Napoleon by far had the biggest impact on Europe
- Thread starter Supercar120
- Start date
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
OK, Supernap
, if you are going to try to copycat my debating phrases (not a bad idea in itself ) reviewing with some care the relevant hard evidence is a must ; otherwise, you would be just wasting your time (e.g., now )For example, no one with the minimal knowledge on European history could ignore that several of the aforementioned nations were indeed lifelong traditional enemies of each other; no exactly classified stuff, you know.
BTW, guess you are not too well informed on what a "revisonist" exactly is, right?
And of course, I don't hate Monsieur Buonaparte, and repeating such lie ad nauseam is not going to change the facts.
Amazing as it may sound, I'm just not any blind radical fan; that's all
.
Joined Mar 2012
69 Posts | 0+
I don't have much time these days so for a longer reply you'll have to wait...
But I agree with Sylla here (whose name reminds me strangely of a guy named Sulla), he neither me are Napoleon haters. We simply try to put a more objective and nuanced and a more academic version of the Napoleonic history while some people here are blatantly worshipping Napoleon.
I don't understand how any historian, history student or other academic could worship a historical figure like that and still claim to be close to historical reality (for as far as that exists of course).
Like I said before, it's ahistorical to award historical figures with prizes such as most influential, but it's even more ahistorical to worship historical figures and creating myths about them. I have not seen a single note of objectivity towards Napoleon from his die-hard worshippers here. Some people here pretend as if everything he did was good for all the people of the world (yes of course, what politician/soldier/dictator wasn't doing it for ''the people'' in history?). Everytime I hear all these myths going around that all current European states are based on Napoleon's legacy...
False! That's a myth created in the late 19th and 20th century by new democratic governments and institutions who needed to legitimize the new democratic order. Legitmization is always accompanied by generating a sense of tradition (according to history philosophers such as John Tosh). The emperors of Europe always saw themselves as the continuation of Roman emperors, European empires always saw their capital as the continuation of Rome and so on.
Why do you think that the new democratic systems named some of their parliaments ''Senate''? The Roman senate was not democratic, it wasn't even a legislative body. It was the advisory organ of the Roman nobility to the emperor. But the democracy needed to be justified as it wasn't simply embraced by everyone (look at the elites who blocked most reforms, but also look at the lower classes in for example the Weimar Republic). Just like the fairy tale that Napoleon formed the basis of all our European constitutions.
The fundamental human rights that our Napoleon worshippers say were put in our constitution by Napoleon were not exactly his idea. Soon after the French revolution of 1789, a list of basic human rights was adopted by the French government: equality before the law, separation of state and church, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc.
Napoleon put it in another code (as it was tradition in chaotic France to bring out new constitutions almost every year - and to some extent, that is perfectly normal in a country undergoing a revolution) but that doesn't mean Napoleon is the architect.
Second to that, the French constitutions were largely inspired by the Bill of Rights. The German, or Prussians designed their own constitutions by drawing from the inspirations of their own liberal and enlightened thinkers and here it comes Jeroen: the Dutch constitution of 1848 had nothing to do with what Napoleon brought the Netherlands in 1798, the Brittish had a constitutional tradition long before Napoleon was even born and also in Spain nothing reminds of Napoleon's constitutions.
Oh and btw Jeroen, you constantly come back at me with 1848 being the magical year that Napoleon, while dead for 30 years, still brought down the kings of Europe. Well yes, Metternich retired after 1848. Can you name, besides the French king, 1 other monarch who was deposed in 1848?
You probably can't, as although 1848 is called the year of revolutions, it should actually be called the year of revolts or uprisings. Nothing permanent was achieved. All the monarchs remained in power, and although forced to adopt consitutions - most constitutions and reforms were abolished a few years later.
And to this end, Napoleon sure has fascinated many people enough to write thousands of books about him. That doesn't make him the most important person - simply the most fascinating one - I admit, Napoleon is a military genius and also he remains a mystery due to his contradicting policies. In 200 years Hitler will have beaten Napoleon.
I also wonder... for such a great God that Napoleon is - the man who shaped all of modern Europe and the man who gave us all liberty according to our worshippers: where are the statues of Napoleon? When I was in Paris, I couldn't find one. Pretty weird for a man claimed to be the father of Europe. Even Marx has more statues in Germany.
So I hope this might convince some people to stop worshipping Napoleon as a hero who couldn't do wrong. This way, you also lose your credibility as a historian.
