Napoleon Bonaparte

[Malte279]

With the recent joining of another member interested in history and the fact that it has been a while since we had our last history related discussion I would like to start a thread for all topics related to Napoleon Bonaparte, a historical figure that still polarizes people some of whom consider him a revolutionary genius deserving of adoration (not sure if that French law is still in place which at some point prohibited farmers to name a pig "Napoleon" (which would rule out France as the scene for a certain George Orwell novel )) based for example on his work in the field of law making (the code Napoleon remains the basis for many European law codes) and the breaking up of encrusted regimes in Europe. Others consider him a ruthless and power hungry dictator bare of any scruples and with concern for his people only while it served his own ambitions. Between these two extreme views are a great number of interpretations of the "phenomenon Napoleon" often based on elements of both extreme views and (in my opinion) coming closer to what I consider an objective approach to history.
There are countless topics related to Napoleon but I guess we will be better of if we try to focus all of them in this one thread (unless there is a good reason for another one) lest we create a large number of threads most of which will fall silent before long.
So I would like to open this discussion with your (everybody is invited to join) view on the following question:
Do you believe that there was a chance for Napoleon to remain in power had it not been for his ambitions beyond the borders of France? Do you think that other European rulers (in England in particular, but also in Austria, Prussia, and Russia) would have ultimately arranged themselves with Napoleon in power?
On the one hand this pretty much overthrew the ancient view of rulers instated by the grace of God and the likely result would be the spreading of the ideas of the French Revolution endangering the thrones of other rulers if people saw that it was possible for some random soldier out of nowhere (which Corsica pretty much was) to ascend to the throne. On the other hand Napoleon's reign bore some resemblance with that of the total rulers of the ancient regime with regard to personal power of the ruler, so perhaps other European rulers would have ultimately accepted Napoleon on the throne (as they later did with his nephew after more revolutions / uprisings had shown that the ancien regime would never return in its pre 1789 form, no matter what).
So if after his coronation Napoleon had tried to take a defensive posture focused on keeping other nations from attacking France on French soil (rather than taking the more aggressive stand that lead to the campaigns and battles which pretty much are the basis for the view of Napoleon as one of the greatest military tactitians of all time) do you believe that the other European rulers would have ultimately arranged with him?


Oh my God! No he is out to take over the Great Valley!

PS: My question is just meant to make for the opening of this thread. Please don't feel restricted to refering to that question only, but also come up with your own thoughts, questions, discussion topics etc.

[Mumbling]

It's Shorty Bonaparte! *cough*

So... On topic. Simply said I think Napoleon might have stayed a great leader if he stayed within his boundaries, but he'd never make the history books in the way he did now. Of course, I won't claim that I know a lot on the subject, so my opinion is based solely on little bits of information I picked up over time. I don't know if the other big European leaders would have arranged themselves with Napoleon, as I don't know anything about their perspective.

[Pterano]

I'm actually thinking about starting a thread entitled 1794, as I'm following that year day by day this year, and starting discussions on the various events, people, etc of that year.

But as this is a good start, I'll say that I intend to judge for myself as I follow Napoleon's career over the course of the next... twenty years of my life or so. xD I'm going to look at all facets, and even though I look favorably on him at present, I (don't usually) never fully endorse or reject a person, so I'll reserve full judgment until I've taken a more in depth look at the events surrounding his reign, though I do know enough to give an initial assessment.

From what I've seen so far (in my very beginning stages of my studying), he probably should have stopped after the War of the Fourth Coalition, were he capable of doing so. France was really at the height of its power then, and I think it would have been beneficial to halt there. He had a good treaty (Tilsit) going with Russia, though of course, this really remains a big what if.

The other nations of Europe really didn't give him much of a break. He wasn't able to stop after the Fourth Coalition because Austria had rebuilt her armies and declared war on France only two years later, so he was once again forced to take the field. Looking at the coalition wars, the only coalition up to the fifth that France actually declared war first in was the First Coalition. All other Coalitions after that were pretty much other countries declaring war on Frace, and even more specifically, MOST of the coalitions were Austria declaring war on France for vengeance for their defeat in the previous war, which is somewhat amusing. XD

Britain too, although I am a very big British fan (most of my ancestral heritage after all), was very aggressive in that time. They just kept at the war, and never really dropped out except after the War of the Second Coalition, and even that was short lived. I definitely understand Britain's need to maintain balance on the continent back then, but they sure were pushing things to a favorable conclusion for themselves at the same time. XD They didn't particularly honor the terms of the Treaty of Amiens, which was partly why Napoleon knew that conflict with them would be inevitable.

