Umm, keep in mind that Britain was the 1st country to abolish the slave trade, in 1807.
In February 1794 the French Convention formally abolished slavery.
How was Toussaint a violent dictator?
Well, the ‘liberation’ of the slaves is merely a name change. Under Toussaint and his crowd, the same jobs were done by the same people and not much changed overall. Toussaint was a talented individual, but a great ‘liberator’ he was not. He wanted to be in charge and didn’t change the overall situation in Haiti. Again, Bonaparte was perfectly content with having Haiti as a sort of protectorate under France, independent but reliant on her protection, but as I stated above, he was under pressure from the crop and naval circles of re-establishing slavery there.
@UN:
How is the Napoleonic Code (which had equality of all in the eyes of the law, no recognition of privileges of birth [i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors], freedom of religion, separation of the church and the state, the freedom to work in an occupation of one’s choice, and other basic legal rights) as absurd as the traditionalist, absolute monarchy ideals that most of Europe still went by at that time?
Yah, thats my point. Napoleon was a much better warlord who embraced the enlightenment, as opposed to Hitler who based his veiws of soceity on myth and racism.
@UN:
Umm, keep in mind that Britain was the 1st country to abolish the slave trade, in 1807.
In February 1794 the French Convention formally abolished slavery.
How was Toussaint a violent dictator?
Well, the ‘liberation’ of the slaves is merely a name change. Under Toussaint and his crowd, the same jobs were done by the same people and not much changed overall. Toussaint was a talented individual, but a great ‘liberator’ he was not. He wanted to be in charge and didn’t change the overall situation in Haiti. Again, Bonaparte was perfectly content with having Haiti as a sort of protectorate under France, independent but reliant on her protection, but as I stated above, he was under pressure from the crop and naval circles of re-establishing slavery there.
In May 1802, that abolition was revoked by Napoleon’s regime. In 1794, he wasn’t in power.
By the way, the British abolition of the slave trade applied to its colonies, since the British Isles had phased out slavery already.
In May 1802, that abolition was revoked by Napoleon’s regime. In 1794, he wasn’t in power.
Yes. But that is because, as I stated above, he was forced to re-introduce some form of slavery to the colonies from the government he lead. He did not support slavery and did not want to see it re-introduced.
By the way, the British abolition of the slave trade applied to its colonies, since the British Isles had phased out slavery already.
Correct. But that is because Britain was an established nation. Its government has been largely unchanged for a long time. The French Republic, and later Empire, were relatively new countries. The fact that Napoleon gave political and religious freedom to Europeans that they hithero had felt should make up for that.
I think having a debate about which nation was more enlightened or nicer to the slaves is a bit moot. Both were the two most civilized countries in Europe, government or no government, and both were perfectly capable of bringing peace and order to the continent. That was certainly on Bonaparte’s mind in 1802. Not so much a certain William Pitt.
He was a dictator, right? If he didn’t want slavery, why couldn’t he just abolish it?
I really don’t think the Brits cared about what happened on the continent UNLESS they felt threatened that France would either try to blockade Britain or try to disrupt its shipping or conquer its colonies
Same thing France did. France felt threatened by Austria, Prussia, Russia, and apparently Spain so it invaded them. Britain felt threatened by France’s power and thus sought to stop its conquests.
He was a dictator, right? If he didn’t want slavery, why couldn’t he just abolish it?
Napoleon was not a dictator as First Consul. A dictator, in Rome, had both decreed and applied the law; moreoever, he was not elected by the people. In no sense, then, can Napoleon be called a dictator. Actually, on the contrary, if democracy is a system under which the whole people confides the government to magistrates of its choice elected for a limited period, then by the new Constitution France would be entering upon democracy. Although much of the governmental power was on Bonaparte, he did not wield absolute and supreme power, and his actions were very much limited by the Consulate. When he was Emperor this was different, but to call him a “dictator” as Emperor is still pushing it, as a government still existed around the central imperial figure. He held constitutional monarchial power, not absolute monarchial power.
I really don’t think the Brits cared about what happened on the continent UNLESS they felt threatened that France would either try to blockade Britain or try to disrupt its shipping or conquer its colonies
At the Treaty of Amiens, there was free trading between both countries, and no blockades of any sort were threatened by Napoleon. Britain was VERY caring to what happened on the Continent after the French Revolution. Remember that Britain just suffered a humiliating defeat by the American colonists in 1783. The defeat had been a blow to the King personally, to British pride, and to British trade. The defeat hardened political opinion in London of the ruling few, and suddenly this second upstart republic, this time in Europe, had overthrown monarchy. Britain had yielded once, but they were damned if she would yield again!
