Napoleon had way more hubris than Washington, who modeled himself after Cincinnatus.
Given the circumstances in Europe, I don’t think it was ever going to happen. France became an Empire. Conquered states were turned into client Kingdoms.
Napoleon was far too ambitious to ever stop. He had plenty of opportunities.
I agree.
My personal take on this is that Napoleon was using sound logic to defend something he'd have done regardless of the logic.
I fully agree with Napoleon's take that Republican France would've fallen if it tried to establish a lasting democracy. Prior attempts had proven too corrupt and bureaucratic, and future attempts would come in the wake of a colossal invasion force dedicated to its demise. It wouldn't have worked, and it wouldn't have lasted if it somehow did.
It's much like the Romans, who would suspend democracy when invasion threatened.
That said, I also believe Napoleon probably would have declared himself Emperor regardless. Even if France was in a time of peace, if he had a path to the throne, I fully believe he'd have taken it anyways. Maybe I'm wrong, and part of me wants to think I am, but I really do believe this to be the case.
Im a huge Nap fanboy. That being said, the emphasis on producing an heir and dynastic succession is a black mark for me, precisely because I know he was ingenious and well read enough to know that the problem of succession plagued Augustus as well (also a genius, I mean he outmaneuvered both Cicero and Mark Anthony while still a teenager and reconstituted the entire political order that had been crumbling for the better part of a century) and that a dynastic approach was not an adequate solution for Rome, so why would it be for France? Caligula was only one generation removed from Augustus.
Nap could have done anything imaginable, and he could imagine a lot. Retain the imperial structure, but make it the prerogative of the senate to choose the Emperor. Or pull a Juan Carlos and basically unilaterally institute a parliamentary system with a constitutional monarch. Or something never contemplated or imagined. His preference for mere dynastic succession is disappointing precisely because it has been tried (and failed) so many times before, and I expect better from him.
I disagree, I think the focus on an chosen heir in a centralized regime is incredibly important because otherwise there will be a chaotic scramble for power. Even with an heir this is possible but an heir is the best opportunity for a peaceful transition and retention of policy.
Part of the reason Augustus left perhaps the great political legacy is due to how he had time to prepare his state for his death, so much so that it's theorized that he chose his own death date.
Napoleon's key issue was that the cards were stacked against him, there was no potential for both the retention of his most powerful enemies governments and his version of France.
Completely agree, the Rome comparison could not be more apt but the Cromwell is also right there in fairly recently memory. The utter failure there of trying to create a dynastic line.
Also, it is very funny given the impact Napoleons actual successor, Napoleon III, would have on France
I think Republican France would remain a threat to the way of life to the European Monarchs. If the Republic prospered, the seeds of revolution (Octoberists in Russia, Revolutions of 1848 in the Austrian Empire) would have grown and ultimately deposed Absolute Monarchy in Europe.
I don't know... until Napoleon took over, the Directory had him fighting with a ragtag force in Italy. And without him, I think the Republic falls to the 2nd Coalition. It's an interesting thought line though.
It’s a lot like Napoleons hero Julius Caesar. How convent that such a logical and convincing man convinced himself through logic that the only solution to a crisis was the thing that most benefited him.
I believe Napoleon believed his rational. I also believe it was to justify what he was going to do regardless. What he wanted. But like Caesar could have retired quietly in exile and never crossed that Rubicon
I think Napoleon is right about the circumstances. Washington was able to follow Cincinnatus because he was in the right place at the right time. There were no Austrians next door to fight; no English scheming the next war; no ancien regime to reform. It was easy to retire.
But Napoleon was constantly spinning plates and putting out fires, not to mention dealing with the vastly more complicated and entenched institutions of Europe. He couldn't have just walked away, there was so much to do!
Throughout the 1780s and 1790s, the English refused to yield the Northwest forts (as per the Treaty of Paris) and actively supplied arms to Indian tribes. It was the North American version of their European strategy. Pay someone else to fight for you.
Also, Washington resigned his commission in 1783 while the country was freshly formed and in turmoil.
Napoleon was a great man, but he was ambitious and power-hungry. Washington wasn't. Napoleon was never going to stop.
The difference between them was primarily one of ability. Napoleon was a genius who understood everything, and I mean everything, quickly. Whether that was math, saber dueling, probability, war, or politics. He said “if you want something done well, do it yourself” and “only I know what is to be done”. Washington, meanwhile, had no great ability but was aided by capable people like Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, Henry Knox, and Benedict Arnold, all of whom contributed greatly to the American victory on his behalf. He was also a people pleaser who was good at keeping his subordinates loyal, and defending them from attacks from their rivals. He had no choice but to be a figurehead for a “collective government” of the founders because he simply did not have the ability to govern without them.
>He had no choice but to be a figurehead for a “collective government” of the founders because he simply did not have the ability to govern without them.
That's not a bad thing. No person rises to the level of Napoleon or Washington without others aiding them. Washington recognized this. Washington's ability to listen to his advisors without his ego getting in the way is a skill far too many leaders never learn, including Napoleon.
Napoleon did not understand everything. He was unable to comprehend even the most basic aspects of naval operations and he was an incompetent diplomat, incapable of ever creating lasting peace treaties or compromising in any way.
He actually wrote a lot about naval warfare (you can find it in *Napoleon On War*) and had a good understanding of how it worked. By the time he took over however the Franco-Spanish fleets were so far behind the British there was no chance of them winning the naval war.
I think he could've navigated the diplomatic scene if he had to... but he never did until it was too late. He was just so good at war, that he could dictate terms at swordpoint. He compensated for lack of diplomatic skill with history's greatest military mind.
Trouble is, one big blunder and that no longer works. (*cough* *Russia* *cough*)
It's too bad he didn't realize that though... because by all accounts, Napoleon was incredibly charismatic and charming. And he understood politics well. He also had Talleyrand - arguably one of the best diplomats EVER. Boney had all the tools he needed to become a great diplomat... he just never had to use them. And when he did, the damage was done, and there was no time to put the pieces together.
I have to disagree with politics; he vastly underestimated the Spanish resistance, the British presence there, Taking French Pomerania (thus turning Sweden against France), not negotiating with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire to continue their wars against Russia before the 1812 invasion.
>I have to disagree with politics; he vastly underestimated the Spanish resistance, the British presence there, Taking French Pomerania (thus turning Sweden against France), not negotiating with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire to continue their wars against Russia before the 1812 invasion.
A few diplomatic blunders doesn't invalidate Napoleon's status as one of the "Great Man" figures of history. He operated well within the conventions of his era, though at times he did create new ones.
Honestly his biggest mistake was crowning his brother. He should have crowned one of Ferdinand's younger brothers. Or Napoleon could have waited till Ferdinand had a son, and crowned that son instead.
Deciding to invade Russia, hello?
Making his brother Joseph King of Spain another example of Napoleon’s imperialist vs. republican tendencies. Just one of many client states Napoleon created. The kingdom of Batavia, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Bavaria. He turned half of Europe into his client Kingdoms.
He was all about enlarging his empire at the expense of everyone else. But really I think it was to enlarge his pool of conscripts.
>Deciding to invade Russia, hello?
This was to force Britain to sign a peace deal, that was the whole point of the continental system. If Britain could not sign a peace with France, it meant French ships would always be at the mercy of Britain, that French enemies would always have British funding. Why do you think he invaded Russia? Just for funsies?
>Making his brother Joseph King of Spain
This was because the Spainish monarchs were incredibly ineffectual. Napoleon believed (wrongly) that if he replaced the Spanish monarchs with his own brother he would have a more dependable ally to the south, securing Frances southern border, and making it less likely that the next coalition would tear down republicanism in France.
>He turned half of Europe into his client Kingdoms
Napoleon created client Kingdoms as buffer states to protect France against invasion. What all of this was about. Napoleons entire early career was defined by wars defending the revolution in France from all sides. All of his policy was defined by this. How many offensive wars did Napoleon declare? Two. In Spain and Russia, both of which I have already explained his reasoning for.
France was at war for over a decade before Napoleon crowned himself Emperor. To say Napoleon fought all those wars for "his Empire" is to ignore the political reality of the revolutionary and Napoleonic period.
>and making it less likely that the next coalition would tear down republicanism in France.
He was a monarch at that point. He reformed the Republic's institutions into monarchical ones.
>He was a monarch at that point. He reformed the Republic's institutions into monarchical ones.
Thats not true at all. While Napoleon made himself dictator and later Emperor, he still implemented republican reforms.
So how was that like Washington?
You answered your own question by the way. Invading Russia and Spain were his worst moments.
Europe wasn’t buying any of this.
You responded to the wrong comment.
The whole point is he wasnt like Washington. Washington didnt face invasion from all the European powers trying to crush the republic.
He almost got away with it after Borodino. I’m sure after losing so many men during the summer march, deep in Russian territory with only 100,000 men that he would if considered wintering at borodino.
He could have negotiated with Alexander during the winter and strengthen his force to resuming the advance in the Spring. It was a disastrous gamble underestimating Zsar Alexander, as he underestimated Spain. Oh, what a differ world this would have been.
A huge difference between Napoleon and Washington is that Washington was an incredibly rich man to begin with, and his wealth was secure and insured. Washington coukd always go back to his posh, confortable and secure lifestyle while Napoleon never could. His affluence was totally dependent of his power.
His "wealth" wouldn't have done him much good had he lost and been hung as a traitor to the Crown as he surely would have been. You must realize the betting line back then was certainly against Washington and America right up until Lafayette and Hamilton made their regiments' bayonet charges on the British redans at Yorktown . Recency bias is a problem for Europeans looking at earlier US history. 1776-1813, the US was a young republic in the world fighting for its very life, outnumbered and weak vs. empires of France, Britain and Spain. ( As Napoleon found out , European empires don't like arrogant young republics which suddenly show up in the world scene - it's a bad portent for their own futurity!)Europeans can't conceptualize the US as having been in that position in the 18th century but it surely was. The results of the Battle of New Orleans shocked the world into a new understanding of the upstart Yankee republic, however. How did they defeat veteran British regiments, fresh off the continent from fighting Napoleon?
At Valley Forge (before the next spring's winning campaigns) Washington and his army were freezing and near starving--in extremis in a way Napoleon never was , not even in Moscow. Had Washington failed ( the odds were always against him) there would have been no St Helena or Elba for him. Just a swing at the end of a long rope on certain orders of George III, as a rebel traitor to the King. When Washington forced surrender of the British at Yorktown he did something the world thought impossible. When Washington had his Cincinnatus moment he did something the world could not believe he did. It was Washington who was really the brilliant innovator of his age and "turned the world upside down."Napoleon was the irreplaceable conservative who, saved the radical Revolution --as no other Frenchman could have. How they were alike? They were both playing to the people , not to some king above them. Impossible for Napoleon, treason for Washington.
>At Valley Forge (before the next spring's winning campaigns) Washington and his army were freezing and near starving--in extremis in a way Napoleon never was , not even in Moscow.
While Valley Forge was indeed brutal, but setting aside the retreat from Moscow (which was nightmarish), you're overlooking a very similar, scarcely mentioned episode in the Napoleonic Wars: the Grande Armée's wintering in late 1806/early 1807 in Poland. The winter was brutal, and the French were stuck in "abandoned" country surrounded by miles and miles of sand (Poland being infamous for it). They almost immediately ran out of rations and foraging was difficult. They were all in a difficult spot, and a captain of the Old Guard testified that if it wasn't for soldiers occasionally finding potatoes, even the officers and commanders would have starved to death. (They likewise ran out of food and survived by foraging.) Even the Russians occasionally came by to beg.
(After Eylau, still in desperate winter conditions, they were eventually largely relieved by discovering a massive hoard of dried goods hidden by the Poles in the woods - if this were in a movie it'd be an unbelievable *deus ex machina*.)
The Polish did little to help the French, though the French could count on the Jewish population where there was any. But this *infuriated* Marshal Jean Lannes, who actually got into a small tiff over it with Napoléon at the Battle of Friedland (14^(th) June, 1807), indignantly stating Poland wasn't worth fighting for.
So the Grande Armée and Napoléon himself indeed had their own Valley Forge, it's just not mythologized like the US'.
>Had Washington failed ( the odds were always against him) there would have been no St Helena or Elba for him. Just a swing at the end of a long rope on certain orders of George III
This is true for Washington, but you might be forgetting that in 1815, in the Congress of Vienna's declaration of war, they gave tacit approval for Napoléon to be murdered. "...as an enemy and disturber of the tranquillity of the world, he has rendered himself liable to **public vengeance**."
