# Napoleon Bonaparte



## coinspinner (Sep 28, 2012)

Such is the tragedy of contemporary understanding that most people thinking about Napoleon Bonaparte take only into account battles such as Austerlitz, Wagram.. etc. But, the greatness of Napoleon was something entirely different. Great commanders have been plenty: Caeser, Hannibal, Alexander but not by these qualities can Napoleon's character be measured. One such consideration is that of the Poles, who have failed in every attempt at sovereignty throughout history nor had they ever historically had anyone to call for help but it can be credited out of the personal volition of someone from the West to defeat the three kingdoms that had partitioned Poland; - Prussia, Russia and Austria. This had been done just as Napoleon had promised, of course the information had been kept out of public attention during the forty years of Poland's PRL government and the Marxist teachings that freedom could never come from the West. Only from the East. These were dangerous things to know at those times.

What else is that if Napoleon had only given sovereignty to just the other countries as well, we'd leave the topic at that. His name would've been forgotten by now. Still, it's something more than just that. We can start by asking, why the struggles for sovereignty and to sum it up in as few words as possible it is that all the laws ever written by men in civilized countries are based on the Napoleonic Code which is the mother of all civil constitutions. For the creation of these laws, he assembled the best French lawmakers and attorneys and he presented before them laws and ordinances, quoting how things would be. He did this then with such confidence, it was as if right off the cuff of his sleeve. From memory he cited passages of laws derivative to the Greeks and ancient Romans. But where did he know the laws of these lands so well? He learned from a prison cell. When he was arrested once, he had asked for materials to read, what his captors provided him was a library of books on laws and the rights of man. Napoleon in his cell had read all of these, contemplated and digested everything at hand. Napoleon created something called the Napoleonic Code, but that's not all. He was an established mathematician and social engineer, a true reformer and on the field a consummate master of war. In the spheres of human literary achievement, Goethe ritualistically takes the no. 1 spot. Goethe fell into deep love for Napoleon and his aims after a single encounter with him during a meeting where they discussed influences on culture, on Shakespeare, theatre, etc. Goethe at first had been convinced he'd be meeting with an inept figure, military rabble of higher caliber to say the least but what he found was a humanist that begins teaching him about the greatness of Shakespeare and above all the nuances in a way that drilled Goethe into the ground. Napoleon was a fortificator, engineer, etc.. and still, these qualities are not the total sum of his person. Napoleon destroyed a ruling system that had ruled Europe for hundreds of years. The system he replaced it with was one of absolute equality of the individual before the justice systems throughout Europe. From the peasants to the aristocrats, he rigorously implemented the characteristics of law and justice. Napoleon states that the, "..name and form of governing bodies are unimportant but important is that the governing authorities are on the right of the law and that justice be distributed equally, righteously and unconditionally." Napoleon would not tolerate the totalitarian systems of the monarchies of Europe. Just as he drove the Austrians from Italy, at the age of 27 already a young General at the time he would eventually lead a multi-national army of 650,000 men across Europe to the very gates of Moscow after Tsar Alexander betrayed their trust.

In various contemporary right-wing circles it is espoused that the French revolution had been a Marxist concotion. This could not be further from the truth. The revolution had occurred early in Napoleon's career and he willingly opened fire with his cannons at the anarcho-socialist Jacobins in the streets. It has been documented that those who survived a first volley of grapeshot were unapologetically mowed down with a second round of grapeshot. Albeit atrocities were commited on behalf of the revolution in France, it had ultimately been a victory for the forces of democracy in the order to dethrone the monarchy and the church with its massive entitlements to land and property. It had also spelt the end of pre-destined serfdom within poor farming families and the inequality of the lower classes of French before the eyes of the law. Napoleon became the First Consul of France, although at the beginning he was one of three. By popular demand he was chosen to be the Emperor of the French. It must be known that the previous monarch, Louis XVI was executed with his wife, Marie Antoinette. Louis XVII was very young and died inadvertently from illness at the age of 10. Louis XVIII thus took the stage but fled to England during the course of the revolution where he was harbored by the English. Napoleon refused to take the title of 'Emperor' but by means of having been put into this position by general consensus. Napoleon was voted, L'Empereur.

