"Napoleon's true legacy?" Topic

Watching a film and the following thought occurred to me:

Has any general made a more important discovery for the benefit of historical study than Napoleon's discovery of the Rosetta Stone?

Even if "Napoleon" discovered it, he was very careless. It's been in the British Museum for years. Those pesky Rosbifs…..

Well, there was Himmler's discovery of the Spear of Destiny.

The French scientists under Vivant Denon who accompanied the Egyptian expedition were the ones responsible for the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and were instrumental in the further study of Egyptology.

link

Code Napoleon?

Are you asking why the Code Civile was named the Code Napoleon?

Well, there was Himmler's discovery of the Spear of Destiny.

And what does that have to do with anything?

And there are at least four 'spears' that are claimed to be the lance used to pierce Jesus' side by the Centurion Longinus. They were held by various nations before War II and Himmler didn't 'discover' anything.

That being the case, what was your point, and what does that have to do with the Rosetta stone, which was a legitimate discovery?

Breccy mate… a little research into the subject of jokes/humour should help to explain the seemingly random introduction of Himmler and the Spear of Destiny into this thread!

Anyway, after Yalta, Stalin booked a short holiday by the Dead Sea muttering something about scrolls…

A case might be made for Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who rose to the rank of brigadier-general in the British Army in WWII, but 'is recognised as one of the most important British archaeologists of the twentieth century, responsible for successfully encouraging British public interest in the discipline and advancing methodologies of excavation and recording. Furthermore, he is widely acclaimed as a major figure in the establishment of South Asian archaeology.'

Whether his development of a more scientific and methodical approach – the 'Wheeler method' – in archaeology was more
significant to historical study that the discovery of the Rosetta Stone is debatable, and which of us is qualified to judge?

The Rosetta Stone had great importance for the interpretation of Egyptian hieroglyphics, but the discovery of how they worked was not made by Napoleon, nor by any of the scientists on his Egyptian expedition.

Breccy mate… a little research into the subject of jokes/humour should help to explain the seemingly random introduction of Himmler and the Spear of Destiny into this thread!

It isn't in the spirit of humor, it's part of a pattern to poison any and all threads about Napoleon that might attribute a positive to him.

Here are a few highlights. I'll leave it to 4th cuirassier to citet a few of his posts admiring Napoleon.

Of course, he may only be developing a stand up routine about Napoleon. One wonders what the punchlines will ultimately be. He does cite Elvis somewhere but Elvis wasn't a comic. Maybe it's more Andrew Dice Clay?

TMP link

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

I got that far and started laughing.

It's quite astonishing that it remained effective long after not just edged weapons, but quite a few others too.

TMP link

No, but an egotistical and unscrupulous one would apply his name to it as though he'd had anything to do with it.

If George Washington had been Napoleon, he'd have been Emperor of America by 1791, the US Constitution would have been called the Washington Constitution, and the USA would have been at war with Spain, Britain and France.

TMP link

…apparently.

link

"Kitbag"? Pfft.

I'm not optimistic given Sir Diddly Squat's track record with history.

Disappointing Shatner wasn't available.

TMP link

Napoleon fundamentally disagreed with one of the key aims of the revolution, namely abolition of the monarchy. What he supported was the abolition of the current monarch, and the replacement of him and the Bourbon dynasty by himself and the Bonaparte dynasty. He also thought Bourbon and other monarchs in other territories should be replaced by Bonaparte dynasty monarchs there as well. But he was wholly behind the principle of absolute, unaccountable hereditary monarchy kept in place by armed force, as long as he was the monarch.

He was very, very conservative, was Boney.

TMP link

I always wonder whom Napoleon would have had bumped off Enghien-style. There must have been quite a long list of people ready to be hauled before a Bonapartist kangaroo court for their fair trial before being shot.

TMP link

La-Paille-Au-Nez would have to have had a truly remarkable ear for the language to be able to distinguish one French accent from another. His nickname doesn't suggest that he did.

TMP link

@ Arthur1815

Well, quite. The alternative is to accept that the side with the better troops and leaders won, which is completely unacceptable to latter-day Buonapartist fanboiz.

