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

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.

Could you support the above with both citations and logical conclusions from credible sources? Your statements here are incorrect in fact.

Colonel Elting's references to recruiting of troops for the British army are somewhat clichéd, and out of date, particularly in reference to 'emptying of the jails' and 'criminal types.' The crimping and commission scandals, with the sending of drafts of unfit, unsuitable men to the regiments, were a problem in the early 1790s when the army had to expand rapidly. The selling of commissions remained a potential for corrupt practices, of which the Duke of York fell foul later on.

However, by about 1808, a much higher quality of recruit was being drawn from the expanded militia, encouraged by limited term enlistments.

There were 'rough elements', who may indeed have enlisted for drink or to elude unwanted paternity but despite notorious episodes of indiscipline and violence that we all know of, the opportunities for casual rapine were limited, attracting harsh punishments, and probably as much the result of the brutalising effect in all armies of long years in the field away from civil society, as it was evidence of the low moral calibre of 'that item.'

And your source is…?

And if you have a source with different numbers, please post it.

Try Glover's Peninsular Preparation for a start Brechtel. Precious few British males in period not in the volunteers, the yeomanry the (full-time) militia, or the regular army and Navy. Leads to Edward Said's observation about the absent males being an important element in Jane Austen--and the reason for all those military titles among her characters.

Oh. And of the statements you say are "incorrect in fact" several are opinion, and as difficult to rebut as to sustain. But most certainly the satellite states were drained. Just off hand, try Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms, or that devastating Sam Mustapha article on the Kingdom of Westphalia. (I believe Sam, but looting the church poor boxes seems tacky even for Napoleon.)

As for being upset with "Marlburian Era" I said it was called that in the English-speaking world, which it is: look at all the lines of "Marlburian" figures. If by "incorrect" you mean it shouldn't be, I would agree--but then, I'd say as much about the Great Society and a number of other common usages. But it seems a little lop-sided to insist that those wars should be called The Wars of the Sun King or some such while poor MiniPigs is having kittens over the rematch being called The Napoleonic Wars.

Oh, you know, I read stuff.

'Numbers'?

I have both Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms and the book on Westphalia.

You are mistaken on the first, and the second is indicative only of Westphalia and not of the Confederation as a whole.

And it should be noted that the states of the Confederation of the Rhine, with the exception of Bavaria, were methodically stripped of men and supplies when they were overrun by the allies in late 1813-far and above of anything Napoleon had required of them.

Kevin, you just can't accept that he lost, can you. Quoting endless paragraphs and chapters from obscure books, that no one else will ever read, won't change that fact.

So Louis XIV was also the problem?

It is simply a continuation of the English French rivalry for economic dominance. As long as France wasn't a threat to the Island, Britain was keen to let France alone and even support her so it would not be too weak and no European country could dominate.

…you just can't accept that he lost, can you.

Absolute nonsense. Where did you come up with that inaccurate statement?

Quoting endless paragraphs and chapters from obscure books, that no one else will ever read, won't change that fact.

Using credible reference material would, hopefully, increase the knowledge base and lead to helpful discussion. You don't agree with increasing knowledge of the period?

Kevin, you just can't accept that he lost, can you. Quoting endless paragraphs and chapters from obscure books, that no one else will ever read, won't change that fact.

This is part of what I wonder about. The focus is squarely on Napoleon the individual. Why are some people so angry with him to this day? Further, what makes them think he is the loser? How many of those monarchies still exist? Do we want them back?

On this thread, I see information cited about what people said who didn't like Napoleon back then but why do posters here get worked up over him? Have they simply adopted the opinions and interests of the royalty from 200+ years ago? Can any of them articulate exactly why they have these anti Napoleon passions? What do they think they're stopping or struggling against?

When you read posts that Napoleon wasnt that great but he got his bippy kicked, it makes me wonder how it can work both ways. How can he be both the man of the age and not amount to much at the same time?

