"The Causes of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Loss at Waterloo 1815" Topic
359 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticlePart II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Brechtel198 | 18 Aug 2020 7:14 a.m. PST |
If you actually want to discuss command and staff development in the different European armies, I believe that you should begin with Frederick the Great, then the Austrians and then the French. That would allow a valid discussion, The French were definitely ahead of everyone else regarding staff organization and functioning in 1789 and that expertise lasted at least until 1815. What would become the Prussian general staff was only in embryonic form in 1815 and didn't reach any type of maturity until the 1840s. …the freshly defeated French might want to discredit the pre-eminence of the staff system that just beat them, or that asserting an earlier staff college might just be them trying to salvage a little pride. The above idea, without any supporting documents or proof, is at best disingenuous and |
Gazzola | 18 Aug 2020 7:27 a.m. PST |
138SquadronRAF Your impression of the lovely Napoleonic Brits ending slavery while fighting Napoleon is nothing more than an absolute joke and denial of reality. If you do a little research you will discover that Britain did not abolish slavery until 1833 which came into force in 1834. I think all Brit lovers will be able to understand that this was well after the Napoleonic Wars. LOL And the 1807 act some Brits like to throw up as proof, did not affect the slaves already in existence. They were not freed and sadly slavery continued to exist. And when it was, the lovely dovey caring British government paid the slave owners millions for the loss of their property! I suggest you (and others) get real and stop making out Napoleon the bad guy, British the angels, concerning this subject, because they weren't. And history and facts show this, for those who would bother to look further than their Union Jack blinkers now and again. By the way, I love my country, so please don't try to make out I'm pointing out negative facts about the Brits because I hate Britain. I would just like people to do some proper research and take off their blinkers now and again. In terms of myself, I do not think Napoleon an angel or never did anything wrong. Other people just prefer to think I do. |
Gazzola | 18 Aug 2020 8:01 a.m. PST |
dibble Do you really believe Britain became an enemy of France and Napoleon because he was an evil leader? LOL They did not wage war against Napoleon because they cared about the French people. Get real, man. It was all over trade and fear of change. That's why they had to wage a propaganda war against one man – they needed to convince the British people that he was bad and that money needed to be spent and lives lost because of it. And in terms of freedom, tell that to the print publishers who were fined and jailed for daring to say something negative about the British king or government. Some were even charged on non-print charges to keep them quiet or put them out of business. It is all in Clayton's book, you know, the one you claim to have read. Perhaps you automatically 'stifled' some of the contents? LOL But I don't think anyone would accept or believe that the British government would not know what the people they funded were up to or planned to do, unless you really think the British government of the time were that stupid? They HAD to know in case of any come backs or if they needed to cover their tracks and involvement. Talking of the British government, Pitt admitted -'At one point he was goaded by the opposition into an unusually frank admission that 'the idea of interference with the government of France had been implicit since the beginning of war'. (page 20. This Dark Business by Tim Clayton) In other words, it was taken as a given that they would interfere with the government of France, not simply go to war with them. In short, and as well you know, the British government knew what they were doing and who and why they were funding those they did, as did those who undertook the failed assassination attempts knew what they were doing and didn't care about the innocent people that would also be killed, including children. War is bad thing and bad things happen on both sides and are caused by both sides – not just one side. To ignore this is to accept a fantasy version of history were the British (and their allies) all wear white, while Napoleon and the French wear black. History is not a fiction. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Aug 2020 3:19 p.m. PST |
I do not think Napoleon an angel or never did anything wrong. Other people just prefer to think I do. Well said. It appears to me that some of the posters here have to demonize those with whom they disagree and accuse them of thoughts and actions that do not exist. |
dibble | 18 Aug 2020 4:25 p.m. PST |
Gazzola: You try all you like to spin and interpret what I posted in the way you want it to mean, but you are woefully wrong and . |
Handlebarbleep | 18 Aug 2020 6:59 p.m. PST |
