"The Causes of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Loss at Waterloo 1815" Topic

More Clayton? That Loon drips Napoleon cultism like no other…

Nah! He blathers and lathers rubbish. He accuses the British government of the day of things it did not do and does it with absolutely no historical evidence of what he claims. He then shows with an almost orgasmic printed diatribe, his complete and utter hero-worshipping, fawning and idolisation for a long-dead despotic tyrant.

Wow, it is a good thing that the non-existent (Although hypersensitive) pro Wellington-saved-the-universe group isnt completely immersed in non-existent propaganda on the Napoleonic wars or it could get nasty.

@42flanker "I don't blame the Prussians per se"

I didn't mean to suggest you did but, fair enough.

MiniPigs:

Wow, it is a good thing that the non-existent (Although hypersensitive) pro Wellington-saved-the-universe group isnt completely immersed in non-existent propaganda on the Napoleonic wars or it could get nasty.

What pro-Wellington group is that? Please, please show what you mean dear heart by not using the back of the hand… :)

More from period British propaganda publications:

‘It will, we trust, be amply sufficient for our purpose, to remind our readers that the doctrines and principles in question had for their object, not merely the revolution in France, but that of the whole world-That the usurping rulers of France have laboured, with unremitting assiduity for the accomplishment of this object-That the war was entered into with the Emperor in order to complete the overthrow of the French monarchy, according to the well-known declaration of Bissot, ‘It was the abolition of royalty I had in view in causing the war to be declared!-That hostilities were afterwards extended to other countries in pursuance of the impious design, announced by the declaration of fraternity, of affording military assistance to the disaffected of all countries-And that in furtherance of the same scheme of universal revolution, France has had her emissaries in every state, to inculcate her doctrines and to incite the people to insurrection.-Anti-Jacobin Review I, 27, 1798.

‘Mr Pitt railed most bitterly at the character of Bonaparte…But the truth is Mr Pitt knows Bonaparte to be sincere, and, therefore, will not negotiate, because the negotiations would lead to a peace, which peace would baffle that idle hope of restoring the French monarchy, which, spite of the document sent to Petersburgh, is and has been the real object of Ministers, both in beginning and continuing the war.'-Samuel Taylor Coleridge, as written in the Morning Post, 6 February 1800.

‘Every topic that can revile, and every art that can blacken, has been resorted to, for purposes of political slander; and I am very sorry to see that the Intercepted Correspondence from Egypt, strengthened, and embellished with notes, and perhaps, too, garbled, has made its appearance to prejudice the country against the chief consul, and thereby to set at a distance every hope of a negotiation for peace.'-MP Samuel Whitebread, 3 February 1800.

‘The intrigues of the French, the servile, the insidious, the insinuating French, shall be the object of my constant attention. Whether at war or at peace with us, they still dread the power, envy the happiness, and thirst for the ruin of England. Collectively and individually, the whole and every one of them hate us. Had they the means, they would exterminate us to the last man…while we retain one drop of true British blood in our veins, we shall never shake hands with this perfidious and sanguinary race, much less shall we make a compromise with their monkey-like manners and tiger-like principles.'-Prospectus of a New Daily Paper to be entitles The Porcupine by William Cobbett, September 1800.

Further:
‘After [Napoleon's] coup the Anti-Jacobin Review spoke of his ‘vague overtures for a peace…unaccompanied by any renunciation of aggressive principles.' It was shocked that the ‘insolent upstart' had suggested that England had been the aggressor and that he ‘presumes to address our Sovereign on a footing of equality'. It listed his crimes as marrying ‘the cast-off mistress of his protector as the condition of his promotion', burning, massacring and plundering in Italy, selling prisoners, ‘combining the malignity of a fiend with the despotism of a tyrant', ‘professing a respect for the Catholic religion but persecuting its ministers and deposing its chief', and then in Egypt massacring the inhabitants of Alexandria, before issuing ‘an open renunciation of the blessed Savior of the world.''…'The Anti-Jacobin Review was now certainly employing the propaganda technique of repeating allegations and insults until they lodged in the public mind, ‘prodigal in blood, treacherous and cruel', a ‘detestable hypocrite' to be contrasted with ‘our amiable sovereign…''Clayton, 111 with excerpts from the Anti-Jacobin Review.

You are more likely to persuade me…

Why is it important to ‘persuade' you of anything? There are members of the forum that have both open minds and the mental facility of carrying on a good conversation and discussion without rancor, condescension, and personal attacks and those not only add to the discussion but are a pleasure to talk to. It is completely irrelevant to me what you think or believe.

…'facts' are isolated data points that pedants can 'prove' at the cost of everyone else…

So the historians that actually do the research to find factual material for writing or discussion are ‘pedants'? I find that idea ludicrous as well as intellectually dishonest.

