Posts made by UN Spacy

Why do I keep visiting this forum if I told myself I’d divert attention from anything relating to A&A to pass the time?!?!

@calvinhobbesliker:

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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

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.”

@calvinhobbesliker:

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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

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.

@Razor:

Similarities between Hitler and Napoleon:

1. They wanted to reinstate slavery

Napoleon did not “want” to reinstate slavery in Haiti. It’s important to remember that at that time, France had already been dealing with a slave rebellion in the colony of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) when Napoleon became head of state. Toussaint Louverture had led the island in an uprising and seized power. Bonaparte at first agreed to have Toussaint’s nation a sort of Protectorat, and named him captain general in March 1801. Very quickly, however, Toussaint was very violent and dictatorial, which endangered the colony. A French force landed on the island in January 1802 to stabilize the situation.

So the key here is not to know the outcome of this affair, but the conditions that made the intervention happen. The French navy, which controlled the colonies, recommended the expedition. Sugar and coffee traders pressed Bonaparte to reestablish slavery, abolishing the convention of 1794. He refused.

So in the spring of 1802 the situation shifted to the Antilles. The Treaty of Amiens, signed on March 25, 1802 with Britain, gave back France Martinique and Guadeloupe.

So THAT was the problem. Because the British had occupied it, Martinique had not benefited from the previous abolition measure. The competition between the two islands had been shifted to Guadeloupe’s disadvantage, to the point of provoking a collapse in production and an extremely serious social crisis that was resolved with much difficulty.

Bonaparte’s first thought was to give it in turn the benefits of abolition. The navy and business circles was strongly against this. The neighboring British colonies had remained slave economies, and so the same cause would produce the same ill-fated effects in Martinique. Bonaparte therefore tried to find a solution by maintaining the status quo on Martinique, but the Senate vetoed this in the same of the sacrosanct “republican” equality.

So Napoleon found himself with a terrible dilemma, a choice between cholera and the plague, between misery in economic chaos and a return to some form of slavery. He shouldered his responsibilities as a statesman and chose the 2nd decision advocated by the government.

Can one in good faith criticize Napoleon for having chosen the lesser evil? He is less guilty of slavery than the king of England or the tsar of Russia, who did not abolish slavery in their colonies or serfdom in Europe. Napoleon at least suppressed serfdom in Poland in 1807, and during 1815 he proposed to abolish slavery.

As for Guadeloupe, Bonaparte shared the responsibility for this decision with the representatives of the people who voted without soul-searching to reestablish slavery.

2.

They plundered conquered nations

“Plundered” means two very different things to them. Hitler “plundered” by trying to erase the Polish culture and establish German colonization of Eastern Europe. Napoleon “plundered” in 1796 on the explicit orders of his government, while he was in command of the Army of Italy. Even then, he made sure to take only what he was authorized to. Further, Napoleon sought to minimze the damage of war: during the siege of Mantua he proposed that all artistic monuments in the town, along with the university, should be protected by an agreed flag. (No, he did not do that just to take them for his government when the fortress fell: they were never removed.)

3. They startet wars against England and Russia

Britain violated the Treaty of Amiens while Bonaparte abided by every clause of the treaty. Even within the British government there was opposition to Britain’s war-like intentions.  From 1803 to 1815, every conflict in Europe all stemmed from the war with Britain, which it started alone. As for Russia: Hitler made an alliance with with the Soviets so as not to fight her too early and to give him a free hand in Western Europe. The USSR also got half of Poland in the deal, something the Russians have always wanted. Napoleon, on the other hand, wanted to turn Russia into a staunch ally, and that is something that Tsar Alexander would never be. Hitler abruptly invaded the USSR on June 22, 1941. Napoleon did not. Alexander decided on war with France as early as 1810 and Napoleon’s plans went far beyond a sudden invasion.