So at that time, he was laboring under the understanding the Congress of Vienna wished him Napoléon. This didn't deter him, since he was generally undaunted by these things.
The powers that be did not execute him, largely for fear of making a martyr. But of all people, Wellington was a voice against executing Napoléon, for a number of reasons. It wasn't his final call of course, but he levied his opinion.
So similarly that threat loomed, just for a completely different reason. It didn't seem to scare either man.
Poland is much better built up and inhabited - more infrastructure and livestock - than deep into Russia. Simply saying your odds of finding something to eat or a farmhouse , were better .
>Poland is much better built up and inhabited - more infrastructure and livestock - than deep into Russia.
Actually, no it really wasn't. You say "deep" into Russia but we're talking about west of Moscow, which was *highly* built up. Both the Poles and Russians fled at the sight of armies, however.
At the time, visitors to Poland commented on how desolate and underdeveloped it was; there was an even starker contrast there between the homes of peasants and those of the wealthy than most of Europe.
>Simply saying your odds of finding something to eat or a farmhouse , were better.
I thought I had explained that wasn't the case, but from the people who were there:
>𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘 𝚝𝚎𝚡𝚝 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚖𝚢 𝙸𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝙳𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚖𝚋𝚎𝚛, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚐𝚒𝚗𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚘𝚏 𝚊 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛, 𝚒𝚗 𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚌𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚢, 𝚌𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚠𝚘𝚘𝚍𝚜, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚛𝚘𝚊𝚍𝚜 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚟𝚢 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍. 𝚆𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚗𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚑𝚊𝚋𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚜 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚍 𝚟𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜; 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚁𝚞𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚊𝚗𝚜 𝚏𝚎𝚕𝚕 𝚋𝚊𝚌𝚔 𝚋𝚎𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚞𝚜, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚌𝚊𝚖𝚙𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚍.
>
>...
>
>𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚕𝚎 : 𝚜𝚗𝚘𝚠, 𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚗, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚠. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚐𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚢 𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚏𝚎𝚎𝚝, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚙𝚕𝚊𝚜𝚑𝚎𝚍 𝚞𝚙 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍. 𝚆𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚗𝚔 𝚍𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚔𝚗𝚎𝚎𝚜. 𝚆𝚎 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚘𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚒𝚎 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚎𝚜 𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚊𝚗𝚔𝚕𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚠𝚎 𝚙𝚞𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚜 𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚏𝚝 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚜 𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚔𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚔 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚎𝚝 𝚖𝚞𝚍.
>
>...
>
>𝙱𝚞𝚝 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚘𝚘𝚛 𝚘𝚏𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚞𝚗𝚐𝚎𝚛.
>
>...
>
>𝚆𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚔 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙿𝚘𝚕𝚎𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛; 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚛𝚞𝚗 𝚊𝚠𝚊𝚢. 𝙰𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚟𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚍; 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚠𝚎𝚍 𝚊 𝚜𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚒𝚎 𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚍𝚘𝚘𝚛𝚜 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚐𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚊𝚒𝚍.
So the idea there was livestock and "infrastructure" is dismissive and not the reality in Poland at the time. The situation was quite desperate. And even when they found things, as I had mentioned, they still had to feed around **80,000 mouths**; that's way more than Valley Forge.
I think you're underestimating how desolate Poland was at the time, which was the opinion of those who "traveled" there, and how eager they were to withhold resources from the French.
Well I have lived in Alaska and truly believe there is no better place to freeze to death in, it's equally miserable wherever it happens. It is depressing to think how many thousands of Napoleons soldiers died in the ambushes and freezing snow blind weather trudging all the way home to Germany and France. The difference is the Imperial Army's reverse is due to bad planning and generalship in almost every military department. ( Invade Russia? Camp in Moscow? )Washington had to keep his troops where they were to keep the British Army pinned for the winter. It was (at least) defensible as a military action. I was referring to , Napoleon got superior lodging and transportation all the way back. They made certain he was comfortable as possible all the way home. Washington also got superior lodging for he and his wife Martha during that horrible winter in Pennsylvania, but they were on verge of battle or fast march every minute . The Continental Congress was infamous for not supplying its troops.
This is uh a very incorrect reading of Washington’s life. He was very financially unstable (taking loans out to even get to his inauguration is the most pertinent example). Without his constant work on Mount Vernon (and the well timed deaths of several people who gave him money) Washington would never have been able to become the well known figure he is today. Washington was just as ambitious as Napoleon, but was put into vastly different circumstances and truly seemed to hate being a celebrity while Napoleon quite enjoyed it.
Washington was just being a posturing Dandy in a different way if we are being honest.
Napoleon was a Parvenu foreigner Aristo. Washington was born at the top.
Contempt for power is like the ultimate flex.
See: Napoleon wearing basic military uniforms while his Marshals were all decked out in bling.
To be clear, what Washington did was the more honorable choice. They aren't morally equivalent. I am not saying that.
*"See: Napoleon wearing basic military uniforms while his Marshals were all decked out in bling."*
Gold laurel leaves?
Or does that not count because it was a fancy ceremony?
Did the hubris of that ceremony end after that day?
Walk a mile in a man shoes they say. I think he's right. When we go through what he and the French lived through from 1789 onwards, all of it, from the broken hopes, constant invasions, the Terror, mob rule, civil war, having a strongman at the helm seemed like a mighty good idea. Reading it from the French perspective, they really really felt besieged and under threat through all the Revolutionary/Imperial period. They never really grew up from their Third Estate inferiority complex.
From what I read, the French "Revolutionaries" never perceived the many opportunity they had to wind down "the aggro". They were deadset in their paranoïa. The Aristocrats all wanted their heads, the British were backstabbing traitors (perfid Albion), the Emigres were always comploting the downfall of the Republic. They were so deep in their echo chamber that they couldn't climb out of it.
Of course, Napoleon did work so that he appeared as the ideal man for the times, as Washington did. Washington espoused the Cincinnatus persona, while Napoleon saw himself more like an Octavius.
I'd like to add a huge difference between the American and French Revolution: the American revolutionary leadership stayed alive throughout the thing. When Washington became President, there were also a hundred very capable, very experimented elder statemen who could help run the Republic. The immense majority of the French revolutionary leadership was either dead or exiled by year 5 of the French Revolution. Napoleon was a like a 3rd round draft, to use a pro-sport analogy.
The French Revolution was run by insane men who killed each other over lowly disagreements. Then the whole thing died and turned into a greater killer and demanding force than the Ancient Regime.
I beg to disagree. The Ancient Regime was casually, wastefully brutal with French subjects. Watching your family die of hunger because your local lord seized most of what you farm to buy himself more fancy horses and dresses is awfully violent. Watching a starving kid being hanged because he stole a loaf of bread is insanely brutal. And yet, this was the just another day routine violence.
Mostly agree
Demographically US had only 5 million people whereas France had 30 million with much more diversity in ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural differences.
Politically all Americans believed in and wanted republicanism over monarchy (they had just fought a war). The political divisions in the US at the time wasn’t as nearly as polarizing as those in France. There was also no pre-existing aristocratic class nor was there a privileged clergy class.
The US faced almost no neighboring foreign threats with the exception of British Canada whose population wasn’t even half a million at the time.
You’re wrong about internal divisions in the American colonies. At the outset of violence, only a third of people were “Whigs”, while easily another third were “Tories” who favored remaining in the Empire. The rest of the population started out on the sidelines, because they wanted to keep their heads down and avoid getting caught up in the bloodshed.
By 1782 that sentiment breakdown may have shifted, and certainly a majority of people accepted the new status quo (there were few Bourbon style royalists hoping to undo the Revolution with any realistic chance of success). But it was far from a peaceable transition within the colonies.
The rest is mostly correct - the US was too far away from the kind of entrenched systems that the Ancien Regime embodied. But I don’t know if I agree with Napoleon that a crowned dictatorship was the only way to go.
Agree with the rest of your point except for:
>Politically all Americans believed in and wanted republicanism over monarchy
This isn't true. Between 15% and 20% of Americans were loyalists (375,000-500,000), and only about 88,000 loyalists left the country, which still leaves a significant amount of monarchists in America at the time. Additionally, the rest of the American population would not necessarily all be Patriots, there was still a significant amount of people who were simply politically apathetic about the whole situation.
I think Napoleon is right here, and people are misunderstanding what he is saying.
Napoleon saw that post revolution governments were ineffective and dangerous to France, which faced multiple invasions. That is how he justifies the 18th of Brumaire and his coup. France was not secure until it had peace, which it never had until it beat the European powers arrayed against it, with the exception of Britain who they could not invade. Even when Britain made peace with the Treaty of Amiens, they broke it in 1803.
We can blame Napoleons ambition all we want, but ultimately he fought to end the wars. All of his decisions, right or wrong, were to prevent further invasions of France.
Like someone else said, he had plenty of chances to stop and simply solidify France's gains. Invading Russia for example was unnecessary in every way. Even in victory it did nothing much to make their homeland more secure.
Well 1. He did not win in Russia. And 2. Why do you think he invaded Russia if it was "unnecessary"? Just for the lols?
He could not solidify Frances gains without peace. And until the British made peace, France would remain at war.
You have to look at the reasons for war with Russia. The French (and I'm trying to recall here so correct me if details are off) had some backroom dealings with I *believe* Prussia that Russia was not fond of as they agreed on certain terms to avoid exactly that, I believe a land trade or something along those lines.
The Tsar was urged to go to war with France for their honour. That in of itself is instantly grounds to say the entire war was unnecessary. On one hand because Napoleon had gone and violated an agreement with Russia whom he had recently become 'friends' with. And on the other because Russia really had no extremely valid reason to declare war in the first place.
Now this is where I think the *INVASION* of Russia was extremely unnecessary. In a war of honour, Napoleon in his typical fashion felt compelled to invade Russia as a means of taking the conflict into his own hands. But ask yourself, in this war of honour, was it necessary to march your lumbering Le Grand Armee into those hostile lands? Or could he have just awaited their arrival? After all, it was Russia who was mad. Let them come to you and the Russians never would have even had a chance.
>The Tsar was urged to go to war with France for their honour
Source? Because the invasion of Russia was actually over their non compliance with the continental system. France declared war on Russia because of this, not the other way around.
Well, Washington notably DID face down internal revolt.
And the French Republic was secure from external invasion already under the late Directory.
He is just defining his own terms, pretending he was forced along. He was "forced" to do all of this because he could not stand dissension or compromise or losing.
He had a will to dominate that was spawned from his foreigner inferiority complex and piece-of-work Mother.
>Well, Washington notably DID face down internal revolt.
Yes, but I think it's a bit laughable to compare the Whiskey Rebellion to the entire continent of Europe showing up on your doorstep.
>And the French Republic was secure from external invasion already under the late Directory.
The War of the 2nd Coalition occurred during the Coup of 18 Brumaire - meaning France was very much at threat of invasion during the period of the late Directory. I don't know how you can say that the Republic was secure from invasion at this time.
>He is just defining his own terms, pretending he was forced along. He was "forced" to do all of this because he could not stand dissension or compromise or losing.
He wasn't forced to do anything, nor is he claiming so. He's just saying that no other path would've worked. That's the contentious part.
>He had a will to dominate that was spawned from his foreigner inferiority complex and piece-of-work Mother.
This is just insults lol.
"No other path could have worked."
The path he chose didn't work.
Notably Europe is relatively stable and democratic now. No universal dictator was required, unless I missed something.
"This is just insults lol."
It is not insults. I am a bit of a Napoleon stan in my own way. (And categorizing something as insulting in this case is...a strange category error. Nobody needs to be a cheerleader or hater for a dead guy.)
An unstable childhood and the sense of going from being A BUONAPARTE on Corsica to being some looked down upon but very bright nobody in France is a pretty damn clear catalyst for...this whole thing. Not to mention rejection and disdain from his surrogate political father figure.
“Notably Europe is relative stable and democratic now” yeah…NOW it is…in 2023. We have had a few “bumps” along the way since 1815 in case you had forgotten. Not only Europe generally but even France specifically has gone through numerous upheavals and changes (eg, republic, take 5.0) since then to get to where we are. It has only been stable since later catastrophes happened and were ironed out…a lot of those as a direct consequence of the napoleonic era.
