"If you were to explain the significance of Napoleon ..." Topic

…Bonaparte (1769–1821) to someone who knew nothing about him, what would you say?

I'd set aside his military achievements—conquering half of Europe in the 16 years of his rule between 1799 and 1815—as all of those had completely disappeared by the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Instead, I'd concentrate on those aspects of his rule that can still be seen in France and in much of Western Europe today.

I argue that although he didn't have much to do with the French Revolution itself, as he was too young, he nonetheless kept the best bits of the Revolution—equality before the law, religious tolerance, meritocracy—for France and the countries that France conquered. The Code Napoleon was still in effect in the Rhineland until 1900, for example, and it underlines modern European legal systems to this day.

He got rid of the worst bits, like the mass guillotining, the Reign of Terror, the various mad ideas they had like the ten-day week, abolishing Christianity, and so on. He was the person who brought France into the 19th century with huge reforms of administration and finance. He was a moderniser…."
From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Another 100+ argumentative posts on the horizon, :(

"…meritocracy — for…the countries that France conquered"

I got that far and started laughing.

Oh no, not again these stupid discussions

He was a very significant personage, but a book recommendation article surely belongs on the media board? Perhaps someone could clarify or maybe we should just lose the media board altogether?

So a book about Napoleon doesn't belong on the 'Napoleonic Discussion' board ?

Have you taken a moment to think how daft that is ?

GildasFacit, I didn't add this to the forum:

TMP link

If you want a longer response, please take more than a moment to read my other posts.

Edit: apparently the editor doesn't seem to consider it a daft thought

Sorry LaBelleRuffiean I don't see your point.

Adding lots of extra boards that deal with more specific aspects doesn't necessarily mean that more general boards become exclusive, it just means that those who wish to have their information more targeted can do so.

I'll never forgive him for spreading the Metric System!

GildasFacit, that's entirely your prerogative, although as I say, Bill has his reasons for seeing my point in this instance. Perhaps the fact that it's a a non-wargaming author listing his favourite books about Napoleon with no link to wargaming evident. Judging by othes' immediate responses, the topic and timing seemed to be encouraging acrimony at a time when I think most of us need less of it. This particular board seems to have a worse reputation than any other era.

If the threads actually were more targeted, as you suggest, I may not see as much of an issue. As it is though, some posting seems inconsistent, overly repetitive and not helped by vague titles. Having fewer boards wouldn't be a bad thing imo, as there are many with little traffic. Without posters cross-posting everything multiple times or the board software facilitating thread tagging with posters utilising them, then one board becoming the default dumping ground for anything Napoleonic-related means a lot of chaff for wargamers.

I always accused Tango of posting 60/40% rubbish and genius, respectively. As he got better I told him I would award him 50/50. Recently I went for 40/60 as he does find stuff we would all miss, there are some real treasures, plus this forum would be very quiet without him.

What he has found here is not just a review of some new book. It is an interview with a respected historian and author on the Napoleonic period. He has not just provided his selection of five veteran books that best reflect the era, but discussed, in an interview, the merits of each. I think that is the basis for a useful "Discussion" and belongs on such a Message Board, but I now see it got moved. Fine, at least it was not deleted.

A huge argument as to whether folk like me, who have not chucked a dice in decades, are allowed to contribute, exhibit, even join this forum, that I can understand. But, if you are to play realistically, maybe you do need the button counters, the trawlers of historical archives, the experts in modelling or painting to have some input. Maybe.

(let me add a grin for Tango's benefit…he will "smile", bless him, in a few days, and this will go back to the top. Without him…….what?)

'He was a very significant personage, but a book recommendation article surely belongs on the media board? Perhaps someone could clarify or maybe we should just lose the media board altogether?'

deadhead, where did you get the impression in what I said that modellers are not welcome on TMP or that I'm advocating deleting posts about books or banning their discussion? I'm genuinely confused. I do think Napoleonic Discussion is to vague a title for one of the boards if its emphasis should be on wargaming and suggested alternatives.

Deadhead

This topic originated on the Napoleonic Board that was titled specifically for miniatures wargaming before that board title was extended and before the topic was moved to this board. My original comment was made when the topic was on the previous board.

I have no problem with Tango's posts but some of them lead to discussions that at best become argumentative and at worst insulting. On a topic posted on the aforementioned board, I had the apparent temerity to suggest that such discussions had no relevance to wargaming and perhaps a new board could be created. To be frank my suggestion was met with derision by one member who suggested I was bullying and likened my suggestion to the tyranny of George III.

I am a bean counter, being an accountant by profession, but I take it as a complement. Thanks.

Actually, I've never read nor heard of Andrew Roberts anyway, so why would I care about his 'opinions'?
Such is solicitous sedentary life out of the mainstream.
Does his book shower us with facts that we've not read before?
If it did, I'd have expected to see citation after…

On DH comments, I agree 100% WITH HIM (my emphasis on edit!). I see nothing offensive nor contradicting in them. I fail to see why it isn't just a 'Napoleonic Discussion', just not on TMP.

I'm a 'critical thinker'. I can 'see' the contarian views or 'holes in the argument' so to say, not just not always good at expressing them in a popular way.

I'm the one who, in a cozy meeting while everyone strokes their cats [euphemism] (and managers egos), I chuck mice on the table… ;-))

Funny, as a QA manager some funniest and worst experiences were requesting SOP from 'accounting dept.' whose sole response was "we don't work that way…!"
Let out the dogs… d *sandwich*

{OK, I read the article end to end- it seems he's worked on dismembering the 'myths' built up by 200 years of the 'Bull' in the china shop of history… I'd like to know what the "traveled to fifty-three of Napoleon's sixty battle sites, discovered crucial new documents in archives" includes.}