@Brechtel198 I found you post difficult to read, because of the "snips", however I think you provide an excellent exposition of the different interpretation of the nature of historical enquiry. If we recognise that ALL evidence that is not merely data is presented with the bias of the observer, then context is vital to the interpretation of it. Anvers, who wrote the additional Annex referred to was a serving French staff officer. He was writing immediately in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war in which he served. As such, he was highly unlikely to be an unbiased commentator. The main part of the document is also known to have been edited by him, and in itself only indicates a treatise on mountain warfare and at best evidence of some limited instruction, but nothing approaching a staff college as it would be later understood. As there is no corroborating period evidence to support his assertions I think it perfectly reasonable to employ a healthy skepticism. To use a Rugby analogy, Anvers has been seen dipping his hand into the ruck. Although there is not absolute proof of foul play, it is unsurprising if the referee awards a penalty when the ball suspiciously comes out on the French side. Of course, you and anyone else are free to uncritically swallow his take on events. They would be highly likely to do so if it fits their narrative. But then again, that is the point that was being made, everyone sees history through a bias. That includes me too, of course although I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm not particularly convinced by claims of pre-eminence of the Prussian school of thought either. Like it or not, history is an interpretive discipline, and we are called upon to use our judgement. However, I try not to think in terms of black and white and prefer the Scottish system of three verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven as being more nuanced. Others have out and out declared the notion of an earlier staff college at Grenoble as a fiction. I'm merely suggesting that the case for it remains at best unproven. I agree with the accepted academic view that we should allow for a range of differing opinions. Personally though, I'm not talking about "agreeing to disagree" which is just a cop out. All that says is "I still think you are wrong but I've run out of patience". What I mean is recognising that having a diversity of conclusions from the same evidence is normal and natural. They all have equal validity but it is up to the reader to assess their veracity. This not only means that the debaters respect each other, but they both respect the audience before whom they are having their debate to exercise their own best judgement. I therefore leave it to the impartial reader to decide if there was a staff college in Grenoble as asserted in the Anvers' annex, despite that the person running it was recorded in contemporary documents as being in Corsica for a substantial amount of the time in question. It is for them to weigh up the credibility of the evidence, but I humbly submit that the recent events of the Franco-Prussian war and prevailing national sentiments should be included in that assessment. |
Paul Demet | 18 Aug 2020 10:22 p.m. PST |
@Brechtel198 It may be that, as you say, 'The French were definitely ahead of everyone else regarding staff organization and functioning in 1789', but I am sure you are aware that the French staff system was thrown into disarray by the emigrations and purges of the early 1790s – for example, Berthier (who I know you regard very highly) was suspended from the army in August 1792 and only reactivated in March 1795 |
4th Cuirassier | 19 Aug 2020 5:28 a.m. PST |
I've found a source which sorta describes Waterloo as a British victory! CHAPTER 46
Napoleon THE English were disgusted by this new French Convention and so decided to go in for The War again, thus causing Nelson and the Duke of Wellington. The War was now called the Napoleonic War, after Napoleon, a Corsican, whose real name was Bonuapart, and who had cleverly made himself First Consort by means of a whiff of grape-nuts. (This is called the Napoleonic Legend.) The French Revolution caused great loss of life, liberty, fraternity, etc., and was, of course, a Good Thing, since the French were rather degenerate at the time; but Napoleon now invented a new Convention that the French should massacre all the other nations and become top nation, and this, though quite generate, was a Bad Thing. CHAPTER 47 Nelson NAPOLEON ought never to be confused with Nelson, in spite of their hats being so alike; they can most easily be distinguished from one another by the fact that Nelson always stood with his arm like this, while Napoleon always stood with his arms like that. Nelson was one of England's most naval officers, and despised weak commands. At one battle when he was told that his Admiral-in-Chief had ordered him to cease fire, he put the telephone under his blind arm and exclaimed in disgust: `Kiss me, Hardy!' By this and other intrepid manoeuvres the French were utterly driven from the seas. Pitt and Fox Meanwhile at home the War was being helped on a good deal by the famous remarks of the politicians, such as Pitt and Fox. On one occasion Fox said in the House of Commons that the French Revolution was a Good Thing; whereupon the younger Pitt (Balham) rose slowly to his feet and, pointing at Fox, exclaimed: 'Roll up that chap: he will not be wanted these ten years.' Having thus made his most memorable saying, Pitt was carried out of the House and died almost immediately of a surfeit of austerlitz. The plans of Napoleon were thus gradually thwarted. CHAPTER 48 Wellington BUT the most important of the great men who at this time kept Britain top nation was an Irishman called John Wesley, who afterwards became the Duke of Wellington (and thus English). When he was still Wolseley, Wellington made a great name for himself at Plassaye, in India, where he remarking afterwards, `It was the bloodiest battle for numbers I ever knew.' It was, however, against Napoleon and his famous Marshals (such as Marshals Ney, Soult, Davos, Morren, Soult, Bleriot, Snelgrove, Ney, etc.) that Wellington became most memorable. Napoleon's armies always used to march on their stomachs, shouting: 'Vive I'lnterieur!' and so moved about very slowly (ventre-a-terre, as the French say), thus enabling Wellington to catch them up and defeat them. When Napoleon made his troops march all the way to Moscow on their stomachs they got frozen to death one by one, and even Napoleon himself admitted afterwards that it was rather a Bad Thing. Gorilla War in Spain The second part of the Napoleonic