4. They were atheists and anti-Christs

Napoleon was not atheist. If that was the case, he would not have completed a Concordat with the Pope and he would not have tried to re-establish religion in France after it was turned on its ear in the Revolution. He was raised Catholic and throughout his life believed in a supreme being. He was not as religious as many heads of state were at that time, but that doesn’t mean he was atheist.

Anti-Christs? I could never take Nostradamus seriously. He was a mad prophet, nothing more. He got just as many things wrong as he got right (and he only got those things right because he was being very broad).

5. They were killed by poison, Napoleon by arsenic and Hitler by cyanid.

This I can agree on. Napoleon was indeed murdered by someone within his own entourage (not the British, despite what already displeased French historians don’t believe)

They were born in other countries than they would become rulers. Napoleon in Corsica/France, Hitler in Austria/Germany.

Napoleon was born a French subject, as Corscia was French at that time. Hitler was born in Austria, in a foreign country, not pat of the German Empire.

6. They were both evil and murdered millions.

If Napoleon was evil, why is the Napoleonic Code considered one of the most widespread legal documents in existance? It’s even in effect to modified forms in the Canadian province of Quebec and the state of Louisiana! It’s the basis of law for much of Western Europe. Why would European governments base their laws based off of an “evil” man? What lasting achievements did Hitler leave behind?

As for him killing millions: I tire of repeating myself. Napoleon was not the sole instigator of the Napoleonic Wars. Britain murdered when it bombarded Copenhagen (twice!) in 1800 and 1807.

7. They had funny hats

Napoleon’s bicorne hat wasn’t considered funny at that time. What funny hat did Hitler have?  :?

8. They were racists

See above on Haiti. Napoleon was not racist: he did not try to prove that the “French race” was superior to all others and deemed worthy of ruling Europe. He liberated the Jews and emancipated the Poles. To whom was he racist towards?

9. They ruined the old order and shaped Europa

Napoleon took no part in the early years of the French Revolution that “ruined the old order”. When he became head of state in 1799 he inherited not only the Revolution, but the wars that followed it. Hitler was a monster and established state sponsored, assembly line murder that destroyed over eleven million innocent souls. When he came to power he also abolished civil rights, destroyed the Weimar Republic, which was a fledgling democracy, and ruled by decree. Napoleon guaranteed the social gains of the Revolution upon assuming power in 1799 (having replaced the unpopular, corrupt, and inefficient Directory). Wherever French rule ran, there was basic civil rights, freedom of religion, an end to serfdom and feudalism, and equality before the law. The French republic was not a democracy, and the modern idea of democracy was not in existence in 1799, not in the United States or Great Britain either.

10. They were great architects and build lots of monuments.

Napoleon built harbors, roads, canals, drained swamps, introduced smallpox vaccine to the continent, built no new palaces, though he did build memorials to the Grande Armee.

11. They were both 5’something tall

Nothing wrong with that. Most people are 5’something tall.

12. They were born on mondays, and died on wednesdays

facepalm

Well, I just hope the mods doesn’t view this as developing into a flame war. I’m just giving my points. No personal insults have flung around, especially not to good ol’ Razor  :-D

@calvinhobbesliker:

Hmm, apparently I misunderstood the situation. Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty, for good reasons. You may argue that the harsh treaty of Versailles didn’t justify the German annexation of Czechoslovakia. I agree that Britain and France should’ve gone to war then. Just like the people of Austria wanted to become German, the people of Malta wanted to stay British.

You take Wiki with a grain of salt? Take your own book with the White Cliffs of Dover.

I do not, because Ben Weider cannot be edited at will, nor does Vincent Cronin or R.F. Delderfield. Unlike Wikipedia their books are far more well sourced and from people that are experts in the field. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a Napoleonic expert.

Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty**, for good reasons.**

:?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Both sided violated that treaty, which led to war(sort of like the Treaty of Versailles)

Here is what wikipedia says: However, many problems persisted between the two sides, making implementation of the treaty increasingly difficult. The British government resented having to turn over all colonial conquests since 1793. Napoleon was angry that British troops had not evacuated the island of Malta.  The tense situation only worsened when Napoleon sent an expeditionary force to crush the Haitian Revolution.  In May 1803, Britain declared war on France.