The following interesting trait of Napoleon's childhood is derived from the 'Memoirs of the Duchesse d'Arbranes':—"He was one day accused by one of his sisters of having eaten a basketful of grapes, figs, and citrons, which had come from the garden of his uncle the Canon. None but those who were acquainted with the Bonaparte family can form any idea of the enormity of this offence. To eat fruit belonging to the uncle the Canon was infinitely more criminal than to eat grapes and figs which might be claimed by anybody else. An inquiry took place. Napoleon denied the fact, and was whipped. He was told that if he would beg pardon he should be forgiven. He protested that he was innocent, but he was not believed. If I recollect rightly, his mother was at the time on a visit to M. de Marbeuf, or some other friend. The result of Napoleon's obstinacy was, that he was kept three whole days on bread and cheese, and that cheese was not 'broccio'. However, he would not cry: he was dull, but not sulky. At length, on the fourth day of his punishment a little friend of Marianne Bonaparte returned from the country, and on hearing of Napoleon's disgrace she confessed that she and Marianne had eaten the fruit. It was now Marianne's turn to be punished. When Napoleon was asked why he had not accused his sister, he replied that though he suspected that she was guilty, yet out of consideration to her little friend, who had no share in the falsehood, he had said nothing. He was then only seven years of age" (vol. i. p. 9, edit. 1883).]—

He did this again four years later when he was 11 as the only witness to an act that was perpetrated by another child, Napoleon endured the punishment for that child because he refused for them to be blamed. Regarding the young Napoleon, the headmaster of the school later cited, "The child is made of granite.." Honore de Balzac said it well, "This man was the most beautiful authority whom we have ever had." All of Europe's coalitions against Napoleon had been funded by English gold. Seven massive multi-national coalitions over a period of twenty years. Napoleon sued for peace with England many times, ultimately leading to the Treatise of Amien, this lasted for one year until the English broke their promise. This isn't to say that Napoleon did not have supporters in England, on the contrary. Napoleon esteemed passion and praise from Europe's most notable poets: Byron, Hugo, Goethe, Schiller, Balzac,Pushkin, --Mickiewicz compared him to Christ -- Lermontov, Petofi, Krasinski..

Everyone was in love with Napoleon, and for what?.. The cannons? The socio-technical credo of this pax-Napoleonica can probably best be understood by President Woodrow Wilson's famous words:

"America was not established to create wealth but to realize a vision, an idea to discover and maintain liberty among men."

These words ideally characterize Napoleon's aims and the realization of his visions.

This is the Elysium, the Paradise for whom this individual we should all be thankful for.


----------



## The Judge (Sep 28, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> ... all the laws ever written by men in civilized countries are based on the Napoleonic Code which is the mother of all civil constitutions.


Er... Presumably England and Wales aren't included in your definition of "civilised countries"?  Nor all the other states in the world which have a common law jurisdiction?  

As for whether Napoleon was a reformer interested in justice and peace, or a power-hungry dictator who wanted to rule all of Europe... but then, I'm English, and it was our gold which funded all the wicked and self-serving coalitions against him, so I daresay my opinion is valueless.


----------



## coinspinner (Sep 28, 2012)

And Byron who wept for Napoleon was English, Goethe; German. So many others were Russian.. etc. They viewed Napoleon as a 'lightbringer' in a time of state-endorsed serfdom and absolute privatization of lands. However, Judge, everything reverted back to the ways of the old tyranny after Napoleon's exile and untimely death (assassination).
On a seperate note, Wellington and Napoleon admired each other as civilized upper-class gentlemen of that period usually did. Wellington went so far as to chastise Hudson Lowe for his ill treatment of Napoleon during his exile.
To this day, Napoleon's best and most detailed biographers (with the exception of Bourienne and Toulard) have been of English origin.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 28, 2012)

Napoleon may have been a lightbringer, but he was also a warmonger. His appetite for victory in battle was insatiable, and it appears his regard for life (including that of his own troops) was considerably less so.

He was a great commander and a great tactician, but his greatest failing (as in many of his kind), was not knowing when to call it a day.