The critical participant was Wellington. Napoleon had faced and defeated bigger allied armies before. In a confrontation between 130,000 French and 175,000 Prussians / Austrians / Russians, the result would have been a French victory. We know this because in 1805 to 1814 at such odds, it always was. Add into the mix a British army, which Napoleon had never encountered and which no French general had defeated, and further add in Wellington, whom nobody ever defeated, and you have a recipe for an epic upset. I have seen literally nothing in 40 years of reading about this that suggests to me that Napoleon had the slightest inkling of how much greater a threat this coalition army was. Nothing in how he proceeded suggests he understood this either. He thought he was up against another army of Eurobozos and planned accordingly.

By 1815 Napoleon was only the third-best commander in Europe. The second-best was in Paris and the best was on the other side.

Many find this difficult to accept even today, so it's not surprising Napoleon didn't get it 200 years ago.

TMP link

…His other advantage was that unlike Hannibal he didn't command a voluntary alliance who could bitch and moan about what they would and wouldn't do. He commanded a lot of constructive protectorates who could do what they liked as long as it was what he liked (Wellington soars in my estimation because he always commanded coalitions and did so with spectacular skill).

Napoleon as head of state was of course a complete, total and unmitigated disaster, losing his throne twice and getting his capital occupied twice by Russian and British troops who'd marched halfway across a continent to depose him. So in his hands, it wasn't such an advantage. As Correlli Barnett puts it, Napoleon the statesman repeatedly set Napoleon the general impossible tasks. His two epochal strategic defeats, Russia and the Peninsula, happened because of the same mistake made in 1806.

Napoleon as head of the army with someone like Bismarck as head of government would have been unstoppable. Whether we'd all now be speaking German or French I wouldn't like to say. Of course, Napoleon wouldn't have been satisfied with being #2, and would certainly have had Bismarck kidnapped and bumped off like the Duke of Enghien.

These go on ad nauseum. Thus a cursory look at his posts about Napoleon suggest a chronic vendetta and not a light hearted one off comment.

You're right, MiniPigs. It's a conspiracy. And it's not limited to di Buonaparte. You never see anything positive about Stalin's dedication to equality, Hitler's concern for environmental issues or Mussolini's desire to modernize Italy. You hardly even see a kind word about Sherman's pioneering work in urban renewal.

…. "spear of destiny" … funniest thing I heard all day. Thanks for making me laugh.

Weren't the concepts of the Euro and EU dreamed up by him? How can one say that his ideas do not remain alive and well 200 years later? Well, of course Caesar left his salad dressing for posterity's sake also, didn't he? ……8>)

As far as the so-called 'Spear of Destiny' is concerned, I don't think it needed much discovering as it was already on display in a Museum in Vienna…

It isn't in the spirit of humor, it's part of a pattern to poison any and all threads about Napoleon that might attribute a positive to him.

Agree completely, MP. Once again you get to the heart of the matter.

As far as the so-called 'Spear of Destiny' is concerned, I don't think it needed much discovering as it was already on display in a Museum in Vienna…

And that was only one of the four places that claimed it.

By 1815 Napoleon was only the third-best commander in Europe. The second-best was in Paris and the best was on the other side.

And yet, Wellington stated uncategorically that Napoleon was the best military commander of the period and that the Archduke Charles was the best allied commander.

As for the Code Napoleon…

The Code was done at Napoleon's order and it was his idea. He didn't write it, he had four lawyers do it. At the sessions of the Council of State that debated it, he was present for over half and had input into the Code and was sometimes overruled.

The actual title is the Code Civile and was given the name the Code Napoleon because it was his idea.

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Himmler was "not a general". He commanded Army Group Upper Rhine and later the Vistula so he shares with Napoleon the distinction of having been beaten in Germany and Poland by different members of the same alliance of eastern and western powers. I can't think why anyone would dispute this.

He also tried to find the Ark of the Covenant and some sources say he succeeded. He also looks a lot like my Latin teacher at school – "Himmler / Is somewhat similar".

Lieutenant-General Pitt Rivers was a pretty distinguished soldier and architect. He has a museum in Oxford named after him. He would be better known if he'd made his brother king of Spain.

At Arthur 1815 – ah, but did Wheeler ever invade Russia, or have anybody bumped off? Think of what a great archaeologist he would have been if he had!

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Himmler was "not a general". He commanded Army Group Upper Rhine and later the Vistula so he shares with Napoleon the distinction of having been beaten in Germany and Poland by different members of the same alliance of eastern and western powers. I can't think why anyone would dispute this.