Of course, if a person doesn't use facts when discussing historical people or events, then the point is quite moot.

I have seen an individual manufacture an entire staff college that did not exist, run by someone who was documented in a contemporary source as being on the other side of the Europe at the time, because it fitted their 'facts'. In reality the evidence was no more than one dodgy piece of annex from a partisan source added to an original document 200 years after the so called event… I wouldn't buy facts like that if you could get a gross for a nickel.

If you're referring to the threads on Bourcet and his staff college, than you are factually incorrect. Credible historians have found the staff college at Grenoble to have been an actual place and not an engineering school. There was an artillery school also at Grenoble, but not an engineering school. So, instead of making a futile attempt to discredit different people, you might try looking up different historians that support that idea. Your posting is both disingenuous and factually incorrect.

From a book (by an avowed Nappy fawner) with no evidence that the British Government was complicit in plots or the attempted assassination of the Ogre. The book is nothing but a rant of rubbish put together by a nutcase.

Have you read the book?

The problem with propaganda is that it is most effective when it has a grain or two of truth in it. There is also the matter of intent, ie the purpose for which is written. If the critera is to influence public opinion, even if it means playing fast and lose with the truth, then almost all of Napoleon's Bulletins are propaganda, even if only of the mildest kind…Propaganda was, and remains, a perfectly valid tool of war.

You are absolutely correct regarding the uses of propaganda.

The problem with it in this case, is that it is still being believed as credible despite being presented factual information on Napoleon that negates the period propaganda.

And those who continue to use the propaganda nonsense when discussing or denigrating Napoleon are doing nothing more than using an unreliable source and are posting incorrect information.

So why do you suppose, was British propaganda so negative towards the 'Corse Ogre'? Could it be because he was the tyrannical head of an Enemy perhaps? One wonders what his regime were publishing about the British? Perhaps they were all olive branch waving whereas the nasty Eenglishh' were horrible name callers and tongue pokie-outers.

It was so negative in order to demonize Napoleon and that is the information still apparently used against Napoleon over 200 years later. And it presents a picture of Napoleon that didn't exist.

More Clayton? That Loon drips Napoleon cultism like no other…

Clayton did his research and presented his findings in writing. His source material is excellent. As to British ‘participation' in the Bourbon/royalist assassination attempts and plots, it is fact that the British government financed the Bourbons/royalists as well as conveying the participants to France in Royal Navy vessels. It seems to me that Clayton has presented an excellent case.

Why do you insist on insulting people that you disagree with? Do you know Clayton? Referring to him as a 'loon' is defamation and very well could be actionable. I'd choose my words carefully if I were you.

Propaganda was, and remains, a perfectly valid tool of war.

Yes it does. But using it as a valid historical research tool on a factual basis to make a conclusion as to Napoleon's character is intellectually dishonest and well as demonstrably false and a misrepresentation.

Regarding Napoleon's Bulletins, they were not intended by Napoleon as history and were intended for the 'home front' and for the army. The troops recognized them for what they were it's a pity that some current 'authors' don't.

@Brechtel

I agree entirely reference the use of Napoleon's Bulletins.

But the same could be said of The Anti-Jacobin Review, so should be given the same courtesy of not be taken as indicative of Government policy.

I never said that it was 'indicative of government policy.'

What I did say was that it is still being used to denigrate Napoleon today by some authors and definitely some posters on this and other forums.

What pro-Wellington group is that? Please, please show what you mean dear heart by not using the back of the hand… :)

Why dibble, I have no idea what you mean. There is no pro-Wellington group and no methane infused pro-Wellington history.

We're just teasing you. We all know that British military superiority is an objective given.

As commander McBragg once so eloquently stated, 100 English archers shot apples off the trees at Agincourt and killed 50,000 French knights.

Likewise, everyone knows that it is objective fact that Wellington and his army were so vastly superior to Napoleon that the Duke had merely to instruct his soldiers to yawn to beat the French. The resulting collective halitosis stopped the French in their tracks and frightened their horses. Make that "French" horses; we all know objectively that British horses are redoubtable.

Anyone who disagrees is just proof he is, is a what? Oh yes, " [A] complete and utter hero-worshipping, fawning and idolisation for a long-dead despotic tyrant.."

Oh, how I do love the speech of objective scholars. :)

More from period British propaganda publications:

‘Mr Pitt railed most bitterly at the character of Bonaparte…But the truth is Mr Pitt knows Bonaparte to be sincere, and, therefore, will not negotiate, because the negotiations would lead to a peace, which peace would baffle that idle hope of restoring the French monarchy, which, spite of the document sent to Petersburgh, is and has been the real object of Ministers, both in beginning and continuing the war.'-Samuel Taylor Coleridge, as written in the Morning Post, 6 February 1800.