War was fought in Spain and Portugal and was called the Gorilla War on account of the primitive Spanish method of fighting. Wellington became so impatient with the slow movements of the French troops that he occupied himself drawing imaginary lines all over Portugal and thus marking off the fighting zone; he made a rule that defeats beyond these lines did not count, while any French army that came his side of them was out of bounds. Having thus insured himself against disaster, Wellington won startling victories at Devalera, Albumina, Salamanda, etc. Waterloo After losing this war Napoleon was sent away by the French, since he had not succeeded in making them top nation; but he soon escaped and returned just in time to fight on the French side at the battle of Waterloo. This utterly memorable battle was fought at the end of a dance, on the Playing Fields of Eton, and resulted in the English definitely becoming top nation. It was thus a very Good Thing. During the engagement the French came on in their usual creeping and crawling method and were defeated by Wellington's memorable order, `Up Jenkins and Smashems'. This time Napoleon was sent right away for ever by everybody, and stood on the deck of a ship in white breeches with his arms like that. "History is not what you thought, it is what you can remember…" |
John the OFM | 19 Aug 2020 8:26 a.m. PST |
Waterloo a British victory? How can you get away with saying that? It's an insult to the deified Napoleon! |
Chad47 | 19 Aug 2020 8:53 a.m. PST |
Cuirassier Love it! :):) However, to repeat a well known phrase, "what is your source?" :) |
138SquadronRAF | 19 Aug 2020 10:01 a.m. PST |
Gazzola I didn't say that British Abolished Slavery in 1808 merely suppressed the Transatlantic Slave Trade. There is a difference. Yes, it wasn't ended in the Empire until the 1830s and it was done by paying the slaveholder off. No argument. Should the slaveholders have been compensated? I don't know. Slaverholders revolt in the Carribean would have been probably less costly to defeat, but that was a political decision. Show the dreadful state of the French Navy that the British afford to commit resources to the Anti-Slavery Patrol. Conspicuously absent from your answer was my central point, that given the choice between abolishing slavery or it's reintroduction, Napoleon chose to reintroduce slavery. How noble. Rather like his war in Haiti. BTW the case of Somerset v. Stewart (1772) in the English courts condemning slavery certain encouraged the American Colonials to rebel in 1776. |
42flanker | 19 Aug 2020 10:22 a.m. PST |
"1066, and all that- "(including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates), by Messrs Sellars and Yeatman, and which was a very Good Thing. This, "Our Island's Story," BROM 4689, and a good King List, (including one or two monstrous women) taught me all I needed to know. |
42flanker | 19 Aug 2020 10:26 a.m. PST |
138SquadronRAF – I have seen it spun that the British authorities in fact nobly used British capital to bribe slave holders to cease purchasing slaves and ultimately to manumit their work force, which I think doth protest too much. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Aug 2020 4:12 a.m. PST |
It may be that, as you say, 'The French were definitely ahead of everyone else regarding staff organization and functioning in 1789', but I am sure you are aware that the French staff system was thrown into disarray by the emigrations and purges of the early 1790s – for example, Berthier (who I know you regard very highly) was suspended from the army in August 1792 and only reactivated in March 1795 The French had trained staff officers available in 1789 as a result of Minister of War de Segur's forming a Corps d'Etat Major in 1783. Even though it was later abolished, it left the army trained staff officers, including Berthier. Berthier was not the only officer capable of becoming a chief of staff at the army level or at the division level. The division staffs usually had an adjutant general, two adjoints, at least one engineer officer and a commissaire des guerres. The adjutant general would have been the division chief of staff. Berthier himself had been a staff officer on Rochambeau's staff of the expeditionary force sent to support Washington's continental army and distinguished himself there. Originally, he was a topographical engineer as his father had been. The elder Berthier was a senior officer of the topographical engineers and was head of the War Ministry's Depot of Maps and Plans and had 'trained young Berthier carefully' bringing him on active duty when he was sixteen as a topographical engineer. Berthier supported the Revolution and was chief of staff of L'Armee du Nord, promoted to marechal de camp, and was then placed on inactive status having been charged with incivisme. He volunteered the next year in the Vendee and was promptly made the chief of staff of L'Armee de la Rochelle. Berthier was wounded in the Vendee and was again placed on inactive status for criticizing Rochelle's sans-culotte generals. In 1795 he was recalled and was assigned as chief of staff to Kellermann in the armies of Italy and the Alps and was promoted to general of division in 1796. When Napoleon took over as commander of L'Armee d'Italie, Berthier was chief of staff and remained Napoleon's chief of staff until 1814. Berthier was suspended from the army twice, first in September 1792, but he was authorized to serve as a volunteer in the Vendee in May 1793, and second in July 1793. He was assigned as chief of staff to L'Armee des Alpes et Italie under Kellermann in March 1795. So he was inactive twice, the second time for a period of 18 months. It was while he was Kellermann's chief of staff that he influenced staff organization, functioning, and planning, developing the general staff that would function until 1814. However, he built upon what had