You could certainly argue that Napoleon was forced into these wars by the Coalitions of hostile monarchies, but his ego eventually inflated to the point where he could no longer distinguish his own ambition from the good of France. His hubris brought about his downfall, and he took tens of thousands of lives with him.

Disagree. The British were, and always have been, the most benign imperial power, and their prominence in the 19th century propelled the world forward like no other nation ever could.

The "good guys" force lands they conquer into a system that is supposed to help destrOy their last enemy economically, but is really just a cover for a system that tries to consecrate most of the wealth of Europe into one country?

>>11348
I'm sure the people of India would agree that British imperialism was nothing but benign.

File 132762656015.jpg - (20.45KB , 200x275 , Late_Victorian_Holocausts.jpg )

>>11348

The British killed 50 million in India, in the 19th century alone, started the Opium Wars, and fucked over Africa along with the other colonial powers of the time, amongst other things.

Don't be fooled by their demeanor, accent, and their views of themselves, the British Empire was extraordinarily brutal. They were never anything other than parasites.

>>11355
You don't even need to leave UK to find out the British are parasites.

Just talk to Scots and Irishmen (except for the English who occupied north Ireland of course).

>>11345
I know, bro. Imagine a unified Europe under republican ideals. No monarchies anywhere and peace for all. Napoleon was the bee's knees.

>>11352
You'd be surprised how many Indians have a relatively positive attitude towards the British

The British were one of only a few Empires ever to rule over all of India. The Mughals were also a brutal and unforgiving empire at times, and the infighting of the medieval era (and ancient era, excepting perhaps Asoka) were also arguably worse

I'm not excusing the dodgy activities of the British East India company, which had no responsibility for the starvation and oppression they caused. Nor that of the Raj, which never did more than gloss over the serious problems India had by the late 19th century. Never did Indian peasants truly benefit from British rule.

The British built some limited infrastructure in India, such as railways, roads and so on. They worked to build some water systems and sewage in the cities. The British invested significant amounts of money into Indian infrastructure because the returns were usually good. They also established some semblance of law in Indian society that their predecessors (the Marathi and Mughal princes) largely failed to accomplish.

None of this offsets the blatant looting and taxing of the Indians to the point that none of them really benefitted, and many starved, but the British were not an entirely evil empire. Not for their size and contributions to civilization, anyway.

Gandhi himself even won a Victoria Cross before (quite rightly IMO) changing his mind.

If you want to see what real colonial evil looks like, take a look at Belgian Congo or French West Africa.

And, if Burma could elect to reinstate British Imperial rule, than their current madness, I'm certain they would...

I'm divided on this issue

I love both the Congress of Vienna/Regency/Victorian era and Bonaparte.

Bonaparte stood for a vision of France and Europe that was more liberal, fair and industrious than any of his major contemporaries. He expanded education via the creation of several military colleges and introduction of state-funded secondary schools. He created the single most important law reforms of modern times via the Code Napoleon, rivalled only by Common Law. He won victory after victory until becoming cocky with the Fifth Coalition, then losing it completely in Spain and his catastrophic invasion of Russia. His nepotistic attitude in installing relatives and friends to the thrones of Euopre and high offices flew in the face of the meritocratic ideals of the revolution and which he claimed (partly honestly) to support.

All in all one of the greatest leaders in the history of civilization, but not one who in the end was actually the lesser of evils.

The British were a devious, scheming and grasping nation, who by looting India, colonizing North America and Australia, and brutally and cynically conquering East Africa Cape-to-Cairo, created the most successful modern civilization. Theirs too was an empire of law, education and science, commerce and military greatness. In Britain's quarter of the world, despite setbacks and failures, there was greater understanding between their subject peoples than ever in the history of man. Do not allow a few million dead to blind you from the fact that they created industry, stability, a unified language, the scientific revolution and a myriad of fundamentals of modern society.

Although I strongly disapprove of African and Indian imperialism, the British nevertheless were a great civilization worthy of praise. Indeed, I would go so far as to say the postmodern world, in which the US has (had?) the leading role, lives in the shadow of the glory of the British Empire.