----------



## coinspinner (Sep 28, 2012)

Again, this is false. Napoleon always met those enemy armies that were enroute to France on various battlefields. Call it, preemptive measures. He never sacked any cities nor razed anything to the ground. What few rapes had occurred by his soldiers, they were summarily tried and executed before a firing squad.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 29, 2012)

What about Egypt? Napoleon sought glory, and that was only something that could be earned on the battlefield (in his opinion).

I agree that he kept discipline in his army, but the numbers of men he lost was astronomical. In Spain especially his men were forced to fend for themselves, often needing to take from civilians in order to survive. This made the Spanish people hate the invading Frenchmen, and they were constantly harrassed by guerillas. The English on the other hand got the local population on their side by paying for whatever provisions were requistioned.

He had a brilliant mind and was a charismatic leader of men; it's just a shame for his people that he decided to use his talents on the battlefields rather than in the court-houses and throne-rooms of Europe.


----------



## coinspinner (Sep 29, 2012)

After the unprovoked English siege of the city of Toloun, Napoleon (still early in his career) responded with invasion of Egypt in order to disrupt England's trade with the Orient. 

With Spain, Napoleon did not abandon his men. There were plenty of Marshall's under his command - so, what about abandonment? If you mean that he did eventually leave Spain for eastern France to re-enforce it against another push by the powers backed by England, specifically, gold coming from the House of Rothschild - you are correct, Napoleon 'left' Spain.
Also, you are correct that England had Spain on the take ($) .. however, parts of Spain were friendly and welcoming of Napoleon who also culled the Spanish inquisitions; which had been the murders of innocents deemed 'heretic' by the Catholic church.

I think this statement by Napoleon will shed some light for those curious about the relationship between the two great powers.


"England and France have held the fate of the earth, and especially of European civilization in their hands. How much evil we have inflicted on each other. How much good we could have done. It is ridiculous to hear the English spirit of toleration praised by so many philosophers when in fact the English nation is the only one that does not recognize the principles of toleration and when the English government prefers to keep an army of sixty thousand men in Ireland rather than allow that island to enjoy its most legitimate rights."


----------



## Bowler1 (Oct 3, 2012)

Welcome coinspinner.

In the thread, the greatest commander to face the British, there exists a poll that should upset you no end. I have bravely held my course that Napoleon, flawed as he was, deserved respect for being more than just a General. The law code, serfdom and his freeing the Jews in Italy were mentioned among many other achievements. He was not perfect, greed and avarice were his failings and downfall in the end, but then again who is perfect? I think because the victor gets to write the history books, he is not as well respected as he could be. You will find many supports of your cause on here, we are a significant minority.

Sadly as well for the poll I mention, I think the history channel may have something to answer for, but the votes are what they are.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 3, 2012)

It would be interesting to see that if Napoleon, upon his return from Elba, had not been immeadiatrely attacked by the rest of Europe. Whether he would have decided to 'learn his lesson' and not wage war upon the rest of Europe, but instead concentrate upon the peace-time achievemnets mentioned above.

As it was, there was no way the rest of Europe were going to give him a chance, or to allow the citizens of their own countries to think it was worth having a revolution of their own. Even if it had been Grouchy and not Blucher who arrived at the 11th hour to determine the outcome, it is unlikely that the allies would have stopped until Napoleon's forces had been defeated.


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 4, 2012)

Bowler, Napoleon's greed and avarice? Please provide some details.
Also, if you need a more rationalized voting panel for who could be called the greatest General in the world, I doubt you'd find it at a sci fi forum which could hardly be taken seriously.


Marvin, instead of focusing so much on Napoleon, perhaps you should consider looking into why England persistently broke all its treaties with Napoleon in order to stab him (France's choice-Emperor) in the back at every turn. Also, why England was so adamant on re-instating Louis XVI, who exiled to England.

I suggest you start here with a book titled, "The Wars against Napoleon" by Ben Weider and Gen. Franceschi.

Goodluck and have fun.


----------



## The Judge (Oct 4, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> Also, if you need a more rationalized voting panel for who could be called the greatest General in the world, I doubt you'd find it at a sci fi forum which could hardly be taken seriously.


Then one might ask oneself why you have come to a SFF forum to talk about Napoleon -- and to parrot exactly the same inaccurate opening post as you have given elsewhere, with exactly the same result.

