"Why does everyone assume Napoleon was the problem?" Topic

Reading some of the posts on the "Was Napoleon a psychopath" thread, there is a strong assumption that he was the man to beat.

What about the other powers? What makes us think they were defending themselves against Napoleon's encroachments?

Why do we assume that it wasnt the other monarchies that needed to be beaten?

Is it really a good thing that Napoleon was defeated? By what measurement? Why is there a strong current that Napoleon was the problem and not the other nations?

And especially for the British cause; why did they think they had to topple him? What were their motives?

Victors write the history?

What writings that most of us can access are in English

> What makes us think they were defending themselves against Napoleon's encroachments?

Because for the most part they were?

If Napoleon were not around I'm sure they would be fighting each other but he made a habit of sticking his nose in other countries business, and territory.

"What makes us think they were defending themselves against Napoleon's encroachments?"

Winners write the history, so their paradigm prevails.

"Is it really a good thing that Napoleon was defeated? By what measurement?"

There is no conceivable way to assess this. Could he have created a stable Europe? Could his relations have retained power in the various places he sprinkled them? Or would it all have been swept away after his death. Might ha have ended up assassinated by a jealous underling, "et tu Augerau?"

On the flip side, notwithstanding his ultimate defeat, he left an indelible mark on the world. France, despite the return of the monarchy, never fully lost the changes made by Napoleon. Louisiana's state laws devolved from the Napoleonic Code. Nappy sowed the seeds of modern Germany.

The Brits, like so many countries of the period, could never get over the sense that France had become a dangerous aberration. A nation of regicides, likely to spread their crown toppling ways if not halted. And Napoleon was the great pretender to their club, who could never be accepted.

Too much change, too fast. But in the end his changes survived him.

Winners write the history, so their paradigm prevails.

not in this case, Boney's propaganda written at St. Helena dominates still how he is seen in history of today, being a genius in propaganda he knew this and created his own legend.

Also his s built and are still building his legend, he is referred almost in a sort of religious way.

Well, they're not called the Napoleonic Wars for nothing. There wasn't a single war between 1792 and 1815 in which the French weren't either one side or the major ally of one. On two occasions, the wars ended the instant he was deposed. Helluva coincidence, that.

Either France was extraordinarily mismanaged and blundered blamelessly into all these wars, or every country in Europe suffered some sort of national psychotic episode that made them all gratuitously want to go to war with France, or Napoleon really was the problem.

We should also remember, as touched on above, that there had been competition on the continent between the Hapsburgs and and France since the C16th, between the Bourbon French (etc) and the kingdom of England since the late 17th, and globally with the United Kingdom thereafter.

The 'Great French War' of 1792-1815, with Napoleon Bonaparte as a principal player on the French team, can be seen as the final chapter in that complex of international power play.

For fifty years-odd, the 'problem' had been the diminutive Louis XIV and his search for 'natural borders.' For twenty years in the mid-C18th Frederick II, the Francophile king of Prussia had been also been a source of 'problem' with his state-building agenda in middle Europe.

What might have happened in the 1790s and early 1800s if revolution had not broken out in France in 1789- who knows?

Britain, Austria and Prussia started most of the wars, defending a rapidly more and more outdated model of monarchism. But a majority of the people writing the history in English are pro-British, so…

The Brits, like so many countries of the period, could never get over the sense that France had become a dangerous aberration. A nation of regicides, likely to spread their crown toppling ways if not halted. And Napoleon was the great pretender to their club, who could never be accepted.

Within this there is the nugget of truth- Napoleon was the Reaction to other countries being unable to accept the the changes in France. We see it repeated , especially in recent centuries- A nation undergoes politcial change unpaletable to its neighbours, who attack , invade, levy sanctions, support internal dissent.
The victim nation resists, but often is so outmatched by its many enemies that it must either fail or seek the protection leadership of a strong-man, a Napoleon or Stalin…the rise of an autocratic tyrant simply encourages the external attacks and internal dissent.

@von Winterfeld Please define "fawner" and identify those posters you you feel qualify.

Within this there is the nugget of truth- Napoleon was the Reaction to other countries being unable to accept the the changes in France. We see it repeated , especially in recent centuries- A nation undergoes political change unpaletable to its neighbours, who attack , invade, levy sanctions, support internal dissent.
The victim nation resists, but often is so outmatched by its many enemies that it must either fail or seek the protection leadership of a strong-man, a Napoleon or Stalin…the rise of an autocratic tyrant simply encourages the external attacks and internal dissent.