As said, that's my initial, less well informed judgment. I'll make a better one as I go along, and might even start up a thread for each year I follow, starting with 1794, if anyone would be interested of course.

Oh, and I JUST bought that Eylau and Friedland book, btw, the one in your picture. The Polish campaign was fanstastic, and is probably my personal favorite of his campaigns. It's so overlooked though and overshadowed by other battles of his.

[Im little green glyder :J]

"
 
 
   
 
AAA afraid, no, no, I had nightmares at night, ooh no! "

LOL

[Pterano]

Napoleon actually did pretty good things for the Poles He briefly restored their country, before it was taken away from them again at the peace conference, not to exist until the Treaty of Versailles. A real crime, as the Poles are neither Germans nor Russians, and didn't deserve to be made a member of either nation.

[Im little green glyder :J]

-Place a great valley! Shorty(  ) attacking!
-What? :blink:
-
-Escape !

[Pterano]

^ Um... OK? XD  

[vonboy]

(A propaganda video, in the style of old black and white American newsreels.)

It has been several months since the fighting has started, The young and strong Shorty still leading the way! Troops moral are high after a recent victory against the hardheaded Threehorns. Most of the Great Valley is still under control by lesser kinds, but our great leader has confidence that victory is at hand!

In the mean time, other kinds caught by our troops are being send to death camps outside the Great Valley. Did I say death camps? I mean Happy camps!

Our troops need your help! Food supplies are starting to run low. So, support your troops! Send any spare treestarts that you have. Your sacrifices will help our great military take back our Great Valley!

That is it for the news of the week. Shorty's forces continue in our cause, as we all continue...the march of war!

 

[Pterano]

I guess you know this far better than I do, vonboy. XD

[Malte279]

Oh well, I probably shouldn't have come up with that Shorty Bonaparte photo to avoid comments too far remote from the intended purpose of history discussion :

From what I've seen so far (in my very beginning stages of my studying), he probably should have stopped after the War of the Fourth Coalition, were he capable of doing so.

While that probably was the zenith of Napoleon's career I also see the road to his downfall pretty much paved at that time. For (as you too suggested) I see no way of him managing a peace at that time.
If there is one constant of British policy throughout the centuries it probably is not allowing for one nation to become so powerful as to dominated the continent (then to possibly cast an eye upon the island). I guess if after one of the earlier wars there might have been a chance for a peace on the basis of the French borders of 1789 and a stop to all trade restrictions etc. not lifted in the treaty of Amiens.
Napoleon always referred to England as his worst enemy and it would be interesting to know if England would have been willing to make a lasting peace with Napoleon (accepting the end of the rule of the Bourbons) and on which conditions (those which I named are speculative).
But given the military successes I daresay that if Napoleon had accepted a peace on such unfavorable terms he probably would have lost support of the public that would be highly skeptical about anything bearing the label of restoring the situation of 1789. Before long he probably would have been overthrown in another revolution.
One thing about the war of the fourth coalition that is often overlooked is that to some degree the battle of Eylau might have scratched Napoleon's "aura" of invincibility had it not been for his later victory at Frieland. Eylau is mostly regarded a draw or even a strategic (though not tactical) French victory because the Russians were the ones to leave the field, but apparently most who were around did see that this had been a very, very close call for Napoleon.

AAA afraid, no, no, I had nightmares at night, ooh no!

Speaking of nightmares, Napoleon apparently had become kind of a boogie man in Germany. Here is a little "lullaby" they apparently sang to their kids along with my translation (it cannot be translated quite literally though):

Schlaf mein Kindchen schlafe ein
Wir wollen alle artig sein
Wenn Du nicht bald artig bist
Wart nur Kindchen warte
Dann holt Dich der Napoleon
Der bˆse Bonaparte

Sleep my child fall asleep
We all want to behave
If you won't behave soon
Just you wait, just you wait
Then Napoleon will get you
The evil Bonaparte



With regard to Poland it is much of a matter of debate to what degree he really had any concern for the people in the Duchy of Warsaw, to what degree it was politics against Russia, or what role Maria Countess Walewska had played in Napoleon's engagement on behalf of the Poles. What is your take?

[Pterano]

I must admit that unfortunately, I have not researched the topic enough to form a valid or good opinion on it yet. I can most certainly let you know however when I do reach that point. ^^ It is something I'd like to read more about, so that I can come up with my own take on it, but yes, I'll have to research the Polish question a bit more first.

