"Plunder: Napoleon’s Theft of Veronese’s Feast" Topic
63 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.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleAfter many years of resisting the urge to start a Napoleonic collection, Monkey Hanger takes the plunge!
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor heads for Vicksburg...
|
Pages: 1 2
Tango01 | 11 Mar 2021 9:20 p.m. PST |
by Cynthia Saltzman "Cynthia Saltzman's Plunder recounts the fate of Paolo Veronese's Wedding Feast at Cana, a vast, sublime canvas that the French, under the command of the young Napoleon Bonaparte, tore from a wall of the monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore, on an island in Venice, in 1797. Painted in 1563 during the Renaissance, the picture was immediately hailed as a masterpiece. Veronese had filled the scene with some 130 figures, lavishing color on the canvas to build the illusion that the viewers' space opened onto a biblical banquet taking place on a terrace in sixteenth-century Venice. Once pulled from the wall, the Venetian canvas crossed the Mediterranean rolled on a cylinder; soon after, artworks commandeered from Venice and Rome were triumphantly brought into Paris. In 1801, the Veronese went on exhibition at the Louvre, the new public art museum founded during the Revolution in the former palace of the French kings…"
Main page link
Armand |
John the OFM | 11 Mar 2021 9:33 p.m. PST |
He'd steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes. |
ConnaughtRanger | 12 Mar 2021 1:56 a.m. PST |
Some mistake surely? It's well known (on the TMP Napoleonic Forums) that the French never stole or looted. This must have been a gift from a people who were so delighted to have been liberated. I predict less than 10 posts before we get on to "British Atrocities". |
Brechtel198 | 12 Mar 2021 4:34 a.m. PST |
He'd steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes. Bags of bull-as usual. The people who were resonsible for most of the major looting in Italy were the Representatives on Mission. Napoleon attempted to curtail their 'activities' as much as he could, but sometimes that was nothing but a futile attempt. |
Tango01 | 12 Mar 2021 12:51 p.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 12 Mar 2021 1:06 p.m. PST |
By the way….Didn't Napoleon arrested his own brother in law for looting?… Armand
|
Brechtel198 | 12 Mar 2021 1:13 p.m. PST |
He and his subordinates did have people shot for looting in Italy in 1796 to restore order and stop the looting. The major problem was that the troops had not been paid regularly before Napoleon took over nor had they been properly resupplied. If the government neglected them, then the troops looted to live. The other problem was that some of the senior officers, such as Massena and Augereau, also looted and that set a very bad example for their subordinates and the troops in general. |
John the OFM | 12 Mar 2021 1:16 p.m. PST |
Or not sharing. Like on The Sopranos where Eugene Pontecorvo had to give Tony a cut of his $2 USD million inheritance. |
Brechtel198 | 12 Mar 2021 5:20 p.m. PST |
The comparison with the Mafia is ludicrous as well as being intellectually dishonest. It is nothing but a pathetic attempt, without the benefit of sourcing or reasonable methodology, to do nothing but blacken Napoleon's reputation, and that is based on British and allied propaganda of the period. From The Road to Rivoli by Martin Boycott-Brown, 335: '…the instruction that Bonaparte had been given at the beginning of the campaign had stipulated that he was to exact large contributions from conquered enemy territory, so his actions were in line with this. Moreover. the fact that he was able to send large quantities of money and treasure to Paris, and even to help the finances of the struggling armies on the Rhine, undoubtedly increased his political leverage, and he must have been aware that every franc he could raise would help him get agreement for his plans…' 'Bonaparte was not avaricious, though, and merely regarded the money as a means to an end. He was far more interested in the next phase of the campaign…' |
John the OFM | 12 Mar 2021 5:32 p.m. PST |
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I blaspheme? As long as you are stealing for a Good Cause, you're doing the Lord's Work. |
John the OFM | 12 Mar 2021 5:50 p.m. PST |
My goodness. And you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? You admit that he stole (pardon me, extracted reparations for the crime of being conquered by French armies…), and that he benefited from it. Yet somehow it's OK. Because, you know. Napoleon.