@m-p:

link

Butterfield's formulation

The characteristics of Whig history as defined by Butterfield include interpreting history as a story of progress toward the present and specifically toward the British constitutional settlement. Butterfield wrote:

It is part and parcel of the whig interpretation of history that it studies the past with reference to the present.[9]

Typical distortions thereby introduced are:

• Viewing the British parliamentary, constitutional monarchy as the apex of human political development;
  
• Assuming that the constitutional monarchy was in fact an ideal held throughout all ages of the past, despite the observed facts of British history and the several power struggles between monarchs and parliaments;
  
• Assuming that political figures in the past held current political beliefs (anachronism);
  
• Assuming that British history was a march of progress whose inevitable outcome was the constitutional monarchy; and
  
• Presenting political figures of the past as heroes who advanced the cause of this political progress, or villains who sought to hinder its inevitable triumph.
  

It doesn't help that we're viewing this subject from different national viewpoints. No matter you're nationality, I think everyone would agree that Napoleon was a great man (great in the traditional use of the word) Even though it's 200 years ago, the British see him as the enemy, Americans don't.
Even though Kevin says Hitler and Bonaparte are totally different, the average British person doesn't see it that way. They were both European dictatorships hell bent on world domination, that were both stopped by a British dominated alliance (I know America dominated after 1942, but you know what I mean) The Nazis were just more cruel in the way they went about it.

Apart from a small minority, some of whom in any case are seem to be teasing, who else is angry or worked up?

There seems to be a degree of frustration from time to time at conflicting notions of logic, but I would submit that is different.

I really don't think that Napoleon was 'hell bent on world domination' and the difference in the governments of Napoleon and Hitler is quite striking, Hitler's being far worse in myriad aspects.

Hitler's regime was built on fear and hate and was corrupt; Napoleon's was not. Hitler was a mass murderer; Napoleon was not. JC Herold in his book The Mind of Napoleon in the Introduction to the book makes a definite case on these points. Lastly, Napoleon governed by the rule of law; Hitler did not.

Whatever

Strange that Brechtel compares boney with Adolf – Boney's regime was well built on fear corruption and total control, he ruined France, the Russians were shocked to find this out in 1814.

Boney government did rule by Boney law, yes of course.

Boney himself said that in case he had 20 000 shots of artillery ammunition left at Leipzig he would rule the world.

Was he hell bent to do this, the actions of him prove that he meant that, under his totalitarian regime he annexed numerous states, regardless, even if his brother was a ruler (Holland) – France got bloated as Boney's tummy – no wonder that European nations tried to stop this.

One had two options to deal with Boney, yield or resist, in case of resistance one risked to be exterminated from the map.

It is amazing how wrong Minipigs has got this. Reading this thread, and the threads he referred to earlier, it is pretty obvious that it is Napoleon's supporters who are still angry that he was defeated and his reputation is one of an egotistical and arrogant tryant . Why are they so angry? Why do they constantly bring it up? What does it matter to them? Why are they so eager to parrot discredited Imperial propaganda from over 200 years ago?

And most of all: why do they want to do it on a website about toy soldiers?

42flanker said: Apart from a small minority, some of whom in any case are seem to be teasing, who else is angry or worked up?

There seems to be a degree of frustration from time to time at conflicting notions of logic, but I would submit that is different.

I didnt say it was a multitude, neither do I think that people who dont feel that way need to comment. I am simply wondering if the ones that do get worked up have a reason they can explain or if theyre just aping the opinions of others; long dead or otherwise removed.

@Whirlwind

Whirlwind said: It is amazing how wrong Minipigs has got this. Reading this thread, and the threads he referred to earlier, it is pretty obvious that it is Napoleon's supporters who are still angry that he was defeated and his reputation is one of an egotistical and arrogant tryant . Why are they so angry? Why do they constantly bring it up? What does it matter to them? Why are they so eager to parrot discredited Imperial propaganda from over 200 years ago?

And most of all: why do they want to do it on a website about toy soldiers?

I appreciate that you think I got it wrong. Maybe now you understand how I feel about people who lash out at what an outrage Napoleon was. To me it's odd that people who have no skin in the game get worked up emotionally against Napoleon. You dont have to like him, you are also free to dislike him but this isnt about having a simple "pro" or "con" opinion. Rather, I am talking about the people who call him a mass murderer, an enemy of the UK, an upstart.

