"What was Napoleon’s goal?" Topic

"What did Napoleon want to achieve? This question is less about Napoleon's goal in particular military campaigns than it is about his broader ambition. Did Napoleon have a lifelong aspiration or overarching aim? Was he pursuing a series of specific objectives? Or was he simply responding to circumstances, with no particular goal in mind?

It can be hard to know what our own motivations are, let alone those of someone who died over 200 years ago. Napoleon talked about the difficulty of trying to determine one's intentions. He said that, when writing about him, even people who worked with him would "have to state not so much what really existed, as what they believe to have existed; for which of them ever possessed the entire general conception of my mind? … However…they would have the advantage over me: for I should very frequently have found it most difficult to affirm confidently what had been my whole and entire thoughts on any given subject." (1)

The task of deciphering Napoleon's goals is complicated by the fact that he was a master of propaganda who played a prominent role in writing and editing his own story. From an early stage in his career, Napoleon used letters, military dispatches, and other means to exaggerate his triumphs and conceal – or blame others for – his failures. His writings and reported remarks are voluminous and contain many contradictions. During the final years of his life, when he was in exile on St. Helena, he dictated memoirs that portrayed his actions and intentions in the best possible light. He often tried to give a consistency to his aims that might not have been present at the time. This means that we cannot necessarily take Napoleon's word for what he was trying to achieve, especially when that word came after the fact. We can, however, look at things that Napoleon said earlier in his life about his goals and ambition. We can also look at what some of the historians who have tried to answer this question have said…"

link

Armand

Ahh keep his head on his shoulders?

As he himself once said "I lose one battle and I am lost, if you kings lose you are still Kings" Or something to that effect.

Also maybe to play off other countries as well as his Marshals?

To crush the enemy.
To drive them before him.
And to hear the lamentation of de vimmin!

I suspect Napoleon's ultimate objective changed over time.

As First Consul, he seems primarily concerned with securing the gains of the Revolution while establishing France as the dominant power in Europe.

After Austerlitz, however, success bred greater ambition. I think his assuming the title "Emperor" makes his ambitions clear.

Each victory made another seem possible. By 1812 he appears less like a statesman pursuing defined political goals and more like a gambler convinced that one more victory would solve every problem.

Perhaps his greatest weakness was that he never developed a convincing "end state." He knew how to win wars. He was less certain about when to stop winning them.

I like ochoin's take.

The answer to the Q posed by Tango…?

A sending off, after ten minutes of VAR.

I think after this summer even our Transatlantic cousins will understand the frustration we feel over the Pond about the state of football (and I do mean football) refereeing.

A for hydration breaks, when rain almost stopped play, purely to allow US adverts to run……….

Arguably, most of the coalitional wars were intended to unseat him from power; in typical style, he moved first along the lines of a strong offense is a good defense.

He wasn't just a combat general but a singularly competent civic reformer and could have been content if he had been left to govern France undisturbed.

Corsican Ogre depictions are British propaganda.

@ Flashman14

I agree. Any demonization of Napoleon is puerile. And any attempts to cast him as a demi-god are equally childish. he was a man with virtues & vices.

Thanks

Armand

To destroy the British and their influence.

Yes, we do seem to have that effect on people, don't we?

Ochoin,
"Any demonization of Napoleon is puerile"

Well, he massacred up to 4,000 people in cold blood at Jaffa in 1799. Men the French had agreed could surrender, together with civilian aged, women and children. Mothers and their babies (as reported by French witnesses) being knifed to death as they tried to escape into the surf.

If Bonaparte isn't a demon for that, you're not trying to deny he's a demon; you're denying demons.

Can we please stop with demonising Napoleon almost every time his name is mentioned in a post. Never is mentioned when we talk about colonial Wargaming how many victims were there by building the Victorian empire (first concentration camp were their invention Afaik), never is mentioned the attracties against the original indian population when talking about american warfare etc. Every storming of cities went with attracties from roman times, mediëval, thirty years war (eg Magdenburg), Peninsular war (Afaik Badajoz) etc.

He is right you know. Napoleon was probably an arrogant person, a terribly boring conversationalist, a massive egotist, a terrible lay, far from healthy by 1815, but he did create an era that itself produced the Napoleonic Discussion, Gallery, Media, Painting etc etc, just on this site. His legacy survives 200 years on. He achieved his goal…La Gloire

He was an important sort of chap, historically second only to that Austrian corporal, and that is only because of social media and streaming madness.