I think you've outdone yourself here. This has to be in your Greatest Hits album. |
John the OFM | 12 Mar 2021 6:09 p.m. PST |
Oh, my source? Season 6, Episode 1. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 12 Mar 2021 9:23 p.m. PST |
I predict less than 10 posts before we get on to "British Atrocities". Weren't "The Marbles" in the news today? |
epturner | 13 Mar 2021 4:10 a.m. PST |
What's funny is the Mafia comparison is actually not a bad one… "In the Name of Napoleon <insert dirty dead done dirt cheap>"… And if it was one of his bootlickers, and the Little Italian turned a blind eye, well, then how is it not unlike the Mafia. "It's a nice little duchy you've got here, Mr. Duke of Grossen-Gutten, shame if anything happened to it… but if you join our alliance…we might just help you out…" Eric |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 5:14 a.m. PST |
And just who were Napoleon's 'bootlickers?' |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 5:28 a.m. PST |
My goodness. And you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? 'My goodness' indeed. I would suggest that before engaging in any discussion of Napoleon from any aspect that you actually read something worthwhile on the subject. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Making them up as you go does not qualify as 'facts.' And if you can, please let us know how much you have studied of the Armee d'Italie under Napoleon's command from 1796-1797 and the state of its personnel when Napoleon took command of it in early 1796. Actually reading Boycott-Brown's book would be a good start. And only reading 'one book' for each battle or campaign just doesn't cut it. Don Horward published an excellent Napoleonic bibliography in 1986, Napoleonic Military History A Bibliography which is very useful. That would be a good start. The newest edition of the Esposito/Elting Atlas also has an updated Recommended Reading List which would also be very helpful. So, if you insist on talking about subjects which you know little or nothing about, those two volumes could help you. If you're not interested in doing a little research on subjects you want to talk about, then what are you contributing to the discussion? |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 7:13 a.m. PST |
I don't pretend to be an expert, unlike some people I could mention. There are those who say I never loved the Emperor. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 7:30 a.m. PST |
Nobody is using the term 'expert' except you. The issue is being at least conversant on the subject. Perhaps you'll take that advice to heart before embarking on your next inaccurate tirade. |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 8:35 a.m. PST |
The only tirades I see are coming from you. ((Cue Editor: "Do I have to turn this car around???")) Look, Kevin. Above you say that Napoleon was forced to collect money, whatever. Whether it was loot, reparations, indemnity doesn't really matter, unless you want to quibble over the degree of legality. Then your source indicates that this was favorable to his career. But he wasn't avaricious. I guess "the greater good" is whatever furthers Napoleon's career. All this while defending him against the charge of theft, stealing and/or looting. Woe unto the state that lies between the natural defensible frontier of France last year, and the newly discovered defensible frontier over the next horizon. Woe unto the state that commits the unforgivable crime of having to be conquered by Napoleon. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 8:46 a.m. PST |
Napoleon on Looting and Pillaging ‘Military discipline admits of no modifications.'-Napoleon to Jerome, 3 April 1807. The army must understand that discipline, wisdom, and the respect for property support its victories, that pillage and theft belong only to the cowardly, who are unworthy of remaining in the ranks…that they plot the loss of honor and that they have no goal other than to stain the laurels acquired by so much bravery and perserverence.'-Order of the Day, 11 June 1796. ‘Without discipline there is no victory.'-Napoleon to the Directory, 6 April 1796. ‘The success of an army and its well-being depend essentially upon order and discipline, which will make us loved by the people who come to greet us and with whom we share enemies.'-Order of the Day, 20 March 1799. ‘Pillaging destroys everything, even the army that practices it. The inhabitants leave, which has the dual drawback of turning them into irreconcilable enemies who take revenge upon the isolated soldier, and of swelling the enemy ranks in proportion to the damage that we do. This deprives us of all intelligence, so necessary for waging war, and of every means of subsistence. Peasants who come to peddle provisions are put off by the troops who stop them, pillage their wares, and beat them.'