If you believe that such opinions dont exist, then why worry about why I am asking. But if it does bother you, then kindly address the question and explain the motives.

It boils down to people being responsible for their strong opinions. If they have a reason, I'd like to know. But if it's just a matter of channeling someone else's anger to fill a void where analysis should exist, then maybe it's time for a self-revelation.

If people do prop up Napoleon passionately here, it seems to all be about his intrinsic qualities. I dont see people bashing Wellington, or Blucher or Archduke Charles etc.

The only reason I wish Napoleon wasnt defeated, would be to provide another 5 years of fascinating uniforms, campaigns etc to an already fascinating period.

Rather, I am talking about the people who call him a mass murderer, an enemy of the UK, an upstart.

people call him an enemy of the UK because he was, love him or loathe him it's a fact.

Yes foxweasel but it was a fact 200 years ago. I want to know why a poster from the UK gets all worked up in 2019?

This is becoming a bit too cute with some purposefully misunderstanding me. This isnt about the facts, it's about why they need to put Napoleon down and display a fear of him too. Thus, you're admitting that you have this deep emotion against Napoleon without explaining why YOU hold it. I understand why the British of 1815 held the feeling.

Like, I love the American civil war but I dont get all twisted over whether SHERMAN was a mass murderer or whether Lee was a traitor or whether Nathan Bedford Forrest kissed a black girl before he kicked the bucket. I like the ACW for what it is, a fascinating military study and wargaming opportunity.

OK, keep pretending I asked something that I didnt ask but this is telling me that I am more correct than I initially thought.

A fact 200 years ago is still a fact now. I'm not getting worked up over it, I've merely pointed out that he was our enemy, along with Hitler, the Kaiser, Galtieri, Saddam and many many more. A lot of this is tradition, my last posting was at a tri-service base, the Navy celebrated Trafalgar day, the Army Waterloo day and the Air Force Battle of Britain day. No one hated the modern French, Spanish or Germans, we were just respecting our predecessors but at the same time acknowledging that they were our enemies in fights of national survival.

If you believe that such opinions dont exist, then why worry about why I am asking.

Because that is my answer to you. I don't think the things you are looking for are there, and in the places you have mentioned they exist, they are demonstrably not there. I definitely haven't seen a single post ever that reflects a fear of Napoleon – an idea that seems very strange to be honest – and I don't remember seeing one that shows a deep emotion against him.

On the other hand, I have seen lots of very emotional posts trying to explain away Napoleon's cruelties and defeats.

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

MiniPigs

Not Hysterics but contempt of the battered two-times loser.

‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
All human ills he can subdue,
Or with a bauble or medal
Can win man's heart for you;
And many a blessing know to stew
To make a megalomaniac bright;
Give honour to the dainty Corse,
The Pixie, the little shite.

Brechtel

Re British troops and recruitment:

And your source is…?

And if you have a source with different numbers, please post it.

You have read you fellow countryman Edward Coss's book so you must have all the knowledge of the British soldier you need in one tome. Or does Elting's scribbling trump even 'All For The King's Shilling? Perhaps you need to go and give it a re-read.

@minipigs

"How many of those monarchies still exist?"

Our Sovereign Lady, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

For one?

Napoleon Bonaparte. A view from Albion

1. French
2. Planned to invade England
3. Did he defeat any British force apart from maybe Toulon?
4. Tried to mess with British trade
5. Aboukir Bay; Trafalgar
6. Waterloo
7. French
7b. Sort of

@Minipigs

I tried to explain, that it isn't Boney per se but his fawners who seem to be very touchy in case the truth is pointed out – which they have to deny by hair splitting arguments and ignoring facts.