‘Every topic that can revile, and every art that can blacken, has been resorted to, for purposes of political slander; and I am very sorry to see that the Intercepted Correspondence from Egypt, strengthened, and embellished with notes, and perhaps, too, garbled, has made its appearance to prejudice the country against the chief consul, and thereby to set at a distance every hope of a negotiation for peace.'-MP Samuel Whitebread, 3 February 1800. <q/>.

If this was government propaganda they should have asked for their money back.

Previously I though that debating the cause of (and guilt for) WW1 or the nationality of Copernicus is a historical minefield, but this threat clearly shows that this era can claim its place under the historians battlefields :-)

Seems that I have to order some books not to stroll around unarmed.

If this was government propaganda they should have asked for their money back.

You should take a look at the book to put these two quotations in context were in support of the peace effort as well as Fox, at least in Coleridge's viewpoint.

Whitbread's quotation is from comments in the House of Commons. Whitbread was a member of the opposition.

The two quotations from Coleridge and Whitbread are denouncing the defamatory and inaccurate 'comments' against Napoleon.

There was support for peace in 1802 from the 'opposition' and they didn't share the propaganda against Napoleon.

They are certainly strong primary evidence of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the UK during that era. I wonder which other European governments would have put up with such bitter public criticism (whether or not justified) of their policies?

put these two quotations in context

What a jolly good idea.

The idea and practice of freedom of the press in Great Britain is somewhat overblown.

Pitt's government both suppressed and intimidated the opposition in Great Britain.

And the British government was involved with the press in the propaganda campaign against Napoleon and his government and had influence in the publishing of caricatures, newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets.

There, however, was no formal system of censorship in Great Britain and there were few publications that were fully under government control.

However, to say that censorship in Great Britain did not exist during the period is incorrect.

What a jolly good idea.

A better 'jolly good idea' would be to read the book before criticizing it.

For my better understanding, would you be good enough to point out where I have criticized any book recently?

@Brechtel198

"What I did say was that it is still being used to denigrate Napoleon today by some authors and definitely some posters on this and other forums."

The point I made (and I believe we supported each on) was that it was equally wrong to use Napoleon's Bulletins in the opposite direction.

Both were propaganda and we shouldn't use either except in the light of their intent.

We have a philosophical difference, in that I don't like to use the words 'facts' or 'truth' because it infers a final destination, or that we have a definitive knowledge of events. Our legal systems have enough trouble establishing such things with access to forensics, video footage and eyewitnesses available. What chance have we at a distance of two centuries?

History is an interpretive discipline. For the immutable I prefer to use the word 'data' or 'data point' and for the interpretive 'evidence'. I can therefore allow others to give a different weight to evidence or draw different conclusions from the analysis of the same data. I don't therefore get upset or resort to name calling because they are denying my 'truth'. We then all win from the debate because casting the same evidence or data in a different light might reveal something new, even if we essentially stil disagree.

Here is my problem with 'facts'. One artist shows a figure wearing a trumpeter wearing a white bearskin. 'Fact' trumpeters always wore white bearskins. Really? An eyewitness was at the same parade and recorded seeing a white bearskin. Even if we have complete faith in the reliability of the artist (who still can make a mistake) all this does is corroborate that it happened once, perhaps on one trumpeter. However, we have two 'facts' confirming the 'truth' that this unit's trumpeters always wore bearskins, and everyone else is "Ill-informed and wrong-headed" to believe otherwise. I'm not being specific, but does the thrust of this sound kind of familiar?

I'll stick to data, evidence and analysis leading to conclusions and informing opinions, thank you. I'll leave the quest for 'Truth' to ministers of religion and other zealots.

They are certainly strong primary evidence of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the UK during that era. I wonder which other European governments would have put up with such bitter public criticism (whether or not justified) of their policies?

Just so – Boney was suffering under constant paranoia, when Palm published a pamphlet of an anonymous author, where Boney in his vain megalomania did feel the honour of French officers was offended he was arrested and executed-

Susan Howard of the old NSF forum compiled this contribution which sheds a some light on Boney the great