-Order of the Army, 12 December 1808. ‘When I arrived [in Italy in 1796] the army was injured by the bad influence of the troublemakers: it lacked bread, discipline, and subordination. I made some examples, devoted all of our means to reviving the administrative services of the army, and victory did the rest…Without bread the soldier tends to an excess of violence that makes one blush for being a man.'-Napoleon to the Directory, 24 April 1796. ‘We will never forget to make a disciplinary example of these soldiers who deviate from the rule of severe discipline.'-Napoleon to AM Battaglia, 10 December 1796. Army Order, 22 June 1812 ‘Each marshal or corps commander will name a provost commission composed of five officers, which will try every soldier who, following the army, is absent from his regiment without a legitimate reason and every marauder and individual caught pillaging or molesting the local inhabitants. The commission will condemn the guilty to death and will have them executed in twenty-four hours.' More from Boycott-Brown: '…[Napoleon] held a meeting of his generals in Ceva, which resulted in orders being issued that anyone, whether officer or soldier, who either encouraged or participated in looting, would immediately be shot in front of the troops.'-269. 'Joubert also wrote to his father, passing rapidly over another lucky escape to make known his own feelings about the problems of discipline…'the wealth of the country brings back our army's love of pillage, and I curse and rage to the General-in-Chief to have some of the guilty shot. Because I foresee great troubles if this continues.' Bonaparte was of much the same opinion, and issued a lengthy order of the day on the subject, with strict instructions for the divisional generals to submit reports on the conduct of the generals under them, and so on down the scale. From the way the order is set out, one may conclude that as far as Bonaparte was concerned, discipline was something that worked from the top downwards…this order was clearly a 'shot across the bows' that must have discouraged the less hardened criminals, and large-scale disorders of the kind that had compromised the successes of Dego and San Michele did not recur.'-273-274.
'However, [the proclamation] did go on to say at some length that pillaging would have to stop, and there would be grave punishments for those who transgressed the order. As if to show that this was not an empty threat, there were a few executions. A certain Sapper Latouche was shot during the day for looting, and two soldiers called Urgel and Lefort followed the day after.'-277. |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 9:22 a.m. PST |
From The Road to Rivoli by Martin Boycott-Brown, 335:'…the instruction that Bonaparte had been given at the beginning of the campaign had stipulated that he was to exact large contributions from conquered enemy territory, so his actions were in line with this. Moreover. the fact that he was able to send large quantities of money and treasure to Paris, and even to help the finances of the struggling armies on the Rhine, undoubtedly increased his political leverage, and he must have been aware that every franc he could raise would help him get agreement for his plans…' "Contributions". "I was against looting before I was in favor of it." |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 9:28 a.m. PST |
It's clear that unorganized looting by individual soldiers makes the collection of "contributions" more difficult. Just how were those "contributions" gathered? Plundering the state treasury? Robbing banks? Holding the more prosperous citizens for ransom? Organized looting, "by the numbers"? Hey. You have the books. Why not cue us in on how it was done? I don't have to read all them there books. Not when you give me the juicy quotes yourself that prove my point. |
epturner | 13 Mar 2021 2:47 p.m. PST |
Well, Kevin, we can start with those to whom he appointed to "govern" over the territories he conquered. But feel free to add others to your list, if you like. Eric |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 2:48 p.m. PST |
Not when you give me the juicy quotes yourself that prove my point. If you actually believe that your point was 'proven' then I feel sorry for you. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 2:50 p.m. PST |
we can start with those to whom he appointed to "govern" over the territories he conquered. No reference was made to Napoleon's family. And Prince Eugene was an excellent ruler in the Kingdom of Italy. And Napoleon's practice of employing his brothers in some of the countries, not a majority by any means, was no different than any of the ruling houses of Europe. Perhaps you can address them as well. |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 2:57 p.m. PST |