Except that none of this happened . It was the French Revolutionary government that initiated the wars.

"It was the French Revolutionary government that initiated the wars."

..in response to percieved threats from Prussia and the Habsburgs.

Britain, Austria and Prussia started most of the wars, defending a rapidly more and more outdated model of monarchism

Ermmm England (and so by extension Britain by the 18th century) beat the French to their revolution and regicide by a good 150+ years. Britain's model was arguably for more up to date than Austria or Prussias version of monarchy and in the end Napoleon was quite happy to become an emperor himself.

Seems to me from Britain's point of view the wars with France where more to do with a general power struggle that had been going intermittently since the Norman invasion.

You raise three questions, MiniPigs (not counting the "British motives" side issue):
Was Napoleon the initiator of the wars?
Was Napoleon justified in initiating them?
And would the world be a better place if he'd finally won?

In answer to the first, I think yes.
--Because when Napoleon goes away, the wars stop.
--Because until 1814, the wars were fought on any soil but French.
--Because beating the other monarchs didn't bring peace, but beating Napoleon did.

As for the second, how do you determine who "needed beating?" (Certainly an interesting phrasing, by the way.)

As for the third, a good thing for who? Certainly a Napoleonic state was a VERY good thing for his new hereditary nobility, and for the officers and men of his secret police. For Haiti, where he decreed the resumption of slavery, not so much. Read up on Haiti in its days as a valuable French possession some time--and of Napoleon's efforts to restore the condition. For yourself, how much of your liberty are you prepared to give up for well-paved roads? Reasonable men may differ, but I notice that most Napoleonic apologists seem less happy with other such regimes.

I've painted as many Napoleonic French and French satellites as anyone. But I've painted WWII Germans and Confederates as well. Don't let the flashy uniforms and the military success divert you from the nature of the regime.

It was a fight for economic dominance where a France that was not tamed was seen as a threat.

As simple as that. Money, people, money.

Money, people, money.

hmm…
I don't think so, at least that wasnt the motivation to kick off.

The HREmperor basicaly just wanted to show entusiastic support for the French Royalists but without having to actually do anything. Unfortunatly the French took his vague threat of "repercusions" er…badly.

It's a frequent feature of violent revolutions to overthrow a despot that you just end up with a worse despot.

Cromwell versus Charles I;
Napoleon versus Louis XVI;
Lenin versus Tsar Nicholas;
The ayatollahs versus the Shah.

Napoleon's just another example of the rule.

The motives of the British Government were simple. It was a continuation of the basic British foreign policy that held sway for centuries.

That policy was to maintain the balance of power in Europe to prevent any one state from dominating the continent.

The method was to build alliances with other states against the most powerful. At various times this resulted alliances/coalitions against Spain, France, and a unified Germany.

One could even argue that Her Majesty's Government is still doing this today. Sir Humphrey certainly thinks so…

Oops! Have a link…

YouTube link

"Balance of Power"? Is that not possibly a self-serving, fictional heroic like "States Rights"?

Seems like the British Crown was alright with being the sole power.

Were the British really at war with France because they felt they were dominating the continent? It seems like it was more complex than this.

In any case, why does that make the British right? We're discussing why it seems to be taken for granted that Napoleon was the bad guy.

British Government being the representative of the establishment and their financial interests, I still contend that money was the main drive. It is not shameful neither complicated, neither insulting.

Then you make people fight in the name of freedom, independence because nobody really wants to fight for the privileges of the dominant social class.

The Revolution turned France's problem (the injustice of the Ancien Regime) into everyone's problem – the Republique was keen to export its ideals to others whether they wanted them or not. Napoleon then harnessed the Revolution to serve his personal ambitions at which point it becomes reasonable to identify him as the personification of the problem.

This subject does seem to come round with great regularity

Have you noticed how many other contemporary rulers names have been cited in the discussion- as opposed to 'the British' 'Prussia,' the Hapsburgs'?

Napoleon becomes the focus of the conversation because that is where he put himself.

Even before he became First Consul, General Bonaparte adeptly operated a sustained propaganda effort to promote himself in the eyes of both the men under his command and of the French at home, and when head of state the relentless promotion of his image continued.

Napoleon Bonaparte established himself at centre of power in France, the head of both civil government and the armed forces of the post-revolutionary state, reforming both as he systematically expanded French hegemony in Europe, re-organising the map of the continent while placing his relations as crowned heads of new-wrought kingdoms and creating Ruritanian dukedoms for his marshals, ultimately seeking to estabish his own dynasty.