>>11359

There is a difference between "not entirely evil" and "benign".

>>11358
Except that Napoleon was a self appointed monarch. He pretty much killed all that was good about the republic.

>>11361
Benign when compared to the US (native Americans: gone); Belgium (Congo: 10 mil on a pop of maybe 20); France (French Africa, Algeria, IndoChina) and Germany (first genocide of the 20th century in Namibia). And let us not even mention Russia or Japan!

>>11362
That may be, but if not for that, the return of the old monarchy was inevitable. France still had the highest social mobility in all of Europe. The Emperor himself was proof of that. Except for his title and office, France was quite a republican nation.

>>11363

So if I sucker punch some defenseless person, then kick him in the nuts while he's down and steal his wallet, I'm really a good guy as long as I'm not beating him as severely as all the other muggers beat their victims. Good to know.

>>11369

well... some heroic theme music, fancy uniforms, and a comfortable ideology might help

gotta keep up you showmanship skills...

File 132787752369.jpg - (23.32KB , 265x400 , captain-hammer.jpg )

>>11370

Hmmm...

>>11371

OY!

now what do you choose for theme music ?

Youtube  >>11418
He's already got catchy music and a comfortable ideology.

File 133498770993.jpg - (204.24KB , 1008x1200 , imperator-nappy-b.jpg )

>>11360
Pretty much.

The French saw when the American's kicked the British king out of America that they could do the same right there to the king in their own country. So they did.

And then all the monarchies of Europe, true reactionaries, shit their draws at seeing Louis XVI get his head lopped off by the starving masses, and ganged up on France to stifle what was a threat to their place in society as 'God's annointed leaders of men on Earth'.

The last great hope for liberty and equality in Europe was snuffed out by the wealth that had been looted from the poor of Europe by their rent seeking overlords over the previous thousand years.

And in the end, even the brilliance of Napoleon (along with the megalomania that comes to men who have achieved great military victories) couldn't overcome all the accumulated wealth and clout of the great royal families of Europe. And so the bad guys won.

Wellington must be one of the most overrated generals ever.

>>12235
so sad that americans and the french don't get along today when they were some serious bros back in the day.

>>12238
I'd say, so long as those ridiculous nativists don't get put in power (so people born in France aren't going to be French citizens? Really?!), France and the US will continue to draw closer together. "Freedom Fries" was a symptom of Bush-era ignorance and stupidity. We worked together for Libya, after all.

Though we'll still make fun of the French for acting, well, French. But everybody does that.

>>12238

So true. Without France giving us gunpowder, we might still be British.

>>12246
Are you a Jew or something?

>>12251
Are you a neo-nazi or something?

>>12251
Actaully I was raised Presbyterian, but don't participate in any organized religion now.

But thanks for playing, and say hello to the ATF agent on your way out.

File 13365149825.jpg - (227.28KB , 864x1400 , 1.jpg )

Too true. Bonaparte ended the revolution, and with it, decades of anarchy, coups and despotic rule (which was becoming suicidal for France by 18 Brumiere). He implemented laws beneficial to the working classes, in France and elsewhere that the Code was exported to. While his military genius was not somthing that should make us think of him in a better light than if it hadn't been there (even though it does), it does allow us to see that, in the end, he had France's best interests at heart.

Might I also say that his main mistake was Spain (the most unnecessary war ever, and the biggest blunder of his career), rather than Russia.

>>12351

>decades
Revolution was from kings death in 1791 to napoleon taking power in 1798. About 7 years.

>>12351
>implying Napoleon wasn't despotic

>>12353
It's nearly 5 decades in dog years.

Though to be fair, from the context, it was clear to me that he was lumping in time spent under monarchy rule, which was clearly despotic near the end.

