| Tango01 | 08 Jun 2019 9:07 p.m. PST |
…Bonaparte Changed the Course of History. "NAPOLEON BONAPARTE FAMOUSLY proclaimed himself emperor in a lavish coronation ceremony on Dec. 2 1804. But perhaps that Crown of Charlemagne would never have been set upon his head, and revolutionary France made imperial, were it not for the actions four years earlier of an obscure figure from history named Nicolas Durand. The 28-year-old grenadier of the 4th Company, 1st Squadron, of the Grenadiers à cheval of the Consular Guard was on duty at the Tuileries Palace on Christmas Eve, 1800…."
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
robert piepenbrink  | 09 Jun 2019 3:33 p.m. PST |
Bleh. There was bound to be an attempt sooner or later. Presumably Bonaparte had read Machiavelli on using any failed resistance as an excuse to wipe out any possible resistance. Certainly he understood the concept well enough. After 18 Brumaire, the only thing which could have kept him from a throne would have been a successful assassination attempt. |
| Brechtel198 | 09 Jun 2019 4:34 p.m. PST |
The assassination attempts actually speeded his way to the imperial title. His reforms were successfully remaking France for the better and solidifying the social gains of the Revolution. Which 'resistance' was being 'wiped out'? |
| Zephyr1 | 09 Jun 2019 8:53 p.m. PST |
The times they served him poisonous snails were probably accidents… |
| von Winterfeldt | 10 Jun 2019 12:03 a.m. PST |
unfortunately the assassination of Kleber succeeded – funny that tyrants are usually quite lucky. |
| Brechtel198 | 10 Jun 2019 2:48 a.m. PST |
As Napoleon governed by the rule of law, he wasn't by definition 'a tyrant.' That cannot be said of Frederick William, Alexander, and Francis. From Webster's Dictionary: Definition of tyrant: 1a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.
b: a usurper of sovereignty. 2a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally.
b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power. |
| dibble | 10 Jun 2019 2:03 p.m. PST |
C'mon Von! He wasn't a tyrant, he was much worse than that. He was a forwardcombinglittlefat *r who had a propensity to slap his 'inferiors' kidnap and shoot his political enemies, Send his hoards forth to devastate the populace of the countries he invaded. Threaten any country with invasion if they wanted to trade with Britain. Ignore his own directives and laws because they didn't apply to him. slaughter his prisoners, abandon his army on more than one occasion Oh! And abandon his wife for some Austrian bint. Nah! Napoleon wasn't a Tyrant…Drop a 't' 'y'and 'n' and you are left with what he really was and that was, a rat. Only George III was the tyrant of the day…Ask the Americans! They saved their country from tyranny. |
| Tango01 | 11 Jun 2019 12:55 p.m. PST |
|
| dibble | 11 Jun 2019 3:16 p.m. PST |
I think you mean 'Gulp!' :) |
| Tango01 | 12 Jun 2019 12:09 p.m. PST |
No my friend… Gulp! is in english…Glup! is in spanish…. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| Jpnorth | 12 Jun 2019 12:15 p.m. PST |
I wrote that article, so thanks for the mention! Seems to me that we should try to see Bonaparte in the context of the time. December 1800. Pretty much an ambitious general turned authoritarian ruler. Liked by those who wanted order. Loathed by the royalists and republicans. But a man not guilty of invading Russia and killing millions, at least not yet. How he would have been remembered had he been killed then is just as interesting as who might have filled his shoes. |
| von Winterfeldt | 12 Jun 2019 2:00 p.m. PST |
well as long as it isn't Gluck … Yes don't forget général Vendémiaire, the ruthless acting in Italy, the Egyptian blunder, the massacre of Jaffa, the military coup in Brumaire … already in 1800 he had quite a history. Bernadotte would have been a good choice – for France. |
| Brechtel198 | 12 Jun 2019 3:45 p.m. PST |
Bernadotte had no following in France and it was against his nature to be loyal to anyone except himself. |