Besides the tired old nonsense of comparing Napoleon with a Nazi mass murderer, Himmler was not a soldier-he was a failed chicken farmer, a psychopath, and a sychophant.

Comparing him, or any other Nazi is ludicrous.

I always wonder whom Napoleon would have had bumped off Enghien-style. There must have been quite a long list of people ready to be hauled before a Bonapartist kangaroo court for their fair trial before being shot.

And which 'kangaroo court' would that be?

Napoleon's ultimate legacy was to creat silly controversy on every thread that mentions him on TMP.

In 2020 I don't see much of his legacy left. The world has changed in the last 50 years as to erase anything he did. I doubt he would recognize France at all.

How familiar are you with Napoleon's accomplishments in completely reforming France as First Consul and then Emperor?

For example, isn't the Code Napoleon still the law in France? It has been amended from time to time, but it is still the law in France.

Need we go on, or should we go line by line?

TGerritsen certainly sums up Bonaparte's legacy as far as his influence on TMP is concerned!

But the OP was about whether any other general had made an equally significant contribution to 'benefit historical study' to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, so Napoleon's influence on reforming the French Legal system, the concept of the EU, the euro or even the invention of Chicken Marengo is actually irrelevant.

I don't agree as 14th brought up the idea that there isn't 'much of [Napoleon's] legacy left, and that is historically and practically inaccurate.

Like I said before, should we go line by line?

So, the fact that someone makes a casual remark about Bonaparte with which you disagree is justification – in your view – for going off on a tangent that has no relevance to the OP?

Any excuse to blow Bonaparte's trumpet, then…

When you order a man to be shot and the law justifying this to be filled in later, to call the proceedings a kangaroo court is unfair to marsupials.

I find the defense intriguing. Maybe half a dozen men from the 16th Century on have unsuccessfully tried to remodel Europe--rather than individual nation-states--by the judicious use of armies and the death and imprisonment of troublemakers. I'm sure every one of them had some good quality, but only di Buonaparte has people regularly posting on TMP to tell me what a nice guy he was.

Call him the foremost general of his age and one of the greatest in human history, and I'm with you all the way. But as a head of state, he's one more bad example. No one writes here of Stalin's work as a creator of constitutions, or even his civil engineering.

I agree arthur – instead of derailing the thread with irrelevancies, people should stay focused on soldiers who made important archaeological discoveries, such as Mortimer Wheeler, Pitt Rivers, and Himmler.

Lord Elgin was Colonel Bruce at the time he bought the Elgin Marbles from Turkey, so he was arguably a conservator, but not a discoverer.

Napoleon doesn't really make the cut at all. Unlike the others, he wasn't a "gentleman archaeologist" as they all were.

Gadzookies this went off the rail from the point I was trying to make.

Korvessa you should not be surprised. Certain people did not read you original post properly. So when Cuirassier makes the comment about Himmler in the context of tour post, you have the lengthy and pointless diatribe by Minipigs.

"Napoleon's true legacy?" Started from his hip you see…

When you order a man to be shot and the law justifying this to be filled in later, to call the proceedings a kangaroo court is unfair to marsupials.

If you actually take a look at the French justice system, both military and civilian, you'll find that you are incorrect.

If you're referring to d'Enghien, you'll find that he was found guilty according to the Law of 6 October 1791, Article 2, which states that 'Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'

D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government in time of war, which in itself was treason.

D'Enghien himself stated that he was in the pay of the British government, at 4,200 guineas per year, 'in order to combat not France but a government to which his birth had made him hostile.'

He stated further that 'I asked England if I might serve in her armies, but she replied that that was impossible: I must wait on the Rhine, where I would have a part to play immediately, and I was in fact waiting.'

Perhaps taking a look at A. Boulay de la Meurthe's Les dernieres annees du duc d'Enghien might be helpful?

link

…but only di Buonaparte has people regularly posting on TMP to tell me what a nice guy he was.

Who? I don't recall anyone on the forums stating that Napoleon 'was a nice guy.'

Perhaps you have just read Henry V and have taken the comment 'remembering with advantages' to heart?

But as a head of state, he's one more bad example. No one writes here of Stalin's work as a creator of constitutions, or even his civil engineering.

Bags of Bull, especially in the comparison with Stalin. And Napoleon as head of state, especially with his reform of the French government and society, clearly demonstrates that he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries, including the British government which was much more oppressive during the period as well as corrupt.