New Letters of Napoleon I (omitted from the Napoleon 3 edition) Trans Lady Mary Lloyd, London 1898.
This is a one vol selection from Lecestre's 2 vol collection.
I selected those that seemed of most interest when I had the book out of the library. These are extracts selected in relation to Napoleon's attitude to liberty, which seemed to be the starting point on this occasion, so they are extracts from several layers of selection. I have left out his dealings with his brothers, with the Spanish royal family, with the Pope or anything of a purely military nature.
Before anyone raises the question, I haven't checked on the outcomes, my point is only to show Napoleon's preferred methods of maintaining control.
To Gen Lagrange, Governor of Cassel, Warsaw 13.01.07
…."The inhabitants of Hersfeld appear to be guilty. You will send a flying column of 4k men, and have the town thoroughly sacked, to punish the insult offered to the sixty men of my troops… The town of Wacht is guilty. Either it will give up the four principal authors of the revolt, or it must be burnt…..
Issue a proclamation… Indicate the men each town must give up on pain of being burnt….Visible traces must be left, to frighten the evil–intentioned in Germany. It was thus, by burning the big village of Binasco, that I kept Italy quiet, in the year IV. …"
To Marshal Berthier, Rambouillet, 7.9.07
"You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. you will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and that I have required that the two chief culprits shall be shot….."
To M de Champagny, Min for Foreign Affairs. Rambouillet, 7.9.07
"… I shall refuse all evacuation until the two ringleaders have been shot…"
To M. Fouche, Min of Police Rambouillet, 7.9.07
" …..Give orders to have Mr. Kuhn, the American Consul at Genoa, put under arrest, for wearing a Cross of Malta given him by the English, and as being an English agent. His papers will be seized, and an abstract of them made, and he will be kept in secret confinement until you have made your report to me…."
" …to the effect that the nobility did not attend the ball given by M. Lamartiniere, Senator. (he asks for details and as to whether they were actually in Bordeaux at the time, since they might have been in the country.) If, on the contrary, any of these lordlings have ventured to fail in the respect due to the Senator, it will be well for me to know the fuglemen, so that the police may remove them from Bordeaux."
To M. Fouche, Min of Police Bayonne 25.4.08
"The Journal de l'Empire still goes on badly…..If he does not change his ways, I shall change the editor…Mons Etienne is the cause of the present agitation in France, about Roman affairs. Pray have all the old editors, who are so hot against the present Administration, turned away. … I had also forbidden the newspapers to refer to priests, sermons, or religion…"
To M. Fouche, min of Police Bayonne 11.7.08
"Have young St Aignan placed in the military school at St Cyr. You will let him know that it is my will. You will also let him know that I do not intend him to marry, till he has fought two campaigns. You will have him taken there bodily…"
To Gen Menou, Governor of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Aranda 28.11.08
"Maret sends you a decree which is not to be published till after its execution. Have the valley disarmed. Have 30-40 persons – those best known as having always taken part in former revolts – arrested, whatever their present behaviour may be…"
To M. Fouche, min of Police Benevente 31.12.08
"I am informed that the émigré families screen their children from the conscription, and keep them in grievous and guilty idleness….I intend to publish an edict which will send all youths of these families, over sixteen, and under eighteen, to the Military School at St Cyr. If any objection is made, the only answer you will give is, that such is my good pleasure…"
To M. Bigot de Preamenu, Min of Public Worship. Benavente, 1.1.09
"Let the Archbishop of Bordeaux know of my extreme displeasure at the sermon preached by the Abbe Langlade,….As to this Langlade, I have ordered the Minister of Police to have him arrested, and I will punish him in such a way as will serve to warn others."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Rambouillet, 14.3.09
"Arrest the Vicar of Noyon, who has ventured to make improper allusions to the conscription, in one of his sermons. You will have him brought to Paris, and examined by one of the Councillors of State."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Paris.3.4.09
"There is a work on Suwaroff, many of the notes to which are very objectionable. This book is said to have been written by an Abbe. You must put the seals on that Abbe's papers, you must have all the notes cancelled, and you must even stop the publication of the work, which is anti-national."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Schonbrunn, 26.7 1809
"I send you a copy of the Gazette de France, in which you will find another article about Berlin. Give orders, on receiving this letter, to have the editor arrested, and put in prison, for having caused several articles from Berlin to be inserted in his newspaper, the object of which is to cast doubt on the alliance of France with Russia and to offend our allies. You will keep the editor in prison for a month, and you will appoint somebody else in his place…"
To M. Bigot de Preameneu, Min of Public Worship. Schonbrunn. 2.8.09
"You will let the Bishop of Ghent know that am displeased with the manner in which he manages his diocese, with his weakness, and the small amount of personal attachment he shows me…I order his Vicar general to resign and proceed to Paris…. Because if once I put my hand to the matter, I shall punish them severely."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Schonbrunn, 2.8. 1809
"Have the editor of the Brussels Oracle arrested. If it is true that two Saxon women ventured to make a scene in the theatre at Aix-la-Chapelle, have them arrested and taken to prison, where they are to remain for three months."
As above, same date
"It appears complaint is being made of the bad feeling in Belgium. Send reliable men to collect information. The authorities must be weeded out, bad characters must be arrested, and 500 or 600 suspected persons must be sent to live in Burgundy and Champagne. .."
To M. Fouche, Duc d'Otrante, Min of Police Paris 27.12.09
".. those persons (Belgians) who might do harm to the Government by their fortune, or their connections, are to be obliged to come and live in Paris, and the children are to be sent to St Cyr, or to St Germain. Have the same thing drawn up for all the conquered countries which have lately been added to France."
To M. Fouche, Duc d'Otrante, Min of Police Paris 21.1.10
A more detailed order for sundry individual Belgians to be removed.
"You will be careful not to have more than two of these people sent for from their Departments, at a time, and to leave an interval of a fortnight or three weeks between the dates of their departure, so that this measure may not appear forced and extraordinary, but merely a regular administrative step.