You're just embarrassing yourself., Kevin. You are basically claiming that while Napoleon disapproved of looting, he was very good at it, and it helped his career. |
epturner | 13 Mar 2021 4:49 p.m. PST |
A guy the name of Chandler (you may not have heard of him because he was…English…) wrote a book about some of Napoleon's goons, I mean, Marshals. Pretty interesting stuff, really. Some were not even the good kind of petty criminal. I'd say that's another good start. But, once again, don't let history get in the way of a good story. Eric |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 5:09 p.m. PST |
Actually, Chandler was the editor of the book and wrote one of the chapters himself. Some of the marshals did loot, especially early in their careers. Others didn't, such as Davout, Berthier, Serurier, Bessieres, and others. Sweeping statements are seldom accurate… |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 5:10 p.m. PST |
You are basically claiming that while Napoleon disapproved of looting, he was very good at it, and it helped his career. Nope-guess again. You insist on commenting on material that you know nothing about… |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 5:29 p.m. PST |
I am commenting on the paragraph that you posted. I don't know any other way to interpret that. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Mar 2021 5:40 p.m. PST |
Then I suggest that you read it again very carefully. If that doesn't work, then get the book. Like I said, you have to understand the material to be able to 'interpret' it. The author was quite clear that Napoleon was directed to 'exact' contributions and send them back to Paris. He was doing as directed by the French central government. His main concern was the campaign and to take care of his army which had not been paid in some time and was lacking in clothing, uniforms, arms, and ammunition. He was not trying to enrich himself. If you need any more help, let me know. |
John the OFM | 13 Mar 2021 6:13 p.m. PST |
Did he, or did he not "extract large contributions from conquered enemy territory"? And what exactly does "extract contributions" mean? It means nothing more than "Vae victis", as Brennus said when he threw his sword on the balance. To the victor belongs the spoils. It's fining the enemy for the misfortune of being conquered by the French. I'm reading exactly what you posted, and it certainly doesn't exonerate Napoleon of the charge of looting. Answer me how he extracted "large amounts of money AND TREASURE" to send to Paris. Treasure??? Did he commandeer the state treasury? Did he rob a bank? Did he kick doors down, or have Grenadiers and Sappers do that? Oh, right. He was following orders. His actions "…undoubtedly increased his political leverage…". So, he benefited from his looting, excuse me, "extracting contributions". |
epturner | 13 Mar 2021 10:29 p.m. PST |
Wot John said. Just because he was the Capo di Capo doesn't mean that the Little Italian wasn't in on the game. C'mon Kevin. Even a passing knowledge of "Napoleonic" history doesn't make you a Guliani level attorney for the defence. Just saying. He was a petty thief. Just on a bigger scale. Else how could the British Museum have wound up with the Rosetta Stone. But that's a crime story for another thread. Eric |
Tango01 | 13 Mar 2021 10:53 p.m. PST |
Which was the National Army in Napoleon Army that didn't loot?… Not mention Wellington in India!…(smile)
Armand |
arthur1815 | 14 Mar 2021 4:29 a.m. PST |
Looting after a victory or storming a defended fortress was a widely accepted 'perk' of soldiering at that time and was, I imagine, participated in with equal enthusiasm by soldiers of all nations. Officers may have issued orders against it/protested about its effect on discipline, after battle pursuit &c., but were probably aware they could never stamp it out completely. I recall a memoir in which a British skirmisher describes how he was searching the body of a Frenchman he had just shot for valuables without success, when a senior officer stopped and showed him exactly where the French hid their cash! Levying of 'contributions' on a defeated country, possibly under the terms of an agreed peace treaty, is a different matter, and can be distinguished from simple looting or plundering by individuals for personal gain, whatever their rank. Although the defeated may see it as little different! |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 9:10 a.m. PST |
Levying of 'contributions' on a defeated country, possibly under the terms of an agreed peace treaty, is a different matter, and can be distinguished from simple looting or plundering by individuals for personal gain, whatever their rank. Although the defeated may see it as little different! Excellent point-well done. |
John the OFM | 14 Mar 2021 9:51 a.m. PST |
"…under the terms of an agreed peace treaty…" Eh?