But I agree with Sylla here (whose name reminds me strangely of a guy named Sulla
), he neither me are Napoleon haters. We simply try to put a more objective and nuanced and a more academic version of the Napoleonic history while some people here are blatantly worshipping Napoleon.I don't understand how any historian, history student or other academic could worship a historical figure like that and still claim to be close to historical reality (for as far as that exists of course).
Like I said before, it's ahistorical to award historical figures with prizes such as most influential, but it's even more ahistorical to worship historical figures and creating myths about them. I have not seen a single note of objectivity towards Napoleon from his die-hard worshippers here. Some people here pretend as if everything he did was good for all the people of the world (yes of course, what politician/soldier/dictator wasn't doing it for ''the people'' in history?). Everytime I hear all these myths going around that all current European states are based on Napoleon's legacy...
False! That's a myth created in the late 19th and 20th century by new democratic governments and institutions who needed to legitimize the new democratic order. Legitmization is always accompanied by generating a sense of tradition (according to history philosophers such as John Tosh). The emperors of Europe always saw themselves as the continuation of Roman emperors, European empires always saw their capital as the continuation of Rome and so on.
Why do you think that the new democratic systems named some of their parliaments ''Senate''? The Roman senate was not democratic, it wasn't even a legislative body. It was the advisory organ of the Roman nobility to the emperor. But the democracy needed to be justified as it wasn't simply embraced by everyone (look at the elites who blocked most reforms, but also look at the lower classes in for example the Weimar Republic). Just like the fairy tale that Napoleon formed the basis of all our European constitutions.
The fundamental human rights that our Napoleon worshippers say were put in our constitution by Napoleon were not exactly his idea. Soon after the French revolution of 1789, a list of basic human rights was adopted by the French government: equality before the law, separation of state and church, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc.
Napoleon put it in another code (as it was tradition in chaotic France to bring out new constitutions almost every year - and to some extent, that is perfectly normal in a country undergoing a revolution) but that doesn't mean Napoleon is the architect.
Second to that, the French constitutions were largely inspired by the Bill of Rights. The German, or Prussians designed their own constitutions by drawing from the inspirations of their own liberal and enlightened thinkers and here it comes Jeroen: the Dutch constitution of 1848 had nothing to do with what Napoleon brought the Netherlands in 1798, the Brittish had a constitutional tradition long before Napoleon was even born and also in Spain nothing reminds of Napoleon's constitutions.
Oh and btw Jeroen, you constantly come back at me with 1848 being the magical year that Napoleon, while dead for 30 years, still brought down the kings of Europe. Well yes, Metternich retired after 1848. Can you name, besides the French king, 1 other monarch who was deposed in 1848?
You probably can't, as although 1848 is called the year of revolutions, it should actually be called the year of revolts or uprisings. Nothing permanent was achieved. All the monarchs remained in power, and although forced to adopt consitutions - most constitutions and reforms were abolished a few years later.
And to this end, Napoleon sure has fascinated many people enough to write thousands of books about him. That doesn't make him the most important person - simply the most fascinating one - I admit, Napoleon is a military genius and also he remains a mystery due to his contradicting policies. In 200 years Hitler will have beaten Napoleon.
I also wonder... for such a great God that Napoleon is - the man who shaped all of modern Europe and the man who gave us all liberty according to our worshippers: where are the statues of Napoleon? When I was in Paris, I couldn't find one. Pretty weird for a man claimed to be the father of Europe. Even Marx has more statues in Germany.
So I hope this might convince some people to stop worshipping Napoleon as a hero who couldn't do wrong. This way, you also lose your credibility as a historian.
Joined Dec 2009
2,847 Posts | 1+
rangiora
You are delusional. There is no 'blatant worshipping of Napoleon' going on. What I see is people defending the man from misguided criticisms and ill-informed speculations - from people who have only a threadbare understanding of the man and his times.
Joined Nov 2009
3,901 Posts | 56+
Outer world
In 1792 France was invaded, because of its conquests and revolution, then it follows the Campaign in Italy and Egypt (1796-1799), then we have Marengo and the 2nd Coalition is won and we have the traties of Luneville andn Amiens.
In 1803 UK attacked France again, in 1805 Austria and Russia declared war again.
In 1806 is Prussia which tried to defeat Napoleon while Russia is finally defeated in 1807.
NONE of this war was waged by Napoleon himself, he never invaded beforehand or attacked preventively.
Then we have Spain, here it is his fault and I admitted it.
In 1809 Austria overcame the Inn river and it was war.
