France were given shelter by the British government and began to plot Napoleon's assassination with the support of the British government.

Once again, you have not supported your opinions with any documentation or source material and is just your opinion. It would be helpful if you would supply source material instead of relying on the British propaganda of the period.

The British government, and not necessarily a sizeable amount of the British people (many of whom supported the French Revolution), was scared to death of the new French government under the Consulate because they believed undoubtedly that Napoleon wanted to supplant George III, which wasn't the case.

Whatever. You rehashing other people's opinions is still just opinion. You're boring me now. Unfortunately this forum has a doghouse, otherwise I'd let you know what I really think. As it is, I'll just put you on ignore.

No, it's called sourcing, something which you haven't done.

What you 'really think' is completely irrelevant unless you can support it historically, which you have not done.

My home email is Boulart198@yahoo.com.

No, there definitely is an echo in here. Listen:

Brechtel, you wrote "William Pitt announced to Parliament on 31 January 1793 that England was now at war with France and that the conflict would be 'a war of extermination.'"

You wrote something very similar on the NSDF in 2015 based, if I remember correctly, on Cronin's biography of Napoleon. At that time I pointed out that the French Convention actually declared war on the King of England on 1 February 1793 and that the news was given to both houses of Parliament in a message from the King on the 11th. This, together with the subsequent debates in the House of Commons are reported in the Journals of the House of Commons and Debrett's 'A Collection of State Papers…'. I can find no contemporary record of this alleged statement by Pitt – can you provide a reference from an authoritative source?

Cronin's sources are for Chapter 15 are listed on pages 460-461.

They are for this subject:

-Memoirs of the Courts and Cabinets of George III; The Windham Papers; Diaries and Correspondence by the Earl of Malmesbury; British Statesman of the Great War 1793-1814 by Fortescue; The First Four Georges by JH Plumb.

Well, the date's wrong for certain – is there a citation for Pitt's statement, or is it necessary to go through Cronin's sources?

I've now looked at the first 4 of these sources and can't find any reference to Pitt's alleged statement – it looks a bit thin….

Well, we've looked at Cronin's sources before… pff

Pitt spoke to Parliament on 1st February 1793: link

He doesn't mention anything about a war of extermination.

Thanks Whirlwind – Pitt's speech on 17 June 1793 against a motion to seek peace with France gives a detailed exposition of his views of the causes of the war and the need to continue it, again without any reference to a 'War of extermination' – see pages 91-103

I have found a reference for Pitt's comments on a 'War of extermination' – in a speech in the Commons on 10 July 1795, Pitt said that, contrary to the claim by Sheridan (an opposition politician), the war with France was 'not a war of extermination' – this is in W. S.Hathaway (ed), 'The Speeches of The Right Honourable William Pitt, in the House of Commons' (London, Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme,1806), Vol. II p. 228.

I just checked Lieven on Russia, well he isn't spotting the Russian Army as culprit of Russian economical disaster, instead he raises well the problem of the continental blockade.

Russia followed blocade only one year – 1808. After this trade with England only rises.
Trade falls 23.1 million roubles, which mean, that Russia loses 3.6 million tax money. But as Russia in same time goes with agression against Sweden, and Sweden haved trade with Russia almost equal as England, so we may count losses from blocade as 2 million roubles. Such low pikes were normal for russian economy before and after, without any blocade.

Having 260 million roubles in economy in 1804, Russia printed 272 million uncovered roubles more to 1810, having domestic debt 668 millions. Huge inflation.

After peace with Napoleon, Russia spent 55 millions to military. So question is, Russian economy was ruined by 2 million less taxes or by 55 millions for military?

The biggest problem from short blocade for Alexander was not smaller tax money but temporarily stopped flow of "gunfodder" money from England.

Chancellor Rumyantchev on December 1809 reports to Czar, that financial crisis run not because blocade, but because military spendings and moneyprinting.

Seems pretty conclusive that Pitt has been misquoted… deliberately, one assumes…

Shocks = Nil

Seems pretty conclusive that Pitt has been misquoted… deliberately, one assumes…

So, if it is a mistake, it has to be done on purpose?

Well, given that the dates were all wrong, and Pitt was saying exactly opposite of what was claimed, it would strike me as very unlikely that any intelligent person could have genuinely misunderstood the quotes as presented.

I tend to disagree with that assumption. The usual 'methodology' on historical forums on the internet if there is a mistake found, then it has to be a 'lie.' That seems to be the default position usually taken, especially if the subject is disagreed with.

Mistakes are one thing, lying is quite another, and to automatically assume the latter seems to me to be a phenomenon of the internet, especially where actual names of the posters are not required.

Interesting take on it.

I would say that if a writer finds a quote in which someone says the war 'is not a war of extermination', they would have to be monumentally stupid to misunderstand this, and innocently interpret this unambiguous statement as meaning the exact reverse.

How do you see this 'mix-up' happening?

You are welcome to disagree on the motives behind why Pitt was so completely misquoted… but I think we can all now agree that he was.

On the death of Napoleon:

"the close of a most disgraceful transaction in which the Ministers have made this country to particpate. To be the persecutor of fallen glory and the gaoler for the European sovereigns is not the situation in which England ought to have been placed. Peace to the remains of that great man, whom History will treat hereafter with greater justice than his contemporaries have hitherto done, while our disgrace will I fear be handled with all due severity." – Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (1773-1843), sixth son of George III.