Britain was very reluctant to be at peace with France for several reasons, event though the French Revolutionary Wars cost it almost 400 million pounds. For one thing, they weren’t prepared to suffer another Yorktown, and they considered peace with a greatly enlarged France would be tantamount to that. Also, they were now closely linked by a network of friendships with French royal families in exile. Windham, British Secretary at War, particularly promised to get them back their estates and privileges. But last but not least was the fact that by bringing order and justice to France Napoleon had rendered the Revolution attractive to people outside the country; if Napoleon was also to give peace to Europe, where might Revolutionary doctrines not spread?
As Edmund Burke wrote to William Greenvile, Pitt’s Foreign Minister: “it is not the enmity but the friendship of France that is truly terrible. Her intercourse, her example, the spread of her doctrines are the most dreadful of her arms.”
Same thing France did. France felt threatened by Austria, Prussia, Russia, and apparently Spain so it invaded them. Britain felt threatened by France’s power and thus sought to stop its conquests.
You are absolutely (almost) correct.
However, this happened while Napoleon was not in power.
After France became a republic it was very much threatened by its neighbors, what with every crowned head threatening to wipe out this foothold of republicanism on their continent and plopping the Bourbons back on the throne. When France, at war with Austria, invaded Belgium, which was an Austrian possession, both the oligarchs and British businessmen became alarmed, for Antwerp were the front door for British trade with Europe. In January 1793 William Pitt announced in the Commons that Britain was at war with France and it would be ‘a war of extermination’.
Plus, Russia did not get involved in Western European politicis until 1798. It was too busy dismantling Poland.
I wouldn’t compare them. Wholly different.
Just look at their uniword names - one is of his first, the other of his last.
They both were despots who usurped power by various means and were involved in many wars in the name of their own causes. In both men Europe considered them tyrants and tried to rid them both.
I wouldn’t compare them. Wholly different.
Just look at their uniword names - one is of his first, the other of his last.
Wikipedia calls him Bonaparte.
@Imperious:
They both were despots who usurped power by various means and were involved in many wars in the name of their own causes. In both men Europe considered them tyrants and tried to rid them both.
Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.
At the end of the day both Hitler and Napoleon went up against the juggernauts of their era’s and lost. History is written by the victors and considering both Napoleon and Hitler were ultimately unsuccessful in their plans for conquest they will forever be grouped together with those who almost had it all but not quite.
How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?
How differently again would we view Hitler if they had of won the Battle of Britain and Operation Barbarossa had been successful, anything about all the things the Nazi’s did would of been airbrushed away and the pages of history would read very differently, the Nazi’s would write how much they helped the conquered people and how they liberated them from corrupt governments and oppression.
What i’ve learnt over the past few years of reading a lot about history is the truth is largely irrelevant, we dont know the truth of what came before us only what people brand as the truth. So even first hand information has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Even in relatively modern history we gloss over the crimes of the allies regardless of how necessary or un-necessary they actually were. We forget about the firebombing of Japanses cities than killed several times more people than both atomic bombs put together, the bombing of Dresden that was only done for the sake of nothing but revenge. Those can both be constrewed as both necessary or un-necessary in hindsight but those on the front lines didnt have luxury of knowing how their actions would turn out. But the fact that we gloss over them in history classes is a travesty, people need to know the cost in both victory and defeat and that while war is ultimately necessary their is always a high price to be paid whether its the lives of the brave men and women who fight the wars or the souls of those very same soldiers.
I leave you with a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.”
Things not yet mentioned:
They both killed and executed resistors.
They both stole works of art; Napolean had those Etruscan statues from Florence and Goering did his bit for Hitler.
and Goering did his bit for Hitler.
You mean Goering did his bit for Goering. :-D
One of the…… well I guess you could say good things, caused by Napoleons wars was the destruction of the inquisition in Spain and other Catholic countries. The weaking of papal influnce did more for Europe and future develpoment of European society then anything else.
Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.
Are you kidding me? If Napoleon didn’t get the love of the people he conqured why is he still admired by many Italians, Poles, Germans? The Polish especially, as Napoleon liberated them from the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian junkers.
His might have fell but the Empire still survives in codes of law and national identity. I don’t need to repeat how widespread the Napoleonic Code is. His military tactics are studied around the world over. I wouldn’t say he failed spectacularly.
How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?
A better question would be to ask, how differently would we view Napoleon if the British and their warmongering European allies didn’t constantly force him to wage defensive wars?
Napoleon proved more a benign dictator like Ceasar, **merely interesed in fame and glory in conqueirng others. ** Where are Napoleon’s chopping blocks? Where are Napoleon’s camps? Where are Napoleon’s thoughts and actions on government? Dictator, yes. Fascist, no.
facepalm
Is that what you call it? That’s all he went for, huh? Just power and glory and fame, nothing else? Sigh…
@Raunchy:
Things not yet mentioned:
They both killed and executed resistors.
They both stole works of art; Napolean had those Etruscan statues from Florence and Goering did his bit for Hitler.