From The Road to Rivoli by Martin Boycott-Brown, 335: '…the instruction that Bonaparte had been given at the beginning of the campaign had stipulated that he was to exact large contributions from conquered enemy territory, so his actions were in line with this. Moreover. the fact that he was able to send large quantities of money and treasure to Paris, and even to help the finances of the struggling armies on the Rhine, undoubtedly increased his political leverage, and he must have been aware that every franc he could raise would help him get agreement for his plans…' Forgive me for my ignorance of 18th and early 19th diplomacy, but wouldn't "an agreed peace treaty" specify just how much this sum would be? Let's assign an arbitrary number of 50,000 quatloos. Yet Napoleon was able to send "large quantities of money and treasure" back to Paris. That doesn't seem to say that he stuck to the agreed upon sum, but exceeded it. And again that uncomfortable word "treasure". And was "large quantities" the wording used in the treaty? Back in my day the schoolyard bullies would demand to search you, saying "all I find I keep". That was their idea of "an agreed peace treaty", and not all that different from period diplomacy. |
John the OFM | 14 Mar 2021 10:01 a.m. PST |
Addendum. The paragraph from your favorite book doesn't even mention an agreed peace treaty. It just says he was assigned to "exact large contributions from conquered enemy territory". No treaty is mentioned. That's even more like schoolyard bullying. Like Goering collecting Rembrandts and Vermeers. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 10:11 a.m. PST |
The paragraph from your favorite book doesn't even mention an agreed peace treaty. You can't remember the title? It isn't my 'favorite book' by the way, merely a solid reference to the 1796-1797 campaigns in northern Italy and Austria. I've had a copy since 2002. Your usual condescension is noted. That's even more like schoolyard bullying. Like Goering collecting Rembrandts and Vermeers. Another ludricous comparison with the Nazi regime? Absolutely ridiculous and self-serving. Forgive me for my ignorance of 18th and early 19th diplomacy Ignorance can only be 'forgiven' is something is done to remedy it. In this thread, and on others, that isn't done so it degenerates from merely ignorance to willfull ignorance. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 10:14 a.m. PST |
He'd steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes. You admit that he stole (pardon me, extracted reparations for the crime of being conquered by French armies…), and that he benefited from it. Yet somehow it's OK. Because, you know. Napoleon. And if it was one of his bootlickers, and the Little Italian turned a blind eye, well, then how is it not unlike the Mafia. Whether it was loot, reparations, indemnity doesn't really matter, unless you want to quibble over the degree of legality. Then your source indicates that this was favorable to his career. But he wasn't avaricious. I don't have to read all them there books. Not when you give me the juicy quotes yourself that prove my point. You are basically claiming that while Napoleon disapproved of looting, he was very good at it, and it helped his career. Some were not even the good kind of petty criminal. Just saying. He was a petty thief. Just on a bigger scale. All this while defending him against the charge of theft, stealing and/or looting. The above comments are not substantiated, sourced, nor is a reference given for them. They are merely biased opinions with little or no basis in fact. The best that can be said about them is that they are ahistorical and of no value at all in studying the period. You're just embarrassing yourself. I would suggest by the above referenced postings, that epithet belongs to you and the others who have posted similar nonsense. |
John the OFM | 14 Mar 2021 10:20 a.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 14 Mar 2021 10:25 a.m. PST |
Hey. I have a great idea. Why don't you address the very first post here? The book that Tango01 noted that accused Napoleon of stealing a glorious tapestry? For once, maybe we can stick on topic. No, I didn't buy it. I have no intention of buying it. Maybe you can, and tell us what you think. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 10:25 a.m. PST |
This article might help you : link |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 10:33 a.m. PST |
Typical, Kevin. Typical. Yes, they are and I am very glad that you admit that it is typical of your 'work' on this forum. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 10:38 a.m. PST |