Interestingly, among Bonaparte, Stalin and Himmler, the latter is the odd one out because he never changed his name to manipulate public opinion.

Back on the main intent of the thread, I'd suggest Eisenhower. SHAEF's policy on preserving heritage wherever possible, even when it impacted on operations, not only gave us the 'Monuments Men' but also directly informed development of the codified 1954 Hague Convention on cultural property protection, recognising the need to stop relying on unwritten norms and laws of war.

MiniPigs, I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny that di Buonaparte was a "serious and influential person." But given his body count I find the continual efforts to portray him as some sort of martyr a tad unseemly. He went to great lengths to make himself a head of state and then kept making double or nothing bets until he found himself on St Helena. I admire the general and even to a degree the administrator--but all my sympathy is reserved for the soldiers and civilians who had to share a continent with him.

Brechtel, I might have had d'Enghien killed myself, but I wouldn't have pretended it was legal. You can't boot someone out of a country and then prosecute him for violating its laws. And I've never heard it denied that he was ordered shot first and the law filled in later. I don't approve of such conduct by Hitler of Stalin, and I see no reason to let His Imperial Majesty off the hook--and conducting yourself in such a fashion diminishes your reputation as a law-giver.

Do you know, by the way, the portion of the Code Napoleon which authorized the incarceration of troublesome foreign heads of state and their families? Quite a span of them from Toussaint Louverture to the Pope by way of the Spanish Bourbons. Oh! And if you could name the clause which re-instituted slavery in the French colonies?

Interestingly, among Bonaparte, Stalin and Himmler, the latter is the odd one out because he never changed his name to manipulate public opinion.

Napoleon's first name was spelled differently, from Napoleone to Napoleon, in 1779 when he went to school in France.

The spelling of his last name was changed from the Italian 'Buonaparte' to the French 'Bonaparte' sometime it seems after he made general officer because of his skill displayed at Toulon.

So, what 'public opinion' was Napoleon attempting to 'manipulate'?

Brechtel, I might have had d'Enghien killed myself, but I wouldn't have pretended it was legal. You can't boot someone out of a country and then prosecute him for violating its laws. And I've never heard it denied that he was ordered shot first and the law filled in later. I don't approve of such conduct by Hitler of Stalin, and I see no reason to let His Imperial Majesty off the hook--and conducting yourself in such a fashion diminishes your reputation as a law-giver.

When did d'Enghien leave France as an emigre? Perhaps you should at least attempt to research that just a little? And why was d'Enghien living in Baden? Apparently he had emigrated in 1789 and had fought against France in the early wars of the Revolution. So, Napoleon did not 'boot' him out of the country. And you have already been shown what he was convicted of by a military court and executed for.

Do you know, by the way, the portion of the Code Napoleon which authorized the incarceration of troublesome foreign heads of state and their families? Quite a span of them from Toussaint Louverture to the Pope by way of the Spanish Bourbons. Oh! And if you could name the clause which re-instituted slavery in the French colonies?

The Code Napoleon is a civil code, not a criminal or penal code. Other legal codes were written, passed, and promulgated after the Code Civile was finished. If you are interested you can look them up for yourself.

Code Civile:

link

The Penal Code:

link

Other Legal Documents:

link

No, Brechtel, you're making MY point. d'Enghien was not a citizen of the French Republic--for good reason considering the attrition rate among French royalty and nobility--and was not resident in France at the time. Grabbing people outside your jurisdiction and prosecuting them--or just flat having them assassinated--is sometimes understandable and even justified. Consider Eichmann. But the rule of law it's not.

And I love the use of the passive voice. "His last name was changed." Nah. Grant's first name was changed. Colonel di Buonaparte changed his name--dropping the noble participle and altering the spelling to be more French (once he could see he had no future in Corsican politics.) It's not illegal or immoral, but it wasn't some sort of accident either: it was the future Imperial Majesty very much attempting to influence how he was perceived.

MiniPigs, I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny that di Buonaparte was a "serious and influential person." But given his body count I find the continual efforts to portray him as some sort of martyr a tad unseemly. He went to great lengths to make himself a head of state and then kept making double or nothing bets until he found himself on St Helena. I admire the general and even to a degree the administrator--but all my sympathy is reserved for the soldiers and civilians who had to share a continent with him.