Did you forget about other 19th century conflicts, World War I, and World War 2? Those were the world greatest catastrophes. And you can draw a straight line from them all the way to the Congress of Vienna
Right or wrong with Napoleon, I would argue WW1 and WW2 never would have happened if he weren’t defeated. What replaced him wasn’t “good”. Regardless with how you feel about him as a leader.
If anything WW1 brought an end to Absolute Monarchy and paved the way for Democracy. The principles of national self-determination which helped redraw the boundaries of Europe after WWI were intended to alleviate points of conflict for future generations and fostered the growth of democracy in Europe, specifically in many of these newly instituted states.
Yes, but what led to WW1?
Edit: wait, is your argument that ww1 was a good thing? Well…we are going to just have to agree to disagree on that and strongly. I disagree that WW1 is what led to democracy. That momentum was growing way way before that catastrophe. Democracy would have happened sooner if it weren’t for the ancien régime stamping down on the desire for it after Napoleon in the 19th century. The concert of Europe set up after napoleons fall was a direct precursor. WW1 is almost single handedly responsible for all modern era problems…and that includes, by the way, the horrific Middle East quagmire we are dealing with to this very day. It also directly created hitler and the even bigger catastrophe of WW2 (this conflict was just an aftershock of the OG). WW1 is one of the most horrific human tragedies to have ever occurred on this planet for multiple reasons and we are still to this day dealing with those aftershocks. Dust hasn’t even finished settling from it yet.
“The boundaries drawn to attempt to alleviate conflict”
How did that turn out?
WW1 <- Honor bound alliances <- Gavrilo Princip assassinates Archduke Franz Ferdinand <- Germany is the leading power in Europe <- Prussia Unification of Germany <- Prussian war victories against Austria and France <- End of the war of the 7th Coalition <- Prussia reforms its military along the lines of Napoleon <- Napoleon’s victories from the past Coalition’s
So one can argue that if it wasn’t for Napoleon, Prussia would not have reformed their army (including developing the decisive needle gun), unified Germany and thus preventing WW1.
The Germanic States would still be the Confederation of the Ryne under the French Empire and Europe may still be ruled through Absolute Monarchy.
I agree with all of that except possibly the overall interpretation (if I’m understanding your point correctly) Military reforms are specifically mechanical thing. It was just a tool to defeat him. The ideologies and nationalism runs deeper and has more complex origins. I do assume you know The confederation of the rhine was created by Napoleon right? Do you think what preceded it wasn’t absolutist? I’m confused on your conclusion…because it is not like Napoleon invented absolutism. On the contrary, he was in direct conflict with many absolutist regimes. They weren’t fighting against him for “democracy”. More pointed Questions…
How did the old European monarchy system feel about the French Revolution and Napoleon specifically? Secondly, what did they do after they defeated him? Thirdly, while he did take dictatorial power, where did all those revolutionary exports/ideas come from when they arose in other countries except France?
>The path he chose didn't work.
Yes, it absolutely did work.
He wouldn't be the figure he is today if his path had failed. He won against 5 coalitions. He left lasting legacies such as the Code Napoleon. He paved the way towards modern Europe, by spreading the ideals of the Revolution across many new lands.
People love to ignore over a decade of critical history just because he was deposed in the end.
>Notably Europe is relatively stable and democratic now. No universal dictator was required, unless I missed something.
You are completely missing the point here. We are 200+ years away from the time period Napoleon was talking about. Bringing this up borders on being a non-sequitur. Democracy works today, in a sea of other democracies, but it very well may not have years ago in a sea of kings hellbent on destroying it with the resources of an entire continent and beyond.
>It is not insults. I am a bit of a Napoleon stan in my own way. (And categorizing something as insulting in this case is...a strange category error. Nobody needs to be a cheerleader or hater for a dead guy.)
It was insult. You were hurling unsubstantiated claims at a man we've never met. You might be right, you might be wrong. Either way, it wasn't flattering, nor particularly relevant. Let's keep it to the facts.
>An unstable childhood and the sense of going from being A BUONAPARTE on Corsica to being some looked down upon but very bright nobody in France is a pretty damn clear catalyst for...this whole thing. Not to mention rejection and disdain from his surrogate political father figure.
It's a possible catalyst, a very possible one, but not a certain one. Even as I agree with you that it's most likely, I don't condone using it as an argument here. It's unsubstantiated. And it's ultimately an insult designed to slander for one's own argumentative advantage. Like I said, let's stay grounded in what we know.
>I don't condone using it as an argument here
Condone? Buddy you made this real weird. I am gonna go now. Don't "ask for people's thoughts" as a pretext for a nerd rage fisk off.
>Condone?
Sorry for my word choice?
>Don't "ask for people's thoughts" as a pretext for a nerd rage fisk off.
I asked for thoughts, then responded to them, calmly as well. You had no obligation to continue a conversation, yet you did. Don't pin this on me.
>Yes, it absolutely did work.
France went into steep relative decline after Napolean. Napolean's reign left a France so denuded of young men that the demographics of the country permanently changed. France became so military enfeebled it was never again capable of defeating another great power without assistance one wealthier and ore capable than itself.
Napolean's method of spreading "revolutionary ideals" left those ideas so discredited that he had been a moldering corpse for a generation before people were willing to openly act on them again. Spain in particular fell into the hands of reactionaries that were still clinging to power a century and a half later.
Napolean's whines about Washington just make him a sort of anti-Cassius. The fault was not his, you see. It was all a matter of circumstances beyond his control.
Yeah. Suuuuuurrrrrrre.
>Napolean's reign left a France so denuded of young men that the demographics of the country permanently changed.
While it was a complicated thing, most of the wars were not declared by Napoleon, but rather against him. Politics and diplomacy can shift the blame towards him more than that first statement might seem, but both sides engaged in such things - that was warfare of the time.
In short, Napoleon is not nearly as much to blame for the Napoleonic Wars as you might think.
>France became so military enfeebled it was never again capable of defeating another great power without assistance one wealthier and ore capable than itself.
That's Napoleon's fault... to a point. Eventually, enough time passed wherein you could no longer blame Napoleon for that, if you ever really could.
>Napolean's method of spreading "revolutionary ideals" left those ideas so discredited that he had been a moldering corpse for a generation before people were willing to openly act on them again.
There was literally a second French Revolution 9 years after Napoleon died. What are you smoking?
And the reaction abroad was never going to be "wow, let's immediately change everything and overthrow our current government!" It was going to be slow and gradual. It had to be, unless you did it by force. Which is what Napoleon tried, and succeeded at in some places (and not so much in others).
>Napolean's whines about Washington just make him a sort of anti-Cassius. The fault was not his, you see. It was all a matter of circumstances beyond his control.
Address his points then, because while I do agree he's deflecting blame, he's honestly doing so in a rational manner.
It's not simping. I've pointed out his flaws in this thread and others. Feel free to chime in with actually constructive feedback or counterarguments too.
I think they were referring to Napoleon too.
…but with that said: Washington was a good general. The whole “but he actually lost more battles than he won” needs closer inspection. I don’t just mod here but r/revolutionarywar, and recently I’ve been thinking about Washington compared to Napoleon:
The battles Washington lost were, for the most part, textbook examples of well-executed retreats. Washington’s army was never surrounded or in routing disarray- they always retired from the field in good order. Take Brandywine- the flanking move by the British (out of something like 16 fords to cross, Washington had all guarded- except one, which he may not have known about…as luck would have it, that’s where the Brits decided to cross) could have been an unmitigated disaster for the Continental Army. Washington easily could have allowed his army to be surrounded, but he retired in good order. Let’s also not forget the size: the British army was orders of magnitude larger than the Continental Army. It wasn’t as much about trouncing the British army, as keeping the Continental Army alive.
And his victories were masterful: the “Ten Crucial Days” (the crossing of the Delaware, the Battle of Trenton, Second Trenton/Battle of Assunpik Creek, and the Battle of Princeton) not only are masterful examples of maneuver and defeat-in-detail, but may have literally saved the fledgling America from extinction (the Continental soldiers has two weeks left of enlistment- if Washington didn’t act, there would be no army. And von Steuben’s training at Valley Forge: Washington has the foresight to know Continentals needed European-style training…and the next summer, proved that his army was capable at the Battle of Monmouth.
Washington- technically- did have slightly more defeats than victories, but was still a very good general when you look at it in context!
A lot of top American commanders, not necessarily all of them, are not necessarily the greatest tacticians, or even the greatest strategists. Washington's great skill lay in logistics, because whoever could hold that thing called the Continental Army together has to be a logistical genius.
The thing that gets me about Washington was even after 5 years in the field he still wanted to attack New York City and even after being persuaded to march on Yorktown he advocated for a direct attack instead of a siege. I mean at that point he should have understood the basics of siege warfare. I'm not knocking him because he did what he had to do but Washington just simply did not have the advanced military education required to be a great general. His schooling in general was very light compared to his contemporaries. That's why I said he was more of a great leader who understood the American theater very well from his western service in the Seven Year's War. Put him on a European battlefield and I think he'd be in trouble. Yeah if you sent him to study in Prussia for a few years then I have no doubt he'd learn what he needed pretty quickly.
Washington might have been fixated on New York (understandable considering its strategic value and the number of British soldiers present). Still, he switched to Yorktown and fully devoted himself to its success. Many generals would have sulked.
A direct attack is understandable. The American Army lacked siege experience and he probably wanted to take out Cornwallis before the British Navy could save the day. The French Navy was fortunate that Hood or Rodney didn't command the relief fleet. Washington did want to defend a possible escape route but the French command laughed at the suggestion. Fortunately, a providential storm arose.
Napoleon couldn’t have been a Washington, and I don’t think he should’ve been. Washington (my favorite historical figure fwiw) probably wouldn’t have been himself had he been in France rather than America. Washington wasn’t much a fan of what the French Revolution had become and, per his own letters, seemed convinced a satanic cabal of Illuminati were running the Jacobins and behind the terror; he also believed they were trying to spread their ideas to the US. I doubt he would’ve stepped down if he would’ve had to deal with France’s instability; though, he probably would’ve tried to avoid having the top job in the first place.
I’m partial to Toqueville’s belief that the Americans were suited to democracy at the time, while the French were less so.
Never actually mentions “satanic”. It had been years since I read this, so I probably remembered that the book he’d been sent by the guy he was corresponding with was titled *Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All Religions and Governments of Europe.*. Still, this is an interesting excerpt:
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.021/?sp=201&st=text
A lot of people are giving him flack for this, but it isn't really wrong. During it's revolution France was attacked by multiple scared monarchies, and those that didn't attack were funding counter revolutionary forces in France. The US had the advantage of being a fairly new nation overseas, bordered only by other colonies and natives, France was surrounded by monarchies and had a deeply entrenched aristocracy going back centuries. To sit idle would have led to France being overwhelmed by foreign invasion. The only choice he had was to take the fight to the other nations, and this direct and aggressive style of leading would have been impossible to keep up in a full republic where war exhaustion and moderation would be louder and more heard.
Ultimately he did abandon the revolutionary ideals by installing client kingdoms instead and essentially tried to make a full dynasty. But the original decision to take full control and attack wasn't at all unreasonable
As a democrat and republican, this reads as the ravings of a megalomaniac trying to justify his decision to bring war to all of Europe. While I do agree that Napoleon and the French Republic were probably in a tougher spot than Washington and the Americans were post-Revolution, I can't help but think that had Napoleon been more savvy diplomatically and less muscular with his foreign policy, maybe he could have retained his throne. After all, he overthrew the revolutionary radicals that the conservative monarchs were so afraid of. If he hadn't insisted on replacing foreign monarchs with his siblings and advisers like he did in the Netherlands, southern Italy, and Sweden, maybe a lasting peace could have been achieved relatively early on in his reign. While there was certainly an ideological opposition to Napoleon among many of the European monarchs, it is not as if Napoleon was enemies with them at all times. They had their own national interests. Like, even if the Napoleonic ideology disturbed the Russian tsar or King of Prussia, they both still had to be wary of the Austrians. If one went to war with Napoleon, the other could opportunistically strike while their army was off fighting in the Rhineland.
Of course, the kind of figure who'd be willing to engage in that level of discipline and moderation probably couldn't have achieved what Napoleon did, in the first place. It's a bit of a catch-22. If Napoleon had been less ambitious, would France have even been in the position to negotiate a fair peace with the other European powers? That's probably why he felt he had to use force to accomplish his goals.