Invasion of Russia was another fault of Napoleon as I said, 1813 and 1814 wars which followed can directly be connected with French defeat in Russia.
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
Lifelong traditional enemies, such as when Prussia, Austria and Russia divided Poland amongst themselves three times? Or when Russia allied with Austria against Frederick's Prussia? This all happened mere decades before the Revolution, when they again allied with eachother, before Napoleon.
There's some hard evidence for ya, buddy.
Joined Mar 2012
69 Posts | 0+
Well get your facts straight: so far I've only used facts to support my views on Napoleon. You can call me delusional - but the previous posts clearly prove that at least some here try to maintain the myth that Napoleon was worshipped by all the French people and that he was so great that everything he did was purely good without having one bit of historical evidence for that.
What do you have as proof that i am being delusional and irrational? So far, I have not seen you contributing anything relevant besides these unsupported claims like ''you are delusional''.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
And that's the way you use such nice elementary school evidence, SuperNap?
The fiercely contested partition of a corpse in their mutual borders as a sign of perpetual friendship between those three powers?
In your own words, even for the standards of any radical fan, you must be joking.
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
As a side note, there's a good reason for that.But I agree with Sylla here (whose name reminds me strangely of a guy named Sulla
Both are valid alternative orthographic variants of the cognomen of the Roman family within the Cornelia Gens which included the (in)famous happy pseudo-dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.
"Sulla" is the proper direct Latin transcription, "Sylla" comes from the Latin re-transcription of the Greek transcription Σύλλας, often used because the main Classical sources on this fascinating character wrote in Greek, especially Appian of Alexandria and LM Plutarchus.
In romance languages several transcriptions might be found: Sula, Sila, Silla and so on.
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
How can you believe this? To say Napoleon caused all the wars that were imposed on him because he bullied Europe is just ridiculous. How did he put this bullying into action then? To my knowledge he even offered peace to the King of GB, but because of British arrogance and hate for this revolution they refused it.
Then in 1806 when Prussia decided to wage war on Napoleon again an example of non-Napoleonic aggresion, but aggresion from the side of Prussia. Yes Napoleon formed the confederation of the Rhine which annoyed Prussia, but remember that these territories were officialy under the Holy Roman Emperor and since Napoleon had defeated Francis II in 1805 after he decided to join the coalition with England and Russia, Napoleon was thus perfectly allowed to demand safe (by him controlled) borders. Remember that the function of the confederation of the Rhine was to be a buffer state against Austrian aggresion.
But still it doesn't give any just justification for Prussia to declare war on France in 1806. Frederick William III didn't even want war, but was convinced by his wife and war party (which also says a lot).
The war that continued in 1807 against Russia was nothing more then a continuation of the war that started in 1804 where Russia decided to join Britain in it's war against France.
So you see Sylla until 1808 when Napoleon started his campaign into Spain, Napoleon was always attacked first and gave a reaction second.
Also this sentence: ''And amazing as it may sound, the coalitions against Monsieur Buonaparte virtually always involved traditional fierce mutual enemies (e.g. Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia and so on);''
Since when did these powers always ally with eachother? Were it not Austria and Prussia who aided Napoleon in his campaign in Russia?
Also Napoleon never conquered the whole of Europe. Know your facts ;p.
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
And of course, I don't hate Monsieur Buonaparte, and repeating such lie ad nauseam is not going to change the facts.
Amazing as it may sound, I'm just not any blind radical fan; that's all
Well Sylla I always feel a sense of hate in all your comments about Napoleon. The fact that you call him Monsieur Buonaparte already says a lot.
Furthermore, to call a historian or at least a scholar or someone who is fascinated by Napoleonic history a blind radical fan is rather insensative and wrong. Look I am honoust, yes the man fascinates me and I think in the end he did more good then bad, but I will never regard him as a demi-god or saviour or anything in that sort. But from all European political leaders in Europe he achieved the most, with the lowest chances and the biggest legacy. But please stop using the term ''radical fan'' it's really unjust and kind of insensative and perhaps even a bit immature.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Sorry, I was a bit busy http://www.historum.com/lounge/39543-huge-earthquake-rigth-now-mexico.html#post972811
Were you saying ... ???
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
I don't have much time these days so for a longer reply you'll have to wait...
But I agree with Sylla here (whose name reminds me strangely of a guy named Sulla
I don't understand how any historian, history student or other academic could worship a historical figure like that and still claim to be close to historical reality (for as far as that exists of course).