I have a question of my own though, that's semi-Napoleon related, though does not directly deal with him. Are you familiar with Jean Charles Pichegru? I've always wondered if there are any good official reasons given for why he suddenly defected in 1795. He goes from being a hero of the Revolution to a royalist supporter almost overnight. I've read one account stating he led a rather extravagant lifestyle, and he simply wasn't able to keep up with it on the pay that the Revolutionary government was giving him, and so the bribes the royalists were offering him were pretty enticing. Reports seem to be pretty hush-hush on the topic though, and it's possible there really is no official reason, if Pichegru himself never gave any. It's possible too that he was merely an opportunist. He threw his favor to the Revolution when it broke out, and when knowledge reached him of the large royalist uprising in Paris that would be taking place that year (which Napoleon later suppressed), it's possible that he thought that fortune would swing back in favor of the royalist cause.

And actually, I should probably correct that a bit. He didn't technically "defect", he simply behaved quite irrationally during the 1795 campaign, refusing to cooperate with Jourdan's offensive (when he had orders to do so), and essentially allowing Jourdan to be defeated. He was in contact with the Austrian Empire at the time as well, but I guess we'll never fully know what happened. What we do know, is that he offered his resignation after the failed campaign, it was accepted (much to his surprise), and he was later imprisoned, escaped, and imprisoned again after participating in another royalist attempted coup before dying in prison under mysterious circumstances (some say on Napoleon's orders).

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

I think that he's most remembered for his failed invasion of Russia.

[Malte279]

While I read of Jean Charles Pichegru before, my knowledge of him is extremely limited, so most of what I may say on him comes down to guesswork or general statements. But judging from what you wrote about him giving no reasons or source materials that would allow for any certain guess work seems to be the best we can come up with. I think you know more about the French Revolution than I do, but I think that in 1795 there were many things that a former enthusiastic revolutionary may have become disillusioned about. He would hardly be the only person during the revolution not acting the way one would have expected. Take Maximilien Robbespierre for example. A man who was among other a vivid oponent to slavery, advocate for the freedom of the press, and (get this) an oponent of death penalty. And yet he turned into a fanatic first insisting on virtues and starting to have those executed who he suspected of not living up to those virtues and then he, who oposed institutionalized religion started acting in a way that gave reason to suspicions that he was out to start a cult about the "highest being" with himself to be seen as the later. Robbespierre's reign of terror may have contributed to turn people like Pichegru against the revolution, but it may have been only one factor. The execution of king Louis XVI which preceeded the worst of the reign of terror had been voted against by no less than 288 deputies and even people who had been supportive of the revolution may have felt a change of heart at what the revolution was turning into. There is the famous statement by Georg B¸chner:

The revolution is like Saturn, it eats its own children.

Is it so surprising that some of said children had a change of heart as a consequence even to the point of believing in a monarchy as the lesser of two evils compared to the reign of terror? Now I don't know to what degree fear for the own life may have played a role in Jean Charles Pichegru's decision, but seeing that he had survived Robbespiere and the reign of terror by the time he turned royalist fear for the own life may not have been so intense a motivator (I need to know more about his situation though to make this more than a general guess).
There are two other possible elements though which may have played a role, two elements we know from a man whose name has become a synonym for "traitor" in the US, Benedict Arnold.
Without Benedict Arnold there is quite a likelihood that the USA would not have won their independence at that time. The battle of Saratoga (in which he was also wounded), so crucial to secure the deceicive French support for the cause of those colonists who wanted independence (and same as in the French Revolution the "public opinion" in the colonies was hardly as homogenous as later storytelling wants to make us believe) was his victory rather than that of general Gates who was reaping all the credit until he blundered himself out of rank later on. For Arnold lack of credit and recognition for his services and sacrifices was an important motive to turn traitor. Are there any conditions that suggest for this to have played a role in Pichegru's decision?
A second factor that influenced Arnold was his wife who was strictly royalist and excerted a strong influence on her rebell husband. Did Pichegru have any relatives who were royalist and may have influence him?
Or maybe, did he loose any relatives to the revolution so his change of heart may have been influenced by that loss?

I think that he's most remembered for his failed invasion of Russia.