The following might also be helpful: I have found the following volume very helpful in understanding the period especially with governmental, diplomatic, and financial/economic issues of the period: Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France 1799-1815 Edited by Owen Connelly The book has been written by a plethora of authors under the editorial expertise of Napoleonic historian Owen Connelly. I would highly recommend this volume to anyone with an interest in the period as it is a great starting point in understanding who major characters were and in some of the less-studied or discussed topics such as economics and government. There are some interesting conclusions made in the volume especially on the topics of the French economy, the British economy, Napoleon's government, and the character sketches of his fellow heads of state-Alexander I of Russia, Francis I of Austria, and Frederick William III of Prussia, all three of whom were absolute monarchs (with Alexander having the added ‘benefit' of having at the very least coalesced in the murder of his father Paul I). It is also interesting to note that these three continental powers, who were more or less in financial trouble (just as France was) when the period began, could not have prosecuted repeated wars against the French Republic and Empire without generous subsidies from England. They would have failed economically if the English would have stayed out of the war or merely pursued expanding her overseas empire at the expense of France, Holland, and Spain. Anyways, perhaps some of the following information will be helpful and germane to this discussion: ‘Napoleon as administrator may be termed the originator of modern centralized bureaucracy in France' ‘The features of Napoleon's administration were those of a modern bureaucracy: hierarchical organization; stability of positions and of personnel; written, well-defined procedures of operation; promotion through the ranks based on seniority and merit; increasing professionalization of personnel and of code of conduct; and a system of training new personnel. The training, devised and instituted by Napoleon himself…adroitly combined theory…with practice…It was Napoleon's most original contribution to the science of public administration and was decades ahead of its time.' -Harold T. Parker ‘Napoleon considered [the law Codes] his greatest contribution. The cahiers of 1789 demanded uniform laws, and the French Revolutionaries had been interested in replacing the approximately four hundred codes used in France (roughly divided into Roman law in the south and common law in the north). But they had made little progress, except for preparing the way by sweeping away old legislation. Bonaparte's desire for uniformity led him to push the project. He appointed a commission of four to prepare the civil code, and he presided over more than half the sessions devoted by the section of the Council of State to considering the commissions' draft.' ‘The Civil Code [Code Napoleon]…promulgated in 1804, was more important than the Code of Civil Procedure (1806), the Commercial Code (1807), the Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure (1808), the Penal Code (1810), and the Rural Code (this last never went into effect). It has been adopted, or has influenced the codes of law, in all other European countries and those under European influence or control. The Code Napoleon's…overriding importance…lies in the civil rights it enumerates and its guarantee of equality in the eyes of the law.' -Robert B. Holtman The Bank of France is the ‘central financial institution of France and is still in existence.' It was established by law on 6 January 1800. ‘The war of 1805 put the bank in jeopardy because it lacked funds; its stock fell ten percent. Napoleon reorganized the bank in 1806…placing it under the supervision of the new minister of the treasury Francois Nicolas Mollien. The bank came back stronger than ever…In 1814 and 1815, Louis XVIII had little choice but to retain the Bank of France and it became a permanent institution.'-43 Napoleon's main financial problem upon becoming head of state was to rebuild the financial structure and the finances of France. French finances were a mess-no taxes were being collected, bills were outstanding and not being paid, and the government was forced to borrow at 5 percent per month. Three men were appointed by Napoleon to tackle the problem: Michel Guadin became minister of finances; Francois de Barbe-Marbois became minister of the treasury; and Nicolas Mollien was appointed as director of the sinking fund. Upon appointment ‘They…began to build fundamental financial structures.' Direct taxes were collected, firmly but fairly; a system of indirect taxation was begun ‘which could be raised or lowered according to need. Expenses were rigorously monitored.' A new, standard franc was started which held its value and did very well trading against other currency, sometimes doing better than the pound sterling. Napoleon's goal was to have a balanced budget and not to have a large government debt. Most of the time, Napoleon's budgets were either balanced or nearly so. What resulted from this management technique was ‘a vigorous, durable fiscal administration.' Napoleon ‘tried to run a tight financial operation, and in the process he kept his own regime going and founded structures that endured.' -Harold T. Parker French economic development, based on a large number of factors, ‘shows a moderately positive balance sheet dominated, for both better and worse, by continuous military and economic war.' -Reed Geiger Alexander I: ‘…In 1801, he assented to the coup against his father, stipulating only that Paul's life be spared (it was not). The Russian nobility rejoiced at his accession but was soon again disgruntled. The political program of Paul's assassins is not entirely clear, but many prominent nobles wanted constitutional guarantees of their status and a predictable legal order. Alexander seemed amendable, but when he overcame his initial fear of the court political, he declined to surrender any of his power…After the war of 1812, though Alexander granted a constitution to the Poles, as he had earlier to the Finns, he gave no serious consideration to political reform in Russia.'