I dont think anyone "could" deny that he was a serious and influential person. You dont have to like Napoleon. My point was give the discussion a chance rather than making it look like every thread on a Napoleon needs to be spoiled before it gets developed. We are supposed to be able to discuss history here. And yes, I have no problem with some boys club humor; being myself capable of silliness.

He made a lot of mistakes but even his mistakes had a certain flair to them. He basically tortured Toussaint Loverture and he had no business re-instituting slavery even for a short while.

But we are drawn to bold characters that break the rules and achieve extreme successes or failures.

The body count part confuses me a little. He didnt kill all those people nor is he solely responsible for the wars. These people would all be dead today and nothing I like, will or wish can make them less dead or add to the body count. I mean, we are wargamers and part of the interest involves lethality and the waste of perfectly good humanity. If anyone is studying or playing any wargaming periods where there were no casualties, I would like to know about them.

"…give the discussion a chance rather than making it look like every thread on a Napoleon needs to be spoiled before it gets developed."

Nobody is "making it look like" – it is what happens so often here on TMP, and has happened in this very discussion!

Why do Buonapartes little elves have no sense of humour, enquiring adults ask?…

…you're making MY point. d'Enghien was not a citizen of the French Republic--for good reason considering the attrition rate among French royalty and nobility--and was not resident in France at the time. Grabbing people outside your jurisdiction and prosecuting them--or just flat having them assassinated--is sometimes understandable and even justified. Consider Eichmann. But the rule of law it's not.

Now you're comparing Napoleon to Eichmann? Really? Perhaps you need a refresher in British anti-Napoleon propaganda because that is exactly what you're doing here. And your comments are ahistorical at best.

And you're leaving out the facts of the Royalist assassination attempts on Napoleon which were the catalyst of grabbing and prosecuting d'Enghien. And as shown it most certainly was legal. And d'Enghien was a French citizen, whether or not d'Enghien or you don't agree with that.

As for your insistence regarding Napoleon changing the spelling of his last name, which is largely irrelevant except for your careless comparison to Stalin, leaving out one letter of a last name is nothing to get upset about. The last name remained the family name regardless of the dropping of one letter from it.

And I say again, MiniPigs, it's strange. Evidently "discussion" of di Buonaparte, and of him alone of the first-class European conquerors and dictators, means trying to find some aspect of his career which isn't morally reprehensible and having duck fits whenever someone points out the context. Would I be "spoiling" a thread on Hitler and the autobahn system by pointing out what travelled on those roads? Or a thread on Mussolini's draining of the Pontine Marshes by mentioning where he sent the farmers? We'll never know, because no one would think of starting such threads. Only His Imperial Majesty has a fan club on TMP.

Body count. Everything in your last paragraph would be equally true said of Atilla the Hun, and nearly true--wait a few more years--of Hitler and Stalin. Are they also to be let off the hook?

As for "we" being "drawn to bold characters that break the rules" speak for yourself. Many of the rules are there for good reason.

Oh. And outside of military matters, I see no evidence of this "flair." A man who, in the aftermath of the English Civil War and the American and French Revolutions, decides to create his own dynasty with a throne for every sibling is a man with a painful lack of imagination, and no sense of humor.

And I say again, MiniPigs, it's strange. Evidently "discussion" of di Buonaparte, and of him alone of the first-class European conquerors and dictators, means trying to find some aspect of his career which isn't morally reprehensible and having duck fits whenever someone points out the context.

I think someone can post out of context. It's when someone someone needs to post something derailing only on one topic, every single time that I cant help but detect a trend.

. Would I be "spoiling" a thread on Hitler and the autobahn system by pointing out what travelled on those roads? Or a thread on Mussolini's draining of the Pontine Marshes by mentioning where he sent the farmers? We'll never know, because no one would think of starting such threads.

Again no, but on a forum theoretically dedicated to studying historical elements of military figures, I would find it odd if every single topic about Hitler got hammered with posts which in the aggregate sends a message that because Hitler was a bad person we cant discuss anything he did and further that it has to be discussed in an "approved of" tone. That would suggest both fear of thought which is anti-intellectual and a desire to control other people's thoughts which is a reinforcement of the anti-intellectual stance.

Only His Imperial Majesty has a fan club on TMP.

First, I don't see why this would bother anyone. It doesn't bother me that there is a Wellington fan club. However, this indicates an interesting bias that would both sympathize and support someone having the right to "Bomb" each and every topic about Napoleon to ensure there is no discussion of it. That sort of self righteousness doesn't square with my personal sense of justice.