>>12356
Napoleon was still more despotic than Louis XVI ever was.

you are calling napoleon despotic, and implicitly a bad guy. yet you don't consider the other monarchs of europe at the time (fuck, look at the king of england, George III)

File 133868654951.jpg - (15.87KB , 600x400 , trolololface.jpg )

>>12382
>George III
>Absolute monarch

>>12382
Despotic doesn't mean bad, it just means absolute, tyrant like. In the actual definition it doesn't say anything about it meaning bad or mean.

File 136910299810.jpg - (5.82KB , 188x268 , 1367356190463.jpg )

The Napoleonic wars were almost needed
it serves as the point where europe gets up and starts to see the need to push forward into new boundaries I think without the wars you wouldn't have seen the economic boom of the Mid-late 1800s

>>13755
no shit, the napoleonic wars only happened because of the french revolution

it was really only a matter of how much war was going to accompany it, and since napoleon just happened to be there, they went full on war

File 136987581963.jpg - (68.28KB , 597x314 , serfs001.jpg )

>>12458
>The good guys lost the Napoleonic wars.

Implying that the serfdoms and absolute monarchies of Prussia, Russia and Austria are the bad guys. .... oh wait ....

>>13773
absolute monarchies have so much potential, however, fuckin frederick didn't raise his heir right, called him a spoiled brat and shit...aww prussia how i love you (1701-1786) RIP

The annoying thing is that by the time the wars became "Napoleonic", no good guys were left. Just one big military dictatorship vs. a few (enlightened) despots and one constitutional monarchy. When the Republic was still alive, at least you had some well intentioned extremists to root for.

File 137145754065.jpg - (41.28KB , 520x353 , NapoleonMoviePoster.jpg )

>>13779
Napoleons Military Dictatorship >>>>>>>>>>> Austria, Russia and Prussia of the time.

>>11424
Boring shit.

>>12355

compared to the revolutionaries he replaced sure, but compared to the whole wad of self described "conservative alliance" against him, he was a liberator.

Napolean is probably the best dictator in history hands down.

viva le revolution

and the rothschilds won

File 142358775124.jpg - (52.59KB , 533x400 , monte cristo sandwich.jpg )

What the hell? Am I in an alternate universe?

A thread on France that isn't full of USicans who think all France ever did was raise white flags, drop guns and become muslim?

I honestly never thought I'd see it.

Frances history is marked by some very wide swings of its cultural pendulum. Economically, socially, I think the pendulum has swung on a pretty long arc, about as far as the people of france are willing to let it swing. Its inevitable return swing is going to be interesting to watch this time around.

File 142359446426.jpg - (12.12KB , 224x166 , v.jpg )

>>14515
That's what the lizard people want you to think.

>>14516
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0yxfVFDD-0

But, seriously, you shouldn't be too surprised. Only the angry grandfather who only comes here to rave about how liberals turned his dog gay would do that crap. And I think he got put in a home.

>>14518
the lizard people are too busy eating all the dogs the liberals turned gay

As with so many wars, I don't believe that there WERE any good guys in this series of conflicts. It is hard to defend European monarchies and their rigid, abusive class-system (especially in Russia, where most people were still held in medieval serfdom). On the other hand, while Republican France started out with the best of intentions, everybody knows how that ended. Not only was the Reign of Terror inflicted...in the sacred name of the Revolution...on the people of France, but the French occupation of the rest of Europe was so arrogant and brutal that there are STILL hard feelings over it two centuries later. After all, the word Mafia is the acronym for 'Morte Alla Francia Italia Anelia!' (Death to France is Italy's Cry!). Or to use the words of Feldmarshall Gebhart Von Blucher, Commander of the Prussian forces at Waterloo, "No pity! No mercy! I'll shoot any man I see with pity in him!"

>>14523
mister idealist can't into history

If you mean pre revolution France yes, they lost as France had a national parliament.

>>11362
The was nothing good about the Republic; do you just gloss over the rape and murder of Louis XVII!, the kangro courts, and the revolt of Vendee?

>>12235
Most of the people who supported the revoltuin were upper class and court aristocratics, the common people revolted against the republic several times.

USicans who think all France ever did was raise white flags

Hey, I got a good French rifle...never been fired, and only dropped once!

Bumping this thread