Nowhere else, apart from Russia perhaps*, was so much executive power concentrated in one man, and we might add, so much _effective_ power gained through personal ambition in the case of the hyperactive genius Napoleon. We have to look far back in history to find similar figures; Frederick the Great,I guess, but then who? That's a game for another discussion

(*It's no coincidence that 'Czar' derives from 'Caesar.' Napoleon made himself Caesar of western Europe and as we know, ultimately the two Caesars, of east and west began their showdown in 1812).

You know, it's the defenders which puzzle me. I don't like Frederick the Great's foreign policy either. I don't care for Phillip II's or Napoleon III's, and I have no time for Hitler or Stalin and I despise Charles V. But only His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, Emperor of the French and King of Italy has people regularly popping up on TMP to tell me how much abused he is and how much better a place Europe or the world would be today if only all his enemies and admitted defeat and all his subjects shut up and done as they were told.

Is it the fancy uniforms? Because it can't possibly be the pseudo-Roman togas.

That would at least be a more independent read than the posters who pretend that they have an opinion but are merely adopting the strategies of the various monarchies as if they are righteous.

Very few on here, if any have explained why THEY think Napoleon was the problem; most are, incredibly even after admitting that the victors write the histories, giving those very same palaver-like responses and reasons why Napoleon was the bad guy.

And now, there's you. So, if Napoleon isnt the bad guy, he's the good guy? Is that how you're wired? I think it's a lot more troubling to believe that you need to be angry at Napoleon than supportive of him.

I dont know that he's abused but why is it a given that he is the central person in this story? Why isnt it that King George was out of line? Maybe it was the Russians who were the real problem? What exactly was Napoleon doing that was so different than what the rest of these governments were up to?

42 Flanker says this topic comes up with great regularity. Well, I wouldn't know but it doesn't seem like many are any closer to a breakthrough now than ever.

Incidentally, I could easily name a lot more lasting problems I believe the British have created than Napoleon.

Go on then, this should be interesting.

Why does everyone assume Napoleon was the problem?
Because he had got to Vienna, Berlin, and Moscow earlier than the Austrians, Prussians and Russians got to Paris.

It'd be interesting to have a real sense of Napoleon's reputation in France. Is it possible they now hold views similar to that of the English or are they markedly pro-Napoleon these days?

I'm with Markham on Napoleon's story which puts me in the Francophile camp.

Don't think money was the driving force behind the British. They threw lots of it at their allies, much of which went down the drain, and got into quite a bit of debt because of it.

While the overthrow of the French monarchy was a bit alarming, Pitt sought to put an end to the war as quickly as possible. In 1797 (I think…) he was willing to concede almost everything back for peace. Napoleon was instrumental in knocking that on the head; immediately backing the invasion of Ireland (scuppered at Camperdown), and then heading off to invade Egypt.

Napoleon's empire war first and foremost made to enrich himself and his people.
French satellite states were drained of resources and wealth which was given to France and in turn helped the elites in France.
Napoleon wanted order as order is good for collecting money, hence the napoleonic code, if that code helped someone it was a by product, order was the most important thing.

This makes Napoleon exactly the same as everyone else of the elites in history.

Some elities did help their people usually as a 3rd or 4th priority.

Napoleon was just a 19th century Jeff Bazos but with more hair and a cool uniform.

"Why does everyone assume Napoleon was the problem?"

My guess would be because most of the leadership across Europe felt he was a problem, some more than others.

That, and he continued to beat the pants off them when they tried to 'solve' the problem.

"Palaver-like?" MiniPigs, please google "Pavlov" and try again. And no, I'm not much impressed by the notion that anyone who disagrees with You is just "pretending to have an opinion."

And while your grammar is a little unclear, certainly Britian--or the English, really--over the past 1,000 plus years have created more problems than Napoleon did in 20. Just to name one, their concept of limited government and human rights has been making trouble for for the great men of Europe for centuries--fatal trouble for some of them.

MiniPigs, please google "Pavlov" and try again. And no, I'm not much impressed by the notion that anyone who disagrees with You is just "pretending to have an opinion."

I meant to use "palaver". I dont avoid making up a word every now and again but it's an actual word. Feast your eyes:

link

I hyphenated it to the word "like" because I wanted to soften it's blow a bit but I have to say that it seems to carry its full force between us. :)

And while your grammar is a little unclear, certainly Britian--or the English, really--over the past 1,000 plus years have created more problems than Napoleon did in 20. Just to name one, their concept of limited government and human rights has been making trouble for for the great men of Europe for centuries--fatal trouble for some of them.