already been done and what was being used in the armies of the Republic. His staff instruction that were implemented in 1795 were probably from the old, unpublished regulations of de Segur's staff corps. It is also interesting to note that a de facto staff corps was established by law by the French Revolutionary government, the National Assembly, on 29 October 1790. This new law established the adjutants general (which would later be renamed adjutants commandant), a group of thirty, later increased to 110, senior staff officers. For references the following is helpful and were used here: -Six's Dictionary of general officers for Berthier. Berthier's service record is an excellent resource on the subject. -Thiebault's 1800 staff manual. This manual was probably derived from Berthier's staff instruction. -John Elting's Swords Around A Throne. An excellent, short biography of Berthier is very helpful. -Howard Rice's and Anne Brown's The American Campaigns of Rochambeau's Army, Volume I. This not only contains Berthier's Journal of the American War, but also an excellent biography by the two editors listed above. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Aug 2020 12:30 p.m. PST |
If we recognise that ALL evidence that is not merely data is presented with the bias of the observer, then context is vital to the interpretation of it. Anvers, who wrote the additional Annex referred to was a serving French staff officer. He was writing immediately in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war in which he served. As such, he was highly unlikely to be an unbiased commentator. The main part of the document is also known to have been edited by him, and in itself only indicates a treatise on mountain warfare and at best evidence of some limited instruction, but nothing approaching a staff college as it would be later understood. As there is no corroborating period evidence to support his assertions I think it perfectly reasonable to employ a healthy skepticism.To use a Rugby analogy, Anvers has been seen dipping his hand into the ruck. Although there is not absolute proof of foul play, it is unsurprising if the referee awards a penalty when the ball suspiciously comes out on the French side. Of course, you and anyone else are free to uncritically swallow his take on events. They would be highly likely to do so if it fits their narrative. But then again, that is the point that was being made, everyone sees history through a bias. That includes me too, of course although I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm not particularly convinced by claims of pre-eminence of the Prussian school of thought either.Like it or not, history is an interpretive discipline, and we are called upon to use our judgement. However, I try not to think in terms of black and white and prefer the Scottish system of three verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven as being more nuanced. Others have out and out declared the notion of an earlier staff college at Grenoble as a fiction. I'm merely suggesting that the case for it remains at best unproven. I agree with the accepted academic view that we should allow for a range of differing opinions. Personally though, I'm not talking about "agreeing to disagree" which is just a cop out. All that says is "I still think you are wrong but I've run out of patience". What I mean is recognising that having a diversity of conclusions from the same evidence is normal and natural. They all have equal validity but it is up to the reader to assess their veracity. This not only means that the debaters respect each other, but they both respect the audience before whom they are having their debate to exercise their own best judgement. I therefore leave it to the impartial reader to decide if there was a staff college in Grenoble as asserted in the Anvers' annex, despite that the person running it was recorded in contemporary documents as being in Corsica for a substantial amount of the time in question. It is for them to weigh up the credibility of the evidence, but I humbly submit that the recent events of the Franco-Prussian war and prevailing national sentiments should be included in that assessment. This entire ‘discussion', including the one alluded by you to the other Napoleonic forum, began on a false or greatly flawed premise-that of attempting to prove a negative in that Bourcet's staff college did not exist. It is a logical fallacy as noted in the excellent book: Historians' Fallacies by David Hackett Fischer, pages 47-48: 'The fallacy of the negative proof is an attempt to sustain a factual proposition merely by negative evidence. It occurs whenever a historian declares that 'there is no evidence that X is the case,' and then proceeds to affirm or assume that not-X is the case.' And that is what you have done regarding Bourcet and the staff college at Grenoble. Further, Fischer states that (on page 48) that 'A good many scholars would prefer not to know that some things exist. But not knowing that a thing exists is different from knowing that it does not exist.' ‘Healthy skepticism' is fine, but trying to prove a negative is both illogical and ahistorical. Proof of any historical ideas is necessary, not merely skepticism. Further, nothing has been shown either here or on the other forum that Col Anvers statement on Bourcet's staff college were incorrect. There is proof and supporting documentation that show that the staff college at Grenoble did exist and until something definitive is posted that negates that, then there was a staff college at Grenoble, established by Choiseul and run by Pierre Bourcet. And nothing has been shown that demonstrates why Col Anvers added what he did to the Bourcet document, nor is anything present that shown that Col Anvers was dishonest, as has been alluded to. As a note, stating that it didn't exist and supporting that idea with a Wikipedia