Deadhead + 1

Armand

Deadhead +2

One of the biggest differences between Napoleon Bonaparte and figures like Alexander the Great is that Napoleon left behind a vast documentary record. And nowhere in it do we find a clear "master plan" for world conquest.

Alexander may have entertained visions of endless expansion; we simply don't know. Napoleon, by contrast, often seems remarkably pragmatic and reactive. Many of his biggest decisions were responses to problems created by earlier decisions.

The 1812 invasion of Russia is a good example. Napoleon did not set out to conquer and occupy all of Russia. His expectation appears to have been that a massive show of force would compel Czar Alexander I of Russia to negotiate after a decisive battle near the frontier. Instead, the Russians kept retreating, refused a settlement after Battle of Borodino, abandoned Moscow, and transformed the campaign into something Napoleon had never intended. He was reacting to events as much as shaping them.

Likewise:

The Peninsular War began as an attempt to enforce the Continental System and pressure Britain, not as a plan for a six-year guerrilla war in Spain.

The invasion of Portugal led to intervention in Spain.

Intervention in Spain led to rebellion.

Rebellion led to British involvement.

British involvement led to a long and costly war.

That's a recurring pattern in Napoleon's career reacting to and putting out fires rather than a grand scheme. He also often began with a limited objective and then enlarged it.

"never is mentioned the attracties against the original indian population when talking about american warfare etc."

Actually quite often on TMP.

🤔 But rarely the atrocities the Indians committed against Mexicans, US, English, French their own, including men, women and children. Also happening long before any European ever arrived.

So yes just saying, covered often on TMP.

Arguably, most of the coalitional wars were intended to unseat him from power; in typical style, he moved first along the lines of a strong offense is a good defense.

Was it really? The first coalition was about the Revolution, not about Napoleon. The second coalition was about reversing French territorial aggrandizement achieved in the prior war, and would have happened whether or not Napoleon seized power. Likewise the Third, Fourth and Fifth coalitions were about reversing gains made by Napoleon beyond the French frontiers established at the end of the First Coalition War. The Sixth Coalition was the first one that expressly planned for Napoleon's overthrow. Even this was a decision made after Napoleon would agree to the territorial demands of the coalition partners.

Agree…

Armand

he wanted to establish a hereditary monarchy – the Bonapartes as dynasty, and control Europe, I agree also with Bill N

he wanted to establish a hereditary monarchy – the Bonapartes as dynasty, and control Europe, I agree also with Bill N

At one time, I would imagine every hereditary monarchy sought to accomplish these goals. England tried to take over the British isles, Austria, much of central Europe, Russia, many of the Slavic countries. Yes?

Napoleon owed his position (in France & Europe) to his victories in war, therefore he had to maintain the capacity to beat any challenger at all times. However it was not economically possible to maintain the French & allied armies on such a scale, and thus this made the entire Napoleonic system, and therefore his continued rule unsustainable.

Bokkerijder
"Can we please stop with demonising Napoleon almost every time his name is mentioned in a post".

Why? The topic is "Napoleon's goal" and I gave a response based upon his apparent narcissistic psychopathy. Such outliers are medically described as driven by a need for power, status, material goods, obsessive envy and financial success. All Bonapartist weaknesses.

The internet is full of Bonapartist hagiography. The occasional redress on the other side is a good thing. Especially for a mass-murderer and a man who re-introduced slavery.

"Never is mentioned when we talk about colonial Wargaming how many victims were there by building the Victorian empire"

Probably because the Empire vastly reduced the number of "victims". In general the Victorian Empire was a trading system that lifted millions of natives out of subsistance-living, raised their mortality-rates, improved their living-standards inordinately and bought the rapacious warlords who had made their lives a misery for millennia, to heel and that the number of unpleasant incidents and the number it affected is a micro-speck compared to what it replaced.