Napoleon did not violate the Treaty of Amiens in any way. Him sending troops to Haiti had nothing to do with the Treaty. One of the major clauses of the treaty was for Britain to evacuate Malta,  while French troops were to be evacuated from Naples, Taranto and the Roman states within three months; they left in under two. Months passed and Britain still had not evacuated Malta.

So excuse after excuse was thrown out by Britain for their justification of violating the Treaty:

-Bonaparte sending troops to Haiti (which I explained above)
-France annexing Piedmont (Piedmont was willingly annexed; Bonaparte invited its king to return to the throne but he declined; fearing a power vacumn being filled by Austria, Napoleon simply annexed it, which satisfied the Piedmontese)
-France having troops in Holland (that was under a separate treaty, the Treaty of Luneville, not Amiens; plus Napoleon had promised to evacuate but as Britain prepared for war he kept them there)
-France having troops in Switzerland (again, not part of the Treaty of Amiens: and how did French troops in Switzerland directly threaten an invasion of Britain?)

Take everything you see on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Everything I posted above is sourced from books and the online chronological table by Ben Weider.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, the Napoleonic Code didn’t have equality for women. Yes, it was better that other European countries’ though.

Unfortunately it did not. But Napoleon opened schools for education for girls, whereas in that time they’re usually homeschooled and taught by their mother.

So you agree that the coalitions were DEFENSIVE. What’s wrong with that? Do you prefer them to let their countries get invaded.

What’s wrong with it is that people assume that every war Napoleon fought was sheerly because out of a maniacal lust to conquer and plunder. Napoleon, after the Treaty of Amiens with Britain, never had any intentions of invading any more countries: he was far too pressed to rebuilding France from more than a decade of war, internal strife, and violent Revolution. The British government, unfortunately, had other plans.

@Imperious:

This will be my first gencon

Please take good pictures and post them on this site ASAP.  Many hundreds of rabid, info-starved fans are counting on you.

Fixed.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@UN:

All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.

i dont think biased info+biased info = actual info.

Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.

I mean I think we can leave it at: 1.Napoleon didnt murder millions of people 2. Napoleon’s ideals were at the very least no more absurd than those of his enemies.

Otherwise, like Julius Ceaser and many more before them they were both great conquerors though their ambition and confidence got the better of them.

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?

Well, I guess you can argue that Russia started that war since they pulled out from the continental system.

It’s a little more complicated than Russia simply pulling from the continental system. I could PM you a little more detailed reason if you’d like.

Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.

He was a major reason why it began however. Nazi aggression into Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland might have been influenced from the harsh Treaty of Versailles, but it is not the same as Napoleon fighting a series of defensive coalitions instigated by Britain.

To those who might want to see the other side of the coin of Napoleon, instead of being spoonfed that he “loved war” and was a bloodthirsty tyrant, I invite you to read several books, both by a man named Ben Weider who was legendary in his knowledge of Napoleon. He was also one of the strong advocates that Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning (which is true).

-Napoleon: the Man Who Shaped Europe
-Wars Against Napoleon: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars

And also this: CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON

All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.

@Zhukov44:

Hitler probably enjoyed being compared to Napoleon….no reason to hold that against Napoleon…

Both men were short, both men conquered Europe, both men engaged in prolonged war with United Kingdom, and for both men, their greatest error was trying to conquer Russia.

Hitler was 5’9. Napoleon was 5’6. =|

Also, it is very hard to provide any evidence that Hitler was not responsible for WWII, but it can be debated that Napoleon never started any war, even the invasion of Russia. I could debate it here, but that’s not the point; the point is people can argue that Britain started the Napoleonic Wars just as easily as saying Napoleon did (and, to be honest, the evidence is against Britain).