article that was written by one of those who doubts its existence has not been shown. The following sources are helpful. Some of them used the same sources, some did not. If you have any source material to support your ‘argument' please list them. The Wikipedia article on Pierre Bourcet is a poor source. -Principes de la Guerre de Montagnes by Pierre Bourcet. -Memoires Historiques sur la Guerre que les Francais Ont Soutenue en Allemagne 1757 Jusqu'en 1762 by Pierre Bourcet. -L'Ingenieur militaire Bourcet et sa famille by Edmond Maignien. -The Superstrategists by John Elting. -Swords Around A Throne by John Elting. -Command in War by Martin van Creveld. -The French Army Before Napoleon by Spenser Wilkinson. -The Rise of General Bonaparte by Spenser Wilkinson. -The Background of Napoleonic Warfare by Robert Quimby. -The Art of War of Revolutionary France by Paddy Griffith. -The Military Experience in the Age of Reason by Christopher Duffy. -Conserving the Enlightenment: French Military Engineering from Vauban to the Revolution by Janis Langins. There is an interesting comment on Bourcet in this volume on page 446, Note 28: ‘There seems to be relatively little published on Bourcet, who is almost universally considered one of the great military thinkers and cartographers of the eighteenth century. He has been called a precursor of the idea of a general staff and an inspirer of Napoleon Bonaparte.' Langins gives as a reference J Palliere, ‘Un grand meconny du XVIII siècle: Pierre Bourcet (1700-1780)', Revue historique des armees 1: 51-66, 1979. I have not seen this reference, but am trying to find it. It should be interesting. |
Tango01 | 20 Aug 2020 9:38 p.m. PST |
Thanks Kevin!. Amicalement Armand
|
42flanker | 21 Aug 2020 2:10 a.m. PST |
So, anyway. Waterloo- Napoleon Bonaparte's Loss- The Causes YouTube link |
4th Cuirassier | 21 Aug 2020 4:20 a.m. PST |
The key cause of his defeat was his failure to reactivate the Middle Guard. At around 6pm he ordered Ney to attack with the Middle Guard. As this formation did not exist Ney went forward all on his own and was defeated. At this the rest of the French, having heard that the Prussians had retreated so much further from Ligny than anyone else that they had retreated all the way onto the French right, became disheartened and fled. Bonaparte, realising that he was Italian rather than French after all, memorably said "If a dog's born in a stable it doesn't make it a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" and turned into a vat of brandy. |
42flanker | 21 Aug 2020 8:38 a.m. PST |
Bonaparte, realising that he was Italian rather than French after all Actually, while we are on the subject, I read that while at military academy young Buonaparte was teased for his Corsican accent and nicknamed 'Paille-au-nez' by his fellow students. Be that as it may, is it recorded whether he retained any trace of his native accent in later years? |
4th Cuirassier | 21 Aug 2020 10:29 a.m. PST |
Yep – Na-pah-leo-nay, La-pay-leo nay. Spoonerism humour. The Corsican ogre never lost his Italian accent, although his French seems to have been grammatically flawless. |
von Winterfeldt | 21 Aug 2020 10:40 a.m. PST |
Be that as it may, is it recorded whether he retained any trace of his native accent in later years?
No – Odenleben commented about this. |
dibble | 22 Aug 2020 4:36 p.m. PST |
I wasn't going to post anything more but considering I got a ban (luckily, for only three days instead of months this time) I feel that it is a poke with a pointy stick as far as I'm concerned. But if the powers that be think that my last reply was an 'attack' then there is nothing I can do about it. Gazolla: Do you really believe Britain became an enemy of France and Napoleon because he was an evil leader? LOL No! read my posts. Especially this: "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." Which you or anyone else can find on page 4 of this thread posted by me on 11 Aug 2020 9:47 a.m. PST. They did not wage war against Napoleon because they cared about the French people. Get real, man. It was all over trade and fear of change. That's why they had to wage a propaganda war against one man – they needed to convince the British people that he was bad and that money needed to be spent and lives lost because of it. ''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.'' And yes! Many in parliament were concerned for the French people, especially when 40,000 heads were rolling, and people were being imprisoned in an even more impressive number of 300,000. Britons needed no persuasion, especially when it's their greatest foe. When war is declared, all that belongs the enemy are game, including lands, assets, and treasure. It is all in Clayton's book, you know, the one you claim to have read. Perhaps you automatically 'stifled' some of the contents? LOL I see you try to steer the good ship blatant without hitting any 'ban rocks' If there is any doubt in certain minds that I have not read Clayton's diatribe, then those certain minds should call me out on it? But I don't think anyone would accept or believe that the British government would not know what the people they funded were up to or planned to do, unless you really think the British government of the time were that stupid? They HAD to know in case of any come backs or if they needed to cover their tracks and involvement. As with my above posts, I have also answererd this one too but over on the ACG site, where a certain person has opened a thread on this very sub-topic, perhaps because that person was not doing too well on this site: I posted this: "It's for *** *** the nutcase tinfoil mad-hatter authors to think about that one. Perhaps the easiest and obvious explanation was that they didn't tell anyone what they were planning to do. I'm sure that kids are dropped off at a friends house by their parents who are ignorant of the fact that in