Like Boney was a legal ruler, ignoring the 18e Brumaire, that he did not take that active part in the French Revolution, well he did not get his nickname général Vendemiaire without any reason, that he re introduced slavery, that he created a police system where he reduced newspapers to the minimum and absolute control, where he opened letters by even trusted subordinates to sniffle, it is claimed he abolished torture yet in letters he even advised it, that he ordered the execution of POWS who surrendered because it was promised to them they would go free, that he ordered the execution of a publisher like Palm, because he felt the honour of the French army was offended by a mere pamphlet, that the campaign of 1812 was one of the greatest military blunders in history, that he eradicated states from the map (Holland for example), I stop going on, for all this the fawners will find windy excuses – point out that others in the past and in the future did the same – painting Boney as a saint who isn't guilty at all, but all the others around him – a cabal organised with British gold and commando bases as to bomb Boney out of his job, and yet, in case they find that their hero was attacked in unjustified they do precisely the same with other historical persons, Bernadotte a betrayer, Maromont a betrayer and coward, Dupont a useless criminal commander and plunderer, etc., etc.
By the way I am no UK resident.

PS – But maybe I am paid by English gold – to publish a contribution like this.

"PS – But maybe I am paid by English gold – to publish a contribution like this."

Finally the truth!

He also had Villeneuve murdered* for losing Trafalgar. Well, either it was Napoleon or it was someone else who had the clout to get to him in prison and murder him there; a very short list I would say.

also I just noticed this from Kevin:

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

Except that this nobility was also hereditary, so the first generation at most got there on merit; and the first generation wasn't necessarily there on merit, either. Bernadotte, Moncey, Jourdan and Brune were patently political appointees who stand out as mediocre alongside the rest, none of whom was in with a shout to succeed Napoleon despite their merit, unless they cared to stage their own coup d'etat.

* unless you believe it's possible and likely for someone to commit suicide by stabbing themselves repeatedly in the chest.

Strange that Brechtel compares boney with Adolf…

I didn't. I was commenting on someone else's post who brought up the comparison.

He also had Villeneuve murdered* for losing Trafalgar.

Rubbish. If you actually believe that, then please provide a source for the comment.

Try Glover's Peninsular Preparation for a start…

I have it and can refer to it if you provide a citation and page number.

You have read you fellow countryman Edward Coss's book so you must have all the knowledge of the British soldier you need in one tome.

I have it to hand. So perhaps you could give a citation and page number for further discussion.?

Would someone please tell me what all this has to do with Napoleonic miniature wargaming, which as I understand it is the purpose of this board?

For someone "hell-bent on world domination" Napoleon managed to get other countries to declare war on France a lot: 1803, 1805, 1806, 1809, 1813, 1815. By my count Britain (and it's minions) initiated six wars and France (Napoleon) two.

"minions"

For someone "hell-bent on world domination" Napoleon managed to get other countries to declare war on France a lot

This is a lot like asking why maniacal tyrant Neville Chamberlain declared war on peace-loving Adolf Hitler in 1939.

By my count Britain (and it's minions) initiated six wars and France (Napoleon) two.

I think that you are miscounting:

France declared war in 1792 (Prussia & Austria)
France declared war twice in 1793 (Britain & Holland, later Spain)
France attacked Malta in 1798
France attacked Egypt in 1798
Napoleon occupied Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick in 1806
Napoleon attacked Portugal in 1807
Napoleon attacked Spain in 1808
Napoleon attacked Russia in 1812

There are probably more. Since Napoleon had threatened Britain with war first in 1803, that probably is more on him as well – at least 50:50, anyway. And Napoleon's offer to take Hanover from Prussia (which he had forced them to take!) and give back to Britain in 1806 was tantamount to a threat of war too.

Oh come on now, Spain and Portugal were just asking for it.

There are probably more.

Yes indeed – destroying the kingdom of Holland, occupying and destroying States in Northern Germany or parts of Italy, a look at the map will show how Imperial France under the rule of Boney grew and grew, and the appetite for more land and money of Boney was massive.

France declared war in 1792 (Prussia & Austria)
France declared war twice in 1793 (Britain & Holland, later Spain)
France attacked Malta in 1798
France attacked Egypt in 1798
Napoleon occupied Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick in 1806
Napoleon attacked Portugal in 1807
Napoleon attacked Spain in 1808
Napoleon attacked Russia in 1812

Revolutionary France was the instigator of the series of wars that lasted from 1792 until the Treaties of Luneville and Amiens which ended those wars when Napoleon was First Consul.

Malta and Egypt were part of the Revolutionary Wars when France was ruled by the Directory.