Body count. Everything in your last paragraph would be equally true said of Atilla the Hun, and nearly true--wait a few more years--of Hitler and Stalin.

These men all made war on civilians which isnt something Napoleon focused on. I think that makes him different. In any case, you didn't answer my question about what wargaming periods have no or very low casualty rates, so…

Are they also to be let off the hook?

I don't think anyone has to be let off the hook but I dont see why I need to accept that every single time we try to discuss Napoleon, someone needs to come running on the thread and remind us all that he re-instituted slavery or gave his siblings jobs. Incidentally, I hadn't realized you were one to hold people accountable for slavery. I predict that this will get interesting.

As for "we" being "drawn to bold characters that break the rules" speak for yourself. Many of the rules are there for good reason.

I do speak for myself and for the all those who make him the number one human written about. However, I respect your right to be a maverick.

Oh. And outside of military matters, I see no evidence of this "flair." A man who, in the aftermath of the English Civil War and the American and French Revolutions, decides to create his own dynasty with a throne for every sibling is a man with a painful lack of imagination, and no sense of humor.

Didn't Cromwell get his son a command? I thought he was known for his distinct lack of joviality. It's a huge topic with some issues but I didn't realize the French Revolution had an issue with hereditary monarchy; I thought that was more a Robbespierre problem. Napoleon enjoyed pageantry. It is true he wasn't an upper class guy but he had a flair for military organization and uniforms. But if you don't want to see his flair, then that's fine by me, just don't ever tell me that I cant see it without getting a equally aggressive response from me.

Ah. poor MiniPigs. Were you spoiling a thread on British Legion flags when you kept dragging in a fictional character from a very unhistorical movie and ascribing his actions to a real person?

And outside of de Buonaparte, you'll notice I only comment on matters relating to wargaming and military history. I make an exception for His Imperial Majesty, because no one starts threads about the softer side of any other conqueror.

You didn't realize the French Revolution had problems with hereditary authority? Really? When you're done researching that, you might want to ask the Spanish about your favorite Corsican making war on civilians.

Actually, Brechtel, if you read the post instead of just picking out words, you can see that I was analogizing d'Enghien with Eichman, which was a bit unfair to d'Enghien. The point was that they were neither one of them subjects of the state which killed them, so the deaths may be just, but hardly lawful.

This is for a reason you keep trying to evade. d'Enghien had already left France before di Buonaparte came to power, and was not in France at the time. If you can pass a law and announce that people who have fled your state are retroactively citizens of it, and subject to your laws while living outside of it--well, I'd be interested in knowing what you think the proper limits of national authority and the law are.

"..announce that people who have fled your state are retroactively citizens of it, and subject to your laws while living outside of it.."

Years ago, when I was visiting the site of the Battle of Queenston Heights, where an attempt by the United States to invade the British colony which later became Canada was defeated in October 1812, an American tourist became apoplectic with rage on reading on a commemorative plaque that Roger Sheaffe, who commanded the British counter-attack after the death of Sir Isaac Brock, had been born in Boston, Mass.in 1763 and was commissioned in the British Army in 1778, calling him a 'traitor' to the USA &c..

Exactly the same idea!

I make an exception for His Imperial Majesty, because no one starts threads about the softer side of any other conqueror.

This is because no one cares about the private lives of most of the other military figures; not in the universal sense. Does it occur to you that rather than being limited to some sort of fan club on TMP, this indicates the unstoppable draw Napoleon possesses as a personality and that harassing both members and threads about Napoleon is a misplaced waste of time?

Ah. poor MiniPigs. Were you spoiling a thread on British Legion flags when you kept dragging in a fictional character from a very unhistorical movie and ascribing his actions to a real person?

If you think you hate the idea now, just wait 'til you see the flag. :)

At this point, you are throwing down a tempting gauntlet about whether words/speech matters or not; you'll find that you cannot have it both ways. However picking up said gauntlet of temptation would require me to demonstrate more evidence concerning 4th Cuirassier. I dont think that's fair to him; that you write checks that he has to cash (so to speak) thus I'll bid aurevoir to this sub-topic.

However, on topic, it's been mentioned that laws need to be observed with regard to plundered antiquities. One wonders if the spoils of the British Empire will ever get given back to thems they was stolen from?

link

link

link

link