some cases, their little darlings will get up to unsavoury things. But anyway. even the RN taxi service shows no evidence that they knew, or that the British government ordered the 'taxi' for the express reason of the assassination of anyone." Where the assassination of Napoleon and Britain's complicity was concerned, it has no basis in fact. Talking of the British government, Pitt admitted -'At one point he was goaded by the opposition into an unusually frank admission that 'the idea of interference with the government of France had been implicit since the beginning of war'. (page 20. This Dark Business by Tim Clayton) In other words, it was taken as a given that they would interfere with the government of France, not simply go to war with them. Have you read the author that Clayton references in Chapter 1 (Fair is Foul, and Foul is Fair) '14' which you have highlighted above? It's nothing that I haven't alluded to anyway. Re Propaganda and destabilisation of both governments occurring as had happened on and off for the past almost 600 years…Oh! the author referenced by Clayton was the Francophile, Norman Hampson and his book 'THE PERFIDY OF ALBION' 'French Perceptions of England during the French Revolution' page 139. An excellent book on the era. If you haven't read it, then I suggest you have a trip down to a local library for a perusal?…I have this book too. MaggieC70 put it so eloquently when she posted this about the book and which was linked in a previous post on this thread: I think Clayton tried too hard to make his point. That in itself made me a bit suspicious, so I paid particular attention to the sources, many of which were archival and primary, many from what used to be the PRO, where I too spent some fun-filled weeks back in the day. I didn't see any real smoking guns with regard to direct orders for assassination attempts. I didn't see much in the way of overt offers to pay to play, as it were. I did see a boatload of quotes from governmental and individual sources, and therein is the issue for me.I think we are all too familiar with folks who either make up sources from whole cloth--Hofschroer and Hamilton-Williams come to mind, those who cherry-pick entire sources or parts of them--Dywer is an expert at that, and those who live and die with tried but true secondary works. That being said, unless I can read the entire document, I'm going to remain a wee bit skeptical regarding the premise that Britain was directly involved in the assassination business. Yes, I know, Cadoudal, but financing the bumblings of a bunch of incompetent emigres without correspondence, documents, secret code rings, or the like that state the explicit purpose of the funds is still a reach, and not proof. Did Clayton show the British were up to their necks in the usual diplomatic and sub rosa shenanigans to embarrass, humiliate, or assist in the downfall of an inconvenient--and threatening--foreign government? Indeed he did. I saw for myself in British archives the lengths Whitehall went--and the money paid out--to discredit and have recalled a particularly infuriating French ambassador to Portugal, so it is not a historical reach to see that sort of activity played out on a larger scale. And Clayton does show this quite convincingly. But assassination? I didn't see it, possibly because I don't like wearing a tinfoil hat. |
42flanker | 23 Aug 2020 6:11 a.m. PST |
where a certain person has opened a thread on this very sub-topic, perhaps because that person was not doing too well on this site: That's intriguing. For completeness sake you could also mention this thread on 'son of' Napoleon Series: link So it goes. Remind me, who was it broke the Treaty of Amiens?
|
Gazzola | 23 Aug 2020 10:48 a.m. PST |
dibble A country having to use such extreme propaganda suggests they were afraid the public would not agree with their warmongering and with those they were quite happy and quick to fund. They had to put fear into the their own public, just in case they started questioning their methods and reasons for going to war. Can't have them thinking for themselves, can we, no, that certainly wouldn't do! Make them afraid, that'll do it. LOL |
Gazzola | 23 Aug 2020 11:18 a.m. PST |
138SquadronRAF If only matters such as slavery were that simple. I'm talking about the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods. But even during the French Revolution, slavery continued, so Napoleon was mainly continuing it. And just like the Brits, were slavery continued, it was mainly for economical reasons. Slavery, whoever was doing it, would never have existed if people/governments/leaders were not making money from it. It is an evil many if not all of the nations of the period undertook and it is ourselves who are ashamed of what they ALL did. But we can't change history or make something that was acceptable then not acceptable then. I only mention or debate the topic when people try to make out only Napoleon did things we would find wrong now. They ALL did negative things. |
Gazzola | 23 Aug 2020 11:24 a.m. PST |
Rather amusing when people post that the 'Bad' French Revolution chopped off so many heads but the 'Good' French Revolution abolished slavery. LOL Could it be that everyone during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period, did good and bad things, not just the usual target????? Makes you think, eh? |
dibble | 23 Aug 2020 11:56 a.m. PST |
Gazzola: A country having to use such extreme propaganda suggests they were afraid the public would not agree with their warmongering and with those they were quite happy and quick to fund. They had to put fear into the their own public, just in case they started questioning their methods and reasons for going to war. Can't have them thinking for themselves, can we, no, that certainly wouldn't do! Make them afraid, that'll do it. LOL Having an exhibitionist, decapitator and coal shed incarcerator living next door or opposite in one's street gets one's attention pretty quick. If you think that the British people were duped into war and hatred of the French, especially one that executes people of all classes and imprisons 1/50th of its population, then please post the evidence. The British didn't need to be duped as the French repression, censorship and butchery was going on for all to see. Like the Assassination accusation, it's rubbish. |