A person who has been described to me as being rich does not appear on your list. Let me have a report about this."
To M. Fouche, Duc d'Otrante, Min of Police Compiegne 24.4.10
"Is it true that engravings are being published with the title of ‘Josephine Beauharnais nee La pagerie'? If this is true, have the prints seized, and let the engravers be punished."
To Prince Lebrun, Grand Treasurer of the Empire, the Emps Lt gen in Holland. Paris. 25.9.10
There is a FN which states that this is the letter as originally drafted but that N cut the end. It does not say where the cut was made.
"You speak of the complaints of the inhabitants of Amsterdam; of their alarm and discontent. Do these Dutchmen take me for their Grand Pensionary Barnevelt? I do not understand such language. I shall do what is best for the good of my Empire, and the clamour of the madmen who will insist on knowing what is right better than I do, only fills me with scorn….. I have not undertaken the government of Holland to consult the populace of Amsterdam, and do as other people like. French nation has been willing, at various times, to put its trust in me. …I hope the Dutch will be good enough to show me the same respect…..etc"
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Fontainebleau 25.10.10
"I see by your police report, that the blocks of a will of Louis XVI, which was being printed for a certain Bonneville, a dealer in engravings, have been seized in the house of one Farge. Have these two persons arrested. Write to the Director of the Censure Department to have their charter revoked, and that they are never to be allowed either to print books, or sell engravings again ; then you will have them shut up in a State prison, until the millennium. When the Censorship was instituted, provision was made for depriving any handful of wretches who might attempt to disturb the public peace, of all right either to print or to sell books. Send me a statement of the booksellers and printers who are known to be evilly inclined, and cannot be depended upon, so that I may revoke their licence. Follow this up vigorously; it is time to make an end of it. There can be no greater crime than that committed by these people."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 14.4.11
"I send you a letter from Gen Molitor, let the grand Treasurer know that the measures taken are too feeble, that the students and townsmen of Utrecht, who have insulted the patrols, must be arrested forthwith, and tried by a military court."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 18.3.11
Concerning several priests, reported to be "dissidents and enemies of the Government."
"I should wish all these people to be arrested at once, the seals put upon their papers, and they themselves brought, without any one knowing where they are, either to Vincennes, or to some other State prison. All their papers should be sent to Paris, where they must be examined.
…You must not trust either the Prefects, or the Justices of the Peace, nor the local gendarmes, but you must employ Paris police agents, and good picked non-commissioned officers of the Gendarmerie, who will proceed simultaneously to all the places where these priests are to be found, and seize their persons."
To Pr Lebrun, Grand Treasurer of the Empire, the Emps Lt gen in Holland. St cloud, 3.5.11
"It is my intention that the 500 men who formed the mob which beat the Prefect, shall all be sent to France, and forced to serve in my ports….The houses of the persons who have taken flight must be burnt, their relations arrested, their goods confiscated, and they themselves condemned to death by default, in a military court. It is necessary to have several of the most guilty shot….Blood and chastisement alone can wash out the insult offered to the government."
To Savary on the same dates he specifies: "…their fathers, mothers, wives, brothers and sisters imprisoned…"
To Pr Le brun, Grand Treasurer of the Empire, the Emps Lt gen in Holland. St cloud, 12.5.11
"I hear you have altered your late decision, on the occasion of the riots in Amsterdam, and that you brought the persons implicated in the affair before the civil courts. … You may have taken the initiative in a momenty of confusion, but this particular course having been approved by me, you cannot return to it without my consent…"
As above, same subject, 20.5.11
"It is indispensable that honest and well intentioned people should be protected, and led by kindly treatment; but the rabble must be driven by terror….Sedition mongers go unpunished, and in the end, they will have to be suppressed by fire and the sword. And further, I cannot leave my armies in the interior of the country for ever.
…The rioters at Amstrdam and Rotterdam must therefore be sentenced by military court."
As above, same subject, 22.6.11
"I have been interested in seeing the result of the military inquiries, and that three men have been sentenced to death and executed. There is no other way of overawing the mob."
To Comte de Montalivet, min of the Interior. Trianon 19.7.11
"It is necessary for you to give the Director-general of the Department of Literature orders not to allow any work on ecclesiastical affairs to be printed. The great art in such matters is never to mention them. I have been distressed by the pamphlets which have appeared on such subjects."
To M Maret, Duc de bassano, min for Foreign Affairs Paris, 29.2.12
"…My Minister at Cassel must let it be known, that I am exceedingly displeased with the town of Brunswick, and that the very next time the town is guilty of an offence, I shall put it beyond the pale of my protection, and have so severe an example made of it, that the posterity of the inhabitants will remember it, a hundred years hence."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 30.3.13
"I confess I could not help being very much astonished by the play yesterday…I had a right to expect that the Minister of Police would not have allowed the Court to be handled in so dull and silly a fashion….Never have people been allowed, in any country, so to depreciate the Court. If it had not been for its clumsiness, and lack of talent, the play would have had a most mischievous effect on public opinion…Put a stop to the performances of this wretched comedy, and alter the composition of your Board of Censors."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Dresden,6.8.13
"You will have the Director of the Seminary (Ghent) who professes such bad principles, arrested and confined in a State prison, without anyone being aware of his whereabouts."
To prince Cambaceres, Grand chancellor of the Empire. Dresden, 14.8.13.
Relating to "the verdict of the the Brussels Court of Assizes." "You will also send for the Min of Police, so that before my intention is made public, the accused persons may have been re arrested, and the jurymen who are implicated, seized. My letter will not be inserted into the Moniteur, and the decree submitted to the Senate, until three or four days afterwards…the Minisrtr of Police will be one of the members of the Secret Council, and take the intitiative in the whole of this business. Extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary measures, and they are provided for in our Constitution."
Susan