If you wish to glory in your blind hero-worship and/or attract converts to your point of view, you might find it more congenial to do so on another forum so that we not-to-be-taken-seriously SFFers with an interest in history do not offend you with our opinions.


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 4, 2012)

Judge, what's inaccurate in anything that I've posted? My only intention is..
I'm still looking forward to someone making an original post here about (whom I personally believe to be) the greatest military commander in history. I don't know why it's pissing off so many people considering Napoleon only wanted peace with England and.. the French only met the English at the battlefield on one occasion and they defeated Napoleon. Subesquently exiled and assassinated him, what more could you want?


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 4, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> Judge, what's inaccurate in anything that I've posted?


 
Setting aside some of the risible things in your later posts....

I think The Judge - who very kindly was restricting her comments to your opening post - may have been referring to something she had already highlighted:


> We can start by asking, why the struggles for sovereignty and to sum it up in as few words as possible it is that *all the laws ever written by men in civilized countries are based on the Napoleonic Code* which is the mother of all civil constitutions.


Really? I mean, _really_...?

If one were to define a civilised country as being one whose laws all date from, and are derived from, the _Code Napoléon_, this might be true. Oddly enough, most people do not define civilised countries this way.


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 4, 2012)

The Napoleonic Code is the only constitutional platform of democracy that has, to date, chartered the predominant influence in the world.


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 4, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> The Napoleonic Code is the only constitutional platform of democracy that has, to date, chartered the predominant influence in the world.


So you're not saying that *all the laws ever written by men in civilized countries are based on the Napoleonic Code* which is the mother of all civil constitutions?


 This means that even if we were to accept your latest pronouncement at face value, the Judge was right about that statement in your first post. (We already knew that, of course.)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Oct 4, 2012)

As an American myself, coinspinner, I have to agree that the conduct of the English during those wars was not always as irreproachable as our British friends might like to think, but I do question some of your statements, and particularly your declaration that all civilized countries base their laws on the Napoleonic Code.  However it may be in the wilds of Washington State (and you will know better about that than I), in California we consider ourselves and our country quite civilized. 

Most of all, I would like to remind you that this is an international forum, with members from all over the world, and posts calculated to offend a large segment of our membership are considered inflammatory and unwelcome.

Please refrain in future, because our patience has its limits.


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 4, 2012)

Correct, I am admitting: 1: the Codex Napoleonica bears predominant influence in the world today over any and other constitutional framework.
2: All other contemporary democratic frameworks are, in fact, grass-roots Napoleonica-based.


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 4, 2012)

Teresa, I'm pretty sure that here in Washington we consider ourselves pretty civilized too. We're practically neighbors! 

Now look, this thread is about Napoleon. I'm not here to offend anyone, in fact, I love the English and how much they have offered to the world with such style in elegance, beauty of the written word, their wit, wisdom, architecture and above all.. their joyous humor. Aside from all that, I'll have all you blokes and byrds know that I'm a big IRON MAIDEN fan. Please forgive me if I have appeared rash to any of you.


----------



## svalbard (Oct 6, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> Teresa, I'm pretty sure that here in Washington we consider ourselves pretty civilized too. We're practically neighbors!
> 
> Now look, this thread is about Napoleon. I'm not here to offend anyone, in fact, I love the English and how much they have offered to the world with such style in elegance, beauty of the written word, their wit, wisdom, architecture and above all.. their joyous humor. Aside from all that, I'll have all you blokes and byrds know that I'm a big IRON MAIDEN fan. Please forgive me if I have appeared rash to any of you.





coinspinner said:


> After the unprovoked English siege of the city of Toloun, Napoleon (still early in his career) responded with invasion of Egypt in order to disrupt England's trade with the Orient.
> 
> With Spain, Napoleon did not abandon his men. There were plenty of Marshall's under his command - so, what about abandonment? If you mean that he did eventually leave Spain for eastern France to re-enforce it against another push by the powers backed by England, specifically, gold coming from the House of Rothschild - you are correct, Napoleon 'left' Spain.
> Also, you are correct that England had Spain on the take ($) .. however, parts of Spain were friendly and welcoming of Napoleon who also culled the Spanish inquisitions; which had been the murders of innocents deemed 'heretic' by the Catholic church.
> ...