Like I said before, it's ahistorical to award historical figures with prizes such as most influential, but it's even more ahistorical to worship historical figures and creating myths about them. I have not seen a single note of objectivity towards Napoleon from his die-hard worshippers here. Some people here pretend as if everything he did was good for all the people of the world (yes of course, what politician/soldier/dictator wasn't doing it for ''the people'' in history?). Everytime I hear all these myths going around that all current European states are based on Napoleon's legacy...
False! That's a myth created in the late 19th and 20th century by new democratic governments and institutions who needed to legitimize the new democratic order. Legitmization is always accompanied by generating a sense of tradition (according to history philosophers such as John Tosh). The emperors of Europe always saw themselves as the continuation of Roman emperors, European empires always saw their capital as the continuation of Rome and so on.
Why do you think that the new democratic systems named some of their parliaments ''Senate''? The Roman senate was not democratic, it wasn't even a legislative body. It was the advisory organ of the Roman nobility to the emperor. But the democracy needed to be justified as it wasn't simply embraced by everyone (look at the elites who blocked most reforms, but also look at the lower classes in for example the Weimar Republic). Just like the fairy tale that Napoleon formed the basis of all our European constitutions.
The fundamental human rights that our Napoleon worshippers say were put in our constitution by Napoleon were not exactly his idea. Soon after the French revolution of 1789, a list of basic human rights was adopted by the French government: equality before the law, separation of state and church, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc.
Napoleon put it in another code (as it was tradition in chaotic France to bring out new constitutions almost every year - and to some extent, that is perfectly normal in a country undergoing a revolution) but that doesn't mean Napoleon is the architect.
Second to that, the French constitutions were largely inspired by the Bill of Rights. The German, or Prussians designed their own constitutions by drawing from the inspirations of their own liberal and enlightened thinkers and here it comes Jeroen: the Dutch constitution of 1848 had nothing to do with what Napoleon brought the Netherlands in 1798, the Brittish had a constitutional tradition long before Napoleon was even born and also in Spain nothing reminds of Napoleon's constitutions.
Oh and btw Jeroen, you constantly come back at me with 1848 being the magical year that Napoleon, while dead for 30 years, still brought down the kings of Europe. Well yes, Metternich retired after 1848. Can you name, besides the French king, 1 other monarch who was deposed in 1848?
You probably can't, as although 1848 is called the year of revolutions, it should actually be called the year of revolts or uprisings. Nothing permanent was achieved. All the monarchs remained in power, and although forced to adopt consitutions - most constitutions and reforms were abolished a few years later.
And to this end, Napoleon sure has fascinated many people enough to write thousands of books about him. That doesn't make him the most important person - simply the most fascinating one - I admit, Napoleon is a military genius and also he remains a mystery due to his contradicting policies. In 200 years Hitler will have beaten Napoleon.
I also wonder... for such a great God that Napoleon is - the man who shaped all of modern Europe and the man who gave us all liberty according to our worshippers: where are the statues of Napoleon? When I was in Paris, I couldn't find one. Pretty weird for a man claimed to be the father of Europe. Even Marx has more statues in Germany.
So I hope this might convince some people to stop worshipping Napoleon as a hero who couldn't do wrong. This way, you also lose your credibility as a historian.
Look Don Dorito although you do not hate the man as you put it, I think you still see him more like a demon then a saint. Of course I respect that and we may disagree about what weighs heavier his good deeds or his bad deeds, but to follow the example of Sylla in calling people radical fans or worshippers of Napoleon is not really fair to the people who defend Napoleon. We don't use the term Napoleon basher in every comment either.
Then to the topic itself.
I won't ever say that all he did was good for Europe. Since what he did in Spain was horrible and so were the deaths he left behind in Russia also. But in general terms he improved the lives of the Europeans in social, juristical and political sense. His reform which although drastically different from the original ideas formed in the revolution made hugh improvements in Europe and although Metternich reversed most of these meassures later on it remained prominent in Europe and would later burst in the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. You say the soul of Napoleonic Europe died in 1815, but in fact it lives on to this very day.
Again I am not saying all European states are based on Napoleon, I said in a lot of countries especially in western Europe the political, social and juristical systems are based on what Napoleon instituted during his reign.
True and I never said Napoleon was the machine behind all these ideas, but he succeeded unlike his predecessors to stabilize these radical ideas, transform it into one clear code and spread it over Europe.