Yes, I would imagine my grammar is unclear to someone who is not familiar with the words I'm using (I'll try to use easier ones) but thank you for agreeing with me about the English.

I should clarify that I dont personally think the English are responsible for a lot of the world's problems, just more than is/was Napoleon.

People can disagree with me. Frankly, I dont know that I have a position on this. I wanted to know why some people get so worked up about Napoleon and so far, most are asserting the opinions of his adversaries as their reasons (or generic justifications) for holding Napoleon to be the problem.

I'm likely leading with my jaw here but … History in the English speaking world on this subject is dominated by English historians. They have more than a bit of a bias bordering on obsession with Napoleon even now and I believe it's military envy.
Napoleon ad the French people succeeded in dominating Europe for quite some time. I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove who started which war and groping for ethics or justifications – European history is rotten and has been for as long as history records. There is no moral high ground and when Europeans weren't sticking it to each other then they were persecuting native peoples elsewhere. Britain and France had been at each other's throats since William the conqueror just because they were neighbours. In this they are nothing special.
This era was a time where the French were in the ascendancy and scared the hell out of the British. Louis XIV had a similar effect once the Stuarts were ousted. All empires end sooner or later and the French like the Germans in the next century were taking on all comers. Napoleon was the bogey man as he was the aggressive top-dog of his age. He was no worse than all the other misfits in charge everywhere else. The British became unassailable at sea at the time and became untouchable but weren't in a position to do anything about it from 1805 to 1814 because it takes a continental army to match another one and a combined effort.
As for the often repeated British continental policy – it's nothing special and without wanting to cause offence it's boring to keep hearing it repeated. It was and is the same policy that every country in Europe has. Nobody wants a potentially adversarial neighbour to dominate the neighbourhood.

It was and is the same policy that every country in Europe has. Nobody wants a potentially adversarial neighbour to dominate the neighbourhood.

because they want wealth and economic prosperity for themselves in a convergence of interests where there is no direct friction. I hence re-iterate that money was the main drive.

Napoleon was the unpredictable top dog of the neighborhood changing the status quo. Hence he was the "problem". If one appears as a threat to one's income, he is likely to become the target. Works both way naturally.

I really don't think one can get very far comparing Napoleon Bonaparte with George III who, apart from any number of disimilarities, ceased to be effective even as a constitutional monarch shortly after he presided over the final severance of the American colonies in 1783.

I know the word "palaver" MiniPigs. But when you act as though all who disagree with you do so by conditioned reflex, the word you want is Pavlov.

And setting aside that preposterous long-distance psychoanalysis some academics indulge in, No one posts on TMP to tell me Napoleon was a bad person. It's the pro-Napoleon faction who post about every other month to tell me the Great Man was picked on, and that if everyone would just have surrendered, we could all be living happily today under Napoleon VIII complete with censors, secret police and a hereditary nobility.

And yes, I blame anyone who seizes power more harshly for how they abuse it than I do the poor stiffs who inherited a job they may not have been up to. I think I should.

History in the English speaking world on this subject is dominated by English historians. They have more than a bit of a bias bordering on obsession with Napoleon even now and I believe it's military envy.

That's one thing that the English don't have, a military envy of the French.

Praps, 1781-1801 the odd niggle…

Nah, all the victories far outweigh the occasional defeat.

Napoleon overthrew the Royal family of Spain, HIS OWN ALLIE, to hand the throne to one of his less than enthusiastic brothers. What more do you need to know?

Napoleon had found while in Berlin after defeating the Prussians that the Spanish government had corresponded with the Prussians and told them that if the Prussians were successful, Spain would turn on Napoleon.

So much for Spain as a French ally.

I'm no Bonapartist but I believe that, generally speaking, European institutions such as aristocracy were the main causes of conflict in the period. The evolution of these institutions had pressed Europe into a point of crisis. Monarchies were failing their people just as common folks were becoming increasingly educated, a bit less superstitious, and expecting more than the old system was willing to deliver.

Being pushed around by a bunch of arrogant blue-bloods was, for some reason, becoming less appealing. The American Revolution should have been a wake-up call. It most certainly produced a reaction in Europe. Many there believed the rebellious colonists would eventually be brought to heel. How could commoners possibly succeed without the grace and wisdom of an anointed sovereign?

Of course, The United States of America was a former colony far, far away. Imagine the panic in Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, when the political climate of a populous European nation such as France decided that Divine Right was a bunch of nonsense and that the powerful nobles had to go.