-Hugh Ragsdale Francis I: ‘…was indecisive, however, and incapable of translating his antirevolutionary way of thinking into a consistent foreign policy. He also failed to strengthen his own position through comprehensive internal reforms…For the rest of his reign, [Francis] supported Metternich's conservative policies. In the interest of preserving the existing political and social order, he favored a European balance of power. Seeing the status quo threatened in domestic affairs, he advocated the preventive suppression of liberal and national movements. At home, he promoted an absolutist welfare state that did not hesitate to employ police state methods in order to keep the people in tutelage.'-Eckhardt Treichel Frederick William I: ‘…During his first years, the king accomplished a number of partial reforms, especially the liberation of the peasants on the crown lands…In 1806-1807, with the support of his wife, Louise of Mecklenberg Strelitz [whom Napoleon referred to as ‘the only real man in Prussia'], he managed to save the monarchy despite the destruction of the army at Jena-Auerstadt, French occupation of Berlin, the monarchs' flight to East Prussia, and the coercive Peace of Tilsit. He lent his authority to the efforts of the reformers, and, after 1810…to Hardenberg's risky diplomatic balancing act between France and Russia, while mollifying Prussian patriots with exaggerated expectations. He helped guide the war of liberation without being affected by the pathos of the national German movement. His conservative inclinations and his emotional ties to the Russian czars motivated his early cooperation with Russia and compromise with Austria at the Congress of Vienna and his full cooperation in Clemens von Metternich's policies after 1815. His domestic policy after 1815 was characterized by ambivalence. He rejected a uniform constitution for the state and persecuted dissidents, but he maintained the most essential reforms…'-Peter G. Thielen As an interesting after-thought, this extract from the section on the Spanish who were loyal to King Joseph's regime in Spain, the Afrancesados, might be helpful: ‘…There were, however, thousands of people who at one time or another collaborated with the French. Their numbers varied with the fortunes of war and thus were limited in 1809, expanded greatly in 1810-1811, when the French fairly subdued Spain, and shrank again in 1812 and 1813, as Joseph lost his kingdom. Most were ordinary people, from those who did the work of Joseph's ministry, government, and court to local officials-city and town mayors, tax collectors, police, judges-who continued their normal careers in French-controlled areas. Others were recruited and trained by the French, especially in Aragon, where Marshal Suchet eradicated guerilla activity and successfully organized Spanish administrative and judicial corps. One reason for Joseph's poor performance as a military commander in 1813 was his reluctance to concentrate his forces, which meant evacuating whole provinces and leaving his erstwhile followers at the mercy of the guerrilleros (whose numbers multiplied as French defeats increased). When Joseph left Spain, at least 12,000 families also sought refuge in France. At that, the vast majority stayed behind to face the ‘purification' procuedures of the cruel Ferdinand VII. Only the most wily escaped some punishment.' ‘Still, it is the ministers who appear the archetypical afrancesados to modern scholars. They had in common that they were old (the average age was 60; Cabarrus, Mazzaredo, and Romero died during Joseph's reign). All were 18th century liberals who had been favored by the reforming Charles III and had their hopes for Spain dashed after a brief honeymoom by Charles IV. Some had been in prison or exile. All had genuine faith that they were serving Spain, which they believed would fare better under Joseph that it had under the degenerate Bourbons. (There were, of course, young afrancesados with the same belief. G. Lovett [author of Napoleon and the Birth of Modern Spain] celebrates Colonel Francisco Amoros, who, after Joseph's fall, introduced calisthenics into France and amused himself by penning insulting letters to Ferdinad VII.) Beyond their common convictions, however, the ministers were quite various. Gonzalo O'Farrill, a Spaniard of remote Irish ancestry, soldier, diplomat, and ex-minister of war, accepted the portfolio of war from Joseph. Charming, efficient, and honest, he was one of the few officials