Not entirely sure how that answers my question.

I wasn't answering your question. I've already posted my opinion on the subject.

OK. I guess I shall just have to remain intrigued as to how you come to the conclusion it was an innocent mistake.

It's called giving the benefit of the doubt. Why would you assume that it was done on purpose as obfuscation and not an honest mistake?

Seems to me that you are projecting onto someone else something that you might do yourself. Is that the case?

All historical authors and historians (they are not necessarily the same thing) make errors when they research and write, unfortunately. I'm sure that you've actually made mistakes when you have posted on historical websites, have you not?

Or do you consider yourself above criticism?

No, I just don't see how anyone with a brain can accidentally misinterpret the statement: 'is not a war of extermination' as 'it is a war of extermination'.

So either this chap must be incredibly stupid, or simply dishonest.

I see no third alternative.

You clearly think he is simply incredibly stupid, whereas I tend towards the dishonesty option.

'So either this chap must be incredibly stupid, or simply dishonest.
I see no third alternative.'

For what it's worth, I think that Cronin was lazy rather than stupid or dishonest. I don't know where he picked up this quote (not from the contemporary sources listed), but this is not an area in which he was an expert and he accepted (or possibly misquoted) without bothering to check. It shows the dangers of placing undue reliance on popular histories/biographies, which try to cover too much ground.

Yes – fair point.

Laziness is indeed a third alternative.

If he got the quote from a third party, then it was laziness on his part not to double check it.

But, as I understand it, Cronin's reference would seem to be a source that he hasn't actually looked at – so that is dishonesty again.

A good point Paul.

A fair deal of dishonesty stems from laziness.

I just picked up Cronin's biography of napoleon when wandering in to a charity bookshop the other day, along with a really interesting book on 1980s NATO exercises- all for £2.00 GBP!
Looking forward to reading the Cronin volume- I've seen it referenced a lot here.

'But, as I understand it, Cronin's reference would seem to be a source that he hasn't actually looked at – so that is dishonesty again.'

The reference I found isn't in the list of Cronin's sources given by Brechtel – I don't know where Cronin picked up the Pitt reference. No-one can be an expert on everything and it's quite common for authors to repeat errors from earlier works or to get things wrong when they stray from their area of expertise. It was also obviously much harder in the days before so many resources were available on-line

It really pays to go back to the original sources.

…as I understand it, Cronin's reference would seem to be a source that he hasn't actually looked at – so that is dishonesty again.

But you don't know that, now do you?

Have you actually read Cronin's biography of Napoleon?

I wonder what your 'opinion' would be if Cronin's study was not sympathetic towards Napoleon? Is that your actual problem with Cronin?

I imagine the preference of most people in that regard would be 'objective';

- not forgetting 'thorough.'

My problem is with sloppy standards from any writer, and a slapdash / dishonest approach which spreads falsehoods.

Or do you still claim that Pitt said what Cronin claimed?

Not sure how whether or not I have read the book is relevant – would that some how make the quote genuine?

Have you read the book? If you haven't, I don't see how you can make a judgement on it.

Will you answer the other two questions that were put to you?

No, I have not read the book. Seems an irrelevant question to ask, as I was not making a judgement on the book. I was making a comment on the 'quote' which seems – judging by what I have read here – to be made-up.

Do you disagree? Or do you think that, if I have read the book, the quote will somehow no longer be made-up?

What other question do you require an answer to?

Are you going to answer any of my questions?

The merits of Cronin as a historian or biographer aside, the key point remains that the sources show William Pitt did not announce 'a war of extermination' against France, indeed stated the opposite, and the assertion that he did, is not correct. I take it we can all accept that.

42flanker

Yes – I think that is a perfectly fair assessment, though it seems at least one fellow is determined NOT to accept that.

Brechtel

In your posting of 5 Oct 2018 4.44 am, you criticised an earlier poster as follows: 'Once again, you have not supported your opinions with any documentation or source material and is just your opinion. It would be helpful if you would supply source material instead of relying on the British propaganda of the period'

You also made a number of statements about British attitudes to the French and Napoleon – were these also taken from Cronin or from some other source?

I use Cronin, John Elting, Owen Connelly, as well as various memoirs and other books, such as Sherwig's Guineas and Gunpowder.

You should think twice about using Cronin then

I don't agree. The book is excellent, no matter what anyone else's opinion is. The best part of the book is the assessment in Appendix A of memoir writers of the period. For that alone the volume is invaluable.

Why do you have to make derogatory comments that have no basis in fact?

Or, why do you have to make derogatory personal comments that do not help further any discussion?

Generally, the British just have an intractable hatred for Napoleon which they will admit but not admit that it's really not justified outside of the subjective.

Probably, most of these people dont know much about Napoleon, only that it's culturally acceptable to pile invective on him without limitation as a per se enemy of their culture.

It's positively Pavlovian.

Kevin.

Sure I disagree with you a lot. I also agree with you a lot. Stopped Clock Syndrome….
I'm merely wondering why you are protected and don't have to follow the same rules that Tango01 dies.

I don't have any Napoleonic axes to grind. Except for the fact that those damn Brits burned Washington, and refuse to come back to do it again, no matter how bad it's needed!