Anyway, hope you're happy with that.

usual double standard comparison and hypocrisy, "mass-murderer" and pro-slavery can be equally given to his so-called philanthropist opponents beginning by Britain who restored or maintained the slavery in the conquered french colonies
just to read how the Peninsular War, the so-called mother of all the battles of the Napoleonic period according to the british propaganda and the Vilainthon's hagiographic club, is presented on TMP, the atrocities of the so-called liberator British Army, are rarely recalled, that says a lot about the degree of objectivity between Napoléon and his opponents, the same with the following sentence tending to minimize the negative impact of the british colonization and establishing a weird comparison between the british proxy wars against France between 1792 and 1815 thanks to the sacrifice and blood of others powers such as Austria German States Russia and the British colonial wars against native people

Probably because the Empire vastly reduced the number of "victims". In general the Victorian Empire was a trading system that lifted millions of natives out of subsistance-living, raised their mortality-rates, improved their living-standards inordinately and bought the rapacious warlords who had made their lives a misery for millennia, to heel and that the number of unpleasant incidents and the number it affected is a micro-speck compared to what it replaced.

anglocentric opinion certainly not shared by the rest of the World and the first concerned from the Indians Burmese Chinese Afghans to Irish, French Canadians, Boers, Africans, Maoris and etc
there is even a rumor that good anglo-scottish settlers were so unconvinced of the benefits of the British Empire to the point that they needed to request an alliance with their ennemies, the "friends of the Indians" and papist soldiers expelled 15 years before in order to expel redcoats and german soldiers, without France they would be today thirteen coastal Atlantic provinces more of Canada under king Charles III in London

*******************************************************************************************************************
for September…

"So many false things have been said about Napoleon!" (Stendhal)
We think we know everything about the Emperor of the French, yet in reality, there is still much to learn.

This encapsulates the paradox of Napoleon Bonaparte: one of the world's most famous figures, yet one forever shrouded in an aura shaped by veterans' recollections, the grandiosity of painters, and the writings of great Romantic authors and modern detractors alike. Though his legacy has been variously idealized, reviled, and often caricatured, the life of the man who established his dominance over all of Europe at the turn of the 19th century has—in recent decades—been illuminated in a new light thanks to advances in historiography.

This book takes a fresh look at fundamental questions—many of which serve as accusations against the conqueror of Italy and Egypt who rose to become First Consul and Emperor. It offers insight not only into Bonaparte's life and psyche but also into the evolution of a French society in the throes of constant upheaval: Did he seek to build a united Europe? How did the French view his legitimacy? What role did women play in the machinery of the Empire? What place did religion hold? Was Napoleon racist and in favor of slavery? Was he responsible for the deaths of a million men? Was he murdered on Saint Helena?

Bringing together leading historians of the Consulate and the Empire, this groundbreaking work aims to provide the most comprehensive overview possible—free from idealization and grounded in original sources and the latest research.

Merci beaucoup, mon ami… Je l'ai déjà ajouté à ma liste de futurs achats…

Armand

I have read primarily Napoleonic era history since 1981and have no idea what Napoleon really wanted other than as a genius and thought he could run the world if he could.

Lilian
"usual double standard comparison and hypocrisy, "mass-murderer" and pro-slavery can be equally given to his so-called philanthropist opponents beginning by Britain…"

Wrong. No Briton ever ordered the massacre of 4,000 defenseless men, women and babies with knives. As Bonaparte did.

"who restored or maintained the slavery in the conquered french colonies"

Wrong. Britain ended French and slavery in both Canada and British India with The Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

Wrong. Britain never "re-introduced" slavery like Bony did. In fact Britons were victims of slavery right up till late in the 19th century.

"just to read how the Peninsular War, the so-called mother of all the battles of the Napoleonic period according to the british propaganda"

Wrong. Britain never had "propaganda" regarding the Peninsular War in the 19th century or today. Britain did not have a Government controlled press, the King was frequently lampooned and Wellington often complained about London newspapers publishing information that could help the enemy. Bony, however, used the Monitor to push out his propaganda and even put a Talavera commemoration on the Arc de Triumph, claiming his army had won!

You're on a bit of a roll with all your wrongness, today. Great job!

Wrong. No Briton ever ordered the massacre of 4,000 defenseless men, women and babies with knives. As Bonaparte did.

full usual double standard and hypocrisy, obviously the British Army perpetrated also massacres and atrocities — even against its own allies, to the surprise of the French
It is curious to choose a misspelled pseudonym with corrupted spelling while remaining unaware of this aspect of the Peninsular War, which was so heavily celebrated by British propaganda.

hard fact known in the case of Spain, concerning a both allied and enemy country, but it seems they extended their philantropy even against to its own oldest ally