I stress this

To Marshal Berthier, Rambouillet, 7.9.07
"You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. you will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and that I have required that the two chief culprits shall be shot….."
To M de Champagny, Min for Foreign Affairs. Rambouillet, 7.9.07
"… I shall refuse all evacuation until the two ringleaders have been shot…"

Seems a bit over the top – doesn't it, Boney revealed.

There it is otherwise clear that Boney lost Belle Alliance due to his severe mistakes in the operational art of war and due to incompetence – in contrast to two superb Allied Generals Blücher and Wellington who got their act together and succeeded masterly to end for once and all the days of a tyrant.

I will move on.

Von W

I think you just won the thread.

I do wish VW would get real and not let his bias rule his head. 'Succeeded masterly' really? So letting Napoleon get in between the two allied armies, the Prussian defeat at Ligny and the British failure to advance from Quatre Bras and their following retreat, were all part of their 'masterly plan'. LOL

And yes, the defeat could be seen as due to incompetence, the incompetence of Grouchy failing miserably to prevent Blucher's Prussians coming to the rescue of Wellington's British.

Accept it for once. The allies got lucky and the French unlucky. Come on, VW, get real. The Allies won, that's true and can't be changed. But masterly? You just have to laugh!

dibble

'This Dark Business is not a defence of Napoleon but an explanation of how and why the British government turned him into a monster – and of how astonishingly successful in the long term that gamble proved to be.' (page 12 The Dark Business by Tim Clayton)

Er, that doesn't sound like someone who hero worships Napoleon. I still think you don't like the book or author because you can't stand and won't accept anything negative being said about the wonderfully peace loving and caring Napoleonic British government of the time. LOL

That is absolutely correct-the book is not a defense of Napoleon but an explanation of the course and sequence of events of the two assassination attempts along with the British demonization of Napoleon.

I will move on.

The excerpts are cherry-picked in an attempt to prove…What? They are not in context and to demonstrate what Napoleon's intent was and the outcome more has to be studied. You haven't done that.

I think you just won the thread.

'Won' what?

I didn't realize that this was some type of competition. The study of history isn't one and it never has been.

I'll stick to data, evidence and analysis leading to conclusions and informing opinions, thank you. I'll leave the quest for 'Truth' to ministers of religion and other zealots.

Data and evidence are facts found through study. Analysis and conclusions are gleaned from facts.

So, by your 'definition', you are a pedant because you are also looking for facts, although you use a different term. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

And I never used the term 'truth' so it appears that you are also using a strawman argument.

I should amend the above posting. I have never used the term 'truth' in research and never use it as being synonymous with 'facts. The two terms do not mean the same thing.

I have used the term truth when being skeptical of any book title that has the words 'truth' or 'true' in it.

Historical facts are what are found, hopefully, in the process of historical inquiry.

Everyone has their own 'truth' and that may or may not be synonymous with facts. Usually not.