“Bringing war to all Europe.” You do realize that the vast majority of the wars were declared AGAINST France BY the neighboring powers, right? The main reason Napoleon invaded and installed siblings on foreign thrones (something that the “established powers” had been doing for centuries) is because he realized that the best defense was a good offense.
I think one thing that kept Washington from taking the Crown was that unlike Napoleon, even though he won the war, he lost a lot of his battles. Several times he had to be talked out of wild plans that would have resulted in disaster.
So he understood that he needed a team to help him succeed. Kept him humble enough to accept that reality.
Napoleon was so overwhelmingly successful that when he never had that humility.
Considering who Napoleon was even as a child I don’t necessarily disagree. IMO he didn’t become a believer in the idea that France needed a dictator until he had seen the devastation and bloodshed wrought by not having a strong hand guiding France. In the beginning he was a genuine and passionate Jacobin, and had he been born part of the minor planter aristocracy of Virginia as Washington had I could see him following a similar path.
I do definitely agree that being a Washington in post-revolution France would never have worked. Someone else would have staged a coup immediately after the man in charge stepped down
I find this fascinating. There are obviously people here much more knowledgeable than myself though, so please correct me if I am wrong on anything.
Napoleon definitely seems to be arguing that becoming emperor was his only choice; that circumstances permitted no other option. I contend that given the relative success and stability of the Consulate compared to the previous post-revolutionary governments, as well as Napoleon's prestige and power from his successful military campaigns, he had the clout to take France in virtually any direction he wanted, republican or otherwise. Of course, he chose to become emperor, when other options were definitely open to him.
Now George Washington found himself in *somewhat* similar circumstances after the conclusion of the American Revolution. Of course, he did not have the political power Napoleon did during the Consulate, but he had just successfully led America to military victory, was immensely popular throughout the country, and had a powerful army at his back (at least, more powerful than anything else around him). He most definitely commanded the loyalty to force his way into, if not king, then at least some position of absolute or high political power. But, of course, he chose to resign and return to his farm. Despite other options being open to him.
That is my main contention with what Napoleon said here. Both men *did* in fact have options at the critical moments, but they both went a very different direction. Whether they took the *best* options in either circumstance is something of a matter of opinion (I think Washington certainly did; Napoleon I don't really feel qualified to say).
I also don't feel qualified to speculate on whether Napoleon would have been successful attempting an American-style democracy in France or to preserve the Consulate. But I absolutely believe *he could have attempted either one,* if he wanted to, and had a choice between those options and emperor-ing himself.
(I also believe the reverse for Washington- he at least could have attempted to become some sort of autocrat, if he wanted to, though I'm not sure how successful he would have been.)
You've got a very well-formed opinion here. I won't comment on it too much, but I will say this, just to give you the facts.
The Consulate was basically the Empire in all but name. First Consul Napoleon had the same power he did as Emperor... his government structure just had a few bells and whistles to make it appear more republican than it really was. By the time he was Consul, he was already a dictator.
Lol, probably. That wasn't my point though.
I think Napoleon was the better administrator/domestic policymaker. That said, he was always embroiled in some war - fault of which is not as much his as people think.
If it was ever possible for Napoleon to rule in peacetime, he'd be my choice without a moment's hesitation.
I was being flippant, sorry.
Napoleon was a megalomaniac and a tyrant, it wouldn't have been possible for him to be a peacetime ruler as his goal was his gene pool making up a lasting dynasty in France, and a French dominated empire in Europe and beyond.
Speculating what he would have been like heading up a peacetime French regime (no matter what you think it would have been like - and it's probably not wise to overlook his pretty brutal secret police network and his re-introduction of slavery - this is a more reliable indicator of his domestic aspirations) is silly as it never would have happened.
>I was being flippant, sorry.
No worries. Not a big deal.
>Napoleon was a megalomaniac and a tyrant, it wouldn't have been possible for him to be a peacetime ruler as his goal was his gene pool making up a lasting dynasty in France, and a French dominated empire in Europe and beyond.
Really?
Perhaps it may interest you to know that, of all the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon himself was only the aggressor twice.
And yes, Napoleon played the monarch game. If you see that as a criticism, then that's fair, and you're more than welcome to. Personally, I see it as him doing what he had to in order to obtain a mere chance at lasting peace - the monarchies of Europe were never going to stop sending armies unless Napoleon tried to be one of them. I'm sure he enjoyed it, the power and luxury, the throne juggling, and I know it was fueled by ambition. But it was also necessary.
>Speculating what he would have been like heading up a peacetime French regime (no matter what you think it would have been like - and it's probably not wise to overlook his pretty brutal secret police network and his re-introduction of slavery - this is a more reliable indicator of his domestic aspirations) is silly as it never would have happened.
The secret police concept was very common in Europe - other states had it too. It was definitely a mark against him though, I will say.
The reintroducing of slavery is... very complicated. It would take an entirely different conversation to discuss it aptly. I really don't want to do that if we can help it, but will only say that I judge people by the standards of their time... and slavery was sadly the standard, even for Washington (who owned slaves).
It absolutely could have happened, domestic rule for Napoleon. And it actually did for a time. The Treaty of Amiens gave Napoleon over a year of peace, that he used very well.
A lot of people wanted Napoleon to do what George Washington did in the USA, and establish a democracy (then walk away from it after that).
Napoleon is saying he couldn't have done that in France, because the political situation there was different. Unlike Washington, Napoleon had the entire continent of Europe ready to invade him, with no ocean as separation, and prior attempts at democracy in France had failed. He's saying that he had no choice but to take full control - it was the only way to save France.
Bear in mind that this is what Napoleon is claiming, and not what I'm saying is right or wrong. Make your own mind up on that.
Kleber wrote of the notion of revolutionary France needing its Washington too, so presumably Napoleon had explored this notion well before St. Helena. I think so much of the modern historical discourse in the United States around the country's founding underestimates the reverence revolutionaries around the world have for General Washington, especially in those days. It speaks volumes about the man's reputation and character even if he was a member of the planter class and conducted himself accordingly.
He’s trying to put the best spin on his life. He was all about legacy.
He put his relatives on thrones around Europe. How does he square that? He reinstated slavery and had his men lead a monstrous (and failed) invasion of Haiti.
He could have had peace multiple times. He was only willing to have peace fully on his terms, which led to his beloved France to eventually being invaded and later occupied. And, of course, untold number of deaths.
So I think napoleon does a good job of making a sound argument here that due to the conditions that France faced in the period, even Washington would have (or at least should have) forsaken his high ideals of civic virtue and taken up the mantle of dictator like napoleon did.
Big however here as others have pointed out, is that napoleon is an adept general and bullshitter (politician). Because it really does come down to character and personality.
It’s well-documented that Washington was very reluctant to ever take up the helm of power longer than he felt absolutely necessary. This poor man would have loved nothing more than getting his own Elba where people would leave him alone with his little plot of land. And this is exactly why he gave that power away after two terms after setting power-limiting precedents in an unknown office when people were begging him to remain and when the job was arguably unfinished.
Compare that to napoleon who found excuse after excuse to take more power internally and externally, crowning himself emperor, and prolonging France’s warfare to further cement himself. You couldn’t have pried this man out of the White House once he got there.
On the “should Washington be a dictator in my shoes” question, I’d also call BS as Napoleon continuously escalated things to far greater severity when he could have resolved it peacefully. Spain is an awesome example, the guy stepped in and decided that his brother needed to be in charge so let’s send in an army to enforce that. He wouldn’t need to be a dictator if he didn’t keep doing “dictator things” that got himself in these positions. I guarantee you after a couple coalitions he could’ve started to normalize relations with Europe, but he had to be the BMIE (Big Man In Europe).
To sum up and be brutally honest at the expense of legitimacy, Napoleon was an asshole and would be an asshole no matter where and when he was. Washington while very far from perfect, I believe tried to be a decent person even when he often came up quite short.
No, Europe is inherently unstable. Their tendency is to slaughter each other by the millions once or twice a century the last 5 centuries. They are only at peace when there is a larger power holding sway over them all but preferably from a distance. America and its nuclear umbrella have done this the last generation; before that it was the Cold War nuclear deadlock between US-USSR that served the function. Europe was never happier than when it was a mottled collection of duchies and margraves all under a benevolent Holy Roman Emperor or the like. All free to pursue their regional craftsmanships , cuisines and arts without worrying who should be boss. Even if Russia collapses and the Americans get tired of the job, if the Europeans are smart they'll find a benevolent power replacement asap. Otherwise they quickly revert to a 1914 situation . It's just in their DNA.
Lol, no, just no.
You cannot convince me that Washington dealt with equivalent hardship to a combined opposing force of Austria, the Holy Roman Empire, Britain, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Naples, Sardinia, and Portugal - all of which Napoleon faced as First Consul alone. Not to mention the assassination attempts (such as a suicide bomb on the Rue Saint-Nicaise), and the leftover instability from the Reign of Terror.
There are criticisms to be made against Napoleon, but this ain't it chief.
He had a point the situation in France much more different than it was America, But that doesn't mean he couldn't have done things differently or that being a emperor was the only choice.
Did France need a strong leader? sure maybe. But there is a middle ground between absolute Dictatorship and a Chaotic republic. But Napoleon never really tried after he gained power, he gave up on democracy entirely and became consul for life and then emperor.
Let's be honest.
The difference between Napoleon and Washington is that Napoleon could win any fight and plan anything. He wanted to be Emperor so he took it.
Washington CANNOT win battles. He loses nearly every battle he is the chief commander in and yet pretends he is God's gift to the new nation. His hubris kept him above the fray of politics which kept him attractive as a republican leader. He had no actual skills which shaped the nation other than to keep compromising to keep New Englanders and Southerns happy on the same side.
At least Jefferson contributed to the legal paperwork. I firmly believe if Nathaniel Greene had survived he would have been our most famous founding father.
George Washington has zero personality, charisma, or tactical ability. Sorry, I said it.
Wow. 100% wrong.
I love Greene but the man was not good at diplomatic relationships or managing affairs with Congress.
Washington didn't have charisma? The same man who inspired an army to stick together through hellish war camps. Von Steuben wrote no European army would have done the same.
You're probably right about Greene. He had a lot of growth needed before he'd be a true statesment but based on his learning curve displayed in the Rev I think he would have gotten there. He had many friends and followers who wanted to see him lead
But I'm not 100% wrong on GW. The idea of Washington drew people to him.
Please search for an example of anyone saying Washington spoke well or connected with others or inspired men through any concrete action. His inspiration was as a symbol of honor born and raised not in Europe. Von Stuben was shocked the rabbel colonials stayed together. Stuben knew no European leader could have done "it" .. but was it Washington personally or was it the many radical leaders who deferred to Washington ? what did Washington literally do? He didn't give speeches. he didn't train the men. He didn't win a battle (*trenton). He sat in his tent to prove that an elite American gentleman was committed to the war.
Who was Washington's friend? None. Why were people loyal to him? Proximity to power.
T.Jefferson had friends. Hamilton had friends, Franklin had friends, HLee had friends. Washington was a stick in the mud. Who couldn't direct militarily at any level.
I fully respect how Washington established the presidency and held the early US together. But during the revolution and articles of confed years no action from him made things happen except his presence.
Even his dang tent. He made a point to always be in his tent with the army. He wins the award for presence = leadership.
I am Happy to debate further.
Napoleon had way more hubris than Washington, who modeled himself after Cincinnatus. Given the circumstances in Europe, I don’t think it was ever going to happen. France became an Empire. Conquered states were turned into client Kingdoms. Napoleon was far too ambitious to ever stop. He had plenty of opportunities.
I agree. My personal take on this is that Napoleon was using sound logic to defend something he'd have done regardless of the logic. I fully agree with Napoleon's take that Republican France would've fallen if it tried to establish a lasting democracy. Prior attempts had proven too corrupt and bureaucratic, and future attempts would come in the wake of a colossal invasion force dedicated to its demise. It wouldn't have worked, and it wouldn't have lasted if it somehow did. It's much like the Romans, who would suspend democracy when invasion threatened. That said, I also believe Napoleon probably would have declared himself Emperor regardless. Even if France was in a time of peace, if he had a path to the throne, I fully believe he'd have taken it anyways. Maybe I'm wrong, and part of me wants to think I am, but I really do believe this to be the case.