Gazzola | 23 Aug 2020 2:05 p.m. PST |
dibble You do realise that social media wasn't available during the Napoleonic period? LOL Most people pof the period were too tied up with their own little worlds of work, pay the bills, need for food etc, to have time to see what;s happening abroad. Any views gained would be that offered by, as you agree yourself, by the British government and of course, any royalists that scarpered from France as quickly as they could. And please, do try to keep real. No one has suggested the British actually attempted to assassinate Napoleon. But they certainly funded those who tried (and failed of course). Not to accept that is to be fooled by your own bias. And I do hope you are not trying to place the blame of anything negative undertaken during the Revolutionary period, onto Napoleon. Like I said, ALL sides did bad things. I amsure you will agree? LOL |
Gazzola | 23 Aug 2020 2:09 p.m. PST |
138SquadronRAF Napoleon and slavery seems to pop now and again, with the usual accusations etc. However, for anyone interested in the truth, for a change, rather than bias and Anti-Nap propaganda, I suggest they read the following articles. I think it will surprise some people. link |
dibble | 24 Aug 2020 2:52 a.m. PST |
Gazzola: You do realise that social media wasn't available during the Napoleonic period? LOL Yaaawnnn! British People of the time got their information and evidence from what sources and how was it communicated? Was it in general, accurate about what was going on in France at the time? Or is it honestly thought 'by some' that people who couldn't read the news, who thus had it relayed verbally and in pictorial form, were too stupid to make up thier minds as to its validity? Unlike the future 'lying like a bulletin' The British press was 'for its day', an excellent source of accurate news in general. And please, do try to keep real. No one has suggested the British actually attempted to assassinate Napoleon. But they certainly funded those who tried (and failed of course). Not to accept that is to be fooled by your own bias. And please, yes they have. And I do hope you are not trying to place the blame of anything negative undertaken during the Revolutionary period, onto Napoleon. Like I said, ALL sides did bad things. I amsure you will agree? LOL And if you knew what Clayton was referencing on page 20 of his diatribe, which you used in your reply above, you will see that it was pertaining revolutionary France. Which leads me to believe that you have quoted an author who quoted other author without knowing what the referral by Clayton, was all about. |
Handlebarbleep | 24 Aug 2020 6:59 a.m. PST |
Brechtel198 Last word from me on the Staff college at Grenoble. No one is required to prove a negative, it is for a positive case to be made, conclusively or tentatively. Nothing going back past Anvers, over a century after the event, so for me at least, tentative only, particularly in light of contemporary evidence placing Bourcet elsewhere during a large portion of the period quoted. Anvers wasn't a trained historian carrying out a study, he had no duty to be impartial or had any track record in the handling of evidence. He left no footnotes or says where he got the information, merely asserts it. Pre-edited material is not extant, so we cannot judge the depth of the effect. He was not a neutral observer, but was a serving French staff officer trying to bring an old text into use for a new audience. It is perfectly reasonable to see his actions in that light, without accusing him of dishonesty. We just need to admit the potential of being mistaken about his detailed interpretation of the events of a century earlier. With no trail to follow, it is left for us to make a judgement. Rather than dismissing it out of hand, it would also be perfectly reasonable for a modern historian to say that they believed there to be Staff college at Grenoble, but that conclusive contemporary sources had not yet confirmed it. They could then postulate their theories on the development of French staffs in good faith, allowing for the doubting of others but nailing their own colours to the mast. Such a tack would bring nothing but respect from me, and I'm sure the admiration of others. I'm slightly baffled as to why no one seems to have taken this very reasonable path, instead trying to deal in absolutes, when no absolute proof is available. All comments are for illustrative purposes only, any similarity to any forum member, alive or dead, is entirely coincidental. |
Brechtel198 | 24 Aug 2020 10:02 a.m. PST |
Since you're the person that brought the discussion here from another forum in the first place, it seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous to post this. The bottom line is that you're still trying to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. I would highly recommend that you get hold of, if you haven't already, a copy of David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. It might be of some help to you. |
Au pas de Charge | 24 Aug 2020 10:04 a.m. PST |
@Gazzola Well many nations had slavery, unfortunately, but one bad act can certainly be inundated by an ocean of oppression. Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1833 and most of her empire and national identity are built on the back of slave labor and exploitation of natives in their own country which ended only with resentment on the part of the exploiters with concentration camps and firing on peaceful protestors. link |