@Wilson2:

@UN:

The total cost of Europe 1940 for me from Coolstuffinc or whatever it’s called is $119.

Know why? I paid 50 more bucks for Next Day Air.

Could those 50 bucks have been spent on something else? Probably. Do I care? No.

You are crazy. Use those $50 to buy a six flags or sea world season’s pass and spend a couple days there waiting for your game. Or, save those $50 for AA50 which I am still selling (By the way, I live in San Antonio so shipping should be a lot less if you live in Austin than the Rhode Island I originally supposed.)

Meh.

Or.

Or.

I could use it to pay for Next Day Air for AAE1940.

I think the Indians in World War II are underrated. Most WWII armchair generals assume that they were just low-quality soldiers who were sent in as cannon fodder.

Horse dung. If that was true a lot more Indians would have died in WWII.

Note: I am aware that this forum is for everthing “non-political”. I’m not sure if this counts as political, since it’s more historical than anything else. If the mods deem this inappropriate and thinks it might turn into a huge flame war (which I will do everything to make sure it won’t), then by all means padlock it.

This seriously makes my blood boil everytime someone tells me that Napoleon and Hitler were alike in many, many ways. I think this is a steaming load. Let me quote something from an awesome book, The Campaigns of Napoleon, in lieu of my own ranting.

Since the 1940s it has been fashionable in some quarters to compared Napoleon with Hitler. Nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter. The comparison is odious. On the whole Napoleon was inspired by a noble dream, wholly dissimilar from Hitler’s vaunted but stillborn “New Order”. Napoleon left great and lasting testimonies to his genius–-in codes of law and national identities which survive to the present day. Adolf Hitler left nothing but destruction. In certain aspects, the two do bear some resemblances. Both climbed to power through the use of opportunity in an unsettled period…both overthrew an older society…but there the resemblance ends. Even though it is difficult to form an objective view of Hitler in our own time, there can be no doubt that he was not case in the same mold as Napoleon.

Despite flashes of lucky intuition, Hitler was no soldier. Hitler’s most lasting perverted achievement for which he will always be remembered to the end of history was genocide; Napoleon will always be regarded as a commander of genius and the creator of modern Europe…

Now, I’m a convinced admierer of Napoleon: I believe he never started any of the wars that bear his name (wargamers and a good chunk of historians would drop their monocle at this atrocious statement; Napoleon SURELY was responsible for the Napoleonic Wars! After all, it has his name in it!..), and that he was a positive force in history. The author is right: Napoleon never tried to exterminate people based on their religion or creed (actually, at a time when Jews were prosecuted and forced to live in ghettos in Europe, Napoleon gave them freedom of religion and the freedom to get real jobs), and his dream was to create, in essence, an early European Union. Hitler’s plans were…well, I don’t need to go further.

So I ask: why do people make these ludicrous comparisons between Napoleon and Hitler, who were two completely different people? One was good (although many might disagree and say that he was at least a “good bad man”, one was evil: one is considered the father of modern Europe, one is considered as the scourge of modern Europe. One gave people a unified legal code and basic human rights, the other almost wiped an entire nationality off the map (Poland). These might seem like broad statements; the author did make some convincing resemblances. Regardless, they are small and irrelevant.

@reloader-1:

UN Spacy - trust me on this. Cancel your order and order 2. They send the stuff UPS ground, and they are right outside the UPS depot, so it arrives normally the same time that Next Day Air would arrive (especially if you live east of Kansas)

I actually live in Austin, Texas. I’m just on vacation in Rhode Island right now :B

The total cost of Europe 1940 for me from Coolstuffinc or whatever it’s called is $119.

Know why? I paid 50 more bucks for Next Day Air.

Could those 50 bucks have been spent on something else? Probably. Do I care? No.

I’m so excited for this game, I’ll probably buy four copies.

/Random interjection

@Axisgirl:

Italy is using the German fighter mold. I can get around that by painting some luffetwaffe from the 2004 set.

And no The French tank is a Sherman. Trust me.

:|