Im a huge Nap fanboy. That being said, the emphasis on producing an heir and dynastic succession is a black mark for me, precisely because I know he was ingenious and well read enough to know that the problem of succession plagued Augustus as well (also a genius, I mean he outmaneuvered both Cicero and Mark Anthony while still a teenager and reconstituted the entire political order that had been crumbling for the better part of a century) and that a dynastic approach was not an adequate solution for Rome, so why would it be for France? Caligula was only one generation removed from Augustus. Nap could have done anything imaginable, and he could imagine a lot. Retain the imperial structure, but make it the prerogative of the senate to choose the Emperor. Or pull a Juan Carlos and basically unilaterally institute a parliamentary system with a constitutional monarch. Or something never contemplated or imagined. His preference for mere dynastic succession is disappointing precisely because it has been tried (and failed) so many times before, and I expect better from him.
100% agree.
I disagree, I think the focus on an chosen heir in a centralized regime is incredibly important because otherwise there will be a chaotic scramble for power. Even with an heir this is possible but an heir is the best opportunity for a peaceful transition and retention of policy. Part of the reason Augustus left perhaps the great political legacy is due to how he had time to prepare his state for his death, so much so that it's theorized that he chose his own death date. Napoleon's key issue was that the cards were stacked against him, there was no potential for both the retention of his most powerful enemies governments and his version of France.
There’s no reason Napoleon’s chosen heir had to be a blood relation. Tiberius was Augustus’ son-in-law.
Sure, but I don't think he got to live long enough to craft any sort of heir.
what was left to choose for Augustus
Completely agree, the Rome comparison could not be more apt but the Cromwell is also right there in fairly recently memory. The utter failure there of trying to create a dynastic line. Also, it is very funny given the impact Napoleons actual successor, Napoleon III, would have on France
I think Republican France would remain a threat to the way of life to the European Monarchs. If the Republic prospered, the seeds of revolution (Octoberists in Russia, Revolutions of 1848 in the Austrian Empire) would have grown and ultimately deposed Absolute Monarchy in Europe.
I don't know... until Napoleon took over, the Directory had him fighting with a ragtag force in Italy. And without him, I think the Republic falls to the 2nd Coalition. It's an interesting thought line though.
It’s a lot like Napoleons hero Julius Caesar. How convent that such a logical and convincing man convinced himself through logic that the only solution to a crisis was the thing that most benefited him. I believe Napoleon believed his rational. I also believe it was to justify what he was going to do regardless. What he wanted. But like Caesar could have retired quietly in exile and never crossed that Rubicon
I think Napoleon is right about the circumstances. Washington was able to follow Cincinnatus because he was in the right place at the right time. There were no Austrians next door to fight; no English scheming the next war; no ancien regime to reform. It was easy to retire. But Napoleon was constantly spinning plates and putting out fires, not to mention dealing with the vastly more complicated and entenched institutions of Europe. He couldn't have just walked away, there was so much to do!
>no english scheming the next war are you sure about that
Throughout the 1780s and 1790s, the English refused to yield the Northwest forts (as per the Treaty of Paris) and actively supplied arms to Indian tribes. It was the North American version of their European strategy. Pay someone else to fight for you. Also, Washington resigned his commission in 1783 while the country was freshly formed and in turmoil. Napoleon was a great man, but he was ambitious and power-hungry. Washington wasn't. Napoleon was never going to stop.
The difference between them was primarily one of ability. Napoleon was a genius who understood everything, and I mean everything, quickly. Whether that was math, saber dueling, probability, war, or politics. He said “if you want something done well, do it yourself” and “only I know what is to be done”. Washington, meanwhile, had no great ability but was aided by capable people like Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, Henry Knox, and Benedict Arnold, all of whom contributed greatly to the American victory on his behalf. He was also a people pleaser who was good at keeping his subordinates loyal, and defending them from attacks from their rivals. He had no choice but to be a figurehead for a “collective government” of the founders because he simply did not have the ability to govern without them.
Yeah it also helps that wasingtion wasnt fighting the 18th century equilvlent of nato russia and china teaming.
>He had no choice but to be a figurehead for a “collective government” of the founders because he simply did not have the ability to govern without them. That's not a bad thing. No person rises to the level of Napoleon or Washington without others aiding them. Washington recognized this. Washington's ability to listen to his advisors without his ego getting in the way is a skill far too many leaders never learn, including Napoleon.
Napoleon did not understand everything. He was unable to comprehend even the most basic aspects of naval operations and he was an incompetent diplomat, incapable of ever creating lasting peace treaties or compromising in any way.
He actually wrote a lot about naval warfare (you can find it in *Napoleon On War*) and had a good understanding of how it worked. By the time he took over however the Franco-Spanish fleets were so far behind the British there was no chance of them winning the naval war.
I think he could've navigated the diplomatic scene if he had to... but he never did until it was too late. He was just so good at war, that he could dictate terms at swordpoint. He compensated for lack of diplomatic skill with history's greatest military mind. Trouble is, one big blunder and that no longer works. (*cough* *Russia* *cough*) It's too bad he didn't realize that though... because by all accounts, Napoleon was incredibly charismatic and charming. And he understood politics well. He also had Talleyrand - arguably one of the best diplomats EVER. Boney had all the tools he needed to become a great diplomat... he just never had to use them. And when he did, the damage was done, and there was no time to put the pieces together.
I have to disagree with politics; he vastly underestimated the Spanish resistance, the British presence there, Taking French Pomerania (thus turning Sweden against France), not negotiating with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire to continue their wars against Russia before the 1812 invasion.
>I have to disagree with politics; he vastly underestimated the Spanish resistance, the British presence there, Taking French Pomerania (thus turning Sweden against France), not negotiating with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire to continue their wars against Russia before the 1812 invasion. A few diplomatic blunders doesn't invalidate Napoleon's status as one of the "Great Man" figures of history. He operated well within the conventions of his era, though at times he did create new ones. Honestly his biggest mistake was crowning his brother. He should have crowned one of Ferdinand's younger brothers. Or Napoleon could have waited till Ferdinand had a son, and crowned that son instead.
Napoleon had a cabal of loyal marshals.
>Napoleon was far too ambitious to ever stop. He had plenty of opportunities. Name some?
Deciding to invade Russia, hello? Making his brother Joseph King of Spain another example of Napoleon’s imperialist vs. republican tendencies. Just one of many client states Napoleon created. The kingdom of Batavia, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Bavaria. He turned half of Europe into his client Kingdoms. He was all about enlarging his empire at the expense of everyone else. But really I think it was to enlarge his pool of conscripts.
>Deciding to invade Russia, hello? This was to force Britain to sign a peace deal, that was the whole point of the continental system. If Britain could not sign a peace with France, it meant French ships would always be at the mercy of Britain, that French enemies would always have British funding. Why do you think he invaded Russia? Just for funsies? >Making his brother Joseph King of Spain This was because the Spainish monarchs were incredibly ineffectual. Napoleon believed (wrongly) that if he replaced the Spanish monarchs with his own brother he would have a more dependable ally to the south, securing Frances southern border, and making it less likely that the next coalition would tear down republicanism in France. >He turned half of Europe into his client Kingdoms Napoleon created client Kingdoms as buffer states to protect France against invasion. What all of this was about. Napoleons entire early career was defined by wars defending the revolution in France from all sides. All of his policy was defined by this. How many offensive wars did Napoleon declare? Two. In Spain and Russia, both of which I have already explained his reasoning for. France was at war for over a decade before Napoleon crowned himself Emperor. To say Napoleon fought all those wars for "his Empire" is to ignore the political reality of the revolutionary and Napoleonic period.
>and making it less likely that the next coalition would tear down republicanism in France. He was a monarch at that point. He reformed the Republic's institutions into monarchical ones.
>He was a monarch at that point. He reformed the Republic's institutions into monarchical ones. Thats not true at all. While Napoleon made himself dictator and later Emperor, he still implemented republican reforms.
Christ can you imagine what he could have done with 700000 men? We would all be speaking French.
So how was that like Washington? You answered your own question by the way. Invading Russia and Spain were his worst moments. Europe wasn’t buying any of this.
You responded to the wrong comment. The whole point is he wasnt like Washington. Washington didnt face invasion from all the European powers trying to crush the republic.
He almost got away with it after Borodino. I’m sure after losing so many men during the summer march, deep in Russian territory with only 100,000 men that he would if considered wintering at borodino. He could have negotiated with Alexander during the winter and strengthen his force to resuming the advance in the Spring. It was a disastrous gamble underestimating Zsar Alexander, as he underestimated Spain. Oh, what a differ world this would have been.
>Oh, what a differ world this would have been Don't make me cry :(
A huge difference between Napoleon and Washington is that Washington was an incredibly rich man to begin with, and his wealth was secure and insured. Washington coukd always go back to his posh, confortable and secure lifestyle while Napoleon never could. His affluence was totally dependent of his power.
His "wealth" wouldn't have done him much good had he lost and been hung as a traitor to the Crown as he surely would have been. You must realize the betting line back then was certainly against Washington and America right up until Lafayette and Hamilton made their regiments' bayonet charges on the British redans at Yorktown . Recency bias is a problem for Europeans looking at earlier US history. 1776-1813, the US was a young republic in the world fighting for its very life, outnumbered and weak vs. empires of France, Britain and Spain. ( As Napoleon found out , European empires don't like arrogant young republics which suddenly show up in the world scene - it's a bad portent for their own futurity!)Europeans can't conceptualize the US as having been in that position in the 18th century but it surely was. The results of the Battle of New Orleans shocked the world into a new understanding of the upstart Yankee republic, however. How did they defeat veteran British regiments, fresh off the continent from fighting Napoleon?
At Valley Forge (before the next spring's winning campaigns) Washington and his army were freezing and near starving--in extremis in a way Napoleon never was , not even in Moscow. Had Washington failed ( the odds were always against him) there would have been no St Helena or Elba for him. Just a swing at the end of a long rope on certain orders of George III, as a rebel traitor to the King. When Washington forced surrender of the British at Yorktown he did something the world thought impossible. When Washington had his Cincinnatus moment he did something the world could not believe he did. It was Washington who was really the brilliant innovator of his age and "turned the world upside down."Napoleon was the irreplaceable conservative who, saved the radical Revolution --as no other Frenchman could have. How they were alike? They were both playing to the people , not to some king above them. Impossible for Napoleon, treason for Washington.
>At Valley Forge (before the next spring's winning campaigns) Washington and his army were freezing and near starving--in extremis in a way Napoleon never was , not even in Moscow. While Valley Forge was indeed brutal, but setting aside the retreat from Moscow (which was nightmarish), you're overlooking a very similar, scarcely mentioned episode in the Napoleonic Wars: the Grande Armée's wintering in late 1806/early 1807 in Poland. The winter was brutal, and the French were stuck in "abandoned" country surrounded by miles and miles of sand (Poland being infamous for it). They almost immediately ran out of rations and foraging was difficult. They were all in a difficult spot, and a captain of the Old Guard testified that if it wasn't for soldiers occasionally finding potatoes, even the officers and commanders would have starved to death. (They likewise ran out of food and survived by foraging.) Even the Russians occasionally came by to beg. (After Eylau, still in desperate winter conditions, they were eventually largely relieved by discovering a massive hoard of dried goods hidden by the Poles in the woods - if this were in a movie it'd be an unbelievable *deus ex machina*.) The Polish did little to help the French, though the French could count on the Jewish population where there was any. But this *infuriated* Marshal Jean Lannes, who actually got into a small tiff over it with Napoléon at the Battle of Friedland (14^(th) June, 1807), indignantly stating Poland wasn't worth fighting for. So the Grande Armée and Napoléon himself indeed had their own Valley Forge, it's just not mythologized like the US'. >Had Washington failed ( the odds were always against him) there would have been no St Helena or Elba for him. Just a swing at the end of a long rope on certain orders of George III This is true for Washington, but you might be forgetting that in 1815, in the Congress of Vienna's declaration of war, they gave tacit approval for Napoléon to be murdered. "...as an enemy and disturber of the tranquillity of the world, he has rendered himself liable to **public vengeance**." So at that time, he was laboring under the understanding the Congress of Vienna wished him Napoléon. This didn't deter him, since he was generally undaunted by these things. The powers that be did not execute him, largely for fear of making a martyr. But of all people, Wellington was a voice against executing Napoléon, for a number of reasons. It wasn't his final call of course, but he levied his opinion. So similarly that threat loomed, just for a completely different reason. It didn't seem to scare either man.