I guess that may vary depending on whom you ask. But I think indeed very often the first keywords that most people would come up with would refer to defeats rather than victories of him.
I guess Waterloo is by far the most famous battle of Napoleon and here is my next topic for this thread. Waterloo is his most famous battle, countless towns all over the world have been named after that little Belgian village. But looking at it objectively Waterloo was a rather unimportant battle. It was kind of a loud bloody epilogue to a story that had basically ended in 1814 already. Even if Napoleon had defeated the English and Prussians at Waterloo I really don't believe that it would have provided any more than a temporary postponement of Napoleons inevitable defeat. Not only were two more juggernaughts of armies approaching from Austria and Russia, but also France's own reserves of men had been drained very much by the wars and Napoleon could no longer rely on the men previously provided by other states. In addition to that Napoleon no longer had the highly experienced staff of competent officers which had contributed to a large degree to his earlier legendary victories.
Waterloo is the most famous major battle of the Napoleonic Wars, the battle after which towns, bridges, and trainstations are named; it is the battle about which movies are made; it is the battle that has become a proverb for defeat ("he met his Waterloo") and it is also perhaps the least important of the major battles of the Napoleonic wars.
One thing that really gives me infinite amusement is what the name "Waterloo" must sound like to native English speakers if they think about it. Maybe the "grandeur" of the name makes people not realize that "Water-loo" does not sound particularly epic. Even more funny is the fact that after the battle Wellington insisted on calling the battle Waterloo because this was where his own headquarters had been located while Prussian general Bl¸cher had suggested to name it after the location of Napoleon's headquarters (unthinkable for the English to name the battle after the location of the defeated enemy's headquarters). But seriously, the name of the tavern where Napoleon had his headquarters was "La belle alliance" which translates to "The beautiful alliance" which also would have been a beautiful double meaning if one interpreted it to refer to the alliance between England, Prussia, Dutch, and the many other small states whose men fought and died at... Waterloo :huh:

[Pterano]

You just reminded me of something I had overlooked! EXCELLENT point about Benedict Arnold, Malte! Now that I think about it, there ARE historic examples of Pichegru being something of a "glory seeker" as the term goes I think. In the Fall/Winter of 1793, Pichegru was in direct competition with a man by the name of Lazare Hoche (who you're probably familiar with) to become head of the Army of the Rhine. The French Convention promised that whoever could win the biggest victory first would become head of the Army of the Rhine. As it turned out, Hoche was this man, and since he had Robespierre's backing as well, he was named as head of the Army of the Rhine.

HOWEVER, this isn't where the story ends. Not even a few weeks after Hoche's grand victory at Wissembourg, he is suddenly arrested and thrown in prison, letting Pichegru step into the void in his place. It turns out that several high ranking officers (Pichegru being among them, as well as known associates of his), had all gotten together to report that Hoche was "planning something treasonous", and the fact that so many had reported it got Hoche thrown in jail. Now we know these reports to be false, because Hoche was probably the least traitorous of any of the French generals at the time. He later went on to defeat the royalist landings in Quiberon, and won one of the last battles of the War of the First Coalition before he died of disease. It seems rather clear that Pichegru lied about Hoche in order to secure command of the Army of the Rhine for himself, and this later catapulted him to prominence, as he went on to command the Army of the North afterward, for which he's most well known.

So right there, we know that Pichegru was at the very least a jealous and spiteful individual.

Now we come to 1794. France is planning a two pronged offensive into Belgium, with Jourdan attacking in the east and Pichegru leading the main attack in the west. However, Pichegru's offensive stalls at the Battle of Tournai, and what ends up happening? Jourdan goes on to defeat Prince Josias at the Battle of Fleurus, winning almost god like status from this (as it's one of the most well known battles of this war). Now this is only speculation, but Pichegru might have felt slighted by this, as HE was supposed to be the one making the main attack and conquering Belgium. He may have felt overshadowed by Jourdan, who was already very famous for his defeat of the Austrians in 1793 at Wattignies. Jourdan was a rising star, and Pichegru had somewhat stagnated.

Now Pichegru DID gain fame when he single handedly conquered the Netherlands later that year, bute there was almost no resistance or any big battles. The Dutch pretty much let the French in, as they saw them as liberators and welcomed the chance to start a republic of their own. We now arrive at 1795, the year of Pichegru's betrayal.

Pichegru and Jourdan were supposed to lead a two pronged offensive into Austria. Jourdan would attack from the north, and Pichegru would attack from the east via Mannheim. At this point, Pichegru captures Mannheim almost effortlessly, but remarks that he didn't expect to advance so rapidly. He then sits down, and does nothing. Jourdan tells him that they should be moving together, as they're part of the greater offensive, but Pichegru rejects the idea of a joint effort, and says they'll only be working separately. At this point, the French Republic is not paying it's soldiers very well, and many generals have to settle for promises of payment later on.