So war it was. The aristocracies moved to crush the French Revolutionary state. Bonaparte functioned mostly as a nationalist as he commanded forces to defend France. He was competent and highly effective, so I guess he was a problem for those aristocrats who wanted to see monarchy restored.

But a war for defense may become a war of aggression and it certainly did as Napoleon had the ambition of remaking Europe and enriching his family and loyal friends. Yes, Napoleon was a problem but I would suggest that aristocracy was THE problem.

And setting aside that preposterous long-distance psychoanalysis some academics indulge in, No one posts on TMP to tell me Napoleon was a bad person. It's the pro-Napoleon faction who post about every other month to tell me the Great Man was picked on, and that if everyone would just have surrendered, we could all be living happily today under Napoleon VIII complete with censors, secret police and a hereditary nobility.

This. And in the original thread TMP link no-one claimed what Minipigs is claiming – except Minipigs himself!

"Bonaparte .. was competent and highly effective, so I guess he was a problem for those aristocrats who wanted to see monarchy restored."

But monarchy was restored- in the form of Emperor Napoleon (I)!

Meanwhile, as someone pointed out, Pitt was happy to come to terms with the revolutionary government in 1797.

Several posts suggest that Napoleon couldn't have peace because the other monarchs of Europe couldn't abide the French Revolution, but I don't believe it. Bonaparte had restored hereditary monarchy and hereditary aristocracy, and even re-instituted slavery in the colonies. The old monarchies had come to terms with Cromwell who had done much less, even sending birthday greetings to the Lord Protector. The whole thing looks much more like their response to Louis XIV, who kept pushing to expand France until virtually everyone allied in opposition.

Now, in fairness, in the English-speaking world, that's mostly the "Marlburean Era" rather than "the Wars of Louis XIV." MiniPigs, would you be a happier person if we referred to 1800-1815 as the "Wellingtonian Era?"

Reading some of the posts on the "Was Napoleon a psychopath" thread, there is a strong assumption that he was the man to beat.
What about the other powers? What makes us think they were defending themselves against Napoleon's encroachments?
Why do we assume that it wasnt the other monarchies that needed to be beaten?
Is it really a good thing that Napoleon was defeated? By what measurement? Why is there a strong current that Napoleon was the problem and not the other nations?
And especially for the British cause; why did they think they had to topple him? What were their motives?

Napoleon finished the Wars of the Revolution with two treaties, one with Austria and one with Great Britain after becoming French head of state.

One of the main reasons that Napoleon is seen as the aggressor during the period is that he scared the bejeesus out of his fellow heads of state. The allies were the aggressors in 1805, 1806, 1807, and 1809 and logical cases can be made that his invasions of Spain and Russia were caused by aggressive policies of those two nations. They were also two of Napoleon's greatest mistakes.

Boney's propaganda written at St. Helena dominates still how he is seen in history of today, being a genius in propaganda he knew this and created his own legend. Also his fanwers built and are still building his legend, he is referred almost in a sort of religious way.

Religious? That is an incorrect statement. Seems to me that Napoleon is pilloried as much today by certain authors, Schom being one, as he was by allied propaganda of the period.

You raise three questions, MiniPigs (not counting the "British motives" side issue):
Was Napoleon the initiator of the wars?
Was Napoleon justified in initiating them?
And would the world be a better place if he'd finally won?
In answer to the first, I think yes.
--Because when Napoleon goes away, the wars stop.
--Because until 1814, the wars were fought on any soil but French.
--Because beating the other monarchs didn't bring peace, but beating Napoleon did.
As for the second, how do you determine who "needed beating?" (Certainly an interesting phrasing, by the way.)
As for the third, a good thing for who? Certainly a Napoleonic state was a VERY good thing for his new hereditary nobility, and for the officers and men of his secret police. For Haiti, where he decreed the resumption of slavery, not so much. Read up on Haiti in its days as a valuable French possession some time--and of Napoleon's efforts to restore the condition. For yourself, how much of your liberty are you prepared to give up for well-paved roads? Reasonable men may differ, but I notice that most Napoleonic apologists seem less happy with other such regimes.

So anyone who is an admirer of the Emperor and the Grande Armee is an ‘apologist'? I find that idea very inaccurate. Perhaps you could support your idea?

The ‘new' Napoleonic nobility was based on merit, not birth, which was a great improvement.