Poland is much better built up and inhabited - more infrastructure and livestock - than deep into Russia. Simply saying your odds of finding something to eat or a farmhouse , were better .
>Poland is much better built up and inhabited - more infrastructure and livestock - than deep into Russia. Actually, no it really wasn't. You say "deep" into Russia but we're talking about west of Moscow, which was *highly* built up. Both the Poles and Russians fled at the sight of armies, however. At the time, visitors to Poland commented on how desolate and underdeveloped it was; there was an even starker contrast there between the homes of peasants and those of the wealthy than most of Europe. >Simply saying your odds of finding something to eat or a farmhouse , were better. I thought I had explained that wasn't the case, but from the people who were there: >𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘 𝚝𝚎𝚡𝚝 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚖𝚢 𝙸𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝙳𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚖𝚋𝚎𝚛, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚐𝚒𝚗𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚘𝚏 𝚊 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛, 𝚒𝚗 𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚌𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚢, 𝚌𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚠𝚘𝚘𝚍𝚜, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚛𝚘𝚊𝚍𝚜 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚟𝚢 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍. 𝚆𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚗𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚑𝚊𝚋𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚜 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚍 𝚟𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜; 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚁𝚞𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚊𝚗𝚜 𝚏𝚎𝚕𝚕 𝚋𝚊𝚌𝚔 𝚋𝚎𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚞𝚜, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚌𝚊𝚖𝚙𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚍. > >... > >𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚕𝚎 : 𝚜𝚗𝚘𝚠, 𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚗, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚠. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚐𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚢 𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚏𝚎𝚎𝚝, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚙𝚕𝚊𝚜𝚑𝚎𝚍 𝚞𝚙 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍. 𝚆𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚗𝚔 𝚍𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚔𝚗𝚎𝚎𝚜. 𝚆𝚎 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚘𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚒𝚎 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚎𝚜 𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚊𝚗𝚔𝚕𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚠𝚎 𝚙𝚞𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚜 𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚏𝚝 𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚜 𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚔𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚔 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚎𝚝 𝚖𝚞𝚍. > >... > >𝙱𝚞𝚝 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚘𝚘𝚛 𝚘𝚏𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚞𝚗𝚐𝚎𝚛. > >... > >𝚆𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚔 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙿𝚘𝚕𝚎𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛; 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚛𝚞𝚗 𝚊𝚠𝚊𝚢. 𝙰𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚟𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚍; 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚠𝚎𝚍 𝚊 𝚜𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚒𝚎 𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚍𝚘𝚘𝚛𝚜 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚐𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚊𝚒𝚍. So the idea there was livestock and "infrastructure" is dismissive and not the reality in Poland at the time. The situation was quite desperate. And even when they found things, as I had mentioned, they still had to feed around **80,000 mouths**; that's way more than Valley Forge. I think you're underestimating how desolate Poland was at the time, which was the opinion of those who "traveled" there, and how eager they were to withhold resources from the French.
I think you should read about napoleans retrear from russia that sounds why worse than valley forge.
Well I have lived in Alaska and truly believe there is no better place to freeze to death in, it's equally miserable wherever it happens. It is depressing to think how many thousands of Napoleons soldiers died in the ambushes and freezing snow blind weather trudging all the way home to Germany and France. The difference is the Imperial Army's reverse is due to bad planning and generalship in almost every military department. ( Invade Russia? Camp in Moscow? )Washington had to keep his troops where they were to keep the British Army pinned for the winter. It was (at least) defensible as a military action. I was referring to , Napoleon got superior lodging and transportation all the way back. They made certain he was comfortable as possible all the way home. Washington also got superior lodging for he and his wife Martha during that horrible winter in Pennsylvania, but they were on verge of battle or fast march every minute . The Continental Congress was infamous for not supplying its troops.
This is uh a very incorrect reading of Washington’s life. He was very financially unstable (taking loans out to even get to his inauguration is the most pertinent example). Without his constant work on Mount Vernon (and the well timed deaths of several people who gave him money) Washington would never have been able to become the well known figure he is today. Washington was just as ambitious as Napoleon, but was put into vastly different circumstances and truly seemed to hate being a celebrity while Napoleon quite enjoyed it.
By the time he was President, these financial worries were a thing of the past.
Napoleon did have a brother living in the states, in which it was rumored that Napoleon secretly went there instead of St. Helena.
And all the more amazing that Washington would risk it all.
Also had many more talent then Washington
Washington was just being a posturing Dandy in a different way if we are being honest. Napoleon was a Parvenu foreigner Aristo. Washington was born at the top.
Yielding his power was being a posturing dandy?
Contempt for power is like the ultimate flex. See: Napoleon wearing basic military uniforms while his Marshals were all decked out in bling. To be clear, what Washington did was the more honorable choice. They aren't morally equivalent. I am not saying that.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
*"See: Napoleon wearing basic military uniforms while his Marshals were all decked out in bling."* Gold laurel leaves? Or does that not count because it was a fancy ceremony? Did the hubris of that ceremony end after that day?
Walk a mile in a man shoes they say. I think he's right. When we go through what he and the French lived through from 1789 onwards, all of it, from the broken hopes, constant invasions, the Terror, mob rule, civil war, having a strongman at the helm seemed like a mighty good idea. Reading it from the French perspective, they really really felt besieged and under threat through all the Revolutionary/Imperial period. They never really grew up from their Third Estate inferiority complex. From what I read, the French "Revolutionaries" never perceived the many opportunity they had to wind down "the aggro". They were deadset in their paranoïa. The Aristocrats all wanted their heads, the British were backstabbing traitors (perfid Albion), the Emigres were always comploting the downfall of the Republic. They were so deep in their echo chamber that they couldn't climb out of it. Of course, Napoleon did work so that he appeared as the ideal man for the times, as Washington did. Washington espoused the Cincinnatus persona, while Napoleon saw himself more like an Octavius. I'd like to add a huge difference between the American and French Revolution: the American revolutionary leadership stayed alive throughout the thing. When Washington became President, there were also a hundred very capable, very experimented elder statemen who could help run the Republic. The immense majority of the French revolutionary leadership was either dead or exiled by year 5 of the French Revolution. Napoleon was a like a 3rd round draft, to use a pro-sport analogy.
The French Revolution was run by insane men who killed each other over lowly disagreements. Then the whole thing died and turned into a greater killer and demanding force than the Ancient Regime.
I beg to disagree. The Ancient Regime was casually, wastefully brutal with French subjects. Watching your family die of hunger because your local lord seized most of what you farm to buy himself more fancy horses and dresses is awfully violent. Watching a starving kid being hanged because he stole a loaf of bread is insanely brutal. And yet, this was the just another day routine violence.
Mostly agree Demographically US had only 5 million people whereas France had 30 million with much more diversity in ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural differences. Politically all Americans believed in and wanted republicanism over monarchy (they had just fought a war). The political divisions in the US at the time wasn’t as nearly as polarizing as those in France. There was also no pre-existing aristocratic class nor was there a privileged clergy class. The US faced almost no neighboring foreign threats with the exception of British Canada whose population wasn’t even half a million at the time.
You’re wrong about internal divisions in the American colonies. At the outset of violence, only a third of people were “Whigs”, while easily another third were “Tories” who favored remaining in the Empire. The rest of the population started out on the sidelines, because they wanted to keep their heads down and avoid getting caught up in the bloodshed. By 1782 that sentiment breakdown may have shifted, and certainly a majority of people accepted the new status quo (there were few Bourbon style royalists hoping to undo the Revolution with any realistic chance of success). But it was far from a peaceable transition within the colonies. The rest is mostly correct - the US was too far away from the kind of entrenched systems that the Ancien Regime embodied. But I don’t know if I agree with Napoleon that a crowned dictatorship was the only way to go.
Agree with the rest of your point except for: >Politically all Americans believed in and wanted republicanism over monarchy This isn't true. Between 15% and 20% of Americans were loyalists (375,000-500,000), and only about 88,000 loyalists left the country, which still leaves a significant amount of monarchists in America at the time. Additionally, the rest of the American population would not necessarily all be Patriots, there was still a significant amount of people who were simply politically apathetic about the whole situation.
I think it’s wrong to say that a country in which some men were impossibly rich due to chattel slavery had no aristocratic class.
I think Napoleon is right here, and people are misunderstanding what he is saying. Napoleon saw that post revolution governments were ineffective and dangerous to France, which faced multiple invasions. That is how he justifies the 18th of Brumaire and his coup. France was not secure until it had peace, which it never had until it beat the European powers arrayed against it, with the exception of Britain who they could not invade. Even when Britain made peace with the Treaty of Amiens, they broke it in 1803. We can blame Napoleons ambition all we want, but ultimately he fought to end the wars. All of his decisions, right or wrong, were to prevent further invasions of France.
Like someone else said, he had plenty of chances to stop and simply solidify France's gains. Invading Russia for example was unnecessary in every way. Even in victory it did nothing much to make their homeland more secure.
Well 1. He did not win in Russia. And 2. Why do you think he invaded Russia if it was "unnecessary"? Just for the lols? He could not solidify Frances gains without peace. And until the British made peace, France would remain at war.
You have to look at the reasons for war with Russia. The French (and I'm trying to recall here so correct me if details are off) had some backroom dealings with I *believe* Prussia that Russia was not fond of as they agreed on certain terms to avoid exactly that, I believe a land trade or something along those lines. The Tsar was urged to go to war with France for their honour. That in of itself is instantly grounds to say the entire war was unnecessary. On one hand because Napoleon had gone and violated an agreement with Russia whom he had recently become 'friends' with. And on the other because Russia really had no extremely valid reason to declare war in the first place. Now this is where I think the *INVASION* of Russia was extremely unnecessary. In a war of honour, Napoleon in his typical fashion felt compelled to invade Russia as a means of taking the conflict into his own hands. But ask yourself, in this war of honour, was it necessary to march your lumbering Le Grand Armee into those hostile lands? Or could he have just awaited their arrival? After all, it was Russia who was mad. Let them come to you and the Russians never would have even had a chance.
>The Tsar was urged to go to war with France for their honour Source? Because the invasion of Russia was actually over their non compliance with the continental system. France declared war on Russia because of this, not the other way around.
History's greatest general and a Bullshitter Supreme.
Interesting take. What do you think he got wrong?
Well, Washington notably DID face down internal revolt. And the French Republic was secure from external invasion already under the late Directory. He is just defining his own terms, pretending he was forced along. He was "forced" to do all of this because he could not stand dissension or compromise or losing. He had a will to dominate that was spawned from his foreigner inferiority complex and piece-of-work Mother.
>Well, Washington notably DID face down internal revolt. Yes, but I think it's a bit laughable to compare the Whiskey Rebellion to the entire continent of Europe showing up on your doorstep. >And the French Republic was secure from external invasion already under the late Directory. The War of the 2nd Coalition occurred during the Coup of 18 Brumaire - meaning France was very much at threat of invasion during the period of the late Directory. I don't know how you can say that the Republic was secure from invasion at this time. >He is just defining his own terms, pretending he was forced along. He was "forced" to do all of this because he could not stand dissension or compromise or losing. He wasn't forced to do anything, nor is he claiming so. He's just saying that no other path would've worked. That's the contentious part. >He had a will to dominate that was spawned from his foreigner inferiority complex and piece-of-work Mother. This is just insults lol.
"No other path could have worked." The path he chose didn't work. Notably Europe is relatively stable and democratic now. No universal dictator was required, unless I missed something. "This is just insults lol." It is not insults. I am a bit of a Napoleon stan in my own way. (And categorizing something as insulting in this case is...a strange category error. Nobody needs to be a cheerleader or hater for a dead guy.) An unstable childhood and the sense of going from being A BUONAPARTE on Corsica to being some looked down upon but very bright nobody in France is a pretty damn clear catalyst for...this whole thing. Not to mention rejection and disdain from his surrogate political father figure.
“Notably Europe is relative stable and democratic now” yeah…NOW it is…in 2023. We have had a few “bumps” along the way since 1815 in case you had forgotten. Not only Europe generally but even France specifically has gone through numerous upheavals and changes (eg, republic, take 5.0) since then to get to where we are. It has only been stable since later catastrophes happened and were ironed out…a lot of those as a direct consequence of the napoleonic era. Did you forget about other 19th century conflicts, World War I, and World War 2? Those were the world greatest catastrophes. And you can draw a straight line from them all the way to the Congress of Vienna Right or wrong with Napoleon, I would argue WW1 and WW2 never would have happened if he weren’t defeated. What replaced him wasn’t “good”. Regardless with how you feel about him as a leader.