Great Britain broke the Peace of Amiens in 1803.

Austria was the aggressor against France in 1805 along with the Russians.

Prussia was the aggressor in 1806 belatedly supported by Russia, who had not made peace after Austerlitz.

The 1807 war was a continuation of the 1806 war.

France and Spain attacked Portugal in 1807-1808.

France invaded Spain in 1808.

Austria attacked the Confederation of the Rhine in 1809.

France attacked Russia in 1812.

1813 and 1814 were a continuation of the 1812 war.

1815 was begun by the allies.

1815 was begun by the allies.

Comedy gold. Nobody escaped from exile then.

Who declared hostilities? It was the allies-Napoleon offered peace, not war.

That would be why he invaded Belgium then. Nobody was at war with the French state; Napoleon had been declared an outlaw.

It's almost as he thought L'etat, c'est moi. Where have I heard that before?

Maybe Kevin could provide a cite showing that it's possible to commit suicide by stabbing yourself six times in the left lung and one in the heart. Which was the first and last blow?

That would be why he invaded Belgium then. Nobody was at war with the French state; Napoleon had been declared an outlaw.

That's why the allied armies were massing on the French border for an invasion of France.

Napoleon went into Belgium to attack the most dangerous of those armies. He decided not to sit and wait to be attacked.

Do you have a credible source for Villeneuve's death?

Well, it depends what we mean by "credible", doesn't it, Kevin? I mean, in a police state where the head of the government has a failed admiral murdered and ensures it's handwaved away as suicide, you're not going to get a police investigation, are you? You'll get a cover-up.

So the starting point for the suspicion that Villeneuve was murdered is, does the manner of his death and the coroner's verdict of suicide look credible or like a cover-up?

What credible source do you have for thinking (if you do) that it's a/ possible and b/ usual for someone to commit suicide by stabbing themselves seven times – six times in the lungs and once in the heart?

I'll save you the effort – it's impossible and unheard of. This was an age when someone like Villeneuve had access to firearms. Why didn't he just shoot himself?

If you believe that I have this bridge for sale.

Then there's motive. Who had a motive for punishing a subordinate who'd failed, lost the country's only fleet, and therefore would not be needed further except pour encourager les autres? Hmm, that's a tough one. Could Villeneuve have been bumped off by a kangaroo court-martial? Tricky, because getting defeated isn't a capital offence and it would have been quite hard to rig the result, unlike the Enghien trial. Whose opponents had a habit of dying in peculiar circumstances while in his power (Enghien, Wright, the Turkish prisoners at Jaffa)? Gosh that's a tough one again!

But just to be clear, Kevin, can you confirm that you do thinking it's possible and likely for someone to commit suicide by stabbing themselves seven times in the chest?

First, Napoleonic France was not a police state. If you think it was, then please provide evidence for your opinion.

And if I recall correctly, Villeneuve was not imprisoned but was murdered in an inn? And why are you so sure that Napoleon was responsible for it?

You are trying to prove an incorrect assumption by believing that Napoleon was a murderer. He wasn't. D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government in time of war and wasn't Wright caught as a spy?

The Jaffa prisoners had broken their parole and were subject to the death penalty.

And you haven't given a source for your rant, so perhaps we can have a useful discussion if you do. If not, then that's OK too.

I have it to hand. So perhaps you could give a citation and page number for further discussion.?

You are the person making the accusations. Perhaps you quoting from Coss will win you the argument. But then maybe I will quote from the tome to rebut your claims. I just need to see your evidence before I bring mine.

Just to be clear, Kevin, can you confirm that you do think it's possible and likely for someone to commit suicide by stabbing themselves seven times in the chest?

Because that's why it's impossible to believe Villeneuve committed suicide.

If you actually do believe that, what's the point of a reasoned discussion?

Wright was a naval officer captured with RN brig 'Vincejo', off the coast of France.

The excuse of the captives at Jaffa being under parole has been questioned (see Napoleon Series this year passim) and in any case Bonaparte was not obliged to carry out mass 'executions' even if they were justified by the laws of war.

The troops had been diverted into Jaffa as a unit and could hardly be held responsible as individuals for the decision of their superiors.