Brechtel198 | 24 Aug 2020 11:06 a.m. PST |
MP, And slavery in the United States had its origin with English colonists at Jamestown in 1619… |
Handlebarbleep | 24 Aug 2020 6:52 p.m. PST |
@Brechtel198 I give in. Some things can't ever be fixed. You are on stifle. I will no longer contribute on any thread you start on this or any other forum. Goodbye! |
Brechtel198 | 25 Aug 2020 2:58 a.m. PST |
MP, It should also be noted that both the United States and Great Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807/1808. |
4th Cuirassier | 25 Aug 2020 3:57 a.m. PST |
@ HBB Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired – Jonathan Swift |
arthur1815 | 25 Aug 2020 5:07 a.m. PST |
Could any one explain to me how the slave trade or the abolition thereof contributed in any significant way to Napoleon's failure to win at Waterloo? Is it inevitable that any discussion of anything pertaining to Napoleon on these boards will be deflected in this way? |
Au pas de Charge | 25 Aug 2020 7:36 a.m. PST |
Maybe you could ask 138SquadronRAF because that poster seems to have originally brought up the slave trade. Meanwhile some other posters such as 42flanker brought up Napoleon's ethnicity and national origin. What that has to do with Napoleon at Waterloo is also a mystery. I think posts like that tend to reinforce my observations that we're not discussing history so much as witnessing a sort of modern day, ersatz, nationalistic fanaticism repackaged as some sort of anti-Napoleon crusade. I have no idea why a group (That, incidentally, apparently doesn't exist) seems to be able to work itself into a lather over Napoleon as a great evil. To me, Napoleon was just part of an awakening taking place in Europe that the European monarchies were just a bunch of bandits. Thus, it's hilarious when you read posts about legitimate vs illegitimate rulers; the sort of thing that cogs robotically recite to rationalize their own oppression. I find the misplaced and furious passion of this stance curiously comic and contrary to the the full weight of actual intellectual matter on the topic of Napoleon. |
Gwydion | 25 Aug 2020 8:28 a.m. PST |
Funny, because: I think some posts here tend to reinforce my observations that we're not discussing history so much as witnessing a simplistic longing for 'strong leadership' repackaged as some sort of Napoleon fetish. Napoleon was the typical secondary excrescence of failed revolutionary fervour. He opportunistically subverted the vacuum left by the loss of direction after the Terror and turned 'power to the people' (well the middle class anyway) into power to Bonaparte. Not a good role model for any democratically inclined person. As for the relevance to his loss at Waterloo – many opportunist dictators over centralise power and overreach in the end – thank goodness. Those who didn't fail in the long past often managed to establish hereditary monarchies of course. Bonaparte wanted to join that club,trouble was he was a few centuries too late. |
4th Cuirassier | 25 Aug 2020 10:23 a.m. PST |
Could any one explain to me how the slave trade or the abolition thereof contributed in any significant way to Napoleon's failure to win at Waterloo? If it can be shown that he was defeated by deplorables, we could all agree that their victory was shameful, and that his enemies deserved to lose. We could then perhaps agree to change the inappropriate result. Waterloo could be rewritten as a French victory, or perhaps left as a defeat but the minor role of the despicable British edited out of it altogether. |
John the OFM | 25 Aug 2020 9:26 p.m. PST |
This thread went off the rails long ago. How can I tell? We're on page 6. They always do when agendas come in, like they always do on Napoleonic Discussion. C'est la guerre. |
42flanker | 26 Aug 2020 8:27 a.m. PST |
posters such as 42flanker brought up Napoleon's ethnicity and national origin Well, point of order, and in the interests of, you know, accuracy, but I did no such thing. This is how rumours start. '4th Cuirassier' and I, attempting momentarily to alleviate the numbing tedium into which the thread was descending, had the briefest of rallies across the net which included a jesting, parodic summary of events at Waterloo that included the word 'Italian.' Since the question has been on my mind that very day, the thought never having occurred to me before, strange as it may seem, I enquired if Napoleon spoke with a notable trace of his native accent. It seemed to me an interesting detail to fill out the portrait of the man so familiar from images and the written word. I received one terse reply which left me not much the wiser and there the topic stayed. How this consitutes 'bringing up' Napoleon Bonaparte's ethnicity and national origin (as if alluding to his being Corsican was inappopriate, or the very fact if it shameful) others may be able to gauge better than I, but there is your mystery solved. |
Handlebarbleep | 27 Aug 2020 12:02 a.m. PST |
@42flanker If it's any consolation, it seems no one reports Wellington as having an Irish accent either. |
42flanker | 27 Aug 2020 3:43 a.m. PST |
no one reports Wellington as having an Irish accent either. Is that a horse I hear neighing…?
|
4th Cuirassier | 27 Aug 2020 3:57 a.m. PST |
There'll always be neighsayers trying to stirrup trouble. |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Aug 2020 3:58 a.m. PST |
His mother called him Nabulieone – I will change to this as well and let drop Boney. |
Puster | 27 Aug 2020 4:40 a.m. PST |
Wellington as having an Irish Wellington was Irish? Just for the records: That was NOT a serious question ;-)
|
42flanker | 27 Aug 2020 6:11 a.m. PST |
And it was going so well…. |
4th Cuirassier | 27 Aug 2020 7:05 a.m. PST |
42flanker Have you got a reference for that? |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|