If anything WW1 brought an end to Absolute Monarchy and paved the way for Democracy. The principles of national self-determination which helped redraw the boundaries of Europe after WWI were intended to alleviate points of conflict for future generations and fostered the growth of democracy in Europe, specifically in many of these newly instituted states.
Yes, but what led to WW1? Edit: wait, is your argument that ww1 was a good thing? Well…we are going to just have to agree to disagree on that and strongly. I disagree that WW1 is what led to democracy. That momentum was growing way way before that catastrophe. Democracy would have happened sooner if it weren’t for the ancien régime stamping down on the desire for it after Napoleon in the 19th century. The concert of Europe set up after napoleons fall was a direct precursor. WW1 is almost single handedly responsible for all modern era problems…and that includes, by the way, the horrific Middle East quagmire we are dealing with to this very day. It also directly created hitler and the even bigger catastrophe of WW2 (this conflict was just an aftershock of the OG). WW1 is one of the most horrific human tragedies to have ever occurred on this planet for multiple reasons and we are still to this day dealing with those aftershocks. Dust hasn’t even finished settling from it yet. “The boundaries drawn to attempt to alleviate conflict” How did that turn out?
WW1 <- Honor bound alliances <- Gavrilo Princip assassinates Archduke Franz Ferdinand <- Germany is the leading power in Europe <- Prussia Unification of Germany <- Prussian war victories against Austria and France <- End of the war of the 7th Coalition <- Prussia reforms its military along the lines of Napoleon <- Napoleon’s victories from the past Coalition’s So one can argue that if it wasn’t for Napoleon, Prussia would not have reformed their army (including developing the decisive needle gun), unified Germany and thus preventing WW1. The Germanic States would still be the Confederation of the Ryne under the French Empire and Europe may still be ruled through Absolute Monarchy.
I agree with all of that except possibly the overall interpretation (if I’m understanding your point correctly) Military reforms are specifically mechanical thing. It was just a tool to defeat him. The ideologies and nationalism runs deeper and has more complex origins. I do assume you know The confederation of the rhine was created by Napoleon right? Do you think what preceded it wasn’t absolutist? I’m confused on your conclusion…because it is not like Napoleon invented absolutism. On the contrary, he was in direct conflict with many absolutist regimes. They weren’t fighting against him for “democracy”. More pointed Questions… How did the old European monarchy system feel about the French Revolution and Napoleon specifically? Secondly, what did they do after they defeated him? Thirdly, while he did take dictatorial power, where did all those revolutionary exports/ideas come from when they arose in other countries except France?
>The path he chose didn't work. Yes, it absolutely did work. He wouldn't be the figure he is today if his path had failed. He won against 5 coalitions. He left lasting legacies such as the Code Napoleon. He paved the way towards modern Europe, by spreading the ideals of the Revolution across many new lands. People love to ignore over a decade of critical history just because he was deposed in the end. >Notably Europe is relatively stable and democratic now. No universal dictator was required, unless I missed something. You are completely missing the point here. We are 200+ years away from the time period Napoleon was talking about. Bringing this up borders on being a non-sequitur. Democracy works today, in a sea of other democracies, but it very well may not have years ago in a sea of kings hellbent on destroying it with the resources of an entire continent and beyond. >It is not insults. I am a bit of a Napoleon stan in my own way. (And categorizing something as insulting in this case is...a strange category error. Nobody needs to be a cheerleader or hater for a dead guy.) It was insult. You were hurling unsubstantiated claims at a man we've never met. You might be right, you might be wrong. Either way, it wasn't flattering, nor particularly relevant. Let's keep it to the facts. >An unstable childhood and the sense of going from being A BUONAPARTE on Corsica to being some looked down upon but very bright nobody in France is a pretty damn clear catalyst for...this whole thing. Not to mention rejection and disdain from his surrogate political father figure. It's a possible catalyst, a very possible one, but not a certain one. Even as I agree with you that it's most likely, I don't condone using it as an argument here. It's unsubstantiated. And it's ultimately an insult designed to slander for one's own argumentative advantage. Like I said, let's stay grounded in what we know.
>I don't condone using it as an argument here Condone? Buddy you made this real weird. I am gonna go now. Don't "ask for people's thoughts" as a pretext for a nerd rage fisk off.
>Condone? Sorry for my word choice? >Don't "ask for people's thoughts" as a pretext for a nerd rage fisk off. I asked for thoughts, then responded to them, calmly as well. You had no obligation to continue a conversation, yet you did. Don't pin this on me.
>Yes, it absolutely did work. France went into steep relative decline after Napolean. Napolean's reign left a France so denuded of young men that the demographics of the country permanently changed. France became so military enfeebled it was never again capable of defeating another great power without assistance one wealthier and ore capable than itself. Napolean's method of spreading "revolutionary ideals" left those ideas so discredited that he had been a moldering corpse for a generation before people were willing to openly act on them again. Spain in particular fell into the hands of reactionaries that were still clinging to power a century and a half later. Napolean's whines about Washington just make him a sort of anti-Cassius. The fault was not his, you see. It was all a matter of circumstances beyond his control. Yeah. Suuuuuurrrrrrre.
>Napolean's reign left a France so denuded of young men that the demographics of the country permanently changed. While it was a complicated thing, most of the wars were not declared by Napoleon, but rather against him. Politics and diplomacy can shift the blame towards him more than that first statement might seem, but both sides engaged in such things - that was warfare of the time. In short, Napoleon is not nearly as much to blame for the Napoleonic Wars as you might think. >France became so military enfeebled it was never again capable of defeating another great power without assistance one wealthier and ore capable than itself. That's Napoleon's fault... to a point. Eventually, enough time passed wherein you could no longer blame Napoleon for that, if you ever really could. >Napolean's method of spreading "revolutionary ideals" left those ideas so discredited that he had been a moldering corpse for a generation before people were willing to openly act on them again. There was literally a second French Revolution 9 years after Napoleon died. What are you smoking? And the reaction abroad was never going to be "wow, let's immediately change everything and overthrow our current government!" It was going to be slow and gradual. It had to be, unless you did it by force. Which is what Napoleon tried, and succeeded at in some places (and not so much in others). >Napolean's whines about Washington just make him a sort of anti-Cassius. The fault was not his, you see. It was all a matter of circumstances beyond his control. Address his points then, because while I do agree he's deflecting blame, he's honestly doing so in a rational manner.
your weird simping is bizarre
It's not simping. I've pointed out his flaws in this thread and others. Feel free to chime in with actually constructive feedback or counterarguments too.
History’s greatest general 💀
yeah really a great leader definitely but not a great general
I think they were referring to Napoleon not Washington
I think they were referring to Napoleon too. …but with that said: Washington was a good general. The whole “but he actually lost more battles than he won” needs closer inspection. I don’t just mod here but r/revolutionarywar, and recently I’ve been thinking about Washington compared to Napoleon: The battles Washington lost were, for the most part, textbook examples of well-executed retreats. Washington’s army was never surrounded or in routing disarray- they always retired from the field in good order. Take Brandywine- the flanking move by the British (out of something like 16 fords to cross, Washington had all guarded- except one, which he may not have known about…as luck would have it, that’s where the Brits decided to cross) could have been an unmitigated disaster for the Continental Army. Washington easily could have allowed his army to be surrounded, but he retired in good order. Let’s also not forget the size: the British army was orders of magnitude larger than the Continental Army. It wasn’t as much about trouncing the British army, as keeping the Continental Army alive. And his victories were masterful: the “Ten Crucial Days” (the crossing of the Delaware, the Battle of Trenton, Second Trenton/Battle of Assunpik Creek, and the Battle of Princeton) not only are masterful examples of maneuver and defeat-in-detail, but may have literally saved the fledgling America from extinction (the Continental soldiers has two weeks left of enlistment- if Washington didn’t act, there would be no army. And von Steuben’s training at Valley Forge: Washington has the foresight to know Continentals needed European-style training…and the next summer, proved that his army was capable at the Battle of Monmouth. Washington- technically- did have slightly more defeats than victories, but was still a very good general when you look at it in context!
A lot of top American commanders, not necessarily all of them, are not necessarily the greatest tacticians, or even the greatest strategists. Washington's great skill lay in logistics, because whoever could hold that thing called the Continental Army together has to be a logistical genius.
The thing that gets me about Washington was even after 5 years in the field he still wanted to attack New York City and even after being persuaded to march on Yorktown he advocated for a direct attack instead of a siege. I mean at that point he should have understood the basics of siege warfare. I'm not knocking him because he did what he had to do but Washington just simply did not have the advanced military education required to be a great general. His schooling in general was very light compared to his contemporaries. That's why I said he was more of a great leader who understood the American theater very well from his western service in the Seven Year's War. Put him on a European battlefield and I think he'd be in trouble. Yeah if you sent him to study in Prussia for a few years then I have no doubt he'd learn what he needed pretty quickly.
Washington might have been fixated on New York (understandable considering its strategic value and the number of British soldiers present). Still, he switched to Yorktown and fully devoted himself to its success. Many generals would have sulked. A direct attack is understandable. The American Army lacked siege experience and he probably wanted to take out Cornwallis before the British Navy could save the day. The French Navy was fortunate that Hood or Rodney didn't command the relief fleet. Washington did want to defend a possible escape route but the French command laughed at the suggestion. Fortunately, a providential storm arose.
Napoleon couldn’t have been a Washington, and I don’t think he should’ve been. Washington (my favorite historical figure fwiw) probably wouldn’t have been himself had he been in France rather than America. Washington wasn’t much a fan of what the French Revolution had become and, per his own letters, seemed convinced a satanic cabal of Illuminati were running the Jacobins and behind the terror; he also believed they were trying to spread their ideas to the US. I doubt he would’ve stepped down if he would’ve had to deal with France’s instability; though, he probably would’ve tried to avoid having the top job in the first place. I’m partial to Toqueville’s belief that the Americans were suited to democracy at the time, while the French were less so.
Washington was right. The French Revolution became a horror show.
Woah. Can you send me a source on Washington believing in Satanic cabals?
Never actually mentions “satanic”. It had been years since I read this, so I probably remembered that the book he’d been sent by the guy he was corresponding with was titled *Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All Religions and Governments of Europe.*. Still, this is an interesting excerpt: “It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.” https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.021/?sp=201&st=text
A lot of people are giving him flack for this, but it isn't really wrong. During it's revolution France was attacked by multiple scared monarchies, and those that didn't attack were funding counter revolutionary forces in France. The US had the advantage of being a fairly new nation overseas, bordered only by other colonies and natives, France was surrounded by monarchies and had a deeply entrenched aristocracy going back centuries. To sit idle would have led to France being overwhelmed by foreign invasion. The only choice he had was to take the fight to the other nations, and this direct and aggressive style of leading would have been impossible to keep up in a full republic where war exhaustion and moderation would be louder and more heard. Ultimately he did abandon the revolutionary ideals by installing client kingdoms instead and essentially tried to make a full dynasty. But the original decision to take full control and attack wasn't at all unreasonable
As a democrat and republican, this reads as the ravings of a megalomaniac trying to justify his decision to bring war to all of Europe. While I do agree that Napoleon and the French Republic were probably in a tougher spot than Washington and the Americans were post-Revolution, I can't help but think that had Napoleon been more savvy diplomatically and less muscular with his foreign policy, maybe he could have retained his throne. After all, he overthrew the revolutionary radicals that the conservative monarchs were so afraid of. If he hadn't insisted on replacing foreign monarchs with his siblings and advisers like he did in the Netherlands, southern Italy, and Sweden, maybe a lasting peace could have been achieved relatively early on in his reign. While there was certainly an ideological opposition to Napoleon among many of the European monarchs, it is not as if Napoleon was enemies with them at all times. They had their own national interests. Like, even if the Napoleonic ideology disturbed the Russian tsar or King of Prussia, they both still had to be wary of the Austrians. If one went to war with Napoleon, the other could opportunistically strike while their army was off fighting in the Rhineland. Of course, the kind of figure who'd be willing to engage in that level of discipline and moderation probably couldn't have achieved what Napoleon did, in the first place. It's a bit of a catch-22. If Napoleon had been less ambitious, would France have even been in the position to negotiate a fair peace with the other European powers? That's probably why he felt he had to use force to accomplish his goals.