Now here's my guess (and keep in mind it's ONLY a guess), but if Pichegru is being offered quite a lot of money by Austria, and if he perhaps feels overshadowed by Jourdan, then maybe he rather liked the idea of abandoning Jourdan, and letting him get defeated so that he would become discredited. The failure of the French offensive in 1795 certainly delayed the war by at least a year, as they could have been well into Austria if the two armies had moved together as planned.

So you brought up an excellent point. We DO know as fact that Pichegru was spiteful, as evidenced by his getting Hoche removed. So perhaps he felt the same way about Jourdan, and since it was also known that he wasn't getting paid particularly well (and supposedly had an extravagant lifestyle, at least according to one of his aides), then perhaps the Austrian offer to betray his nation was just a bit too tempting to pass up. I'm glad you brought up the point about Benedict Arnold and envy, as I think that's a very valid point, and definitely relates to Pichegru in this instance, as we have evidence that he was prone to... rather hurtful bouts of envy. XD

Yes, the Revolution really did eat its children too. Robespierre is a highly interesting character. I think overall he wanted to do right, but he let his own fears and paranoia get the better of him, and his ideals far exceeded what the French people wanted. In the end, he saved France from everyone but himself, as I think the saying goes. XD

[Allicloud]

I think that he's most remembered for his failed invasion of Russia.

Really? Huh, must be a regional thing. Over here in England, he's mostly remembered either for losing the Battle of Waterloo or coining the term "Napoleon Complex", which refers to a short person who tries to make up for their diminuitive stature by being extremely outgoing and outrageous (Case and point, Eddy from Ed Edd n Eddy. A perfect example of Napoleon Complex)

[Pterano]

^ Which is so misattributed to him. It was mostly British lampooning that painted him as the famous "short" person he's viewed as today. If you consider five foot seven short, then I guess me, being six foot nothing, is just a little above "short" XD Yeah, that perception of him did coin the phrase Napoleon Complex, though in reality, I'd say five foot seven was pretty average back then. My mom is five foot six, so she's actually an inch shorter than he was.

All those political cartoons around the turn of the 19th Century really portrayed him as a three foot tall individual, and it's just one of those things that have stuck in history down the years. It's no more true than the myth claiming Polish "cavalry" charged at German tanks during the Second World War. The cavalry did fight German armored units, but it wasn't horses. It was actually an armored train unit (Battle of Mokra) firing on advancing panzers, as well as 37 mm guns, which could take down any tank the Germans currently then had. The train managed to knock out several of the panzers, and the day ended in a Polish victory, though the train was later damaged in an air attack. War correspondents saw dead horses after a completely unrelated battle (Krojanty, in which Polish cavalry delayed a German infantry column), and published an account claiming the horses had charged tanks, and once again, we have the creation of a popular myth. There weren't even any tanks present at that battle, only afterwards, when they were brought in after the fighthing had long since died.  Nazi propaganda picked up on it, and decided to run with the story.

There's another too, during the Napoleonic Era, a naval one that I talked with Malte about, but I won't go into details here as it'd be too off topic. Historical myths and their origins are interesting though, and it's funny how these myths sometimes become more widespread than what actually occurred.

[Malte279]

^ There is a factual reason though why Napoleon appears to be short on many paintings and it doesn't have anything to do with any painter wanting to ridicule him (which at least in case of portraits done during the time of his rule might have been kind of risky). I think Napoleon was 169 cm tall which is slightly above his time's and region's average of 167 cm (I think there are different sizes attributed to him or the average person of the time, but the general tenor is that he was very slightly above average size). However, in most of the paintings where he appears to be small Napoleon is depicted with members of the Imperial guard. To qualify for that elite troop however a candidate had to be above average size. I don't have the minimum size in mind but I think it was more than 180 cm if you wanted to qualify as a Grenadier of the Imperial Grendier (apart from looking more intimidating tall people have an easier time hurling grenades far). Beside those long fellows most contemporaries would look short.
Another reason for the myth of Napoleon's being short was a nickname bestowed upon him by his troops (no idea at what time of his career it came up though). Apparently he was named "the little Corporal" in which the "little" however is more to be read as a term of affection rather than referring to his actual size (same as in many American nicknames the term "old" may be used even on people who may not be particularly old).

You know, I really like the topic of historical myths. Maybe an own thread should be created for them so we are not stuck with one historical period only? There are so many examples and sometimes the way such myths were brought up tell a lot about the time in which they were created.