I’m not saying the threat is unjustified. I’m just saying that it is about as justified as the British threat to burn Lisbon.
An invasion of Portugal does not mean that the French will simply pillage and plunder and burn its way through the countryside. Napoleon despised that sort of horrifying way of waging war first off, and when he occupied Portugal he did not threaten to burn a defenseless city. The British directly threatened to burn Lisbon, which is not the same as conducting an invasion. Anything can happen in an “invasion”.
Plus, as I had stated, the Royal Navy’s record wasn’t exactly clean before that, what with bombarding Copenhagen TWICE in 1801 and 1807 and seizing the Danish fleet.
Well, Napoleon threatened to invade Portugal which is arguably just as bad.
Why didn’t he?
@Dylan:
Well, Napoleon threatened to invade Portugal which is arguably just as bad.
Why didn’t he?
France and Spain did invade Portugal, but did not burn and bombard it, as the British navy had threatened to do with Lisbon.
haha
even better
Napoleon invaded russia 23th of June, Hitler the 22th XD
@Frontovik:
haha
even better
Napoleon invaded russia 23th of June, Hitler the 22th XD
Rather it be June than December 23!
Napoleon invaded russia 23th of June, Hitler the 22th XD
That just proves they were reincarnations of each other. They make the same moves and get the same results.
@Imperious:
Napoleon invaded russia 23th of June, Hitler the 22th XD
That just proves they were reincarnations of each other. They make the same moves and get the same results.
Why would that prove anything about reincarnations? June is simply the best time to invade a country like Russia. Or perhaps Hitler studied Napoleon’s invasion and placed it around the same date for whatever deluded reason.
Also, the original date for Barbarossa was to be May 15, 1941. They invaded Russia for two entirely different reasons, one was right to invade, the other invading merely for “living space”.
And another thing: the French invaded on the 24th.
UN, I have a somewhat unrelated question. After Trafalgar, why couldn’t Britain amphibiously invade France?
UN, I have a somewhat unrelated question. After Trafalgar, why couldn’t Britain amphibiously invade France?
Well, having failed in its attempts in 1793 and 1799, Napoleon was pretty confident they wouldn’t try to invade Holland or France anytime soon. There were 40,000 men of the 3rd and Depot battalions of the Grande Armee stationed in France, strengthened by a further 30,000 National Guards and conscripts. The British Army was spread all across the Empire; Canada, India, in Sicily as well. In 1793 its strength was barely 40,000 and by 1805 little had changed of that number (though by 1813 the Army was up to about 250,000). And on the other side of the coin the British spent much of its military spending on the Royal Navy.
Actually, if the French had successfully invaded Britain, I doubt the British Army would have been able to defeat it in an up-front battle. Sure, the Royal Navy might cut them off, but Napoleon made the necessary plans for the Grande Armee to survive independently for quite an extended period of time before it required supplies in England.
Ah yes, its army is, as usual, way inferior to its navy.
Ah yes, its army is, as usual, way inferior to its navy.
Quite. But by 1813 and 1814 it had improved remarkably, filled with veterans of the Peninsular War. Plus, the British Army was one of the only, if not THE only, Army to have not suffered a major defeat by Napoleon.
@UN:
Ah yes, its army is, as usual, way inferior to its navy.
Quite. But by 1813 and 1814 it had improved remarkably, filled with veterans of the Peninsular War. Plus, the British Army was one of the only, if not THE only, Army to have not suffered a major defeat by Napoleon.
Probably because it hadn’t fought on land yet until Waterloo? Is there any other major battle involving the British army?
@UN:
Ah yes, its army is, as usual, way inferior to its navy.
Quite. But by 1813 and 1814 it had improved remarkably, filled with veterans of the Peninsular War. Plus, the British Army was one of the only, if not THE only, Army to have not suffered a major defeat by Napoleon.
Probably because it hadn’t fought on land yet until Waterloo? Is there any other major battle involving the British army?
Well, you had the constant rebellions and quarrels going on in India (which is actually what Wellington was doing before he got involved in Spain), you had the War of 1812, and I recall the British being expelled from Buenos Aires by the Spanish sometime in 1804 or 1805, can’t remember when specifically.
None of which were against Napoleon.
Spain was invaded in 1805, right?
None of which were against Napoleon.
True. I had thought you just asked broadly during that time.
Spain was invaded in 1805, right?
1808. Although again, it wasn’t so much “invaded” as it was the Peninsular War basically just spontaneously erupted, as the French Army was already in Spain and Portugal.
Could you also summarize his argument as to why he thinks Napoleon died by deliberate arsenic poisoning? I looked this up and it seems that the arsenic in his hair could have come from his wallpaper
Could you also summarize his argument as to why he thinks Napoleon died by deliberate arsenic poisoning? I looked this up and it seems that the arsenic in his hair could have come from his wallpaper
I suggest you read this article: Here It goes into how exactly he was poisoned, who poisoned him, and disproves the theories of the arsenic coming from the walls or shaving cream.
I wish I could give you the short and sweet summary, but I’m not quite sure how to do that; if you want to understand why Ben Weider, Sten Forshufvud, me, and many others believe he died of arsenic poisoning you’ll have to get the full story. It’s not too big of a read, the page just seems big because the article is just sliced up into smaller fragments of writing. Plus, I think Weider made it as short as sweet as he could to the best of his ability.
Ignore the writing in the box, that’s just the introduction of all of the articles Weider writes. Start at “…THE PURSUIT OF FACTUAL DETAIL
IS THE RELIGION OF PERFECTION”
So what to make of http://www.livescience.com/history/080212-napoleon-not-poisoned.html then?
So what to make of http://www.livescience.com/history/080212-napoleon-not-poisoned.html then?
That article does not explain why Napoleon’s arsenic levels showed highs and lows while he was on St. Helena. In fact it’s pretty vague, period. For example:
The other surprise was that there were no significant differences in arsenic levels between when Napoleon was a boy and during his final days in Saint Helena.
If that’s true, where’s the proof? The link I showed you had a graph, along with an official statement from the FBI saying that the hair samples are indeed from someone having died from deliberate arsenic poisoning.
According to the researchers, including toxicologists who participated in the study, it is evident that this was not a case of poisoning but instead the result of the constant absorption of arsenic.
Which is a blatant lie, otherwise the arsenic levels of the Emperor from 1816-1821 would have been constant, and they were not.
I really want to know more about the testing of these Italian scientists, but because that article is vague and broad in its findings I can only say that it was a pretty weak experiment compared to the amount of testing and research done by Dr. Sten Forshufvud and Ben Weider.
@ABWorsham:
Napoleon helped created modern Europe. His conquest spread the ideas of the French Revolution. His occupation of Europe caused the spread of nationalism.
Which ironically led to his downfall as the German states turned against him
Napoleon was a great military leader, and certainly did want to spread the ideas of revolutionary France. Napoleon broke the back of the socalled ‘Holy Roman Empire’ and wanted to end feudalism and serfdom in Europe. Todays legal system in most of Europe is based on parts of the ‘code Napoleon’.
He had his flaws though, he was poor at diplomacy (he was used to dealing with vassals which didn’t help in his negotiating with Alexander), he didn’t want to recognize Spanish and particularly German nationalism and was also personally ambitious for himself and liked to place cronies or brothers on thrones instead of making all republics. The old order was against him because he had overthrown them, and the liberals and progressives ended up disliking him for not taking the ideas of the revolution further.
Hitler’s legacy? I can’t really think of a single positive thing.