And as has been shown, Napoleon was not the ‘initiator of the wars.' He certainly did not begin the French Revolutionary Wars as he was an artillery captain when they began. And he did not begin the Napoleonic wars as it was Great Britain who broke Amiens. Those facts negate your answers to the first two questions.

And Europe was greatly improved overall for the implementation of his social and political reforms which were his greatest achievement. The ending of the wars brought back the monarchies in Europe, multiple revolutions in Europe and eventually World War I.

If you don't agree with his reforms in France and the Empire, then please name any social or political reforms his opponents enacted during the period 1792-1815.

Perhaps you could define your concept of ‘liberty'?

It's a frequent feature of violent revolutions to overthrow a despot that you just end up with a worse despot.
Cromwell versus Charles I;
Napoleon versus Louis XVI;
Lenin versus Tsar Nicholas;
The ayatollahs versus the Shah.
Napoleon's just another example of the rule.

Grouping Napoleon with the likes of Lenin and the Shah is nonsense. And you left out Washington and George III-another despot even though he had a parliament. Great Britain was not a democracy during the period and parliament had its own scandals and corruption.

Sure, about 10 years ago. I'm not questioning whether he says that or whether it's accurate as far as it goes. What I'm challenging is your claim that "the British…preferred to be the coalition paymasters", which apparently relies on the size of Britain's field army to prove that as this was so small, the main and preferred contribution was the monetary one.
I'm pointing out that this is a completely bogus basis for comparison. The better metric of military commitment is total military commitment, including militia and naval forces. Otherwise we could equally well conclude that the Austrian, Prussian and Russian contributions to the wars were nugatory because they preferred to avoid fighting any sea battles. The only power that took the war to France at sea, defeated its fleets and wrecked its trade, was Britain, so that by 1815 the French navy was constructively destroyed (see footnote page 26 link). Nobody else did anything of note.
In fact, if we're going to exclude militia, we'd better exclude the Landwehr numbers from the Prussian army's contribution as well, because if we're only counting regulars on land, we should be consistent.

If the only military contribution that counts is the number of regulars, then Prussia only fielded 40,000 men at Ligny and brought a mere 15,000 to Waterloo. The 2/3rds of Bulow's IV Corps who were Landwehr don't count and weren't there. It would surprise them to learn this no doubt.

Here is the quoted passage from Swords that I was referring to:

‘As for manpower, these wars were no great burden on England. Recruiting remained voluntary. Out of a population of almost 15 million in the British Islands alone in 1809, England mustered fewer than 300,000 regulars, including foreign and colonial troops. Most volunteers (that term could be relative, considering the tricks of veteran recruiting sergeants and of sometimes dubious characters raising recruits to obtain a commission, not to mention the not infrequent emptying of jails when other recruits were scarce) were from the poorer classes, with a sizable proportion of pauper and criminal types…'-505.

So, contrary to popular opinion on this forum, Col Elting did mention colonial troops.

Were the British militia employed in Spain in formed units? The Prussian Landwehr were formed to fight, but the British militia units stayed home. They are not the same thing and are not equivalent.

Regarding the French navy, the British were still worried about it in late 1813 (see Swords, 310).

Elting is very misleading by downplaying the Royal Navy and the militia and the colonial troops, then quite another figure would turn up and show the commitment of Britain in manpower as well – context and no manipulation.

Perhaps you could cite a reference, in Swords for a start, where Col Elting ‘is very misleading by downplaying the Royal Navy and the militia.'

Now, in fairness, in the English-speaking world, that's mostly the "Marlburean Era" rather than "the Wars of Louis XIV." MiniPigs, would you be a happier person if we referred to 1800-1815 as the "Wellingtonian Era?"

That's not exactly correct. In point of fact, Marlborough did not dominate the era, Louis XIV did.

I would recommend the following:

-Giant of the Grand Siecle: The French Army 1610-1715 by John Lynn.

-War Through the Ages by Lynn Montross, Part IV, Chapters I-III.

-Marshal Vauban and the Defense of Louis XIV's France by James Falkner.

You know, it's the defenders which puzzle me. I don't like Frederick the Great's foreign policy either. I don't care for Phillip II's or Napoleon III's, and I have no time for Hitler or Stalin and I despise Charles V. But only His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, Emperor of the French and King of Italy has people regularly popping up on TMP to tell me how much abused he is and how much better a place Europe or the world would be today if only all his enemies and admitted defeat and all his subjects shut up and done as they were told.

Perhaps 'the defenders' don't agree with the inaccurate portrayal of Napoleon his detractors continually post?