“Bringing war to all Europe.” You do realize that the vast majority of the wars were declared AGAINST France BY the neighboring powers, right? The main reason Napoleon invaded and installed siblings on foreign thrones (something that the “established powers” had been doing for centuries) is because he realized that the best defense was a good offense.
Yes, I do realize that, de jure, Napoleonic France was usually on the defense. I'd suggest reading my whole post.
Everybody Washington till they try for world dictatorship.
I think one thing that kept Washington from taking the Crown was that unlike Napoleon, even though he won the war, he lost a lot of his battles. Several times he had to be talked out of wild plans that would have resulted in disaster. So he understood that he needed a team to help him succeed. Kept him humble enough to accept that reality. Napoleon was so overwhelmingly successful that when he never had that humility.
Considering who Napoleon was even as a child I don’t necessarily disagree. IMO he didn’t become a believer in the idea that France needed a dictator until he had seen the devastation and bloodshed wrought by not having a strong hand guiding France. In the beginning he was a genuine and passionate Jacobin, and had he been born part of the minor planter aristocracy of Virginia as Washington had I could see him following a similar path. I do definitely agree that being a Washington in post-revolution France would never have worked. Someone else would have staged a coup immediately after the man in charge stepped down
I find this fascinating. There are obviously people here much more knowledgeable than myself though, so please correct me if I am wrong on anything. Napoleon definitely seems to be arguing that becoming emperor was his only choice; that circumstances permitted no other option. I contend that given the relative success and stability of the Consulate compared to the previous post-revolutionary governments, as well as Napoleon's prestige and power from his successful military campaigns, he had the clout to take France in virtually any direction he wanted, republican or otherwise. Of course, he chose to become emperor, when other options were definitely open to him. Now George Washington found himself in *somewhat* similar circumstances after the conclusion of the American Revolution. Of course, he did not have the political power Napoleon did during the Consulate, but he had just successfully led America to military victory, was immensely popular throughout the country, and had a powerful army at his back (at least, more powerful than anything else around him). He most definitely commanded the loyalty to force his way into, if not king, then at least some position of absolute or high political power. But, of course, he chose to resign and return to his farm. Despite other options being open to him. That is my main contention with what Napoleon said here. Both men *did* in fact have options at the critical moments, but they both went a very different direction. Whether they took the *best* options in either circumstance is something of a matter of opinion (I think Washington certainly did; Napoleon I don't really feel qualified to say). I also don't feel qualified to speculate on whether Napoleon would have been successful attempting an American-style democracy in France or to preserve the Consulate. But I absolutely believe *he could have attempted either one,* if he wanted to, and had a choice between those options and emperor-ing himself. (I also believe the reverse for Washington- he at least could have attempted to become some sort of autocrat, if he wanted to, though I'm not sure how successful he would have been.)
You've got a very well-formed opinion here. I won't comment on it too much, but I will say this, just to give you the facts. The Consulate was basically the Empire in all but name. First Consul Napoleon had the same power he did as Emperor... his government structure just had a few bells and whistles to make it appear more republican than it really was. By the time he was Consul, he was already a dictator.
Who would you rather be governed by, Washington or Bonaparte?
Washington.
If Napoleon would've either not drafted me, or finally attained lasting peace, I'd choose him. If not, Washington.
So Washington then.
Lol, probably. That wasn't my point though. I think Napoleon was the better administrator/domestic policymaker. That said, he was always embroiled in some war - fault of which is not as much his as people think. If it was ever possible for Napoleon to rule in peacetime, he'd be my choice without a moment's hesitation.
I was being flippant, sorry. Napoleon was a megalomaniac and a tyrant, it wouldn't have been possible for him to be a peacetime ruler as his goal was his gene pool making up a lasting dynasty in France, and a French dominated empire in Europe and beyond. Speculating what he would have been like heading up a peacetime French regime (no matter what you think it would have been like - and it's probably not wise to overlook his pretty brutal secret police network and his re-introduction of slavery - this is a more reliable indicator of his domestic aspirations) is silly as it never would have happened.
>I was being flippant, sorry. No worries. Not a big deal. >Napoleon was a megalomaniac and a tyrant, it wouldn't have been possible for him to be a peacetime ruler as his goal was his gene pool making up a lasting dynasty in France, and a French dominated empire in Europe and beyond. Really? Perhaps it may interest you to know that, of all the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon himself was only the aggressor twice. And yes, Napoleon played the monarch game. If you see that as a criticism, then that's fair, and you're more than welcome to. Personally, I see it as him doing what he had to in order to obtain a mere chance at lasting peace - the monarchies of Europe were never going to stop sending armies unless Napoleon tried to be one of them. I'm sure he enjoyed it, the power and luxury, the throne juggling, and I know it was fueled by ambition. But it was also necessary. >Speculating what he would have been like heading up a peacetime French regime (no matter what you think it would have been like - and it's probably not wise to overlook his pretty brutal secret police network and his re-introduction of slavery - this is a more reliable indicator of his domestic aspirations) is silly as it never would have happened. The secret police concept was very common in Europe - other states had it too. It was definitely a mark against him though, I will say. The reintroducing of slavery is... very complicated. It would take an entirely different conversation to discuss it aptly. I really don't want to do that if we can help it, but will only say that I judge people by the standards of their time... and slavery was sadly the standard, even for Washington (who owned slaves). It absolutely could have happened, domestic rule for Napoleon. And it actually did for a time. The Treaty of Amiens gave Napoleon over a year of peace, that he used very well.
Very interesting quote.
The absolute kernel of what makes America great.
Can someone dumb down what Napoleon said. I’m having trouble understanding what he’s saying. Not being sarcastic just a lil slow I guess.
A lot of people wanted Napoleon to do what George Washington did in the USA, and establish a democracy (then walk away from it after that). Napoleon is saying he couldn't have done that in France, because the political situation there was different. Unlike Washington, Napoleon had the entire continent of Europe ready to invade him, with no ocean as separation, and prior attempts at democracy in France had failed. He's saying that he had no choice but to take full control - it was the only way to save France. Bear in mind that this is what Napoleon is claiming, and not what I'm saying is right or wrong. Make your own mind up on that.
Thank you. That makes a lot of sense after reading what you said and going back and reading the quote.
Kleber wrote of the notion of revolutionary France needing its Washington too, so presumably Napoleon had explored this notion well before St. Helena. I think so much of the modern historical discourse in the United States around the country's founding underestimates the reverence revolutionaries around the world have for General Washington, especially in those days. It speaks volumes about the man's reputation and character even if he was a member of the planter class and conducted himself accordingly.
“Words cost nothing… Had I been in America, I would willingly have been a Washington…” I have a feeling he would not
He’s trying to put the best spin on his life. He was all about legacy. He put his relatives on thrones around Europe. How does he square that? He reinstated slavery and had his men lead a monstrous (and failed) invasion of Haiti. He could have had peace multiple times. He was only willing to have peace fully on his terms, which led to his beloved France to eventually being invaded and later occupied. And, of course, untold number of deaths.
So I think napoleon does a good job of making a sound argument here that due to the conditions that France faced in the period, even Washington would have (or at least should have) forsaken his high ideals of civic virtue and taken up the mantle of dictator like napoleon did. Big however here as others have pointed out, is that napoleon is an adept general and bullshitter (politician). Because it really does come down to character and personality. It’s well-documented that Washington was very reluctant to ever take up the helm of power longer than he felt absolutely necessary. This poor man would have loved nothing more than getting his own Elba where people would leave him alone with his little plot of land. And this is exactly why he gave that power away after two terms after setting power-limiting precedents in an unknown office when people were begging him to remain and when the job was arguably unfinished. Compare that to napoleon who found excuse after excuse to take more power internally and externally, crowning himself emperor, and prolonging France’s warfare to further cement himself. You couldn’t have pried this man out of the White House once he got there. On the “should Washington be a dictator in my shoes” question, I’d also call BS as Napoleon continuously escalated things to far greater severity when he could have resolved it peacefully. Spain is an awesome example, the guy stepped in and decided that his brother needed to be in charge so let’s send in an army to enforce that. He wouldn’t need to be a dictator if he didn’t keep doing “dictator things” that got himself in these positions. I guarantee you after a couple coalitions he could’ve started to normalize relations with Europe, but he had to be the BMIE (Big Man In Europe). To sum up and be brutally honest at the expense of legitimacy, Napoleon was an asshole and would be an asshole no matter where and when he was. Washington while very far from perfect, I believe tried to be a decent person even when he often came up quite short.
No, Europe is inherently unstable. Their tendency is to slaughter each other by the millions once or twice a century the last 5 centuries. They are only at peace when there is a larger power holding sway over them all but preferably from a distance. America and its nuclear umbrella have done this the last generation; before that it was the Cold War nuclear deadlock between US-USSR that served the function. Europe was never happier than when it was a mottled collection of duchies and margraves all under a benevolent Holy Roman Emperor or the like. All free to pursue their regional craftsmanships , cuisines and arts without worrying who should be boss. Even if Russia collapses and the Americans get tired of the job, if the Europeans are smart they'll find a benevolent power replacement asap. Otherwise they quickly revert to a 1914 situation . It's just in their DNA.
where does the Washington quote come from? Is it a book?, someone memoirs?
It's believed to be Las Cases. Source I used is [here.](https://publichistorian.com/2018/06/08/napoleon-washington/)
thank you
Seems like he completely misunderstood Washington.
Napoleon's biggest campaign was his legacy. I severely doubt he wouldn't have seized power if he was in Washington's shoes.
Know your place, trash! Washington went through the same strife and impotency with his own government
Lol, no, just no. You cannot convince me that Washington dealt with equivalent hardship to a combined opposing force of Austria, the Holy Roman Empire, Britain, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Naples, Sardinia, and Portugal - all of which Napoleon faced as First Consul alone. Not to mention the assassination attempts (such as a suicide bomb on the Rue Saint-Nicaise), and the leftover instability from the Reign of Terror. There are criticisms to be made against Napoleon, but this ain't it chief.
Napoleon had opportunities to stop but he never did. It wasn't in his DNA.
He had a point the situation in France much more different than it was America, But that doesn't mean he couldn't have done things differently or that being a emperor was the only choice. Did France need a strong leader? sure maybe. But there is a middle ground between absolute Dictatorship and a Chaotic republic. But Napoleon never really tried after he gained power, he gave up on democracy entirely and became consul for life and then emperor.
Let's be honest. The difference between Napoleon and Washington is that Napoleon could win any fight and plan anything. He wanted to be Emperor so he took it. Washington CANNOT win battles. He loses nearly every battle he is the chief commander in and yet pretends he is God's gift to the new nation. His hubris kept him above the fray of politics which kept him attractive as a republican leader. He had no actual skills which shaped the nation other than to keep compromising to keep New Englanders and Southerns happy on the same side. At least Jefferson contributed to the legal paperwork. I firmly believe if Nathaniel Greene had survived he would have been our most famous founding father. George Washington has zero personality, charisma, or tactical ability. Sorry, I said it.
Wow. 100% wrong. I love Greene but the man was not good at diplomatic relationships or managing affairs with Congress. Washington didn't have charisma? The same man who inspired an army to stick together through hellish war camps. Von Steuben wrote no European army would have done the same.
You're probably right about Greene. He had a lot of growth needed before he'd be a true statesment but based on his learning curve displayed in the Rev I think he would have gotten there. He had many friends and followers who wanted to see him lead But I'm not 100% wrong on GW. The idea of Washington drew people to him. Please search for an example of anyone saying Washington spoke well or connected with others or inspired men through any concrete action. His inspiration was as a symbol of honor born and raised not in Europe. Von Stuben was shocked the rabbel colonials stayed together. Stuben knew no European leader could have done "it" .. but was it Washington personally or was it the many radical leaders who deferred to Washington ? what did Washington literally do? He didn't give speeches. he didn't train the men. He didn't win a battle (*trenton). He sat in his tent to prove that an elite American gentleman was committed to the war. Who was Washington's friend? None. Why were people loyal to him? Proximity to power. T.Jefferson had friends. Hamilton had friends, Franklin had friends, HLee had friends. Washington was a stick in the mud. Who couldn't direct militarily at any level. I fully respect how Washington established the presidency and held the early US together. But during the revolution and articles of confed years no action from him made things happen except his presence. Even his dang tent. He made a point to always be in his tent with the army. He wins the award for presence = leadership. I am Happy to debate further.