whom the rebel Cortes continually tried to win over, to no avail. O'Farrill went into exile with Joseph in France in 1813. To justify their conduct, he and Azanza wrote a memoir, which is important or understanding Spanish attitudes in the period. Azanza had been viceroy of Mexico and had held several ministerial positions. He served Joseph as minister of the Indies, and then foreign minister, where he battled gamely against Napoleon's schemes to annex part of Spain to France. Mazarredo, former general, former admiral, and late minister to Paris, was given the Ministry of Marine (Navy, Ports). Francisco (Francois) Cabarrus had been born a Frenchman (at Bayonne) and, incidentally, was the father of the notorious Madame Tallien. Drawn to Spain by economic opportunities, he had served Charles III and founded the Bank of San Carlos (in effect the central bank of Spain). He was Joseph's finance minister, bent of freeing the economy (the progressive thing at the time), divesting the crown of monopolies, and the like. Urquijo had been first minister of Charles IV more than once; he had been frustrated in his attempts to reform Spanish land tenure and promote industry. His fulminations landed him in prison, from which he was released just before Joseph took the throne. His faith in the Bourbons had been destroyed. He served as Joseph's minister secretary of state throughout the reign and followed the king into exile. Don Manuel Romero's promising career in Bourbon service had been ruined by the perennial first minister, Manuel Godoy. As minister of the interior, he emerged as Joseph's chief planner, producing blueprints for a new public school system, a departmental administrative system, and much else.' ‘In short, the leading afrancesados were among the most progressive and talented men in Spain. In retrospect, as evidenced by the testimony of the count de Toreno and other ex-rebels, it is unfortunate that the liberals of the Cadiz Cortes and those who served Joseph could not have worked together. The leaders, surely, were patriots on both sides. The principles elaborated by Joseph's Constitution of Bayonne (1808) and the Cortes's Constitution of 1812 differed largely in semantics. But the Cortes group helped bring down Joseph, making an end of his plans for liberating Spain. And when Ferdinand VII returned (1814) he rejected the constitution and views of the Cadiz liberals. Spain was doomed to more of absolutism-and revolution.'-10-13 |
John the OFM | 14 Mar 2021 12:31 p.m. PST |
French economic development, based on a large number of factors, ‘shows a moderately positive balance sheet dominated, for both better and worse, by continuous military and economic war.'
Ah. That explains the necessity of "exact(ing) large contributions from conquered enemy territory". |
John the OFM | 14 Mar 2021 12:35 p.m. PST |
Charming anecdotes, for the most part, from your usual Wall O'Text. However I fail to see how some guy introducing calisthenics to the court explains how these contributions were exacted. Or whether Napoleon went above and beyond agreed treaty provisions, if any. But, do carry on. You amuse me, most of the time. And please get back to addressing the OP. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 1:26 p.m. PST |
You are definitely a 'cherry-picker' extraordinaire. It isn't a compliment. And if you want to return to the OP, I would highly suggest that you buy the book. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Mar 2021 1:54 p.m. PST |
Regarding 'stolen' art works, the following might be helpful… From Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms by Owen Connelly, 341: 'The idea persists that the satellite kingdoms were 'robbed' for the benefit of France. One envisions wagons rolling toward Paris with coin for the imperial treasury and revered works of art for the Louvre. To dismiss the latter quickly, many of the paintings and objects were legitimately purchased, and still belong to the French government. As to treasure wagons, many rolled from France into Spain; few indeed came from the kingdoms to France…' In the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France, edited by Owen Connelly, the article on the Louvre (pages 310-313 by June Burton) deals with the confiscations of art that began in Belgium in 1794. The Commission Temporaire des Arts of the Committee of Public Instruction was responsible for carrying out the government acquisition of the 'stolen' art treasures, and in Italy in 1796 the surrender of paintings by the Duke of Parma was part of the peace treaty negotiated by Napoleon in May 1796. Some of the treaties actually listed 'precise numbers' of the art confiscations. And the confiscations ended up in the Louvre, not in the Tuileries after Napoleon took power as head of state. |
Jcfrog | 15 Mar 2021 6:09 a.m. PST |
The intemporal rule: looting from the the bottom is bad; from the top it is levies, contributions, taxes, redistribution. Nothing new. French revolution "oligarch" with catles, levied luxury furniture, paintings etc. Form the campaigns. Nothing ever changes in depth, only the external repainting of it. |
Pages: 1 2
|