I'm not sure why the Waterloo campaign is considered as Napoleon occupying a central position. He never got between the two Allied armies, and never really intended to. His plan was to push the Prussian army back, then turn on the Allied army. The crucial day turned out to be the 16th and the French made the mistakes. Constant Rebecque realized the importance of the Quatre Bras crossroads, the Prussians, though they lost, retreated quickly and ended up in a position where they could support the Allied army. Meanwhile d'Erlon couldn't make up his mind which commander to support, Ney didn't recognize that his battle was the secondary one, and Napoleon didn't get a pursuit of the Prussians organized quick enough. Grouchy didn't move quickly on the 17th of course, but he was never really in a position to intercept the Prussian march to Waterloo because of the head start they had plus the terrain between him and Napoleon would not be easy to traverse. Napoleon was matched up against an equal-sized army on the 18th in a good position under a competent commander, and the two Allied armies communications were a lot better than the French.

Gazolla/Brechtel.

Clayton's book rant.

"This Dark Business tells the story of the British government's determination to destroy Napoleon Bonaparte by any means possible. We have been taught to think of Napoleon as the aggressor – a man with an unquenchable thirst for war and glory – but what if this story masked the real truth: that the British refusal to make peace either with revolutionary France or with the man who claimed to personify the revolution was the reason this Great War continued for more than twenty years? At this pivotal moment when it consolidated its place as number one world power Britain was uncompromising. To secure the continuing rule of Church and King, the British invented an evil enemy, the perpetrator of any number of dark deeds; and having blackened Napoleon's name, with the help of networks of French royalist spies and hitmen, they also tried to assassinate him."

Gazolla

Er, that doesn't sound like someone who hero worships Napoleon. I still think you don't like the book or author because you can't stand and won't accept anything negative being said about the wonderfully peace loving and caring Napoleonic British government of the time. LOL

Brechtel

The idea and practice of freedom of the press in Great Britain is somewhat overblown.

Pitt's government both suppressed and intimidated the opposition in Great Britain.

And the British government was involved with the press in the propaganda campaign against Napoleon and his government and had influence in the publishing of caricatures, newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets.

There, however, was no formal system of censorship in Great Britain and there were few publications that were fully under government control.

However, to say that censorship in Great Britain did not exist during the period is incorrect.

Yaaaaawwwn…:)

However, to say that censorship in Great Britain did not exist during the period is incorrect.

The normal making up of something that wasn't suggested.

I posted:

"So why do you suppose, was British propaganda so negative towards the 'Corse Ogre'? Could it be because he was the tyrannical head of an Enemy perhaps? One wonders what his regime were publishing about the British? Perhaps they were all olive branch waving whereas the nasty Eenglishh' were horrible name-callers and tongue pokie-outers."

The French had been England's/Britain's greatest enemy since 1202, not because some forward-combing Corse General took the throne. He was just part of the ongoing rivalry between the two countries.

Did the French swing their anti-'English' propaganda in to motion during the same period? Well, of course they did and so they should have, just as any countries at war should do too. That the opposition in the British parliament could air their strong sentiments for an enemy without being kidnapped, imprisoned and or shot for dissension is a huge plus for the British way of free speech.

Let's also remember that there were many in Parliament who would go on over years to sympathise and lobby for the enemy and also would later admire and lobby for the likes of the Kaiser, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin. The Propaganda machine also did its stuff on both sides.

MiniPigs:

Why dibble, I have no idea what you mean. There is no pro-Wellington group and no methane infused pro-Wellington history.

We're just teasing you. We all know that British military superiority is an objective given.

As commander McBragg once so eloquently stated, 100 English archers shot apples off the trees at Agincourt and killed 50,000 French knights.

Likewise, everyone knows that it is objective fact that Wellington and his army were so vastly superior to Napoleon that the Duke had merely to instruct his soldiers to yawn to beat the French. The resulting collective halitosis stopped the French in their tracks and frightened their horses. Make that "French" horses; we all know objectively that British horses are redoubtable.

Anyone who disagrees is just proof he is, is a what? Oh yes, " [A] complete and utter hero-worshipping, fawning and idolisation for a long-dead despotic tyrant.."

Oh, how I do love the speech of objective scholars. :)

All that and you still havent answered your own statement of a 'pro-Wellington group'

You may want a different taste in the mouth but unfortunately, the Historical pill must be very bitter for you 'and others' to swallow. Oh! the breaths of Bloomfield, Bess and Baker was all that was needed to send the garlic 'mauvaise haleine' packing :)

I forgot to mention, the Allies were moving on the morning of the 17th; Napoleon wasn't.

The normal making up of something that wasn't suggested.

It's in the book.

Once again, have you read Clayton's book?

And you used "However, to say that censorship in Great Britain did not exist during the period is incorrect." directly in your post of 11 Aug 2020 3:32 a.m. …not quoted or attributed to anyone. Or is there a whiff of plagiarism?

Yes I have his book and have read it.

Brechtel198

I'll happily concede that mine is a modern, more forensic approach. That doesn't make me a pedant though, just using a different model. In mine, only data or a data point would be a 'fact'. The hierachy in the model is well known to knowledge managers and data scientists:

Data, Information, Knowledge and finally Wisdom.