Except Napoleon was perfectly entitled to execute the Duke of Enghien, who was forming a insurrection against France to overthrow the Republic and re-install the monarchy.
And again, Napoleon “stole” works of art on explicit orders from his government when he was still General Bonaparte; and even while he did he made sure to minimize it to just what was requested. He despised looting and prevented every sign of it.
@Imperious:
They both were despots who usurped power by various means and were involved in many wars in the name of their own causes. In both men Europe considered them tyrants and tried to rid them both.
Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe. When he was crowned Emperor it was by approval of the people and the Senate, not by divine right (which is why he had it to where he crowned himself, with the Pope presiding, so it did not seem like he was being crowned by divine right).
@UN:
Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.
Are you kidding me? If Napoleon didn’t get the love of the people he conqured why is he still admired by many Italians, Poles, Germans? The Polish especially, as Napoleon liberated them from the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian junkers.
His might have fell but the Empire still survives in codes of law and national identity. I don’t need to repeat how widespread the Napoleonic Code is. His military tactics are studied around the world over. I wouldn’t say he failed spectacularly.
How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?
A better question would be to ask, how differently would we view Napoleon if the British and their warmongering European allies didn’t constantly force him to wage defensive wars?
He is admired today after the fact, at the time he was one of the most hated men in Europe, only after nationalism took hold in the late 19th and early 20th century was he viewed as more than just a tyrant. He was trying to build an empire, had he of been successful its possible he could of become either the most hated man in all of history if he was a bad leader or one of the most admired if he treated all the people under his dominion fairly.
Nationalism was a means to an end, it helped him gain allies in order to overthrow governments but in the end it back fired because if they dont want to be part of someone elses empire why would they want to be part of yours.
He may have a legacy of being a brilliant tactician, but at the end of the day like Hannibal of Carthage he was a failed tactician he won many battles but ultimately lost the war for this reason he will be forgotten long before the names and triumphs of the empires of his enemies. For this reason in a few centuries when Napoleon’s legacy has faded away people will not remember the name Napoleon but they will still know the name Caesar.
What I meant when I said he failed spectacularly was that he failed on a grand scale, it all came down to one decisive battle that could of decided the fate of the entire world and he lost.
During individual battles and even overall campaigns Napoleon was shown to be a brilliant leader and commander but he let ambition get in the way of logistics for instance a winter war against the Russians was never going to be won.
As far as the British making him fight defensive wars I dont really think that is the case, Napoleon was stirring up trouble all over Britains empire, in India, Canada and the former colony of the United States. Napoleon made the mistake of thinking he could defeat the British in a global war and win the war against the kingdoms of Europe much like Hitler he made the mistake of fighting the war on too many fronts with limited resources.
Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe.
How did that concept work out in 1815 when he took power back in france?
How bout his heirs who he planted like flowers with nothing but the same name… Napoleon… to legitimize their control of their offices?
@Imperious:
Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe.
How did that concept work out in 1815 when he took power back in france?
How bout his heirs who he planted like flowers with nothing but the same name… Napoleon… to legitimize their control of their offices?
When Napoleon came back into power in 1815, he was welcomed with open arms by both the army and populace. It was very clear that the French people perfered their Emperor over the pitiful Bourbons whom the Allies had plopped back on the throne after Napoleon’s fall in 1814. Napoleon told the other countries that he had no intentions of re-gaining territories and would agree to any proposal on borders, even to that of 1789.
How did the Coalition respond? They mobilized 800,000 men for a hate-filled anti-French crusade to remove the “outlaw” and force the French people to accept a government they clearly did not want. Even in the British government there was much resentment for how this new “Seventh Coalition” was acting against France. It was unprovoked, and Napoleon was forced to go to war for the last time.
Wait, what? Where you are getting he put his “heirs” anywhere? The only “heir” he had was Napoleon II, King of Rome, who was born in 1810, far too young to rule anything of any sort! If you mean his family members, why not? The new nobility Napoleon made was made out of a imperial nobility based on merit, not on royal birth or “divine right”. Monarchs and kings ruled because they were good at it, not because God told them to. Napoleon would not tolerate inefficiency and corruption within his nation, later Empire. Even with the Continental Blockade going on trade improved in the Continent, roads were paved, and while many resented French rule, the majority did not.
Take Joseph Bonaparte for example, who was King of Naples for a while. He introduced the Napoleonic Code (legal rights, freedom of practice of religion, etc.) improved the infrastructure, opened up schools, and was largely admired by the Napalese people. Even when Napoleon made him King of Spain he gave the country its first constitution and did the same thing he did in Naples. The problem was, the Spanish people would not accept a French ruler.
And he did not just plop them on random thrones: they were always put there at the consent of the governed peoples in question. And not all of the leaders he put were from his family.
