Napoleon and memory

[Admiral Yi]

Germany i can see, Italy I can see, but how Britain?

[Siege]

Fuk.
I shall read thosd tomorrow

[viper37]

Louis Real

Louis Riel 

[Siege]

By par for the course do you mean just as stupid as Americans and Brits?

Sort of.  The regular sorts of people who get elected by democratic countries.

[MadImmortalMan]

Nappy's bureaucratic reforms changed all of the occupied areas significantly. He seems to have been a great force for centralization and institutionalization. I was reminded when looking at the exhibit in Slovenia's national museum how much his stint of only several years transformed that country (creating Illyria and whatnot). That happened all over Europe then. Nappy was nationalizing things left and right, creating new kingdoms and centralizing governance everywhere he went.

Whether he was an enlightened reformer or a monster would depend on whether you think that was a good thing or not.

Personally, I think some of Europe's greatest historical strengths were lost for good after that. Their institutional diversity and utility as humanity's social skunkworks, etc. But the seeds were also planted that enabled the future framework making any kind of European unity possible at all. Still, what it cost can't really be quantified. Nobody can say what would have come of all the nations and institutions he denied the chance to evolve organically. At least in my mind, it was probably too high a price. Even before taking into account the lives lost.

As for France herself...the revolution was already hijacked and its ideals betrayed before he got there. I doubt the royalist cause would have been long-lived even if successful, so it's doubtful he saved France from backsliding into absolute monarchy either. Even if the kingdom were restored, it would likely have looked more like Britain's monarchy. I always sort of put him and Cromwell in the same category. 

I think a lot of people in Europe at the time thought he was a republican hero who would save them from their monarchical masters, and were disillusioned when the cannon fire started falling on their cities instead. (Gary Oldman's Beethoven expresses this in Immortal Beloved, for example.) That false hope is maybe the source of the Nappy-betrayed-republicanism thing. It was more perception than reality. Maybe one cultivated by the French in hopes that they would be hailed as liberators, I don't know.

Maybe celebrating would be going too far.

[The Brain]

Napoleon was one of history's great reactionaries.

[Valmy]

As for France herself...the revolution was already hijacked and its ideals betrayed before he got there. I doubt the royalist cause would have been long-lived even if successful, so it's doubtful he saved France from backsliding into absolute monarchy either. Even if the kingdom were restored, it would likely have looked more like Britain's monarchy. I always sort of put him and Cromwell in the same category. 

I am not sure what you mean before he got there.  He had been in France since he was a small child and he was certainly involved in the Revolution from day 1, he even supported the radicals.  LOL at the Bourbons ever being able to rule like Britain's monarchy.  That idea is ludicrous, having any limits on the monarchy at all was barely tolerable to them on ideological grounds.  I think everything that happened from the restoration onwards bears witness to that.  If the Bourbons had been those kinds of men, the Bourbon monarchy would be the figureheads of France to this day.

[Valmy]

Napoleon was one of history's great reactionaries.

Opportunists?  Sure.  Reactionary?  Erm...don't see that.

[The Brain]

Napoleon was one of history's great reactionaries.

Opportunists?  Sure.  Reactionary?  Erm...don't see that.

Recreating hereditary monarchy and nobility after one of the most celebrated republican revolts in history?

[MadImmortalMan]

Bourbons ever being able to rule like Britain's monarchy.  That idea is ludicrous, having any limits on the monarchy at all was barely tolerable to them on ideological grounds. 

Wasn't it for Charles as well? Remember the British crown didn't go from god-king to modern day figurehead in one generation either. And having no choice in the matter does tend to make a man revisit his convictions. Especially with an army on the doorstep to make sure you change your mind.

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck all Metternichs.

[grumbler]

Recreating hereditary monarchy and nobility after one of the most celebrated republican revolts in history?

When was this "republican revolt?"  The one in 1789 created a constitutional (but still hereditary) monarchy.

[Valmy]

And having no choice in the matter does tend to make a man revisit his convictions. Especially with an army on the doorstep to make sure you change your mind.

One would think so.  But not that family.  They never learned a damn thing.

[Valmy]

Napoleon was one of history's great reactionaries.

Opportunists?  Sure.  Reactionary?  Erm...don't see that.

Recreating hereditary monarchy and nobility after one of the most celebrated republican revolts in history?

It was all vanity, not to restore the notion of Monarchy and Nobility.  Napoleon actually ruined that spectacularly by making it so vulgar. 

[jimmy olsen]

Napoleon was one of history's great reactionaries.

Opportunists?  Sure.  Reactionary?  Erm...don't see that.

Recreating hereditary monarchy and nobility after one of the most celebrated republican revolts in history?

It was all vanity, not to restore the notion of Monarchy and Nobility.  Napoleon actually ruined that spectacularly by making it so vulgar.

Before I looked over to the side I thought this post was written by Sheilbh.