Wellington's army also committed numerous atrocities against civilians. Faced with the third invasion, that of Masséna, the commander-in-chief of the British forces decided, in particular, on a scorched-earth policy. This brutal method required the complete desertification of the combat zones, much to the discontent of the inhabitants. It contributed to the ruin of entire regions of the kingdom. The Englishman Napier did not hesitate to report the disastrous consequences of Wellington's choices for the population:
"The day of March 7 (1811) was marked by a horrible discovery: in a fold of the mountains, a large house was found filled with people of both sexes, dead or dying of starvation. More than 30 of them had succumbed, and near their corpses lay about fifteen women and a single man, but so weak that they could not swallow any of the little food we had to offer them. The youngest had died first; there were no children left […]." The man bore witness to the desire to live; the women, patient and resigned, had even, despite their cruel distress, carefully and decently arranged the clothes of those who no longer existed. This tactic, moreover, provoked dissension between the English military authorities and certain Portuguese officers, notably Sousa. A Portuguese general did not hesitate to challenge Wellington after the fall of Almeida: "If you could not defend us, why incite us to resistance and cover our unfortunate country with ruins and blood? If you are strong, give battle; if you are too weak and cannot bring in larger forces, withdraw and let us come to terms with the victors." The contempt of English officers and politicians for the populations they considered backward also fueled their resentment. The tone of Sir John Cradock's diplomatic correspondence with Lord Castlereagh reveals English prejudices.

Thus, the existence of a "sacred union" of the Portuguese behind the English ally, embodied by Beresford, and the traditional elites is largely a myth. »

Wrong. Britain ended French and slavery in both Canada and British India with The Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

so as said previously the British maintained the slavery in French Canada after 1760 until 1833 as they did in all the French colonies they conquered…exactly that I wrote…

The abolition of slavery in 1793-1794 was previously was used by France as weapon in the maritime and colonial struggle as indirect strategy against Great Britain, a country that very curiously didn't cease to claim to be a "pioneer" in this regard…

Wrong. Britain never "re-introduced" slavery like Bony did. In fact Britons were victims of slavery right up till late in the 19th century.

of course they did, e.g. in Saint Domingue in 1793-1798 they invaded, allied with the slaves owners, as in La Martinique
but Napoleon ordered also the freeing of slaves in the territories he conquered, outlawed slavery, the Emperor contemplated reprisals against the Regency of Algier, The islamic Ottoman North African regencies and the Moroccan Empire had still black and white slaves, these last ones many being subjects of the French Empire and Naples

Wrong. Britain never had "propaganda" regarding the Peninsular War in the 19th century or today. Britain did not have a Government controlled press, the King was frequently lampooned and Wellington often complained about London newspapers publishing information that could help the enemy. Bony, however, used the Monitor to push out his propaganda and even put a Talavera commemoration on the Arc de Triumph, claiming his army had won!

not really the opinion of several Historians and searchers, even British, mentioned in several threads opened across TMP these last decades about the treatment of "Peninsular War" in the british historiography

@cacadoress

Wrong. No Briton ever ordered the massacre of 4,000 defenseless men, women and babies with knives. As Bonaparte did.

I should mention as a disclaimer that I'm an unapologetic Anglophile. I love Britain, I find the British incredibly affable and I constantly study British history and military history with both fascination and respect. And yet, knives aside:

The Storming of Delhi (1857) – After British forces retook Delhi during the Indian Rebellion, thousands of civilians were killed over several days. Estimates vary widely, from several thousand to tens of thousands, because executions, looting, and indiscriminate killings were intermixed with combat.

The Sack of Lucknow (1858) – Following the relief and recapture of Lucknow, British troops and allied forces carried out reprisals that killed many civilians. Precise figures are uncertain but likely numbered in the thousands.

Mau Mau Emergency (Kenya, 1952–60) – British detention camps and counterinsurgency operations caused many thousands of deaths. The number directly killed by British forces remains disputed, but the overall conflict resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.

Second Boer War (1899–1902) – Rather than a massacre, British concentration camps caused approximately 28,000 Boer civilian deaths, mostly women and children, and at least 20,000 Black Africans also died in separate camps due to disease and deprivation.

Bengal Famine (1943) – Approximately 2–3 million deaths. Historians debate the extent to which British wartime policies under Churchill's government exacerbated or failed to alleviate the famine.

Great Irish Famine (1845–52) – About 1 million deaths and another 1–2 million emigrants. There is ongoing scholarly debate over whether British government policy constituted negligence, ideological rigidity, or something more culpable.

Back in the day sacking a city was allowed if the garrison forced the sieging army to go forward with an assault after the city defenses were compromised.
Allowed may not be the right word, but generally recognized as a valid punishment for unreasonable obstinance, by military men at the time.