I have read the Sharpe books and the French are fairly dastardly  in those.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Oct 6, 2012)

Coinspinner, I'm just curious. What was your purpose in starting this thread in the first place? Specifically why such a one-sided profile. There is no doubt that Napoleon was a complex historical figure, and I don't see the value in such a biased view of the man.

Would you agree that your profile is indeed one sided?


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 6, 2012)

First to Svalbard, Sharpe's series is historical fiction. It's the worst kind of stuff you can read because it tends to fill in gaps of misunderstanding with events and central opinions that never took place. That said, one can no longer discern the real from the make-believe.

Gordian, call this post bias on the side of Napoleon but I feel it's simply relevant to the accomplishments of Napoleon. However, you're welcome to start a thread titled, "The shortcomings of Napoleon" and I'd be more than happy to pitch in.


----------



## The Ace (Oct 6, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> Bowler, Napoleon's greed and avarice? Please provide some details.
> Also, if you need a more rationalized voting panel for who could be called the greatest General in the world, I doubt you'd find it at a sci fi forum which could hardly be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> ...




Errr England didn't do any of those things since she ceased to exist as a separate state in 1603.

While Hitler was fighting *England, *Britain gave him a pasting - he was an amoral piece of scum, what's your excuse?


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 7, 2012)

Yes she did. For instance, the treaty of Amien.

..

What's my excuse for what? Hitler? I think he was an asshole just like Churchill and Stalin.


----------



## Abernovo (Oct 7, 2012)

Coinspinner, I think you're missing the point of The Ace's comment. For someone who appears to enjoy lecturing others on their historical 'misconceptions', you need to get certain historical facts right.

Napoleon's army may have faced English regiments, but he never faced the English Army. That entity ceased to exist under that Act of Union, 1707, as did the Royal Scottish Army. What the French Imperial Army faced from the Peninsular War through to Waterloo was the *British* Army. Just as England had nothing to do with the Treaty of *Amiens*, 1802; that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it was at that point.

Now, I'm sure it was a simple and honest mistake on your part, but there are many of us Brits who do not like to be labelled English. England and Britain are not synonymous. I think it's things like that and your rather brusque comment style make it difficult to have an easy discussion with you on the relative merits of a talented military and civil leader. Which is something many members of this forum would be up for, I'm sure.

I for one think that the Napoleonic Code was one of his great achievements, although based on millennia of legal precedent, as all law is. However, Napoleon Bonaparte was flawed as well. His army was arguably slow to learn, sending columns against lines of the organised volley fires of the British again and again, resulting in massive losses. Ultimately, that has to sit at Napoleon's feet, as the Marshals of France all answered to him.


----------



## coinspinner (Oct 7, 2012)

Thank you for elaborating that, I'm half tempted to going back and editing all my posts. 
England = UK/GB.. absolve me, my scrupulous friends.
Regarding the regiments, the nationalities against Napoleon varied from coalition to coalition. I think ostensibly the Austrians were the most driven by conflict with Napoleon and this had been from his early years as a young General when he ran them out of Italy. The famous paintings of Napoleon crossing the Alps was a motion against the deliberating advances of the Austrians as well.


----------



## The Ace (Oct 7, 2012)

coinspinner said:


> Yes she did. For instance, the treaty of Amien.
> 
> ..
> 
> What's my excuse for what? Hitler? I think he was an asshole just like Churchill and Stalin.



And he also thought that Britain and England were the same thing.

As Aber so kindly pointed out, James VI of Scots created the United Kingdom of Great Britain when he became James I of England in 1603 - the Parliaments of both countries merged in 1707.

The USA gained independence from Britain, not England, and it was Britain that fought Napoleon.  England is only a constituent part of Britain, not a separate entity - and there are many British people who are not English and resent being so described.

http://www.tickld.com/t/24984/?fb_action_ids=466182593402557&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={%22466182593402557%22%3A339738996116718}&action_type_map={%22466182593402557%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 7, 2012)

coinspinner, obviously you are welcome to discuss all sorts of topics at chronicles, however, I'm concerned about the fact that all you appear to want to do is push a certain view of Napoleon down our throats, and appear unwilling and unable to engage in reasonable discussion from this. 

For that reason, I'm going to close this thread as it is currently serving no constructive purpose as the moment.


----------