However, something can be evidential without being 'factual'. Eyewitness evidence is notorious in that respect, even the most reliable and faithful observers may not be seeing what they think they are seeing.

It is the last two steps that are down to the interpretive historian, and no matter how respected or educated they might be, any of us should be able to challenge that interpretation. That is why credibility is built through the transparency of footnotes, linking the the data and evidence to the interpretation. None of the interpretation though is ever a 'fact' no matter how trusted the source or the historian.

Nothing beats a good Napoleonic battle – even when its in the forums :-)

something can be evidential without being 'factual'

If it isn't factual, then it isn't 'evidence', at least none that can be used for research.

The use of semantics to backtrack isn't useful at all. And if you don't agree with something someone posts or writes, then you should produce evidence that contradicts it. Merely using what passes for 'logic' and is merely verbal camouflage used to confuse just doesn't cut it.

Some opinions from those who have read 'The Book', amidst the usual malarkey.

TMP link

Have you?

Instead of relying on the opinions of others, it is better to make up your own mind on a book or historical subject.

And in the case of a book or books, you have to read them. Otherwise your own opinion is worthless.

Well, dear chap, you may not have noticed – as I hinted some days ago- that I have offered no opinion on Mr Clayton's oeuvre; precisely for the reason that I have not read it. To have done otherwise would seem to me to be rash, or even perhaps, as you put it so trenchantly, 'worthless.'

However, since you had been expressing keen interest in whether others here had read the book, it seemed to me worthwhile to remind those following this thread that there were members who had indeed read 'The Book' and in a discussion on its merits or otherwise last year had offered their considered opinion.

This seemed a useful element to introduce into a discussion that looked in danger of becoming circular.

Of course I could be mistaken.

Of course the thing about Buonaparte's rule was that like all tyrannies imposed or maintained by violence or its threat, it contained no prospect whatsoever of reform or liberalisation. The democracy opposing him wasn't perfect, but it was constantly evolving, it was possible to remove the ruling faction, it was legal and in fact required for there to be an opposition, and the franchise was capable of being widened incrementally, which is what has happened.

None of that can be said for Buonaparte's parvenu regime, which unravelled the revolution and simply replaced one monarchy with another and which once established Bonaparte (of course!) thought should itself be hereditary.

The war was fundamentally a clash between a modern free country and a backwards-looking regressive one.

Thanks for the link 42flanker, interesting reading.

Informative too. According to a recent standard outlined, the personal views of the unqualified pre-psychoanalyst Baron Fain on Napoleon's character as being 'naturally good' can be utterly disregarded as evidence, likewise Lentz and Elting. Unless Handlebarbleep has a point, that is.

I fail to see the relevance of labouring the point which some appear fixated on though, in that Britain sent smaller expeditionary forces to the Continent and fought with Allies whose interests were mutual. For very good reasons, this was English/British policy for centuries, both before and after the Napoleonic Wars, so why should it change for the sake of a decade? How is paying subsisidies any worse than offering crowns or captured lands to make common cause? Especially when those living in the lands might not want to change allegiance?

One might as well ask why Napoleon (whose own armies still required massive non-French manpower 'contributions') didn't just build a French fleet to face the Royal Navy on its own, rather than rely on relying on force or coercion to get others to join his cause.

I'm not sure why some seem surprised that the official Opposition in British Parliament voiced a contrary viewpoint to that of the Government. Surely their role is to:

a) hold the government to public account and
b) position themselves for power at the next election?

That a) and b) are somewhat related is part and parcel of it all, even as views change to suit the occasion. Indeed, when the Government was non-Tory, did peace break out again? I suspect parking 200,000 bored Frenchmen in Boulogne will have changed some minds.

Was Napoleon a threat to British interests before Amiens? Of course, what else was the Egyptian misadventure? Britain had long fought to secure overseas interests, including India, in the process finally achieving ascendency over France. I'm sure they would not want to go backwards when Britain was enjoying the fruits of success.

LBF

Your point regarding the purpose of the British Opposition is well made and
Most recently restated by Keir Starmer when elected to the leadership of the Labour Party.

@Brechtel198

If you think evidence is synonymous with facts, you clearly have not been inside a court of law recently. Both sides give evidence, only the Judge or the Jury decide which of them are facts. Heaven fofend if you have sat on a Courts Martial (which I have done several times) if you did not grasp that essential point. Anyone you found guilty would have a fair case for a mis-trial!

The broader point is that the older, perhaps more traditional view of historical enquiry is heavily open to individual bias. It does not fit with modern more empirichal techniques, such as the use of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence in sifting huge amounts and variety of data points. These would be beyond the capabilities of whole armies of researchers. In this brave new world, todays historians need to change some of their concepts and terminology in order to harness these new techniques.