Again you start about the Prussians, but as I said a few times before, Napoleon never reigned over these territories and can't be blamed for that facts that his ideas were not spread their. Especially since the Hohenzollerns were quite reactionary kings after Frederick II and crushed everything that came near to new ideas.
You say the Dutch constitution wasn't based on Napoleon well read the first article for example:
Dutch:
Astikel 1:
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
English version:
All who live in the Netherlands are to be treated equal. Discrimination towards religion, way of life, political color, race ... or no matter what other ground is not allowed.
And again for Spain:
Section 14:
Spaniards are equal before the law and may not in any way be discriminated against on account of birth, race, ..., religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance.
This is basically what Napoleon brought to Europe and wasn't known before Napoleon made his entrance in these areas.
Did I mention Britain anywhere?
Napoleon died in 1821 so that's 9 years away from 1830 and 27 from 1848 so not 30.
You want an example well in 1830 the Dutch king was deposed by the Belgians, Spain also became more and more involved with democratic governments. And why do you need to depose your king to achieve some of the revolutionary and Napoleonic ideals?
And I am not sure, but I think the Sycilian king was deposed.
Those abolition of most constitutions and reforms after 1848 only occured in the already very conservative countries like Prussia, Russia and Austria. Furthermore remember that these states were mainly agricultural states and farmers tend to be either not interested in politcs or were conservative most of the times or were just plainly to stupid (as in Russia). As we see in countries with a more developed and urban population revolution occured more and with more permanent succes.
To say Napoleon has only a few statues and because of this is not the father of Europe (which I do not claim his to be) is just absurd. Does van Hogendorp in the Netherlands have so many statues or Willem van Oranje?
Joined Dec 2009
2,847 Posts | 1+
rangiora
I dont need proof - it is simply my opinion. You can take it or leave it, but anybody who reads the entire thread will see that even the most ardent 'Nappy worshipper' is ready to concede he made mistakes.
In my experience, those people who feel the need to tell everyone how 'objective' they are usually lack that very quality.
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Sorry, I was a bit busy http://www.historum.com/lounge/39543-huge-earthquake-rigth-now-mexico.html#post972811
Were you saying ... ???
Do you have a respond yet?
Joined Mar 2012
93 Posts | 0+
I didn´t notice any mention of Napoleons impact on Finland, I wonder why is that the case.. He made an agreement with Alexander I of Russia that lead to our separation from Sweden as an autonomic part of Russia after the War of Finland, thus enabling our later development to an independent nation.. Good that we sold that tar to Britain that got Nap so p1ssed off.. Seriously, I can straight out name at least two persons that had more impact on Europe than Napoleon did, and I´m sure that there is more of them.. First Julius Caesar, no doubt about it. Everyone who check his calender occasionally feels it, just to name one of the impacts, that he had.. Other impacts have been mentioned on earlier posts, and probably this also. Charlemagne, and again no doubt about it. He managed to unify most of the Europe´s Christians under same crown, thus enabling many historical events like crusades, 30 Years War (Habsburg´s practicing his doctrine, to make it short) and not to mention his work for education..
However if You look at the person who had most effect on Europe who lived between 1700-1900, Napoleon cant be put aside. Maybe in thousand years he will rise above the two that I mentioned, but I doubt it.
He made an agreement with Alexander I of Russia that lead to our separation from Sweden as an autonomic part of Russia after the War of Finland, thus enabling our later development to an independent nation.. Good that we sold that tar to Britain that got Nap so p1ssed off.. Seriously, I can straight out name at least two persons that had more impact on Europe than Napoleon did, and I´m sure that there is more of them.. First Julius Caesar, no doubt about it. Everyone who check his calender occasionally feels it, just to name one of the impacts, that he had.. Other impacts have been mentioned on earlier posts, and probably this also. Charlemagne, and again no doubt about it. He managed to unify most of the Europe´s Christians under same crown, thus enabling many historical events like crusades, 30 Years War (Habsburg´s practicing his doctrine, to make it short) and not to mention his work for education.. However if You look at the person who had most effect on Europe who lived between 1700-1900, Napoleon cant be put aside. Maybe in thousand years he will rise above the two that I mentioned, but I doubt it.
Joined Jul 2011
5,952 Posts | 32+
Belgium
Napoleon had a huge impact on the history of Europe (and the world), but he has to share the glory with several other great men.
But he's definitely in the top 5 of those people who shaped Europe as it is now
But he's definitely in the top 5 of those people who shaped Europe as it is now
More History Discussions
- Poll
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-